This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This article was copy editedbyChaosdruid, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 5 July 2011.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
Previous copyedits:
/
This article was copy edited by SMasters on 8 April 2010.
This article was copy edited by Momoricks on 15 December 2008.
This article was copy edited by David Rush on 30 June 2010.
Alright, so I'm thinking of giving the article another go at FAC soon. And some of the FACs seem to be highlighting a few problems.
Prose (Requesting GoCE assistance now)
Reference vetting
The last one for me, I cannot do too well, and also, because I don't think it's that much of an issue, I believe most of the sources cite what they're claiming to cite. If anybody else wants to highlight any issues feel free.--Tærkast (Discuss) 11:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem going through sources, but I don't have access to any of the non-website sources. I think that over time a lot of the information has been subtle tweaked by IPs to a point that it wasn't clear that it was vandalism, or just inaccurate so it was never corrected. BIGNOLE (Contact me)13:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is anything major with the sources. Some of these problems may have been oversights on the part of me actually, but I don't think IPs have had much if anything to do with it, this article doesn't really get that much edits outside of an FAC.--Tærkast (Discuss) 14:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the discussion of the last FAC process. DCGeist opposed because he was concerned that information in the article did not match the citations. Was there a review of the citations? I'm curious how many of the print sources were retrieved and vetted. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was probably minimal review at best. What would be the best course of action to take now? For the prose I've scheduled a GoCE request, for the refs, somebody better than me will need to take a look.--Tærkast (Discuss) 19:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I might if I go to my central library. Apart from that no, I gathered all of them using Google Scholar and Google Book searches.--Tærkast (Discuss) 11:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the information was pulled from the preview options in Google Books? I'll check what I can through Google Scholar, but if you got it from Google Scholar you can still provide an external link to the application that holds the PDF. BIGNOLE (Contact me)12:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can do all external sources ourselves. Books need to be done by the people that used them, and all scholarly reports can be done by people that have access to a university online library. BIGNOLE (Contact me)18:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say prose. I think "narrated by" indicates that you're generally doing it throughout the film, whereas he was merely reading a written message at the start of the film. BIGNOLE (Contact me)23:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm determined to make it an FA this year before I possibly retire from Wikipedia. So, in June, I'll try to do this, dunno what else needs to be done, possible source vetting if any, apart from that, the prose seems good, so anybody is free to suggest any other things which could be done. --Tærkast (Discuss) 21:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In themes and analysis, it only says that three men are killed in quick succession. This should be changed to four because, at the end of the movie, the hitchhiker is run down by a semi-truck quickly. Thank you.
75.220.112.92 (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the recent citation date style and publisher changes were necessary. They make the citations inconsistent and listing the websites instead of the publishers makes it seem untidy in my view. The status quo worked.--Tærkast (Discuss) 21:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There has never been a problem with the way the citations were for four years. If this is to get another shot at FA, I hope things will be consistent. If others feel the new way is better, then make it consistent. --Tærkast (Discuss) 13:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the date styling, it needs to both be consistent and reflect the country of origin. We do not say "Day Month Year" in the united stated. So, it needs to be returned to the correct style. I'm not sure what the issue is with the websites/publishers. Could you point an example out to me? BIGNOLE (Contact me)14:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An example would be changing "publisher=British Board of Film Classification" to "work=BBFC.co.uk". I don't really feel it's necessary, since there was nothing inherently wrong with using the actual publisher instead of the sites themseleves. I went back to the originals, but I have a feeling it might get changed again. I don't want this to become a huge issue. --Tærkast (Discuss) 14:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with changing it back. I don't know of a reason to do that, maybe the editor has a reason. I know it was not a concern at the last (or any) FA review. BIGNOLE (Contact me)14:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
General consensus will decide which citation style to keep. I will point out the difference between the 'work' and 'publisher' parameters though, even if you some of you already know: 'work' is for the name of the website itself, and 'publisher' is for the group or company who handles or "publishes" the website. I'm quite certain there were several references which had the name of the website in the 'publisher' parameter where they weren't supposed to be, so my changes were just a fairly quick way of dealing with what I saw to be a lack of reliability in the sources. These URL cores can be changed to the website title; e.g. the text displayed in the banner of the website. Publishers can be added, but only if they are the actual publishers behind the website.
