Talk:Psycho (1960 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Psycho (1960 film) article.
Article policies
Good article Psycho (1960 film) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
To-do list for Psycho (1960 film): edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Copyedit all the newly added text for grammar, structure, and flow.
  • Add referenced information about the effect the movie had on the rest of the cast.
  • See suggestions at peer review.
  • Incorporate more views in the interpretation section.
  1. Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Opening statement

The opening statement duplicates several items in the individual sections (Ed Gein info - shower scene - critics reviews). I don't think it would hurt to remove the duplications since they are discussed later on. Just a thought. Philbertgray 16:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A good opening summarizes/highlights the main ideas in the article. Do you feel it highlights relatively unimportant points or goes into too much detail? MeekSaffron 17:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it goes into too much detail since some of the information is either repeated or expanded on within the article. A few examples -
    • This line appears in the opening summary "One key scene, commonly referred to as "The Shower Scene," is studied, discussed, and referenced countless times in books, articles, and film courses with debate focusing on why it is so terrifying and how it was produced, including how it passed the censors and who directed it." Since there is an extensive summary later on it seems it would be just as effective to say something to the effect that The infamous shower scene is one of the most discussed and analyzed in film history".
    • The statement "which was in turn based on the crimes of Wisconsin serial killer Ed Gein.[1] " is almost identical to the wording in the beginning of the production section. It seems this can be eliminated from the opening statement and the note reference added to the production statement opening. This information appears again in the trivia section with an additional reference to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. That could be removed from trivia and also added to the production statement.
    • The film spawned several sequels and a remake, which are generally seen as works of lesser quality" doesn't seem necessary or important enough to the opening summary since there is a section devoted to the sequels as well. Philbertgray 18:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with shortening the shower scene statement, and removing the Ed Gein note. Regarding Gein, I think it being based on real crimes is rather cool as a hook of interest, but the pre-production repeat of the info does not elaborate, and the related trivia point should be merged into it. A section of the book and of course Ed Gein goes into more detail.
I disagree, not strongly, but I think the sequels note in the lead should remain. The sequels and remake seems natural for a lead about the first movie in a series, albeit a not too successful one. Jaws (film) is a similar example of a classic film with less successful sequels. It mentions those sequels in the lead, with a slightly expanded section later. MeekSaffron 18:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I actually take the reverse stance of MeekSaffron on some points:
I believe that the mention of the shower scene should be kept as is. As Meek said, a good lead summarizes the points that will be made in the article, and the current description sums it up nicely without telling too much.
I agree with Meek that the Ed Gein note is a very cool "hook of interest", and because of that, I think it should be kept.
You don't really believe an article on Psycho would need a "hook" do you????? Philbertgray 19:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Finally, I believe that we should take out the mention of the sequels in the league, as Psycho is in a different league than those pictures. I look at Psycho not as a "horror movie" or a "slasher movie", but as a Hitchcock movie", and those are in a league of their own. Mentioning the sequels in the lead does not do anything towards summarizing the topic of the article, which is Psycho, not the sequels. Psycho, in my opinion is not the start of a "series". In my view, it was intended as a stand-alone movie, and some Universal studio executives got greedy after Hitchcock died. Just my two cents. Green451 00:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psycho is considered a Gore film

Article claims this: Psycho, considered to be the first "gore film," was criticized for making other filmmakers more willing to show gore, providing a reference from Leigh for the statement. Has anyone got this book to check what she really said. I find it hard to believe she stated that this film has been considered to be a gore film. Asa01 02:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OH! You're right. I misread the book, Bloodfeast is the first gore film. I'll go change that right now.--Supernumerary 02:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked up Blood Feast on the imdb and it is listed as 1963--three years after Psycho. Personally, I think The Horror of Dracula from 1958 qualifies as a gore film, and for all I know there may be earlier examples. marbeh raglaim 22:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CCOTW End

Wow! Congratulations everyone! I am amazed at how much this article has been improved. My applause goes to Hondo and Supernumerary, who were the main editors that improved this article to the incredible status it is in now. I can see that from here, the path is a general peer review, then GA, then FA (with any luck). I'm going to nominate it for a general peer review soon. Great job people! Green451 22:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ELAC notice

