Talk:The Screaming Skull

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

Inspired by F. Marion Crawford's short story?[edit]

I see that http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052169/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv repeats the idea that Crawford's story inspired this script, but I don't see the resemblance. The whole story can be read at http://gaslight.mtroyal.ca/scremskl.htm Perhaps the only thing they share is the title? Has John Kneubuhl confirmed this? Thanks! Darci (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Screaming Skull/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 13:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll take this. I may be a little rusty at reviewing though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Within definition
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pending

Review comments[edit]

1[edit]

  • Per WP:LEAD, this article (just under 7k characters) should not have a 3 paragraph lead
  • I don't want to get into a detailed prose review until #3 is dealt with, so we'll just put this on pause. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviews were negative, with one reviewer from DVD Verdict calling it "truly awful". - We jump fifty or so years in two sentence. Not quite fair to the film.
    Reworked.
  • by Marion's self-portrait inside the house, who Jenni believes resembles her mother. - The pronoun "who" is referring to Marion's self-portrait, which does not make sense. The sentence should be refactored
    Changed to "which". Better?
  • Jenni faints and Eric withdraws the skull and hides it, revealing that he was responsible for the trickery all along in an effort to get hold of her wealth. - you haven't mentioned that Jenni was rich yet
    Added.
  • roles on Broadway productions and often played supporting roles - any way to avoid repeating roles?
  • Nicol also stars as Mickey, the gardener. - stars or appears?
  • I'd say stars - he's listed on the poster as a main role.
  • with a small budget - do we know how much?
    No.
  • Reviews have been negative. - if we're not presenting any contemporary reviews, this isn't quite fair. We should mention that these are reviews by more recent writers.
    I removed the sentence.
  • Three Came Back links to an episode of Hawaiian Eye?
  • Yeah, there isn't an article on it yet. I changed it to a redlink. (Scheuer calls it by an alternate title.)
  • Can't tell - the site doesn't say.
  • Is the MST3K riff track worth its whole section? It's a single paragraph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuked.

OK, I think I've got all these. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you think it will be a good idea to mention the film for which Floyd Crosby won the Academy Award?--MJ for U (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aloof" gardener... the dialogue is fairly explicit that he is developmentally disabled, rather than simply aloof. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3[edit]

  • The lack of contemporary sources is a big, big, big shortcoming for this. Google News may have something. A little light on books too. This gives background to the theatrical gimmick (useful for modern readers). Probably a bit more here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should include dates for references which include them (DVD Verdict's review is dated... looks to be the only one). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any comparisons of the different DVD releases? Reading IMDB (not a reliable source, but good for getting an idea on where to go next) there are some considerable differences, particularly with Webber's bra-and-slip scene.
  • Speaking of that scene, are there any sources that discuss it in detail? That seems rather racy for a 1958 film, especially when Psycho's scene with Janet Leigh drew some considerable heat two years later.
  • Mention the coffin in the prologue? Supported by the AFI link and TCM link, and with a screenshot (on Commons already)
  • The references I've checked all support what they are cited for and are not closely paraphrased. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6[edit]

  • If the film is public domain as the article says, there is no reason to not use a screenshot (title card, usually). NFCC #1 doesn't permit fair-use images when free ones exist. (The poster has a copyright notice, but I haven't looked any further than that yet)

Hi, thanks for taking this up. I've done some little editing, and added two reviews from book sources. I also have trimmed the lead a bit, and added the bit about Castle's insurance to the Production section. Sadly, the news sources don't seem very useful; most of them are just TV schedules with a one-sentence blurb. But I'll keep looking. Again, thanks. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • McGee also says that Nicol didn't actually buy the insurance, as opposed to the earlier film. Might be nice if we could tie the poster's line in as well. Free burial? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • K, just waiting on the images before I continue (probably tomorrow, considering the local time). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like just need to clean up the images and do a source review (spotcheck and formatting check). I'll start on the latter, but you should do the former. Do you have a copy of the film? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've set my computer to download Archive.org's copy of the film (PD, right?), so I can a) help with images, b) upload the film to Commons, and c) verify the plot. This may take a while, owing to the connection speed in Indonesia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I'm passing this as a GA. Good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is good work. Fair and considered. Thanks. Mag Wildwood (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration for free burial gimmick[edit]

"inspired by a gimmick added by William Castle in his film The Tingler (1959)" How could it be inspired by something from a movie released the next year? --Khajidha (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just what the sources say. I'm assuming that since Castle was known for his gimmicks (his previous films all had them) this one was unveiled early. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to double check the sources for more details, we shouldn't have to assume anything. --Khajidha (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, it is suggested "The Screaming Skull" got its free burial if you die of fright from the "Macabre" offer of life insurance against death by fright. The release date of "The Screaming Skull" is listed as Jan 1958. The release date of "Macabre" is listed as Mar 1958 but its production dates were Jul-Aug 1957. But that does not tell us when the promotional campaigns were started. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Screaming_Skull&oldid=1210284251"