Talk:Pre-Code Hollywood

Cartoons

There's a category called "Category:Films made before the MPAA Production Code". Is it OK to add theatrical cartoons to this category? GolgiApparatus165 (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on adding a section to this article on how the Hays Code affected cartoons. It had a major impact on how Betty Boop was portrayed! Ogram (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Mae West LAT.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mae West LAT.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nonsensical movies

It doesn't seem to addressed in the article but, why were movies from this time period so fast-paced, and feature abrupt nonsensical endings? There are movies from the late 1920s which are longer, leisurely paced, resolve most of the plot points, and have sensible/satisfactory endings. Is it due to the considerable expense of sound movies and the depression which resulted in lower budgets (for writing, etc.) and the focus on quantity over quality? (Hollywood was churning out 500 movies per year) It would be nice to see this addressed in the article since I can't seem to find any info. on this in the books I've read. Smiley4523 (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Just an (uncited) opinion, but I think the fast-paced, staccato dialogue was a device to make the dialogue seem pithier and the characters seem wittier; you see the same style today, in TV shows like Gilmore Girls. I'm not sure I follow your point about abrupt nonsensical endings.—HarringtonSmith (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall reading anything on it either. I mentioned that the movies were shorter in the second paragraph of the Social Problem Films section.

Just another personal opinion from me also but I'm not sure I see it the same way you do in that this was a flaw. I think in many ways this was of this era's strength. I love a lot of long movies, but even some 90 minute ones feel padded out. Its like they feel they have to hit 90 minutes to qualify as a feature film. They could just make the movie 65-75 minutes many of them would be a lot better. Also you even see a lot of B movies that go on for over two hours now, which is needless in most cases imo. I like that most of them are shorter personally, and I think it makes the films from this period more unique. AaronY (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Aaron, the fast pace of these films is a feature, not a bug -- and it's hardly unique to the pre-Code time period, look at His Girl Friday (1940) for what may be the apotheosis of the fast-talking style, or any screwball comedy from any period, for that matter. It's much easier to see the conventions of films from the past because they differ so much from those of our own time, but any "anthropologist from Mars" would tell you that contemporary films have just as many nonsensical aspects as those from any other period -- we're just used to them, and accept then more easily as the hallmarks of satisfying story-telling. The way to appreciate the hallmarks of another era is to watch more of that era's films, and get used to the way they told stories then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

One other thought: if someone from the 1930s were to be time-traveled into 2011, they would probably ask why our films all seem to have an edit every 15 seconds or so, instead of giving the audience some time to contemplate what they're seeing. In fact, in my opinion it's the pace of cutting more than anything else which allows contemporary films to be successful when their plots have massive holes in them, holes which you aren't really aware of until afterwards when contemplating the film's story. While viewing the film, the pace and energy of the editing, along with the special effects, stunts and other flim-flamery, keep the viewer from having the time or inclination to attend to the deficiencies in the plot. This doesn't mean that current films are better or worse than earlier films, or vice versa, it just means that different storytelling conventions are being utilized. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't His Girl Friday a remake of The Front Page from 1931? :) Just sayin'. Have you seen The Purchase Price (spoiler) certainly you must have wondered (afterwards) what happened to the guys who burned the wheat? What about at the end of Night Nurse (spoiler) you must have wondered (afterwards) what happened to the mother and her children, that was a major plot point.