Hi, with aims to improve Wikipedia, your page has been submitted to the Extra-Long Article Committee for page division. It is strongly suggested that the regular users here divide the article up into separate pages. Click here for suggestions on how to divide a long page. If this does not occur in the coming weeks, this page will then be scheduled for committee involvement. Please comment at ELAC talk with concerns. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 14:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

After all the great contributions and care with which everyone has referenced their material, I would hate to see that work go to waste or be counted against us according to this committee. Please, before anyone starts trimming the article, wait until the ELAC reviews the case. As we might expect this to be a problem for COTW in the future, I urge you to visit ELAC talk to learn more about their cause and how they work. Both careful referencing and the ELAC work to improve Wikipedia, but it's unfortunate if they work against each other as I suspect they are in this case. I've begun a discussion with User:Sadi Carnot to make sure that the references aren't being held against Psycho's kb count. Hondo 17:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hondo, thanks for your comments. There are other long pages that are coded such that the reference files link to a side page. We are still digging around in this area to see how this works. Please comment with more suggestions or comments here. Talk soon: --Sadi Carnot 17:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tab method

Hi, the ELAC team is presently trying out new test methods on how to facilitate the use and growth of long articles. Admin Gurch suggests that “tabs” might be a useful tool in the growth of large articles. Unless there are any major objections, over the next day or two, I am going to format this page with tabs. This will only be a test run. According to Gurch, it has never been done before with articles. Thus, I will implement the changes (which can be reverted in the weeks to follow if need be) and then we can all debate the pros and cons of the new format method. Please leave comment as to suggestive tab names (four in total) or if you have major objections to this move. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 23:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This sounds cool. I would love to see an article that I worked on possibly break new ground on Wikipedia. Green451 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC) I have stricken my support of tabs per discussion on the ELAC talk page. Green451 03:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
My suggestions for tab names are:
  1. Overview/Story (would contain the lead, plot synopsis, and cast list)
  2. Production (would contain Production, Pre-Production, Filming, and The Shower Scene)
  3. Release (would contain Censorship, Promotion, Reception)
  4. Legacy (would contain Innovations in Film, Interpretation, Sequels and Remakes, Popular-culture references, shower scene parodies, and Trivia)
What does anyone else think about the above names? Green451 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
They look good except that trivia does not really fit under "Legacy", but then again trivia does not really fit anywhere. So yeah, I'm fine with the division.--Supernumerary 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem especially long to me, or like one or more of its sections could be helpfully split into additional articles (also, additional articles are I believe not counted when most review FA candidates; I'm not sure if it's the same for GA), but I'll look with an open mind on the tab implementation idea.
Since I prefer scrolling to clicking, would it be possible to have a Wikipedia setting or workaround for such tabbed articles to be presented all on one page if a user prefers? I know there's a workaround to have the show/hide templates be permanently shown if one prefers, for instance. MeekSaffron 04:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it will not be possible for there to be a preference. Each tab will be a separate page and you'll have no choice but to click. This will actually be a step backward in usability for those on slow connections. Right now, the rest of the page is already downloading while the user reads the lead; in most cases, the actual waiting time should not be much greater than for a shorter article. With tabs, the user will have to wait for the first page worth of text to load after clicking each tab, increasing the total waiting time.
This would also interact badly with Wikipedia's "watch" interface: the visual design suggests that all four tabs are part of the same page, yet clicking "watch" will only watch one of them. With the currently favored <ref> method of creating footnotes there will have to be four separate Notes sections, so that when notes refer to other notes or to a bibliography, the user has to click around to figure out what is being cited.
In short I think this is a very poor way of dealing with overlong articles, far inferior to the summary style method we already have. If it *must* be tried, why not create a version of the page in user or project space somewhere, and allow people to review that and comment?
I would also suggest picking a truly long article for the experiment. This article is only about 40KB of actual text; splitting it into four 10KB chunks is overkill. —Celithemis 09:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
38KB by my calculations - not long enough to worry about, not warranting a tag, and not warranting tabs by any means. For a truly long film article, see The Wizard of Oz (1939 film); it has 81KB overall, but because it has NO referencing, all of that is in prose, with a whopping 72KB prose. It would be a better candidate for this committee to expermiment with tabs and such. I removed the extra long tag from the article, but it has been reinstated: the ELAC Project members have indicated they plan to aggressively pursue anyone removing their tags. At any rate, the tag on *this* article isn't warranted, IMO. WP:LENGTH specifically states that, "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose," and this article is well within that range. Sandy (Talk) 09:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This really troubles me. A cleanup tag implies a clear consensus that something is bad -- usually a violation of policy or a well-settled guideline. I don't read Wikipedia:Article size as indicating a consensus that an article with 38KB or even 48KB of readable text should always be split, and I don't believe any such consensus exists. Yet the wording of the tag is quite stern, even threatening. It suggests that the authors of the page have committed wrongdoing and that an official body of some kind is taking notice. I'm particularly troubled by the use of the word "committee", which, intentionally or not, implies this Wikiproject has some special official status that it doesn't appear to have.
Now we're being asked to go to a page in the project's space, to make a "request" for the tag to be removed. On what authority, exactly, is this demand being made? The subject of whether and how this article should be split should be discussed on its talk page, and in the absence of consensus here the tag should not be replaced.
I strongly oppose this tag being placed on this article. With the current wording I oppose its being *anywhere* but TFD. —Celithemis 13:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Join the crowd: the discussion has moved here, where you might want to register that. (ALoan just changed the template, per consensus on its talk page.) Sandy (Talk) 13:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size

