Talk:Hellraiser

Citations for reception paragraph

The Reception paragraph needs citations: Stephen King's "I have seen the future..." quote appears in Stephen King's introduction to the "Clive Barker's Shadows In Eden" book edited by Stephen Jones [1] but I can't cite it without seeing a hard copy of the book. Note that Stephen is not responding to the Hellraiser movie, but Barker as an author in general so another review is needed. The box office gross figure is from Box Office Mojo [2] Can someone please add this citation in? Any diehard fans have British sources "championing" the film? 123.243.236.11 (talk) 05:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Bloodline

Bloodline was NOT direct to video, it was the franchises last entry to go to cinemas. I hope to help out working on this section, I have huge ammounts of information which can be found on ym website www.cenobite.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScarecrowX (talk • contribs) 10:46, 12 November 2005

- ScarecrowX

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ScarecrowX (talk • contribs) 10:46, 12 November 2005

How sure are we about Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996) being straight to video? I would swear that's the only one I ever saw in the theaters. The timing is about right. It was one seen from the viewpoint of the future, aboard a spaceship, and had lots of flashbacks to 18th century scenes. I don't remember much in the way of details, though. But if that is the one, it certainly was not straight to video. -- John Owens 09:53 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

You could be right. As far as I can tell the Alan Smithee Hellraiser: Bloodline had a US cinema release in March 1996 through Miramax/Dimension, it earned a poor $16 million. It went to video in November in the US and was a video only release in the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.64.7 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 10 April 2003

---

There was also a short-lived run of Hellraiser comic books that were (at least in the beginning) overseen (but only to a small extent) by Clive Barker. Actually, they weren't that bad...although some of the stories took massive liberty with the accepted canon of the mythos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.156.242.36 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 11 April 2003

rejected coil soundtrack -- relevant?

Just wondering if mention of the original soundtrack by Coil (ultimately rejected by the studio) for the first Hellraiser would be proper encyclopedic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.120.157.189 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 27 November 2004

Yes, but only as part of a discussion of the music used in this film or in the series. Simply throwing in a statement to the effect that Coil composed a soundtrack that was rejected would be somewhat irrelevant unless more details about soundtracks is included. Canonblack 01:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a Soundtrack section that's mostly on the rejected Coil soundtrack, but which has a bit on Christopher Young's score for the first two Hellraiser movies. As Coil's rejected soundtrack has been commercially released at least twice, it seemed appropriate to address the subject. --Pearce.duncan 03:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

"Deader" and "Hellworld" both need an NPOV check badly, as they're over half unsourced opinion. --InShaneee 09:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Seperating Articles

I am going to attempt to create seperate articles for each movie in this article. I feel, especially with the template for the first movie, that the rest do not belong on this page. They would be better off with their own page. PlasticMan 01:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Psychology of Hellraiser

Pinhead is a very knowledgable villian in the Hellraiser series. He has his Cenobites and this box of hell. But why is his reason for bringing such pain to these innocent people? He was in a mental institution and he was too much for them, they killed him and now he is on a rampage. It doesn't have much thought in the storyline. Thumbs way down to Hellraiser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charming Derick 1428 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 22 January 2006

Huh? --Myles Long/cDc 02:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask us. You're the one who formatted the comment. This isn't a fan message board or a blog for your personal opinions about the characters, this is a space to discuss the article. Please restrict your comments to the article, and to verifiable facts. Canonblack 01:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I was the one who formatted the comment. I wasn't the one who left the comment in the first place, though, as is shown by this page's history (I've corrected the "unsigned" tag to note that). So, my question about the comment stands: "Huh?" --Myles Long 00:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Remove the quotes?

