Talk:Psycho (1960 film)/Archive 1

message: Someone keeps insisting on rewriting the information on Hitchcock's film to assert that Samuel Taylor did an uncredited screenplay rewrite.  This is simply not true.  Not a single biography of Hitchcock, nor any account of "Psycho" itself, makes such a statement.   Interestingly enough, the same person or another chooses to deny the fact that the first "Psycho" script was written by James Allardice.  That, unlike the Samuel Taylor assertion, is a matter of verifiable studio record with dates, screenplay drafts, contracts and check requistions.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtchbrennr (talk • contribs) 06:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenplay Credit:Taylor-Made? 

message: The shower scene seems to me to be the most famous part of the film, yet the article never mentions WHY it's become so iconic. Having not seen the film I'm in no position to comment on it, but could somebody who has, add why it's become so famous? 18:43, 19 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a little something. I wasn't around then, but it's mostly speculation from when I saw the movie. I encourage further comments--Will2k 19:24, 19 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that there have been many people who swore that this scene was in color, that there are many shots of the knife entering her body, etc. The scene goes far beyond anything that had gone before in mainstream cinema in its graphic depiction of violence and murder. Those factors, combined with the technical editing/montage aspects, and combined with the typical Hitchcockian outbreak of chaos into a tranquil, orderly everyday experience like taking a shower, have made the scene the touchstone it has become. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I recall reading a book recounting Leigh's experiences. Despite having hired a double for any nude shots, Leigh claims for practical reasons it is her body for nearly all the shower shots. The double (who was nude) is the person laid out on the curtain, wrapped, and carried out. It is not a mannequin in the curtain but the body double. Sorry haven't got the reference info of that book. Asa01 06:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shower Scene 

message: I've done a little searching in regards to the George Reeves/Psycho controversy: Googling shows all Reeves/Psycho references to appear to have originated from Wikipedia. Just to be sure, I checked several books on Hitchcock, including Stephen Rebello's Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho. No mention of George Reeves was found in any of them. Unless someone can find a source that shows evidence to the contrary, this appears to me to be the worst kind of vandalism, intentionally using Wikipedia to spread disinformation. That this hoax seems to be spreading beyond Wikipedia makes it all the worse. Rizzleboffin 23:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, it's mentioned on IMDB. Is that confirmation? Skrooball 01:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. My dad's a big film buff, and we've got three biographies of Hitchcock, (including a big section on the making of Psycho), as well as one big one of George Reeves. In addition, we have the 45th anniversary DVD, not a mention of Reeves. The books never showed a hint of truth to it at all; it's obvious that somebody has spun an urban legend, fraud albeit amusing. All the same, it's still fictional. --Jonathan.Bruce 11:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Ted Newsom, I'm not even an IMDB user. I don't know who put that up; possibly you. It wasn't me. George "Skrooball" Reeves 02:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Ted, I don't like being accused of trolling. It makes me feel like a n00b, you know? *Not* a good feeling. George "Skrooball" Reeves 02:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: George Reeves & Psycho

message: While thumbing through Stephen Rebello's Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho for a mention of-- ahem-- George Reeves, I noticed that he says the character of Norman only in the book is partly based on Ed Gein. The Hitchcock film, he claims, actually took several of the more Gein-like characteristics away from Norman and added different characteristics unique to the film. Would it be nit-picky to say the Gein reference should be taken out of the film article and put into the article on the book? Rizzleboffin 23:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Basis: Ed Gein 

message: Does anyone else think that the remake link should link to the Psycho (1998 film) page, not the Remake (definition) page?  Just a thought, it would make it a bit cleaner if the (See Psycho (1998 film)) was removed and replaced in the Remake text.  D43M0N 07:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remake link

message: Let's get this collab rolling! In addition to the todo list above, I thought it would be helpful if everyone could see what the automated peer review tool generates for this article.
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 15 miles, use 15 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 15 miles.
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
*When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word 'The'. For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
*Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**it has been
**it is claimed
**apparently
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment). 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*Please provide citations for all of the s.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Supernumerary 05:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated Peer Review 

