Talk:Roddy McDowall

Removed sentence fragment

I removed ", which had been severely cut by 20th Century Fox studio head Darryl F. Zanuck after skyrocketing production costs.".

There are two reasons. First, when I read this, I initially thought that the *restoration* process had been severely cut off, after skyrocking costs. The sentence was not clear, so if someone adds it back in, please make sure to clarify that it was the original production that had soaring costs, not the restoration.

The second reason I removed the fragment, is that the fragment really has no point in this article. The initial costs of the film have nothing to do with him working on restoring it. Was that fragment included, because the restoration was more than a restoration, and a new director's cut? In that case, there is not enough detail provided! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.111.174 (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleopatra

This man was the actor who played Octavian Caesar, who became Augustus, the greatest Emperor Rome had ever known! He should be directly given credit for this, but he is not! He did a great job in the movie, and he is not given credit in this entry!

Fantastic Journey

I have added a brief mention of McDowall's role in the sci-fi series "The Fantastic Journey" in the main text, as this is where many of us in my generation were first introduced to him outside of his Planet of the Apes role.

FBI seizure

This passage is maddeningly vague:

In 1974, the FBI raided the home of McDowall and seized the actor's collection of films and television series. His collection consisted of 160 16 mm prints and over 10,000 videocassettes (this was before the era of VCRs and VHS tapes). ... McDowall was forthcoming about some of the individuals he had dealt with on the black market: Rock Hudson, Dick Martin and Mel Torme were some of the celebrities that were interested in his creations. No charges were pressed against McDowall.

What was the purpose of the seizure? What was on the films and tapes? What were McDowall's "creations"? —Whoville 15:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. Why was his home raided? What was the point of it all? It just seems like a piece of random trivia. Mohsin.Siddiqui 18:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

With a little research, I discovered the only thing missing from the trivia piece was mention of the raid being part of an investigation towards copyright infringement and the like. That being added in, the section may read more clearly. Cybertooth85 01:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE 2014. I really think this life event should be confirmed, rewritten, and reposted. Here was the whole write up from IMDB as it originally existed here (please be patient with me):

"In 1974 the FBI raided his home and seized his collection of films and TV series during an investigation of copyright infringement and movie piracy. The collection consisted of 160 16mm prints and over 1,000 videocassettes. The value of the films was conservatively assessed at $5,005,426 by representatives of the movie industry.

"The actor was not charged and agreed to cooperate with the FBI. There was then no aftermarket for films, as the commercial video recorder had not been marketed, and studios routinely destroyed old negatives and prints of classic films they felt had no worth.

"Film buffs like McDowall had to purchase 16mm prints of films from the studios, or movie prints on the black market, or from other collectors. He claimed that he had once had as many as 337 movies in his collection, but at the time of the investigation he was not sure how many were still in his possession. He had bought Errol Flynn's movie collection, and had acquired other films through purchases or swaps. McDowall told the FBI that he had transferred many of his films to videotape in order to conserve space and because tape was longer-lasting than film, and subsequently had sold or traded the prints, plus other prints of movies he had lost interest in, to other collectors. He said that he collected the films due to his love of the cinema and to help protect the movies' heritage.

"McDowall also said that being in possession of prints of his own films allowed him to study his acting and improve his craft. One of the films he had purchased, from American-International Pictures, was The Devil's Widow (1970), a movie he himself had directed. He explained that he believed that he was not in violation of copyright, as he was not showing the films for profit, nor trying to make a profit when selling his prints as he charged only what he remembered as the price he himself paid. He believed he had purchased some of the films outright from 20th Century-Fox, but learned subsequently from his lawyer that his agreement with Fox meant the studio retained ownership of the prints, and that he was forbidden to sell, trade or lend them out. McDowall was forthcoming about the individuals he dealt with on the black market, and also named Rock Hudson, Dick Martin and Mel Tormé as other celebrities with film collections."

I think this incident is very important to show that McDowall felt it a duty as well as a labor of love to save and restore old films. Without people like him there would be many more "lost films" than there already are. The Academy honored his efforts in preservation; in December of 1998 The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) honored him for his acting career and critically acclaimed photography by naming its photo archive after him. The collection, which includes several million negatives and stills, will be known as the Roddy McDowall Photograph Archive at the Margaret Herrick Library. THIS should be reason enough for this story to be told.

The documentation to confirm what happened with the FBI are at The Smoking Gun dot com. Just search the keywords Roddy McDowall FBI 1974 and there are the actual FBI reports including McDowall's testimony.

So there's the story, the proof, and the reason why it's and important story to tell in full. Now can someone who has better skills and more time than I write this up properly once and for all?

