Talk:Rosemary's Baby (novel)

Discussion

The article (Rosemary's Baby,) states that Sharon Tate was a member of the Manson family. This doesn't match with anything else in the article, or in the article on Sharon Tate. Because I'm not an expert on "the whole Helter Skelter thing", and am new to Wikipedia in general I don't feel comfortable editing this article myself. The statement is in item two under "Movie Trivia". Perhaps instead of "member", it should say "murder victim", but then what does that have to do with Anton Levay?

Oprah's interview with Tom Cruise discusses a book that Tom says compares his daughter, Suri, to Rosemary's baby, after rumors that Suri is not actually his child. That could be an interesting pop reference to include. Pastaffo (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The plot summary does not fully summarize the plot: it leaves off the big reveal at the end of the play. It reads more like copy for a trailer than an actual plot summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.62.113 (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with the above. I came here to add the same point and saw somebody already has. A plot summary, in an encyclopaedia (or, indeed, anywhere) should summarise the plot and not omit the important end part as if it were some sort of cinema advert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.217.0 (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

completely agree. the last line of the plot summary: Ultimately, Rosemary finds that she is wrong about the coven's reason for wanting the baby... but the truth is even more horrific than she could ever imagine. is a teaser. it's like the promotional material you find on the back of a book. it just needs the ending altering. Flagpolewiki (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Split

I think that this article should be split into two articles; one on the film and one on the novel. They're both very well-known and rather influential, and I think that each should have their own page. Also, it seems to me that in most cases where a movie is made from a book, the movie and book have separate article pages. Thoughts? -Elizabennet 22:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely and will begin work on this spilt as soon as possible. Hopefully, I shall have an up and running article by the end of this week. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. AlexanderLevian 17:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's definitly been a long enough time. A split is needed! Andrzejbanas 06:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. --Thaddius 16:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, books and novels are completely different genre of entertainment. -Lucky 16:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Split, i'm doing it as we speak. Andrzejbanas 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RosemarysBabyBook.jpg

Image:RosemarysBabyBook.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 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

First to deal with The Birth of the AntiChrist?

Rosemery's Baby was among the first movies to deal with the the birth of the Anti-Christ. The movie seems to have generated a whole conspiracy theory line of thought about Satan's supposed plans for kids.Johnwrd (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Church of Satan

The Church of Satan idea needs a better and unbiased resource as it's generally accepted that the biography linked to was written under LaVey's supervision and LaVey, well, lied a great deal about his involvement with the film. This is not the place to promote personal myths - use your own website to do that. Even if the information is verified as true, it isn't important enough to be included in this article's opening paragraph. 129.234.155.12 (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times Book Review

Reviewing Rosemary's Baby in The New York Times Book Review, Thomas J. Fleming wrote:

Mr. Levin's suspense is beautifully intertwined with everyday incidents; the delicate line between belief and disbelief is faultlessly drawn. Mr. Fleming was less impressed, however, with the novel's denouement:

Here, unfortunately, he pulls a switcheroo which sends us tumbling from sophistication to Dracula, the review continued. Our thoroughly modern suspense story ends as just another Gothic tale. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/books/14levin.html?pagewanted=print
~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)