Anyway, the initial poster should watch some more movies, there are a bunch which are coherent from beginning to end and really enjoyable. The thing is, this was a time when the depression (at least from 1932 onwards) was causing everyone to cut costs (as mentioned) and block booking was standard, you could get one great movie and a maybe couple ones of varying quality in a package. It wasn't until the late 1940's that Hollywood had to start marketing each movie on it's own merits when the supreme court broke up the vertically integrated studios. Ya gotta understand the context of the movies you watch. :) JungleMouse5644 (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the "abrupt nonsensical ending" thing too. I have looked at contemporary reviews for old movies at the New York Times, Time, etc. sites and they sometimes criticized the endings back then as well. I recall such words as "implausable", "jarring", "unbelievable" and so on. Just so you know that you are not alone in your observations! If a movie was criticized for certain reasons when it was released, it seems kind of ridiculous to not be allowed to criticize it for similar reasons in later years. :-) Also, you mentioned "five hundred movies per year" which raises a valid point, you can't expect five hundred pristine quality films. Some movies were made really well, some were really poorly made. 142.167.175.64 (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ten films per week—500 a year—they didn't call them "programmers" for nothing. And 15-seconds-a-shot is a leisurely cutting pace these days! One unintended consequence of today's frenetic style is that when you need, say, 15 shots a minute, you'll choose shots just to fill that roster. So you get crazy extreme close-ups of unimportant things like electric window buttons in cars, fingertips pressing doorbell buttons, human lips speaking into telephones—all of which "cheapen" the legitimate close-ups and rob them of their power. Not to sound like a fogey, but there's a whole generation of directors now who have no idea how to build a scene through effective cutting, because they're slaves to the 4-seconds-per-shot style. Where's my ear trumpet?—HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a really great article

Sorry, this isn't a terribly constructive comment, but I just had to say that this is one of the most comprehensive and fascinating articles I've read on Wikipedia. Someone should probably nominate it for Featured Article status. I don't know to what extent it's mostly the work of one person, but if it is they should feel very proud of themselves. Thanks for writing it. Robofish (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Myself (formerly I went by Quadzilla99) and others put a lot of work into it. Believe it or not I was only halfway done with whst i wanted to do with it when I stopped, lol. There was still a lot more I wanted to do with it. AaronY (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So why did you stop? Carry on, young man. Quis separabit? 16:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Lyle Talbot

I removed Lyle Talbot from the section regarding forgotten stars of the Pre-Code period. Talbot's starring roles may have ended but largely because "Talbot's activism in SAG union affairs severely impacted his career path.[citation needed] Warner Bros. dropped him from its roster, and Talbot seldom received starring roles again." He remained active until the 1980s in film, television, radio and even musical theatre. To classify him as forgotten in the same way as Ruth Chatterton and Warren William (brilliant both) appears to me to be inaccurate. Quis separabit? 16:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course if anyone disagrees strenuously please feel free to restore it as it was. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Article length

The article is too long to read in one sitting. Could several sections of the article be split by movie genre? The article would still be a good article if the paragraphs are more concise. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 00:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No, the length of the article comes about because it is a well-written and comprehensive look at the subject. There is no requirement that our articles be short enough to read "in one sitting", and we should be rewarding those who create admirably comprehensive articles, not punishing them by dumbing things down for those who can't read anything longer than a tweet, and get lost in a sentence any more complicated than "See John run." This article is excellent as it is -- and is, after all, a Good Article Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The good article 7 Subway Extension is at least five times shorter. The 2003 Chicago porch collapse, also a good article, is at least ten times shorter. Here are more examples of short good article: New York State Route 23, six times; Gun Hill Road, 12 times; East 233rd Street, 15 times. Good articles don't have to be long to be good. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 01:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

And this is an example of a long good article - your point being what? My point is that the article was about this same length when it was evaluated as a good article, so there's no need to go shortening it unnecesarily, since it was good then and it's good now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Short good articles are more concise and direct. Long good articles, while detailed, fail to grasp the main ideas of the article until three or four sections into the article. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 02:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That a short article is more "concise" than a long one is a tautology. There is no "fail[ure] to grasp the main idea" here, since the lede does an admirable job at establishing those right off the bat.

The truth is, some subjects only require short articles -- subjects like Gun Hill Road, East 233rd Street and New York State Route 23, which are, after all, just stretches of pavement -- and some subjects are complex because they deal with complicated human issues involving politics, sociology, the arts and economics. An article on Hollywood films under the Production Code has to be considerably longer than an article which is essentially a listing of exits and other hard-and-fast physical facts. One cannot be judged by the same standard appropriate for the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Some content is already elsewhere, with two sections having links to them.
  Main article: Pre-Code sex films
  Main article: Pre-Code crime films
  Dream Focus 03:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Article size might be useful reading here. This article clocks in at 89k of readable prose. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization: Pre-Code or pre-Code?

