Talk:Hellraiser
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hellraiser article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Production Section
[edit]There is a lot of information on the film's production section that can be found in the wikipiedia article for the character Pinhead. Some of this information including information on the character's design, casting and such can be added from the article on the character Pinhead and into this article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hellraiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070116163334/http://www.cenobite.com/collect/video.htm to http://www.cenobite.com/collect/video.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100520070249/http://www.moria.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3201Itemid=1 to http://www.moria.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3201Itemid=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
American production
[edit]The BFI database is pulling from any production company associated, none of which are are listed in previous sources. I've looked elsewhere and can only find this identified as British from major sources who have written more specifically about the film. I've removed any mention of this being an American production. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've re-removed this. Official contemporary credits state its only a British production. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- So you are dismissing the BFI (the authority on British films, I'd wager) because it doesn't match your line of thinking? The first Hellraiser (and its sequel) were nearly 100% funded by New World Pictures, which, again, is an American company. Plenty of contemporary journals (Fangoria, Cinefantastique) openly discussed how the film was a co-production with the funding coming from America. Additionally, Paul Kane's book The Hellraiser Films and Their Legacy discusses this co-production relationship in great detail. Please stop changing it. Udar55 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- The BFI (which published the Monthly Film Bulletin) has two different sources. Hellraiser also does not show up in the American Film Institute's site, (here) and they specifically state it's a British Production here). Honestly, the BFI site's database seems to pull information without research and does not state how information is sourced or gathered. Contemporary sources also strictly note it being a British production. Its not unusual for distributors who purchase rights to films make suggestions, which has been done before (see the article on films like Danger: Diabolik.) I don't disagree that funding may have come from New World, but it do not see any information on where they are considered an official co-production status. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- This source also identifies it as strictly a UK production, despite the funding from New World Pictures. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- So you found one source and now claim it trumps all others? Yes, it is a UK production in terms that it was shot solely in the UK. Again, New World funded the film. So it is a production of that company just like any other thing they funded. If a production company receives all of their funds from another company, it is a co-production. Udar55 (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- I've found more than one. You are also not following WP:STICKTOSOURCE with the other sources, the BFI source contracdicts contemporary sources, and there is nothing declaring New World and official production company. Your research is original research as nothing (and the Variety and Monthly Film Bulletin and other books i've stated above) strictly call it UK and no source declares specifically that New World is a official production company with the film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Also, it's not a UK production because it was shot in the UK, can you provide a source stating how that works? I'm not familiar with that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- So you found one source and now claim it trumps all others? Yes, it is a UK production in terms that it was shot solely in the UK. Again, New World funded the film. So it is a production of that company just like any other thing they funded. If a production company receives all of their funds from another company, it is a co-production. Udar55 (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- This source also identifies it as strictly a UK production, despite the funding from New World Pictures. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- The BFI (which published the Monthly Film Bulletin) has two different sources. Hellraiser also does not show up in the American Film Institute's site, (here) and they specifically state it's a British Production here). Honestly, the BFI site's database seems to pull information without research and does not state how information is sourced or gathered. Contemporary sources also strictly note it being a British production. Its not unusual for distributors who purchase rights to films make suggestions, which has been done before (see the article on films like Danger: Diabolik.) I don't disagree that funding may have come from New World, but it do not see any information on where they are considered an official co-production status. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Further research suggests that UK co-production are more complex than one would originally imagine: read this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- So you are dismissing the BFI (the authority on British films, I'd wager) because it doesn't match your line of thinking? The first Hellraiser (and its sequel) were nearly 100% funded by New World Pictures, which, again, is an American company. Plenty of contemporary journals (Fangoria, Cinefantastique) openly discussed how the film was a co-production with the funding coming from America. Additionally, Paul Kane's book The Hellraiser Films and Their Legacy discusses this co-production relationship in great detail. Please stop changing it. Udar55 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- I checked a few sources. Here's what I see, anyway:
- BFI: UK/US
- AFI: UK
- Allmovie: UK
- LUMIERE: UK
- Variety: UK
- Paul Kane, author of The Hellraiser Films and Their Legacy, says on page 31 of that book: "Because of the commercial sense of casting American and British actors, and thanks to Barker's broad international outlook, Hellraiser could claim a lineage to both U.K. and U.S. 'family horror' films. But, at its very core, it is a British film with a British writer/director."
