Talk:Manos: The Hands of Fate

Voice-over of Torgo

The article states that the actor who portrayed Torgo also did his voice, but I am pretty sure this is incorrect.--71.75.57.18 10:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, virtually the entire "Trivia and errors" section cites no sources for its information, which are needed to clarify this and other points. I've added an {{unreferenced}} tag to encourage the authors to cite their sources explicitly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Would somebody with experience in the matter please help this page cite sources better? I rewritten it a bit, but I don't know how to line up all the sources to proper format.--Lenin & McCarthy 10:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

trivia

Can I just purge the rest if the trivia section?--Lenin & McCarthy 10:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And the quote section. Perhpas move to Wikiquote?--Lenin & McCarthy 15:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Mary-Robin Redd

Please, people. Robin Redd and Mary-Robbin Redd are not the same actress. I'm deleting all references to Mary-Robin Redd from the article.--Satan Rides a Bike 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

I've passed this article as a Good Article. It's well-written, well-referenced, and I have read it with much enjoyment on several occasions. A few suggestions:

• The plot summary section is very good overall, but could use some minor cleanup as far as clarity and continuity go.
• I think some interesting information may have been lost when the trivia section was removed. See if some of those tidbits can be brought back into the article.

Great job to everyone who's worked on this. Who knows, with a little more work, there could be a featured article nomination in the future. Stebbins 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This is from an undergraduate astronomy and astrophysics major. The article is readable, and it has a lot of sources. Each source is linked from the main text in the appropriate place, and supports the information that is presented in the article. Whoever wrote the bulk of this article has actually read and understood the sources. It would have been so easy to dump them into an External Links section at the end. Well done.

Against it, the article is very slight, and it is poorly-written. There is a difference between a writer and a researcher; it is the difference between an architect and a bricklayer. The plot synopsis is robotic space-filler, and when that is taken out, the text amounts to one and a half pages of A4. The first sentence of the first paragraph describes the film in the present tense; the third sentence is formulated in such as way as to describe the film in the past tense, and in doing so it implies that the film was universally infamous in 1966. The second sentence is "Made in 1966 as the result of a bet, he intended to make a successful horror film on a shoestring budget", which should read "Made in 1966 as the result of a bet, Manos was intended by Warren as a successful horror film on a shoestring budget". You will wait for several weeks before performing this edit, because you do not want to admit that I am right. At the end of the introduction we are told that a theatre company in Portland "did a play" based on the film in 2004. That is not a professional standard of writing.

The screen capture of poor, poor Torgo has a computer cursor in it. There is room for a short sentence explaining why the film's title is rendered as "Manos": The Hands of Fate and not simply Manos: The Hands of Fate, as on the IMDB, perhaps with a screen capture of the film's title card instead of the awful DVD box. The article does not explain if the film is in the public domain. The standalone DVD release is by Alpha Video, a company that seems to specialise in public domain films (they appear to be unrelated to the Alpha Video listed on the IMDB). [1] Presumably the copyright of the film rests either with Hal Warren's estate, or with whatever became of Emerson Film Enterprises. The link to Alpha Video's DVD release of the film points to the wrong place. Rather than being a link to a search index page, it should be a direct link to the film itself. I could fix all this myself, but I have taken an instant disliking to you, and I am in a bad mood. If this is what passes for a featured article on Wikipedia, and if Wikipedia is the internet's leading source of information, there needs to be a vast and painful purging process. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

When I promoted this article to GA status, I was inexperienced. Looking back a year later, I think it probably shouldn't have been promoted, but at the time I did not think it was a big deal (and I still don't) because the promotion could be reversed. My academic major is irrelevant to your complaints and in no way reflects poorly on my literacy, critical thinking abilities, or eligibility as a Wikipedia editor. Stebbins 05:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

GA review

Alright, I have read the whole article and have many suggestions for you. First the good news. I think you pass all but two criteria. This article fails in that it is poorly written and the images have no fair use. Fixing the fair use is easy (see suggestion below) but the other one will take some careful editing. I suggest putting the whole thing in Word to help catch misspellings and some grammatical errors.

