Talk:Cat People (1942 film)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer some comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Tourneur added that Lewton was not sure what to do with the title, and with "Val, with his good taste, said that the only way to do it was not to make the blood-and-thunder cheap horror movie that the studio expected but something intelligent and in good taste."" I don't follow. Also, be aware of MOS:LQ.

I believe I've fixed this issue. tell me if there is any more clarification needed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a little context about "Ancient Sorceries"? At the very least, could you tell us what period it's set in?

I've added a brief plot scenario and info on its setting. I'm trying to say the story has a contemporary setting but is set in a Medieval architecture set-town, if that makes any sense. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Bodeen also stated that the scene was inspired by his own experience of nearly drowning when swimming alone at night in a pool. Tourneur said that the scene was based on his own experience of swimming alone in a friend's pool while the friend's pet cheetah escaped and began pacing nearby.[5]" Does this belong here?

I added a bit more info maybe to clarify this if that helps anything. Otherwise, not sure what the issue is exactly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"That became the bust and we used it in every film." Bust?

This seems to have been a misspelling I or someone else accidentally corrected. should say 'bus'. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"a Disney cartoon about a kitten" DO we know what that was? We probably have an article about it...

Sadly the statement about the intro only comes from one of the writers of the film attending the premiere, so its second hand information. Haven't been able to find anything about what the cartoon was. If I find anything, I'll add it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"60 times its estimated budget of $134,000" You give a very precise budget a few paragraphs up. Which is it?

I've removed this statement, I think the rest of the paragraph clarifies a bit more without it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping there for now. Great read so far. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tricky point, and I'm certainly not insisting on anything, but if you head towards FAC... I hadn't gotten the impression from the article that the film was particularly famous, so the quote at the start of the retrospective reception section feels a bit out of place. By the end of the article, I get the impression that the visual style, the stalking scene, and the pool scene are all particularly iconic; my instinct is that this could have perhaps been brought out a bit more clearly earlier on in the article.

I'm not sure how much more I could expand on them or where currently. I might try to put a bit more focus on them on a re-write later, is it skippable for now? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(The section also feels a bit he-said-she-said - again, something to think about if you're looking towards FAC.)

I'm thinking again this isn't 100% necessary to go over unless we are going for FA? I'll be happy to tackle it otherwise. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is more looking towards FAC than demanding any changes now, but: "Newman praises the film, noting that it was the first major supernatural horror film with a contemporary urban, American setting with "normal people, engaged in normal occupations" as leading characters. She concludes that Cat People was a progenitor of films like Rosemary's Baby." This feels like literary analysis and/or historical contextualising rather than "reception". I personally think it belongs in another section. I'd like to see more scholarly analysis in this article; I worry it might be a little too woven in with critical (i.e., critic's) opinions. But, again, this is something to think about if you're looking towards FAC.

As per above i'll try to re-figure this later I suppose. But this did make me catch a mistake, Kim Newman identifies as "he" not "she". So i've fixed that one! Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Fujiwara declared the film in his book on Tourneur that it was "a master text in Tourneur's filmography"," Clumsy

I've tried re-phrasing this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pet peeve, but "opining" is a word that only seems to exist on Wikipedia. Don't feel you have to change it, but do think about it!

It's pretty funny, as in all the texts I've read on film, this film was the first I've heard someone use the term "opine" outside Wikipedia. I've changed it here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph of the "remake" section is a little choppy - and some dates would be helpful context. I completely lost what was going on in the second paragraph - the link to the article on the 1982 film in the first sentence threw me.

There's very little information I could find on when and how these bits of information were done. I believe one sourced gave a vague estimation of mid-1970s but it didn't sound very certain so I've ignored it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"which also contains a plot that involves a gypsy curse" First mention of a "gypsy curse".

I've clarified what this refer to (specficially, the Wolf Man plot). I think that clears it up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finished my first read through. Again, please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits seem fine and non-controversial to me. Thank you for making them! Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everson, Narenmore, Silver & Ward, Tollette, Viera, and White & Buscombe all appear in the bibliography, but are not cited.

These have been removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look OK, and I'm not going to pick on formatting. Be aware that you should cite particular entries in encyclopedias/chapters in collections, rather than the book as a whole, but perhaps the only ones that would need changing will be removed per the above bullet anyway.

I believe most here are authors through out the book currently. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn:, I believe I've gone through everything you mentioned. Is there more to tackle in the article? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" had worked on second-unit" I don't know what this means, so I suspect that lots of other readers won't. "rushes" is another term that isn't familiar to me.
"the cats presence by shadows" - Apostrophe. What does the source say? If that's what's in the source, a {{sic}} would be helpful.

It's looking great. I still need another look at the bottom two sections and a close look at the images/sources. I'll hopefully be back in the next few days. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy enough with the sourcing and images. I finished my second read of the article and made a few more changes. If you're happy with the changes, those two comments above are all that's outstanding. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great I think your edits were good. I only made one mild change with a citation and phrasing. I've also addressed your previous two edits @J Milburn:, I've tried to explain some filmmaking phrases with slight re-arranges and wikilinks and fixed the missing apostrophe. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is now looking great, and I'm happy to promote. I do think that FAC may be in reach. Take a look at my earlier comments and have a good delve into the scholarly literature if you're wanting to push that way. If you're having trouble accessing any particular sources, let me know; I may be able to get hold of them for you. A pleasure working with you. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It maybe something I want to tackle in the future for this article. I'll consider it for sure. Thanks for all your work reviewing and editing J! Great to work with you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]