Talk:The Bride (1985 film)

Not a horror at all.
From what I understand, The Bride (film) did not grab audiences as expected because the movie isn't a true horror movie. It was advertised as being in the horror genre, but is actually a movie about the heart. If you watch it with this idea in mind, I think you would really be satisfied with this movie. --xsarahberries
 * I don't think it's horror either - fits more into the fantasy genre. I'm not sure what criteria they were using to put films in the Horror WikiProject.  Aguerriero  ( ţ ) ( ć ) ( ë ) 18:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of review information
I don't agree with the statement about the film being "schlock" being removed. It is POV yes, but not mine; this was a (quite generous) summary of the film's critical reception, which is definitely appropriate for a film article. See WP:FILM, the Reception heading. The film was widely regarded as a piece of worthless garbage, and I was trying to make that point, citing two sources, without going overboard. To the editor to removed it, can you please justify and address my points? Aguerriero ( talk ) 13:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to addressing criticism in the proper way. Please see WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL.  I would actually welcome *more* on the criticism, if done properly.  When mentioning criticism say *who* specifically made the criticism.  State opinion as opinion, not fact.  State what responses to the criticism were made to give balance. If you wish to shown an overall conclusion/summary of criticism from many critics (too many to name all), find somebody who made that summary/conclusion, and cite the source (stating the summarizer's identify in the body of the article).  The word "schlock" should almost always appear inside quotation marks, so nobody thinks it's Wikipedia's opinion.  A valid example is:  "'Film critic John Smith said 'This film was typical 80's horror schlock[1]'" with a an appropriate footnote and references section.  Just to be clear: I'm not opposed to mentioning criticism, nor do I wish to minimize criticism, or pretend there wasn praise, if there wasn't.       --Rob 15:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool, that makes sense. I will work on gathering several sources and representing the criticism in a more neutral way.  It has been a challenge to find something good said about this film!  Cheers,  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 16:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thebrideposter.jpg
Image:Thebrideposter.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Monster's Name
Actually, the original monster DID have a name. It was Adam, after the first man. Because of this, and that Dr. Frankenstein had effectively created a "son", "Frankenstein" could refer to the mosnter himself, as well as the Doctor: "Adam Frankenstein". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MysticOrbot (talk • contribs) 23:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)