Talk:The Rocky Horror Picture Show/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Austin, Bruce A. (2007). "Portrait of a cult film audience: The Rocky Horror Picture Show". In Mathijs, Ernest; Mendik, Xavier (eds.). The Cult Film Reader. Open University Press. pp. 392–402. ISBN 978-0-335-21923-0.
• Claydon, E. Anna (2010). "Masculinity and deviance in British cinema of the 1970s: Sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll in The Wicker Man, Tommy and The Rocky Horror Picture Show". In Newland, Paul (ed.). Don't Look Now: British Cinema in the 1970s. Intellect Ltd. ISBN 978-1-84150-320-2.
• Dika, Vera (2003). "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". Recycled Culture in Contemporary Art and Film: The Uses of Nostalgia. Cambridge University Press. pp. 103–121. ISBN 978-0-521-81568-0.
• Evans, David; Michaels, Scott (2002). Rocky Horror: From Concept to Cult. Sanctuary Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86074-383-2.
• Knapp, Raymond (2006). "The Rocky Horror Picture Show (film, 1975)". The American Musical and the Performance of Personal Identity. Princeton University Press. pp. 240–251. ISBN 978-0-691-12524-4.
• Smith, Justin (2010). "The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)". Withnail and Us: Cult Films and Film Cults in British Cinema. Cinema and Society. I. B. Tauris. pp. 11–36. ISBN 978-1-84885-092-7.
• Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew, ed. (2009). Reading Rocky Horror: The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Popular Culture. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-61232-7.
• Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew, ed. (2007). The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Cultographies. Wallflower Press. ISBN 978-1-905674-50-3.

Bots

Clean up bots fixed a missing link.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Current work on article

The article went to GA review where it was established that a number issues held it back from listing per Wikipedia policy, guidelines[1] and bright-line rule[2]. Issues concerning references in the form of websites that are not within the reliable sources policy.[3][4]

It is a common problem in articles with a large fan base of devoted followers who wish contribute to their favorite subjects. This should be encouraged, as fans have a wealth of knowledge and the passion to continue where others may give up. Rock Music articles and even many classical music articles, along with film, television and most political articles have devoted followings. But...in all cases editors must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Prose and sources are important regardless of the subject. Accuracy is of top importance but referencing that fact MORE important than it's inclusion in any article.

Currently Wikipedia has a backlog on GA nominations. Film and television, a subsection of the arts section, is overwhelming. This article has been removed from further consideration for GA review by this editor, who had placed it back for nomination after some considerable work...only to have it pointed out that the body of the article contained many unreliable sources.

Why are the sources we found "unreliable"? Whether it is a fan site for a film or celebrity or IMDB there must be editorial oversite in it's publishing. IMDB may NOT be a reliable source. Even the listing of IMDB as reference to a cast list may not be accepted. Self published web sites like fan sites have no editorial over site and are self published by the author and must be excluded. There are exceptions to this rule. Celebrities or article subjects that have "Official sites" can be used as reference. Mainly as primary sourcing for biographical information. If they make the claim that the earth is flat...you cannot use the reference to claim the earth is flat as they are not experts in that field. If Tim Curry's official website claims that Mr. Curry disliked walking in 7 inch pumps.....that could be used to reference the claim in his bio within the cast section. In fact the article could use much more references of that sort in that section to expand it to current standards with similar GA articles. Official sites that are sanctioned by the copyright holder do have editorial over site in that they have a hired staff of professionals, and answer to either a superior or directly to another professional with knowledge of legal matters that place the website liable for what they publish.

If a notable event touches on the subject of a fansite, the event itself will be mentioned in a reliable source to reference the claim. The reference on the subject may use the exact page of the fan site in question only as long as it follows all other rules for copyright,(The reference cannot be infringing on the intellectual property of anyone for any reason. It must adhere to all copyright laws of that region and contain no overt advertising or be specificly designed to sell a product). No reference or external links are allowed with large amounts of advertising. A reference to Verizon wireless cannot contain advertising for their product and that of others. Consensus determines what may be too much unless administrative action is used

Other problem references are psuedo specialty sites that are not experts, that may look official by paying license fees for images but have no editorial oversite and are simply excellent self published websites. The best way to tell is to go to the copyright and then the main page to see the publisher. Sites published by the individual expert are not acceptable either. All material must have sourcing from a reliable, third party, published by reliable known publishing company or website that can be established as such. Websites are some times hosted and published by marketing companies so this can be tricky. Consensus will sometimes make that determination unless administrative action is taken--Amadscientist (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Writing better articles

Wikipedia:Writing better articles --Amadscientist (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Origins of Audience Participation

There is currently no mention of how the whole "audience participation" thing started or developed. I think most people would agree that that's the most significant thing about this movie. Is there no section on this because there just isn't any citable information out there? If that's the case, then so be it, but it seems really odd that it's not even mentioned.