Errors:

• "The Lodge of Sins" Should not be italicized and quoted per style guidelines.
• Needs a non-breaking space for 16mm and 32mm.
• None of the three images have fair use rationales (try cribbing them from Gremlins)
• Why is hair wikilinked in the plot summary? Something special about her hair?
• Just what is "the normal technique of shooting day-for-night"? Could you wikilink or explain?
• Needs a thorough copyedit. There are numerous grammatical problems, for example "The Master angrily stops the argument and, enraged at Torgo's insolent behavior and for allowing the family to stay, decides to sacrifice Torgo to the film's mysterious deity and namesake, "Manos"." This sentence alone has a missing comma and a superfluous comma.
  • As I read, I keep coming across more and more grammatical errors as well as superfluous information that could be cut to make the article more concise.

*How was the dog killed?

• Is the MST3K section really a spoiler? The lead says the film is awful and the opening is already covered in the production. The more things marked spoiler the less a timid reader will read.
• "Heavily promoted, it was attended by numerous local dignitaries and media." Who specifically attended, and how was it promoted?
• "Further cynicism is directed at the fact that "Manos" is the Spanish word for "hands"; thus, when entirely translated into English, the movie's title is 'Hands' The Hands of Fate.[17][3]" Again this does not need to be under a spoiler tag, and it is just tacked on to the end of a paragraph that has nothing to do with it.
• Consider changing the cast since the WP:Film style guidelines recommends that you do not summarize the character if the character was described in the plot.
• Either make stubs for the minor character actors or unwikilink them.
• Consider wikilinking the actors in the plot summary.

--Supernumerary 01:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Much, much improved. The few things that bothered me I went ahead and fixed. If the minor character actors went on to star in other films then re-wikilink them, but if not they don't need a page on Wikipedia. The one thing that is still missing is specifically how was it heavily promoted?--Supernumerary 02:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Harold Warren's post-Manos career

I removed the following material from the "After Manos" section:

Hal Warren is presumed to have returned to selling fertilizer following Manos.<ref name="mst-warren">Mystery Science Theater 3000, "Manos: The Hands of Fate" [4.24], timecode 01:27:14. Tom Servo: If you'd like to contact Harold P. Warren, look in the Yellow Pages for "The Fertilizer Corporation of Texas".</ref>

I've reformatted the "source" info that User:Lenin & McCarthy added here, just for form's sake, but there's no way a MST3K quip can be considered a reliable source, even if it turns out to be true. Without a source, this is mere speculation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't to source that he did, but that that was a presumption. --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 10:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I can understand the desire to treat a MST3K quip as simply a presumption, but it just doesn't fly, even if we could be sure that Servo was saying this based on actual belief (as opposed to just being funny), which we can't. Why? Because Wendell Corey didn't say "Hi-keeba!", as MST3K ACEG claims (it was Paul Gilbert), "I thought you were Dale" didn't come from a dish-detergent commercial, as Mary Jo et al have stated (it was a Grape-Nuts commercial); and Casey Adams/Max Showalter (from Indestructible Man) was not in Catalina Caper, as Dr. Forrester claimed (he was thinking of Del Moore). In other words, BBI makes mistakes, and clearly cares more about the humor than the precision. ("It's just a show", after all.) We can cite stuff like this to show it's what BBI writers thought was correct, but considering this particular statement was made as part of the joking commentary, the connection is just too tenuous to assert in an encyclopedia article, I'm afraid. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

B-rating

Shouldn't someone have changed the rankings on the top of this page from "B" to "GA"?
And if so should I do it? Or is it the job of the reviewer? --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 15:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can do it after it's passed the review. I went ahead and upgraded it.--Supernumerary 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The couple making out

I know I should have better things to do than nitpick the plot summary of the worst movie ever made, but it seems to be that this article is implying that the make-out kids have absolutely nothing to do with the plot. They DID notice the main characters driving down the road in their first scene, and told the police about it in their third scene. To say that they have nothing at all to do with the main plot is innacurate. Thoughts? 75.75.110.235 (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. On both the "should have better things to do" (for myself) bit, as well as on the plot point. For me too, they take part in the "development" of the plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.132.224.196 (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Great article, stupid point.

