Talk:Rosemary's Baby (film)

Initial comments

July 1, 2006

Sorry -- I screwed up; I didn't realize the film had already been created.

I have taken some of my entries and added them to the original (and hopefully soon to be only existing) version.

Sorry, again!!

Rosemary's Baby 01:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Roseb6.jpg

Image:Roseb6.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 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) 12:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My edits

I replaced a section labeled "Casting" with "Production Notes." Although statements in the original "Casting" section were referenced, few of them were substantiated by Polanski, Evans, and Sylbert in their extensive commentary on the DVD, so I removed them, since these three would know better than anyone what transpired during pre-production. (At least one of the statements I removed - "Polanski originally wanted Robert Redford to play Guy, but Redford was filming Downhill Racer (1969) at the time" - definitely is incorrect. Evans used the Downhill Racer script to lure Polanski to the project, so it couldn't have been in production.) I also added a cast list, critical reception, and awards and nominations. MovieMadness (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes Question

Rosemary's Baby came out in 1968. Rotten Tomatoes came out in 1998. Is it really fair to use such a web site to judge the critical reception of this, or any, old movie? Can somebody tell me what the policy is on this? 141.155.24.37 (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes would simply have got a bunch of critics who presumably watched the movie when it came out to rate it. Even if they did ask a group of much younger 'professionals' to review it, it won't make any horrendous difference. You don't need to be someone with a PhD theisis or an individual who grew up before a movie's particular release date to give a logical and straightforward opinion on it. You were probably not around when Casablanca came out, but does that mean that your opinion on the film, having watched it all these years later, is less valid than your grandpa/great grandpa's? No. Blooded Edge (T•C•A) 18:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The article should discuss the critical reception at the time of the film's release, and how present day critics see the film. Rotten Tomatoes is only useful to gauge the latter. See MOS:FILM#Critical_response and WP:ROTTEN. Eljayess (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversy?

It was quite a controversial film when it came out, especially the final Satan-worship scene. There isn't even the word "controversy" used on the page. Should we include this? The Person Who Is Strange 21:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits for clarity

The article suggested that Dr. Saperstein induces labor which is incorrect, Rosemary just happens to go into labor when they return to the apartment. He does give her an injection but this is a sedative.

The article also stated that the coven "hypnotizes" Rosemary at the end of the film, this isn't true either. They do urge her to be a mother to her baby but there is no hypnotism involved. 207.67.97.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC).

Article mentioned that Hutch dies after only a few days, yet Rosemary, in her confessions to Dr. Hill, states that Hutch died three months after his coma.mndcmpn 22:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjkelton (talk • contribs)

Commercial / Cigarette Advertising In Film

This film uses blatant advertising. The worst is a cigarette advertisement where the husband comes home and places 8 packages of cigarettes on the table (so that the audience can see the labels, of course). But also, for its advertisement of Vidal Sasoon at the time. Isn't it nice that most of the cigarette executives from the company that advertised are now dead?

Both of these "advertisements" are directly from the novel - it's doubtful that any "blatent advertising" was involved. --12.190.158.6 (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Plot Summary

The plot summary is very well written. It definitely matches the plot of the movie.

"Marcato"

Was Marcato the second name of the Castevets also in the novel or was the name Marcato used for the first time in the film? There's possibly a connection between "marcato" and "staccato", whereby the latter happens to be the name of the eponymous TV detective played by John Cassavetes. A small hommage? Worth looking into. -The Gnome (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes! It's also their name in the novel. 86.136.160.248 (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Dubious

"Polanski … was unaware that he was allowed to make changes from the source material". I find this very hard to believe. IMDB trivia is an extremely unreliable source; they'll add most things people submit without checking them. Can anyone confirm this from a better source?—Chowbok ☠ 23:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Removed after 2.5 months without a comment/reply to the above request. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Odd

I've always found it very odd that certain names or sounds keep cropping up:

• Roman Castevet / Roman Polanski / Rosemary / Farrow
• Castevet / Cassevetes.

Has any commentary been made of these "coincidences"? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

They're all witches. 24.17.19.29 (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Academy Award

The article states that "Ruth Gordon won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, which made the film the only horror movie to receive an Oscar for a lead or supporting role until Misery in 1990." This is not true. Frederick March won Best Actor for Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde in the 1932 Awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.60.9 (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

PS the quoted source is also incorrect. Should this sentence be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.60.9 (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I have cut the sentence down to ""Ruth Gordon won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.60.9 (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"See also"

Why is Anton Szandor Lavey mentioned in the "See also"? It is like putting "See Also baby " just because the movie is about a pregnancy. If it is interesting that Anton made a joke about being a consultant for this film then that fact should be included in the article text. A better link for the See Also might be to Satanism . Cryptarch (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rosemary's Baby (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 09:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the level of enthusiasm behind the nominator's recent GA nominations, but this article fails the verifiability requirement and will require significant work in that regard, so it is inappropriate to continue with a full review right now. Specifically, the article has a large number of unaddressed citation needed tags (indicating that rather large portions of the entry are unsourced or poorly sourced). See WP:GAFAIL criterion 3. Thanks and good luck with further work on this entry. Larry Hockett (Talk) 10:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Christopher Komeda - Rosemary's Baby.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Rosemary’s Baby in Psych

I just wanted to make a suggestion to add in the “In Popular Culture” section that Rosemary’s Baby is also alluded to in Psych season 6 episode 11 titled “Heeeeeee’s Lassie!”, which portrays a young pregnant woman named “RoseMarie” who bears close resemblance to Rosemary and also has an actor husband.