Please sign your comments with tiddles. Audience participation has it's own page.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no link to a Rocky Horror Picture Show participation page in this article, and I can't find one by searching on Wikipedia. Audience participation is arguably the most notable aspect of this film, and it's surprising that there's so little mention of it in the article. Hopefully, someone with the time and inclination will find the appropriate sources and update the article. Primogen (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. There is a link to The Rocky Horror Picture Show cult following, but it is not very noticeable in the article. Primogen (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The consensus was that audience participation is not a part of the actual film and took up far too much space in this article and was split long ago. The decision was based on the fact that much of the information was unvarifiable, not RS or OR in many cases. Do you feel that a section itself with a summary would be appropriate here. My fear is this will simply open up a can of worms where we have an unstable article producing to much fan based material with sources that would not be acceptable. What do you think?--Amadscientist (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

When things are split off like that, it is appropriate to leave a brief summary of the split material and links to the split. So while this article doesn't have to go into detail about all facets of audience participation, the brief explaination of its origin in the reception section is fine. I've added a "see also" link to highlight that article and a statement that audience participation came out of the expanded Friday/Saturday showings. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems like an excellent compromise.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Do we need the redundant link in "cult following" now?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I also believe that a section should be created. It doesn't have to say much, but an obvious link in the section would make this article more meaningful. The whole point of the movie as it later became, and the success it made, was to be an active part in it.Nakins (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed this again and have found a good reliable source to fill in some needed content on the audience participation beginnings.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Film Nationality Just wondering why this is listed as a British/American film? It was filmed in the UK, written by a British person, directed by an Australian, and featured a largely (but not entirely) British cast! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.6.93 (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

We require a reliable source to make the claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the article itself cites the locations filming took place, the names of the director, producers, writers, composers, with links to wiki articles about each person, (and includes their nationalities etc)It just seems that whatever the provenance of a film it often seems to be listed as 'nation'/American. Holywood has a stranglehold on Western film distribution, but does that really make films American? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.6.93 (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

When you have a reliable source for this...let me know. Until then, it remains OR. Please sign your posts.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why does it remain an American film unless we have a reliable source? What is the reliable source that is American? Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering it is an unquestionable fact that 20th Century Fox is an Amercian company....--Amadscientist (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

And, just to be clear: "To gain FCC approval of Fox's purchase of Metromedia's television holdings, once the stations of the old DuMont network, Murdoch had to become a U.S. citizen. He did so in 1985 ".--Amadscientist (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What does Rupert Murdoch's citizenship change in 1985 in order for the already owned Fox to purchase US television holdings have to do with a film 20th Century Fox distributed a decade previous? All pre-Daniel Craig Bond films were distributed by United Artists (and its successors) and later MGM - not known as British companies - yet Wikipedia states the films "Country: United Kingdom". Also, the link for the Domestic Box Office does not clearly state which market is considered domestic, although a visit to the IMDb not unsurprisingly reveals this to be the USA. Biased much. NB - before you ask me to in future sign my comments in the typically passively-aggressive snarky manner of the all-too-common wikiedit twonk which leads me to give project a wide berth, please remember it is "tildes", not "tiddles". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.19.182 (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are arguing here but the fact is the film is considered multinational, there is actually a heavy Australian influence but it isn't considered an Australian film. Filmed in the UK by 20th Century fox, who paid for the film. O'Brien had to come to the US for the negotiations with Fox...and American company. The film is considered American/British.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Really?

This article claims: "Rocky Horror is the first film from a major Hollywood studio to be in the midnight movie market." What is the citation for this rather bold statement? Indeed, it might be interestig to see what the definition of "midnight movie market" even is. I can, as a college student in 1970s, remember going to many a midnight movie - most of which were from major Hollywood studios. I can remember as a kid in the 60s going to drive-in movies that showed double and triple features that wouldn't end until 2 or 3 in the morning - certainly they were showing major studio films at midnight as well, long before this movie was even made. It is hard to believe that this obscure movie was the "first." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.11 (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hardly "obscure." kencf0618 (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Obscure or not, that's hardly the point that the OP was making. There were other midnight movies before Rocky Horror, some of which are even referenced in the opening song of the film. This claim needs either citation or correction. Edit - On closer inspection, it's already been corrected.Justin.Parallax (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. Rocky Horror is the 800 lb. gorilla in the realm of midnight movies, so it has the lion's share of citations. kencf0618 (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Title Sequence

What happened to "Science Fiction Double Feature"? It's a musical. Deleting the opening song under the aegis of "c/e" is insufficient. kencf0618 (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If this is about removing the redundant mentions of the songs, once is really enough.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Poster

The poster has recently been changed by uploading over the original. This was done due to our policy on non-free images. We can only have one poster for the info box. A recent change was made that uploaded the DVD poster. This is an inaccurate representation of the feature film's theatrical release. I propose to override that if consensus agrees and return it to the Lips poster that the rationale is meant for. At the moment the rationale is invalid as much of the information used was for the other poster and the company that created it and hold the copyright along with 20th Century Fox. I will leave the poster as is if the community consensus is for its inclusion.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The rationale has been updated. If no discussion is found here I will not consider this silent consensus to make my changes and will leave the poster as is.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It should be the original theatrical poster. RJ4 (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the theatrical (film) poster should be used, per our style guides. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Floor Show/Rose Tint My World

This article and The Rocky Horror Picture Show (soundtrack)#Track listing speaks of a sequence of tracks "Rose Tint My World" - "Fanfare/Don't Dream It, Be It" - "Wild and Untamed Thing", in the latter case subsumed under the heading "Floor Show".

