Talk:The Hills Have Eyes (1977 film)

Loose Sequel?

I have some problems with the following:

The film is considered by many horror film fans and Wes Craven fans to be a loose sequel to Craven's earlier film Last House on the Left; both films feature upper-middle-class nuclear families as protagonists, with the antagonists being "corrupt" versions of the traditional family. Both films' conflicts center around a clashing of the two families, centered around rape and murder, with the nuclear family striking back in bloody and primal fashion to overcome their corrupt counterparts.

Yes there are some similarities, but that does not mean that the film is a "sequel" to TLHOTL. The story of TLHOTL closely follows that of The Virgin Spring. And this page claims that THHE was based on a Scottish legend. So they are two very different films with different sources but with some key elements in common (something not unknown amongst films by the same director). This does not make one a sequel to the other. You would never say that Scorsese's Taxi Driver was a sequel to Mean Streets, and by this logic The Texas Chainsaw Massacre could also be named as something this might be a sequel to, and clearly that is not the case.

Furthermore, who are the fans who believe this? Almost sounds like weasel wording. Asa01 02:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

DVD commentary from Craven notes

Some people think that Papa Jupiter's peculiar physical traits are a result of his parents being exposed to radiation fallout from testing in the Nevada desert, but on a recent DVD commentary Craven denies such a contrual. If Papa Jupiter was born in 1929 or 1939, then there would have been no nuclear testing present.

12:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Enda80

The text reads like stream of consciousness. It needs a lot of re-write. I'll try to get to it later.~~L.

Please help. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.75.242.105 (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Hills have eyes poster.jpg

Image:Hills have eyes poster.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) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lynn vs. Lynne

I changed every occurrence of "Lynn" to "Lynne" because that's how IMDB credited the character played by Dee Wallace. Feel free to change it back if it's actually spelled as Lynn. There are far greater problems with the synopsis but I haven't seen the movie so someone else will have to make those changes. -76.115.175.191 (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Check Hyperlinks

Links to actor's are not correct e.g. "Jupiter" James Whitworth links to poet who would have been six during the filming of this movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.143.57 (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Expansion

This article is too short and is missing important citations for its information. The production section is way too short and needs to be expanded in more detail than what it currently has, with information on the film's development, writing, and filming added to the article. The reception section also needs to be expanded with more reviews from notable critics added to the article. All of these changes and additions need to occur in order for this article to meet Wikipiedia's standards of a well developed and properly referenced article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It also refers to an "alternative ending" without explaining what that ending is. (The survivors from both families get together, a more optimistic conclusion than the abrupt ending of the "official" version. I recall seeing the alternative ending on a TV screening some years ago.) --Muzilon (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources

In my search for more sources for this article I've noticed that there were not a lot of literary sources cited in the article. I've taken the liberty in making a list of sources that can be used in this article Note: There are more sources that can be found):

• Thomas Richard Fahy (16 April 2010). The Philosophy of Horror. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0-8131-2573-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (Need a physical copy as there are important pages missing on Google Books)

• Roger Ebert (15 June 2009). Your Movie Sucks. Andrews McMeel Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7407-9215-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (Has more detail on Ebert's commentary on the film)

• J. Brown (14 November 2012). Cannibalism in Literature and Film. Palgrave Macmillan UK. ISBN 978-1-137-29212-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Robin L. Murray; Joseph K. Heumann (October 2016). Monstrous Nature: Environment and Horror on the Big Screen. U of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-8569-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Hills Have Eyes (1977 film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 05:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I am starting a second review for this article. I have been warned that the previous review disintegrated into a mess of dramatic squabbling. Hopefully this review goes differently. I will warn everyone ahead of time that I have no prior knowledge of this film whatsoever, but I will attempt to make this review as thorough and objective as I am able to make it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like I'm taking over this review. On first glance, it looks pretty good. Let me take a look.--The lorax (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I looked it over and everything looks good to me. And because FunkMonk thinks all the previous issues have been addressed, we can pass the article.--The lorax (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments from The lorax

@MagicatthemovieS:, was the issue with the documentary/book citation resolved? I was seeing what issues were left in the air from the previous review, and that seems to be the hang up.--The lorax (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@The lorax: I removed all references to the documentary and to books that lack numbered pages in this article in order to resolve issues other users had with it.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

It looks like there just were a few other things that needed to be resolved:

• Images are missing alt information.
• Include citations for several entries in the infobox e.g. budget info.

Otherwise, I think most of the issues were resolved during the last GAR.--The lorax (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@The lorax: I fixed the two issues you just brought up.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@FunkMonk: Since this is my first GA review, I'd like to consult with a mentor before passing this. FunkMonk, I saw you were listed as a mentor for Good Article reviewers, to me, it looks like this article passes all the hurdles, I would just like a second opinion.--The lorax (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I'll have a look tomorrow. Until then, I see there is some duplinking, try this script to highlight them:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I don't know what a duplink is, or why there is so much red text in this new page I've created.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Oh, a duplink is a duplicate link. A term should only be linked at first occurrence in the intro, and then at first occurrence in the article body (image captions are separate from this, of course). Links beyond that should be removed, and the script shows where they are. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I removed the duplinks.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• "120 degrees which dropped to around 30 degrees" It might be good to add conversion to celsius, for non-US readers.

