Talk:Psycho (1960 film)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

shower scene

"Often claimed" that the knife is never shown puncturing flesh? Is this in dispute? It seems trivially verifiable by viewing the film itself. Not R (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Psycho (1960 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Kept--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horror, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films, SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), Quaeler (talk · contribs), Mtchbrennr (talk · contribs), MeekSaffron (talk · contribs), JGKlein (talk · contribs), Skrooball (talk · contribs), Green451 (talk · contribs), Universalstonecutter (talk · contribs), The JPS (talk · contribs), GHcool (talk · contribs), Supernumerary (talk · contribs), Hondo11008 (talk · contribs)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I am reviewing this article for GA Sweeps. The article is at risk of losing its WP:GA class rating if the following issues are not addressed
  • In April, Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) added {{Plot}} to the article. Since then, the plot has been shortened by roughly 8%. I am not too concerned about this issue, but that section should be looked at closely so that we do not have tags hanging on our GAs forever.
  • The article has some one remaining deadlink.
  • Currently the dablinks checker is down, but when it comes back up the dab links should be addressed if any are flagged.
  • Many paragraphs and almost entire sections are without inline citations. Citations are a core element of the WP:WIAGA guidelines. The article will need an extensive citation effort to retain its status.
  • The article uses four fair use images. Although ordinarily four is considered excessive, I support the use of each for contextual reasons. However, the article needs to be brought into line with WP:CAPTION#Wording.
I will monitor the article's progress. I may add further suggestions. I will review the article article again after a week.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Just dropping by for now, but yeah, the plot section is definitely overpowering, at 1,795 words that's in excess of a thousand more than the Film Project's content guidelines recommend. I find it very hard to believe that the plot couldn't be summarised in about 600–700 words, enough only to give context to the rest of the article. Steve T • C 23:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Tony. I've got my hands dirty and cut down the plot by about 200 words by losing some of the detail. Another pair of eyes might help cut it down further. I've addressed one of the deadlinks.
I know this has been as issue at various stages in the article's development, but the lack of page numbers of the Janet Leigh reference concerns me. There appears to be roughly 60 refs to that source! I recall a previous reviewer suggesting that cites be combined. So, instead of having Leigh pg 1, Leigh pg. 2, Leigh pg. 3. -- we could have refname=leigh1-3, leigh4-6, etc. I think somewhere in the article history there will be the specific references.
The 'Awards and honors' is a little fragmented. The JPStalk to me 23:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to help the article retain its GA-class, you may have to go through the article history.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall authoring much of the content so I'm not sure if I have much more inclination than yourself. The JPStalk to me 09:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I notified all editors with 25 edits and you were among that group.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Wee...I got it down to 1082, but still way too long. I've never seen it so I can't do much more without knowing which scenes are actually crucial of those left. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I've seen it a few times; I'll have a stab at reducing it further tomorrow. Steve T • C 15:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Getting there! For the sake of about 10 words, are you tempted to reinstate the actors' first names? The JPStalk to me 22:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Go right ahead; I suppose it wouldn't hurt the word count overmuch, so no objections on that score ... I just wasn't sure why it was necessary, as the infobox has them, the lead lists the primaries, and the cast section those and everyone else. Steve T • C 23:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I've put them back. Actually, that 'cast' section is a little fragmented... I've also reinstated more specific references from an earlier version. The JPStalk to me 00:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I've reduced the synopsis to 756 words. I deleted the cast names again because, as noted, they already are listed in the infobox and the cast list. If I'm reading the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines correctly, they say including cast members in a plot synopsis is an alternative option but not mandatory. If someone vehemently disagrees with my removing the cast names and wants to return them, the synopsis still will be considerably shorter than it was, and nothing of major importance is missing. (It's amazing how much shorter a synopsis can become simply by removing a word commonly used by people even though it is unnecessary - "that," as in "He told her that he was not going to tolerate her tardiness anymore and that if she were late again she would be fired" instead of "He told her he was not going to tolerate her tardiness anymore and if she were late again she would be fired," which is gramatically correct and flows a lot more smoothly.) LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I have two concerns about the cast list. Three uncredited actors are listed as the voice of Mother. What is the source of this information? None is provided. Also, an uncredited Ted Knight is listed as the policeman guarding the cell in the final scene. The character is seen only fleetingly and has no dialogue that I can recall. Would be be included in the cast list if he had been played by Sidney Schlump rather than Ted Knight? Credited or not, I never include actors playing insignificant bit roles in the cast list, no matter how famous they became later in their careers. How do others feel about this? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm considering giving the whole section an overhaul. As it's such a minor role, Knight shouldn't be included in list form. However, if there is a source, there's no harm if he were mentioned in prose. The JPStalk to me 17:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Just for info, both McGilligan's biography of Hitchcock and also Rebello's excellent book on the making of the film confirm that 3 actors played the voice of "Mother". The former says (p594) "Paul Jasmin, an actor friend of Anthony Perkins, offered up his talent for doing an old-lady, Majorie Main kind of voice; when Mother spoke, sometimes it was Jasmin, sometimes lines that had been looped by actresses Virginia Gregg or Jenette Nolan (John McIntire's wife). Hitchcock spliced and melded the voices together, keeping moviegoers guessing...". Davepattern (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