Great article but (no matter how well referenced) it's a stupid point to make that since manos means hands in spanish, if translated it would make it "hands: the hands of fate". Although I can't think of another title right now, it has certainly been done before that a foreign (to the intended audience) word prefaces the title and is again used in the title itself translated to the appropriate language. While it's debatable if this has any aesthetically pleasing, or other, merit, it has certainly been done before. I am removing this hence. 91.132.224.196 (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC) To the person who edited out my changes, please reply here. Let me also further point out that the ":" sign signifies most of the the time an "i.e.", a "that is to say" or "in other words". So it is perfectly correct to use it thus which is what the title of the film is doing, Manos i.e. the hands of fate, "in other words" the hands of fate. Just because we can find some bozos on the web how don't have anything better to do than write 100,000 word diatribes on the film "manos" ridiculing every iota of it, doesn't mean that we as an encyclopedia should not put our common sense first when to decide what to include or not. By saying that I am preempting the argument that this part is referenced thrice. Just because this is undoubtedly a bad film doesn't mean that every choice made in it is nonsensical. And by including such a stupid point as the one I am removing we are not showcasing the films idiocy but this of the editor of this article. 91.132.224.196 (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Well, "The Hands of Fate" appears to exist as a subtitle, rather than merely an intended rewording of the main title. In addition, if this is actually a center of ridicule for Reliable Sources, as the three sources indicates, we are inclined to document it. Wikipedia does place a lot of emphasis on Verifiability, after all. In addition, removing that sentence leaves the final paragraph of "reaction" somewhat choppy and detracts from the concise feel it had originally. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply in a very eloquent way to my criticism and edits instead of merely reverting my changes. I am going to post your reply in the talks section of the article and post my reply in the coming days. I know this is a very minor point to the article but I am interested in presenting a balanced view and not ridiculing a film for ridibule's sake but solely for the film's merits, or lack thereof. 91.132.224.196 (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this film in the public domain?

I came across this article as it was about to be todays featured article and noticed its lack of images in that section. Looking at the images in the article they are listed as copyrighted however I am fairly sure that the film is in the public domain and thus any images derived from it are also in the public domain. Am I mistaken in this regard and the film is indeed still copyrighted? –– Lid^(Talk) 07:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I did a little research, and I found a few sources stating that the film is indeed in public domain. Although most of the sources were unreliable (Geocities, forums, etc.), I was able to find one site which seems reliable.[2] If it is actually in public domain, we can change the licensing for the screenshots so one can be featured on the Main Page, since it's today's featured article. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That was my train of though as well. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment on if the film was in the public domain. One would have to check the entire film for a copyright notice. In the absence of said copyright notice, the film would indeed be in the public domain. The poster, however, is clearly in the public domain because there is no copyright notice displayed on the image and it was published before 1978. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this a featured article? Pdeitiker (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The community decided that it met the criteria. So it's a featured article. Puchiko (Talk-email) 06:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't make the film's public domain status clear, with the only reference being "introduced into the home video collecting market by a number of public domain film suppliers." If it's in the public domain, that fact and support for it should be clearly stated. In addition, the article includes a "See also" link to List of films in the public domain in the United States, but the film is not listed there. --71.174.170.87 (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Great article!

Good example of scintillating writing. I LOL'd just from reading it. Anchoress (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time "The Core" was featured ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a picture of a man's anus spread open in the article?

I'm curious, what is the relevance of a picture showing a man spreading his anus wide open, in this article? The subtitle reads "The character of L Ron was played by Goa Tse in Project Chanology". Quite frankly I find this offensive... however, as I have not seen the movie before, I cannot comment on whether it was from the movie or not.Davez621 (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's just typical vandalism. In the future, just revert it and give the editor a warning. You'll grow accustomed to it. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why there is no really quick method of reporting such things on wikipedia. I spent about 15 minutes trying to find something that looked like a suitable mechanism for reporting the problem, apart from webmaster/abuse/info@wikimedia.org or an editorial dispute, which did not sound particularly timely. I reckon that the wikipeida needs soem method e.g. IRC channel to contact a human with editorial power quickly. There may be one but goint to links like the "Contact WEikipeida" link on the left of the page don;t make it immediately obvious. IN fact they don;t appear to list any immediate contact methods e.g. email address, phone number or irc# on the "contact wikipedia" page, which makes it somewhat of a misnomer IMO. If you follow the Report a problem link it lists several types of specific problems but no real way of getting something like this fixed quickly - or at least nothing immediately apparent. - J TAN

Basically, where the contact page should have led you is Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Vandalism. I don't think a phone number would be useful, as we don't have paid staff 24/7.
In the future, try placing {{Helpme}} on your talk page, followed by a description of your problem. A volunteer will be there in 15 minutes max, ready to provide advice and help you. If you're more comfortable with IRC, try #wikipedia-en-help, #countervandalism, or#wikipedia-en-admins. Puchiko (Talk-email) 06:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... the point of Wikipedia is, you can edit stuff yourself. Including vandalism. Isn't Web 2.0 fun? 198.77.206.228 (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to edit it out because at first I wasn't sure if it was a scene from the film or notDavez621 (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Power without responsibility, the prerogative of harlots throughout the ages. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So how did MST3K learn about this film?