However, every copy of the soundtrack I have seen - for an example look here, last picture, has "Rose Tint My World" as an overarching track divided into the parts "Floor Show", "Fanfare/Don't Dream It, Be It" and "Wild and Untamed Thing".

I suggest changing the two articles accordingly. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Str1977:, I'm going to object to that basically because using the images or the record itself is original research and there really is no song called "Floor Show". I have no idea why Ode Records would separate the listings in that manner and admit that is something I have not seen in many years. Can you illustrate of demonstrate exactly what portion or the sound track "Floor show" is supposed to represent, as there are no other songs between "Rose" and "Fanfare". This seems to be a labeling issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I could say I don't care either way as I don't mind if Wikipedia is wrong on this - especially since I always - and that's over thirty years - I have thought the currently displayed (but wrong) titles to be more logical but at Wikipedia we should go by sources and the official tracklisting on the records.

And I must object as strong as possible to your reasoning. Reading the name of tracks from a track list is not OR at all but simply looking up the name. You don't need to have a book author that does that for you. (And the linked photo is merely there to illustrate that fact.)

And, yes, according to the track list of every RHPS soundtrack I have seen, the sung which is sung by Columbia, Rocky, Janet and Brad, beginning with "It was great" and preceding "Fanfare/Don't Dream It" is called "Floor Show".

"Rose Tint My World" is whole piece which beginns with Columbia's "It was great" and ends with Riff Raff's "Prepare the transit beam". Not that the words "Rose Tint My World" appear not just in the Columbia/Rocky/Janet/Brad quartet but also repeatedly in "Wild and Untamed Thing". Str1977 ^(talk) 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Frankly I really don't care about the accuracy per the primary source if the labeling is incorrect and many editors that are familiar with the original production can also point out the discrepancy. If you cannot demonstrate what song it is...then why would we change it? Its asking for inaccuracy for the sake of a technical issue that does not appear to transpose to a real song. After thirty years....are you telling me there is no mention anywhere of this mistake? The floor show is a scene it is not a song. The labeling got that wrong. I do not support this change but other's may. Do you think it might be worth a formal RFC?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"if the labeling is incorrect" - the labeling is per se not incorrect. And WP:V is not "a technical issue".

Which mistake do you think should be mentioned? Your faulty impression?

Under the circumstances I must insist on the correction. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh...I see, well then....insist away. I don't support the change. Your argument is insulting and has not persuaded me to support your requested alteration. You might try a different tact.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is not an option by the way. If you think trying to "insist" on changes others do not support is going to go anywhere but DR or formal mediation you are kidding yourself. I suggested the best rout, but if all you want to do is "insist" I will not be able to comply. I will not be bullied. Get the consensus of editors and I WILL support that.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, your postings have been insulting with your claim that the sources are wrong. But WP:V is not subject to negotiation. Until you have something substantial to say I will no longer respond to you. Against an RFC I have no objection. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks are fucked up. They just are. Get over yourself.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The primary source is incorrect. I said it and stand by it. There is no song called "Floor show".--Mark Miller (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

PS. If one scrolls down here: http://www.discogs.com/master/view/79021 to "other version" one will find 42 different pressings of the soundtrack, most of them including photos of discs and track listing. I have browsed through most of them and have yet to find one that agrees the apodictic statement of Mark Miller who thinks he knows better than the record. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I see in that link, "Floor Show" takes the place of "Rose tints my world".--Mark Miller (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Please post the link to the photo then.

Some pressings do have an overarching title (=Rose Tint My World), some don't. But as far as I can see the "Floor Show" refers to the first of the three songs, the quartet starting "It was great..." and ending "His lust is so sincere", followed by "Fanfare/Don't Dream It" and "Wild and Untamed Thing". Str1977 ^(talk) 00:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can't stop making personal attacks...I couldn't give less of a shit what you think about me. I didn't even write that section. But I am not going to change shit just because you think you are right and I am wrong. It just doesn't work that way. I thought you weren't going to respond further. I could live with that.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

1. Since I cannot let this stand: Where I have made any personal attack against you or anybody else? I just pointed out that you opinion doesn't trump Wikipedia policy.

2. It is not up to you to declare consensus: I'm interested in what others have to say but the sources thus far are clear in what they are saying. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"I didn't even write that section." - I never said that and I couldn't care less.