Any objections to my changing it from "Pre-Code" to "pre-Code" in the article, as in The New York Times book review[1], a Harvard Film Archive article[2], etc.? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

   The only reasonable basis for objection would be if the Turan quote in the Pre-Code Hollywood#Social problem films section were accurate in attributing to Turan "the king of Pre-Code", as if that quote were verbatim et literatim. And there's pretty good evidence that it's not (even) what Turan wrote! Perhaps that was already suspected: This Google-books page purports to reproduce "Never Coming to a Theater Near You: A Celebration of a Certain Kind of Movie" / "By Kenneth Turan" saying (at an indeterminate page number) under a presumable section title "Pre-Code Hollywood"

... the ever-smooth Warren William, a.k.a. "the king of pre-code" ...

and on that basis i'm changing '(later dubbed "the king of Pre-Code"<ref name="Tu371"/>)' (where the reference is to Turan's book) by changing P to p (consistent with my position that "pre-Code" refers to the Production Code, but is not itself a proper noun) tho i think our casing "pre-Code" (when speaking on behalf of WP rather than quoting) is correct, and that we need not comment on his down-casing to "code" (even tho i prefer our up-casing "Code") when he up-cases it, simply on the basis that what we put in quotes and attribute to him necessarily matches his casing in his work. (And i'm satisfied that the contrast between our usage and his can speak for itself, with neither a (snarky but otherwise still) obligatory "[sic]", nor discussion of the fact that if he is referring to the Pro'n Code as merely one actual instance of "a production code" (whether the historical Production Code, or hypothetical other codes never given names nor actually imposed in Hollywood), we've done our job.
--Jerzy•t 04:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pre-Code Hollywood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090618074036/http://www.greencine.com/static/primers/precode.jsp to http://www.greencine.com/static/primers/precode.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017134402/http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/69235/christopher_strong.html to http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/69235/christopher_strong.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017132415/http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/65831/duck_soup.html to http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/65831/duck_soup.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110103220430/http://www.cinema.ucla.edu/collections/Profiles/pre.html to http://www.cinema.ucla.edu/collections/Profiles/pre.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

More good work, and size issues

A.S. Brown is doing good expansion work! However, I think it's really time that either some of the material be spit off to related articles or subarticles, leaving a summary behind, or the sections be juggled somehow so readers can get an overview in the first 1/3 or 1/2 of the article. But I'll leave that hard work to others. EEng 21:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you EEng. I'll to address your concerns. Thanks for the kind words. --A.S. Brown (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

According to this, @AaronY: wrote 67% of the article, so I'm pinging them so they can get involved in this discussion as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"Rabid" anti-Semite

(Per WP:NPV and WP:TONE) The article contained the sentence that Breen was a "rabid anti-Semite," with an illustrative quote and references to two works. I removed the word "rabid" on the grounds that the tone is inappropriately hyperbolic and that the quote is sufficient to establish his view. "Rabid" is not a neutral description of the strength of his feelings. My perfectly good-faith edit was reverted without explanation. I'd be perfectly content with any appropriate adjective. If an editor who knows the subject well (the referenced works are unavailable to me) thinks an adjective such as convinced/unashamed/secret/strident/published/zealous is correct for this person of course that would be suitable for WP:TONE. I have thus reinstated my edit, pending improvement. Kind regards, J. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 10:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The adjective is sourced. Per WP:BRD, I've restored the status quo ante until you have a consensus here to make the change. P_lease do not change it again until you have the consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Beyond My Ken:, I'm inclined to agree with the removal of "rabid". It may be sourced but it is an adjective that is a bit WP:UNDUE in my opinion. Perhaps an RfC or survey is in order? I'll place a talkback template on 82.69...'s talk page as I don't think IPs get pings. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 14:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