message: The section "Effect on popular perceptions of mental illness" seems to me to be very POV and needs to be either sourced or removed. The section "Importance in Film History" is also very POV as it now stands. Both need to be reworded and sourced, or removed.--Supernumerary 06:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on the "Effect on popular ...," but I think the "Importance in Film History" is necessary, but with a lot of fat that can be trimmed (or at least cited).  --GHcool 01:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I agree the importance section is needed. But statements like: "Psycho is often seen as a turning point in film history, representing the shift from Classical to the more experimental "Post-Classical" film. Psycho's unconventional storytelling and stylized photography and editing show the influence of the French New Wave and the European art films that Hitchcock admired." and "The most original and influential moment in the film is the "shower scene,. . ." sound very POV. That's why I tagged the former with ; if it's often seen like that surely a source can be found. The second begs the question of how we can objectively state what is "most original and influential" since those qualities are not readily quantifiable in my experience. I'd be fine if that was quoted from someone though.--Supernumerary 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I've removed this section from the main article.  I agree with the editor's sidebar note.  This claim could use evidence to support the premise that "psycho" was not a derogatory term before this film and that the film affected its connotation--Hondo 03:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Effect on popular perceptions of mental illness

message: This article needs sources. There must be a whole stack of books on this film and all we currently have are some measly links. I also do not think that the IMDB trivia page can be cited as a source. Anyone agree?--Supernumerary 06:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IMDB trivia section is definitely not a valid source, as it is created by anon users, just like Wikipedia. Do you have access to a well-stocked library, Supernumerary? The books are certainly out there. Cop 633 14:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I happen to have Francois Truffaut's book-length interview with Hitchcock on my shelf, which should provide a wealth of information as all of it is coming from Hitchcock's own mouth. Green451 19:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm currently re-working the production section over in my Sandbox. Expect something in a few days.--Supernumerary 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Just write Leigh, 62-72.  --GHcool 00:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, but what I'm more concerned with is whether I am citing too much. Any opinion on that?--Supernumerary 01:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My feeling is that there's no such thing as citing too much.  Maybe others might disagree, but in my experience, if I come across a endnote while reading a text that I'm not interested in, I just won't bother looking at the back of the book to see the source.  This occurs for at least 90% of the endnotes I have ever came across in my studies, but in the less than 10% of the times I am interested in what the source was, I am glad that the endnote is there.  --GHcool 03:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: === Pop Culture Recurrences ===
For most culturally significant films etc on wikipedia there seems to be a influences on pop culture section.  Psycho is practically everywhere, spoofed in movies and cartoons, the music used in various places.  I think there should be a section for this here - its why I looked it up so I was surprised when it wasn't there.  Does anyone know enough about this to star such a list?  202.6.138.33 (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Yes, mother." 
Eh, does anyone currently alive in the English-speaking world *not* know what Psycho's main twist is? It's become a cliche. Not saying we should remove the spoiler tags, just saying...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derleth2 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 24 April 2003 (UTC)

text: In a word, yes.  There are people who don't know what the twist is, and some of them take classes on Hitchcock.  Koyaanis Qatsi 13:22, 24 April 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely. I've been studying Hitch for nearly 20 years, and there's no need to ruin a first viewing for a new student. 66.108.4.183 05:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Si, fly. Skrooball 21:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, why not?  also, if you're logged in, you can sign three tildes (~ ~ ~ but without the spaces) and the software will replace it to a link to your userpage.  A fourth tilde adds a timestamp.  Koyaanis Qatsi 07:32, 16 May 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: For clairty, how about a seperate page for the sequels.  This page is becoming quite clustered, with the novel, Hitchcock, Van Sant...  I think the 1960 film is of significant importance to merit its own page (shared with Bloch's novel).  Any thoughts? The JPS 02:08, 29 January 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, great pun in the title here.  Secondly, is there enough information on each of the films to make them into articles, or just stubs? D43M0N 07:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes definately, that's what I thought as soon as I got there.  They clearly need seperate articles.  202.6.138.34 (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be good.  Bloch wrote sequels to his novel as well, Psycho II and Psycho House, which could be discussed on such a page since they are unrelated to the film sequels.  He also was credited as an editor for the short story anthology Robert Bloch's Psychos, although this was published posthumously and is unrelated to the novels and films. Schizombie 23:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I mostly agree except instead of a flat out delete I'd rather merge the two.--Supernumerary 02:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Be bold! Mercilessly edit and damn the author!--Supernumerary 02:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fulfilled (Closed?) Requests

