Talk:Masters of Horror

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horror

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Merge in episode list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

– List of Masters of Horror episodes deleted, article restored to original form

I propose that the episode list be merged back into the main article, since it shouldn't cause much of a length issue and it's absense harms the article. Artw (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose - this is a 26 episode series. It is very appropiate that the episode list be separate from the main article and is totally in keeping with the Television Manual of Style. Its absence does not harm this article in any way shape for form. Putting it back here would be what would harm this article. If you actually like this series, why not actually put new content into this article instead of wanting to just take it back to its previous bad shape? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Artw's proposal which seems quite sensible in reducing an unnecessary step between the main article and the individual works in this collection. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't sensible and it violates the TV MOS. And just because you agree doesn't mean you get to just undo the split and remove all the tags. This discussion isn't even 24 hours old for Pete's sake. You disagree with the episode articles being merged, fine, but keep the damn discussions separate. I fail to see how you can actually think that horrible little episode list with such scant details that was in this article is someone much better than the properly formatted separate episode list with the actual info, a real lead, and other missing info like the writer and airdates. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Coming here from WT:TV#Masters of Horror Help Needed). Why can't there be the best of both worlds and the episode list (as it is here) gets merged back into the main article? Both articles are about 12kB, so size limits aren't a concern. Neither is notability, since ep lists are de-facto AfD-safe. The article of Carnivàle (24 eps) had its ep list in the main article for the longest time until the 50kB level was reached, so I suggest this route also as a middle ground. (Can't find a discussion about the single ep mergers, where I would have said redirect unless the eps were either nom'ed for an Emmy or demonstated several paragraphs of real-world info.) – sgeureka ^t•c 15:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the episode list at List of Masters of Horror episodes be merged here? This article has more than enough source material to be better than it is, but no one has bothered working on it in ages, and when someone finally did (me), it ends in them being attacked and vilified for it. I found dozens of sources on this series to add more production info, reception info, etc. but haven't bothered doing the rest because of all the mess over the episode list. For the discussion on the mergers, Talk:List of Masters of Horror episodes#Episodes was a psuedo discussion. An official one wasn't started because all of these pages appeared abandoned until someone actually started working on them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The episode list is not AFD-safe as suggested above. It is clearly a content fork which does not respect the contributions made under the GFDL by the editors who first started the list in the main article. It seems quite redundant and is obviously provoking dissension and disruption of the TTN sort which is not helpful. The project would be best served by nipping this fork in the bud and I may now take it to AFD on these grounds but will allow some time for response. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The episode list is completely AFD safe nor is it a WP:CFORK. YOu disagree with the idea of episode lists, go AfD every last featured one first. And please, take it to AfD and get laughed away. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think there is anything wrong with an episode list like that per se. Personally I'd like to see this article expanded to the point the episode list would naturally have been split off anyway. I'd suggest we focus on improving this article and the various episode articles (for more discussion on the latter see here) - we can then revisit this issue in say 6 months time and see how the land lies. (Emperor (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Much as Emperor, I think we should keep the ep list, keep the ep articles, and link the ep articles from the ep list. Seems like the best way to please everyone and the best way to provide information to our readers without removing any. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 21:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protection

I noticed that this article has been fully protected and have made inquiries. The details of this action are here. This action, initiated by User:AnmaFinotera without discussion or consensus, prevents any of us from editing this article for a week. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus isn't required nor discussion to request protection due to edit warring, edit warring YOU instigated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think possibly someone needs to read up on WP:OWN. Artw (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you really should. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in an unprotect request. Something screwy seems to have happened to the record of the original protection though. Artw (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the article has been unprotected. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes

While we wait, for convenience, here is a list of links to the articles discussed above. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked in bold those that are currently "live" and people should pop in and see what they can do to help improve them asap. To help improve other articles to the point they can be kept "live" see the discussion here.

A couple of things that strike me are:

The naming convention is variable. The disambiguation should be "(Masters of Horror)" as "episode" isn't required. It isn't worth doing anything with the redirected ones but when we have improved more articles it would be worth returning to this and sorting out the naming.

