Talk:The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Lead references

Should there be any references in the lead? I think it might look better without the references, but I'm not entirely sure. --EclipseSSD (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Headcheese?

Last nights episode of "Modern Marvels" (episode title "Cold Cuts") mentioned something about the working title of "The Texas Chain Saw Massacr" being "Headcheese". Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

There's been a lot of IP vandalism recently, and everytime I report it to WP:RPP, they don't seem to care about it. So what's the point? I will not let this article be destroyed by some IP vandals, not after we've all been working hard to ensure that it may one day become a Featured article. --EclipseSSD (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to place the appropriate vandalism warning(s) (see {{vw}}) on the talk page of the editor in question. hornoir (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible sources

I'm working on attaining some more sources (in turn, more information) for the article. I already have one source that I had to copy and paste into WORD (not way to save it), and it's like 27 pages of WORD on what went into making the film. When I get a chance I'll try and put in the general sources, and create a location to house the ones that I cannot save and have to copy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I dumped two sources of information here, just delete them when you've used them. If I get some time I'll try and go through them myself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this will be helpful, particularly the second bit of information. We now know what P.I.T.S stands for, Pie in the Sky. It looks like quite a big task incorporate some even of the information, but it'll help the article, so we should do it. --EclipseSSD (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Release section

Is this right... "pre-teens and adolescents"?? The sources are not urls, so I don't have them in front of me to see for myself, but it seems odd that "pre-teens" (people under 13) and "adolescents" were the primary audience. Especially when an "R" rating meant no one under 17 without an adult back then.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it is correct. I did read a book on it somewhere, but those references weren't added by me. A quick search on Google Books, [1], [2], [3] do mention similar stuff. --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

They all seem to back the "adolescents", which I wouldn't really doubt because that encompasses a large age group, but "preteens" is not used in association with those who went to the theater to see the film. When I did a Google Book search [4], the only thing that I found was a comment about how "pre-teens" would be the type of audience that should avoid these films, and not that they were the ones actually going to see TCM. It makes we wonder if those sources were misread. I'll try and find them myself through the University library and see if they say what the page actually says.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The information is false. I just backtracked the page history, and none of the current citations are related to the sentence about adolescents. This was the edit that added the information, citing Snopes, which does not mention anything about the demographics. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Erik. We'll have to go through and figure out what those three sources actually do say, and see what needs to be removed outright. Apparently, Snopes is still the source, someone just went in an changes "Snopes" to the three individual sources that Snopes claims as their references. That's why these three are just tacked on at the end, instead of by each individual statement that comes from them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

""[…] a low-budget triumph, [it is] still powerful in its impact today, and never outdone by any of the successors to the sub-genre ('slash and dash') which it spawned."" -- Why does this feel like a shameless plug for the movie?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Any way to reword it, or should it just be removed altogether? --EclipseSSD (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, let me read the whole statement at the source and I'll see if there is something that they say that will provide us with better context. Otherwise, I'd have to say that we should remove it because it seems to boaster the film, and since we don't have some other quote that is panning the film, or at least diagreeing with the assessment then it seems like we are providing favoritism.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this concerns me more. When I was looking at the review I noticed that you could submit your own review to them. Then I found the page I just linked to, and I'm inclined to think that the review we have isn't so professional, and is more of some random person providing their own opinion of the movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It should probably be replaced with a quote from a notable critic, e.g. Ebert or someone else. --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ew, I'd get rid of that irrespective of anything else. Particularly if it's the only reference to this slash and dash 'genre', is there such a thing? Someoneanother 00:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, having "on the film's legendary status" underneath doesn't seem neutral at all. Exceptional claims need exceptional sources. Someoneanother 00:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Er.. the video game adaption part's sourcing isn't up to snuff either. The allgame link doesn't work (for me) and some statements are cited to GameSpot pages which don't back them up, they just list release dates. Things like the Halloween cart being collectible etc. Someoneanother 00:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The AllGame is a dead link. I tried the archives, but it isn't there (yet?? they say it takes 6 months to be posted after they collect it, so assuming they did it could be awhile). Seeing that made me go check the rest of the links, but they seem fine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Darn. I'll take a look for some alternative sources when I get a min for the game info. Someoneanother 00:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oooh oooh, I got one :D This should prove very useful indeed, it talks about who came up with the idea, how it wasn't stocked and also talks about events like the video game crash. Someoneanother 02:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Development: citation needed

The second sentence in the Development subsection requires a citation (sentence: "He had previously developed the idea of a film centering on isolation, the woods, and darkness, and was still percolating these ideas when he thought up the concept of the film."). It is an awkwardly phrased sentence that needs a rewrite, but without a source there's no way to check against the original material to ensure that a rewrite is maintaining the original information. If no one can provide the source, then we should probably delete the sentence (which is a shame, since I think the information is valid). hornoir (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the source: [5], I'll add it to the article. --EclipseSSD (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Game image