@FunkMonk: Fixed.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• "hazardous to his health, and he had to be attended to" in what way?

@FunkMonk: Source doesn't say.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• You refer to the film as "Hills" throughout, but I wonder if it would be more appropriate to just say "the film", as it seems a bit informal. It also looks jarring that, for example under box office, you start the paragraph by referring to the film as "hills", but in the next sentence you use the full title. No reason to be this inconsistent throughout.

@FunkMonk: Fixed.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• Likewise, I see little reason why you don't just spell out "The Last House on the Left" at each mention.

@FunkMonk: Fixed.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• "The sequence were Dee Wallace's" Where.

@FunkMonk: This scene is not relevant to the plot so I removed any reference to it.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• "the sequence were Mars" Likewise.

@FunkMonk: This sequence is mentioned in the synopsis.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

In both this and the above point, the issue is that "where" is misspelled as "were", not about the content. FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I fixed the misspellings and restored the info about the spider.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• "though Craven was dissatisfied with it" Why, and what does the title mean?

@FunkMonk: Source doesn't say.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• The poster needs a fair use rationale template, like the one in Zombi 2.

@FunkMonk: Added.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• "had been had been added" Typo.

@FunkMonk: Fixed.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• "that he'd prefer" Contractions are discouraged.

@FunkMonk: Fixed.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• "in the dialog" It seems the spelling "dialogue" is preferred in such a context. But of course, if this is a direct quote, not much to do.

@FunkMonk: It is a direct quote.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• The Retrospective reception section seems bloated by long verbatim quotes. I think many of them could be cut down, and some summarised in your ow words, with shorter quotes, as in the Contemporary reception section. Some of the quotes also seem fairly redundant, such as "What more can be said about the original The Hills Have Eyes? It is simply a classic tale of terror". It doesn't really add anything.

@FunkMonk: Fixed.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• The same goes for the Moral themes section. Overly long quotes which should be shortened or summarised.

@FunkMonk: Fixed.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• "The unrelated Craven project Mind Ripper (1995) has the alternate title The Hills Have Eyes III." Why?

@FunkMonk: Added all the info I could find about how Mind Ripper was originally conceived as a sequel to THHE but had all its direct references to THHE removed, but I can't find info on why the references were removed.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• "He did this to turn The Hills Have Eyes into a franchise" Appears this didn't happen? Why?

@FunkMonk: There are currently four THHE films - this does count as a franchise, albeit a modest one. If your asking why there was never a direct sequel to THHE Part II, I can find no info on that.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• The political themes section could need some commentary from the film-makers themselves about the Vietnam allegory, otherwise it just seems a bit like some critics opinion taken at face value.

@FunkMonk: All I can find is an interview where Craven discusses THHE and the Vietnam War, but doesn't connect them. I don't think that stating that some critics have interpreted the film as commenting on the war means that I am taking these critics at face value.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• As I mentioend earlier, the X Files episode Home (The X-Files) was inspired by the film, might warrant a mention if you can find more sources for it.
• "Bobby but doesn't mention Beauty's death" Something is missing here.
• "stranded in the Nevada desert" Only stated in intro, which should not have unique info.
• "a suburban family" Likewise.

@FunkMonk: I can only find sources where people compare "Home" to THHE, not sources which say that THHE inspired "Home." As for the other three issues you just brought up, I addressed them.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• Last point, you have two "doesn't" in the plot section, but again, contractions are discouraged. Other than that I think it looks good, so I'll let Katolophyromai decide the rest. I hope my comments above can give an idea of what to look for during future GA reviews. There is always plenty of room for improvement if one looks closely. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I think that @The lorax: is in charge of this review, not Katolophyromai.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Actually, didn't The lorax hand the review over to you, @FunkMonk:?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Don't think so, they said "I would just like a second opinion". FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|FunkMonk}) The lorax doesn't use this website regularly and I don't want to wait a month for this article to be passed; could you pass it given that The lorax was waiting for your approval?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Wasn't too long since The lorax commented here, so should give them a week to respond. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: One last question: do you know of any sources which say that THHE inspired "Home"?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

I think the commentary track for the episode said something to that effect (which is why I knew it), but I'm not sure. FunkMonk (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Time Out

Not sure we can state that the Time Out' magazine review is a contemporary one. There is no date attached to that article, so we have no notice to when it was written. But I can't really state if its a current one either. What should be done to handle it? Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: I just removed any mention of that review from the article.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Morocco

Why ignoring the fact that the hills have eyes was filmed in Morocco exactly ouarzazate and you can clearly read it in Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouarzazate (The Ouarzazate area is a noted film-making location, with Morocco's biggest studios inviting many international companies to work here. Films such as Lawrence of Arabia (1962), The Man Who Would Be King (1975), The Living Daylights (1987), The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), The Mummy (1999), Gladiator (2000), Kingdom of Heaven (2005), Kundun (1997), Legionnaire (1998), Hanna (2011), The Hills Have Eyes (2006), and Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (2011) were shot here, as was part of the TV series Game of Thrones.) Wikinational0 (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)