The first time a chainsaw appears as a weapon ought to be The Last House On The Left (1972, by Wes Craven, Steve Miner and Sean S. Cunningham), when TTCM was made 2 years after. I think Hooper took the idea from Craven, but I wonder anyone knows if other directors (e.g. Herschell Gordon Lewis) had it before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.59.154.43 (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually Hooper got the idea when he was surrounded by holiday crowds in a department store. This is discussed in the article. BrianFG (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment/The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. The edit link for the section below can be used to add comments to the review.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed PC78 (
talk)
19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Nominator: TaerkastUA (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I am renominating this article for A-Class review because it failed the first time due to lack of comment. I believe the article meets the requirements because has undergone major changes since June 2008, and continues to improve. Although it has 3 failed FA nominations, I believe that, due to the extensive changes made, the article now meets the requirements for A-Class, and may eventually become Featured. --TaerkastUA (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by Andrzejbanas
In the lead, "...story, characters, and graphic content,[8] But it became a strong...". the "But" shouldn't be capitalized."Slasher-film" should be changed to "Slasher film" just for consistency with the article.In the production section where the film explains other films influenced by Gein, seems to stray from the topic of The Texas chain Saw Massacre's production. I'm not sure if this section's appropriate.
*In the third paragraph in Development, discussion turns to "Midway through the editing process". This seems to flow better structurally, but I'm not sure if it's under the appropriate heading.
*"The company folded in 1976". Perhaps stating the company's name is better here. In this paragraph, a lot of names are being tossed around and it's a bit hard to figure which is correct.
*"The blood depicted was sometimes real.[35]" Perhaps information about this should be moved closer to the information about the stage blood and the person cutting their finger. Even though it's stated, this is kind of a vague statement that does not really suggest much. Was the "real blood" just the blood from the finger? Or was it more? I'd remove this actually. This also goes for "The crew covered the walls of the house with splats of dried blood to give the house an authentic look." So is this the real blood or the fake blood? The sentence suggests it's real but I'm just double-checking.
* "Until 1976, when the contract with Bryanston expired, the film was double-billed with "another film they'd [Bryanston] bought for twenty bucks." so who said this? when? More information would be appreciated.
*That temperature information in the filming section seems to need a cite. Is it part of the same cite as the camera information? I'd toss in a few more cites there.
*"The film was banned or delayed in many countries, and where it was released, it was frequently re-edited." This sentence only follows up with the information about the UK and Australian releases. Is there any other information about other countries as well? Otherwise, it should only describe Australia and the United Kingdom as that's the only countries that are discussed.
*"It was selected for the 1975 Cannes Film Festival Directors' Fortnight, though the viewing was delayed due to a bomb scare,[55] and it won the Grand Prize at the Avoriaz Film Festival in 1976." Perhaps these sentences should be separated in two. Maybe a sliver more information about what and where the Avoriaz Film Festival is held? To my knowledge it's a fantastique film festival in France. That could be expanded a pinch.
- MOS:FILM#Critics suggests that for older films reviews should be organized to show the initial reception and then to show more modern reception. It's hard to tell for an average reader what review was based on the film's original release and what is the later reception. This whole section could use a re-balancing.
* If that Variety citation's original date is to be believed, then Variety somehow managed to watch the film before it was released. I'd remove that, several reviews on Variety's website state incorrect dates claiming several reviews to be written on New Year's Day.
- I wouldn't trust the Ebert one as well which also states the January 1 date.
* "In a 2005 poll conducted by Total Film, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre topped the list as the greatest horror film of all time, beating John Carpenter's Halloween and William Friedkin's The Exorcist (1973)." Does it really matter that it beat those two others? That seems rather insignifigant as it also beat out 48 other films as well.
*That rotten tomatoes cite should say "film" instead of movie. It doesn't really explain what rotten tomatoes is to a non-average reviewer and I'd either incorporate this cite earlier or remove it entirely.
*"The film was again banned in the United Kingdom in 1984, during the moral panic surrounding video nasties". This needs a citation, the citation it is followed by lacks any information about video nasties.
* "and, due to the controversy surrounding the film" that cite says nothing about why it was released in the UK at that date.
* Citation 82 seems to need to be updated.
* Citation 89 could use a page number.
- I added the url instead.--TaerkastUA (Talk) 12:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
* "Comedian Patton Oswalt refers to the title as "The Greatest Movie Title Ever", because it perfectly describes the movie.". I like Oswalt but he doesn't have much relation with the film or the genre so I don't think his statement is very important.
- Several inconsistencies with style happen throughout the article. Often we have the magazine stating something while other times we have Authors of articles (with no magazine or publication stated) describing the situation. Try to keep it more clear like with this opening phrase in "Scott Von Doviak of Hick Flicks said..."
* That Total Film poll does not need to be brought up twice. Constantly using it to state that it's "generally considered" one of the greatest horror films of all time might be a jump too. Just because Total Film does, doesn't mean other critics do as well.
* Citation 100 and 104 do not seem to state what they are citing. In fact if citation 100 calls the Texas chainsaw massacre game and action game while the article calls it an horror game.
- The game is a horror-based action game, not purely a horror game. The article states that.--TaerkastUA (Talk) 12:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
* What makes Icons of Fright a valid source?
* Citation 108 seems to be citing a messageboard which I don't believe is a good source. Could you explain how this is a valid source?
