Talk:Mad Monster Party?

Fancesca

I always thought that Francesca was modelled on sultry Lauren Bacall with her low, husky voice rather than Ginger which was in itself a take off of Marilyn Monroe. MBG 119.11.1.93 (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is Francesca? Her name is dropped into the plot description with no explanation.Ttenchantr (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Stage adaptation

The "Casting" section consists of a table that obviously refers to a stage adpatation of the film. However, there is no reference to a stage adaptation in the text. This needs expansion and clarification.Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding any information about a stage version. There is nothing listed on Playbill or the Internet Broadway Database. The Noël Coward Theatre page lists the show as opening in May 2011, without references. I doubt that these multiple cast lists are necessary, especially since several are only listed as "to be announced". Vpw (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed the section. Information about the future stage adaptation can be restored when reliable references are available and even then it wouldn't be necessary to add cast lists for so many different productions.

Thank you, Vpw, for doing the research.Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued Stage musical problem

The stage musical section keeps being reinserted into the article. The last couple edits before I removed it were adjustments to the names of the musical numbers it purports would be in such a musical. Does anyone think this is worth protecting this page over? Since it seems to be a reoccurring problem? The smilodon (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The stage musical material was added again on 23:15, December 29, 2011 by User talk:71.183.180.152‎; I deleted the material today, as I could find no such musical via a search on google, or in the upcoming stage shows on playbill.com. This article seems to be a target. I do not know what the rules are for protection, but I put the article on my watch list at least.Flami72 (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The stage musical was re-added, by a new IP User_talk:71.183.184.217; I have deleted that material. I searched google and checked the upcoming shows at Playbill.com, with no such musical found.Flami72 (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record--this article is included in the list of articles vandalized by many IPs, see [Broadway Hoaxer]. It would probably be prudent to request reliable sources for any supposed "stage musical" entries by an IP per WP:VERIFY. Flami72 (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Live action remake

Regarding the IP and two users (all the same person I suspect) who keep trying to add info about this I have done an extensive search in both google and bing and I can find no info about any production that is being worked on at the moment. I did come across a 2004 article in Variety but that is over 8 years ago now. Unless something can be found about any current attempts to adapt this I do not think it belongs in the article. MarnetteD | Talk 03:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"FANG"

This may fall under "trivia" or maybe it makes for a good footnote residing in the "talk" section? The reason Frankenstein's monster is being called "Fang" , all has to do with Phyllis Diller. When she did stand up comedy routines on Ed Sullivan , or other shows in the 1960s & 70s , whenever she mentioned her husband , he was called "Fang". Usually described as a "big lug" , or "stupid". ( i.e. a made up spouse , used for free-form abuse. ). 75.104.163.77 (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Title of article

This film is not generally known as Mad Monster Party?, so should be moved per WP:COMMONNAME to Mad Monster Party. 128.151.71.16 (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm I think you are on to something IP. The question mark isn't used on the poster or any of the websites linked to in the EL section including the Rankin Bass one. You could start a WP:RM to get more input. MarnetteD|Talk 15:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Roman Spinner since this explains why. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah that helps E. I did find the question mark in the trailer. The article is probably titled correctly but I wonder if we should add a footnote explaining the discrepancy for any readers that have the same experience that the OP has had. I wish we could interview the makers to ask why they used a question mark as there is no question that the "Party" is "Mad" and has lots of "Monsters" :-) MarnetteD|Talk 20:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Various sources are inconsistent, including the cover of the Blu-ray edition which does not depict the question mark. However, upon playing the Blu-ray disc itself, the opening credits confirm the on-screen question mark in the title and, since the question has been raised about which sources do use the question mark, we can also include TCM, IMDb, TVGuide and Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, among others, but there is no party-line vote on this one. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems like the question mark is disposable for the article title. Both BFI and AFI databases, which are better sources than IMDb, don't use the question mark. I would support moving the title to be without it and to explain the use of the question mark in the lead section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

AFI is a very good source that features, atop many of its film write-ups, an icon (similar to the CBS eye), which is accompanied by the text, "Viewed by AFI: This film was viewed in its entirety by AFI for the Synopsis and Credits". The write-ups that do include the "eye icon" tend to display titles and credits in their on-screen form, while the write-ups that do not feature the "eye icon" sometimes deviate from the name forms, credits order and other aspects of credit detail.

The absence of the "eye icon" indicates that Mad Monster Party? is one of the films that was not viewed by the AFI team. As for BFI, while it is the go-to place for British filmmaking, its detail orientation for non-British filmmaking is frequently sketchy. Also, unlike AFI, it does not provide confirmation whether its writers have actually seen the film in question.

Taking a wider perspective on this matter, we have had a number of discussions and RMs regarding the inclusion of symbols within main title headers delineating films. Various on-screen film titles have contained single and double quotation marks, em-dashes, en-dashes, hyphens, periods, commas, ellipses, exclamation points and, yes, question marks. Those symbols may inconsistently appear upon posters, VHS and/or DVD covers, publicity, reviews and distribution literature. Ultimately, it would seem that if sources are inconsistent, the final determination is best left to the on-screen credits. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)