Wikipedia:Peer review/Squirm/archive1

Squirm

I've listed this article for peer review because of it failing its FAC and wanting to seek input on how to improve it.

Thanks, GamerPro64 02:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Gerald WL

GamerPro64, Comments I can provide (changes in italics):

1. In "Plot," after the words "In the rural town of Fly Creek, Georgia," a footnote was provided, reading, "Fly Creek, Georgia is a fictional town invented for the movie." This would most likely not be needed, as readers can just directly know that a fictional town is created for the film. You cannot tell me "The world of Harry Potter is made for the book, then for the movie" as if I don't know that. I suggest remove that note.

I agree with this. Was not a fan when this was suggested at FAC. removed. GamerPro64 01:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

2. In "Legacy," De Palma is quoted to answer "Only use the best!" Should it be pre-explained "De Palma reportedly answered simply with "Only use the best!""?

That seems excessive. GamerPro64 01:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess, yeah. Ignore no. 2, my bad haha. GeraldWL 06:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

3. In "Legacy," second paragraph-second sentence: "The episode was broadcast on the Sci-Fi Channel on August 1, 1999, and was the penultimate episode to the series." That's not really of a necessary description there. I suggest merging the sentence; thus second paragraph's first sentence will be "Squirm was featured on a tenth-season episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 (MST3K), a comedy television series broadcasted on the Sci-Fi Channel on August 1, 1999 in which the character Mike Nelson and his two robot friends Crow T. Robot and Tom Servo are forced to watch bad films as part of an ongoing scientific experiment."

That's what I can comment by a quick read of the article. I cannot really go into citations for now; I'll probably try do that when I'm free. Other than that, I view the article as comprehensive, detailed, and does not deviate to off-topic things. Good stuff there. GeraldWL 15:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

SG

Sorry for the delay, GamerPro64; it seems to be one thing after another.

This is left over from the FAC, but still concerns me:

• Sylvester Stallone also auditioned for a part in the film.[7]

You mentioned that the Film WikiProject considered Dread Central a reliable source, but I can find no indication of why they consider it reliable, nor can the views of one WikiProject prevail at FAC. And, the source says that the director made this claim on the Blu-Ray DVD, so the claim needs to be attributed ("According to ..."). And, since they are the only outlet to mention this minor factoid, I am unconvinced it belongs in the article at all.

I think if we can work out that one sourcing issue, and if we can get Mike Christie to look in again at the prose, it should be possible to get this article over the hump. I am watchlisting now and will chip away at prose issues. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Sandy. I’ve been meaning to get back here but have been distracted by a couple of other obligations, both on- and off-wiki. One of my concerns with the article was the reception section. Are you familiar with WP:RECEPTION? If you look at the prose before I get to it I’d like to know if you agree with the essay and if it applies here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed the Stallone mention. GamerPro64 01:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mike and Gamer; I will look at that essay tomorrow and focus on that aspect. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I was not familiar with that excellent essay, Mike, so thanks. Yes, I see that it can be helpful here. And I can see themes around which to organize the content in the article. Do you want to attempt that, Gamer, or do you want to wait until I have time to give it a try (which may not be for several days)?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You can give it a try. I thought I was going somewhere with it during it's nomination but guess not. GamerPro64 21:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Gamer and Mike Christie, I gave it a try, but as we know, my prose isn't stellar. Per the RECEPTION essay, I identified a narrative as:

1. Gruesome, creepy horror was recognized as conveyed by special effects
2. But the production, direction and performances received mixed reviews
3. Yet, the film achieved cult-like status, as retrospective reviews recognized themes and appreciated humor

For now, it's at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox5. Do you want to work on it there, or should I copy it in to here, or should I move it in to the article? Or is it no good at all :) :) Gamer, it's important to make sure I got all the pieces, didn't drop anything, and got everything attached to the right citation, as I was basically moving things around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I want to hear Mikes take on this but I personally think that the reception should be kept together chronologically. Like set up that it got mixed reception when it was released but was more well received later on in life. GamerPro64 23:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that was your narrative (early lukewarm, later positive reviews) but my sense was that Mike didn't like the flow, so I went for something else. I did weave the early vs. retrospective reviews in to the new narrative, though. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandy, I think this is a real improvement; much more natural flow. GamerPro64, I get that the narrative sequence has value because of the change in viewer opinion, but I think Sandy's managed to preserve that here, though I do have a comment about that below.. I've tweaked the text a bit. Some comments on this version:

• The Variety magazine review regarded the special effects as genuinely creepy is cited to Maltin, so is this quoted by Maltin? If so could we combine it with the early sentence, e.g. "...shock sequences', and quoted a Variety review that regarded..."?
• The third paragraph doesn't seem to be quite sequenced correctly -- we have "commendable" and ""excellent" before we get to "Impressions had changed", which should be the lead in to the positive reviews, shouldn't it?

