Talk:Psycho (1960 film)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Psycho (1960 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2 |
Psycho (1960 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
To-do list for Psycho (1960 film):
|
References to use in this article. (see also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources) |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 16, 2010, June 16, 2012, and June 16, 2018. |
Requested move 1
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no move. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Psycho (film) → Psycho (1960 film) — The film was at Psycho (1960 film) when it was moved to a more ambiguous title without explanation. There are two other films on Wikipedia: Psycho (1998 film) and Psycho (2008 film). Per the naming conventions for films, films of the same title should be disambiguated from each other by release year. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Alas I believe I must agree with the move request. Although the 1960 film is the principal film and a fricken classic, disambiguation by year seems most appropriate (as is the standard for films).--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure where we stand on this, bearing in mind the recent move request at Talk:Double Take (film) and earlier requests at Talk:Independence Day (film). The 1960 film is clearly the most notable of the three. There was also some discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, but I'm not sure what conclusions (if any) were drawn from it. PC78 (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- If this film and the other films are using disambiguated terms at all, then they are clearly not the primary topic. The page psycho is just a disambiguation page, so there is no primary topic among all topics titled "Psycho" in some regard. This is a secondary level where all existing topics use some kind of disambiguation; we cannot be applying the primary-topic argument here. It basically involves the claim that the disambiguation term is magically part of the title (no such thing as "Psycho (film)" outside WIkipedia) where the argument is re-applied. Doing so pushes for a multi-level hierarchy where the simple setup is to have a primary topic where possible and to disambiguate all secondary topics afterward. With no primary topic here, all topics should especially be disambiguated from each other. "Psycho (film)" is inherently ambiguous because it could refer to any of these three films. If the 1960 film is the primary topic, it would be at Psycho. Erik (talk | contribs) 06:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's not that I disagree with your assessment Erik, but past discussions have shown that this is not an opinion held by everyone. Still, I support this move per your arguments, and to reverse a recent move that was done without discussion and contrary to a previous concensus here (see archive 1). PC78 (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, although I would support a move to Psycho as it seems to be the primary topic. Psycho (film) is sufficient for this film, while the others can be differentiated by date. Powers T 23:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- You again! [shakes tiny fist] As usual, "Psycho (film)" is not the primary topic. The term "Psycho" is, and any article with a disambiguated title cannot be the primary topic. It already missed the boat on that. The term "Psycho (film)" is non-existent outside Wikipedia; we work with the key term with the disambiguation terms trimmed off. Someone looking for this film or any other topic titled "Psycho" will type in the key term and encounter their options. In the high-level sense of managing titles, release-year disambiguation specifies each film topic. It is a clearer organization of topics which are already disambiguated in the first place, where keeping "Psycho (film)" is detrimental in its incomplete disambiguation. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- This article most certainly could be the primary topic for the undisambiguated name. And for the disambiguated name, I never said anything about "primary topic". I feel, however, that the undated disambiguator is sufficient for this subject; everyone knows which film is being referenced. Powers T 03:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- You again! [shakes tiny fist] As usual, "Psycho (film)" is not the primary topic. The term "Psycho" is, and any article with a disambiguated title cannot be the primary topic. It already missed the boat on that. The term "Psycho (film)" is non-existent outside Wikipedia; we work with the key term with the disambiguation terms trimmed off. Someone looking for this film or any other topic titled "Psycho" will type in the key term and encounter their options. In the high-level sense of managing titles, release-year disambiguation specifies each film topic. It is a clearer organization of topics which are already disambiguated in the first place, where keeping "Psycho (film)" is detrimental in its incomplete disambiguation. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure Much rests on whether or not the 1960 film can be considered a "primary topic". According to WP guidelines
So far specific artists but NO actual works of art have been tagged as "vital articles" so no help there, but isn't it likely that WP users are far more likely to be looking up the 1960 film than either of the other two films, even if they have to type in "Psycho (film)" instead of just "Psycho". Also the film is much more famous than the novel, strengthening the case for it being a primary topic. But I remain somewhat undecided.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box
......