If we remove "rabid", are we then removing "devout" from "devout Roman Catholic"? Are we banning all comparative adjectives? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I think "strong" or "ardent" would be better. Rabid is unencyclopedic because it's usually applied to dogs. DrStrauss talk 14:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Or squirrels, or anything else that gets rabies. Obviously, its use here is metaphorical, and the meaning is clearly not that Hays is a dog, it's that his anti-semitism wasn't of the casual variety (as much of racism and other prejudices is), it was active and outer-directed. I'm at a loss to understand why this word is being softened when it's attested to by sources. (Incidentally, the word is also used metaphorically in a positive sense: "He was a rabid fan of the Boston Red Sox", is clearly not meant to be negative, but it literally means "a fanatic with rabies". Would we remove that, too, as "UNDUE"? I don't think so.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Its use in the source is metaphorical but because of its connotations I think it should be removed. Yes, he was definitely a racist, and a strong one too, but just because a source uses a particular word doesn't mean we have to use it when there are more appropriate words available. And yes, I would say that the positive use of the word should be removed and replaced with "avid". DrStrauss talk 14:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I still disagree with its removal, as I think it's the mot juste, but if we're going to talk about compromise, "strong" doesn't really do it for me. How do you feel about "zealous"? "Ardent" would be OK, but it's a little too high-falutin' for my taste, too polite a word. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Just looking at a thesaurus: "extreme", "fanatical" (goes too far, I think), "passionate" (too positive a word), "diehard". Geez, "rabid" is just the absolutely correct word. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Would "staunch" for antisemitism and "avid" for the fan statement do? DrStrauss talk 14:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I would be perfectly happy with "zealous". Kind regards, J. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

DrS? "Zealous"? (Staunch has too many positive connotations: "a staunch defender of liberty".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not zealous. BeyondMyKen, what are your opinions on my two suggestions? DrStrauss talk 15:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I would be perfectly happy with "avid", "ardent". Kind regards, J. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

82.69.229.22 I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) that BeyondMyKen is satisfied with "avid" and "staunch". If you can confirm that you're content with this, we can edit it. DrStrauss talk 15:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Perfectly content with avid/ardent/staunch (but thought Ken found "staunch" too positive). Thanks, J. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

No, "avid", "ardent" and "staunch" are all too positive in connotation. Anti-Semitism is not a good thing and positive words should not be used in connection with it.

How about "extreme"? (I'd go with "virulent", but even I think that goes too far.)Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

How about "avid" for the baseball bit and extreme for the antisemitism bit? I wouldn't say "staunch" is positive but I'm fine with extreme and avid. DrStrauss talk 16:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The baseball thing was just an example, there's nothing like it in the article. "Extreme" works for me, if we can't keep "rabid (which I still think is the perfect word). 82.69? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's put "extreme" and call it a day. Kind regards, J. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done: thanks to both parties for your civil co-operation! DrStrauss talk 16:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

A vast Pan-Asian army made up of Asians and Muslims

Could I suggest a change here? There is no indication in the film "Mask of Fu Manchu" that the horde being addressed by the titular villain in the climactic scene are Muslim -- they seem instead to be made up of the standard Hollywood mixture of just about anyone non-European (except for Africans, whom Fu Manchu considers as worth nothing more than slaves) : a motley crew of scimitar-waving, turban-wearing bearded men who could be anything from Persian to Arab to Indian and a mixture of "Orientals" who could be Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. -- essentially anyone fitting under the heading of "Asian". There is no implication that any of them are adherents of any particular religion and it seems unlikely that Muslims would join an army intended to bring to power the "new Genghis Khan" (which is the premise of the film), as the real Genghis Khan invaded both what is modern-day Iran and Irak, as well as Afghanistan and Egypt, slaughtering countless Muslims in the process.Partnerfrance (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Franklin Roosevelt

I would like to add:

Franklin Roosevelt served as a script doctor for the film. He wrote to the producer “I think it is an intensely interesting picture and should do much to help.”

My references:

1) Goldberg, Jonah. Liberal Fascism. Broadway Books (2009) p. 202-203.

2) www.nationalreview.com/article/369702/tinseltowns-propaganda-problem-jonah-goldberg

3) https://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/the-hollywood-movie-made-for-f-d-r-s-inauguration

4) https://www.chronicle.pitt.edu/story/harviths-give-talk-gabriel-over-white-house-fdr-presidential-library

Of course we should not exclude references just because they come from conservatives!

The article is poorly written and biased and in violation of Wikipedia rules. It needs many improvements.24.189.41.10 (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Jonah Goldberg is a conservative political commentator, and not a reliable source for information about politicians, especially politicians on the other side of the aisle from him, such as the progressive FDR. He is not a historian, nor is he historically trained. The National Review is the magazine founded by William S. Buckley, the ur-paleoconservative. Neither Goldberg (who writes for NR) or the magazine are unbiased concerning FDR.

