Talk:The Last House on the Left

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removed

Removed this sentence:

Last House on the Left has become a cult film since its original release in part because an intact, un-edited cut of the film is hard to find (and may in fact no longer exist).

The filmmakers' commentary on the Region 1 special edition DVD indicates that the version shown on that disc is authoritative and is not materially different from the originally released version of the film. Ellsworth 17:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think the synopsis could do with a lot of expansion. I'd do it myself, but have never seen the film. -Elizabennet 03:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts of it definitely have some questionable language; e.g. "...eating her out...", as if portraying this film to be a porno, which it is not. rock8591 05:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

I would like to see something about what parts of this were actually true, since the whole "based on actual events" preface in film is often loose at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theseus75 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the opening card says the film is based on a true story, it's actually based on a Swedish movie, Jungfrukällan, which is fictionalized. Fargo made a similar claim of being "based on actual events", but isn't as literal as one might think. Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

right now the synopsis is absolutely wretched. it's too writerly (and not in a good way) not basic enough, and also inaccurate. i mean, mari might be going to wash herself in the lake, but that's nowhere stated in the film and not even necessarily implied. she just vomits, walks in as if in a daze, and gets shot. also, the sentence structure is atrocious--'she is raped, and cries because she got raped' etc. i'd do it myself, but my skills with wikis lean more towards pointless vandalism than actual contribution. i just thought someone might want to take a crack at it.66.218.33.213 (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your grammar skills above and your edit history ...yeah, it's probably best that you leave the improvements to someone else. Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ds27.jpg

Image:Ds27.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

although it has been passed uncut in the uk, the original cuts required to two scenes: the infamous intestine removal and the throat garroting scene —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.71 (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page

Now that there is another movie by the same name, a disambiguation page should be made for "The Last House on the Left", which currently redirects to this page. Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a page exists. Seduisant (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Why is there a tag on this plot, it seem pretty proportionate and well-worded to me • S • C • A • R • C • E • 01:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but storyline is not correct. 24.120.138.108 (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 August 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. The dab page has been restored. If a case can be that there is a primary topic, then this can be nominated again. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Last House on the Left (1972 film) → The Last House on the Left – That page already seems to link here, so there's no need for the disambiguation. That said, this is certainly the primary over the far less notable or memorable remake. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a disambiguous page at one point that had both of the films listed. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't notice that, thanks. But the point still stands, there's a fairly clear primary with the original, since it is considered an iconic film by an iconic director and the second did not really have a lasting impact.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, is it cool if we put the hatnote back for now until this move request gets resolved? Since that was changed from a disambiguation page to a redirect, there's no real logical way for a reader to find the remake.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on this page that says the film is "iconic". Controversial, yes, but iconic is questionable. Most people don't know what this film is or that it even exists. Freddy Krueger is iconic; even people that have never seen the films can identify the character. This film is probably more "cult classic" (still needs a reliable source to say that). As for the hatnote, given that the very next few lines already mention and link the 2009 remake, the hatnote is not necessary. Per WP:HATNOTE, "Hatnotes are short notes placed at the top of an article (hence the name "hat"), normally to help readers locate a different article they might be looking for when they arrived at the article in which the hatnote is placed." Given that within eyesight is "The film was remade into a 2009 film of the same name", the hatnote isn't necessary. The disambig page should probably be reinstated until a decision about this move can be determined, as you are right in that we shouldn't have a primary topic redirect to a disambiguated page like this. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Do you actually oppose the move though, or just the hatnote being there at the moment? Even if "iconic" is debatable, it's still a movie by possibly the most famous horror director that certainly had far more of an impact than the forgettable remake. It was quite controversial at the time and, although it didn't make it, it was nominated for an AFI top 100 list.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the disambiguated page needs to be reinstated because the reality of the title is that beyond film critics, most audience members did not know there was a previous film in 1972. So, it's a matter of arguing should "primary topic" be the one that most people associate with the title, or which subject came first. To me, it's easier to have the non-ambiguated title by the home for a link to both films, with each film having its year in the article title. But, this needs a wide consensus. I would post this on WP:FILM, WP:NCF, and WP:RfC to garner a wider opinion base anyway. See what more than just 2 people think. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go that far; I'm sure far more people are aware of the original than of the remake. Those who only know of the remake are more like (although to a lesser extent) those who think that the new planet of the apes movie is the start of a new concept :) But yes, some more input certainly can't hurt.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fix title

someone should fix the title on this and remove the "the" - see poster

See also Roger Ebert's review. That guy knew movies. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, there's this poster. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the poster here does say she lived in "the...". If we're disqualifying words based on size alone, the title would be "Last House Left". Can't have that. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The opening credits of the film definitely include "The...", as per this screenshot. The AFI Catalog also notes that "Although the onscreen credits on the viewed print and the film's copyright record list the title of the film as The Last House on the Left, most contemporary reviews omitted “The” from the title." --Muzilon (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The great film critic Robin Wood, in his book Hollywood: From Vietnam to Reagan ... and Beyond, offers a scathing rejoinder to Roger Ebert's review of the movie in the July-August 1978 issue of Film Comment. Perhaps Wood's analysis of this movie might be incorporated into the "Critical response" section of this page. Ross Walton (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