An exception may be appropriate if only one of the ambiguous topics is a vital article. In such a case, consensus may determine that the vital article should be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users. - Oppose. Anyone searching for or linking to "Psycho (film)" is very likely expecting this film, which is, as another editor pointed out, "a fricken classic". They are less likely to know the precise year it was made before reading the article. This film got 69,000 pageviews last month[1], compared to 18,500 for Psycho (1998 film)[2] and 900 for Psycho (2008 film)[3], so is primary usage for the term "Psycho (film)". A hatnote can direct the minority to the other films. There is no benefit to moving this to a unnecessarily precise title. In fact, if anything, this should probably be moved to Psycho and the dab page moved to Psycho (disambiguation), since this appears to be the primary topic for "Psycho", not just among films. Station1 (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Maintaining "Psycho (film)" means it fails to be precise as needed when we have two other film articles that are already disambiguated in clear-cut manners. "Psycho (film)" as a title, where there are three films whose titles had to be disambiguated could lay claim to it, is still ambiguous, and disambiguating by release year (which is the widespread norm) identifies the topics uniquely. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is exactly where the WP-concept of "primary usage" comes into play. I agree with your premise that the title "Psycho (film)" by itself is not precise enough when you have two other films. I also agree that one way to handle that ambiguity is to add the year of release to the title, and that this is the preferred method if all three films were approximately equally sought. However, another valid way to handle the ambiguity is by a hatnote from one film to the other two, and I believe this is the preferred method when one is clearly the article most people would be looking for, as is the case here. I've never seen a conflict between the two guidelines. Station1 (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Proposal A rather novel solution (that might need further discussion due to its novelty) is to disambiguate by saying "Psycho (classic film)" or "Psycho (original film)". The former might be objectionable as POV and the latter as failing to disambiguate the recent foreign film which is unrelated to the other two.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've always thought year of release was a poor way to disambiguate, just as birth years are not recommended for people. Genre, director, star, "silent", "TV" are all better qualifiers in many cases. Psycho (Hitchcock film) would be better than Psycho (1960 film) imo, if anything were needed. Station1 (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Plot
Is anyone actually working on the to do list, because the current plot summary is growing out of control it's getting close to being double it to triple it's stated goal. 67.8.72.12 (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have restored the plot section to what had consensus during the last GA review. 67.8.72.12 (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
yes.88.231.172.107 (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree.88.232.139.85 (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I recently completely revamped the plot sum and ever-so-slightly shrunk it. I both dropped some material and added new material. The old plot sum I felt was over focused on sensational or suspense-inducing elements of the film and didn't quite convey the overall story arc.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Inaccuracies Regarding Cars
This article and its accompanying photos are largely in error regarding cars:
1. Marion Crane never drove a Thunderbird in the film. We first see her in a 1956 Ford Mainline sedan. Later in the film she trades in this car for a used 1957 Ford Custom 300 sedan
2. Neither of the photos in the article show Marion's 1957 Ford at the still-standing set of the Bates Motel on the Universal lot. Other trim levels, models or model years are pictured.
For now, I just removed the old copy "Marion's first car was a Thunderbird." from the Motifs section. Apesbrain (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
A couple of points on the Plot section
- "Her divorced boyfriend Sam".....??
- "After calculating how she can repay the money she has spent, Marion flushes her notes down the toilet and begins to shower." - I assume "notes" doesn't mean money but means notepad paper. This is misleading.--Coin945 (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Notes" only refers to paper money in England and other Brit Empire countries. In the USA paper money is "bills". A Brit may have a 5 pound note. An American would have a 5 dollar bill. The editor was probably unaware of the British usage of "note". In my personal experience, Americans are generally less aware of Brit usage, than vice-versa.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean "only"? British English is half the English speaking world! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 14:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
China?
"It broke box-office records in Japan, China and the rest of Asia, France, Britain, South America, the United States and Canada, and was a moderate success in Australia for a brief period."