The overall size on this article is 53KB, but because it is well-cited (with almost 100 footnotes), the actual prose size is only 38KB. The size limitations were put in place long ago, and technical limitations have changed. Further, inline citations are now required on featured articles, and they add to the overall size. It is very rare to see an FA under 50 or 60KB these days, because they are extensively cited, and that alone often chunks up about 15KB. It doesn't appear that this committee is taking time to calculate the prose size before tagging an article: in fact, I found no discussion of how to do that on the project. I removed the tag, because the article isn't extra long, and becuase there are many FAs (or recently removed FAs, for reasons other than size) with prose size over 70KB, and overall size over 110KB, such as History of Russia, Che Guevara, Polish-Soviet War, and Hugo Chávez. I hope the ELAC will focus on problem articles, rather than well-cited articles, or the results will be a decline in verifiability and comprehensiveness necessary for FA. Further, tagging the article page of FAs will not be good for Wiki, and most FAs qualify as what they are calling extra long: I suggest they place the tags on talk pages, not article pages. Sandy (Talk) 07:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical re-review

According to the article, after the movie became popular with the public, the critics changed their minds about the movie. Does anyone else think it's strange? Critics seem to be more strong minded today. Me3000 19:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I never heard of this phenomenon happening with reference to Psycho before reading this wikipedia article, I would not doubt it. Similar "reevaluations" occured for 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Fantasia, Metropolis, and Its a Wonderful Life. The Wizard of Oz was a popular film during its first release, but not considered anything close to the iconic classic that it became after it was aired on television. --GHcool 19:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget that the movies you mentioned were considered good several years after their initial release date. With this movie, the re-review occured in only a few weeks or so later. Me3001 21:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
According to the DVD documentary, the critics were annoyed that Hitchcock denied them a pre-release screening. marbeh raglaim 23:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

  1. There's a bullet point in the Production that could do with prosifying. Try intergrating it.
  2. The trivia section can be merged: the Hitchcock cameo in the cast and Leigh's double somewhere else. Maybe in the Reaction/Legacy sections.
  3. One cite lacks a page number.

Good luck. Wiki-newbie 16:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made the changes. Take another look please.--Supernumerary 17:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's still got a trivia section, which a mature article shouldn't. The JPStalk to me 17:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Trivia section is gone.--Supernumerary 19:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pass

It's good and very informative. Keep copyediting for FA. Wiki-newbie 21:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! Now let's try to do the same for A Trip to the Moon (film)‎! :) --GHcool 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I added some material...