←I see three remaining issues above. One image needs alt text, the captioning needs to be fixed and one section needs citations. A lot of work has gone into cleaning this up. I will check back after the weekend and if these minor issues are addressed the article will be kept.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Subversion of romance through irony

I ask Dekkappai based on his thought if he thinks the "Subversion of romance through irony" subsection could be shorter. I converted half of the chapter into notes and converted the notes into the subsection as it stands. If there will be other interpretations inevitably added to the "Intepretations" section, should the subsection still be trimmed for viewpoint balancing and/or content conciseness? Erik (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article on a film that has inspired so much writing and interpretation is going to have to touch just briefly on the main ideas, I think. And I do think a whole section on the "Romance/Irony" thing is too detailed for the film article. A stand-alone "Interpretations of Psycho" article wouldn't be out of the question, based on the amount of sourcing, and a whole section on "Romance/Irony" would fit there well... This weekend I'll try to put together a first-draft "Interpretations" section based on the five books I mentioned, plus the existing section. I have access to most of the book chapters listed, so I could work them in next week. (One problem with collaboration is duplication of effort, so can I request a "freeze" on work on that section till I get my first draft posted, say, Sunday?) Dekkappai (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I will work on "Production" in the meantime. "Interpretations" of a film like this will be tough, definitely. I created Interpretations of Fight Club for a similar reason and have my big subsections there. (Talk page there has even more references to be used, agh.) American Beauty has a solid "Interpretations" section. When it comes to films and interpretations, I think we are in somewhat unprecedented territory... the old Featured Articles on significant films Casablanca and Sunset Boulevard do not offer much help. Erik (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
My feeling is that, with a film that can support a separate "Interpretation" article, the "Interpretation" section should be fairly minimal in the main article. Anyway, I'll put together my take on the section, and you can do with it what you will... And now I notice the "Soundtrack" section is practically non-existant-- for a film with one of the most interesting scores in cinema, it just lists CD tracks... Ought to at least mention that it uses a string orchestra... the interesting minor-major 7th chords, the "slashing" violin "screams" taking the place of Marion's "silent scream"... anyway we'll see how "Interpretations" goes, and I'll keep "Soundtrack" in mind for later... Dekkappai (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I am considering being bold and creating Interpretations of Psycho. There will unquestionably be too much content for the main article. I would still like to use the opportunity to flesh out an interpretations sub-article now instead of being concise now and revisiting it later. What do you think? Erik (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Definitely agree. Problem is, with a film like this, every little aspect can probably support a stand-alone article. (see soundtrack below-- I'll have to cut that way down for this article...) I haven't started on the "Interpretations" yet, but what I intend is to cut it waaay down to a couple-three paragraphs just touching on main points. The fuller analysis, I think, should be in the separate article. I wonder about titles for stand-alone articles though: Wouldn't it be better to have the film's title first? Something like "Psycho: Interpretations"? Dekkappai (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean sub-articles of the interpretations sub-article? I think that "<sub-topic> in/of <film>" is the usual approach. There is precedent for naming it this way. We will still list the article at Psycho anyway. Have you done anything with the existing subsection yet? I'll move it, and we can figure out concise sentences for that section. Erik (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I haven't done anything with the interpretations yet. Maybe I'll just trim & polish up the soundtrack section and post it to the article, then go on to my Japanese stuff-- oh, and some real-life things to attend to. So, go ahead and start a full "Interpretations" sub-article, and I'll add what I can to that later today or tomorrow, and fill in more during the week. Then we can boil down the separate article to a summary section here in the main article... About titles, I was thinking more from the search-box perspective. Don't we do filmographies that way? "[Name] filmography". No big deal either way though. Dekkappai (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I merged the content back because I have not had time to sit down and contribute more interpretations at the sub-article. An editor took issue with the single reference there and proposed deletion. I just brought it back here for now, but feel free to trim it as necessary. Erik (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the complaints and the prod were s pretty silly... It would be a piece of cake to slap up four or five more interpretations on that article-- I've got books on the subject sitting right within arm's reach, and you've got the sourcing compiled. I got side-tracked onto the soundtrack section, and now I've bitten off a Japanese pink film project that is going to keep me busy for probably a month at least... Now, of course, the "Interpretation" section again is way to large and detailed for this article. A glance at the lead also reminds me-- I don't think mention of Ed Gein right at the front is necessary. This article is about the film, not the book or the incident that may have inspired it. If Gein is mentioned at all, it should be later within the body of the film-- inspirations, discussion of the film's relationship to the book, someplace like that... Dekkappai (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Soundtrack