This is one of the questions that has nagged me about this film: we hear of countless better films (which are actually critical & commercial successes) which have been lost or destroyed over the years, yet this embarassment (to call a spade a spade) somehow managed to escape this fate. While this admittedly borders on original research, I doubt that I am the only person who wondered how they found this work -- especially as everyone involved with it apparently wanted to forget that it ever was made -- so someone must have asked this question before now.

I doubt that even two copies of this movie existed before its television debut in 1993 -- which not only makes its survival all the more amazing, but the fact that someone thought, "Those people are looking for bad films -- maybe they'll want this copy of 'Manos' no one wants to admit still exists. Even if doing that is more expensive than throwing the darned thing away." -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, MST3K did not invent the appreciation of bad films. I'm sure quite a few copies were in the hands of horror and/or bad-movie aficionados. Nowadays a lot of the trading takes place on eBay (I know a guy who collects silents), but in the old days there were typewritten newsletters and stuff. And there are a lot of people at distributor warehouses and the like who salvage discards (or even intercept returns ...) for their own reasons, not necessarily profit. --75.50.88.158 (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Llywrch's point is a great one; it was bothering me too. If anybody knows facts rather than speculation, please add it to the article. Tempshill (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to the fourth page of the Entertainment Weekly article [3], it was in a box they got from Comedy Central HQ. Unfortunately, that just begs the question of how did Comedy Central get it... -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 09:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Master's "mysterious power" and hand-burning

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I always thought that the Master made Torgo touch the metal "hand-staff" that was in the fire, hence burning his hand... Thanos6 (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Manos: The Hands of Fate. JPG-GR (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Manos - The Hands of Fate → ? — This article was once titled Manos: The Hands of Fate, then was changed to "Manos" The Hands of Fate, and is now Manos - The Hands of Fate. The think the last title was appropriate even though it had question marks because they are allowed in the title if they are not used just for emphasis, such as in "The Spaghetti Incident?". Since this article has had three names in the past two years (possibly more) and it's just a movie, I think we should discuss an appropriate title, then maybe put a move lock on the page. Lets look at the some of the possible title formats used (in no particular order):

• Manos: The Hands of Fate[4][5]
• "Manos" The Hands of Fate[6]
• Manos, the Hands of Fate[7]
• Manos, The Hands of Fate[8]
• Manos – The Hands of Fate[9]

I'm sure there are more, but the point is that we need to pick one title format and stick with it for consistency reasons. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

To quote from Agony Booth.com: "To clear up a minor point: There exists some confusion out there as to what the title of this movie really is. Some will call it Manos, the Hands of Fate, Manos: the Hands of Fate, or even Manos: Hands of Fate, but upon careful examination of the title frame captured [here], I can now say with complete certainty that this movie is in fact titled "Manos" The Hands of Fate, complete with nonsensical quotation marks." –Dream out loud (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Note that how the title is stylized doesn't actually matter, by WP:NAME#Use standard English for titles even if trademarks encourage otherwise. In a nutshell, you should use the title that would most appropriately resemble an English sentence, and failing agreement on that, the title which would be most commonly used in reference to this work. The original title, Manos: The Hands of Fate seems to be the best match. You might also consider looking up how the title actually does appear in legal documents, such as the copyright line, but that again is a secondary point. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• According to the film's copyright listing, its title still varies.[10] I don't think that we should really base the format off of the film's copyright listing because, as you can see on the page, it is not even properly capitalized. I agree with what you said about resembling an English sentence, therefore Manos: The Hands of Fate would be best. But also keep in mind that this film was featured on the main page in January with the title "Manos" The Hands of Fate and if it was featured on the main page in that format and it wasn't contested against, I don't see why it should be changed now. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Torgo

I created a dab page at Torgo and have moved the content from the page (much of it repeated here) to User:BalthCat/Torgo should there be anything there that should be saved. - BalthCat (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Public Domain (?), again

It's now on the Internet Archive.[11] Any more info? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Get that cat off the piano!"

