User talk:Lilysincere

My user name is Lilysincere, a moniker I have chosen after learning that a controversy was waiting for my reluctant attention, concerning the theatrical/film work of Rocky Horror Show and Rocky Horror Picture Show, and I began having no idea how serious this situation was to become. There has been much eye-opening.

In the motion picture, Susan Sarandon as Janet Weiss, sings a line in a song, "God Bless Lily St. Cyr" which, in the British dialect, is pronounced as "Lily Sincere". The pronunciation serves my feeling well, as I am sincere in nature, and my first name I'm often seeing, is somewhere translated as "Lily". I use the name in reference to the writings about Rocky Horror.

There is a difference between myself and the members past and present of the Rocky Horror Cult. It might for someone who does not know them, be easy to confuse me as a member which I am not and have never been. My participations as audience came before a cult existed, but during the inceptions of the cult's structure. So, as an outsider with alot of experience, I describe how that all came about because I was there at the outset. I also had experiences with certain people outside of that context that brought their natures into closer view.

Before there was a recognizable cult, I did participate in the direction of the films' success when specifically I talked the Waverly Theatre owner into continuing its run when she confided in me her intent to close it down within that hour before the crowd gathered.

It was a crowd she felt was unwielding, and I promised that the security volunteers who I knew could handle it. I then told the guys of her concerns and they did handle the crowds well. That permitted the continuation of the film's run there, and all I really did was to give that much extra time to sort out the issues. I did that assuming all else around me was honest. This particular moment in time is probably my only particular claim to uniqueness in the early screenings scenario, other than the fact that I witnessed the progression from movie being watched, to movie being acted upon, from May 21, 1976 mainly to December 21, 1976, with occassional viewings within the next several months before I stopped altogether. In that period of time, I amassed a viewing count (apparently desired by the fledgling cult leaders) of around 60.

Under odd circumstances, in the middle of October, I met and spoke with someone who said they were Sal Piro, whom sight unseen decided he would make a fan club. I didn't realize what was behind it but report in retrospect that what I saw was that he was led on by someone who was the driving force and hidden by the cult since. I think some of the ways they wound up doing things were partly so that it would seem like a spontaneious group endeavor, rather than the work of a woman. Since, I have learned that the cult has also a second, Sal Piro, if there ever was one in truth at all. It appears to me that a relation exists between the second Sal Piro and the woman who introduced me to the first. It is not pleasant to report on such things. Personally it is difficult to imagine the motivations of someone let alone others who would be that way. That is why I was compelled to study it as I have recently done because their actions affected my own personal life. I didn't know that at the time.

With this, I went from a very strange place of re-learning the orientation of these workings, to a very strange place of learning that people have made the story up as they went along, for whatever reason that made it seem like it was a strong, continuing, force of a media event. This is to serve the cult.

If they didn't do a platitude of things other than mix up who the real Richard O'Brien is in the context of the Rocky Horror Show and Rocky Horror Picture Show, I would have no reason to make that an included topic. One could actually imagine that mixing up one man for the other in this instance is easy to do as an honest mistake, because the one taking credit and the one deserving credit are relatives with very stark family resemblances between them. It is so much so that telling them apart comes to the physical structures of such things as height, leg length, facial and skull shapes, and the presence of facial marks, in the most definitive analysis. But, this man whose name is alleged to be originally Richard Timothy Smith, took on the pseudonym Richard O'Brien in reaction to the doing so by Richard O'Brien who is the author-composer-actor in the stage musical and show. And while he could be in position to claim he was that man, and do so on his own impetus, would not have taken place without so much help and protection from others. Therefore, beyond a family rivalry, one looks at external motivations as well. This is where the cult's conduct comes into the descriptions.

Therefore, at the present time, I am not liked or appreciated by them, to say the least. They don't want to know who really wrote it, they want to have their fun with it, and they don't have a measure of responsibility to understand what gives them that fun. I really wouldn't care about this all, if it had not first been for the fact that I was discovering that the same thing the cult did with the leading woman, and then the leading man, they also did, with the authorship.

Yes, it was written by Richard O'Brien.

I'm never saying that the film credit is wrong, and that Richard O'Brien did not write it. I'm never saying that Richard O'Brien did not sing, dance, act, or do that part of Riff Raff. What I am saying, is that the man who attends conventions and visits fans who think that he is that man, is not, even though he is being called Richard O'Brien and even though he can pass for being that man without a lot of visual or audible scrutiny.

The man who appears in motion pictures 1977 and after using that name, films such as "Jubilee", and who has amassed since that time a list of film credits using that name, is not the same man who was in Rocky Horror. From 1977 and beyond, the man who is in film using the name Richard O'Brien is credited erroneosly with having participated in Rocky Horror.