I find a chapter on Herrmann's score for Psycho in A Heart at Fire's Center: The Life and Music of Bernard Herrmann (Steven C. Smith), so I call dibs on the Soundtrack section for this weekend too :-) Dekkappai (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I took time out from squabbling to work on the Soundtrack section. I've saved it here: User:Dekkappai/Temp2. Obviously, it grew beyond the bounds of this article, yet there is still much more that can be written on it... So there's another off-shoot article, probably. Dekkappai (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks great! I'm taking notes from Hitchcock's Films Revisited about Psycho. Still mulling over presentation of interpretations... Erik (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I just cut it down as much as I could and posted it. Still might be a bit too long-- you and the others can edit it down... I'm very dubious about the part in the article that says Hitch doubled Herrmann's salary for this score. Everything I read says he tried to get Herrmann to reduce his salary, and then attempted to cheat him a bit after the work was done-- resulting in some animosity on Herrmann's part. Dekkappai (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Re my last bit of blather at the Film Project page, what do you think about removing the CD / track section, and starting a separate Psycho soundtrack article containing this version and the CD section currently in the main film article? My point is that ideally the "Soundtrack" section of a film article should be about the actual soundtrack, not album releases. I've read two chapters specifically on the soundtrack, and only one of them even mentions an album, and that's just a passing reference about the performance, which Herrmann conducted (in 1975). Psycho soundtrack, after the more detailed discussion of Herrmann's work, could potentially go into the history of recordings of the piece, which could obviously be quite lengthy. Dekkappai (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Motifs section: removed Ford Falcon and added British "bird"

Marion Crane begins her journey in a 1956 Ford and trades it in for a 1957 Ford. 1960 was the first model year for the Falcon, so the first Falcons went on sale just a month or two before Hitchcock and Janet Leigh started shooting Psycho on 30 November 1959. And the examples of the bird motif listed on page 92 of Janet Leigh's book include "bird" as British slang for a young woman, but nothing about the Ford Falcon.Ftfrk61 (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed "Differences" section