History Lunatic (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)History Lunatic

The author has not hinted at why the FBI raided McDowell. Were they looking for gay porn? Illicit copies of Judy Garland in high drag? Private video collections were not uncommon in 1974, if you had some money. Regular VHS made its appearance around late 1975. Umatic had been around since the early 60s. The early 62--64 episodes of Steptoe and Son would have all been lost if was not for Ian LaFrenais' private Umatic tape collection.27.33.245.103 (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

While the author of the IMDB write up did not include the reason for the raid I did provide a way to read the FBI report, both to provide documentation to back up the IMDB write up and for anyone who wanted further information on this case. I wasn't sure if Wikipedia allowed links to sites like Smoking Gun, but here's the direct link: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/roddy-mcdowalls-planet-tapes-0. The report makes clear that the reason for the raid was suspicion of copyright infringement and piracy, plain and simple. It's not even difficult to find - page 1, paragraph 2.

The issue was not that he had a film/video collection, but that he had made copies of, then resold film prints; apparently he did not realize that this was illegal even if he made no actual profit from the sale, selling the prints only for what he had paid for them. For some films, he thought he had legal ownership of the prints when in fact he did not.

The sarcasm was unnecessary, especially since the answer to you question was made available to you. History Lunatic (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)History Lunatic

Apparent contradiction

This passage appears to contradict itself:

In 1974, the FBI raided the home of McDowall and seized the actor's collection of films and television series. His collection consisted of 160 16 mm prints and over 10,000 videocassettes (this was before the era of VCRs and VHS tapes). ...

Are we to believe he had 1000's of videocassettes before the era of VCR's? Nonsense! Jerry lavoie 16:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Videocassettes existed before VCRs. They were larger in size an film size as well. Visit any academic research library or older television news studio in the U.S. and they'll be happy to show you the 2" videocassettes they have (and unfortunately, no equipment on which to play them).--Spacini 04:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the first home video-recorders (With tape-reels, not yet cassettes) were launched by 'PHILIPS' in 1969. I know because I craved one. They cost BEF 40.000 in 1969 (Approximally $ 800). After this, during the early 70's came many different cassette-systems (Too numerous to enumerate here) until finally in the early eighties the Betamax><VHS war was won by the latter. AFTER the VHS-victory Philips tried to launch the Video-2000 system but it never really took off. It is noteworthy to state here that ALL of these systems were of (Sometimes considerably) better quality than VHS. It is likely that VHS won the battle on one single feature: At the time of its launch it had the longest possible recording-time (And hence lowest picture-quality) on one single cassette (Although Philips video-2000 system doubled this recording time, by that time VHS was already too well-established). One must bear in mind that the price of one cassette was considerable in those days. In 1982 I bought my BETAMAX video for around $400 and a single 3-hour cassette (Enough for recording ONE feature film, but NOT two) was selling for $ 20. At the same price you coud easily store TWO feature-films on a VHS-cassette and that was the only thing people had in mind, too short-sighted to have an eye for quality (A bit like in the APPLE>< IBM (Or Microsoft) Battle). 87.64.164.54 18:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

On the basis of the above comments, I am going to remove the contradiction tag (it was never a contradiction, anyway, just a potential error). --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Family tree

I have removed the reference to the online family tree. Although superficially the linked family tree looked interesting, analyzing it more clearly shows that it is a hodge-podge of very-poorly-sourced and completely-unsourced statements, and with no clear distinction even drawn between those. And there is no indication of the underlying source for this alleged note stuck in some book he had. We have no way to know who created that note, nor what part of what part of this tree it's supposed to represent. It's fairly certain that this tree is the work of an amateur, and for that reason we really cannot use it. Wjhonson (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality redux

A few sources report that McDowall was gay, though they aren't the most iron-clad. I'm wondering if anyone has any comments on me adding this information:

• Smith, Patricia Juliana (2002), "Roddy McDowall", glbtq.com
• Porter, Darwin (2006), Brando Unzipped: A Revisionist and Very Private Look at America's Greatest Actor, Blood Moon Productions, Ltd., p. 404, ISBN 0974811823
• Simpson, Mark (2002), Sex Terror: Erotic Misadventures in Pop Culture, Haworth Press, p. 68-9, ISBN 1560233761
• Skal, David J.; Rains, Jessica (2008), Claude Rains: An Actor's Voice, University Press of Kentucky, p. 1, ISBN 0813124328

Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The first one is pretty "iffy". I don't have immediate access to the other books, so I can not gage the context in which they could be used to support any statements about Roddy's supposed sexuality. Since his sexuality was not a widely discussed topic during his lifetime, and has not become a covered topic since his death, wouldn't our efforts to put together quippets of opinion to create a claim that he might have been gay be a little beyond the scope of an encyclopedia? I don't think that an encyclopedia is the place for "little known" facts and possibilities. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will agree with your last statement. But it seems like some people *have* covered the topic, at least tangentially. My point in asking here is to see if others have more solid information, which would then be a good foundation for adding the info to the article. So far I'm not particularly fond of the sources I found - an opinion in glbtq.com (though they are very good at providing sources, which I haven't been able to read), and mention in two biographies about other people. Does anyone have access to the sources mentioned in the glbtq.com article? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The online encyclopedia entry simply won't do. Anybody can say anything is a "well-kept secret," and "writer" is no authenticating credential. Anyone who has access to the U-KY volume might check that one -- that meets the WP:RS test. DavidOaks (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The 'open secret' nature of his sexuality is fairly well known. Would a citation from a Turner Classic Movies bio of his good friend Elizabeth Taylor be enough? It seems strange to not have the topic of his sexuality mentioned at all.Temp07 (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the category for the time being until this fact is actually incorporated into the article and sourced properly. Oddly enough, "glbt.com" doesn't count as a reliable source for reasons that should be obvious; IMDb is similarly unreliable, and on top of that user-edited. Now the book sources look reasonable if they are definitive, although would be fine for an "alleged by Brando" or whatever, but we need page referemces and all that jazz. I'm hoping to do a bit more work on this and other articles over the next few weeks, so any help would be greatly appreciated... I will be starting with removing any material that is a) unsourced, and b) even slightly contentious. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A year later and no progress has been made, and yet people are still adding category tags. Hearsay sources are never going to cut it, and as such category tags will continue to be removed. As it is currently written, the wording concerning his sexuality is highly WP:OR, and will probably have to be re-worded. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

?? I'm sorry? The facts are there - he didn't come out in his lifetime, though at least one reliable source states that he was gay - glbtq.com. And two sources report on his lovers - Brando and Clift. I see absolutely no WP:OR in that. What are you looking for? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In the case of someone's sexuality, if they have not come out themselves, then it must be couched in terms of hearsay, i.e. "so-and-so claim X", rather than presenting it as "fact". That, of course, scuppers the categories, or we'd have them on the article for Shakespeare as well. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

While I totally agree that having a statement from the person is the best source, in this case we don't have that. Therefore the article represents the facts:

• He didn't come out while he was alive.
• Two sources state that he was gay.
• At least two sources report his lovers.

Since those are the facts that are available, and the article states them with reliable sources, I'm curious what else you think is needed? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My only complaint would be with adding categories; the opinions of others does not fact make. He almost certainly was gay, but the addition of categories makes it sound like this is fact rather than opinion or hearsay. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I kinda understand what you mean - categories can't be sourced. But if two reliable sources state that he was gay, and that's in the article, why can't he be put in the categories? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've just slightly reworded the relevant sentences for clarity. We're not stating he was gay, so it's not appropriate to have him in gay categories. We're stating that some people have said he was gay, and some people have claimed he slept with Clift and Brando. But that's not the same as saying unequivocally that he was gay. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really agree with that. Two reliable sources do state that he was gay. If two sources stated that he was Catholic, wouldn't that be enough for adding him to a category? The wording as you have it is rumor and speculation - not the outright statements that are available: "The fact that he was gay ..." and "[McDowall] was gay". I recognize that some sources are less than direct about his sexuality, but we have perfectly good sources, and we're not representing the facts. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• The situation has not improved since last time I looked... we have no direct source stating that McDowall was gay, and probably never will, owing to him being, well, dead. All you have is the speculation of others; that is not fact. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry? We *do* have two direct statements that he was gay, both from reliable sources. Are you claiming that neither of them is a reliable source? As to the indirectness, Wikipedia deals with that all the time, owing to the guidelines on secondary sources. In this case, two different sources claim that he was gay - that's exactly the "information form multiple reliable secondary sources". Please read the sources -- and/or provide some other reason the information should not be in the article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The relevant guideline is presumably WP:BDP. The sources are hearsay, as they were a year ago when they were originally cited. I see no problem with stating that sources X and Y have stated that he was gay, which would be a) a more reliable representation of the situation, and b) what the article essentially stated before your edits. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, as an aside from an interested bystander, is there some reason that the Brando assertion is not mentioned on his article, nor is there an LGBTQ category tag on it, if we are according that particular source with credibility? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no clue how WP:BDP could possibly apply here - the very first sentence of that guideline says "This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased." If you're implying that stating that McDowall was a closeted homosexual is "questionable", I refer you back to my statements that two different reliable sources have stated so.