Per WP:FUC, all screenshots MUST have critical commentary from reliable sources next to them. Critical commentary cannot come from the editor. If there is a source in the footnotes that provides critical commentary, then it needs to be put as an inline citation, per WP:V#Burden of evidence. If this cannot be done, then the image does not meet the fair use criteria is must be removed. The two sources next to the text for the image does not verify this information (one of them is the still dead link source spoken of above).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The link Bignole wanted to use is: Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. That's where it explicitly states that screenshots of games are only permissible in the context and support of critical commentary. hornoir (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I fixed the allgame.com link. To be honest, in re-reading the video game paragraph I don't see why it wouldn't constitute as passing the Non-free content guideline for an image. (In light of Bignole's comment below, I've retract this statement.) hornoir (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole's assessment. Part of the reason is that there is not a compelling amount of commentary about the video game, and the screenshot in question does not significantly visualize any aspect of what commentary exists. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Needless to say, I agree with Hornoir's interpretation. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

To Hornoir, the section does not talk about the graphics over the game at all (with the exception of Kevin's personal opinion that I removed), which means that it has no critical commentary. The CC must be on the specific image itself, and the section has nothing talking about the graphics, or that sreenshot. To Kevin, when there is no-consensus on something, we don't just pick on at random. I'll post this discussion on some more pages to get more opinions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the image does not belong on this page. See the franchise page, where it does go into more detail about the game, but doesn't (nor does it need to) talk about the graphics. I doubt there is sufficient and reliable critical commentary related to that very specific image anyway. A similar case was presented in the Adaptation section a while ago, where the cover of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre comics once was inserted, but was moved to a more relevant article. The game's article was redirected to the franchise page because all the information is already there and it was not notable enough. To conclude, I don't think the image belongs on this page or on Wikipedia for thay matter. --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an example of "What a fine mess you've got us into, Ollie" conundrum. Screenshots should relate to the subject at hand and when there is a convoluted path in order to establish relevance, they are best left out, regardless of the rational of critical commentary which now seems to be a canard. FWiW, (repeated below) Bzuk (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Resolved

 – Consensus agrees that the video game screenshot should not be included in the article.

Original RFC starter: There is a disagreement over the inclusion of [[:[edit]File:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Atari 2600 screenshot1a.png]] in the "Adaptations" section of this article. The argument stems from the interpretation of WP:FUC and what constitutes enough critical commentary, per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images.

• Actually, critical commentary is only one of the issues; per WP:NFCC#8, any non-free image can be used "only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Since "topic" in this case is the movie, not the video game, the shot clearly fails that criteria. If the video game was notable enough to have its own article, the use in that article would be reasonable, but at the moment it redirects here. Black Kite 14:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• The screenshot should clearly not be included- the appearance of the game is not discussed, nor does it seem particularly important to the film. If there was some sourced commentary regarding the graphics, interface or something akin, then a screenshot would be useful. The game is a minor part of the topic, and discussed very briefly. To echo what Black Kite said above, if there was an article on the game, then a screenshot may be valid there. Here, it's just clutter. Regarding Kevin's "I've read the WP:FUC, and we'll just have to agree to disagree"- I'm not sure what you were reading, but the FUC quite clearly says that "it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created. See burden of proof" meaning that no consensus equals no inclusion. J Milburn (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with both Black Kite and J Milburn. This screen shot does not "significantly increase readers' understanding" of the topic, which is the film. It doesn't even "minorly" increase it. It is purely decorative as the video game is only briefly mentioned, as is appropriate for a film article. And as the video game itself is clearly not notable enough to have its own article, the image should be removed from Wikipedia per the non-free policies already well linked above. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

MINORLY? wait a second, you were trying to sneak that one in, weren't you... (LOL) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed with the above that the screenshot does not significantly increase the reader's understanding, much more so since this is an article on the film itself and the section in question is peripheral to the subject. Since the aim of the collab. is FA it is even more important that fair use images are relevant, since each will have to be justified when the article comes under scrutiny. The game itself may be notable for all that, but that's to be proven and only if a separate article were made would a box shot and screenshot be needed. Someoneanother 01:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is an example of "What a fine mess you've got us into, Ollie" conundrum. Screenshots should relate to the subject at hand and when there is a convoluted path in order to establish relevance, they are best left out, regardless of the rational of critical commentary which now seems to be a canard. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agree that the screeenshot doesn't belong. Really no doubt about that at all as best as I can see. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I still don't like the lead of the article. It seems too short and untidy, but I don't know how to improve it. Any ideas?--EclipseSSD (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

How's this sound:

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is a 1974 American independent horror film directed by Tobe Hooper, and written collaboratively written by Hooper and Kim Henkel. The film stars Marilyn Burns, Gunnar Hansen, Teri McMinn, William Vail, Edwin Neal and Paul A. Partain. Presented as a true story, the plot involves a group of friends on a road trip in rural Texas who are ambushed and murdered by a family of cannibals. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is the first of six films that became a film franchise revolving around the character of Leatherface, portrayed by Hansen in this film.