After watching Casino Royale, I noticed the same piano theme that plays on many scenes of "Manos", which Tom Servo identifies with "Get that cat off the piano". Should we include that the soundtrack for Casino Royale borrows from Manos?--Surten (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Surten

That is "Casino Royale" the parody --Surten (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Surten

Yeah why not, go ahead and inclued it! 91.132.224.196 (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Camera limitations

The article says: "Under the working title The Lodge of Sins, the movie was filmed in mid 1966 with a 16 mm Bell & Howell camera which had to be wound by hand and filmed for only 32 seconds." However in the scene in which Torgo hits Michael and straps him to a pole, there is a shot that lasts 70 seconds. Maybe more than one camera type was used? 201.82.161.18 (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

possible source for new information

[12] interview with (now grown up) Jackey Neyman (little Debbie) on how Manos changed her life. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Article problems

Although this is a good article, I'm confused as to how it became a featured article. There are a few issues:

• The intro is a bit short. More information could be added (this is hit-or-miss; the intro does summarize the article well, even if it appears short)
• The plot description is far too long, especially for a relatively straight-forward plot. The desired plot length is 400-500 words, 700 maximum, and 900 for particularly convoluted or complex plots. The description in this article is 1188 words. One reason is for too many and unnecessary quotes from the film.
• Beyond the first subsection, the Reception section of the article appears more focused on the MST3K episode than the film proper.
• The "Popularity as a cult film" subsection becomes rather choppy near the end
• Unless they were uncredited, there should not be a "minor characters" section. They should either be included with the main cast listing or discluded. If they weren't credited, then there need to be citations as to their involvement.
• There are a few slanted statements in the article. "Two humorous stage productions...," "incongrously replies..." (the latter meant to highlight a flaw in the film to correspond with the concensus that it is a bad movie)
• Minor grammatical mistakes, such as comma usage, space, and capitalization —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helltopay27 (talk • contribs)

• Plot has been cut.
• I don't find the lead too short.
• Popularity of as a cult film section restructured.

Please strike the issues above as they are taken care of, including the long plot template at the top. I'll continue to work on it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the Cast/characters section could probably be cut. It's not cited and adds nothing really to the article. The After Manos section can be added to the Reception. I just tripped over this article at FAR so I'm not bold enough to delete it without discussion. So...discuss? --Moni3 (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible sources:

• The Show That Turned the Mockery Into the Message The New York Times, November 9, 2008 Sunday, Section AR; Column 0; Arts and Leisure Desk; DVD; Pg. 15, 743 words, By DAVE ITZKOFF
• Frankensteins Bloody Nightmare Daily Variety, October 19, 2006 Thursday, REVIEWS; Pg. 6, 279 words, JOE LEYDON
• The Guide: 'It's not even in focus!': From witless B-movies to Paris Hilton's latest shocker, the Internet Movie Database's Bottom 100 is a comprehensive list of the biggest celluloid turkeys. Sam Richards enters film hell The Guardian (London) - Final Edition, March 29, 2008 Saturday, THE GUIDE; Pg. 14, 331 words, Sam Richards
• Film chases in the slow lane National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post) (Canada), July 21, 2006 Friday, DRIVING; Pg. DT4, 826 words, Peter Kenter, CanWest News Service
• 'Mystery Science' Sails Again With Great Craft The Washington Post, December 30, 2008 Tuesday, STYLE; Pg. C01, 1413 words, Tom Shales; Washington Post Staff Writer

Do not appear to be cited yet. --Moni3 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Hands: The Hands of Fate"

I removed the bit in the article about how the title 'literally' means "Hands: the Hands of Fate", since "manos" is Spanish for "hands". Yes, that's true, but Manos is the name of The Master. This would be akin to pointing out that a (made-up) title such as "Peter: The Rock" literally means "Rock: The Rock", which is a silly criticism. - furrykef (Talk at me) 02:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"Manos" is not the name of the Master; it's the name of the god he worships. That's why he has those giant red hands painted on his robe. Didn't you hear him speak, "Manos, God of primal darkness" about halfway through the film? Stolengood (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Counter Perspective

