Talk:Rosemary's Baby (film)

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Horror C‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Film: Core / American C‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is on the project's core list.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Initial comments

July 1, 2006

Sorry -- I screwed up; I didn't realize the film had already been created.

I have taken some of my entries and added them to the original (and hopefully soon to be only existing) version.

Sorry, again!!

Rosemary's Baby 01:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Roseb6.jpg

Image:Roseb6.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

I replaced a section labeled "Casting" with "Production Notes." Although statements in the original "Casting" section were referenced, few of them were substantiated by Polanski, Evans, and Sylbert in their extensive commentary on the DVD, so I removed them, since these three would know better than anyone what transpired during pre-production. (At least one of the statements I removed - "Polanski originally wanted Robert Redford to play Guy, but Redford was filming Downhill Racer (1969) at the time" - definitely is incorrect. Evans used the Downhill Racer script to lure Polanski to the project, so it couldn't have been in production.) I also added a cast list, critical reception, and awards and nominations. MovieMadness (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes Question

Rosemary's Baby came out in 1968. Rotten Tomatoes came out in 1998. Is it really fair to use such a web site to judge the critical reception of this, or any, old movie? Can somebody tell me what the policy is on this? 141.155.24.37 (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes would simply have got a bunch of critics who presumably watched the movie when it came out to rate it. Even if they did ask a group of much younger 'professionals' to review it, it won't make any horrendous difference. You don't need to be someone with a PhD theisis or an individual who grew up before a movie's particular release date to give a logical and straightforward opinion on it. You were probably not around when Casablanca came out, but does that mean that your opinion on the film, having watched it all these years later, is less valid than your grandpa/great grandpa's? No. Blooded Edge (T•C•A) 18:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should discuss the critical reception at the time of the film's release, and how present day critics see the film. Rotten Tomatoes is only useful to gauge the latter. See MOS:FILM#Critical_response and WP:ROTTEN. Eljayess (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy?

It was quite a controversial film when it came out, especially the final Satan-worship scene. There isn't even the word "controversy" used on the page. Should we include this? The Person Who Is Strange 21:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits for clarity

The article suggested that Dr. Saperstein induces labor which is incorrect, Rosemary just happens to go into labor when they return to the apartment. He does give her an injection but this is a sedative.

The article also stated that the coven "hypnotizes" Rosemary at the end of the film, this isn't true either. They do urge her to be a mother to her baby but there is no hypnotism involved. 207.67.97.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Article mentioned that Hutch dies after only a few days, yet Rosemary, in her confessions to Dr. Hill, states that Hutch died three months after his coma.mndcmpn 22:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjkelton (talk • contribs)

Commercial / Cigarette Advertising In Film

This film uses blatant advertising. The worst is a cigarette advertisement where the husband comes home and places 8 packages of cigarettes on the table (so that the audience can see the labels, of course). But also, for its advertisement of Vidal Sasoon at the time. Isn't it nice that most of the cigarette executives from the company that advertised are now dead?

Both of these "advertisements" are directly from the novel - it's doubtful that any "blatent advertising" was involved. --12.190.158.6 (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary

The plot summary is very well written. It definitely matches the plot of the movie.

"Marcato"

Was Marcato the second name of the Castevets also in the novel or was the name Marcato used for the first time in the film? There's possibly a connection between "marcato" and "staccato", whereby the latter happens to be the name of the eponymous TV detective played by John Cassavetes. A small hommage? Worth looking into. -The Gnome (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

"Polanski … was unaware that he was allowed to make changes from the source material". I find this very hard to believe. IMDB trivia is an extremely unreliable source; they'll add most things people submit without checking them. Can anyone confirm this from a better source?—Chowbok ☠ 23:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Removed after 2.5 months without a comment/reply to the above request. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odd

I've always found it very odd that certain names or sounds keep cropping up:

Roman Castevet / Roman Polanski / Rosemary / Farrow
Castevet / Cassevetes.

Has any commentary been made of these "coincidences"? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're all witches. 24.17.19.29 (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Award

The article states that "Ruth Gordon won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, which made the film the only horror movie to receive an Oscar for a lead or supporting role until Misery in 1990." This is not true. Frederick March won Best Actor for Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde in the 1932 Awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.60.9 (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS the quoted source is also incorrect. Should this sentence be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.60.9 (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have cut the sentence down to ""Ruth Gordon won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.60.9 (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"See also"

Why is Anton Szandor Lavey mentioned in the "See also"? It is like putting "See Also baby " just because the movie is about a pregnancy. If it is interesting that Anton made a joke about being a consultant for this film then that fact should be included in the article text. A better link for the See Also might be to Satanism . Cryptarch (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]