Talk:Kiss Meets the Phantom of the Park

Family Guy

Two different editors have added text stating that KISS's appearance in a Family Guy episode is a parody of Phantom. I don't recall there being any evidence to back up this claim (seems like just a KISS appearance, not a Phantom parody), but I'd like to hear from others on this. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

They're probably referring the Christmas episode where Peter wants to watch a TV Movie titled "KISS Saves Christmas". The clips show bad acting and ridiculously cheesy plot lines. SkittlzAnKomboz 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotes section

In looking at other movie articles that have been elevated to Good Article or Featured Article status, I didn't see any that included a whole section of quotes. As I feel this article is pretty close to good article status, I'm thinking we should remove that section. Unless there are any reasoned objections, I'll remove it next week. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

DVD Release?

There are a number of items on ebay claiming to be official but quickly pulled (due to objections from the band?) DVD releases of Phantom from a company called Cheezy Flicks Ent in 2005. Anyone know if there's any truth to this?Armandtanzarian 16:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I know, any DVD release you see on eBay is basically a bootleg. I'm not even sure who owns the rights to the film at this point. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixes needed to meet GA criteria

Most of the article is fine, but the synopsis is in an informal tone and entirely unreferenced. Even plot synopses are subject to rules of WP:OR and WP:V. If this can be remidied, I would be willing to pass this article. --Jayron32 06:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• I will work on that, thanks. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In response to stuff you left on my talk page: You cite some movies that DON'T do model plot synopses. Batman Begins for example, is specifically tagged as having a bad plot synopsis. It suffers from the same problems as this one. You shouldn't REHASH the entire movie, scene by scene. An overall, maybe 1-2 paragraph synopsis should work fine. The Blair Witch Project is much better for length and tone, but still unreferenced. However, there seems to be a consensus around looking at several GA-rated movies that plot synopses don't SPECIFICALLY have to be referenced (I guess the movie itself is the reference?). I personally still believe that ALL text is subject to the policies of WP:V and WP:OR. Still, any criticism of the plot, even if in the synopsis, should be referenced, and referencing an external site with its own synopsis that you used to help write this one would also be helpful (like IMDB). the IMDB Plot Summary is a great resource for helping write your own synopsis. You shouldn't COPY it (that would be a copyright violation), but use it for information and reference it. There are also other places out there that give their own synopses, and you could use those as well. --Jayron32 16:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I trimmed some stuff, but left the major details. To take any more out would be omitting major plot points. As for the references, if you look at the film articles listed at WP:FA, they don't even have citations for their plot summaries. And the one at imdb is basically presented in this article's lead. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Finally checked it out. Sorry, I got busy with other stuff. The tone of the plot synopsis is better, but still needs work. The language is still too flowery and indulgent. It is also still WAY too long. Look at it this way: It's a synopsis not a summary. The idea is to give someone an idea of what the movie is about, NOT a scene-by-scene description of every event in the movie. I don't want to put an arbitrary word limit on this, but try to cut this back to 2 MAYBE 3 paragraphs at most. If you are describing exactly what any one character is thinking or doing at a single event in the film, it is probably excessive. Here's a suggestion; put it in your own words, and use it as a guide to help you cut this down to size:
        • The film is set at Magic Mountain ammusement park, and centers on the dissappearence of a park employee named Sam. Abner Devereaux, head engineer and creator of the park's lifelike cybernetic creatures, has developed a megalomaniacal complex. It is revealed that he captured Sam and turned him into a mindless cyborg. Calvin Richards, the owner of the amusement park, is increasingly concerned with Devereaux's erratic behavior. A ride is sabotaged by a biker gang, and Richards blames Deveraux for the accident. Also, Richards has decided to cut Deveraux's budget in order to pay for a KISS concert at the park. Devereaux swears revenge upon Richards, the park, and KISS, all of whom he blames for his misfortune. KISS arrives for the show, and Melissa, Sam's girlfriend, enlists their aid to help locate Sam, who is now fully under the control of Deveraux. Using photos taken by Sam, Deveraux creates a group of Robtoic KISS doppelgängers, whom he unleashes on the park to wreak havoc and discredit the real KISS. A climatic battle occurs onstage during the KISS concert between the real KISS and their robotic doppelgängers. The real band wins the battle, Deveraux dies, and the mind control device is removed from Sam. Everyone lives happily ever after. The end.
      • The above synopsis misses NONE of the plot points you gave, and is shorter and more to the point. Feel free to use it, or adapt it to your needs. Happy editing! --Jayron32 17:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This article has been on hold over a week, Jayron, do you think the synopsis is about right for your suggestions? Homestarmy 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Guideline_for_plot_summary_length, I think the current plot summary is an appropriate length (410 words). --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot synopsis looks much better. Last thing is that there are some assertions of fact that are left unreferenced. Provide references to these or cut them out, and the article will pass:

• Despite this, it has attained cult film status. Where can I find external confirmation that this is a cult film? Is it on someone's cult-film list? Can such list be found in reliable sources?
• In 1979, Avco-Embassy released KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park in theaters outside the United States, with translations of the title Attack of the Phantoms. In some countries — Italy, in particular — the film was simply titled Phantoms. The theatrical release featured a vastly different version of the film, with several scenes that did not appear in the original television airing added to the cut. In 1980, Attack of the Phantoms was shown at an Australian drive-in as part of a double-feature, alongside Alice Cooper's Welcome to My Nightmare
• The overseas film's overall soundtrack also differed from the original — much of the Hanna-Barbera fight music was replaced by music from the band's own catalog, primarily from their four solo albums. In some edits, the promotional videos for "I Was Made For Lovin' You" and "Sure Know Something" were also edited into the film.
• In recent years, KISS's public statements concerning the movie have been a mixture of bemusement and disgust. On VH1's When KISS Ruled the World program, Gene Simmons stated that, "It's a classic movie... Classic movie if you're on drugs," while Ace Frehley pejoratively said that "It's the funniest shit I've ever seen." In an early-1990s Sterling-McFadden magazine interview, Simmons compared the film to the infamous B-movie classic Plan 9 from Outer Space, joking that the two movies would make a perfect drive-in double feature. These need refs to specific episodes/issues.
• Except for two brief VHS releases in the 1980s, however, the movie is unavailable commercially. No official plans have been announced to release the movie on DVD, although many bootlegs (usually blurry dubs of the original VHS tapes) can be found for sale through online sites and fan conventions.

Speedy failed because above guidelines not met? When they have, renominate them. Cbrown1023 00:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

a parody section?

do you guys think there has been enough parody of this movie to warrent mentioning?

there was the family guy gag "KISS saves santa" which was a double parody of this movie and christmas specials in general.

and there was also a dethklok episode where the band gets a movie, and like phantom of the park the acting was really bad and the movie's plot fell flat aswell.

i don't know about anymore though, i'm not sure if thats enough to warrent a search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.74.191 (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

One Of The Highest Rated TV Movies?

A little research seems to show this to be untrue. According to Variety the weekend of October 28th was one on NBC's worst for the years. The La Times also lists it as coming in 48th that week in overall ratings. Ridernyc (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kiss Meets the Phantom of the Park. 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://archive.is/20060507231416/http://www.kissfaq.com/chronology/timeline.html to http://www.kissfaq.com/chronology/timeline.html

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) 08:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)