Talk:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise)

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

Rewrite on the Intoduction[edit]

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

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

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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

Relation between all the sequels[edit]

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

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

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

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

Proposed merge with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre[edit]

There is a clear consensus to redirect The Texas Chainsaw Massacre to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and to add a hatnote to the later pointing to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise). Armbrust The Homunculus 15:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Betty Logan, are you going to tag the page as WP:AFD? I can imply that it would be on grounds for deletion. George Ho (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is necessary, since it's not really an article. If the consensus agrees that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre should point to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre all we have to do is turn it into a redirect and add a hatnote for the franchise article to the primary article, which keeps things very simple. If people decide to keep the disambiguation page (which I agree is redundant to the franchise article since all the ambiguous media is listed there) then it can just be moved to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (disambiguation). It's best to keep AfD out of it for the time being unless we need to push it through. Betty Logan (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation) and Resident Evil (disambiguation) previously tagged as AFD. One was deleted and then undeleted; other was supported as "kept". I guess, close this now, rename the page, and then redirect the name to the 1974 film? George Ho (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might be best to determine if The Texas Chainsaw Massacre should point to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre before doing anything else, which would entail moving the disambiguation page to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (disambiguation). Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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 16:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Addressing Things: The Expansion[edit]

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

  • Overview
  • Development
  • Music
  • Reception
  • Future

Television (If any) Literature

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

Documentaries (If any) Video Games Merchandise Impact

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

Untitled Texas Chainsaw film draft[edit]

Also, someone keeps copy/pasting bits from Leatherface (2017 film)#Future across Texas Chainsaw articles without giving attribution. Stop please. Darkknight2149 01:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New film article[edit]

Is there any reason whatsoever to delete the page for the new film (Texas Chainsaw Massacre (upcoming film))? It's a movie in a quite known franchise, starring a Golden Globe nominee, produced by a well-known producer, has completed filming, and even has a teaser poster out on IMPawards. And presumably Elsie Fisher's other upcoming movie My Best Friend's Exorcism (film) should be deleted also. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, it isn't deleted, it's redirected. Second, ALL pages must meet WP:GNG and WP:NFF. For a film that has completed filming, we know very little about it. That's because there has not been "significant coverage" of it (which is a requirement for notability). All of the coverage has been basic announcements (e.g., casting, director changes, a synopsis), and not in-depth coverage of the actual film. Ignoring all of that, which is a requirement again of the GNG, there isn't enough information to warrant a separate page for a film that does not even have a release date. All of the information on that page is on this page currently, so it's a duplication. The only different is that there's an infobox and a cast list section. It does not warrant a page at this time. If for some reason we get no information on this film until it's finally released, then we can easily have the page and fill it with critical responses. There is no guarantee that his film will get release (see WP:CRYSTAL), and there is no rush in the need to have the page, then we should be just fine waiting.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My additional concern is that I've checked multiple websites on film releases and this thing isn't listed on any of them for 2021. It apparently finished filming in March 2021, and by April 2021 it had a rating. You don't get ratings until you've at least edited the film into a working product because the MPAA views it. If they received a rating, then it means they have a final product. Yet, they still haven't set a date for this film 3 months post MPAA rating? That's concerning. I'm not saying it won't be released, but it adds to the fact that we know very little about this movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Game "crossovers"[edit]

There are multiple problems that I see with this information---"Crossover content from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise has appeared in the video games Mortal Kombat X,[49][50] Dead by Daylight,[51] Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and Call of Duty: Warzone[52] respectively."

First, it is in a section titled "Video games", and these are not games based on this franchise. So, the section isn't appropriate. There would need to be a cultural impact section, similar to Friday the 13th (franchise)#Impact that discusses the film's impact on culture, which can include other media using things from TCM.