There is no way these count as WP:RS, and this (rather trivial) material should not be added to the article.

The New Yorker article does not support the material. It doe snot mention FDR as a "script doctor", or that he had any participation in the film at all. It merely says "the new U.S. President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, loved [the film]". Similarly, the Pitt citation has no relevance either.

So, two unreliable sources, and two unspportive sources.

I'll ignore your comments about the article, which are untrue. In any case, if the information in the article is faulty, adding more faulty information in an attempt to "balance" it is not the way to go -- that's not what WP:NPOV means. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The New Yorker article says: "the new U.S. President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, loved it."

The University lecturers state: "The film, which came out shortly after FDR’s inauguration, was one of the six top film hits of spring 1933 and was reportedly a favorite of the new President."

So I'd like to add: "The film was a favorite of FDR's."

This statement is supported by my 4 references.

Of course nonprofessional historians are cited in history articles (including this one) all over Wikipedia. Your belief that conservatives are biased and leftists unbiased is perhaps not well thought out.24.189.41.10 (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

That FDR liked the film is irrelevant to the subject of the article. Your motivation for wanting to add it is obviously political, and not to improve Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Many facts about these Pre-Code films are included in the article. Why do you want to cover up this particular fact? 24.189.41.10 (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pre-Code Hollywood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141219144149/http://shop.tcm.com/detail.php?p=451568&SESSID=077fec0fa8d089c4cbddb01385d4e17a to http://shop.tcm.com/detail.php?p=451568&SESSID=077fec0fa8d089c4cbddb01385d4e17a

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Image formatting

The "upright" parameter can be used to make one or two particular images larger for emphasis, aesthetics, or where readability of a map or diagram is an issue. Making them all randomly larger by varying degrees looks ridiculous. --John (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing whatsoever "random" about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I see. And you get to decide this, you reckon? --John (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it gets decided by editorial discussion leading to WP:CONSENSUS, right here on this talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Right. Well, I made my point about the idiosyncratic image formatting at 07:20 yesterday. What do you think the (apparently) random upright parameters achieve? Why do all the images have to be different sizes? --John (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Run-on captions

@Beyond My Ken: Read MOS:CAPTION, which I linked to in my edit comment: "Captions should be succinct; more information can be included on its description page, or in the main text." Clarityfiend (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

As you well know, a guideline is not mandatory, and is subject to the interpretation depending on circumstances. Considering that these captions have been in the article for quite a long time, and you are the first editor to object to them, please give specific reasons for the radical editing of the captions in the context of this article and the valid and sourced information which is privide in them. Only through discussion can we reach a WP:CONSENSUS (which is a policy) as to whether your edits are acceptable or not. In the meantime, please stop making similar edits until you have the consensus to do so. You already know that an objection has been lodged, so continuing to edit as if your claims had been accepted is not very collegial. It also goes against WP:BRD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, pings don't work retroactively. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, they are not "run-on" captions, they are merely longer then usual. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

In the first place, because there is an applicable and specific guideline in place, the burden is on you, not me, to show why it should be ignored. Saying it's been that way for a while is not a valid reason. Many hoax articles have been around for a long time. Does that justify their existence? I do not need to wait for a consensus regarding long captions to continue shortening them; it already exists. I pinged after I realized I forgot to do so. What's your point? That I shouldn't have notified you at all? What do you mean by "an objection has been lodged"? What is it that "I already know" (without being pinged)? Okay, the captions aren't run-on. They're just really, really long. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no "burden" here. It's a simple matter of WP:BRD. You made bold edits of longstanding material, it was reverted, and then we discuss. Since guidelines are not mandatory, they aren't a trump card that can be used to win any argument -- they're subject to interpretation, and that's why we discuss. Discussion will lead to consensus and that will determine what happens. While discussion is ongoing, the article stays in the status quo ante. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You've also reverted my substantial, unrelated edits as well. Now that's rude. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Easily solved, just do the Duck Soup edits separately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this is rude. We are getting into an area where behavioural measures would need to be taken. --John (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

chaise longue

I was going to fix lounge to longue but there's a comment saying we have to keep lounge because that's what English-speakers mangled it to. I disagree with this reasoning. We should call is what it is -- a chaise longue. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That's what it was originally called, but it's no longer what it's called in English, which is "chaise lounge". We are ENGLISH Wikipedia, and per WP:COMMONNAME we use the Engliah-language common names for things. Please do not change it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It's what some English speakers use. Other English speakers use the correct term, per the English language article Chaise longue. —valereee (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