"But I am not going to change shit just because you think you are right and I am wrong. It just doesn't work that way." - You should do it however because the sources say so. Because Wikipedia works THIS WAY. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your argument above is inaccurate. The "sources" are only the primary source. That is all you presented that support your version and I made a full rationale why I rejected it.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work by intimidation, text that is TLDR, or telling editors that their interpretation is faulty in a manner that results in discussing the contributor and not the contribution. As I said....I did not write the section and I do not support your suggestions. Form a consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:No original research, primary sources are suitable since the track list is a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." There is no interpretation, analysis or synthesis going on, hence no secondary source is needed.

BTW, where are any sources - primary or secondary - to back up the current version? Str1977 ^(talk) 01:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Then see this secondary source that shows/lists the song Rose Tints my World WITH "Floorshow" as a ":" to be part of the over arching song "Title" and consider that a demonstration of how your suggestion is considered Wikilaywering to get the outcome you wish. Any debate between just two editors is not going to bring about a consensus. I didn't start this...you did. Either you are willing to abide by the consensus of editors or you are just trying to pick a technical fight. I assume good faith but you are teetering on losing that. If you don't like my opinion you are free to seek DR in its many forms.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

How am I teetering? The way I see it, I raised up a valid question on this talk page to which you responded by misinterpreting one policy and proclaiming that it wouldn't matter what sources say. I am glad that by now you are coming up with sources. However, as for this particular "secondary source":

1. It is not a secondary source at all but a track listing copied from the CD. The link(s) I provided have the same alongside with the photos. The photos enable us to check that the track listing is correct. If "your" source is secondary and "mine" are secondary too.

2. Your linked source doesn't say what you claim. In fact, quite the opposite. The track list says:

"10. Eddie
Additional Track Information Rocky Horror Picture Show Soundtrack CD music
11. Rose Tint: Floor Show / Fanfare/ Don't Dream It / Wild And Untamed Thing
12. I'm Going Home"

That's exactly what I've been saying all along: Rose Tint (My World) is a suite of three songs: Floor Show - Fanfare/Don't Dream It - Wild and Untamed Thing.

Str1977 ^(talk) 08:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The point here is simply, did Richard O'Brien write four songs here or three? The answer is clearly...three. If one looks at the actual tracks and not just the listings (of the original vinyl pressings)...it becomes clear.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that is clearly not the point. Of course ROB wrote three songs that are part of a suite. The question always has been the title of the suite vs. the title of the first song. Hence your looking at the actual tracks (and where did you get the idea I was ignoring the tracks) doesn't solve the issue. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that this seems like a labelling issue between soundtrack editions. I have only seen the film once over a decade ago and can't even remember the sequence, but this is what secondary sources have to say on the topic:

1. 'Three numbers make up the floor show sequence. In the first, "Rose Tint My World"...' (Peraino, 2005, p.237)
2. '"Rose Tint My World" and "Wild and Untamed Thing" (Miller, 2011, p.113)
3. 'It comes as the first line of the song, "Rose Tint My World," at the beginning of the floorshow late in the film." (Laporte, 2001, p.153)

Secondary sources do tend to regard "Rose Tint My World" as an actual number rather than a suite, so the article should probably follow that convention. However, on the soundtrack article it probably wouldn't hurt to add a note clarifying this anomaly. Betty Logan (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Like--Mark Miller (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have found another source more explicit about the distinction: 'Dr. Frank lapses back into his mad scientist persona and tyrannically orders his servants to prepare for the "midnight floor show" ... The floor show turns out to be a vaudeville showcasing of his creations ... The title of the song they sing is "Rose Tint My World". (Picart, 2003, p.73). Betty Logan (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. That book doesn't make the distinction at all. It treats the entire suite as one song. It equates "Rose Tint My World" and the "Floor Show" but if you read on it doesn't mention "Don't Dream It" and "Wild ..." as separate songs.

As for the books linked to by Betty - THANKS for that -, the first two (Peraino, and less clearly, Laporte) indeed treat RTMW as part 1 of the floor show, with "WaUT" as part 3.

Which leads to a contradiction between these two books and an overwhelming number of tracklistings (as evidenced by the linked photos). How to solve it? I still think primacy should be given to the actual track listing on the record. I will post a query to the album project about the issue.

(The third one doesn't as it simply mentions "It was great ..." as the first line from a song titled "Rose Tint My World" which is linked to a floor show. There is however no dispute that that line starts of RTMW and the Floor Show.) Str1977 ^(talk) 08:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It seems to me that the primary source claims there is a song called "Floorshow" on side 2, #3, as (a) track that is timed at 2:46 minutes and that is inaccurate. There is no song of that name.