I highly doubt that PSYCHO was screened in theaters in the People's Republic of China in 1960, or anytime after that. Most, if not all, American films were banned in China during, and after, Mao Zedong's rule. Only revolutionary propaganda films were permitted in China during this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.228.221 (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a stupid generalisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Newly discovered 1964 tape from the BBC archives
Requested move 2
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Psycho (film) → Psycho (1960 film) – This topic suffers from ambiguity because we have no established primary topic (instead, a disambiguation page at psycho) and more than one film titled Psycho. We add disambiguation terms for clear-cut organization of a set of non-primary topics. Such terms do not exist outside Wikipedia, so trying to establish a hierarchy within the terms is not useful to readers. In this case, it is useless to hijack the system of organizing and simplify the article title just because this is the more well-known film. This is a bad isolated example that needs to be fixed because it is being cited to move Titanic (1997 film) to Titanic (film) as seen at the discussion here, and the overwhelming consensus in opposition of that move also applies here. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support per WP:NCF. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support per WP:NCF. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support The 1998 Psycho is as much of a film as the 1960 Psycho, so it's silly for this one to get a title that suggests it is the only film with the name. --Lobo (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support the 2010 move request was faulty, as a Bold move was done, and the WP:BRD "R" part was not done, and a discussion was opened without reversion. WP:NCF ambiguous disambiguation should not be used. If this isn't the primary topic of psycho, then it should be unambiguously disambiguated. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support per natural intent of WP:DISAMBIGUATION, though wording of WP:DISAMBIGUATION is currently ambiguous. Per also utility, removing 1960 from brackets helps no one. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I have withdrawn request on Titanic (1997 film). --George Ho (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support per WP:NCF. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is the primary film for the title Psycho. Srnec (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it's the most famous film, but WP has no concept of "primary film"? Per WP:NCF, a film titled Psycho gets the Wikipedia title Psycho (if it's the primary topic for the title) or Psycho (film) (if it's not the primary topic for the base name but is the only such film) or Psycho (1960 film) (if it's not the primary topic for the base name and it's not the only film with the title). The last case applies here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose primary topic. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment it is not the primary topic of psycho, and we are not determining the primary topic of psycho. If you wish to move this article to Psycho then I think you'd need a new move request. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support per WP:NCF. - Gothicfilm (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support per WP:NCF. When the article isn't the primary topic for the WP:COMMONNAME title (which is Psycho in this particular case), the supporting project reserves the right to select an appropriate disambiguation term. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based arguments don't make any sense to me, because there are virtually a limitless number of titles that the article is the primary topic for. To take the specific case of this article, it is the primary topic for such titles as Psycho (film), Psycho (Hitchcock), Psycho (1960 film) and Psycho (1960 Hitchcock film) to pick a few. If the article was the primary topic for Psycho COMMONNAME would compel us to select that, but since it isn't we turn to WP:PRECISION to disambiguate it, which states titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. The PRECISION criterion rules out Psycho (1960 Hitchcock film) because it has more precision than is required; it also rules out Psycho (film) which lack sufficient precision to unambiguously define the topic scope. That leaves both Psycho (Hitchcock) and Psycho (1960 film) as possible titles that are consistent with PRIMARYTOPIC and PRECISION. The Film Project naming guidelines specify a preference for Psycho (1960 film); their guidelines are consistent with Wikipedia's main titling guidelines, so I'm not seeing a good reason to discount their specification in favor of an ambiguous title. Betty Logan (talk) 07:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support per WP:NCF—SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Who is Chambers?
Who is Chambers? The Deputy Sheriff? From the context it would seem so, but he's not explicitly identified at this one and only use of his name in the Plot section. In the Cast section there is "Sheriff Al Chambers"; why not "Deputy Sheriff Al Chambers" if that's who it is?HowardJWilk (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
A problem with the "Leigh," (with page numbers after them) references
Throughout the references are ones which simply say "Leigh," with page numbers after them. That's fine, as long as the very first occurance of it lists the full publication information.
In this article's references, as of this writing (8 Nov 2013), the first occurance of the "Leigh," style reference, with page numbers after it, is the fifth reference...
^ Leigh, pp. 156, 187–188, 163
...which, because it's the first reference to that work, should completely spell-out said work. However, instead, it tells us nothing about to what "Leigh," refers. The only other way that doing it precisely that way could possibly work would be if the very first occurance of it in the references were the footnote to the spelling-out of the publication in the article, itself, as in something like...
According to the 1994 book "Leigh" by So-and-So, published by YaddaYadda (ISBN: xxxxxx), the success of Psycho jump-started Perkins' career, but he soon began to suffer from typecasting.
...and then the bracketed, super-scripted "[5]" at the end of that sentence, which then, in turn, hooks to the fifth reference, showing the pages on which that bit of information appears. Don't get me wrong, that's still the wrong way to do it, but it would at least put the full name of the publication, and some way of identifying it out in the universe, at least somewhere in the piece, tied to the first occurance of "Leigh," with page numbers after it. But it doesn't even do that! That first occurance -- that fifth, as of this writing, reference -- is simply to the sentence in the article, "[t]he success of Psycho jump-started Perkins' career, but he soon began to suffer from typecasting," with no reference to any actual publication... either in the body of the article, or down in the 5th reference.
