Talk:The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film)

Passed GA

Nice article. Thorough and is comprehensive, covers the subject well. Consider some more inlines interspersed throughout most of the sections, particularly in the plot summary. Also consider another peer review for more suggestions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DoomsDay349 (talk • contribs)

Correct title of the film

Nearly all sources, including film reviews, interviews with the film's participants, reference books, advertising materials, etc., call Roger Corman's film "The Pit and the Pendulum". IMDB, MRQE, All Movie Guide, Video Watchdog, and DVD Savant, on the other hand, have noted that the onscreen title is, in fact, Pit and the Pendulum (no initial "the"), and reference the film in that manner. I believe that English-language Wikipedia film articles should utilize the film's most commonly known English-language title, which, in this case, is clearly The Pit and the Pendulum. Most people would search for that title and shouldn't have to go thru a re-direct page to get to the article. I've recently reverted another editor's attempt at re-naming the article. Any such move should be discussed here first. If others agree that the film's onscreen title should have precedence over the film's more commonly used title, then the move should be made. What do others think?-Hal Raglan 03:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not arbritarily rename/move this article without discussing the issue here on the talk page. Explaining your reasoning in full would be greatly appreciated.-Hal Raglan 21:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've now provided a compromise in the lead paragraph of the article, by inserting (also known as Pit and the Pendulum) after the title followed by a citation. This should certainly suffice. If not, please discuss.-Hal Raglan 22:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PitCap.jpg

Image:PitCap.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The arguments against inclusion in the above noted discussion were persuasive. I've removed the image.Hal Raglan (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Spacing?

Why the extra spacing above and below the two templates under the External links section? There is a note requesting that the spacing be left alone. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 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/20120324104622/http://www.filmcritic.com/reviews/1961/the-pit-and-the-pendulum/ to http://www.filmcritic.com/reviews/1961/the-pit-and-the-pendulum/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061101065513/http://cinebeats.blogsome.com/2006/05/06/ to http://cinebeats.blogsome.com/2006/05/06/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Dubious statement

I've flagged the following passage as dubious.

He also used elements from other Poe stories, such as the unfaithful wife from "The Cask of Amontillado"...

"The Cask of Amontillado" does not contain any such element, as reading the story or the linked article about the story will show. Without knowing what story was actually meant or what story is actually named in the cited source, I cannot correct this error. Canonblack (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

There's no unfaithful wife in "Cask", but the unfaithful wife of the father in this film winds up with the same fate as the victim in that story: walled up while alive behind masonry in a wine cellar. That's the only element that this fil takes from "Cask". oknazevad (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

People may be thinking of the 2nd part of the film "Tales of Terror" (i.e. the segment "The Black Cat") where an unfaithful friend and an unfaithful wife (plus a cat) are sealed behind a brick wall -- using the general story line of "The Cask of Amontillado". Given that "Tales of Terror" is another AIP/Corman Poe loose adaptation film, the error is understandable. Chesspride 216.144.161.51 (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Featured article in need of review

Another 2007 FA promotion that wouldn't be considered even B-class in 2021. Multiple problems

• This article looks massively in-comprehensive for a topic of a horror film starring the legend of horror himself, Vincent Price, and being one of the most influential because of it.
• No representation from scholarly literature.
• This is too much of a dependence on quotes that could be paraphrased
• Uncited statements like "The Pit and the Pendulum was announced in August 1960, and filming began the first week of January 1961."
• The box office section is very lacking, only showing a number and a couple of sentences about records.
• Critical reception section is a quotefarm.
• Ref 2, in addition to being a bare URL, is of a questionable source.
• Ref 42 is a self-written blog.

👨x🐱 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)