3. ROSE TINT MY WORLD (a) FLOORSHOW 2:46
(b) FANFARE/DON'T DREAM IT 3:34
(c) WILD AND UNTAMED THINGS 1:53

--Mark Miller (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"There is no song of that name." But there is and the sources prove it. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If it could be establised that the 1975 album used the same track listing as the CD then that may be a compelling argument for using that format on the soundtrack article i.e. if the soundtrack album has consistently used that labelling throughout its entire lifespan. Unless that can be established though then a labelling inconsistency cannot be ruled out, so I think adding a clarifying note in the interim would be a preferable solution. However, I think the argument is slightly different for the film article: the film is the primary source for the music, not the album which is just a repackaging of the music. Since the film itself does not explicitly divide the track into explcitly labelled songs then we should defer to secondary sources that interpret the musical score for us. Betty Logan (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's the information for the 1975 LP, typed and photographed, the 1975 tape agrees (photo). The youngest dated release at discogs is this 2013 (unfortunately no track listing photo but this 2004 release has one.

All these (and many more) agree with the "RTMW = FS + DDI + WaUT" order, as does the [http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1117211/a/rocky+horror+picture+show.htm link Michael provided above.

Or what did you mean with "the CD" in the same track listing as "the CD"

Sure the film is primary but I can't see how - in the absence of any tracklisting for the film itself - the film could differ from the consistent track listing of the official soundtrack. But let's move one step at a time. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

PS and NB. Though the film is a work by itself and should be looked at independently from the previous play, maybe it is not totally irrelevant that both the original London and Roxy cast releases have a 6-7 minute long song called "Rose Tint My World" which includes the otherwise unmentioned DDI and WaUT. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I dug out my 1975 LP of the soundtrack. It seems to me that "Rose Tint My World" is a suite of songs. It states for Side B on Back cover:

2. EDDIE(2.44)

DR. SCOTT

3. ROSE TINT MY WORLD

A. FLOOR SHOW(2.46)

BRAD,JANET,COLUMBIA,ROCKY

B.FANFARE/DON'T DREAM IT(3.34)

FRANK N FURTER

C. WILD AND UNTAMED THING(1.53)

FRANK N FURTER, RIFF RAFF

4. I'M GOING HOME(2.48)

The LP itself on Side 2 lists (as Mark Miller indicated):

2. EDDIE 2:44

3. ROSE TINT MY WORLD (a) FLOOR SHOW 2:46

(b)FANFARE/DON'T DREAM IT 3:34

(c)WILD AND UNTAMED THING 1:53

4. I'M GOING HOME 2:48

The CD list seems to be the incorrect one. It lists:

13 Planet, Schmanet, Janet

Floor Show:

14 Rose Tint My World

15 Don't Dream It, Be It

16 Wild and Untamed Thing

17 I'm Going Home

but the lyrics that came with the Soundtrack CD disagree with that. They list the title "ROSE TINT MY WORLD" for the whole section, followed by "I'M GOING HOME" (Floor Show, Fanfare, etc are not titled anywhere in the lyrics). In either case, I think the original 1975 soundtrack recording should be considered the primary source instead of the 2000 CD soundtrack release. FYI, not strictly related, but the Roxy Cast recording of the play The Rocky Horror Show, lists: "Planet Schmanet Janet", "Rose Tint my World", and "I'm Going Home", also supporting that the song is "Rose Tint my World" and if desired sections of that song can be broken out (ie "Floor Show", "Fanfare/Don't Dream It", and "Wild and Untamed Thing").AbramTerger (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be far too much inconsistency for me to support any changes to this article but I could support changes to the album/soundtrack...depending. However, on this article we are not as concerned about the listing from the soundtrack but the listing from the DVD. It appears the editor that created that section or the last edit to it that made the change is based off the 25th Anniversary track listings provided for the film itself as transferred to DVD. Which shows the list in a similar manner.

We can speculate why the soundtrack lists "floorshow", I think it is probably due to the film script. The introduction to the scene is listed in the script as "Floor show" music:

149 INT. BALLROOM (including STAGE) NIGHT
MUSIC: "THE FLOOR SHOW"
We see the stage at the end of the ballroom with red velvet curtains.

--Mark Miller (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that the The_Rocky_Horror_Picture_Show_(soundtrack)#Track_listing be corrected to match the original 1975 LP listing. I would list the roles (as the LP does) instead of the "performers" and then list the cast names as it is done on the LP. If the current listing for the soundtrack matches the 1989 CD release, then also include that as different and mark it as the 1989CD just as the 2000 CD is listed since it is different than the original soundtrack. Since the Movie has no track listing in its source, I see no reason to include a track list in it, all it needs is a list to the soundtrack article. It seems redundant to have it both places anyway and it seems to be WP:OR to compile a listing when there is a dispute in the various sources.AbramTerger (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If I understand that correctly, you suggest following the original 1975 album for the soundtrack article (of course, being careful not to violate copyright) and leaving the simple listing of songs on this article? If so...I support that.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No my suggestion was to put the primary listing in the soundtrack article to match the 1975 article (and keep the 1989 and 2000 changes as well: I don't have the 1989 CD so can't verify that and will leave that to someone else if there are other changes). For the film article I propose eliminating the listing of the songs altogether since there is no definitive source of the names from the film itself and the listings of the songs from the soundtrack albums don't completely agree. [I must admit as I looked into it more deeply last night that I think (and this is definitely WP:OR so can't be sourced or put into either article) that both the 1975 LP and the 2000 CD (and even some the ROXY cast album) are mistaken. I have come to think that "Floor Show" is a suite of songs named "Rose Tint my World", "Fanfare/Don't Dream It", and "Wild and Untamed Thing". That is what is listed in the Rocky Horror Show Sing-along "Song list". I think the 1975 got them reversed. the 2000 CD tried to do it but marked them poorly since they put the 3 songs as distinct tracks and did not mark the end of "Floor Show". It does not help that the lyrics make a different error. But unless we have a source other than WP:OR opinions, I think keep the listing from the source material in the soundtrack article and the film article don't list the songs, just refer to the soundtrack article. It would be nice to have a WP:RS to cite and discuss what is different about them, but barring that, the listings should be enough].AbramTerger (talk)