How did this happen? Did someone delete the first occurance of that reference, containing all the publication data, not realizing that it would orphan the rest of them, or something?
To what, precisely, is each occurance of "Leigh," with page numbers after it, referring? There is a proper format for doing this, but it has somehow been lost in this article. How do we get this fixed?
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Cultural impact
I'm removing the reference to Korean boy band HISTORY's music video "Psycho" (viewable here) as there is no real connection to Hitchcock's film beyond the title. It includes a few black and white scenes that attempt to be creepy but any reference to Hitchcock is vague at best. The News Hound 02:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Corrections to Introduction and Promotion Sections
The second sentence in the second paragraph of the introduction is awkward and implies that North by Northwest was filmed on a low budget, with a television crew, etc. A better sentence would be, "Filmed on a low budget with a television crew and in black and white, Psycho was seen as a departure from Hitchcock's previous film North by Northwest." Please consider changing.
Also, the Promotion section uses the wrong word in the last sentence of the second paragraph: "...that viewers just had and go see..." - should be "...that viewers just had to go and see..." I made this minor edit. Mdarrenbailey (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Genre lead
So this film is swapped around through genres. So far in the lead now it says "psychological thriller-slasher-horror film" which is a mouthful. Since this is a really popular film, what should we have in the lead? Should we have a section discussing it's perceived genres? Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- User:SCentanni had been edit warring this and other film descriptions since the start of the month and has now been blocked for it, so I've reverted to the original "psychological thriller-horror film". Although the lede goes onto say that Psycho is "widely considered to be the earliest example of the slasher film genre", that doesn't necessarily make it one of the main genres of the film. --McGeddon (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
plagiarism of Shostakovich music by Bernard Herrmann
Herrmann's title theme and the shower scene theme are both taken from classical pieces by Dmitri Shostakovich. I mentioned the specific pieces, and they have been edited out of the article. Now I will not put them back in. Instead I challenge editors to seek out this information for themselves, write it in the article, and footnote it. Of course, that won't happen. But for a brief moment the truth of the matter was clearly stated. This sort of musical plagiarism is unfortunately quite common to cinema, both new and old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.125.126 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Psycho (1960 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/mar/29/psycho-body-double-marli-renfro
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060628034544/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19961215/ANSWERMAN/612150303/1023 to http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19961215/ANSWERMAN/612150303/1023
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100409193048/http://www.hitchcockwiki.com:80/blog/?p=274 to http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/blog/?p=274
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141127113702/http://www.soundtrack-express.com/osts/psycho.htm to http://www.soundtrack-express.com/osts/psycho.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101109140520/http://cinepad.com:80/plumbing4.htm to http://cinepad.com/plumbing4.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Psycho (1960 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120809035229/http://news.yahoo.com/next-e-bates-motel-norman-bates-teenage-years-233151678.html to http://news.yahoo.com/next-e-bates-motel-norman-bates-teenage-years-233151678.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Janet Leigh on whether a knife penetrates the flesh in the shower scene
I found a book source which has an interview with Janet Leigh:
- Cousins, Mark. Scene by Scene: Film Actors and Directors Discuss Their Work. Laurence King Publishing, 2002. ISBN 1856692876, 9781856692878. p. 66. "JL: Yeah, see... people swear that they saw the knife go into the body and they saw blood spurt out, but they never did. What Mr Hitchock did was each time the knife appeared to slice forward to the music, he cut to a quick shot of a scream or a leg and the next thing you saw was the knife coming back out."
Is this helpful? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
More notes from the page:
- On the same page, Janet Leigh mentions that the fact that Marion dies is "so shocking" to people, and that several "were sure you were going to come back."
- "She knows she's made the right choice and it's washing, not just her face and hair, it's washing her soul..."