The issue I have with phrasing this as "Source X and Y have stated he was gay" is that it's counter to the way most of this encyclopedia is written. Would you need that phrasing for his being, say, a Catholic? Or of Russian descent? Why use round-about language for this statement when it's not needed for any other? For any other statement, we say "He was of Russian descent^[1][2]", include the footnotes, and that's that. I don't see why this needs to be different.

If it were simply rumors, the sources would say so. Take the Brando statement - the source for that is "Brando Unzipped: A Revisionist and Very Private Look at America's Greatest Actor". Any book with "revisionist" in the title slips down on the reliability scale (IMO). Thus "his lovers reportedly included..." is a fitting statement there. I haven't looked over the Brando article much, so I don't about that one.

So - tell me - how are glbtq.com and Claude Rains: an actor's voice "hearsay"? One of them is even a fully footnoted and reviewed article - not something usually termed "hearsay". -- ````

Stating that he is of Russian descent, for instance, is simply a question of tracing family history (although I would question its relevance, unless there is a notable reason for it to be mentioned in his biography). The claim for Catholic might well be questionable, unless he was a self-declared Catholic (i.e. we have a first-hand source); there are plenty are massively dubious claims for people's religiosity to be found across Wikipedia, often found in sources that pass WP:RS. For example, it would be trivial to find reliable sources stating that, say, Hitler was either an atheist or a Christian (of some variety; I don't want to get into No True Scotsman territory) in reliable sources, but to make a categoric statement either way would be absurd. This case is somewhat different... we have no official statement attributed to McDowell, and nothing from his estate, saying anything *at all* either way. We have third hand reports from people that either claim to have known, or (in the case of glbtq.com) clearly never knew him. It is therefore Hollywood rumour-mongering (although I am quite convinced in this case that McDowell was likely to be gay). The last edit I made maintains WP:NPOV, and reports the facts as they have been reported by your sources... I see that as a perfectly acceptable compromise, but feel free to take it to WP:RFC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Alos, whilst I'm here, any chance of direct quotes from the book sources cited? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I can live with "It has been stated that..." though I find it highly irregular. Using the Russian example above, you say one would "trace his family history" - presumably that's done by reading reliable sources that say he's of Russian descent, rather than performing original research - that's Wikipedia's preferred method. And then the article would state "He was of Russian descent.^[1]" It would not say "It's been stated that he was of Russian descent." I honestly don't understand why you want this particular statement to be different.

With regard to Hitler, if all the reliable sources said he was Catholic, then a categorical statement would, indeed, not be absurd - it would be matter of course to record "Hitler was Catholic.^[1][2]"

Lastly, I find your assertion that research done by others *must* be Hollywood rumor, rather than the reasoned synthesis of documents that presumably went in to the article on glbtq.com - an article that sites it's sources and is reviewed before posting it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've long heard rumors that he was gay, but do we have proof or a citation of this? His work on the Twilight Zone may also provide a decent entry. --AWF

I wondered that myself. Although it was always kind of assumed there doesn't seem to be anything in the article to confirm it.--T. Anthony 22:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If no source is provided by February 2007, I am going to remove him from the Gay Actors category.Apofisu 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the cat should remain, although you might make a distinction between actors and actresses who have publicly come out and those who have wished their private lives to remain private. Here are at least two web supports for putting him into this category: [1] and [2]. These were gleaned from the IMDb website blog postings to a query regarding Mr. McDowall's orientation. You have to be freely registered on IMDb in order to see that blog. I oppose removal of the cat.--River 23:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, I just wanted to see a source.Apofisu 19:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the 2 web sites actually provide any proof or citation as to him being gay. Supposedly it was a well known secret in Hollywood, but has anyone actually seen anybody from the Hollywood industry state he was gay?(DLW)

What would constitute proof? Also, why the assumption that he is heterosexual? Better to state that his orientation is unknown. Even better would be to point out that there was significant speculation regarding his orientation. Speculation itself is noteworthy, as long as it is presented as such, IMHO. (TW) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timwayne (talk • contribs) 20:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

There was no reason at all to hide his orientation upon his death in the 90's, so to categorize him without any evidence whatsoever is just simply ridiculous, not to mention defamatory. I have no proof that I'm NOT gay and I had better not ever (after my death) be listed as gay. He definitely deserves the same respect. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 06:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Then he needs to be added to LGBT Actors categories. Otherwise you need to take the rainbow flag stub off the top of this page. Period. DISCUSS. --98.232.188.173 (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And Magnolia, your argument is shitty. ^_^ --98.232.176.109 (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I dont know why that is even included in this wiki article.. so what if authors have said he was gay? Its still hearsay and it should be removed until a credible source is identified. Tessie xo (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Prostate cancer