message: For most culturally significant films etc on wikipedia there seems to be a influences on pop culture section.  Psycho is practically everywhere, spoofed in movies and cartoons, the music used in various places.  I think there should be a section for this here - its why I looked it up so I was surprised when it wasn't there.  Does anyone know enough about this to star such a list?  202.6.138.33 (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Culture Recurrences 

message: :"Yes, mother." 
Eh, does anyone currently alive in the English-speaking world *not* know what Psycho's main twist is? It's become a cliche. Not saying we should remove the spoiler tags, just saying...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derleth2 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 24 April 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: In a word, yes.  There are people who don't know what the twist is, and some of them take classes on Hitchcock.  Koyaanis Qatsi 13:22, 24 April 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely. I've been studying Hitch for nearly 20 years, and there's no need to ruin a first viewing for a new student. 66.108.4.183 05:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Spoiler Alert' IS Necessary

message: While not being an expert on mental disorder by any stretch of the imagination, I think this gives the wrong impressiong of schizophrenia, which is often misinterpreted as someone who has multiple personalities.
I know that Bates can be considered to have some of the symptoms of schizophrenia, but wouldn't a "SEE ALSO" to, say, multiple personality disorder (or something similar) be more appropriate?
Malrase 17:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Si, fly. Skrooball 21:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See Also: Schizophrenia" 

message: I wonder if it would be acceptable or feasible simply to include a link here to the IMDB trivia page rather than listing all these things here? Is there a policy covering that kind of thing? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Section Reduction 

message: Under the Trivia section, it used to say this movie was the first to depict a woman in a bra.  This is false, as Janet Leigh could be seen in a bra in Touch of Evil, 1958, and on the documentry on the Psycho DVD, it mentions that Janet Leigh's bras were to be what women actualy wore, as opposed to the unrealistic bras most actresses wore.Xijjix 18:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Bra Movie Claim

message: The film has had three sequels also starring Perkins:
*Psycho II - 1983
*Psycho III - 1986
*Psycho IV - 1990
A TV Movie(actualy a pilot to a never produced TV series):
*Bates Motel - 1987
A color remake:
*Psycho - 1998.
Though, naturaly, none of them had the original's success or significance, should they be mentioned here? User: Dimadick 06:34, 16 May 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, why not?  also, if you're logged in, you can sign three tildes (~ ~ ~ but without the spaces) and the software will replace it to a link to your userpage.  A fourth tilde adds a timestamp.  Koyaanis Qatsi 07:32, 16 May 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: For clairty, how about a seperate page for the sequels.  This page is becoming quite clustered, with the novel, Hitchcock, Van Sant...  I think the 1960 film is of significant importance to merit its own page (shared with Bloch's novel).  Any thoughts? The JPS 02:08, 29 January 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, great pun in the title here.  Secondly, is there enough information on each of the films to make them into articles, or just stubs? D43M0N 07:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Psycho'' Psequels

message: Anyone think there should be a separate article for the book apart from the movie, aside from just one article encompassing both? TheCoffee 11:57, 27 February 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes definately, that's what I thought as soon as I got there.  They clearly need seperate articles.  202.6.138.34 (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be good.  Bloch wrote sequels to his novel as well, Psycho II and Psycho House, which could be discussed on such a page since they are unrelated to the film sequels.  He also was credited as an editor for the short story anthology Robert Bloch's Psychos, although this was published posthumously and is unrelated to the novels and films. Schizombie 23:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book/Movie Split? 

message: Why are their two plot summaries? Isn't the "Brief" plot summary good enough? Even the brief summary is actually more detailed than many plot summaries for other articles about great movies.  I propose we delete the "Detailed" plot summary from the article.  --GHcool 01:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly agree except instead of a flat out delete I'd rather merge the two.--Supernumerary 02:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Be bold! Mercilessly edit and damn the author!--Supernumerary 02:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Brief" and "Detailed" plot summaries 

message: I saw this dispute mentioned in the RfC. I agree that the Hitchcock's momentary cameo is not significant enough to warrant a section of its own. He appeared in all of his later films, and there was nothing notable about this appearance to make it stand out from the others.--Mantanmoreland 19:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Responding to RfC

message: Thanks for the input on having a separate secticon for AH's cameos.  None of the remarks were taken as personal.  Since the general consensus is that an individual heading is not appropriate I relocating this along with the others added to other Hitchcock films to the trivia section sections. - after all i don't want the Wikipedia police at my door for non compliance.  I did take the liberty of bolding Alfred Hitchcock cameo at the beginning of the trivia entry, just to make it easier to spot  :-) Philbertgray 13:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the current version it appears as a separate section.--Mantanmoreland 22:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitchcock Cameo section removed