Thank you! 73.9.190.206 (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

Rosemary was given the tanis root pendant after she became pregnant, not before. Also, Rosemarie did not hallucinate the rape scene. It really happened to her, with all the creepy nude Satanic cult members watching. She did experience some drug-enhanced visions such as leaving Hutch (her kindly father figure protector) behind and drifting off, clearly a subconscious fear emerging. 166.181.88.197 (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

No, Rosemary was given the tannis root pendant before she became pregnant. It was on an evening when Guy went to the Castevets' apartment, supposedly to listen to more of Roman's theater stories, but really to further discuss how they were going to arrange for Satan to impregnate Rosemary. After he is gone, Rosemary settles down to read a book. She is then interrupted by Minnie's knock on the door. Minnie then enters along with Laura Louise, (and I think a third party whose identity I can't remember at the moment), to spend the evening with Rosemary. Minnie shortly pulls the tannis root pendant out of somewhere on her person, while seemingly absorbed in her knitting, and nonchalantly hands it to Rosemary. It's before the pregnancy. Jersey Jan (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Contributors are evenly divided on whether or not they think the film qualifies as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (non-admin closure) Rreagan007 (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

---

• Rosemary's Baby (film) → Rosemary's Baby
• Rosemary's Baby → Rosemary's Baby (disambiguation)

– Given the massive difference in page views, this seems like an obvious PTOPIC. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - page views aren't everything, and I think it ignores the cultural impact of the novel. Better to keep all disambiguated. -- Netoholic @ 07:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. In addition to the page views, the film has had a much greater impact than the novel. Station1 (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  "much greater impact" seems inaccurate. See the lead of the novel's article, the second reference, and my comment below. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  You might be right. I don't doubt the impact of the novel. My impression is that the movie was the bigger deal, but that's purely subjective. That's why I think pageviews are usually the much more important indicator of primary topics. Station1 (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  This was also my impression which is why I was surprised to see how these pages were arranged, and also why I went to check page views before making my proposal. In this case, I think they paint a striking picture of just how felt that cultural impact actually is, and I think they are the best measure available for this discussion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Page views do not historical importance make. Note the text of the second reference on the 1967 novel's page, which succinctly explains why no primary exists between the film and the influential novel: "Levin's frightening little book...triggered the whole modern boom in American horror fiction, making possible the success of William Peter Blatty's (much inferior) The Exorcist (1971), the Omen/Damien series of films, and the careers of novelists Stephen King and Peter Straub, among many others". David Pringle, Modern Fantasy: The 100 Best Novels. London, Grafton, 1988. ISBN 0246132140 (p.103-5) Randy Kryn (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per the cultural importance of the novel. From its lead: "It was the best-selling horror novel of the 1960s, selling over 4 million copies. The high popularity of the novel was a catalyst for a 'horror boom', and horror fiction would achieve enormous commercial success." Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The book is significant in its own right and the current disambiguation is justified. Also about 20% of people who land on Rosemary's Baby click through to the novel, though that number might be a bit misleading. ChromeGames (talk · contribs) 06:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The novel would have little significance or exposure but for the film. Andrewa (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The book may be the best-selling horror novel of the 1960s, but the film is considered one of the greatest horror films of all-time, not just the 60s. In the year 2023, the film is clearly far more culturally significant than the book.

Cryptkeeperfun (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

"Cultural significance" means all-time historical importance, not based on year-by-year changing favor or recent public or generational awareness of a topic. The novel and the film both hold equal cultural significance in the overall timeline with the novel providing a groundbreaking directional shift on this type of literature (a path which many of the following culturally major films followed). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point. Perhaps pop culture would have been a more appropriate term than cultural significance. In the year 2023, the film clearly plays a much larger role in pop culture than the book. Cryptkeeperfun (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, yet the criteria for primary rests on two pillars: page views and historical cultural significance. The novel and film both have legitimate claim to primary, so as co-primary topics the disamb page would still apply as the touchstone page for the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on cultural significance, but if page views are indeed also playing a factor in this decision, then the film (roughly 70%) clearly wins over the book (roughly 20%). Cryptkeeperfun (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anton LaVey

Is Anton LaVey in the movie? I've heard he is, and I've heard he isn't and the claim is a fraud. I'm not asking just to ask, but since he was the founder of the Church of Satan, it might be appropriate to put something in the article about it. But without knowing, I don't want to do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.36.21 (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)