OK, then no. I don't agree. You see, this is a musical. We cannot ignore half of the production. I have done the musical stage production and I believe you are correct in spirit anyway, that the 3 songs are a suite during the "Floorshow" scene and there are lots of other sources we can still be checking in this regard. The original scores, the film score (if available), the original stage play book and even some of the interviews and writings of the author and the musical director. But, the important part is to not just be transcribing content in a blind manner. I am serious when I say, I am not concerned about the soundtrack article. I am not interested in arguing what is pretty clear, one, we don't just copy the content from the copyrighted primary source, we have to be able to find some secondary sourcing to substantiate listing the music and two....there are very obvious sources to check. For this article that obvious source is the digital version and listings from the film. The DVD. If we can use the CD for music listings in the soundtrack article, in this day and age, we can most certainly use the DVD for the musical listings for the film. That is done here on the article and I support that as being the very logical way to handle it.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should cover the music in the film article itself, since the music is an integral component of a musical. I draw a distinction between the film music and a soundtrack album release, because ultimately they are different products that are consumed in different ways, even if the songs are common to both. If the DVD lists the song titles and is consistent with the secondary sources I found above (i.e. the floor show is a suite consisting of three songs) then that is a compelling argument for using that format in the article about the film. If the album (the 1975 vinyl) and the later CD releases also use a consistent track listing with no variations between editions then that would be the preferable format on the soundtrack article. Of course, there is nothing to prevent adding a note in either article to clarify the matter. Betty Logan (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Both good points. Some soundtracks are missing songs in the film and others have songs not in the film I can see a list from the film, but it needs a source for the names in the film since the film does not list them. We can reference the score (if it matches the film) and we have a source for that. I disagree with the assessment that we are "transcribing content in a blind manner", what we are doing is reporting the facts as the primary source presents them. Yes, the soundtrack is a secondary source for the film, but it is a primary source of the soundtrack article. If we believe the source is mistaken (which it seems to me that it is), we need a WP:RS to indicate that. If we are going to accept the DVD as a source of the names, then there should be some changes to the current listings to match the DVD. From the DVD I have (25th Anniv) [Now other DVDs may be different which raises other questions] the song titles should be listed as: "Over at the Frankenstein Place" not "There's a Light (Over at the Frankenstein Place)"; "Hot Patootie" not "Hot Patootie – Bless My Soul"; "Touch-a, Touch-a, Touch Me" not "Touch-a, Touch-a, Touch-a, Touch Me", "You'd Better Wise Up", not "Planet Schmanet Janet (Wise Up Janet Weiss)"; and "Fanfare/Don't Dream It" not "Fanfare/Don't Dream It, Be It". [There is not a suite of songs called "Floor Show", it lists 3 separate songs: RTmW, F/DDI, and WaUT]. And since there is no listing in the DVD for: "Once in a While" (deleted scene), "The Time Warp" (reprise), "Science Fiction/Double Feature" (reprise) they should be removed from the listing. I agree that notes can be added to clarify, but they need to be from WP:RS not our WP:OR.AbramTerger (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources overwhelmingly support the version I suggested. Hence I agree with AbramTerger but I think there are two things that aren't permissible:

1. using two different, contradictory track listings for the film and the soundtrack. With "contradictory" I don't mean differences where one song is omitted from either the film (as "Super Heroes" for many years) or the soundtrack ("Sword of Damocles", "Planet Schmanet Janet") or slight differences in the titles ("Hot Patootie") but about what pieces "Rose Tint My World" and "Floor Show" refer to. It can only be this way or that way and IMO the soundtrack is a relevant source material.
2. removing the song list from this article alltogether because of the two songs that do not appear on the soundtrack ("Sword of Damocles", "Planet Schmanet Janet"). They would disappear alltogether.