message: Personally, I think we need a picture of the Bates Motel and House, as well as a still or photo that has the main cast in it (or at least Leigh and Perkins), such as a publicity photo (Similar to the cast photo in the Sunset Boulevard article).  The picture of the shadowy mother could work, but I think an additional image to have would be the final shot of the shower scene, with Leigh on the floor.  It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but I believe that that would kill three birds with one stone:
# It would illustrate the difficulty of getting that shot, which is mentioned.
# It would illustrate Hitchcock's need to shoot in black-and-white to avoid showing red blood.
# It would illustrate the use of chocolate syrup as blood.
You guys are doing great on the article, and I wish I could contribute more than comments and small fixes, but I lack most of the sources or knowledge of the film to contribute in a large way.  Keep up the good work, Green451 01:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a note, I don't have the DVD, so I can't take screenshots of the movie.  Is it possible for someone who has the DVD to take a screenshot of the Bates motel and house, preferably in the same shot?  I think it would contribute immensly to the article.  And as one more note, what does anyone think about using the famous still of Hitchcock holding the clapper board on the set of the film?  I'm just throwing ideas around.  Comments please... Green451 04:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we need some image for the production section. Both the books I have are filled with photos and stills, but alas I lack the means to upload them. So yeah, add it or others if you can.--Supernumerary 01:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I went and removed all the superfluous full-fleged references to Janet Leigh's book and changed them to the shorter ones.  As well, I streamlined a few others. Green451 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Are there any glaring omissions from this article? I've still got 5 4 more big things to add: the difficulty of shooting the discovery of mother, the typecasting Leigh and Perkins suffered from, interpretation of scenes and motifs by Leigh, and the merchandising and TV( and that Hitchcock never viewed the dailies or looked through the camera). Really any suggestions at all are welcome.--Supernumerary 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about having something about the difficulty getting the shot in the shower scene where the camera  looks directly up at the water coming out of the shower?  If I remember correctly from reading it somewhere (it was a while back), the camera had to be placed very precisely and shot with a long lens. I could be completely wrong about that, though. Green451 04:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leigh's book had nothing about the shot (except that everyone copied off of it). Rebello's book goes into much more depth so I'll have a look there.--Supernumerary 04:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it. It's been added to the article.--Supernumerary 23:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What else? 

message: I'm removing the OR until a source can be found. It sounds like it came from some film studies book, so perhaps someone can check a film studies book. (I'll look in my film history text.) This also removes the only uncited facts from the article, which makes the whole thing look better. The text is reproduced below so that it might be re-added later.--Supernumerary 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good call.  It sounds like bullshit anyway.  ;) --GHcool 01:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR from the innovations section 

message: Should I add an interpretation section? It would mostly be Leigh's interpretation of the film. She talks about how the shower is a baptism, the use of shadows, windows, and mirrors, how the cop scene shows Hitchcock's phobia of cops, and other things (like her bra's color changing to reflect her theft).--Supernumerary 01:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds interesting, relevant, valuable and non-original research since it's largely from Leigh herself. I'd say go for it. MeekSaffron 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation? 

message: Some nice bits of information could be reprocessed from Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho: A Look at its Impact on the Film Industry especially if someone is monitoring the email address mentionned at its end to provide the bibliography.
I especially think the "No one will be admitted" poster is striking and fair use in the innovations in film section, though we'd need concrete source information aside from the paper. Opinions? MeekSaffron 13:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely.  This is just a well-written term paper for a film studies class, so it isn't really valuable by itself, but if someone can get a list of her bibliography and trace down some of her more applicable quotes, that would be great.  And yes, "No one will be admitted" is a good image.  --GHcool 15:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've emailed the address at the bottom. I'll post with the results, positive or negative. MeekSaffron 17:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, there has been no reply. MeekSaffron 03:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No one will be admitted after the start 

message: After Norman disposes of Marion's body, the scene shifts to Lila and Sam in the hardware store.  There is a woman customer present who is talking to the clerk about a pesticide::  "They tell you what its ingredients are and how it's guaranteed to exterminate any insect in the world, but they do not tell you whether or not it's painless. And I say insect or man, death should always be painless."
At the end of the movie, Norman's mother is speaking and saying how "I wouldn't even harm a fly."  
What appears as more than coincidental is that the voices of the Norman's mother and the Woman Customer sound the same.  It makes me wonder if Hitchcock did this with purpose (foreshadowing maybe?).    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.125.183.135 (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Coincidence with Woman Customer in Hardware Store