I took the liberty of editing a few of the first paragraphs after the Introduction. I added a few details that help explain 'place', such as the fact that the film opens in Phoenix, then moves to California. I noted the scene in which Marion trades cars, when her strange behavior is witnessed by the highway patrolman. I also expanded the item about the money - the fact that Bates doesn't see the money before he sinks her car in the swamp. I love the way the film opens with Marion as the central figure, then suddenly shifts the focus entirely onto Norman Bates. The technique has been copied frequently since. I've seen this film many times, and I count it in my personal Top 25, so I'd like to help work on this article. Hurrmic 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lots of edits, but no discussion

I like the way this article has shaped up since I did some work on it a few weeks ago. My effort lacked style - I just went from memory and filled in the plot a little. I was going to come back to it sooner, but hey, there's been plenty of talent working on it in the meantime. Nice going, everybody! I'm just surprised there's no current discussion going on. I suppose it's better to write the article than to talk about doing it. Hurrmic 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source 28

The website source with number 28 ( with animals.com/The_100_Scariest_Movie_Moments//index.shtml 100 Scariest Movie Moment) links to "www.sex", can anybody replace it with the right site? Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.118.145.163 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 22 April 2007.

Fixed. That was a very old piece of vandalism. I'm surprised that nobody caught it earlier. Green451 02:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References in popular culture

This section should be reworked from a list into a proper section and citations should be added in order to get the article closer to FA status. I suggest taking a look at what was done with a similar section on another article. (Ibaranoff24 04:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

I agree. I've turned the first part of the list into prose, and removed some of the less notable entries. We only really need examples of homages, not a comprehensive list. Prose should also deter people from adding to the list. The JPStalk to me 16:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Better, but some of the references lack citations. I also think that the article's lead needs some work before it can be ready for FAC. (Ibaranoff24 20:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC))
Yeah. The Dicks (filmsite) ref I've just added is quite a neat catch-(nearly)all ref for the shower scene paragraph. The interpretation section, I notice, is limited, considering what has been written about it. I have some books sitting behind me at the moment by notable academics: I'll try to do something with them. The JPStalk to me 22:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


I've added to the 'references from popular culture' section a new reference- to a collaborative humorous remake of the famous shower scene (made in the wiki-like site "kaltura"). I think it's relevant since the collaborative creation in the internet (like wikipedia) is the new popular culture, and that user genereted content applications more and more takes plalce as an alternative to TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oriti (talk • contribs)

And I removed it. Stop spamming. IrishGuy talk 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not spam. it's totaly relevant. I don't understand why you deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oriti (talk • contribs) 21:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It is 100% spam. Your only edits have been adding links to this website. Stop spamming. IrishGuy talk 21:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not spam. I've added 2 links to collaborative videos from one site, that are relevant to the subject. it has nothing to do with the specific site, it's a wiki-like site and the important thing is the videos I refered to. did you even see those? Oriti

So your edit here just happens to be to the same link with almost identical wording as this edit added by another user who stopped spamming the same day your account was created. Gotta love coincidence. IrishGuy talk 22:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


I bet you didn't even saw the link, otherwise you would know that I wsn't spamming. Oriti —Preceding comment was added at 22:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I take it by your silence you admit to being the previous spammer as well? IrishGuy talk 22:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

of course not. I take it by your silence you admit you didn't even check the link before earesing everything I wrote? Oriti —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.210.41 (talk • contribs)

I have seen the link everytime you add it under your various names. It isn't worth adding. IrishGuy talk 18:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

On another note, I saw Eminem was mentioned. I think another one of his songs refrences Norman Bates, I'm not sure exactly which one, but I think it's 'Kill You' in which he says "A Blood stain is orange after you wash it a few times, but that normal ain't it Norman?" . I realize that it might not be Bates, but, I thought it might merit at least a moment of thought, if not inclusion. I suppose Verifiablility would be a problem though.. 71.98.12.254 (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have marked the section as trivia. Yes, its important to note that there are a lot of parodies/references, but this is not the place to attempt to enumerate them all. We should trim the section WAY down to a paragraph or two that describes the phenomenon rather than an amusing/interesting list that everyone can put in their favorite but does not belong. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq Leigh, Janet. Psycho : Behind the Scenes of the Classic Thriller. Harmony Press, 1995. ISBN 051770112X.

