Talk:Zeppo Marx

Referencing Zeppo
The Zeppo Network, Inc. is the legal trademark owner of "Zeppo" as confirmed March 22, 2006 by the United states Patent and Trademark Office. Notice of Publication under 12(a): Serial Number 78/669,587; International Class(es): 9; Publication Date April 11, 2006. �The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robertholf (talk " contribs) 21:34, May 7, 2006.
 * Well! That and $3 will get you a cup of coffee. – AndyFielding (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

No Mention of Role as Agent/Impresario
I have seen references to Zeppo Marx' role in the careers of Jack Benny and Lana Turner. Would it not be nice to mention this, as without his influence at least those two and perhaps many other well-known stars would not have gotten their 'break'. L. Greg 10:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Death day
Did Zeppo die on November 29 or 30? There seems to be some confusion again between Wikipedia and IMDb. Hotwine8 02:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A Night at the Opera ?
The article says that Zeppo is known for "Duck Soup" and "A Night at the Opera". However, how can that be true if the latter is the first film without Zeppo??
 * The only way he's known for A Night at the Opera is by not being in it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, aside from Duck Soup, I'd say he's a lot better known for his larger role in Monkey Business, throughout which he was allowed to provide much comic business with his Brothers. — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 01:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

James Agee quote
Does anyone have a citation for the James Agee quote used in this article and in the Marx Brothers? I just consulted 7 volumes from my library of quotation reference books, the ones most likely to have it, and none of them did -- and this included the Guiness Book of Poisonous Quotes and The Portable Curmudgeon. A Google search looks like it turns up a lot of hits, but when you control for the sites which are just copying the Wikipedia entries for the Marx Brothers and for Zeppo, you get basically nothing: 16 hits and none on point. If no one turns up with a citation, it should probably be removed. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Even more telling, a Google Books search turns up nothing, with or without Agee included as a search term. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 04:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes
I'm sorry, but the recent changes by the IP, citing a particular book, are not an improvement. Poorly written, and getting into way too much detail. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Name usage
Referring to "Marx" in the entry, while also mentioning the other Marx Brothers is very confusing. Wuapinmon (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Only in sections that refer to the other brothers. As fun a name as "Zeppo" is, it's WP style to refer to bio subjects by family name, except to avoid ambiguity. It should be clear to readers that "Marx", when used alone, refers to the article's subject, not one of his relatives. This is always true on WP, regardless of a family's fame. It's reference style. – AndyFielding (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Zeppo Marx. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090105232835/http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/2006/11/on-the-silver-and-plasma-screen-duck-soup/ to http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/2006/11/on-the-silver-and-plasma-screen-duck-soup/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140717185038/http://50sville.com/marman.html to http://www.50sville.com/marman.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Marman clamps
I was intrigued (and horrified) to learn about Marx's involvement in war manufacturing, and dug into the Marman clamp claims in order to find citations. The book https://books.google.nl/books?id=UJb_tnBVcG8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=hello,+i+must+be+going&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjU8aeesPPbAhVCZlAKHciSAiwQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q&f=false "Hello, I must be going" has a few interview snippets about the clamp, and mentions that Marx partnered with a penniless inventor Mr. King to manufacture his clamps. Patent applications support this history, for example https://patents.google.com/patent/US2368929A/en which is the sole citation for later Marman patents, e.g. https://patents.google.com/patent/US2711572A/en. I'll go ahead and add this to the article shortly. Adamw (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's mind-bogglingly surreal to realize one of the Marx Brothers was involved in dropping an atomic bomb. Nothing will surprise me anymore! – AndyFielding (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Incoherent sentence
The section Name includes this sentence:

"Another version of this story was that his name was changed to 'Zeppo' in honor of the then popular "Zepplin"."

But since nobody has the slightest idea what "the then popular 'Zepplin'"" refers to, this is a good example of an incoherent sentence: One that nobody can understand.

If the meaning of the phrase "the then popular 'Zepplin' were explained, that would fix the problem. Otherwise the sentence should be deleted.50.205.142.50 (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Fixed. – AndyFielding (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Legacy – should it be deleted or shortened?
The "Legacy" part of this article is currently longer than many legitimate, significant actors' entire Wikipedia articles. While I'm sure that whoever created and edited that section thought they were doing a good job, the fact is that we're talking here of an actor who had about an hour's worth of screen time in the five films that he appeared in and has usually been considered a by-word for futility. For this reason it's hard to avoid the impression that this section is just trolling, or at best a polemic with the common conception of Zeppo, in other words a personal essay, which shouldn't be part of a Wikipedia article. I think it would be legitimate to include one or two quotes or paraphrases that challenge the accepted view, but 22 paragraphs devoted to this topic seems a bit over the top. And the "Awards and honors" section reads more like a joke, since it's all about an award that Groucho received (his honorary Oscar), not Zeppo. Any thoughts on this? Veikko79 (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine as is. It's comprehensive but well-cited, and it examines his legacy as a Marx Brother in a way that works with the heading. If anything, it may be interesting to work in addition info about the seemingly superfluous nature of Zeppo compared to the arguments that he mattered to the act.. The "Awards and Honors" section is also on Harpo and Chico's pages, so they would need to be revisited too.

Also, I'm not sure that screen time measured is really a consistent standard to measure worth in a movie or series. Darth Vader had only about half a hour total in the original Star Wars trilogy, for example. HumanRain81 (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Sure, I agree that screen time alone isn't a valid standard to measure the importance of a character or an actor in a movie. Orson Welles has only about ten minutes of screen time as Harry Lime in The Third Man, but the whole plot revolves around him, and all his scenes are extremely memorable; the recently deceased Dean Stockwell has even less screen time, maybe around four minutes, as Ben in Blue Velvet, but his scene is so memorable that people remember him pretty much as vividly as they do Dennis Hopper. The difference between Zeppo and those three villains is that only does he get extremely little screen time, but he also does almost nothing memorable during the little time that he gets. His insignificance is arguably the most significant thing about him: it should be noted in itself, and it's only right to also note that this view has been contested, but devoting as many as 22 paragraphs to giving the opposite view gives the impression that someone is using Wikipedia as their soapbox rather than striving to present the case neutrally and proportionally. But maybe it's just me. Veikko79 (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm big on WP, so don't get me wrong—but sometimes I have to chuckle at these virtually anonymous, behind-the-scenes discussions of to exactly how much recognition great people are entitled. 😁 Is this why so many people read supermarket tabloids and participate in fan forums—so they can feel somehow involved, and even influential, in famous peoples' lives? Certainly we're more than that. (Just saying!) – AndyFielding (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the only reason these people are "famous" is because of their fans, right? The famous should kiss the a**es of the fans and paparazzi and anonymous folks on Wikipedia for making and keeping them famous, often beyond their time. Sometimes the reputation is totally out of whack compared to the reality, but it's what sells. Consider Sinatra's late reputation as a thug... He was anything but a thug in real life, but what sells becomes the rep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:24 (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)