# Talk:The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Do you have access to the offline information?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Alright. Will see what I can do, although I think I might've only used Scholar for one of the Robin Wood sources.--Tærkast (Discuss) 14:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
We played too talk about he was saying 67.60.170.161 (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand your meaning. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

What this article needs now is a complete and independent source review. Any ideas how we'd be able to get this? --Tærkast (Discuss) 14:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

Narrated by John Larroquette 
can someone please include that?..the page is semi-protected  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranoid Android1208 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC) 

Good point. Taerkast/Bignole, here's one decent cite I quickly found: http://www.avclub.com/articles/john-larroquette,2331/ —DCGeist (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Since he narrated only the introduction, should he be included in the infobox, or in the prose? --Tærkast (Discuss) 22:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
Yeah. It'll be added sometime. I don't have time to do it now.--Tærkast (Discuss) 23:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Not sure where exactly to put it, probably in the casting section? --Tærkast (Discuss) 16:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

I know we've been through quite a few of these before, so what's the harm in another one? --Tærkast (Discuss) 13:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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.
Just thought it should be fixed to avoid confusion.Hitman731 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done: Thanks for catching this. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Anybody reckon it's ready for another FA attempt? I'd like it to be my magnum opus of Wikipedia as it were :) --Tærkast (Discuss) 13:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It should be noted that the song "Chain Saw" by The Ramones should be added; The late Dee Dee Ramone was a fan of horror films such as TCM and Pet Sematary; Writer Stephen King was also a fan of the Ramones and used their 1989 song Pet Sematary in the 1989 film adaptation of the film of the same name. 
65.87.46.141 (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know if at any point in the movie "Pam" is ever called "Pamela" as a full name? I noticed this at http://texas-chainsaw-massacre.wikia.com/wiki/Pam but I am not sure if that is an assumption by fans or if there is actually a quote in the script or end credits to confirm it. Ranze (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1%2C1&Search_Arg=Texas%20Chain%20Saw%20Massacre&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=8PmUHaYeqahcKgw5jcKVRvta&SEQ=20120823094537&SID=1
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avclub.com/articles/john-larroquette%2C2331/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C100135%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019155715/http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/CaseStudies/The_Texas_Chain_Saw_Massacre to http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/CaseStudies/The_Texas_Chain_Saw_Massacre
Corrected formatting/usage for http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F19740101%2FREVIEWS%2F401010319%2F1023
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C991757%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C278290%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C451853_5%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0%2C28804%2C1676793_1676808_1677011%2C00.html
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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please remove the word "about" from the parentheses in the first sentence of the second paragraph.  We're using a calculation that is accurate to the hundredth of a penny, so it's no longer an approximation.  Thank you. 2605:6000:6F80:CE00:C064:3CD8:5338:84E0 (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done DRAGON BOOSTER  ★ 08:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

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)
Still seems a little strange to me, but thanks for your helpfulness---- Ducktech89 (talk) 8:37, 23 May 2018, (UTC)

If anybody's willing to help, I want to make a push for it to be an FA. --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Colombo crime family underboss John Franzese had a stake in the film. Anywhere this can be included? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 04:19, 13 October 2019 (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)

 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)

Id like to correct the box office according to this article. Yoshmin (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 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)
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) 

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)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

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)


### References to Add
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

Dodson, Will; Woofter, Kristopher (June 1, 2021). American Twilight: The Cinema of Tobe Hooper. University of Texas Press. ISBN 978-1-4773-2285-7.
Fulwood, Neil (October 1, 2003). "Censorship and Controversy". One Hundred Violent Films that Changed Cinema. Batsford. ISBN 978-0-7134-8819-7.
Hansen, Gunnar (September 23, 2013). Chain Saw Confidential: How We Made the World's Most Notorious Horror Movie. Chronicle Books. ISBN 978-1-4521-1449-1.- Gives a plethora of info that can be added to the article.
Lanza, Joseph (May 21, 2019). The Texas Chain Saw Massacre: The Film That Terrified a Rattled Nation. Skyhorse. ISBN 978-1-5107-3790-7.- Has a lot of backdrop and backstory to the film.
Miller, Cynthia; Van Riper, Bowdoin (February 23, 2017). What's Eating You?: Food and Horror on Screen. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5013-2239-6.- Has a page or two on the family's cannibalism.
Piatti-Farnell, Lorna (March 10, 2017). Consuming Gothic: Food and Horror in Film. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-1374-5050-0.
Zinoman, Jason (July 7, 2011). "The Dance of Death". Shock Value: How a Few Eccentric Outsiders Gave Us Nightmares, Conquered Hollywood, and Invented Modern Horror. Penguin Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-1015-1696-6.- More production background
Web

https://web.archive.org/web/20180521031142/https://nypost.com/2016/09/21/how-a-cute-cartoon-duck-inspired-an-iconic-slasher-flick-villain/- Gives additional inspiration on Leatherface
https://www.indiewire.com/2014/03/sxsw-tobe-hooper-on-why-audiences-get-texas-chain-saw-massacre-better-now-than-when-it-was-first-released-28993/
https://classic-horror.com/newsreel/marilyn_burns_texas_chain_saw_massacre_interview.html
http://www.terrortrap.com/interviews/marilynburns/
Documentaries

Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Shocking Truth- VERY good info on the background for the film.
--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