Please also do it manually; I made quite a few other changes which took a fair while which were just reverted. I will try to help once we've reached a consensus. As for changing the date formats, I apologise; so it's Wikipedia policy to go mdy on American-subject articles? I was unsure, and used to adding dmy to other articles. Once it's confirmed I will change them back. Lachlan Foley (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For dates, we generally follow the country of origin for the topic. We can use that date template (that we use in the infobox) as it converts based on where you are. As for the publishers, if there is a valid reason then I'm ok with that. I'm not sure what content edits you did because nothing is actually showing. I see paragraphs shifts but because the entire paragraph is shifted it blocks seeing individual content changes. I'm sure that Taerkast did not realize that there were content changes, because it did not look like there was...even to me. BIGNOLE (Contact me)20:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I had not realised it actually, so I probably should have been more thorough. Regarding the publisher issue, I agree, the reason seems valid. So let's shelve differences and work together, because I want one last attempt at FA in the near future :) I'm not sure I would have another attempt in me after that.--Tærkast (Discuss) 21:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the plot section, the article links to wrong person. This part "Leatherface and the hitchhiker bring an old man, "Grandpa" (John Dugan), from upstairs to share the meal." It redirects to John C. Dugan not the actual actor John Dugan who played the role of Grandpa. There is no wiki page for the actor John Dugan so one should be made or the redirection to wrong Dugan removed.
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 Texas Chain Saw Massacre → The Texas Chainsaw Massacre – I don't know why the proposed title of the old original 1974 film cannot be used. Many non-primary sources use it. Both titles are accurate and unambiguous, but "chainsaw" is easier and more convenient to type than "chain saw". The film's credits, an official source, can't be the ONLY reliable source. Books use "chainsaw", and so do articles. George Ho (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - even a Google search for "Texas Chain Saw Massacre" brings up mostly hits for "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and an image search showing titles on film posters and covers returns a vast majority in favor of the single word. bd2412T20:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all the other films in the franchise use "Chainsaw" as one word, and even the film poster for this article uses it that way. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It isn't just the film's credits, its the registered name of the film. If you read the source next to the name, it takes you to the copyright office that shows that film's name IS "Chain Saw". The fact that people join the word is neither here nor there. People change titles for simplicities sake all the time when writing about a film or book, or whatever. That doesn't change the name of the subject. "Chainsaw" already redirects to that page. So, if someone types The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, they still get The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. So, there isn't an argument about a reader not knowing to put a space in "Chain Saw". Not to mention there already is another, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", it's the 2003 remake, which is the same title, only with "Chainsaw" together. Your "google search" (http://www.google.com/webhp?nord=1#nord=1&q=%22Texas+Chain+Saw+Massacre%22&safe=active) was picking up the 2003 film in it. If you read the individual results, you'll see many are actually talking about the remake when they join the name. BIGNOLE (Contact me)14:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In Google Books, I searched for "texas chain saw massacre" 1974 vs. "texas chainsaw massacre" 1974. The results are 2,220 vs. 4,820, with the non-spaced results being closely tied with the release year (e.g., "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)"). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)15:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that comes down to people just knowing that the word is typically written "chainsaw" (referring to the tool, not the film) when writing, and thus habitually write it as such when writing the title of the film. If you found that (and it isn't true) more people wrote "Mortal Combat", instead of "Mortal Kombat", we wouldn't change the title of the game/film just because in writing people decided to spell the word correctly. The entire point is that the film is copyrighted as "Chain Saw", there was a point to Hooper breaking that title, and we're debating about "ease of search". It doesn't impact search at all, and it's better to be "Precise" (it's in the COMMON NAME guidelines) when you can. Given that there is another film "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (2003), it's better to leave this page here. I've never seen COMMONNAME used as an argument for a space in a word. That is not what COMMONNAME is meant to be used for when writing article titles. Especially not when it does not impact searching ability. To be more clear, it specifically says in the guideline: "Editors should also consider the criteria outlined above. Ambiguous[5] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." - The proposal is to move to an inaccurate title (because we know what the copyright is) just because people are writing it inaccurately. That kind of goes against the guideline that people are using to argue for its change. BIGNOLE (Contact me)15:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that passage from WP:COMMONNAME is worth repeating: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." For those who have supported so far (George Ho, Fortdj33, BD2412, Taylor Trescott), what do you think? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)15:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The theatrical release poster in the article clearly shows "chainsaw" as a single unspaced word. I really can't see calling this inaccurate, in light of that. bd2412T15:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a marketing thing, and has nothing to do with the actual name of the film. Two different areas here. I can show you countless film posters where the title there does not match the title of the actual film. But since you point to it, I'll provide you with this: Here is the poster, really big. If you look in the credits of that poster, you will see "Chain Saw". BIGNOLE (Contact me)19:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're saying the film, the copyright on the film (set by the studio), the film poster's credits, and the fact that the reality is its name IS "Chain Saw" makes it reliable that that is the name. COMMONNAME even specifically says not to create an inaccurate title simply because multiple reliable sources are spelling it that way. BIGNOLE (Contact me)17:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't accurate to what the title actually is. The title IS "Chain Saw", it is not "Chainsaw". Yes, the franchise is considered "Chainsaw", because every film after joins the words. That is not the case for the 1974 original. The franchise page joins the words, the 2003 remake joins the words, this page should not be joining the word. Just because they changed it later does not mean we should be respelling things on older films. BIGNOLE (Contact me)18:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we accept "Chainsaw" as an acceptable alternative title, there is still no indication it is more commonly used. Google may simply return a higher hit rate for "chainsaw" because it will also include references to the sequels too. I opened up the first ten web sources in the article and [2][3][4][5][6][7] all spell it with "chain saw" while [8][9][10][11] all spell it with "chainsaw". Hardly conclusive. Both the American Film Institute and the British Film Institute use "chain saw" too (although the BFI acknowledge "chainsaw" as an alternative title). There is little in it in terms of actual usage; however, the film's credits and copyright entry explicitly use "chain saw" which I consider decisive in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at sources, the ones published after 2004 use "chain saw" because of Wikipedia mainly. The ones in 2004 and beforehand used "chainsaw". I'd say that old doesn't die off that quickly. --George Ho (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the official title being "Chain Saw" and not "Chainsaw". This is evidenced in the film's title sequence, in its copyright registration, and in the billing block of the original poster. For whatever reason, the main title on the poster says "Chainsaw", but I think we grant too much importance to that image. If film articles did not have posters in film infoboxes, I doubt this issue would be as debatable, so it should not hinge on that. Therefore, per WP:COMMONNAME stating to avoid inaccurate article titles even if they are commonplace in reliable sources, the status quo is sufficient. A final note on something I just discovered as I wrap this up: On Amazon.com, the DVD does indeed show the spacing! If film infoboxes used title sequence screenshots or recent home media covers, I doubt this would be as much of an issue. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)18:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why people oppose it as "inaccurate". "National Lampoon's" was taken out of Animal House, yet it's still accurate without it. "Chain Saw" more accurate as proper noun than "Chainsaw"? Sources add "1974" or "original film" or "first film" to distinguish the film from other sequels and remakes. Non-primary sources aren't that useless, are they? George Ho (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting the example of Animal House. There, we're removing an extra part of the name and slimming it down. Here, you're saying you want to change the spelling of the name to fit with what you think it should be, not what it actually is. That is what COMMONNAME is referring to when it says "inaccurate". The guideline says be "precise". That's referring to how you spell the name. The precise and ACCURATE way to spell the name is "Chain Saw". You're trying to argue that more sources say "chainsaw", that's irrelevant to the fact that that isn't how the film spells the name. It would be like arguing that since "Happyness" is actually spelled "Happiness", we should change the name of "In Pursuit of Happyness" to "In Pursuit of Happiness" just because a lot of sources are spelling it that way. BIGNOLE (Contact me)19:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're not even sure why the film spells it that way. I'm unsure either. Look at A Boy Was Born. The 'was' was lowercased, yet people prefer "Was". Accuracy of that title didn't affect the title itself and the composition, yet people whined over the spelling! How can "accuracy" extend