Homecoming shouldn't have been deleted. It was redirected and then the page it was redirected to was moved and the redirect was then speedily deleted leaving Homecoming redirecting to an empty page. I can resurrect it and then switch it to the right redirect but it strikes me it might be better if we can resurrect it and keep it, so again go here and add any resources you find for it. (Emperor (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

If Homecoming is restored, please also check it and make sure its cleared of the plot section as it was also CSD for being pure copyright infringement from IMDB. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I have found plenty of good material for the article and put them here. I'll restore it tomorrow when I am not so tired and I can make sure I trim it back properly (I hacked out a whole plot section once because someone had flagged it as copyright violation from IMDB until I did some further digging and found out someone had been adding Wikipedia plot into IMDB - so I want to make sure we know which came first). If someone is enthusiastic they can prepare some replacement plot in their sandbox and/or a reception section based on the material I found, so they can just drop in something more substantial when it is restored. (Emperor (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I've reactivated a number of these and added a disambig tag. I'd agree that at some point we should rename them all per your suggestion, but it's probably best to fix them all up first so we don;t end up in a mess of redirects and confusion while trying to work. Artw (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improving this article: Sources

As mentioned above I'd like to see this article expanded. So if you find any sources drop them in here.

I did a quick Google scholar search and came up with some sources:

Academic Film Criticism, the Rhetoric of Crisis, and the Current State of American Horror Cinema: Thoughts on Canonicity and Academic Anxiety it gives Masters of Horror as a good modern example of the problems of canonicity in American Horror. British library link

Life and Death and Something in Between: Reviewing Recent Horror Cinema, not sure what is in this but the excerpt reads "For instance, in Joe Dante’s ‘‘Homecoming’’ (2005), an episode of the (Showtime)

TV series Masters of Horror, soldiers killed in the current military" I'll see if I have access in the next day or so.

Anyone spotted anymore? Then add them in. (Emperor (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I saw lots the other day when I did the production section in Google News. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are plenty - they started off with quite a bit of publicity. It is why it is worth having this section so people can drop things in as they find them (I keep searching for one episode and finding things on others so it helps bring it all together).

Another one I found: An interview with Dante and Landis about Masters of Horror (and their contributions, but it also seemed to be on the general show). (Emperor (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This might be useful [1] - it is a round table interview with Mick Garris. (Emperor (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Improving episode articles

Given the undiscussed blanking and deletion of the episodes list page (without closing the discussion and despite there being no clear consensus for deleting it or merging it back in here) the talk page went with it and along with that went my attempts to bring together resources we can then use to improve the episode articles (because even if they've been brought back to life they still need improving and to create well-rounded articles we need plenty of solid resources). I've scooped up my comments from the deleted page and moved them here, so let's see if we can start again (and I'd ask people to keep it civil: (Emperor (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I looked this all over yesterday when it became clear concerns were being raised about this, and rightly so, most of the episodes are failing to meet notability standards.

That said I agree with Artw that they are important stand alone pieces of drama created by some of the big names in the field and often based on major works. They were also petty high profile and I would imagine it is perfectly possible to get them all up to standard.

Before we get caught into a cycle of redirecting/reverting and AfDs (or more of that) I think we should at least give it our best shot (there is, after all, a process of expressing concerns and asking for improvements that we can go through before giving up on them and redirecting). What I'd suggest is we involve the Horror and Television Projects, as they know all the best places to look for sources and we draw together a handy set of sources that we can then mine for useful information.

As we have more than enough plot in most cases the things to focus on is getting more out-of-universe material in and the two areas I'd aim for are:

Development - the background to the creation of the series, works they are based on, influences, references, etc.
Reception - pretty obvious but reviews, any controversies (complaints about content) and viewing figures.

We should then be able to focus our attention on sources that allow us to expand those areas of the article. Off the top of my head I'd suggest:

DVD commentaries
Viewing figures - we have resources that can provide film revenues and comic sales, there must be somewhere we can get TV figures. I have found the New York Times good for viewing figures in the battle for the top slot and it is a solid resource worth checking for all sorts of coverage but I wonder if there is something broader
Reviews, interviews and reports - the beauty of working in a well defined genre is that there is solid set of publications tracking all aspects of productions:
- Magazines - Fangoria obviously but a lot of the sci-fi mags deal with horror too
- Web sites - there are a number of them that have well respected coverage, obviously Fangoria's site is a good first step but I'd also throw in Bloody Disgusting and CHUD
News coverage - a search through general newspapers and articles may turn up so sources from further afield (and provides another angle on things).

So we spread the word around and get more people involved on a bit of an improvement drive and that means they'll be able to offer more advise and more resources.

I'd then suggest focusing on a couple of articles (perhaps the Black Cat and Dreams in the Witch-House which have solid roots in horror fiction) and we work hard on them and then apply the lessons learned and resources we have to the other articles. (Emperor (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sources

I'll add general sources here, feel free to create subsection of this for specific sources on individual episodes.