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Genre-redux
This is a revisit on this discussion above. While very abbreviated, it is the only discussion of this film's genre (I also checked the archived discussions). Before an edit war develops, I've left the current phrasing, even though it is not what was concluded in the earlier discussion, as it has been in place for quite a while. As per WP:FILMLEAD, let any change to the current genre be backed up with links to sourcing which show that any different/additional genres should be added. To start it off simply clicking on the links in the external links section: imdb lists it as: Horror, Mystery, Thriller; TCM has it as Horror, Thriller; Allmovie has it as a thriller; Rotten Tomatoes has it as Horror, Mystery & Suspense; Box Office Mojo has it as Horror, Thriller. The opening paragraph of the AFC Filmsite review calls it psychological thriller, horror, suspense – it also talks about it ushering in the slasher genre, but does not actually call it a slasher film. The CNN reference (#151) calls it a slasher film. AFI lists it as Horror. I suggest we limit the discussion to genres. After we get more input we can do a tally per WEIGHT. Onel5969 TT me 22:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
"Inconsistent" in section about shooting the shower scene
The statement that the shower scene lasts three minutes and includes 50 cuts is tagged as "inconsistent". What other part of the article is it inconsistent with? AndrewOne (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Psycho (1960 film). 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/20071205221154/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2674_130/ai_76550723 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2674_130/ai_76550723
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406211411/https://www.audiophilia.com/features/da69.htm to http://www.audiophilia.com/features/da69.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20041004/ai_n12103901
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F19961215%2FANSWERMAN%2F612150303%2F1023
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140226160802/http://www.varesesarabande.com/servlet/the-605/Psycho/Detail to http://www.varesesarabande.com/servlet/the-605/Psycho/Detail
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812180624/http://blurayaustralia.com/2010/11/australian-blu-ray-releases-wc-monday-november-29-2010.html to http://blurayaustralia.com/2010/11/australian-blu-ray-releases-wc-monday-november-29-2010.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: 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) 19:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Psycho (1960 film). 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/20081216053115/http://beta.premiere.com/List/The-25-Most-Shocking-Moments-in-Movie-History/4.-Psycho to http://beta.premiere.com/List/The-25-Most-Shocking-Moments-in-Movie-History/4.-Psycho
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) 10:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Psycho (1960 film). 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/20110723010336/http://www.soundtrack-express.com/osts/psycho.htm to http://www.soundtrack-express.com/osts/psycho.htm
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) 16:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Psycho (1960 film). 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/20070314060958/http://www.usc.edu/dept/pubrel/trojan_family/winter00/FilmScoring/Music_pg1.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/pubrel/trojan_family/winter00/FilmScoring/Music_pg1.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: 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) 22:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
DSM Dx in 'Psycho' and other movies
Hallo!: the character 'Norman Bates' played by Anthony Perkins in 'Psycho', 1960, is not a psychopath, but a seriously ill schizophrenic; even if schyzophrenics do not commit more violent crimes than 'sane' population, establishing a fake bond between some mental disorders and crime is bad for everybody. The character by Jack Nicholson in 'The Shining', 1980, is another severely hallucinating schyzophrenic, while in 'Someone flew over the Cuckoo's nest', 1975, J Nicholson plays a psychopath, as it's reckless taking a lot of mentally ill persons to a boat day trip, even if open air is good, without taking the appropriate safety measures, and having no medical permit. A look at the corresponding pages of Diagnostic and Statistics Manual (DSM) for mental disorders, setting diagnostic criteria for major ailments (begun after R Spitzer's RDC), will clarify the situation. It's important being extremely cautious when using medical terms, you can destroy other persons health, well being or reputation, or have a false image of what's going on, this can hurt you and many. Regards. Salut +
Not "horror"
We should stop right here and right now with that godawful fad where some stupid uneducated kids have started about last week to call just about any thriller "horror" for no apparent reason, all the way down to films like A Clockwork Orange, Taxi Driver, 8mm, or A Serbian Film. Horror is defined as one of the three classical genres of speculative fiction where the laws of physics are bent and broken: Science fiction, fantasy, and horror, in the latter two by clearly supernatural means. Psycho has always been officially known as a psychological thriller. The emotion of shock or fear that thrillers may evoke in viewers is not the same thing as the clearly supernatural genre of horror. The line may become blurry with certain psychological thrillers where due to insanity or drugs one or several characters may *PERCEIVE* supernatural activities where there are none, but that doesn't change the definition of the horror genre either, it may only lead to the fact that a film is ambigious as to its actual genre at outmost. --46.93.158.170 (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Leigh, pp. 67–70 reference
Ref name "leigh6770" includes "Leigh, pp. 67–70", but this does not state which book is being referenced.
