Talk:Abigail (2024 film)

Filming after the SAG-AFTRA strike

We now know that the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike ended on November 9, 2023. However, there are no sources stating that filming resumed. Is there WP:NORUSH to state when filming would resume? The Media Expert (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this a Dracula movie or not?

This wiki can't seem to make up their minds on the subject. The article itself identifies it as such, and it's OK to add this movie to the Count Dracula page. But editing the page to indicate that "Kristof Lazar" is Dracula is somehow a no-no.

I don't get it. If this isn't a Dracula movie, why is it constantly identified as such? And if it is, why is it wrong to point out that "Kristof Lazar" is what this movie calls Dracula (especially since it's apparently OK to point it out in the Count Dracula page)? 190.194.188.69 (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Because the film never explicitly calls him Count Dragula. I don't follow the Count Dracula page, but the portrayal list is all unsourced anyway. Mike Allen 22:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Also isn't this movie a horror comedy? why was the edit changed? ShadowSJG (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I apologize for the confusion. Peace be with you.190.194.188.69 (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Why does someone continue to revert the published official dates to false dates based on nothing in the cited article? The correct dates are public (5/15/23-7/14/23 and 11/23/23-12/14/23, it did not start filming on June 30th that info is INCORRECT and at odds with reputable cited sources) and notated and yet you continue to revert to false information?

They also keep including it in their lists of Universal Monsters films, citing articles that don't really prove that, just reiterate that it BEGAN development as a remake of Dracula's Daughter. They ultimately went in a different direction that made it its own thing. These articles don't confirm that the FINAL film is part of Universal Monsters. There must be something more concrete from Universal themselves. They don't even name Dracula or credit any work of Dracula as its basis.

Also, if you go to any article on a Universal Monsters spin-off or remake, it will state "A reboot of the Mummy franchise" or "It is both a prequel and spin-off of The Mummy franchise." Abigail's page should say "a remake of Dracula's daughter" and "Based on Dracula by Bram Stoker and Dracula's Daughter by Oliver Jeffries, John L. Balderston, Kurt Neumann, R. C. Sherriff, Peter Dunne, and Charles S. Belden" in the info box if it really is a Dracula film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo1452~enwiki (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Cast section

For reference, Bluerules has a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong history of editing to get his way and ignoring any attempts at explanation or discussion, as seen here Talk:The_Incredible_Burt_Wonderstone#Bluerules_disruptive_cast_editing. And that's ELEVEN years ago. Your interpretations of characters from the plot or reeling off descriptions from the plot is unsourced and cast sections need to be sourced. Before you say "But this article doesn't do that" STOP! Because that's what WP: OTHERSTUFF is explicitly for. The content present is sourced and your changes need a source to back them up. I even went and found a source for Peter for you and you reverted it because you clearly didn't even look at the changes. Your behaviour is as unacceptable NOW as it was ELEVEN years ago, stop it and use your words. It's not hard what is being asked, everyone else manages to get a source for content, why are you expecting special treatment? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, Matthew Goode is explicitly credited as "Father" and there is a source present for his current name, he isn't credited as "Abigail's father".Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Per diff 1225669316 done 2 hours after this message was left, BlueRules did a 4th revert, ignored all comments here but most specifically that Matthew Goode is not credited as "Abigail's father". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I did not revert; I rewrote the descriptions to match the written sources. The issue here was apparently that my contribution was unsourced, so I wrote new character descriptions using the citations linked. I did not ignore the comments here; I was not aware of the comments here when I made my rewrites because I was not notified. Like I said above, Matthew Goode is credited as "Father" because he is Abigail's father - he might not be literally credited as Abigail's father, but that's who the credits are identifying him as. If we were supposed to be following the credits exactly, Darkwarriorblake would not be referring to him as "Kristof Lazaar", an identity that Goode's character never confirms because the film deliberately leaves the character's true identity ambiguous. His status as Abigail's father is what's confirmed. Bluerules (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Matthew Goode is credited as "Father" because he is Abigail's father. The credit is a direct reference to his status as Abigail's father. Why are we being literal about it and repeating information about his connection to Abigail? Get to the point about who he is. You clearly agree we shouldn't follow the exact credits; you identify his character as "Kristof Lazaar", which he's not credited as either. Bluerules (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake bringing up something from 11 years ago only demonstrates his continued pattern of disrespectful and immature behavior when other editors don't do what he wants, on top of holding petty grudges. Focusing on what someone did over a decade ago isn't the best example of their current behavior and trying to impose your will on other editors who had been working on this article about a month before you showed up is not how you improve an article. The character descriptions I have been working on are not "interpretations" from the plot or descriptions from the plot (which, by the way, I also worked on). They are from what is explicitly depicted and stated in the film; a film I saw in theaters when it first came out. And no, I wasn't going to make an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Instead, I'm going to point to MOS:FILMCAST, which does not require sources for character descriptions. It only requires sources for uncredited cast members. Yes, it was wrong of me to miss the source you added for Kevin Durand's character. But it was wrong of you to remove the sourced content I added and restore your own unsourced content. Of particular note is your description of Giancarlo Esposito's character as a "shady handler", despite not being supported by the sources and based on a misinterpretation of the production information. Esposito describing his character as being "on the shady side of things" means the character is involved in shady business, not that the character himself is shady. I demonstrated I was willing to compromise by rewriting the descriptions to match closer with what the sources say, even though it's not required by MOS. I'm asking for us to work together on the descriptions instead of hitting undo. And that involves listening to other editors about their edits and accepting potential improvements instead of the same unacceptable behavior of insulting those you don't agree with. If it's in the film, the source is the film and that's why MOS:FILMCAST doesn't require sources for content from the film. The real names of the characters played by Melissa Barrera, Dan Stevens, Kathryn Newton, and Durand are stated in the film and while I haven't been able to review the film to confirm the real names, I'm sure someone eventually will now that the film is available for home viewing. To revert that content simply because there isn't a text source would be obstructionist and unhelpful. Bluerules (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This is why it is pointless to engage with you, 11 years+ here and you don't know that content must be sourced. No section on that MOS page states you have to provide a reference, and yet what will happen if you introduce text that isn't sourced? The only section that specifically says no source is required is, for the 5th time, the plot section "Since films are primary sources for their articles, basic descriptions of their plots do not need references to an outside source. " Highlighting that you demonstrated similar behaviour over a decade ago is not immature or disrespectful, it establishes that this is a long term pattern with you and you're very unlikely to ever change, it demonstrates that this is not a one-off, that you will edit-war to get your way each and every time you think you're right and somehow still think, after all this time, that Wikipedia content can be unsourced, You're a bad editor who can't accept never getting his way. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

