Talk:The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/Archive 1

Removed text
I've just removed a lot of text that was the same as that on this page. If anyone really does have the rights to it, let us know... -- Oliver P. 06:23 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

TTCM III Reception
Regarding this statement:

The third film, Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990), is often considered the best entry in the series, despite changing several aspects of the original film and sequel.

Really? It has 4.5 user voting in IMdB and 23% in Rotten Tomatoes. Is it said ironically? If so, it's not apparent.--Juanmejgom 23:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll answer myself. I went to the Wikipedia entry for TTCM III and found out that it's only the DVD version that's considered fine. I have modified the sentence in the main article, otherwise it's misleading. My, how does editing affect movies!--Juanmejgom 00:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The Article
Someone has moved and removed bits and peices from around this article. As i dont know what it should look like i can't be sure of it being properly restored. Could someone who had a hand in making it in the first place please look over it. LordFenix 03:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hockey Mask
I'd like to know where the hockey mask depiction of the chainsaw murderer came from. Because as far as I can see, it must have been from this film, yet Leatherface doesn't wear a hockey mask.
 * Why do you assume it comes from this film? As far as I'm aware, the first hockey-masked killer in movies was Jason Voorhees, who first donned the mask in Friday the 13th Part 3. Pearce.duncan 02:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And even with that sorted with Jason has never used a chainsaw in any of the films (His imposter Roy was attacked with one though). The look probably comes from a pop culture mix of the two film series. Jamesbuc

true story?
The film's opening title suggests that it's fact-based, much like the titles at the beginning of Fargo (movie) and Last House on the Left. Can it be verified that this opening title is as bogus as on the other movies?

It's Phony
Yes, it's phony. Check out Snopes.com http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/chainsaw.asp

However though, whats that footage of 2 cops walking through the basement in the 2003 version and "leatherface" comes out and attacks them?

are you an idiot.....seriously..........they made that for the film to make it scarier, have you ever seen it before the movie?

Page move
The correct title of the original film spells "Chain Saw" (two words). The sequels are spelt "Chainsaw" (one word). The JPS 13:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strangely, the image doesn't reflect that. It would be great if it did.  Imdb has one http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/49/18/70/10f.jpg

Gunnar Hansen researching at an institution?
Does anybody have any citation for the bit in the trivia section stating that Gunnar Hansen did research for the role of Leatherface by visiting a mental institution? It's a pretty remarkable factoid if it's true. (I've added a citation needed tag to the sentence in the article.) MrBook 19:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

DVD Bonus Commentary says he visited a institution for the retarded. Sorry for blunt statement - is there a way to say that PC? Ratagonia 03:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How about mentally handicapped? Ash Loomis (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Screen Caps?
Maybe this article should have some pictures from the film??? I mean it's a long article for one film, and it needs some screen caps, anyone want to donate some, to make the article better? Jackp 07:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite the plot
someone seriously needs to consider re-writting the plot, I mean half of the sentences are tiny, the structure of them is hideous, I don't mean to criticise anyone (as JPD seems to think), I just think you need to how to write something before you go ahead and do it! Jackp 11:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you atempt to make what you see as improvements rather than criticising others' work in quasi-abusive terms? The JPS talk to me  11:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

JPD, will you just get off my back....you always seem to have something to say every time I edit something. Why don't you just back off a little bit!! Jackp 06:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the above is a total of two, actually. Hardly 'everytime'. I'm merely advising you as it seems you need some coaching due to the conflicts on other articles during your short time here. BTW, it isn't a good idea to change your original message if someone was replied to it (other than typos).   The JPS talk to me  13:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC) (P.S. It's JPS)

Did Jerry live? When Leatherface hits him, he falls to the floor, then Leatherface puts the girl back in the freezer. But when he turns around again, Jerry's gone. Then, when the main girl escapes in the truck, it looks like Jerry's driveing. I've gotten into debates with my friends over this a lot, and we still can't decide rather he gets killed or not. I personally think he lived.