Not an error, but slasher is more specific. I changed it. --Mvqr (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

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."
This sentence is poorly written, contains three grammatical errors, one spelling mistake, is contentious at best and inflammatory at worst, and is poorly sourced. It should be removed altogether. 2600:8804:678F:1700:BD10:790A:284:7D63 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Very much agree. A generic claim poorly phrased. 2606:A800:D183:9500:6CB5:DC2D:158A:C04D (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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.
42 min 38 sec
FRANKLIN (to Sally):
“Did you believe all that stuff Pam was telling about? Saturn, and retrograde, and all that?” 93minerva93 (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
This would have to be discussed with reliable sources before even trying to add it into the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

mention the 4k Blu ray releases from Second Sight, and Dark Sky in "Post Release" section. Nj2007ir (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Urro[talk][edits] ⋮  15:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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:
https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/pdf/10.7227/GS.10.1.6 Black Film Archival Scholarship (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

There is a mention here of the film playing in some longer, more violent cut in some theaters. However, the only source for the claim is Stephen Vaughn's 2006 book Freedom and Entertainment: Rating the Movies in an Age of New Media. Vaughn's assertion that a longer version was restored by a distributor and played some cinemas is not mentioned or supported by any of the other production histories or academic writing on this topic. Vaughn's sole source for the claim is a decades after the fact interview with a former MPAA employee who does not provide any further documentation or proof. 
This claim is flimsy and unsupported. We know Hooper was in fact trying for a PG rating when he concieved the film. It is also unclear how a distrubutor would find the excised footage and reintegrate it into an already completed film. No longer cut of the work has ever surfaced and if such a thing existed it would be of massive interest to distributors. It is possible that his source was mistaking the film for some other work, possibly Last House on the Left.  
Vaughn's book also contains a number of errors. On page 97 he describes the film as containing scenes where we see "a chainsaw slicing into the flesh of the killer's victims." But no such shots exist. Wentthedaywell (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering I am currently working on an expansion of this article in a different space for now, I am not using that kind of source anyways. When I finally get to the point where I can transfer everything, that source will not be included.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, that's good to know. Vaughn's work is sloppy and very badly sourced. 82.2.227.7 (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Personally, I am only using some of the releases (home media), because of the sheer volume of them out there. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

"subtle commentary on the era's political climate" in regards to the fake true-story marketing in the lead? According to whom? Valance2000 (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure. Though I am working on expanding this article in a separate space, some of the mentions of this are in books, and some quotes from the director. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

ADD to Further reading

Lanza, Joseph (May 21, 2019). The Texas Chain Saw Massacre: The Film That Terrified a Rattled Nation. Skyhorse. ISBN 978151073790-7.

69.181.17.113 (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Warriorglance(talk to me) 07:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

ADD to Development
<blockquote>In 1973 [[Warren Skaaren|Warren Eduard Skaaren]], head of the [[Texas Film Commission]], met with potential backers to discuss the project. He played a major role in securing $60,000 in initial funding, $40,000 of which came from [[Texas Tech University]] Vice President Bill Parsley. Parsley's attorney, Robert Kuhn, contributed $9,000, while Henkel's sister Katherine, a college student at the time, invested $1,000. Another $10,000 came from Richard Saenz, a client of one of Kuhn's associates.<ref name=":2"/></blockquote>
69.181.17.113 (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

 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. Warriorglance(talk to me) 07:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Add a link to the Wikipedia entry for cast member John Henry Faulk RobT-2 (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done meamemg (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Add link to Tobe Hooper's wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobe_Hooper) Bfig51285 (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

 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.  Hello, @Bfig51285, He is already linked on the infobox and in the text at the first paragraph. I am not certain what you are asking for. Slomo666 (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

In the plot section, the hitchhiker takes a picture of Franklin, not the group. 76.169.150.29 (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

 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. Slomo666 (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

"Southern gothic" doesn't mean "horror story in the south." ~2025-31640-38 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

No, it means that a film belongs to the Southern Gothic genre, which seems reasonable enough in this case. Gawaon (talk) 08:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm aware of the genre, and it isn't merely a horror genre. Southern gothic portrays violence and cruelty as social phenomena in the south. This is a film about violence neatly personified. ~2025-31640-38 (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
We need to cite reliable sources, not our own takes. For example, Google Books shows these results here. However, the article body should state the Southern Gothic connection somewhere to allow for the category to be included. That really should be done for all categories, but if a category is going to be contentious, the article body needs to be adjusted or the category removed. Erik (talk | contrib) 21:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I would normally agree with this category sentiment, however, I have been working on expanding this article on a separate userspace to bring it up to date and up a higher quality. Discussion of genre is more suited in an analysis sub-section, however, listing genres risks bloating the article to necessary lengths so that can be an issue. I came across that same issue with the volume of information from reliable sources discussing the film. My solution was the possibility of a couple branching articles to tone down overlong and bloated article length and sourcing. My advice is to either hold off on genre listing and keep it as it is without adding more to it. If you want to get involved, let me know, I have plenty of work to be done to this and relating articles. Paleface Jack (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm unfortunately not interested. Only wanted to clarify for the first two editors that we need sourcing per WP:CATV. Erik (talk | contrib) 14:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
@Erik I am aware, clarification for others on established articles helps from things getting out of hand. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)