Book sources need page numbers: an example of how to set them up can be seen at Smells Like Teen Spirit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There were page numbers, but they got removed at some point, because someone said something about there being too many individual references. Someone's going to have to try and put them back in... Green451 00:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


I hope that wasn't a misunderstanding of something I may have said long ago — who said there were too many individual refs? That can be solved with named refs. As an example, I went back to this version, which does not have "too many refs". But, the way to solve the "too many references" problem is by making good use of page ranges combined with named refs. For example, I often see:

  • Author, p. 12
  • Author, pp. 12–13
  • Author, p. 13

Those can all be combined in one named ref, to

  • Author, pp. 12–13

So three lines of Notes are reduced to one.

Honestly, readers can look through two or three pages, and doing this significantly reduces the number of refs listed in the notes section. At any rate, the page nos should be put back in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the edit that removed page numbers from a carefully sourced article, and the last link for restoring that data. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bates Motel

I was just thinking that the somewhat Gothic Bates Motel should get more attention in this article. In the film and later legend it's portrayed as THE iconic house of horror. Colin4C 18:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

this is the Bates' house and not the motel, which is nondescript. Mezigue (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colorized shower scene picture

Wouldn't the original black and white image from the movie be more appropriate? --GHcool 07:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saul Bass rumors

I'm new to this Wikipedia thing, so please forgive me if I'm not doing it quite right. Under the shower scene section on this entry, Leigh claims that Bass didn't direct any part of the shower scene. I see no need to dispute that, but then there's a quote from Hilton Green saying that Bass didn't direct any part of Psycho. According to Hitchcock's landmark interview with Francois Truffaut, though, Bass did direct one day when Hitch was out sick. He directed part of the scene just before Arbogast is murdered, as he enters the house and walks up the steps. Hitch didn't like the rushes, so he discarded them and re-shot (p. 273 in the revised edition of Truffaut's book). This is a very minor addition to the rumor conversation, but at least it indicates that there are differing accounts.

Kmaness 22:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I remember in the book, Hitchcock says that Hilton Green directed the scene with Bass's storyboards as a reference. It's already in this article, with page 273 cited in citation 11. Green451 00:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
That's backed up by Janet Leigh's book on Psycho -- Hitchcock didn't like Bass's original storyboard for the scene of Arbogast going up the stairs, as they implied something was about to happen by building up the suspense, so he had Bass redo them. When Green was instructed by Hitch (who was at home in bed with flu) to shoot the scene using Bass's storyboards, for whatever reason, he used the original ones (presumably he wasn't aware that Bass has done a new set?). After storyboarding the shower scene, Bass did shoot some test footage (using Leigh's body double, Marli Renfro, and a small handheld newsreel camera) to check how effective some of the angles would be on camera. My own personal opinion is that Bass thought that his storyboard for the shower sequence pretty much matched what appeared in the film and that Hitchcock never gave him enough credit for that. Davepattern (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Body exhumed?

Doesnt the doctor that talks to Bates at the end of the film say that Norman stole the body (Mrs. Bates) and a weighted coffin was buried? so that would mean he stole the body before being buried and she was replaced with weights? can someone else either prove me wrong, but the version that I've always seen says that he stole her body. so could someone make the changes or prove me wrong? (still new to wikipedia) --Liquidfire3240 22:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right! I remembered that Norman had exhumed her corpse, but I remembered wrong. I just checked my copy of Collector's Edition DVD (copyright 1998) right now. The psychologist says, "He stole the corpse. A weighted coffin was burried." I suppose I always imagined that Norman exhumed the corpse and put a weight in the coffin to take her place, but that doesn't make a hole lot of sense. Thanks for clearing that up! --GHcool 05:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] shower sequence

Although Leigh said that the body double only appeared in the sequence where Norman wraps the body in plastic and that she herself was never nude in the showever sequence (a flesh coloured moleskin was used to cover her breasts and groin), the body double certainly appears in the segment where Marion's hand reaches out to grab the shower curtain. Although the eyes are naturally drawn to the hand (which is sharp focus), a pair of out-of-focus bare breasts are clearly discernable in the background (view image). Hitchcock did well to slip that segment by the censors!