Three out of seven of the differences given between the novel and film did indeed give a real-world motivation for the change. (Hitchcock wanting to make Norman much younger- wanting to focus the audience on Marion Crane, and the uncinematic nature of the conversations with "Mother".) The other four were more peripheral, and except for the last one added by a different writer (how Marion is stabbed) all were listed in chronological order. Do these three need citations if put back? Are we to strictly limit ourselves to differences for which we know the filmmaker's motivation? The novel and the film are so close there really aren't that many differences. I don't think the full version would be in much danger of expanding.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I see now that the "Writing" section already covers a few of these differences. Perhaps further stuff should just be there. But honestly, while there are a tad fewer differences listed, some of the stuff there also seems "indiscriminate" (re comment deleting differences section). Changing the location of Arbogast's death from the foyer to the stairwell strikes me as a somewhat random detail, though yes it makes the killing more interesting on screen. But the difference in the "Writing" section about Marion's earring vs. scrap of paper seems especially trivial, far more so than anything in the removed "Differences" section. --WickerGuy (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I take back that last comment. There's a good reason for the paper scrap which has now been added to this section. I've put back in a bit of the stuff from the deleted "Differences" section, mostly in a new paragraph about how Norman is portrayed, except the bit about opening the film with Marion instead of Norman seemed to warrant being featured more prominently in the paragraph above. Real-world explanations have been added for stuff that was already there (paper scrap in toilet), and for the new material on Norman. The exception is I don't really have a real-world explanation for the film dropping Norman's fascination with spritualism and the occult, but it seems fairly significant. Hope this avoids the duplication of material created by the "Differences" section and maintains real-world explanations.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. There are original research issues here. Firstly the importance (or notability) of any differences is measured by the provision of references. Otherwise it is verging into original reserach territory: us mere Wikipedia editors cannot decide that something is relevant. Secondly, I've had to remove the sentence about the occult, which was too analytical without a reference. There is another problematic sentence, which I've left in for now but marked as worrying. This is, "Stefano's initial sense that an aspect of Norman that made him unsympathetic was his drinking [Rebello ref] may account for why Norman's transitions to "Mother" no longer take place when he is in a drunken stupor." Does Rebello actually say the second half of this sentence, or is it interpretation? Could you please remove the part of this sentence that can not be attributed. Thanks. The JPStalk to me 08:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah. I was entirely unaware that WP policy used number of references in secondary sources as a criterion for WP:NOTABILITY!! The second half is interpretation as well. It is true that Norman's changes are sober in the film and in a stupor in the novel, but the idea that screenwriter Stefano's hostility to Norman's alcoholism accounts for this is indeed interpretation, though I said "may".--WickerGuy (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I basically thought that in discussing differences between novel and film, the imperative was to supply "real-world" context. I had that for the omission of conversations with "mother" and the drinking-issue, but as you say it was interpretation (albeit in the first case IMO bordering on self-evident). It seems personally to me to be extremely notable that Bates' interest in spiritualism has been axed from the film, but perhaps others do not think so.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Query
I can find plenty of sources that think the omission of Norman Bates' interest in the occult is notable. But so far I don't have any that provide a real-world context for it, i.e. the motivations of Stefano & Hitchcock. Does one need both notability and a real-world context? Or is just one sufficient? Just asking. Will go with editorial consensus. There's already stuff on this in the article Norman Bates. Perhaps that is good enough.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
For the time being, I would say if we have reliable sources (books, journals, etc. -- not bloggers) it can go in. Future peer reviewers (when it's reassessed for GA status, or if this ever gets good enough for a serious FAC) might insist that some phrases are removed, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Oh, can you confirm that the page number of the Truffaut ref you added corresponds with the other one in the article? (ISBN 0-671-60429-5, ref number 56)? The JPStalk to me 15:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's definitely the correct page number in Truffaut!! I kinda sorta guessed if the bloggers were a source on themselves it was acceptable (see WP:SELFPUB - of course this is mostly on articles about the self-published source which this is certainly not). Apparently, quite a few fans of Lovecraftian horror fiction seems to notice that Bates' occult interests are missing, but the rest of the world doesn't seem to care much.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
If the bloggers were to go back at all (a very big 'if'), it would have to be decoupled from the other reference. Instead of the original
"Tangentially mentioned by interviewer of Stefano [1] and noted by a few online bloggers who write about horror fiction [2] [3][4] but generally given less attention than the film's omission of Bates' alcoholism and pornography."
try
"Tangentially mentioned by interviewer of Stefano [5]. This is generally given less attention than the film's omission of Bates' alcoholism and pornography, but had been noted by a few online bloggers who write about slasher and supernatural horror fiction [6] [7][8]"
In this rephrasing, the bloggers are now indeed sources on themselves per WP:SELFPUB, but since WP primarily allows this when the article is itself about the self-published source, maybe still not good enough. Any thoughts?--WickerGuy (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Robert Bloch himself started out as a writer of Lovecraftian horror fiction, contributing stories of his own to the Lovecraftian mythos. That would make it IMO somewhat natural for him to give Norman Bates an interest in the occult, which is IMO why fans of that genre note its absence from the film.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

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)
  • Not sure Much rests on whether or not the 1960 film can be considered a "primary topic". According to WP guidelines

    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.

    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)
  • 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[9], compared to 18,500 for Psycho (1998 film)[10] and 900 for Psycho (2008 film)[11], 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)

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. [[12]]VallejoHistory (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psycho_(1960_film)/Archive_2&oldid=1221167933"