UGO: Has a page offering interviews and reviews [2]
DVD Talk: Lots of reviews, especially of the various releases [3]
Fangoria: Lots of news and information - you'll need to refine the search down to each episode (as they only return 20 results for any one search) or use Google.
New York Times: News, reviews other details and Google.

Homecoming

Should be an easy one as it was a satire on war at just right the time to get press attention. A quick search gives:

Dante’s Inferno: The Necessary Satire of Homecoming, Cinema Scope - good overview teasing out the themes and then it also has an interview with Dante.

Dante's Inferno, Village Voice - a review and look at the themes - includes "easily one of the most important political films of the Bush II era"

Zombies Attack George Bush, Slate

Interview with Homecoming Screenwriter Sam Hamm

The West Wing and the Living Dead: An Interview with Dale Bailey, he is the writer of the original story

Interview with Joe Dante - mainly on the Screwfly Solution but it contains this "I think it's usually better to be subtle, though the one I did last year, Homecoming, kind of flouts that advice. It's like a hammer hitting you over the head. It's probably the most unsubtle thing I've ever done."

Views Of Descent: Taking on Movie-Made Iraq, comparison between Homecoming and de Palma's Redacted

Gore Wins: The politics of horror, Mother Jones, from the May/June 2006 issue - a comparison between the show and other political horror films (like Jacob's Ladder

There are also plenty of good reviews like:

DVD Talk
Dawn of the Zombie Jarheads, City Pages
Review, UGO
Review, The New Yorker calls it "The best political film of 2005"

Which is quite a good haul for now (the praise almost makes me feel guilty for not liking the episode, almost) - if you find anything else add it in. Note this has been accidentally deleted but I'll restore it tomorrow and we can start adding that in. (Emperor (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I've no restored this: Homecoming (Masters of Horror episode). Feel free to use any of the above you find useful and you can leave further resources over there on the talk page. (Emperor (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

List of Masters of Horror episodes‎

I've recreated List of Masters of Horror episodes‎ as a redirect, as we have a lot of links going there - over time we should fix these, and probably just remove it. That's probably what should have been done in the first place, but I guess the history and talk page are no great loss. Artw (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no article links at all going to that list per Special:WhatLinksHere/List_of_Masters_of_Horror_episodes and talk page links are no reason to keep it as a redirect, so I've requested it be CSDed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I have contested the speedy deletion (the second one in so many days - I'm not 100% sure of the justification for the first one either as it included edits from half a dozen people). As I said above in the merge discussion (which I'd suggest was a "no consensus") that I'd like to see this expand to the point an episode list was split off and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with an episode list. We may as well have it as a redirect for now. (Emperor (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It was justifiable. I'm the one who created it and the only one to really edit it. People putting in wiki links doesn't count as "editing" for such a purpose. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like most of the links to the redirect page got fixed last night, with the remainder being talk links - so I wouldn't have any objection to it being deleted now. I'm staying out of whether the speedy deletion of the first version was a good thing or not. Artw (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We also lost an image - I'm guessing that's nothing we particularly care about? Artw (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving Veteran Actor's Careers

To say that the Masters of Horror revived Ron Perlman's career because of Hellboy II, and Ted Raimi's career because of Drag Me to Hell is ridiculous. Hellboy sold well so a sequel was made, and clearly they needed the star of the first movie (from 2004 which predates Masters of Horror) to resume his previous role. Ted Raimi was in Drag Me to Hell because his brother is Sam Raimi, the director and writer, it's the same reason this this car, his dad's '73 Oldsmobile 88, is in the movie, and in Spider Man, Darkman, and every other film Sam Raimi has done, it's because it's a little nod to Sam's past, and it's because he likes working with his friends and family, after all, Bruce Campbell plays a bit part in every spider man flick, as well as Darkman despite being dubbed over with Liam Neeson's voice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.185.125 (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Ron Perlman and Ted Raimi 's careers were not "revived" by the Masters of Horror series, they are just filming as many movies as before.--169.233.204.7 (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was a case of someone not knowing enough about the actors, directors, and writers to actually comment on it. People like Robert Englund and Takashi Miike have rarely stopped working. Just because the person who proposed this section didn't know any better doesn't mean it's true.(Trentsketch (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Masters of Horror. 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/20080517084343/http://www.bravo.co.uk/mastersofhorror/index.html to http://www.bravo.co.uk/mastersofhorror/index.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908015012/http://www.idwpublishing.com/titles/moh/moh.html to http://www.idwpublishing.com/titles/moh/moh.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=47831

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) 06:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]