Talk:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise):

  • Add more references
  • Expand overview
  • Add development section
  • Add suitable images
  • Copyedit

Rewrite on the Intoduction[edit]

Hello All I have Rewritten the intoduction to sound correct and hopefully meet Wikipedia's expectation. (Halgo123 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC).

I had to revert you changes. You added grammatical errors, weasel terms, peacock terms (which are not allowed), personal opinions (e.g., "famous and well loved", etc.), and removed relevant information (e.g., "in adjusted 2008 dollars").  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 16:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Relation between all the sequels[edit]

The intro's description of the sequels was confusing and contained at least two errors (there was no "2012" film, and there were not "three" direct sequels to the 1974 film). I've rewritten that part and moved it to a section (currently called #Continuity. However, I haven't seen all these films, so it would be great if someone could review my work. Thanks. Gronky (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I prosified it out of good will, although I doubted its necessity (and accuracy), but it has since been removed by another editor. I don't think it's really necessary as we have the "overview" section. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's the solution. You remove the word "direct", and change "2012" to "2013". That's the solution. The plot section already dictates which films are part of the "original" continuity, and which films became their own continuity. We don't need a section devoted to continuity.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so a separate section is redundant. I'll turn it back into prose and put it back into the intro then, given that the intro is supposed to summarise the rest of the article. (I've added nothing, I've just fixed some errors, made the text that was already there clearer).
All I want is a readable and accurate article. Gronky (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it's inaccurate regarding The Next Generation if you read the overview section. Again, I think it's unnecessary to go into too much detail in the lead, and as this topic isn't straightforward, it's best left for the overview section. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I've fixed the sentence about The Next Generation and I've shorted it slightly since the details are in the overview section. It takes up 3 lines on my screen and I think it's now an accurate summary of what a lot of people coming to this article will be looking for. If it's misleading and beyond repair, it should indeed be removed, but I think it's correct now. Gronky (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
There's too much repetition though. The first paragrah already mentions a lot of the sequels, prequels and remakes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. In fact, the first paragraph uses a lot of words just to give the details about Hooper and Henkel's different types of involvement in films 2, 5, and 6. Those details are in the article body, and the info in the intro doesn't "summarise" that info at all, so I've removed most of the repetition. Also, there was a sentence about the franchise's success in the first paragraph, and another in the second, so I put them together in a separate paragraph. Gronky (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no need to cover the continuity in the lead, or anywhere else but the plot section. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, not explain things that may be confusing. Given that the continuity of the franchise is not a source of controversy (as there is no reliable sources discussing it as an issue), it's not relevant to isolate it in the lead or its own section. You think the continuity of this franchise needs explaining, then good luck with Halloween. We need to be modeling this page after Friday the 13th (franchise).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The continuity paragraph in the intro was concise and accurate. That's exactly what summarising is. What's confusing about this text:
The first three films follow a continuous narrative. The Next Generation, written in 1994, is a direct sequel to the 1974 film, but also includes similar scenes, so some consider it rather a remake. The 2003 film is a remake of the original film, with The Beginning serving as its prequel. Texas Chainsaw 3D is a sequel to the original 1974 film.
? Telling the readers the plots of each film (as the Overview section does) isn't necessary in order to explain the relation between the films. I think this paragraph should be put back in the intro. Gronky (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I think putting it all in the lead is putting WP:UNDUE weight on the importance of the ordering of the films. And it's all discussed with more clarity and in better detail in the overview section. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I concur. The lead is just to say what the article is about and cover main points. Continuity is NOT a main point about this franchisee.. It's probably the smallest of points and is covered by the plot overviews.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I disagree. I'd say continuity is one of the most important aspects in a series of films, especially when a series has a very unusual and unintuitive flow of continuity, as is the case here. But I won't argue any further. I hope the consensus will be different in the future. Gronky (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It's no more convoluted than the Halloween continuity, but no one makes a big deal about it other than fans. There is no third party sources that discuss the continuity issues to a point that they are noteworthy. Because you think they are does not make them so. Even if they were, and we discussed them from that perspective in the article, the only mention they would get in the lead would be a small blip about how the film series has been criticized or noted for having an "unintuitive flow". This isn't news to the film world, as many film series suffer from this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre[edit]

There is a clear consensus to redirect The Texas Chainsaw Massacre to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and to add a hatnote to the later pointing to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise). Armbrust The Homunculus 15:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The set index article (formerly disambiguation page) is totally redundant to the franchise page. Since the 1974 original film is popular, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre should be redirected to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. The remake and the franchise are not that popular. George Ho (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment I agree that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre should be redirected to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, but a merge is unnecessary. I don't think The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre are sufficiently different from each other to be treated as separate titles. In that case, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre should be redirected to the primary topic, and the franchise article left where it is. Betty Logan (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Betty Logan, are you going to tag the page as WP:AFD? I can imply that it would be on grounds for deletion. George Ho (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that is necessary, since it's not really an article. If the consensus agrees that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre should point to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre all we have to do is turn it into a redirect and add a hatnote for the franchise article to the primary article, which keeps things very simple. If people decide to keep the disambiguation page (which I agree is redundant to the franchise article since all the ambiguous media is listed there) then it can just be moved to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (disambiguation). It's best to keep AfD out of it for the time being unless we need to push it through. Betty Logan (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
We have A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation) and Resident Evil (disambiguation) previously tagged as AFD. One was deleted and then undeleted; other was supported as "kept". I guess, close this now, rename the page, and then redirect the name to the 1974 film? George Ho (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
It might be best to determine if The Texas Chainsaw Massacre should point to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre before doing anything else, which would entail moving the disambiguation page to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (disambiguation). Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 16:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Boilerplate "compared to high grossing horror franchises"[edit]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Boilerplate "compared to high grossing horror franchises" jnestorius(talk) 11:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Addressing Things: The Expansion[edit]

Well since I was working on expanding the article on the character, I just thought I should do a little work on this article as well. This will only be a minor contribution considering all of the other articles I have committed myself to expanding. I always seem to take on more than I can handle and only later do I figure out that the articles I have committed myself to working on are a lot bigger in scope that I originally thought they were (sighs). But enough about my "issues" I did a little research as to the structure of franchise articles and I noticed that it includes the following structure: Films

  • Overview
  • Development
  • Music
  • Reception
  • Future

Television (If any) Literature

  • Novels
  • Comic Books
  • Online Stories (If any)

Documentaries (If any) Video Games Merchandise Impact

Since We already have Overview, Future, Comic Book, and Video Game information in the article; all we need is to do some copy edits from the different articles in the franchise for the Development, Music, Reception, Novels and Online stories (if any) Documentaries, Merchandise, and Impact sections/sub-sections. The Merchandise section will be a little difficult but we can do it. I can lend what little help I can on the development sub-section (copy edits, and rewrites). I can't wait to see the end result of this article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)