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Psycho is considered a [[Gore film]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  CCOTW End 

message: 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)
thread_title: Size

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Critical re-review 

message: #There's a bullet point in the Production that could do with prosifying. Try intergrating it.
#The trivia section can be merged: the Hitchcock cameo in the cast and Leigh's double somewhere else. Maybe in the Reaction/Legacy sections.
#One cite lacks a page number.
Good luck. Wiki-newbie 16:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still got a trivia section, which a mature article shouldn't. The JPStalk to me 17:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivia section is gone.--Supernumerary 19:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: 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)
thread_title:  I added some material... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lots of edits, but no discussion 

message: 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).
:Fixed.  That was a very old piece of vandalism. I'm surprised that nobody caught it earlier. Green451 02:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 28 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  References in popular culture 

message: ^ 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. . 
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Sourcing

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Saul Bass rumors 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Body exhumed? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: It was Janet Leigh who always claimed that it was her in every shot of the shower sequence (see her book about "Psycho").  However, Hitchcock shot a full days' worth of footage with her body double (Marli Renfro) on the day after Leigh completed her shots (see Rebello's book on the making of the film).  When I corresponded recently with Renfro, she claimed that several of the shots in the sequence are of her.  In particular, one of the overhead shots during the attack is extremely likely to be Renfro, as the shot is carefully framed as to not show Marion's head and a bare breast is briefly visible.  Also, having watched the short segment where a knife appears to penetrate flesh in the HD transfer, I'm certain that it doesn't -- the darkness visible at the tip of the knife is due to the side lighting and it's a shadow on the blade.  Careful viewing of the HD transfer also confirms that the segment is reversed footage, as the flow of water from the shower is upwards. Davepattern (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  shower sequence 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  contradiction 

message: :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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hitchcock's suggestions for placement of music 

message: It's good and very informative. Keep copyediting for FA. Wiki-newbie 21:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! A 22:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hooray! Now let's try to do the same for A Trip to the Moon (film)‎! :) --GHcool 22:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Pass

message: *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)
replies: text: It has to be sourced a talk 22:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoofs

message: I've heard several different stories over the years as to what the source of inspiration for the Bates house design was. Edward Hopper's painting "House by the Railroad" gets cited a lot, but I also remember reading that a building on a California university campus is nearly indentical to it and was the actual source. I forget which college. I may have read that in Janet Leigh's book "Psycho: Behind The Scenes of the Classic Thriller". Anybody know? --208.65.188.23 (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inspriration for the Bates house?

message: The "Cast" section includes a mention of PSYCHO "jump-starting the careers of Perkins and Leigh."  This may be a matter of opinion rather that fact, considering prominent pre-1960 film work by Perkins (FRIENDLY PERSUASION, FEAR STRIKES OUT, GREEN MANSIONS) and Leigh (HOUDINI, TOUCH OF EVIL, THE VIKINGS).  It's also contradicted in the "Pre-production" section, where it's stated that "[b]oth stars were experienced and proven box-office draws."    The News Hound 19:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Perkins and Leigh "jump-start?"

message: Although I am fully aware that Psycho has been referenced in multiple Simpsons episodes, it seems the sources do not verify this fact. First off, source 5 is just a link to answers.com, which is pretty much a copy of the wikipedia page. Even there, the source listed for The Simpsons is the same as source 40 here. In turn, source 40 (http://www.filmsite.org/psyc.html) provides adequate sources for movies listed in the article that reference Psycho (Halloween, High Anxiety, etc.) but nothing to do with The Simpsons. Also, source 40 and 42 are the same, not sure if that matters, since they are at different dates (although once again, source 40 does not really talk about what it's supposed to be a source of).
So, basically, two things. First, should another source be found for the Simpsons (perhaps http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/wiki/Category:Hitchcock_references_in_The_Simpsons:_Psycho)? Second, can source 5 (answers.com) really be used as a source?  96.233.177.143 (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture References and Sources