Second, there isn't "crossover content" with things like Mortal Kombat or Dead by Daylight, they merely use Leatherface. That has more to do with a particular character than the franchise as a whole. No, saying that a film showing the origins of Leatherface isn't about the franchise is a fallacy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Chainsaw Massacre content in other video games is still Texas Chainsaw Massacre video game content. The entire game might not be centred on Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but that is why the Atari Texas Chainsaw Massacre game has an entire fleshed out paragraph and the crossovers are relegated to a single sentence. I believe that adequately reflects their pertinence.
The edit summary was meant to make a point: the fallacy is that you are a drawing a distinction where the isn't one. Leatherface is a character in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise (the main and only consistent character, in fact). Leatherface content is Texas Chainsaw content. The reason the Leatherface film was brought up is because your points can just as easily be applied to that. It doesn't use the Texas Chainsaw Massacre name, it specifically focuses on Leatherface and not the overall family, and it's almost entirely about the origin story of the one character.
Leatherface is a copyrighted character belonging exclusively to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise, just as all Batman content is DC Universe brand content, even if it's in Fortnite or something, and therefore warrants mentioning on the franchise page if it receives coverage. That being said, I would not be opposed to this information being moved to a newly-created section. Darkknight2149 23:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


It's not TCM video game content because the section is for video games for the franchise, not other video games using characters/settings/etc. Call of Duty is not a TCM game. My point never said that it had to use the TCM name to be part of the franchise. The point is that MK, CoD, etc. aren't extending anything related to the franchise. They are borrowing a character for use in their own franchises. That is why I said it is more relevant to the Leatherface article than to this article, because it isn't about THIS frnachise, it's specifically about Leatherface. Franchises don't "copyright characters", studios own copyrights and people on copyrights. Batman isn't own by the DC universe, he's owned by DC Comics (which in fact are owned by Warner Bros.). I'm not sure how/why you understand copyrights this way, but that's not how they work nor is it relevant to the discussion. The point is context of the content. This article is about the franchise as a whole (it's poorly sourced and developed, but still that's the focus). Leatherface appearing in a game isn't relevant to the franchise as a whole, because it doesn't impact the franchise. It's relevant to his own page. Now, if he didn't have a page, I would be in agreement with you on putting it here because that's the best place for it. Leatherface does have his own page and it's why it's best suited for there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for the late reply. My others will not be so late. Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise content in other games is still officially licensed Texas Chainsaw Massacre content. Even if those games are not related to the TCM franchise, the TCM content within them is. This includes Leatherface, who is exclusively a TCM character and even has two movies named after him. However, again, I am not opposed to creating a new section. But with only a single bare-bones sentence devoted to the crossovers, I would argue that they already have the right amount of due weight. Darkknight2149 20:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't apologize, this isn't something life threatening that needs attention everyday. As far as this goes, they aren't licensing TCM, they are licensing just Leatherface specifically. Copyrights have multiple layers, and characters have separate licenses most of the time. When they get Leatherface, that's all they get, not the full TCM content. The fact that you can recognize that it's not in an appropriate section and that it isn't enough to justify a section of its own shows that when it's just for Leatherface it should be on that page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of other horror articles that you have worked on, what precedent do you have for treating a character separately from their franchise in terms of media? Looking at the overwhelming majority of franchise articles (including Batman (franchise)), they don't seem to do that. Darkknight2149 16:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "Batman" franchise covers everything for that character. Thus, you would see video games featuring him. You know what you don't see, you don't see "THe Joker appeared in Mortal Kombat" on his page. Because the Joker, while part of the Batman franchise, has his own page. How come Star Wars doesn't include a mention of Soul Calibur IV? I mean, Yoda appears in that game, but it isn't listed. In fact, on the video game pages here and here, you'll see that they are listed as "cultural impact" and not as part of the actual "video game" list. Just because you see it on other pages does not mean that it should be there. THese pages are frequently only overseen by fans, and fans would include "everything" they can for a page, regardless of whether there was a more appropriate place for the information. So, saying "pages you don't work on" is essentially saying "pages where this has not been pointed out".