Chainsaw/Chain Saw
Article says "Chain Saw"...poster says "Chainsaw"...clarification, please?
 * The article itself has clarification. Many posters and even now DVD covers go for the compound. The official title for the first, 1974 film is two words. The JPS talk to me  20:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

film's rating
Tobe Hooper intended to make the movie for a "G" rating, (in 1973/1974 there was only G, R, and X ratings on films) by keeping violence moderate and language mild...

I removed the statements from the article regarding the films rating due to factual inaccuracies. In 1973/74 the ratings available where G, PG, R, and X, thus the above statement is inaccurate when it claims that G was the only lower rating before R. Also, I highly doubt Tobe Hooper expected his film to receive a G rating though maybe a PG rating. Regardless, any statement about what rating he thought his film would get should be sourced. --Cab88 19:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

He intended to get a PG rating, according to the trivia section on IMDb.

Relationships
Just a couple of questions regarding the relationships of various characters...
 * wasn't it Franklin's father rather than his grandfather that owned the rundown house that they visited first? I could be misremembering but I'm sure he said "father".
 * it says in the plot write-up that the old man is the hitchhiker's and chainsaw-wielder's father, but I'm sure I've read elsewhere that they're brothers. Anybody?

Chris 19:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, having watched the interviews on the DVD, Tobe Hooper confirms that the gas-station attendant, Leatherface and the hitchhiker are brothers and that "grandpa" is actually their father, so I'll change the text to reflect this.


 * Can't remember if he mentioned Franklin & Sally's relative, though. &mdash; Chris ( blather  •  contribs ) [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom (3-5).svg|20px]] 18:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Poster
Why was the original poster image replaced in the infobox? AdamSmithee 08:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Because, there is really no need for two of the same images in the one article (I’m talking about the 2006 Ultimate edition). Please stop re-adding the DVD cover in the info box, as it should stay under “DVD release”, since that is the topic of the image. The original poster for any film belongs in the infobox, leave it there. The DVD cover fits perfectly under "DVD release", why don't you try and figure out why! Jfp-24 11:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia reorganisation
Any particular reason for the changes to the trivia section? I thought it was okay the way it was, and think it's more difficult to follow in its current form, and I don't understand why the following paragraphs have been deleted:


 * Edwin Neal (who played the hitch-hiker) said of the dinner scene, "Filming that scene was the worst time of my life... and I had been in Vietnam, with people trying to kill me, so I guess that shows how bad it was." He also said that he might kill director Tobe Hooper if he ever saw him again.


 * A Cue Card is showing in the background with the name "Edwin" sketched on it during the Grandpa feeding scene.

The new text has also introduced quite a lot of spelling and typographical errors which it would've been helpful to have fixed prior to submission. I've sorted some of them out but there's still more cleaning up that needs to be done.

-- Chris  ( blather  •  contribs )  13:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Postscript: Thanks to Merbabu for sorting it out by backing out the changes and identifying the actual author. After looking at Jackp's talk page, all becomes clear.
 * -- Chris  ( blather  •  contribs ) [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom (3-5).svg|20px]] 14:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, why do people do this? Look, the trivia had absolutely no reason to be shortened. Yes, it was long, but it was interesting and informative. Wikipedia gets worse every day. It's gotten ridiculously strict and stickling, and the new members need to learn how to use proper grammar and spelling. I'm restoring the trivia section back to how it was, and nobody has any reason to change it, so LEAVE IT ALONE UNLESS YOU ARE ADDING TO IT. It isn't well written how it's been edited.--WatchHawk 02:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You might want to read WP:AVTRIV, WP:V and WP:RS.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And you might want ro remember that we are an encyclopedia. People use encyclopedias for information. Wikipedia is renowned for having so much information and trivia that people can't find at other places. "WP:AVTRIV" goes too far; it says to avoid trivia, the info that most interests people. There is not any reason for that trivia not to be there in the article. Wikipedia has gotten ridiculously strict and unreasonable.--WatchHawk 21:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it has. I wish, for example, that the fair use laws were less lax and we could have modern fair use pictures of celebrities rather than blurry crap thats outdated. But that doesn't mean I go against protocol, I just grin and bear it. Same with trivia.--CyberGhostface 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Wikipedia is actually renowned for not be very reliable. First thing you need to do is find verifiable, reliable information. If you can't, then it goes. Copying IMDb is not reliable, sorry. Second, you need to read the article. We have a production section. If something is not there that is in the trivia section, then add it ... ONLY when you have a reliable source to back it up. It says trivia should be avoided, an any relevant information should be merged to specific sections that discuss that topic.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ed Gein
In the "Connection to actual events" portion of the wikipedia article concerning The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, the article states:

"The film, like the films Psycho, Deranged and The Silence of the Lambs, was loosely inspired by Ed Gein. Gein did wear human skin, but he acted alone and did not use a chainsaw. Although the film's opening would have one believe that the events are factual, it is merely a scare tactic, called the false document technique, to frighten the audience. Libraries in Burkburnett, Texas and nearby Wichita Falls regularly receive requests for copies of newspaper articles related to the false actual events. [5]"

However, in the commentary on the The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Special Edition) DVD released on October 14, 2003, by the studio Geneon, Tobe Hooper said that he actually hadn't found out about Ed Gein until several years after the film was released; that people simply assumed it was loosely inspired by Ed Gein. I don't have an exact quote, because I do not currently have the movie at my disposal, but I think it deserves some discussion, and probably a correction. Thoughts?

69.215.235.245 03:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just watching it now. No, he says it is based on Ed Gein, but that he did not remember the NAME until a few years later. Ratagonia 03:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Tobe also made reference to wanting to create a whole family of Ed Geins.--CyberGhostface 04:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rv unsourced statement
Hello everybody! I've just reverted (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Texas_Chain_Saw_Massacre&diff=109809238&oldid=109621099) a quite old unsourced statement about the film having been banned in Romania. The problem with this statement is that at the time was under a communist regime with a strong censorship, which wouldn't allow showing quite a few foreign movies (except, of course, movies made in Eastern European countries). So in a way, yes, this film was banned, but maybe not explicitly, and if we put this label on a movie, we also might want to put it on almost every American and Western European movie made between 1945 & 1989).

Then I took a look at this guy's contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.96.99.124 : 6 of them were immediately reverted as vandalistic nonsense, another unsourced statement about a supposedly based film in NZ: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banned_films&diff=prev&oldid=23657616 generated soon questions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banned_films&diff=next&oldid=23758904 and denial: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banned_films&diff=next&oldid=25116607 and was eventually reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banned_films&diff=prev&oldid=78012278 so this left this last statement... that weighed a lot to this user's credibility... Moreover, this person came from NZ, so I doubt they were familiar with Romanian issues... --Vlad|-> 14:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Summer School
There's a scene in the movie Summer School that shows the class watching the Texas Chain Saw Massacre in class. This should go in the trivia section, but there isn;t a place for it. - Im.a.lumberjack 23:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant?? I mean, you'd figure that a movie as iconic as Texas Chain Saw is bound to get tons of shout outs and references and whatnot. We don't need to record them all.--CyberGhostface 01:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Response in Sweden
The entire section about the Swedish response is very unclear. Can anybody clarify that paragraph? I don't understand at all what happened. -Etoile 01:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Copy editing
I tried to clarify the text and fixed as much spelling and grammar as I could find. A few sentences didn't make any sense to me: "In addition, several comic books based on the franchise in 1991 by Northstar Comics entitled Leatherface, they where licenced the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise to Avatar Press for use in new comic book stories, the first of which was published in 2005." Seems like a random jumble of words. Also: "Bickering siblings Sally and wheelchair-bound Franklin visit their grandfathers in a cemetary in rural Texas with their companions Jerry, Kirk and Pam upon the news that the graveyard had been vanadalised and corpses had been constructed into figures." I haven't actually seen the film, but the visual I get from this sentence is that corpses were removed from the ground and then somehow combined Transformers-style into giant "figures". Trolleytimes 06:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