Between 1971 and 1976 the pseudonym Richard O'Brien was used by a different man, and it is this man who wrote Rocky Horror. There is evidence that the man Smith was positioning himself to carry out the ruse long before the show even left London. However, clear physical differences tell the two apart. If they weren't cousins, they could almost be twins. Almost, because they are not identical. One man's leg is considerably longer than the other's. One man has a deeper eye-well, one man has a larger skull, with more space separating the ear from the edge of the eyes. One man has certain facial marks. One man has crooked teeth while the other has perfect teeth. One man has a look of soul about him, the other has a look of a demon. One man has a consistent body of work that supports the talent shown in Rocky Horror, the education and the upbringing to springboard the endeavor's concept and parameters. The other man takes roles that accentuate the physical resemblances to the character Riff Raff. One man wrote a prequel. The other man dresses in dresses. One man has discussed this with me. I have not met the other man. The author who used the pseudonym Richard O'Brien for this and other projects in England, is known by me.

Therefore, there is a Richard O'Brien who they laud and applaud and watch as their beloved writer; and there is the Richard O'Brien that actually wrote it.

The man whom they laud, knows himself to be a fraud. The man who actually wrote it, knows he has an uphill battle. He has discussed it with me and I am in this way supporting him. I have proven his "case". He fully knew because we discussed it that I intended to tell others what he told me. However, he did not directly make the request and did not discourage me. When I asked him questions about how someone would know a thing if I were to show it, he told me what I might find that I could show. It was my intention because at the time of our discussion I was not aware that there were problems to this extent, even as he tried to warn me of them.

The long-standing association with him brings the elapse of time into the fore, where he first told me he was in the project before it even opened in the mainstream theatre, as it was only a few weeks after the filming had wrapped. He described his character a little bit and told me it is called Rocky Horror. I expected to talk to him again later in that same week but it did not come about, and we lost touch for many years instead. I was not prepared for the pseudonym, and didn't realize that the character would look so different from him that I would simply think I was lied to at first. Even when I began looking closer at the writer of the film on the screen, I didn't put the two things together, and why that was, was just because I didn't have the background or the maturity to do so. The other concerns were that I had memory difficulties. When something was too unpleasant I blocked it, not just put it aside, so that one minute I was thinking and the next minute I said to myself I didn't have to think about it, and the minute after that it is totally forgotten, and there was no longer a choice about it. That happened between he and I alot, because I met him when I was a very small child. I never met anyone the first time more times than I met him. If it looks like "Fifty First Dates" then so be it. We could always laugh at a past left behind.

In December of 1974 he told me and then we lost touch, and then again he asked me what I thought of it in January of 1977, and used third person to thank me for my thoughts but first person phrasing. We lost touch again, and it was on January 10, 1987 a full ten years later, when the long discussion actually took place. From this I received much information, and quotes, things that he had to say that went unsaid for a very long time, which included the situation about his cousin and Rocky Horror. This time, there was no third person phrasing in this context. He also described song writing, such as the use of hand-claps in a song called "Stark Raving Love." In 1974 he told me he wrote musicals by way of describing an upcoming musical that some fans think had been plans for an album, called "Renegade Angel". He said it is a musical. "A musical musical?" "Yes." "You can write musicals?" "Yes." And then he told me of Rocky Horror. I called him "Jimmy."

I joined Wikipedia in order to discuss this with editors whom are interested in verifying this information, so that it could be included. I am as careful not to malign someone as any judicious person may be. I am past educated in Journalism, and know the difference between fact and fiction.

The website which contains the body of work I have been developing and which necessarily contains personal notes and insights, personal references and experiences, is http://lilysincere.byethost13.com --Lilysincere 08:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC) learned subsequently that I was logged off. Of course, you see my IP: HA. 68.120.228.67 08:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have to say I'm finding this fascinating but also quite a lot to absorb so please bear in mind that I haven't quite "got" everything yet.

I would address the WP:NOR issue. In practice on Wikipedia, information generally has to have been reported in national media or just be "accepted fact" to merit inclusion. On current events (eg the Islam cartoons thing) a lot of users can dump in lots of OR and this is hard to police. However, with something that happened a good number of years ago we have the luxury of referring to established sources. Also as this relates to a movie we use information from imdb.com, which Wikipedia recognizes as the primary accessible modern record of movie appearances and trivia. If an actor is listed in there as having played a role, it's extremely unlikely that an editor who removes such a credit from the WP entry is acting within NOR. I have no interest in an edit war, whereby A says "I know this to be true" and B says "I know what it says in the history books" and they edit back and forth. That's why I'm happy to leave the links to your page and see the idea mentioned in the relevant articles. However, I believe the vast majority of Wikipedia editors, certainly the ones familiar with policy, would have serious NOR issues with your research and findings and the inclusion of them in WP. You can't deny there is a huge amount of media coverage from massively important sources all over the world that recognize O'Brien as "the man" behind TRHS and it's spin offs. Wikipedia is not in a hurry to change history, my thought on this are at WP:CHILL.

