Talk:Poltergeist (1982 film)

Please go to

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finally saw the movie last night. But wouldn't The Beast be Satan? It's heavily implied. Bly1993 20:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be. Charlr6 (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heavingly implied by what? Do you have a

secondary source for this? Nightscream (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Nightscream, Bly1993 posted the comment five years ago, I can't see he/she coming back and giving any sources after five years. And they said it could be heavily implying that The Beast is Satan, as Satan is generally also referred to as The Beast. Charlr6 (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to have a trivia section here, this article is not a stub. Second of all, it is against Wikipedia guidelines. Daedalus969 (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, it's only discouraged under wikipedia guidelines, not against them. The preferred way of handling trivia is to work it into the article.

More importantly, the section you deleted and are referring to wasn't a trivia section, it was a section on "cultural impact."

talk) 06:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I haven't deleted anything, I was stating my stand on the subject, and yes, it was. Daedalus969 (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the cultural references section, for notability's sake. Some of the references are pretty significant, for example the entire Family Guy episode is basically a spoof of Poltergeist. It's not an isolated bit, as it is in some episodes. It's a pretty significant bit of content.

talk) 08:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Why is any Family Guy episode worth noting? They constantly parody things and adds nothing to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.64.1.2 (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging

• The rumor of the film being cursed can easily be considered just one subset of information about the film, so it makes sense to include it into the film's article.
• The rumor article is rather short, and does not seem to have a potential to expand substantially. Furthermore, much of the information provided here might be redundant with the film's article, so if we merge it, we will be able to cut down on the rumor's text, making it yet shorter.
• The rumor article is about a rumor, harming (through I think not removing completely) its relevance to an encyclopedia.
• I'm a stupid sonofabitch.

Please express your opinions regarding the merge. If we don't disagree, I'll be merging

Thanks in advance for your concern!

Alfredo —Preceding comment was added at 17:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. your best argument is the 3rd one - it's a rumor and IMHO childish. 93.172.70.129 (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second this agreement (thirded?). Doesn't seem to make sense that it's its own article, and the mention of other "cursed" films seems really superfluous and unnecessary. Evixir (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. As there was no one opposed and action hadn't been taken for a few months, I merged the two. --

Shouldn't there be mention of the bit during the opening theme song sequence of the show Growing Pains, with Mike Seaver banging on the family's TV screen from the inside; as it's reminiscent of the scene from Poltergeist? —Micahbrwn (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's reminiscent of it is subjective, and therefore

OR, so to include it, we'd need a source saying that the reference was intentional. Nightscream (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I noticed the information about the last release of Poltergeist in October of 2007 still included both the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray formats in addition to the DVD. That re-release did come out as scheduled on standard DVD that year but was cancelled on both hi-def formats with no reason given. Warner rescheduled the film for release on the Blu-Ray format for October 14th, 2008. (For verification, you can visit Warner's pre-order page here: http://whv.warnerbros.com/WHVPORTAL/Portal/product.jsp?OID=50228)

The new release will still have the "25th Anniversary Edition" banner (as seen here: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=540) even though this Blu-ray release is a year behind the actual anniversary. The release will come in collectible, non-standard Blu-Ray packaging called "digibook" which is supposed to resemble a coffee table book with pictures from the film in its pages.

Feel free to add this onto the main page, if anyone feels inclined, since it will be a while while I read up on how to edit articles here... don't want to mess anyhting up!

Kikojames (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Poltergeist" appears to be derived from a "Twilight Zone" TV episode from March 3, 1962 called "Little Girl Lost" written by Richard Matheson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.224.182 (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References https://books.google.com/books?id=s5X-vdq7RWEC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=poltergeist+%22little+girl+lost%22 and http://www.poltergeist.poltergeistiii.com/wrote.html and LGL story idea origin https://thenightgallery.wordpress.com/2014/12/15/little-girl-lost-story-idea-found/ StrayBolt (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving the following unsourced material here until it can be properly sourced per

Location scouts for the studio decided upon Roxbury Street, Simi Valley, California after realizing it met all of their requirements. The homes were new and, at the time, the land behind the street was free, allowing plenty of access for the studio trucks. Fearing that the residents would demand more money if they knew that the street was to be used in a Spielberg production, they instead informed them that it was for a low-budget B movie, and by way of payment, the residents were offered free landscaping in their front yards. The houses which were brand new had no lawns at the time and so all residents accepted. The first house on the street, which looks the same as the Freelings' home, was vacant. Close observation suggests no landscaping was done there. The coach lamps at the entrance to the pathway of the Freelings' home were added on by production and wires that power them can be seen, taped to the pillars, at the film's climax.

The house used in the movie (4267 Roxbury) received substantial earthquake damage in the 1994

Northridge earthquake

. The garage came free of its foundation, the driveway had to be re-poured, the pinafore wall under the main windows and main garden wall also shook loose and collapsed. Today concrete breeze blocks replace the garden wall.

The clown doll that tortured young Robbie can be seen at

Las Vegas

.

Nightscream (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't we mention that drew barrymore also auditioned for the role, but they said she wasn't right for this movie here but for ET.

here's the source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiktjoSdWqE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.226.221 (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but do you think we should include this in "References in Pop Culture": http://geekscape.net/news/geekscape-exclusive-new-my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-billboard-kicking-off-season-2 ? 216.45.97.72 (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, your link above has absolutely nothing to do with Poltergeist (1982 film). Sundayclose (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead (2006)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrayBolt (talk • contribs) 15:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The geekscape site deleted the billboard info and just showed current junk. This still has the billboard. It is really a combination of Poltergeist (1982 film)'s TV and Poltergeist II: The Other Side's phrase. Legacy/Pop Culture seems to grow until someone complains. This seems minor compared to other occurrences which should be included. (Sorry I didn't sign the last entry) StrayBolt (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any mention of how people say this movie is cursed. Should a section be added or could something be added to the section In popular culture? TheMadDesperado (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in this article and discussed more fully in Poltergeist (franchise). Feel free to wikilink it in this article, but it doesn't need more detail here as it applies to the entire franchise rather than a single film. The section on the curse at Poltergeist (franchise) tends to be a crap magnet. People have tried to add almost any death or misfortune to any cast member, even minor cast. People die, especially when they get older. It's not unusual or a "curse" related to the film. Sundayclose (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]