And please, let's not resport to pseudo-arguments like "copyrighted primary source". Str1977 ^(talk) 21:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

PS. I have asked relevant questions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#How_to_source_a_track_listing - you can read the answers over there. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I just want to be clear. Could you specify what your suggestions are for the 2 articles? My suggestions for the soundtrack album article is to match the LP (with role names not actors in performers but list the credits)and then make a note about the changes for the 1989 CD (2 new songs) and for the 2000 CD (alternate titles and new tracks). For the film I can use the names for either the soundtrack album or the DVD, but I think the list should be complete of the songs in the original theatrical release. {I am leaning towards using the names from the soundtrack album]. I think "once in a while" can be mentioned in a paragraph after the track listing as being deleted in the transition from stage to screen since it slowed the film down and in that paragraph a comment could also be made that "Superheroes" was removed and SFDF reprise replaced with Time warp reprise in the US version in the 1976 re-issue (they were in the original US theatrical release) to make the ending more "conventional" What is termed the UK version now was the original US version and the article should probably focus on the original release, not reissues.AbramTerger (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggested that the track listing in both the soundtrack and the movie article reflect the track listing on the soundtrack, i.e. list the suite "RTMW" with its three parts "FS", "F/DDI" and "WaUT". That's what the overwhelming number of versions of the soundtrack - if not actually all of them - have.

Of course, the film article list should include the two songs not on the soundtrack.

I fully support using the names from the soundtrack album as it is the only really published list.

All in all, I agree with everything you said in your last posting. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

IF THIS issue (i.e. suite vs. 3 songs) is still "live" and you need additional input -- I also believe the 3 songs are part of a suite with one title "Rose Tint My World". Why do I believe this? For one thing, the soundtrack album (CD) that I have shows it that way (as track 11 listed under one title, with the individually named parts of the suite numbered 11a, 11b, 11c. Also -- from observation of the movie, the 3 "songlets" are short, they connect, and there is (virtually) no dialogue between them. They are part of one, unified number -- with an over-arching theme. By analogy -- many rock albums of the 70s do the same thing (i.e. name the songlets individually but list them under the suite name). I support the suite format listing on the basis of the widely available soundtrack album(s). Chesspride 66.19.84.2 (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ticket Sales : request

I can't think of any movie that continues to re-play (same actors, same filmstrip) at many theaters for ? 40 years.

I'm thinking ticket sales must be worth a mention by now! Possibly the highest ever.

I havent seen it yet though i'm older than the film - i will if i get a chance i'm a distant fan barely cooling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.223.190 (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I tried to find reliable secondary mention of ticket sales. It seems difficult to find. As a primary source, what we have now is standard for the information box, but I don't feel such mention is worthwhile with just the sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Influence on Punk

Currently in the body of the article it is stated:

In Rocky Horror; From Concept to Cult, designer Sue Blane discusses the Rocky Horror costumes' influence on punk music style. "[It was a] big part of the build-up [to punk]." She states that ripped fishnet stockings, glitter and coloured hair were directly attributable to Rocky Horror.

or as the lead summarises it it:

costume designer Sue Blane conducted no research for her designs. Blane stated that costumes from the film have directly impacted the development of punk music fashion trends such as ripped fishnets and dyed hair.

The problem is that the time line is wrong. If this movie was released as a flop in 1975, and punk was already big in 1976, it was not this film that influenced punk. One needs a disinterested source for this because Mandy Rice-Davies Applies for Sue Blane "Well, she would say that, wouldn't she".

Glitter rock takes care of the sequins and dyed hair as well. As for the ripped fishnets, I suspect that there are many origins for those.

-- PBS (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, PBS Sorry this is such a late response. I didn't see this. Blane refers to her original designs for the 1973 stage production for helping to influence a number of the punk movement looks, such as ripped fishnet stockings and a few other smaller trends that she herself is stating as fact. Now, we can expand on that. I have been reading through a number of references and one academic dissertation may have some insight as well as a few other sources already in use and possible new ones. I will look further on the issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Here are some things I am finding right now.

• According to Scott Michaels and ‎David Evans in their book "Rocky Horror: From Concept to Cult" (page 14) : "If one is to believe the chronology in Jane Mulvagh's 1998 biography of designer and style guru Vivienne Westwood, punk as a genre can't even be properly identified before 1974...."
• Also, there is a film called Jubilee (1978 film) from 1978 (filmed in 77) that uses a production design heavily influenced by the deliberate use of past punk fanzines for its look and used a number of the Rocky Horror stars, including its creator Richard O'Brien. It discusses the DIY aspect that I believe Blane discusses at some point. It touches on Vivienne Westwood. This is mentioned briefly in: "Punk Slash! Musicals: Tracking Slip-Sync on Film" on page 43 and 44 but there may be more mention in the book to look for.
• Vivienne Westwood is mention on page 84 of "Played in Britain: Modern Theatre in 100 Plays By Kate Dorney, Frances Gray" in reference to the Rocky Horror stage production as a precursor to her look.
• In "The Cult Film Reader" By Mathijs, Ernest, Mendik, Xavier (page 261) they go into detail about the over all look of the horror genre as a fasion trend that traces back to a particular look from certain films, The Rocky Horror Picture Show for one.
• A really good dissection of the subject is: "A Cultural Dictionary of Punk: 1974-1982" By Nicholas Rombes who says on page 19 that punk was a link between the fading bad tastes of the sixties and the coming reform of conservatism while using Rocky Horror, among other films, to describe how there seemed to be an "In on" it understanding of the films. Interesting.
• "Fervid Filmmaking: 66 Cult Pictures of Vision, Verve and No Self-Restraint by Mike Watt" goes back to the issue with the film Jubilee and the Rocky horror crossover but much more indepth.