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a second look, the article should actually be called Batman in other media, because it is more about the single character than the overall franchise. The lead starts off with "Since his first appearance in 1939, Batman has been adapted into various media" and then continues with sections like "Batman is mentioned several times in the Titans TV series. He was shown from behind in the episode "Origins" and was voiced by an uncredited actor.", so this particular article is unfocused with an unclear scope and an identity crisis. But if the article were about the franchise (as the title suggests), then games like Justice League Heroes and Fortnite wouldn't be relevant by the standard you are going with. A better example would be List of Star Wars video games and Star Wars video games, which discuss crossovers and character appearances in other games (such as Soul Calibur, Roblox, and LEGO Indiana Jones). If you believe that adding a "Cultural Impact" section is preferable, I'm not opposed to that though. Darkknight2149 20:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's entirely my point. The "crossover" games with CoD or whatever are not TCM games. They are games using a character, so presenting them in "Games" implies that these are licensed TCM games and that is not accurate. There should most certainly be plenty of information on TCM's cultural impact beyond just Leatherface appearing in video games to have a real section on it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's licensed Texas Chainsaw Massacre content within video games, just as Batman in Fortnite is licensed Batman/DC Universe franchise content within other games. Same with Star Wars characters appearing in Roblox or LEGO Indiana Jones. The opening of the sentence mentions that it's crossover content. Darkknight2149 00:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say this again, one last time. Licensed content does not mean that it part of the franchise. It's licensed because that's what's legally required in order to use the character. Those games are not TCM games. They are games that feature a TCM character. That is completely different from Texas Chainsaw Massacre (video game).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both of Leatherface's appearances in Dead by Daylight and Mortal Kombat X are licensed under the Texas Chainsaw Massacre copyright:
https://store.playstation.com/en-us/product/UP1018-CUSA00967_00-LTRFACECHARACTER
https://store.playstation.com/en-us/product/UP3509-CUSA08444_00-THECANNIBAL00000
The Call of Duty content also uses the Texas Chainsaw Massacre name. Darkknight2149 14:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...that's how copyrights work. That is a legal requirement in order to use the likeness of the character. I'm not sure what you're not understanding about that. It doesn't make it a franchise-based game. If they did not get the license to use the character, they would have been sued, as (outside of parody) you cannot use content without permission. That doesn't mean that it is connected to a franchise's content. Legendary Entertainment (or whomever the owner is) was paid a fee for licensing out the character for use; they aren't getting continued payment because of the success of DbD, MK, etc. It's the same if you were to think of it like Spider-Man (prior to Captain American Civil War) or the Fantastic Four/X-Men. They were licensed out to another studio for a fee, but those film series are not part of the MCU, even though those characters are from Marvel.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But you were just arguing that Leatherface could have been licensed separately. Nevermind, though. You and I both seem to agree that a Cultural impact section would be acceptable. If I'm not mistaken, that would be the closest WP:MIDDLEGROUND between your position and my position. Should one of us go ahead and start it, or is there still some disagreement? Darkknight2149 20:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leatherface is licensed separately, but it would still show up as TCM. It's a legality in naming thing. And yes, there should be a cultural impact section instead, probably something else needs to be put in there so it isn't a single sentence of "Leatherface appears in these games".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who can't count?[edit]

"This table only shows characters that have appeared in three or more films in the series." Except, of course, characters such as Ryan and Vanita, who only appeared in two films, or Nikki and Uncle Monty, who only appeared in one. 104.153.40.58 (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of cleaning it up. The original adder for the table I'm pretty sure just took it from another page and put in the actors/characters. It just needs to be cleaned up. For instances, "the hitchhiker" isn't the same hitchhike in the remake and shouldn't occupy the same line.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"And" vs. "&"[edit]

Tagging for discussion: @Iamnoahflores and Bignole: Darkknight2149 21:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A script doesn't use ampersands. The fact that a script has 2 names should show you that they wrote it together.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scripts can in fact use ampersands, I could link you to some. Although, that would be irrelevant when I show you the main evidence. The Writers Guild of America, the deciding factor on how the writing credits appear clearly list as "Written by: Kim Henkel and Tobe Hooper". Here's the link: https://directories.wga.org/project/723101/the-texas-chainsaw-massacre/ Iamnoahflores (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. I've never heard of them as having written separately. It's always been stated that they wrote it together, but obviously the WGA has it listed differently.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Texas_Chainsaw_Massacre_(franchise)&oldid=1208524474"