Everyone knows this as a bad film, but RE/Search's Incredibly Strange Films has a positive review of it (the was book published about seven years before the MST3K treatment). Manos "is a joy to watch. A true rarity: a film completely devoid of Hollywood influence or conventional film making technique. Jump cuts abound, the continuity is non-existent. The editing is leaden; it's doubtful if anything ended up on the cutting room floor. If the actors have trouble remembering their lines, the camera stays on them until they do -- no matter how long it takes! Warren was so stingy with his footage that in one scene we catch a glimpse of the clapper as it pulls out of the frame. Manos, the Hands of Fate was his first and last attempt at filmmaking." There's a similar amount of wordage describing the story. Page 204 in the book, last page of the Directory section, under Warren's name. --Elijah (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I think that's a sarcastic review... which wouldn't be surprising considering the movie is mostly talked about in comedy circles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.214.5 (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sarcastic? Maybe. I think, instead, it's a whole book that favors outsider cinema and sees this as about as far outside as it gets. What might be considered B-movie exploitation films get treated like A-movie material in ISF. --Elijah (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly not an actual positive review.

Manos677 (talk)

Drive by tag

This article has recently been tagged with the following:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

yet the tagger has left no sign here on the talk page of what items he or she believes need sourcing. I will remove it until such time as the tagger gives us some guidance here. HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There was no reason to remove that tag and the edit has been reverted. It says "improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page", meaning either one can suffice. Plenty of inline tags have been place throughout the article as to what needs to be sourced, and editors are welcome to improve the article. A discussion does not need to be started since inline tags explain what needs to be fixed. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I failed to read carefully and I didn't see the many inline requests for sourcing. Your revert, and the fact that you came here to explain your revert, are well appreciated. HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

See the featured article review, the sourcing has been called into question and that was never really addressed. --74.138.214.5 (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• "Restoring the worst movie ever made." CNN. January 5, 2012.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Dual-system audio and clapperboard

There are a couple of inconsistencies/impossibilities in the Production section:

"The Bell & Howell camera was incapable of double-system recording, and thus all sound effects and dialogue were dubbed later in post-production"

This can't possibly be correct. The whole point of dual-system audio is that audio is recorded independently of the camera, so there is no such thing as a camera "incapable of double-system recording". It's much more likely that sound wasn't recorded on location because it would have necessitated 1-2 more crew members, more equipment, and maintaining silence on set. Dubbing everything wasn't entirely uncommon in B-movies back then and up through the Seventies, even Robert Rodríguez' "El Mariachi" is completely looped.

And:

One of the more visible examples of this is a brief moment at the beginning of the film in which the clapperboard (which was useless to the Manos shoot in the first place - such a device is used to help sync sound captured on location. Manos' sound and dialogue was not recorded during filming but dubbed in later) is visible after a cut to the "make-out couple".

The clapperboard is not useless just because there's no sync sound being recorded. In fact, most clapperboards have labels that are circled to indicate "sync" for sync sound, or "MOS" for no sync sound. When a clapperboard is used with sync sound, it's brought into frame with the clapper open, clapped, and removed from frame with the clapper closed, while when no sound is being recorded, the clapperboard is brought into frame and removed all while keeping the clapper closed. This is done since the clapperboard serves to identify the scene and take.

I didn't want to go ahead and just change these things, since they're factual errors I wanted to discuss them here first, but it's quite obvious that these two sentences are not correct. JZ (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, and since the "useless" observation isn't sourced, I've gone ahead and cut this. --McGeddon (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sequel

At tonight's Rifftrax presentation of Manos, they mentioned a sequel (and a trailer for it was shown at the end of the presentation). [[13]] Should this get a mention? Allen Huffman (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The sequel (The Search for Valley Lodge) is mentioned here: [14] so I guess there is at least one RS for it. However, it also says that it is as yet unreleased, so it might be better to hold our horses until it actually materializes. I'm not familiar enough with the notability guidelines to say definitively.--Sus scrofa (talk) 08:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

We can always say - as long as its backed up - that a low budget sequel is in production, in this article without worrying about notability. It doesn't commit that it would be released or the like. It would be far too early for a separate article for the sequel (though redirecting "Manos 2" to here would make sense). --MASEM (t) 13:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)