This really can be expanded on and it accurate beyond Blane's own opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the best way to cover this would be a mention in the Costume section that is expanded on in the Cultural impact section.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Rocky Horror Picture Show. 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/20120918045420/http://www.mickrock.com:80/about-mick/ to http://www.mickrock.com/about-mick/

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: 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Soundtrack Album - 1975 or 1979?

My RHPS memorabilia is packed away somewhere, but I could swear that in one of the books (probably Sal Piro's first "Creatures of the Night" or "The Rocky Horror Picture Show Book") it's discussed that the soundtrack album wasn't released until 1979, after the film had been firmly established as a cult hit. On both this page and the page for album, it states that it was originally issued in '75 and was a hit on the Billboard 200 in 1978. I started googling and quickly found a timeline at rockyhorror.com which states that in 1979 "The RHPS soundtrack LP is released in the US for the first time." Now, if memory serves, I think there's a 1975 date on the original vinyl (as well as on the jacket for the subsequent picture disc), which is likely the source of the confusion... but if it was first released in 1979, how could it have been, as AllMusic notes, on the Billboard 200 in 1978? AllMusic is often just as inaccurate as Wikipedia, and I can't find any other proof of that claim. If someone has direct access to the RHPS books published prior to the digital age, it's worth checking into. 72.47.0.251 (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Rocky Horror Picture Show. 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/20120419221742/http://www.loc.gov/film/registry_titles.php to http://www.loc.gov/film/registry_titles.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814044505/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/bisex_movements%2C2.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/bisex_movements%2C2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926225244/http://www.biresource.org/pamphlets/history.html to http://www.biresource.org/pamphlets/history.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 19:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Box office source

While the $140M figure may be an accurate box office value, the attached source does not list a box office any higher than $1.5M. There should instead be a source which includes the extended release information. Box Office Mojo has a figure of $113M. The reason I didn't make any change on my own is that I feel like I've got to be missing something. Maybe the current source was simply modified over the past three years? Can anyone account for the discrepancy or suggest/make a change? 1p2r3 (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Seduced or raped?

Did Frank "seduce" Janet and Brad, or rape them? He forced himself on them both, and they never consented. In today's climate and in any other context, this would be called rape. I like the show and I've always enjoyed both scenes, but this question (whose answer I don't know when we are talking about the RHPS) deserves to be considered. You might say "This is a fantasy, it's an alternative universe" but minutes earlier we heard Nixon resigning on the car radio.... --Hugh7 (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me that "seduce" is the right word. Both of them ask if Furter promises not to tell their respective mate, and he promises. Janet later bemoans what she has done, and Furter says that Brad is "adaptable", heh, heh, heh.Wood Monkey 02:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurodog (talk • contribs)

Seduced. Furter does not use force. RJ4 (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

RJ4 He did use force though: They definitely both try to get up and he pushes them back down. Consent is tricky there because it's presented as if they did end up agreeing and enjoying, but maybe 'seduced' has a too-positive connotation: maybe 'took advantage of', or 'had his way with' are more fitting? --MikaLanir (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"but maybe 'seduced' has a too-positive connotation" Seduction means leading someone astray and corrupting them. Do you feel this is a positive connotation? Dimadick (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

If you are going to be one of those people who are going to adjust what is said about things just based on what a vocal minority now claims is the "acceptable" term to use for something that to that point, no body had any issue with, like the fool that recently claimed the song "Baby it's cold outside" is about date rape, then this discussion might as well be over before it even starts. If you are going to use "pushes them back down" as your basis for calling it rape, then criminals who have tried to get away from cops have been raped, in some cases repeatedly, by those cops. Yes this suggestion of mine is ludicrous, but no more so than now saying it was "rape". Don't go looking to create a problem when there is none. 32.212.102.239 (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

They resisted at first and then succumbed to his acts thats not rape. Raymondjohn1234 (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

GA article?

How did this make to make GA. The article is totally biased It has got a completely American perspective on what was originally a British theatre production, before the film. Where is the British perspective? The cultural aspects and the LBGT influence is only one facet. Where is the rest of it? scope_creep^Talk 21:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Mutiny not coup

In the last paragraph of the plot synopsis, the article states that Magenta and Riff Raff staged a "coup," but "mutiny" is more appropriate. Riff Raff takes over Frank's command after the failed mission; he and Magenta are not overthrowing a government. Orville^talk 06:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)