I think the "Quotes from Hellraiser" section should be removed. It strikes me as terribly unencyclopedic. It lends nothing to the user's understanding of the film or its legacy. This isn't a fan trivia site or a movie quote database. We're already linking to IMDB, where most of these quotes can already be found. Lastly, I think that some of these quotes aren't even from this film, but from one of the sequels. Anybody agree, disagree, feel motivated to violent protest? Canonblack 22:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree. --Myles Long 00:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The quotes are from more than one of the sequels - there's stuff from Hellbound and Hell On Earth in there. --Pearce.duncan 03:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think "Pinhead: "Hell is the sound of razors going through flesh. I'm just here to turn up the volume."" from HOE is wrong. It's something like "There's a secret sound at the heart of the world and it's razors through flesh. It's always been there, I'm just here to turn up the volume." --68.232.64.116 21:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i’m bold and remove the section. None of the quotes provides any deeper understanding of the film. They are just sort of a subjective list of favoured sayings. Nice stuff for a fan page – but not at all encyclopaedic. --Zinnmann 14:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus I beleive that is what WikiQuote is for. Master Redyva 01:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Comic adaptations

They are mentioned on the Clive Barker entry and I was just expanding the entry for SMS and noticed the lack of an entry. The info is out there [3] and you could have something like:

Hellraiser series:

• Book 6
  • Original sin (writer: Ron Wolfe, artist: SMS)

etc. Thoughts?

Clive Barker's credits

I've edited the section on Barker's involvement in the sequels. He was a credited executive producer on the fourth movie as well as the second and third. Also, the earlier entry said that he had writing credit on the subsequent movies, which implies that he had a hand in their stories or screenplays. In truth he only had character creation credit. This confusion might come from that fact that the IMDb lumps character creation under the "writing" category. --Pearce.duncan 03:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Clive not yet confirmed as a PRODUCER for the Hellraiser remake

Although he has confirmed himself as a writer, I have not found a corroborating statement to support the implication that Clive is already a member of the production team for the remake. On his Oct 20th interview with Revelations, he confirmed his DISinterest in being a director, but asserted his interest in being a producer.

Hellraiser Portal

Why is there not a portal for the Hellraiser franchise (incorporating the novella, comics, etc...) ? I have read that Barker is writing the story only but the directors will be writing the script, and the script will differ from the original written story. See : http://twitchfilm.net/site/view/inside-directors-speak-on-hellraiser/ (^ Blake. "Inside Directors Speak on Hellraiser", TwitchFilm, 2007-10-13. Retrieved on 2007-10-13). Long Live the box, & rememeber "The box, you opened it, we came. Now you must come with us, taste our pleasures." (Hellraiser) Master Redyva 01:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Who killed the strange men?

Under the plot summary, it says Julia incapacitates them with a hammer, then Frank drains their blood. But under differences from novel, it says the way in which Julia kills the victims is different. Well, obviously the third one survived Julia's attack, since he lived for a few seconds after Frank drained his blood, but that first guy looked as though he was dead when she hit him with the hammer. 24.65.118.20 (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Figg

There is a new article created for Christopher Figg. I know nothing about him, so I was wondering if anyone would like to wander over and expand on the article? Cheers! Stephen! ^Coming... 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Um... wrong use of "domestic"

"It grossed $14,564,000 domestically, as well as £763,412 in the UK and around £300,000 in Germany. "

If the film is British, then what it made in the UK is what it made domestically. Iamrockyroad (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Please note that IMDb is not a reliable source for this sort of information. Feel free to reincorporate into the article with appropriate sourcing. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Production