Glad you like the essay, Sandy; I wrote most of it and have opposed several times at FAC based on my belief that these sections can be made more readable. I don't think it's easy though and I try to put my money where my mouth is if I have time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Tired, long day, I could have attached a wrong citation as I was moving things around, will look tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

So I guess we can throw the revised version into the Reception section and then Mike can do a copy edit when he is available. GamerPro64 15:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I will look for the problem Mike raises above later today, and then copy it over ... still getting caffeinated here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Inserted rewrite into article. Mike Christie, I am not seeing the Maltin/Variety problem you mentioned above, so perhaps you already corrected that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Will take a look tonight -- if I don't get to it then it'll be some time over the weekend. I'll try to do a copyedit pass over the whole article too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

SG continued

Thanks, Mike, for great contribs!

Most of the financing came from Broadway producers Edgar Lansbury and Joseph Beruh. The film was shot in Port Wentworth, Georgia, over five weeks. Millions of worms, from Georgia and Maine, were used. Makeup artist Rick Baker provided special effects for the film using prosthetics for the first time in his career.

Varying the length of sentences improves the prose. I suggest combining sentences two and three into one longer sentence, to avoid having choppiness from four short thoughts at once.

Maybe ... Millions of worms were used over the five-week filming in Port Wentworth, Georgia; worms were brought in from Maine to augment local supplies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Squirm was picked up for distribution by American International Pictures and was edited in an attempt to change it from an "R" rating to a "PG" rating.

Maybe ... After Squirm was picked up for distribution by American International Pictures, it was edited in an unsuccessful attempt to change it from an "R" rating to a "PG" rating by removing some of the more repugnant scenes.

(Better word than scary needed, not sure "repugnant" is best choice, maybe scan the sources for a better word, but at any rate, make it clear what the nature of the attempt was and that it was not successful). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

... a powerful storm blows down an overhead power line,

powerful ... power ... need to vary the wording ... maybe a "violent" storm? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The power line lands in wet mud and starts to electrify the worms underneath. ... Roger's shipment of 100,000 bloodworms and sandworms escape from the back of the truck.

We're missing a step. We aren't told how the earthworms under the power line that were electrified relate to the earthworm shipment ... did they get electrified, too ? I think this hinges on the word starts to electrify the worms underneath ... did that continue for a time afterwards and include the missing shipment ? We only discover paragraphs later, " Mick realizes electricity is still being released from the power lines and that the wet soil is acting as a conductor; he remembers the worms only come out at night.", so in the first para we need to somehow explain "starts" in relation to ... continuing for some time after ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

With these I think you're good to go back to FAC; like Mike, I will hold off initially, as now "involved". Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Starting to go through now.

• GamerPro64, can you explain this sentence to me? Cinefantastique contributor Kyle B. Counts took exception to a shot of the worms burrowing into Roger's face, mentioning the gruesomeness of the worms "wiggling convulsively". I don't have access to the source. What's puzzling is that "take exception" to means "disapproves of" but the context is whether the special effects worked well, so is Counts saying they worked so well he was revulsed? Or that he didn't like them because they didn't work well?
  • Found an Archive.org link to the review and added it. So the mention of that part is "Liebermans handling of the creepy goings-on is oppressively clumsy, save for one expertly gruesome shot that shows a team of worms burrowing into a mans face, their electrified tails still wiggling convulsively. Elsewhere he repeatedly short-changes his audience by cutting away from anticipated violence and inserting the kind of comic relief [...] that only undermines the films already threadbare tension." GamerPro64 01:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

    OK, thanks. Now I'm wondering if the start of that paragraph is strictly correct; currently we have "Opinions on the film's special effects were mixed upon the film's release, but retrospective reviewers were more positive", but in fact the mixed opinions seem to be about the film overall, not really the special effects. I don't see any criticism of the special efects in any of the sources except the "spaghetti" comment. Can you see any other negative comments about the effects? If not, I'll rewrite the first paragraph to change the focus. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

    Spent a bit more time thinking about this and came up with this candidate first paragraph (with formatting and footnotes removed for readability for now). How about this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

    Opinions on the film's horror elements and special effects were mostly positive, with several reviewers crediting the special effects for conveying a sense of gruesome creepiness. A TV Guide contributor described the worm scenes "genuinely terrifying", and Cinefantastique contributor Kyle B. Counts found a shot of the worms burrowing into Roger's face "expertly gruesome". Vincent Canby, writing in The New York Times, felt the worm scenes were “effectively revolting”, though he disliked the shot of Roger sinking into a pile of worms, comparing it to spaghetti with meat sauce. In his 2019 book American International Pictures: A Comprehensive Filmography, Rob Craig agreed that the movie's horror was made effective by Baker's gory make-up. Craig was also impressed that the film managed to convey a "sense of dread" with the use of a traditionally non-threatening creature like the earthworm, by "amassing [them] into a gigantic horde which becomes a mass-minded killing force". Another retrospective reviewer, in the 2013 edition of Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, assessed the film an "above-average horror outing [that] builds to good shock sequences".