I removed the reference to "13th century Swedish ballad" - there are no manuscripts for any variant of the ballad before the 1670s; I refer to Sveriges Medeltida Ballader (1983-2001), specifically to volume 2 (1986) SMB number 47, variant A. Most speculation as to the age of a ballad is just that. I know it is a small thing, but ballads are my field of study. I hope that I have approached this issue appropriately. Jetboijetgrrl (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Last House on the Left (1972 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080827160408/http://www.bbfc.co.uk/news/press/20020618.html to http://www.bbfc.co.uk/news/press/20020618.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Both sides have cited relevant guidelines, but a majority of contributors find no primary topic exists. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Last House on the Left (1972 film) → The Last House on the Left – Per WP:MULTIDABS, "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." Although page views favour the remake at the moment, there is a strong element of recentism at play here, Google Books indicates Craven's version has far more lasting significance among authors and scholars. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:NCF In ictu oculi (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a disappointing (lack of) response. All WP:NCF says on "Between films of the same name" is "compare all film and non-film topics and determine whether one is the primary topic". Returning again to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we see emphasis on "long-term significance" and "Usage in English reliable sources demonstrated with Google web, news, scholar, or book searches" Ribbet32 (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  The point is that it is very rare in films given that remakes always have a younger audience. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  "The point is that it is very rare in films"- that is incoherent. What is "rare in films"? Why is your "younger audience" more important than any other? Why not consult what authors and scholars are saying and what long-term significance is? Is Wikipedia not an encyclopedia? Ribbet32 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It" refers to the subject of the preceding sentence. The audience of The Last House on the Left (2009 film) are neither more important nor less important. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So "the point" "is very rare in films." I suppose it's arguable most films don't have a point, but that contributes nothing to any meaningful move discussion. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NCF and neither of them is a real primary topic. Keeping the dab page makes it easier to spot incorrect incoming links too. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be downright impossible to argue there's no primary topic without resorting to WP:RECENTISM and WP:ILIKEIT. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CONCEPTDAB. 1972 film is the WP:PTOPIC with its higher long-term significance. SST flyer 04:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The original film is clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in terms of long-term significance looking at the sources and Google Books. As this is a WP:TWODABS situation, readers seeking the 2009 film will be able to find it just as easily from a hat note as a dab page. SSTflyer also makes a compelling point re WP:CONCEPTDAB: the original film's article also contains info on the remake.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The original is clearly the primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as there is reasonable argument about whether either is primarytopic. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the original is downright obscure (i.e. mostly unknown to the public at large), the remake is only slightly less so. I don't believe there's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No clear primary topic between these 2 obscure films. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Statistics prove that more users search for the remake, especially in the last 90 days. George Ho (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally, WP:RECENTISM is a bias to be rigorously avoided against, but numerically, it has won the day here. WP:FUCK may be appropriate for me at this point; someone might as well close this. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Last House on the Left (1972 film). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070120184630/http://www.eofftv.com/e/eco/ecologia_del_delitto_main.htm to http://www.eofftv.com/e/eco/ecologia_del_delitto_main.htm

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) 10:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I'm not sure David Szulkin's book Wes Craven's Last House on the Left is notable enough to warrant a standalone article per WP:NBOOK, and would suggest it should be merged or redirected into the main article on The Last House on the Left (1972 film). (Tagging The Baudelaire Fortune, who created the article about the book.)--Muzilon (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any dissenting voice after one month, I shall redirect the article about the book to the 1972 film article.--Muzilon (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack

~~This article features no information about the films soundtrack.~~ Charles Essie (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! It actually does. Never mind! Charles Essie (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move, while removing the dab page (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– This film is the main subject of this name. The remake is not of anywhere near equal notability as this film. The last move discussion was mared by recentism. The remake has no legacy and is pretty widely held to be unremarkable.★Trekker (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. JHunterJ (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per this graph, the difference in pageviews is too small for either the 1972 film or the 2009 remake to be considered a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. El Millo (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Neutral: Betty Logan's proposal seems reasonable, but I'm still not sure on which page the hat note should be. I'm closer to supporting than opposing though. El Millo (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support the page move / Delete the disambiguation page While I take Facu-el Millo's point on board there are only two pages to consider here. A disambiguation page is unnecessary. If you moved the original film to the main page and provided a hatnote to the remake then you eliminate the second click for roughly half of all visitors. Those seeking the remake are not left at a worse disadvantage than before. I would also say there is the issue of WP:RECENTISM to consider. A film that is 50 years old is getting almost as much traffic as a film that is only 10 years old, so the original has probably established some long-term significance. Betty Logan (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Millo and stats provided. Furthermore, on daily basis, sometimes the 2009 remake received a lot more views. Furthermore, their historical significances may not outbalance one another, even when the original was made decades ago. I don't see hints or indications of one movie making tremendous cultural impact, despite graphic scenes leading to censorship, which have been common to other movies over the years. George Ho (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support the page move and delete the disambiguation page per Betty Logan. The remake is basically a subtopic of the original, rather than being ambiguous to it. Any disambiguation needed can therefore be accomplished in a hatnote. BD2412 T 20:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per George Ho – nothing wrong with the current arrangement. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support the page move and delete the disambiguation page. A disambiguation page is not required here, with the 1972 film the primary topic at the base name and a hatnote to the other film. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The original film has clear long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support page move and deleting the disambiguation page. Furthermore, there are numerous results in Google Books and Google Scholar that demonstrates long-term significance for the older film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestions for additional explanatory notes

The excerpt from the review in The Daily Dispatch by Brian Nelson mentions the non-existent Cy Dung Award. I suggest that, for the benefit of readers who are unfamiliar with Major League Baseball, a note be added that this presumably is a pun on the name of the Cy Young Award. I don't imagine a source can be found for this, though.
At the end of the section, Home media, it states that the limited edition Blu-ray box set released in 2018 includes "new interviews with cast, crew, and associates of Craven". I wondered why an interview with Craven wasn't included. It turns out he had died in 2015. A note would spare readers a trip to Wikipedia's biography of him. —⁠71.105.198.152 (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Sequel

https://screenrant.com/last-house-left-2-krug-summer-camp/

DVD / Blu-ray releases