==Production== Displeased with the filming of Rawhead Rex and other features based on his novellas, Barker decided to adapt his most recent novella The Hellbound Heart to the big screen. Assembling, in his own words, a "primitive" collection of notes and drawings indicating what the movie could become, he came into contact with British producer Christopher Figg who secured a deal with New World Pictures. Filming the movie in an actual house with a low budget forced Barker to be creative in his cinematography. There was often only room for a single camera and this explains why many of the shots are from only one angle. In particular, vertical movement was often the only movement available to the camera operators, which explains many of the overhead and zoom shots. Only one room in the house, the attic, was shot on a soundstage, but only effects shots used this attic set. New Line contributed extra funding to refilm the scene of Frank's rebirth. The original featured a dried up corpse 'growing' from the wall but Barker and effects designer Bob Keen found the effect unsatisfactory. The new, re-shot sequence started with a reversed shot of a red substance being pumped up through nail holes in the floorboards to imitate Larry's blood being sucked into the floor. Next featured was a small red sack being filled with air by a crewmember from underneath the floorboards to indicate Frank's growing embryo. Two thick puddles of porridge thick goo were then pumped up through small holes in the floorboard before two animatronic 'arms' burst through. Next, a lot of reverse photography is used as a wax model of Frank's skull, brain and ribcage appear to grow (in actual fact thin wires pulled away at parts of the torso and the wax brain was melted over ten to twenty minutes and then reversed so to appear as if it were growing). Many viewers have commented about the poor quality of the effects at the end of the movie. Clive Barker has explained that, due to a very limited budget, there was no money left to have the effects done professionally after the primary filming. Instead, Barker and a "Greek guy" animated these scenes by hand over a single weekend. Barker has also commented that he thinks the effects turned out very well considering the amount of alcohol the two consumed that weekend. Doug Bradley, who played the Lead Cenobite (aka Pinhead, as he was later dubbed by the horror public) was initially offered the role of either one of the removal men with the mattress, or Pinhead. He almost did not accept the latter role on the basis that, seeing this was his movie debut, it would be best if any potential film makers could see his face if they desired to cast him in the future. Pinhead was also due to literally have pins in his head, but with the makeup as a backdrop the jewelled pins got lost in the symmetry and pale colour of the latex design, so 6 inch nails were used instead to be more noticeable. Andrew Robinson dubbed his line of "Jesus Wept" at the last minute as Barker had imagined a much more liberal expletive to be delivered. References

Mexico or Morocco

In the first sentence of the plot it states the box is bought somerwhere in Mexico. But judging by the peoples looks in the background and the fact that the main players are drinking mint tea I would think it is in Morocco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M Hendriks (talk • contribs) 12:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In what city does Frank obtain the box?

Wikipedia user 66.170.204.148 claims that Barker and the script mention Morocco. The only scripts I've seen (dailyscript.com) don't even appear to have the beginning sequence at all, and certainly there is no mention of Morocco. His edits are good, but I'm looking for the source.

We hear the Islamic call to prayer in the background. We see a Turkish style tea glass. He see a man wearing a fez. We also see American dollars. The extras appear as though they are from the Arab world. The merchant sounds like he has a Chinese accent. But why Morocco and not Algeria, Tunisia, or even Egypt? Am I missing something?

I don't think you could set it OUTSIDE of the Arab world (not Mexico), but I'm not convinced it's Morocco necessarily. Why not just use the :term "Arab city", or "in the Middle East"? Sethwarncke (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If you listen carefully, there are people speaking Turkish in the background. "Lahmacun geldi, sıcak sıcak." says someone. So I would assume it's in Turkey. Don't know the exact city though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.151.29 (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Instructions to not add anything to plot?

I just noticed that when you go to edit the plot, it says:

PER WIKIPEDIA'S GUIDELINES AND POLICIES REGARDING PLOTS FOR FILMS, PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY MORE INFORMATION TO THIS PLOT. PLOTS ARE NOT SUBSTITUTIONS FOR WATCHING THE FILM. THANK YOU.

I'm familiar with the normal policy about the 400-700 word suggested range, unnecessary detail, bla bla bla, but where does policy say an editor can't add something productive to a plot? I noticed that it currently sits at 666 words, hmmm.

If a warning is needed, shouldn't it ask editors to avoid too much detail or something like that, instead of saying not to add anything at all?Capuchinpilates (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's to avoid the annoying heartache of WP:fancruft.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Even so, there was no reason for the blunt and somewhat inaccurate warning. I've attempted to make it a bit nicer and more clear. DonIago (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Production Section

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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

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)

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)

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)

Missing information (Remake section)

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

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

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)