to spelling of the title? Why should a spelling change affect the title and the title's reflection to the film? I mean, "chainsaw" (also spelled "chain saw") is a mechanical, automatic buzzer that cuts things... and people! --George Ho (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for "Happyness"/"Happiness", I don't think it's unintentional as much as "Chainsaw"/"Chain saw". I don't see intention of the title discussed in interviews. George Ho (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to assume good faith on your edits, when as the debate starts to move away from your favor you accuse the article of copyright infringement and the piece that you are wanting an Admin to remove is the piece that happens to be sourcing that the name of the article be "Chain Saw"? (Striking that comment, I see what you're actually trying to get removed now. I apologize for that. Upon initial glance it looked like it was about the title in the lead) With regard to "intentions", it doesn't matter. If we find a reliable source discussing the reasoning, which might have been an accident or just "I thought it was cool", it doesn't change the fact that that IS the name of the film. Your desire to change that has no bearing on the title. BIGNOLE (Contact me)00:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per previous rationales, this has been discussed before; this has in any case been the stable name of this page for a not inconsiderable amount of time.--Tærkast (Discuss) 15:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThe Texas Chainsaw Massacre is how every serious horror-film historian knows it, and that's the onscreen title. What inattentive latter-day journalists erroneously call it doesn't change what's on the screen. (And "chain saw," two words, is in fact the correct spelling, according Merriam Webster here. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Could someone take a look at this source, and write about it for the "Themes" section? [12] It's an essay exploring various themes of the film, and the way the film potrays certain subjects etc. I'm not sure how to incorporate it adequately into the article. --Tærkast (Discuss) 22:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I had added a cast list to this article and it was deleted since the cast was mentioned in the plot. My argument for that is even though the cast is mentioned in the plot it is still helpful to have a cast list in the article as well.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOSFILM#Cast, it is not mandated that a cast list exist. Given that the actors are in the plot, and a casting section exists, another list does not really serve any real purpose. If people just need a list, then they can go to IMDb. BIGNOLE (Contact me)20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a version of this movie with soft soundtrack and an interview with Tobe Hooper while watching the movie. He seemed to find much of the movie extremely funny, especially Leatherface's confusion at being invaded by the series of outsiders, and the dinner scene with the whole family mimicking Marilyn Burns' crying, the hitchhiker pretending to wipe his eyes. Does anyone know if it was originally intended to be a comedy? HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the plot it says Jerry was killed by Leatherface. Actually, there is nothing in the film to suggest that Jerry was killed. Jerry enters the house and sees the freezer being rattled from the inside. He opens it and Pam looks up out of the freezer. Leatherface enters, hits Jerry with a hammer and pushes Pam back into the freezer and locks it. Remember, the hammer had never killed anyone else in the movie. It was always just the first step to killing them. So, Leatherface turns around after putting Pam back in the freezer and he is shocked. Jerry is gone. Frantically, Leatherface looks all over trying to find him. He looks out the window, but doesn't see him. He is visibly distressed that he lost Jerry. Jerry isn't seen again in the movie. Later in the movie, Drayton can tell Leatherface is distressed. Drayton says something along the lines of "What's wrong? Did you lose somebody?". Leatherface nervously replies "No." Remember these aren't exact quotes, this is just my recollection. It seemed clear to me that the movie implied that Jerry had gotten away. Or, in the very least, the movie could have intended it to be open to interpretation (I still think it's clear that Jerry was never killed by Leatherface). This should be fixed on Wikipedia. 107.77.218.38 (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 9 external links on The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have never heard of a film article not having a cast section. I have checked WP:FILMCAST but I still don't get why this article gets special treatment. Could someone give me a hand? ---- Ducktech89(talk)
It is not a necessity for a film to maintain a cast list. The article has been stable without it so far. See section 3 of MOS:FILM "The structure of the article may also influence form. A basic cast list in a "Cast" section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles. When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, ensuring that these lists adhere to accessibility standards...." To sum up, if it's just going to be a basic cast list, it isn't appropriate for an article at this stage in its development. The only type of cast list that would be appropriate would be a detailed one, with sufficient discussion of the casting and details of the roles, provided by reliable sources. --Tærkast (Discuss) 13:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still seems a little strange to me, but thanks for your helpfulness---- Ducktech89(talk) 8:37, 23 May 2018, (UTC)