- Although it is a messageboard, the actual website does have news related to comics. Also, the press release does seem genuine.--TaerkastUA (Talk) 12:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the comic book database is a good source as like imdb, it seems to be user generated rather then expert information.
* "In the movie, R. A. Mihailoff starred as Leatherface." is this really important? Also, it's uncited and say "film" rather then movie.
* " The film was a semi-remake of the original, although it was originally intended to be a complete remake of the first film.". This needs a citation. The review in the guide suggests it was, but doesn't explain it further.
- I'm not sure if reviews in the "Sequels" section should critique those films on their own merit. Quotations should be used to see what relation they have to the original film and how critics felt it compared.
*The ALT tag in the infobox could go into more detail about the poster. Check out Spider-man 3 for example. Half this poster is large text so that could be noted as that information can not be read by the blind with any tools.
- Done.--TaerkastUA (Talk) 10:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
*per WP:LEADCITE, we don't need those extra citations in the intro paragraph. Several of those statements match up with information that is already cited in the article below.
*per Wikipedia:Words to avoid, we see a lot of however's in this article suggesting one alternative is better or worse over another. These should be re-phrased to have the article in a Neutral point of view.
- Removed and rephrased some of the howevers. --TaerkastUA (Talk) 10:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
*per Wikipedia:MOS#Brackets_and_parentheses we should not have sentences that follow up with phrases like "(It was overtaken by John Carpenter's Halloween (1978), which grossed $47 million at the box office upon release.[54])". It doesn't need to be in brackets.
Okay I'm a bit exhausted! That's all for now. After these things are addressed I will continue the review. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I've started taking care of some of the problems. I know there is more to be sorted out, which I'll take care of later. Unfortunately, with me being the only main editor, this article will most likely never see A-class status, much less FA. I've requested help, but I do seem to be the only one consistantly editing. I've also put in a request for copyediting. --TaerkastUA (Talk) 18:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think I've taken care of most of the problems. I'm not sure about the Ebert and Variety references, I don't know when critics see the films. For citation 111, although it's a messageboard, it shows a press release, but you could be right about it. I will probably remove the Icons of Fright source when I get round to it. Thanks, --TaerkastUA (Talk) 17:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep up the good work! After a good majority of the items are crossed out, I'll look over it again to see if there's anything else I missed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If anyone's interested in helping this article on its way to FA status before October 1, which is the 35th Anniversary of the release of the film, it would be appreciated. There seems to be less help around these days, and after 3 failed FA nominations, I'd really like to make this one count. The article has greatly improved since the last one, but it might need one more big push to make it FA standard. --TaerkastUA (Talk) 11:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Do you think it can be done in time? The FAC process takes some time, and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests seems to show some steps that also take up time. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Probably not, because I seem to be the only one who consistantly edits, but by the end of the year would be nice. --TaerkastUA (Talk) 14:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- I do, however, think it's A-class quality. --TaerkastUA (Talk) 14:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- I recommend requesting other editors to copy-edit the article. Laser brain (talk · contribs) and GrahamColm (talk · contribs) were very helpful in Fight Club's FAC; maybe ask them if they could take a look and make suggestions about improving the flow of the article. Another point I'd like to make: File:Tope Hooper TCM.JPG does not hold up to WP:NFCC. If the type of camera is trying to be shown, File:EclairNPR.jpg is a better and freely licensed choice. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- The image is just a general shot of filming, with the info about the camera. However, I do understand if it must go, it will go. Copyediting may just be useful for this article. Again, I seem to be the only one who's consistantly editing, and I've already asked WP:HORROR to remove the article as Collaboration of the Month, as the project seems to have died down again, and it seems to have been pointless to select this article as CoTM from the very beginning.--TaerkastUA (Talk) 10:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think it is best to remove the image, and I think FAC reviewers will say the same. It would be nice to have such images if they were free, but since they are not, they have to be more closely criticized because we're building a free encyclopedia. Unfortunately, it does look like WP:HORROR has fallen by the wayside, despite Hornoir's efforts to resurrect it. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Image has been removed, and I cleaned up the filming structure since it's removal. --TaerkastUA (Talk) 19:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
There seems to have been a bit of back-and-forth over (a) whether Franklin's wheelchair use is relevant and (b) if it is relevant, what the best way to describe it is.
If the wheelchair is relevant to the plot, then the article should explain why.
If there is intent in the text (i.e. the script, characterisation, etc) for the viewer to see Franklin as being "bound" by the wheelchair rather than simply as "using" it, then this should also be expanded on, preferably with a citation of scholarly discussion elsewhere. Kake Pugh (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, you're right. It's not really relevant to the plot, Franklin's just a guy in a wheelchair which has no real relevance at all. So it's probably best if it's left out. --TaerkastUA (Talk) 14:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Many people I've known seem to think this was a true story, and they all have their own version of what "really" happened. I've seen this belief referenced to in reviews, interviews, online, and in real life many times. This film was inspired by Ed Gein, so the story has some small basis in reality. However, it is still exaggerated to the point of becoming just a myth. Do you think this could qualify it for inclusion in the urban legends category if I can find a solid online source? Ash Loomis (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is already discussed in detail at the later body of the article, with enough sources to back it up. I'm not too sure about the Snopes.com source, though. --TaerkastUA (Talk) 19:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