For the on-topic discussion, I rewrote the character descriptions to align with the written sources, making your quibbling over sources and MOS:FILM pointless. I brought MOS:FILM up to show it doesn't dictate that outside sources are needed for certain content; namely, content directly from the film. Even you acknowledge MOS:FILM permits text that doesn't have outside sources. Contrary to what you claim, MOS:FILMCAST does state when you should provide a reference. It states you should provide a reference when a cast member is uncredited ("For uncredited roles, a citation should be provided in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy."); it says nothing about sourcing character descriptions that come directly from the film. Again, note that MOS:FILM is specifically identifying where sources are expected. It does not call for character descriptions to be sourced. And despite all that, I still made the character descriptions follow the outside sources, refuting your allegations that I think Wikipedia content can be unsourced and I only edit war. You feel the character descriptions need outside sources, I followed the outside sources for the character descriptions as an attempt at compromise, and you still complain and make personal attacks.

For the off-topic / personal attack discussion, I find it intriguing that you're focused on what happened with Burt Wonderstone 11 years ago, but have forgotten our discussion on Ghostbusters II five years ago. You were adamant about describing the 2016 reboot negatively, treating your opinion that it "sucked so hard" as a fact. Contrary to your assertions about me, I did not remove your edit describing the reboot as "controversial" and instead created a talk page discussion to question if that was necessary (and the fact the Ghostbusters II lead no longer refers to the reboot as "controversial" demonstrates it wasn't). Focusing on one thing from over a decade ago is immature and disrespectful when you're not providing any other examples, let alone recent examples to support your allegations. In our aforementioned last interaction that I can remember, I created the talk page section to discuss why I didn't think calling the reboot "controversial" was necessary and I didn't directly remove it because you disagreed. Also contrary to your allegations, when I was reverted on Castle in the Sky late last year, I didn't edit war back. I had a very pleasant discussion with TechnoSquirrel69 on the talk page and we worked together on improving the lead. You, on the other hand, immediately resorted to personal attacks and focusing on past incidents, demonstrating you are the same immature, disrespectful, and petty editor you were over a decade ago. You are a child trapped in a man's body who needs a life outside of Wikipedia. Bluerules (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, WTF, this line is in the Cast MOS "Names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." Your entire argument immediately collapses. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That also says nothing about character descriptions. That’s another example of MOS:FILMCAST specifying when sources are expected; it still not specify sources are expected for the character descriptions. Thanks for strengthening my argument. Bluerules (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Everything needs sourcing except the plot section. I cannot believe you've survived here so long without grasping that. It doesn't need to say "character descriptions need sourcing" because EVERYTHING NEEDS SOURCING. Why would you not need to source something that is open to interpretation, especially in terms of describing the character's character not just some brief history. Everything needs sourcing. Everything. Needs. Sourcing. If you don't believe me I don't give a fig, ask ANYONE else if you can just add unsourced content outside of a plot section and let me know how far you get with that discussion. You don't have an argument to strengthen, you have words you string together in the hopes they have meaning. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