true budget according to this link:catalog.afi.com/Film/55289-THE-TEXASCHAINSAWMASSACRE?sid=2b45f310-754c-44ad-ade7-6091938dba7a&sr=0.12366109&cp=1&pos=4 99.245.60.210 (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not done The current source for box office is widely used on Wikipedia and is considered reliable, accurate, and up to date. The box office data in the link you provide appears to be from 1974. We need to know why it should be considered more reliable than the current information in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why is because I found out the current gross that is being used on Wikipedia is only the domestic gross, while the one in the article is. Plus why wouldn't the info from when the movie was released be considered be reliable? After allit was recorded back when the final number came in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshmin (talk • contribs) 04:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2021[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The phrase "the killing of victims" needs to be removed. First, it is aesthetically retarded, and second, this film came nowhere close to originating the concept of depicting murder onscreen. 75.71.202.205 (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I am currently working on the article for Leatherface, via a separate draft, I noticed that the production and release sections are underdeveloped in this article on the original film. There is so much information that exists on the film that is not mentioned here, from the film's production, to its marketing, all the way to the themes and legacy. I can add some info that I have come across that I will be using in the leatherface article but I really hope a more detailed expansion of the article on the original film is considered. Anyways, best of luck to you all. happy editing!--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is sort of a branch off from my previous mentioned post. While working on the Leatherface article I have come across a good number of literary sources that give a good amount of info not found in the article. I will list them below if anyone wants to check them out:
Literary
At the beginning, there is an error in which horror should be replaced with slasher. I will defend this answer as slasher is a sub genre of horror, and also, it’s not very specific when you describe it as horror. 2601:846:8100:1D40:0:0:0:79E0 (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A sentence at the end of the summary caught my eye.
"Nowadays, the film has been criticized for it's(sic) acting, pacing, and it's(sic) treatement(sic) towards it's(sic) female characters portraying them as being helpless."
There is absolutely zero mention of the significance of the planet Saturn, both in terms of the film's script, as well as the film's core thematics on the whole.
I would like to author an addition to this Wiki article that explains why acknowledging the significance of Saturn is crucial to understanding this film's raison d'être at its core.
Merely from a script perspective, the film quite literally opens with the following lines of dialogue from Pam.
17 min 57 sec
PAM:
“The condition of retro gradation is contrary or inharmonious to the regular direction of actual movement in the zodiac, and is in that respect, evil.”
“Hint: When malefic planets are in retrograde, and Saturn is malefic, their maleficies are increased.”
“Jerry, it just means Saturn's a bad influence. It's just particularly bad influence now, because it's in retrograde.”
“Oh, no. Capricorn is ruled by Saturn!”
“There are moments where we cannot believe that what's happening is really true... pinch yourself and you may find out that it is.”
———
Then, when things start to get funky, we see mention of Saturn again with the following dialogue from Franklin.
This is more of a notice so that any editors are aware, I am currently working on expanding the article in a separate userspace, updating citations and generally expanding the information not covered here. Though it might be some time before I will transfer all that into this main page, anyone that follows this article and loves contributing feel free to message me if you want to pitch in. Happy editing. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Blood for Oil: Crude Metonymies and Tobe Hooper's Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)," by Chuck Jackson[edit]
This scholarly source is the first of its kind. Jackson's research focuses on the political economy of oil and the Gulf Oil corporation, and grounds its argument in close readings of the film's metonymic juxtapositions of the motorists' desire for gasoline and the Sawyer family's desire for blood:
Interesting, Considering I am working on expanding it in a separate userspace I might add this. However that might not be, considering there is so much information and it is easy to get excessive in scope. Overlength is a thing. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Thanks for catching this. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 04:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not done The current source for box office is widely used on Wikipedia and is considered reliable, accurate, and up to date. The box office data in the link you provide appears to be from 1974. We need to know why it should be considered more reliable than the current information in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