[3] Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that. I'll ask: what's your point? :) —valereee (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

More pertient: what's yours? The article is about American films, the language used is American English. So we use the American English name, right? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I'd argue we use the correct name rather than the (as it's described) "mangled" version sometimes incorrectly used by English speakers. :) —valereee (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I cite WP:COMMONNAME and the fact that we are English Wikipedia, what policy are you citing in support of your contention? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I've always heard it called a "chaise lounge" (granted it doesn't come up very often in conversation). I never even knew there was such a thing as a "longue". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Nor, I think, do most English speakers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact someone thought we needed that comment in the article tells me other editors have brought this up before. I'm going to suggest that we remove the commenting from the article and see if anyone else brings this up. The fact our article (in English, on the English wikipedia) is at Chaise longue seems like it's the clear choice, any I think that comment could put a damper on other editors speaking up because they'll think it means there's somehow been a consensus discussion here. —valereee (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(1) If I had my druthers the article would be moved. (2) As to your experiment, I think it rather goes against WP:Point, don't you think? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

BMK, no, that didn't occur to me. How do you think it would qualify as being disruptive to make a point? I just thought it might let people who are intimidated by such comments feel like they could speak up, and it seemed to me like a reasonable compromise between your position and mine. —valereee (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems quite clear to me that you want to remove the comment so that people will change the phrase, which will provoke other editors -- who have only ever heard "chaise lounge" in their lives, because that's the COMMONNAME in English -- to restore it. That's disruptive. We settle these things here, on talk pages, not by pointally encouraging tit-for-tat editing. The consensus here, so far, is against you. If others show up and support you, well, great. for the moment, please don't make any changes in regard to this issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I want to remove the comment because if I hadn't been an experienced user, I would never have thought to question it. Yes, removing it might encourage other editors to feel free to change it, and I don't see that as at all disruptive. I'll let it go for now, though, as not worth the trouble to make such a minor fix, but I kind of feel like your attitude here is pretty OWNy and not very AGFy. I've tried to find room for compromise and to respect your position, and I don't feel like you've tried to see that. It makes WP so much more pleasant for all of us if we keep trying to treat each other kindly even when we disagree. —valereee (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Not every compromise is a good thing. If you feel strongly about it, start an RfC. If not, then lashing out at me isn't going to help anything. Personally, I wasn't crazy about your refusal to acknowledge my policy-based reasons for not making the change, especially coming from an admin, who should know better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, you're right. I apologize for not acknowledging your argument that this is the common name; I so completely disagree that an incorrect pronunciation rendered phonetically can actually be the common name that it didn't seem like a good statement of policy, but I should have acknowledged you were making a good-faith statement of policy as you understood it. —valereee (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

NP! —valereee (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The Public Enemy & 42nd Street captions

The second image in the article is a still from The Public Enemy with the following caption: Anti-hero characters, such as in The Public Enemy, starring James Cagney, could break society's rules but always paid for their crimes at the end of the film. This is inherently confusing for two reasons:

1. Given the context, it could imply that The Public Enemy was pre-Code, but it doesn't say so outright. (It looks like Beyond My Ken's first pass at this back in 2017 was clearer than the present wording.)
2. It makes one statement about the permissibility of depicting crime and another statement about the impermissibility of allowing the crime to go unpunished, but doesn't explain how the two concepts relate to each other or the Hays Code.

The article text specifically says that criminals could be shown profiting from crime, but this caption has for years said something seemingly contradictory to that, so I'm not sure which is right. I've drafted two alternate captions because I honestly don't know which is more accurate.