- It seems like the available sources favor calling it a British production. But, really, I don't think it's a huge deal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's things like this that make me not really trust BFI's database. Their old one was so much better, but yeah, that's five sources (+my Monthly Film Bulletin one) making it six against one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, first of all, you linked to the Hellraiser II AFI page. Regarding Allmovie, Lumiere, and Variety, they are solely listing country of origin, not the production companies. Hellraiser is just like other New World releases like Rabid or Godzilla 1985, where New World supplied a substantial amount of the budget. Oh look! They are referred to as co-productions here on Wikipedia too. Same situation as The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires with Hammer and Shaw Brothers. Again, listed as a co-production. Kane's own book also says on page 21 that New World "offered them a $4.2 million budget...Suddenly Hellraiser was about to become a reality." Fact is New World supplied all the money and had a substantial say in the film's production because they were the one studio producing it. Now how about this link - here is the man who worked on the film as the Unit Publicist. He refers to it as a UK/US production. Eh, probably not good enough for you guys. http://www.stephenjoneseditor.com/movie1987-hellraiser01.htm Udar55 (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- The AFI link's prose discusses Hellraiser's production info in the prose, and you know why there is not Hellraiser info in the AFI database? It's because its not an official US co-production. As shown above with how American co-productions work, it's far more complicated than to just give it money. Not to be too rude, but we've provided five sources, you are showing your BFI one and calling it a night and are not addressing our causes. I don't deny that New World gave money, but would you agree with that information above stating that co-production information is more complicated than that (the book source (i'll re-link it read this) suggests that just giving money is not enough. It's a more complicated affair. So you are correct and I would assume that Hellraiser getting money from New World should be a factor, but it doesn't look like it ever reached an "official" co-production status, which is probably why it's only listed as a "presenter" in the opening credits. I have about as much proof as you do, but we have about 5 sources who state otherwise to what you are saying, you have original research and assumptions, we have about 5 different published databses that state otherwise, and I don't think they are lacking in information either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- For good measure, he's another database: Bifi.fr which declares it a UK production. It bases it's information from Cinémathèque Française, one of the oldest film archives in the world. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Udar55:, @NinjaRobotPirate:, is there any more feedback on this? I think i've made it clear that production company information is more complicated than originally stated. If there are no further issues, I'd like to change the article's lead, If not, I'm happy to discuss it further if any new information is brought up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- I dunno. I'd probably just call it a British film. On Wikipedia, what matters is what the sources say, not who invested money or how a government bureaucracy determines international coproductions. The sources I've seen so far lean toward calling it solely a British film. If someone finds other sources that explicitly label it as an international coproduction, we can reopen the discussion. As a compromise, one could easily mention the American investment in the film, though. There are a lot of sources about the film, so I'm sure we could turn this into a nicely-written GA or FA. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'll give Udar55 and any others some more time to weigh in if anyone else has any other content/thoughts/anything to follow-up with. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- It has been over two weeks with no follow-up from the user or any other editors. I'll change it back to British now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I dunno. I'd probably just call it a British film. On Wikipedia, what matters is what the sources say, not who invested money or how a government bureaucracy determines international coproductions. The sources I've seen so far lean toward calling it solely a British film. If someone finds other sources that explicitly label it as an international coproduction, we can reopen the discussion. As a compromise, one could easily mention the American investment in the film, though. There are a lot of sources about the film, so I'm sure we could turn this into a nicely-written GA or FA. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Udar55:, @NinjaRobotPirate:, is there any more feedback on this? I think i've made it clear that production company information is more complicated than originally stated. If there are no further issues, I'd like to change the article's lead, If not, I'm happy to discuss it further if any new information is brought up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- For good measure, he's another database: Bifi.fr which declares it a UK production. It bases it's information from Cinémathèque Française, one of the oldest film archives in the world. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Missing information (Remake section)
[edit]https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3620247/hellraiser-rights-revert-back-creator-clive-barker-2021/ Darkknight2149 10:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2021
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2A02:C7D:A1EE:3800:4D1A:6E3F:DDB2:F82C (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I want the hellraiser to be science fiction horror film I know not to write in the blue line will you just unblock me. Please
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Additional information on Coil's planned contributions to the soundtrack
[edit]The UK electronic duo Coil released some of their proposed score to Hellraiser in their 1987 album "The Unreleased Themes From Hellraiser." Source: https://www.brainwashed.com/common/htdocs/discog/coil1.php?site=coil08Oblate777 (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)