They aren't inbreeds!
We have no proof that any of the Sawyer family are inbreeds This is simply fan speculation we have no profe if somone can show me REAL proof that say Grandma and Grandpa were siblings or cousins who had sex and leatherface's mom of dad was the result I will remove this from the artical till I get proof of it User: Lord ciron 2.0

Fair use rationale for Image:TexasHitchhiker.gif
Image:TexasHitchhiker.gif 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 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 03:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ratings information
This information is both useful and standard, and belongs in the article. Cleduc 04:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indiscriminate information. See any featured article. See the Manual of Style for film articles. Ratings systems are different in every country. You cannot be biased to the US, and you'd have to explain why every other primarily english speaking country decided that this film needed this rating in their country. It's more than just "Rating ____ for extreme violence...." You would have to explain what they actually had a problem with. A list, which should always be avoided unless the page is "List of", doesn't do that. It's simply reciting letters that no one has any idea what they mean. Also, I just checked out your "standard" practice with every FA film article. Out of all the articles that have reached FA status, which is more than dozen, probably closer to two dozen, there were only 4 films that had a similar list. I've brought up the problem on their pages as well. Bignole 11:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bignole. Wikipedia is not a film guide. The ratings on their own are very reductive. Important elements should be written properly in prose in context. The JPS talk to me  22:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing Citations
References #19 and 23 are missing. Bignole 21:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Skin

 * Gein did wear human skin, but he acted alone and did not use a chainsaw.

Is there any reason why the human skin part is mentioned? The plot summary doesn't say anything about any of the characters wearing human skin from a quick read-through and a search Nil Einne 09:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see they (movie characters) were evidentally cannibals altho this is not explained in the plot summary either Nil Einne 10:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You've never heard why they call him Leatherface??--CyberGhostface 13:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Texaschainsawmassacre1.jpg
Image:Texaschainsawmassacre1.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 (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Leatherfacenumber1.jpg
Image:Leatherfacenumber1.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 ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Subheadings
Ah, that looks very fragmented now. We tend to avoid using very short sections like that. Consider merging some of them... The JPS talk to me  13:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply (Re: Subheadings)
JPS, I understand and respect your point, and I debated about whether that would be the case. But some editing was needed, as much of the information was too jumbled together with not enough delineation. I do think it's an improvement in general, but I can see how it's a bit fragmented.

Perhaps some of those subheadings could be coherently re-grouped to streamline it. On the other hand, if there's more new information out there to be added to the new subheadings, perhaps they could be expanded (or made into headings?)and it would appear less fragmented. Maybe by giving the article some time, we can see how it shapes up and evolves (I guess that's what inevitably happen anyway, right?)

The benefit of a somewhat more outline-type format is that information in the text is much more readily accessible to the reader, and can also be more intuitively placed in proper context within the larger framework of the article. Is there a way to create "minor subheadings" of some sort that aren't as bold as regular subheadings?

By the way, I'm very open to feedback and constructive criticism, as I am new here, and still learning how best to edit Wikipedia. Thanks, and best wishes.

Ed Monk777 (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yes, the smaller sections make it more manageable and may be temporally useful to get the article up to scratch. Eventually, though, sections of a single short paragraph are not preferable to the prose that we prefer in an encyclopedia. The JPS talk to me  13:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC candidacy
This article has been been withdrawn as a featured article candidacy at the nominator's request. Please leave the FAC template in place as it needed by the FAC bot to close the process properly. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 19:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)