1. Pre-Code films such as ''[[The Public Enemy]]'' were subject to looser forms of censorship. Criminal [[anti-hero]] protagonists were permissible even if their crimes went unpunished.
2. Pre-Code films such as ''[[The Public Enemy]]'' were subject to looser forms of censorship. Criminal [[anti-hero]] protagonists were permissible—so long as no crimes remained unpunished by the film's end.

Knowledgeable consultation would be appreciated! —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 01:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I have restored my original -- and better -- caption: "Gangster films, such as The Public Enemy, starring James Cagney (pictured here) and Little Caesar, starring Edward G. Robinson, were a mainstay of the pre-Code releases of the Hollywood studios. The anti-hero characters could transgress society's rules in a way that the audience could not, but always paid for their crimes at the end of the film." which is clearer and more informative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: That fixes issue 1 but not issue 2. It is fundamentally contradictory with this text: Nefarious characters were seen to profit from their deeds, in some cases without significant repercussions. (Intro section, second paragraph, second sentence) —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 01:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Could you elaborate on your edit summary, please? To expand on the prior summary, I have two concerns with the 42nd Street caption:

1. The writing is poor to the point of being confusing. The phrase ‘such as this shot’ would imply that some category of things that include this shot has been mentioned, but it hasn’t. Both the inclusion and placement of the phrase ‘everyday life’ is ambiguous.
2. The core idea in this caption is about the use of a particular type of plot-line as a trojan horse for bare legs. Interjecting the subject of movie trailers is confusing because it doesn’t seem to be related. Captions aren’t meant to be guessing games or teasers, so either the extraneous idea should be removed or, if it is somehow integral to the idea, it should be explained.

Thanks. (Please also note that problem #2 with the Public Enemy caption as noted above remains unresolved.) —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 14:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Post-Code and the MPAA?

In the article, there is currently a section titled "After the Code era – Motion Picture Association of America film rating system (MPAA)". However, this section talks only about the timeframe the Code was in effect, and does not mention the MPAA at all. Perhaps there was an editing error at some point that fused two sections, with the title of one and the content of the other surviving, and the original title of the surviving content and the content that went with the current title being lost? In any case, I would like to suggest that this section gets at least a rename, so it reflects the content it heads. Ganonsghost (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for noticing that, I'm not sure what what happened. I've changed the title of the current section to "Effects of the Code". Probably we should have a short section on the evolution of the code into the MPAA system - maybe material can be imported from the Motion Picture Association article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've done just that, added a short "After the Code" section with material lifted from Motion Picture Association and properly acknowledged on both article's talk pages.Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

"Picture" slang

Currently the term "picture" (in the same category as "flick" and "movie") is used at times in this article. Can we come to a consensus as to removing it? There's a lot of other options including "motion picture", film, aside from the fact that people using slang in quotes is fine, but this isn't reading encyclopedic as is. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"Motion picture", "movie", "picture" and "film" are all legitimate, non-slang terms -- unlike "flick". Consider Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences; "movie" and "picture" are simply shortenings of "motion picture". We use "film" for the most part, but using it over and over again can be monotonous for the reader, so using alternate synonyms is useful and justified. In this article particularly, the occasional use of "picture" gives a bit of a hint of the usage that was more current at the time. We're not an academic encyclopedia, we are a popular encyclopedia, and we don't need to be ultra-straight-laced in our writing, as long as decorum is preserved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree, I think picture is too far removed from motion picture, but I will respect where the consensus falls and won't edit in the meantime. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

A Ctrl-F search of the article shows zero uses of "flick". There are 27 instances of "motion picture", 44 uses of "picture", 43 instances of "movie", and 374 uses of "film". That seems like a reasonable balance to me. I think this is a complete non-issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, don't agree, but for sure motion picture, film, and even movie all work well for me. We know where we stand now, and if no one responds then you've won already, so don't worry about it. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"picture" is ambiguous, use movie or film. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

"Picture" in context is completely unambiguous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

shortened footnote template

Someone please clean up references with use of the shortened footnote template {{sfn}} ...thanks in advance .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If you think this should be done, is there some reason you're not doing it yourself? Everyone here is a volunteer, you know, and we all have things we want to get done of our own. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

pre pre-code

Why does pre-code era start at 1927? wouldn't it be all the way back to when they started making movies in the 1800s? Okayjg (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The initial version of the Hays Code was proposed in 1927, though no censorship standards were enforced until 1934. Dimadick (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Potential undue weight given to questionable source

Of the 381 unique inline citations throughout the article, 45% are attributed to Thomas Patrick Doherty's Pre-Code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema, 1930-1934. Yesterday, I spent time updating the paragraphs on the film Freaks, as, in addition to the outdated or offensive language, the explanations of the film were woefully inaccurate.