The short segment where the knife appears to enter the flesh (as illustrated with the 3 frames) was achieved by holding the knife against the stomach (so that it pressed against the flesh) and then pulling it quickly away from the body. When the footage is played in reverse (as in the film), the knife appears to be moving towards the body. Davepattern 22:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As a slight follow on from the above -- I've just watched the HDNet broadcast version of Psycho and spotted a couple of things. Firstly, in one of the overhead shots of the attack, a bare left breast and nipple are visible for a couple of frames (which must mean it's not Janet Leigh in the that particular shot, as she was emphatic about the fact she didn't go nude or topless). Secondly, thanks to the extra clarity of a high definition transfer, it clear that Leigh's body double (Marli Renfro) is wearing panties in the sequence where Perkings drags her onto the shower curtain. Davepattern (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] contradiction

From the article: "This myth also started the myth that Leigh would not take a shower without someone guarding the bathroom door for quite some time after the scene was completed."

Later: "Leigh herself was so affected by this scene when she saw it, that she no longer took showers unless she absolutely had to. Then she would lock all the doors and windows and would leave the bathroom and shower door open.[5]"

Both of these cannot be true. One says it's a myth, and the other asserts its truth. aeonite (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is from Janet Leigh's book "Psycho: Behind the Scenes of the Classic Thriller" (published UK 1995, Pavillion, chapter 7, page 131): "It's true that I don't take showers. If there is no other way to bathe, then I make sure all of the doors and windows in the house are locked, and I leave the bathroom door open and the shower curtain or stall door open so I have a perfect, clear view. I face the door no matter where the showerhead is. The room, I might add, gets very wet. Prior to Psycho I was a relatively normal bather, but after was a different story. It wasn't the shooting of the scene that caused the damage, it was seeing the film in its entirety later." Davepattern (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not to move --Lox (t,c) 15:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - as nominator. Reginmund (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is more than 1 film named Psycho. Just because a few other movie articles don't follow the correct naming conventions doesn't mean this one shouldn't. TJ Spyke 02:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TJ Spyke. --GHcool (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Monkeyzpop (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Less confusing with year listing. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Since these have already been dabed, why change? Is something broken? The fact that others have not been dabed is not a reason to reverse the current arrangement here. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's more than one film of this name. If "Psycho" were available as a location, the best known film could go there. Since it isn't, it had to be disambiguated; not having "1960" in the title is not a badge of honour it's just sloppy disambiguation. --kingboyk (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Keep in mind the reason for the move is to keep in line with the better known films that have had lesser known remakes. this is not against naming conventions. Reginmund (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The better way, which I've been bold and just implemented, is to redirect Psycho (film) here, and add a dab header to the top of this article. I'll also fix all incoming links from mainspace to Psycho (film) to point direct to the correct target. --kingboyk (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That's alright because then we can still use [1] to see what might need dabbing. The JPStalk to me 13:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

[edit] Hitchcock's suggestions for placement of music

I've just added a reference link to a transcript of Hitchcock's "suggestions for placement of music". As the link is to a site that I admin, please feel free to remove it if you feel my adding it was against Wikipedia policy. Davepattern (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoofs

  • In an epsiode of Goof Troop a crook trapped in Goofy's bathtub burgler trap literally goes down the drain while dragging the shower curtin behind him-also with the infamous violin music!
  • In an episode of Jimmy neutron Neutron robotic mother forces Jimmy and his father to shower-the scene shows screaming from behind the bathroom door with the infamous violin music going on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.127 (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)