His NNDB page [3] states he had prostate cancer in the 1980s - did he? Qzm (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fantasy Island

I know he was on Fantasy Island in one of the more notable episodes. He actually played the Devil in a battle with Mister Roarke. I didn't add it to the TV credits because I can't figure out the year of the episode. Struck out with TV.com on that one. Adam West was also in the episode, but it's not in his credits either. --PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The episode is "Lost and Found/Dick Turpin's Last Ride," episode 19 of season 7, first aired 7 April 1984. The fantasy starring Tom Jones was Dick Turpin's Last Ride, and the fantasy starring Adam West and Carol Lynley was Lost and Found - this is the one in which Roddy McDowall very effectively plays the Devil, or Mr Roarke's Adversary, depending on which site names the character. The episode can be found on YouTube, though a few scenes appear to be missing. History Lunatic (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)History Lunatic

Carol Burnett appearance

This is too well-scripted for this to be true: "the look of fright on Carol Burnett's face was reported to be genuine." — Preceding unsigned comment added by NjtoTX (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not true. The proof is in the video on YouTube and Carol was in on the gag (of course). Wikipedia does not allow me to post a direct link to the clip. I corrected the statement. History Lunatic (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)History Lunatic

The career section seems a touch slapdash

I came to this article having come over a reference to McDowall and realized I didn't know much about him. Basically he appears to have been popular behind the camera and dependable in front of it, which with a fantastic speaking voice, is what he used to parlay into an excellent and longstanding career. I guess I could read his bio but I'm not *that* interested, just looking up a familiar face from my boyhood. Really, this guy always seemed to be in the cinema or on TV in the 70s and 80s.

I agree that the FBI raid has been so trimmed down as to be a head-scratcher. An unsourced fuller explanation of the events is here but there's no citation so some detective work will be needed: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001522/bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.201.152.230 (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Number of British films

The introduction states "McDowall was already well established in England, having first appeared in 19 British films", then describing his move to the United States in 1939. He most certainly did not appear in 19 British films before he went to the US, this is misleading. Vladeraz (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Multiple sources, including Biography and Turner Classic Movies, quotes McDowall appearing in numerous British films between 1938 and 1940; the number differs according to the source but appears to be near 20. IMDB lists 18 roles before "How Green Was My Valley." Most of these roles are uncredited, but exist nonetheless. With small roles that may have taken only a few days to film, it would be quite possible to appear in this many films in a couple of years, and McDowall was certainly not the only actor to do so. But since they were small, often uncredited roles, I agree he could not be considered "well established" as in a publicly recognisable actor. History Lunatic (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)History Lunatic

Reconciliation

This unsourced statement is a bit vague: "Many of his friends visited him in his home, including a famous reconciliation between Elizabeth Taylor and Sybil Christopher (Richard Burton's first and second wives) during his illness.[citation needed] " Did the reconciliation take place in the home during a chance meeting of the two ladies when they coincidentally were visiting at about the same time? Or did one write or telephone the other something along the lines of "Roddy is dying; you and I should bury the hatchet before he's gone."? Casey (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Wrestling Career Stint

I find it strange that this article completely omits his venture into 1980's TV wrestling. Rowdy Roddy McDowall was his Scottish-themed wrestler character but at the time as I recall he also continued to remain in the acting arena and if I remember correctly even worked with John Carpenter and was in a couple of action movies. Let's please add some info on this colorful segment of his amazing life. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6582:8580:C00:C9D4:E41A:A4BB:619 (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Check your calendar; April Fool's day is few weeks off yet. History Lunatic (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)History Lunatic

Sorry, got some sad news for you pal, but this wasn't a joke; Roddy McDowell really WAS involved in pro wrestling, albeit as comic relief opposite Mil Mascaras in Tokyo during August '81: https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/C_VuyBcoJjIUB0IftsVd0Ibgx9M=/768x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/roddydowell-5c48b67d46e0fb0001dbef80.png

Not sure if you are the original poster, or what the photo is in aid of, but one suspects the original wrestling reference was about Rowdy Roddy Piper. (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0684929/?ref_=tt_cl_t1).

But by all means, if you do have some actual evidence that Roddy McDowall the British actor did a stint as a wrestler, please post it. I'm sure it would be interesting.

Also, please sign your posts. History Lunatic (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)History Lunatic