The first issue was that the editor(s) misunderstood Doherty's writing, but further than that, the editor(s) couldn't differentiate between reliable fact in Doherty's text and his opinions. The article previously included the following line: "There is also a group of Pinheads, who are depicted as fortunate in that they are not mentally capable enough to understand that they disgust people." Through its directness of the editor's personal interpretation, this sentence managed to be a more offensive version of its source: "The pinheads are lucky: mentally retarded, they do not know what the rest of the world thinks of them." (p. 313) But Freaks includes no scene indicating this. The film portrays the disabled characters simply as human beings. This is merely the author's opinions about people with microcephaly, and the editor misunderstood it as a fact of the film's story or content.

Aside from further describing his disgust with disabled persons when writing about an inclusive film, the second issue lies in Doherty's questionable understanding of the material he's discussing. Doherty writes of a pivotal scene in Freaks: "After the marriage, around a long table for the wedding dinner, the assembled freaks chant, 'Gooble-gobble, gooble, gobble, one of us, one of us, now she is like one of us.'" (p. 315) An inaccurate quote. Doherty continues, "Drunk on wine, Hans passes out and Cleopatra [his bride] carries her insensate husband across the threshold, like a small child, to the honeymoon bed." (p. 315) But it is also a major story point that Hans never drinks during the celebrations and is entirely sober, as he narrowly avoided the poisoned drink he was given. The character is undeniably awake, as he even speaks. It's as if Doherty never saw the film, and instead transcribed someone else's hazy memory. It draws into question the reliability of any claims made in this article regarding content of the films, so long as they are relying on Doherty as a source.

It's possible that his content regarding Pre-Code laws, dates, or regulations are accurate, but I'm wary to put much faith into someone who couldn't be bothered to verify the content of a one-hour film. We should probably find additional supporting sources for any claims supported by this source. – Primium (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Opening line is contradictory

The opening line is currently:

"Pre-Code Hollywood (1927–1934) was an era in the American film industry that occurred between the widespread adoption of sound in film in 1929[1] and the enforcement of the Motion Picture Production Code censorship guidelines (popularly known as the Hays Code) in 1934."

The "(1927-1934)" was added without any additional source cited on January 2, 2023. That time range contradicts the rest of the line, which says pre-code Hollywood began after "the widespread adoption of sound in film in 1929", rather than 1927. I don't know if either is correct. My intuition is that both are wrong, and it originally simply meant the Hollywood film-making era before the Hays Code was adopted in 1934, but I don't have reliable source defining the term prior to Wikipedia defining it as beginning in 1927 or 1929 or some other year, so I'm not going to pick which definition might be correct.

If someone does want to resolve this, I'd be cautious of misinterpreting references to pre-code Hollywood between a given date range, like Doherty's 1999 book "Pre-code Hollywood: Sex, immorality, and insurrection in American cinema, 1930–1934". It's unclear if the title is suggesting pre-code Hollywood was from 1930-1934, or it's suggesting the book is focused on the 1930-1934 period during a longer (perhaps decades-long) period of pre-code Hollywood. My intuition is the latter, but again, I don't have a reliable source saying that, so an argument could be made that the era didn't begin until 1930, as well.

The term "pre-code Hollywood" seems to have been popularized around the time Doherty's 1999 book and LaSalle's 2000 book were published, and had been kicking around for a couple years while Doherty's still being written; the NY Times mentioned the title in a 1997 article, "Incest as a Selling Point". Although Google Snippet View shows it being used in a 1950 editorial about the television code, and a 1965 Newsweek article with a caption reading "Fun in pre-code Hollywood, 1926".

-Agyle (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. I made this edit. I think it's an improvement, but if there are concerns that pre-code didn't start until 1930, more edits may be needed. Wracking ^talk! 20:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)