Hooper was inspired by the Wisconsin serial killer Ed Gein, as well as the perceived lies from the American government when drafting his story. Produced on a budget estimated around $140,000, Hooper casted relatively unknown actors for his film, pulling mainly from the surrounding Texas area. Principal photography took place between July 15 and August 14, 1973. Hooper struggled to find a distributor for the film because of the graphic depiction of violence; when he did secure a distributor the MPAA gave the film an R-rating, instead of the PG rating Hooper hoped for.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was released theatrically on October 1, 1974, but because of the content it was banned in several foreign markets. Initial critical reception of the film was mixed, receiving both praise and criticism regarding the atmosphere, story, characters, and graphic content, but it would gross $30.8 million at the United States box office. Despite this reception, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre has gained a reputation as one of the greatest and most influential horror films of all time, originating several tropes common in the slasher film genre, including the characterization of the killer as a large, hulking and faceless figure and the use of power tools, knives and blunt objects as murder weapons.

I tried to spruce it up a bit. What do you think?

Comment. That is much, much better. Thanks, --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Article status

Well, I can see this article has come a long way from what it used to be. Comparing it to Halloween, a featured article, I would say this one is better referenced and structured than it. That aside, I would say this article (could possibly) some finishing touches before it can become a FA. I don't see any major issues in the article, but if anybody has something to suggest, please do so. Thoughts? --EclipseSSD (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably recommend another Peer Review before doing an FA nom, and probably a copyedit. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.--EclipseSSD (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you put it up for peer review, I will help review the style and content. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick review

This is not an official review, just to point out issues with this article for Featured Article. I have compared this article to the Halloween article which is Featured Article class.

This article is better cited than Halloween.

Halloween has a far more detailed Production section.

Halloween has a more deatiled reception section.

Halloween has a more deatiled Sequels section.

I can't find anything else. Eoghan1234 (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the quick review. We certainly need to beef up Production and Reception a bit, but as far as the sequels go I think the Halloween article should probably be trimmed some. That page was written before Halloween (franchise) was rewritten to its current status - which covers most of what that covers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for interest sake, The Mummy is a featured article, and not nearly as detailed as this or the Halloween article. I suppose it's about figuring out the balance between quality and quantity.--EclipseSSD (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is true, but I think the comparison being made between Halloween and this is based on their standing in the culture (they are both influential horror films), while The Mummy is just some action movie. We need to acknowledge the possible lack of information available (it is a film that's almost 40 years old), but something is probably out there. I cannot find it in the references section (but I could have missed it), but was the audio commentary ever used from the DVDs? I have one of the special editions that was released that has an audio commentary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, those could be useful.--EclipseSSD (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well...school's coming to a close for me this week so I should be able to look at my audio commentary this weekend some time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I am pulling together a few items I found in my university databases... don't know if anyone's interested in a little more expansion... :P Will post below in a few. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

References

• The meat hook mama, the nice girl, and Butch Cassidy in drag at Jump Cut
• Greenspun, Roger (1977). "Carrie, and Sally and Leatherface Among the Film Buffs". Film Comment. 13 (1): pp. 14–18. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Pym, John (1976). "Texas Chain Saw Massacre, The". Monthly Film Bulletin. 43 (515): p. 258. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Robinson, David (1977). "Violence". Sight & Sound. 46 (2): pp. 74–77. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Wood, Robin (1978). "Return of the Repressed". Film Comment. 14 (4): 25–32. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Smith, Julian (1976). "Getting Stuck in America: Two Interrupted Journeys". Journal of Popular Film and Television. 5 (2): pp. 95–108. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

Bibliographies: 1, 2

Above are references that I found through the databases I can access. Some of the references mention the film as part of a larger context, which could be useful to reflect better on the film in retrospect. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Related discussion

Some implicit decisions about the primary topic for "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actual events?!?

The article currently claims

Presented truthfully as based on real happenings, the plot involves a group of friends on a road trip in rural Texas who are ambushed and murdered by a family of cannibals.

The most reasonable interpretation of the first clause (from a language POV) is: "The plot is presented as based on real happenings, and this presentation matches reality." I very strongly doubt that this is intentional; if it is, references are needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.130.148 (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for WikiProject Films

This review is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment/The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/Archive 1. The edit link for the section below can be used to add comments to the review.