Janet Leigh#Writing: "Leigh also authored four books.":
- There Really Was a Hollywood (1984)
- Psycho: Behind the Scenes of the Classic Thriller (1995)
- House of Destiny (1996)
- *The Dream Factory (2002)
It's likely the second one, but per WP:V, a better source is needed, along with Template:Cite book. AldezD (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why are you looking at her personal bio page? The actual article here only references one of those books ("Psycho: Behind the Scenes of the Classic Thriller"). Further, it references that book throughout the whole article, and yet you are only putting a tag on one instance? The "Leigh [page number]" reference is used almost 100 times. Why are you singling out this one?
- Regardless, I went and added the book to the first citation reference to make it clearer, which you could have done rather than edit warring. If you want to add a citation template, then feel free. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- All of them need to be fixed using Template:Cite book. That is the issue. The references as they stand do not meet WP:V, and fail WP:BURDEN. AldezD (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Citation templates are not required (WP:CT: "
The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged.
"). Personally, I think it would be great if you went through and added them, as I find them preferable. However, in what way do those references not meet the verifiability policies? It is a published book used almost 100 times in the article, and every reference has an inline citation with a page number. Get the book from a local library and check out the page numbers if you have a question about the content. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Citation templates are not required (WP:CT: "
- All of them need to be fixed using Template:Cite book. That is the issue. The references as they stand do not meet WP:V, and fail WP:BURDEN. AldezD (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
shower scene
hi. was it anthony perkins, or some other actor, who appeared as bates' mother in the shower scene? the height looks wrong to me; whoever that is looks much shorter than perkins. i thought that that would be in the article. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- It was another actor (actually actress) but I can't find a source for the name at the moment. (She's not indicated on IMDB.) - kosboot (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Is this really essential to plot?
This sentence appears in Plot section:
After lunch, Marion returns to work, where a client leaves a $40,000 (equivalent to $351,000 in 2019) cash payment on a property. [emphasis mine]
Is it really necessary to tell readers the current value of $40,000 due to inflation? This article is about a work of fiction, not an actual event.
WP:FILMPLOT guidelines advise editors not to put year film takes place in Plot summaries because it's irrelevant (aside from, say, historical dramas set during World War II). In the same spirit, do readers really need to know what $40,000 in 1960 dollars is worth today? It's still a big chunk of change that (partly) explains a character's motivation for stealing it (the other being her handsome, olive-skinned boyfriend). Thoughts, anyone? Kinkyturnip (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- I say it's not essential. But as far as date, in interviews Hitchcock explained that he purposely put in the date at the beginning of the film to bring viewers more quickly into the film. So the date itself is not important to the narrative, but it's there for cinematic reasons. - kosboot (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I do not see why it is relevant to say how much the check was worth in 2019 dollars.
It doesn't have any effect on the movie, it was never stated in the movie, and it requires constant updating to this page to stay relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epmtunes (talk • contribs) 01:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Critical legacy
In 2022 Variety published its first list ever of the 100 Greatest Films of All Time. Psycho was voted number 1. Maybe that should be mentioned somewhere. Francinedodd33 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is mentioned. DonIago (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Will add mention of strychnine as method of killing Norma Bates, boyfriend
The article page currently does not list strychnine as the means of killing Norma Bates and her boyfriend. The means of death was discussed in the film as "ugly," and also may have spurred copycat poisonings in the real world. I would not mention the copycat killings in the article page, but it would be valuable to have strychnine specified. VallejoHistory (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Media and drama good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- GA-Class film articles
- GA-Class British cinema articles
- British cinema task force articles
- Core film articles supported by the British cinema task force
- GA-Class core film articles
- WikiProject Film core articles
- GA-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- Core film articles supported by the American cinema task force
- WikiProject Film articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Top-importance American cinema articles
- American cinema articles with to-do lists
- GA-Class Arizona articles
- Low-importance Arizona articles
- WikiProject Arizona articles
- Arizona articles with to-do lists
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- WikiProject California articles
- GA-Class Library of Congress articles
- Low-importance Library of Congress articles
- WikiProject Library of Congress articles
- GA-Class horror articles
- Top-importance horror articles
- WikiProject Horror articles
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists
- Selected anniversaries (June 2010)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2012)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2018)