"EVERYTHING NEEDS SOURCING"... yet there are no written sources for the cast list in the Ghostbusters II FA you've heavily contributed to. There is no written source for Wilhelm von Homburg playing Vigo the Carpathian and Max von Sydow voicing the character in the cast section. And no, before you cry WP:OTHERCONTENT, I'm not saying we should leave out written sources because the Ghostbusters II article leaves out written sources. I'm pointing out even you know sources are not necessary for factual information taken directly from the film and you demonstrated this by not adding sources to the cast section for this information (and the article gets featured, despite lacking something you claim is necessary). If you want to argue character descriptions are more complex than a simple cast listing, that would be fair if you weren't claiming everything outside of the plot section needs sourcing and then not following your own purported interpretation of MOS:FILMCAST. Now that you've demonstrated not everything in the cast section needs sourcing, you dismantle yourself further by questioning why sources wouldn't be used for "something that is open to interpretation". This isn't something open to interpretation. This is brief history about the characters. Just like the cast information in the Ghostbusters II you left unsourced, this is information taken directly from the film. If sources were necessary for character descriptions, MOS:FILMCAST would say sources are necessary for character descriptions, just as it says sources are necessary for uncredited cast members and uncredited common names. But it doesn't because sources aren't necessary for brief history about the characters that aren't open to interpretation. You make my argument for me and don't even realize it. Bluerules (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

"but have forgotten our discussion on Ghostbusters II five years ago. You were adamant about describing the 2016 reboot negatively, treating your opinion that it "sucked so hard" as a fact. " I block all memories of our encounters so acting like I deliberately ignored it is bad faith, and changing wording through copyediting doesn't prove something is or is not, but I wouldn't expect someone who thinks you can make up content and it doesn't need sourcing to understand that, anything in the lede was sourced in the body text, BY ME, because everything needs sourcing: "Before its release, the film was beset by controversies and on release it attracted mixed reviews and was later considered a box office bomb.[168][169][170][171]". You're trying to frame your cast edits as "I rewrote the character descriptions to align with the written sources" when you were flat out either making things up or just using your interpretations of the film content and specifically NOT adhering to the sources. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

"I block all memories of our encounters so acting like I deliberately ignored it is bad faith" - That's grade-A bologna when you began this discussion bringing up our encounter from 11 years ago, but that's expected from someone who's still twisting facts, ignoring key information, and making strawman arguments. I'm not bringing up the Ghostbusters II discussion because of "copyediting". I'm bringing it up because it refutes your falsehood of me "ignoring any attempts at explanation or discussion". Instead of repeatedly trying to remove "controversial" from the lead, I created a talk page section to discuss if it was necessary to call the 2016 reboot "controversial" and I explained why I didn't believe that was necessary. Your defense of the Ghostbusters II lead completely ignores the actual point I was making, so I'll make it again - contrary to your falsehoods, I never engaged in any edit wars with you over the Ghostbusters II article and instead created a talk page section to discuss a matter we disagreed on. My objection to your edits on Ghostbusters II is not that they were unsupported, but that they were openly motivated by you treating your opinion of the 2016 reboot as a fact. And your immature behavior hasn't changed one bit. You use my initial edit to claim I'm not adhering the sources, while conveniently ignoring my subsequent edits that I specifically rewrote in adherence to the sources. Everything I've written about the characters is taken directly from the film, but I showed I was willing to follow the written sources so we could collaborate on the article instead of having conflict. I even left in your edit redundantly and awkwardly calling Matthew Goode's character "Father / Kristof Lazaar, an infamous crime lord and Abigail's father" because I didn't want to argue with you any longer. You respond to this by misrepresenting my edits, ignoring my edits that specifically were written in adherence to the sources because you've never matured as an editor. Bluerules (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Angus Cloud

Should it be added that this was a release after his tragic death? Cahlin29 (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)