I think that looks better. GamerPro64 21:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I made the change. I've never worked with sfn so please check I didn't screw anything up. I'll take a look at the first paragraph of the "Analysis" section next, probably tonight or tomorrow morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Muir calls Squirm one of the "eco-horrors" of the 1970s, part of what he considers to be "man's continued pillaging and pollution of the Earth". Surely Muir doesn't consider Squirm to have pillaged and polluted the earth? Shouldn't this say he considers it to depict the consequences of man's behaviour?
  • From the book: "Beneath the hokey special effects, these films reflected genuine audience trepidation that Mother Nature would not stand for Mans continued pillaging and pollution of the Earth. These "eco-horrors" envisioned environmental apocalypse caused by humankinds own shortsightedness." GamerPro64 01:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've copyedited two of the paragraphs in the reception section, but would like to get answers to the two points above before I take another look at the first paragraph. I think Sandy's choice of themes for the three paragraphs works well, but the first paragraph needs the timing disentangling a bit. I also have reservations about the analysis section and will take a look at that next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Final pass

GamerPro64, thanks for the quote from Muir. With that in hand, and the link to Hunter's comments, I think the first paragraph of the Analysis section should be compressed quite a bit. It mentions ten or so films, in order to illustrate the stages of development of "revenge of nature" films, but I don't think we need all those historical details here. The key points seem to be:

• Squirm can be seen as a "revenge of nature film", a genre that began in the early 70s-- examples are X, Y, the most important one is Jaws.
• Squirm can also be seen as a Jawsploitation movie
• Hunter disputes this, saying it's just another nature goes ape-shit movie
• Muir describes it as an eco-horror movie.

I think you have the sequence right within the paragraph, but we don't need ten films named; we're only talking about Squirm's relationship to these comments. How about:

Squirm can be seen as a "revenge of nature" film, a genre which began in early 1970s with films like Frogs and Night of the Lepus. Jaws, the most important film in the genre, spawned "Jawsploitation" movies which attempted to take advantage of its success, but film studies scholar I.Q. Hunter argues that Jaws "merely served to perpetuate the early-1970s genre Quentin Tarantino called the 'Mother Nature goes ape-shit kind of movie'". Muir describes the genre as "eco-horror", commenting that "these films reflected genuine audience trepidation that Mother Nature would not stand for Mans continued pillaging and pollution of the Earth".

I think this is more concise, and also connects Muir's comments to the rest of the paragraph -- it's clear that Muir is talking about the same genre as Hunter and we should reflect that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that looks better too. Guess it gets more to the point. GamerPro64 03:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, re the rating: my reading of the source (p. 27) is that it was rated PG for TV and R for the theatrical version, which is not what you have in the article. The Fangoria source does make it clear that the TV and theatrical releases were not the same, but I can't be certain it got a PG rating on TV. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

TV ratings did not exist until the 1990s. GamerPro64 03:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Interesting; I didn't know that. I've done a rewrite of that paragraph for flow; see what you think. Also, I changed the statement in the article that "The re-edited film was also used for the television version" to the reverse; the quote from Lieberman I added directly contradicts that, so let me know if I missed something. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

And finally (I think), could you post the quote from Robin Wood that supports footnote 31 -- the sentence in the second paragraph of the Analysis section? I'd like to have a crack at rephrasing that paragraph but I don't have that source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That is a combination of two things Wood said.

• "These apparent heterogeneous motifs are drawn deeper together by a single unifying master figure: the family. The connection is most tenuous and intermittent in what has proved, on the whole, the least interesting and productive of these concurrent cycles, the "revenge of nature" films; but even there, in the more distinguished examples (outstandingly, of course, The Birds, but also in Squirm), the attacks are linked to, or seem triggerd by, familial or sexual tensions."
• "Another striking general development: the pretense of that the released forces can be effectively overpowered or destroyed, and the traditional order restored, has been largely dropped. One registers this with one's disappointment at the end of Squirm, where the survival of the young couple and the heroine's sister is felt to run counter to the film's logic: the world totally overwhelmed by eruptions of devouring worms that develop, initially, out of familial constraints and sexual possessiveness."

GamerPro64 03:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, that explains what "familiar" is doing in the article; it's a typo for "familial" -- that really confused me. Sorry to bug you again for this, but can you send me or post enough of the Wood to explain "these apparent heterogeneous motifs"? It sounds like he's saying that nature films are not really a great example for whatever argument he's making, but I'd like to understand it better before I try to rephrase it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is the reference from Google Books. GamerPro64 00:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm done with the rewrite of those paragraphs. I think that's it for me; if you take this back to FAC I won't oppose, but I don't think I can really support -- I've gone past reviewing and done a fair amount of rewriting here, so I will just stay on the sidelines for another nomination. Sandy, do you feel it's ready to renominate? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

On my list to revisit, soon; thanks for the extra effort, Mike! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone. I will now be taking this to FAC once more. GamerPro64 00:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)