Talk:Hal Roach

Blacks
I think a very important contribution of Mr Roach is the very early inclusion of black characters. One might argue that Buckwheat was a stereotype but what is better, a stereotype who plays with white kids or what happened for the next two generations, namely that no TV shows had any black kids at all? If other producers had carried on what Mr Roach started in the 1930s, social changes might have started much sooner, such is the power of media.--Jrm2007 (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment
Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Success as a comedy producer
This section "success as a comedy producer" starts out with "Unable to expand his studios in downtown Los Angeles because of zoning, Roach purchased what became the Hal Roach Studios from Harry Culver in Culver City, California." Those studios are huge.. where did he get the money for all this? The article isn't clear how he got rich so early. Was it the inheritance? -Rolypolyman (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

rape allegations
What do people make of all stations that he was involved in gang rape, mentioned in todays edition of The Guardian? PatGallacher (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Link to that, please. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm removing that: it's pure hearsay: McGowan is not citing a source, and was born 36 years after the death of the figure she's alleging was a mass rapist. Wikipedia is not a place for the spreading of unsource smears against biographical figures, dead or alive.Donaldjbarry (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it is sourced, to The Guardian, which is recognised on Wikipedia as a reliable source. PatGallacher (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is a reliable source, but the Guardian is not reporting on this as a matter of truth, they are only repeating McGowan's allegation. If any allegation made by anyone anywhere can be put in a Wikipedia article by cherry picking simply because the person making it is quoted in a reliable source, then it's making an entire mockery of the concept of a reliable source and of due weight. I urge you to consider this.  I'm once again removing the change, and will ask if an editor might offer guidance. Donaldjbarry (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is making a mockery of "reliable source", but I will look into these allegations further. PatGallacher (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd urge you to consider that deciding what is encyclopedic and neutral is not accomplished by first determining to add something and then mining for sources that mention it. The Washington Times is considered borderline by most on here as a reliable source, I'd personally add for good reason, and the Hollywood Reporter is an entertainment rag.  So your three sources recount, 1) an anecdotal account from someone not in a position to know in a reliable source, and 2 and 3) anecdotal accounts of an event held at Roach's ranch and not even indicating his presence in tabloids.  I am troubled by this worrying of a point of view without a more serious sourcing.  I would suggest that if anything, the only part of this worth including in Wikipedia is McGowan's allegations, clearly identified as such, in McGowan's article. Information in an individual's biography and attributed personally to them needs to have sourcing more serious than anecdotes and tabloid sourcing.  I urge you to rethink this.  Donaldjbarry (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * According to WP:RSP, the Guardian and the Hollywood Reporter are generally reliable, the Washington Times is marginally reliable. Do we take this to RFC? PatGallacher (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a very good idea. I do not myself believe it is encyclopedic to put such serious allegations in biographical pages that are merely reported as allegations by a source with no reason to know, or two others that in reporting a legend merely connect the impugned here by ownership of the venue. The appropriate place is on McGowan's page, because her comments were notable and got press regardless of any veracity they may have had.  To put them on pages of others is to presume their truth.Donaldjbarry (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should this article include a brief mention of allegations of sexual abuse of actresses? PatGallacher (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * What are the sources? Since they're not presented here all I found were a couple of stories about an alleged rape that happened at a party hosted by Hal Roach. Is there something else? Nemov (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * If you could find significant coverage on reliable sites, then sure add them. If it's low level speculation then no.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What Nemov said. If the allegations made the news, then they're notable, even if they did not result in an arrest or conviction. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on what I read, the allegations were made towards someone else. Roach just hosted the party. It doesn't look like enough to add here, but maybe there's something I'm missing. Nemov (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Disputed text and Guardian source (para 3 of article). Pincrete (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Exclude from this article unless more and better sources exist. The most that could possibly be inferred from the Gdn interview is that McGowan has heard of stories of Roach bussing in female company to his party, who were then assaulted. Pincrete (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Exclude Based on what's been presented here there aren't sources to support inclusion. I agree with Pincrete about McGowan. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Material to expand the article, criticism
> Although Paramount had paid Roach $25,000 for Cooper's services in that film, Roach paid Cooper only his standard salary of $50 per week.

I wonder if this is true, at least it may well be missing context.

This is from a Facebook post which may be used to expand the article if someone takes the time to source the statements of fact:

--

Laurel and Hardy’s film producer, Hal Roach was nothing like how he was portrayed in the “Stan and Ollie” (2018) biopic. All of his actors and crew were extremely well paid.

In 1934, Roach paid himself $2,000 a week, Ollie also received $2,000 a week and Stan was on $3,500 a week. Therefore Roach was paying Stan Laurel more money than he was even paying himself. This was reflective of the many extra hours Stan spent working with the writers before and during the production and then working with editor Bert Jordan after photography was completed.

If certain scenes didn’t play too well in the previews, Roach never objected to spending more time and money to make it a better comedy film.

According to Laurel and Hardy film historian, Randy Skretvedt: “Roach actually lost money by making the three and four-reel films because the agreement was for a set number of two-reelers. ‘We made the three and four-reelers because the stories went that far,’ said Roach.”

On making the four-reel Laurel and Hardy film “Beau Hunks” Roach told Skretvedt: “It was already sold as a two-reeler; we couldn’t get any more dough out of all the circuits because they’d already bought it. But it was just one of those things; it was intended to be a two-reel comedy, but it kept getting funnier.”

Roach kept Laurel and Hardy on separate contracts that expired six months apart. This was to encourage them to stay at his studio. While some would say that this was a manipulative arrangement, it is understandable that Hal Roach wanted to keep the biggest comedy stars of the day at his studio. Especially considering the fact that his first major star, Harold Lloyd left his studio in 1923 to produce his own films.

In the Laurel and Hardy Encyclopedia, Glenn Mitchell writes: “Though necessarily ruthless, Roach permitted his employees a mostly free hand with an agreeable environment; most agree that there was no finer boss.”

“𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐧𝐨 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐨 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐢𝐭. 𝐌𝐆𝐌, 𝐅𝐨𝐱, 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐥 - 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐥𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐰𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐨𝐫. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐨 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐝 ‘𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐅𝐮𝐧’ 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐨 - 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐥𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐮𝐧”. - Roy Seawright, optical effects department. Quote from “Laurel and Hardy, The Magic Behind The Movies”, Skretvedt.

Film historian and author, Richard W. Bann quotes Patsy Kelly who said: “Hal Roach was the best boss I ever had in the industry. I was practically ashamed to take the money." tickle me 22:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)