I hope to read your new submissions more fully later. I apologize for the tone of some of my first comments on this matter as I had not discovered the extent of your findings or your seriousness.  D e izio  14:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have noted your comments and read your essay, inspired, apparently by the events of the day. That is alot to absorb. I also have noted your opinions about what you believe most editors may accept. National news, IMDb, and the like. But, I should like to point out that if it was really as simple as that, the page concerning the NOR policy would be two paragraphs long. Concerning history, I would like to say that I am not seeking to change it. I would like to explain what I mean: The name "Richard O'Brien" is appropriately attached to the work of Rocky Horror Show and Rocky Horror Picture Show. What exists, is a perceptive error in ascribing credit to one man using the pseudonym of Richard O'Brien, rather than the other man using the pseudonym Richard O'Brien. This is the part that needs the most clarification, I think. No matter who is being discussed, it is a pseudonym, not a given name, that is the name of Richard O'Brien, and the man whom was in the films Jubilee, and Digital Dreams, is one; the man whom was in Rocky Horror, is the other. I hope that I might help you to absorb the facts, and that you might "warm up" to the concept, that it is a technical designation, rather than a point of fact. IMDb and all sources use the name Richard O'Brien correctly, and someone named Richard O'Brien made those other films, looks like the character in Rocky Horror, and happened to design his positions that way so as to be perceived as though he was. But, if he did not have such a resemblance, someone would have noticed much better, much sooner, and he would not have seen so much opportunity and reward for himself. He worked to validate his claim, and caused books, other productions, and documentaries to validate, but I offer this in counter: Physical differences between himself and the actor in the film playing Riff Raff; Characteristics of nature differences in the works; and the simple statement that no matter what source says what: Nobody national was in the room with him writing (his wife Kimi pretends she was); and IMDb can only rely on the perceptions and habitual assumptions of others. In reference to source, I am not the writer, but an observer showing observable things. For starters, there is this. I believe that I would like to address the issues which are brought about. The author told me that he received phone calls about the activities of this man, and he was not able to stop what was going on. Much of what goes on in the entertainment field is strange. What is more to the point, they keep it largely amongst themselves.

I appreciate your comments, and hope that your later on, is not too far into the future. Additionally, I have moved to a better website URL for the site: http://lilysincere.byethost13.com. I believe that it loads and presents better there. Respectfully, --Lilysincere 12:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

IMDb Discussed as a Source
In regards to the objectivity of IMDb as a reliable source of information, I put it after any other third party objective data collector. Their page of information of who they are and what the site is about, is clearly that they are not attempting to be a compendium of authority. In addition to providing database, they also sell their media services to the movie industry, and to those aspiring within it, through their Pro and Publicity Photo sites, networked with the IMDb database. They are not just fans, but they are also interested in appeasing those authorities whom may help to put their budget in the black areas, when done so. Financially, and emotionally, they are not built, nor are they trying to be, impartial, authoritative, first line source, for accurate information. They do try to be accurate but they have less a standard than most ordinary journalist outlets. As such, they promote bulletin boards of discussion and fan movie reviews on their site, and also credit actors with uncredited roles, which is not part of standard practise. Uncredited, is uncredited. Whom would validate an uncredited role? If it took place decades before? Ten years before? Whom would actually have an interest in reporting it? Richard O'Brien is credited for two uncredited roles: 1965 as a stunt rider, and 1972 as a party guest. If every movie extra called IMDb to set up their own page for their uncredited roles, they'd be using IMDb as a resume generator for fledgling actors. In Richard O'Brien's case, this is merely an attempt to pad the use of the name to be attributed to an actor whom shows every evidenced sign of padding his entire reputation.

Quoted from the IMDb page about the project:

"The IMDb started as a hobby project by an international group of movie fans

(see history), essentially something by movie fans for movie fans. And

despite our incredible growth, we retain that sensibility. The weekly

editorial staff meeting is lunch and a movie. All the weekly status reports

detail three things: what we did for work, what we did for fun, and what

movies we saw."

"We are some of our site's most hardcore users."

"Our managing director claims

to have seen over seven thousand movies. Most of our people could write or

win a movie trivia game show."

"One of our proposed slogans was "we just love

movies."

"We're just a bunch of hardcore movie fans who still can't

get over the fact that we're getting paid to keep improving this tool we use

so much for our own pleasure."

This is how many exact name results are for "Richard O'Brien" putting the actor and writer of Rocky Horror first on the list upon which a fourth is missing.

1. Richard O'Brien (I) (Actor, The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)) 2. Bob O'Brien (I) (Sound Department, Back to the Future Part III (1990)) aka "Richard O'Brien" 3. Richard O'Brien (II) (Actor, The Andromeda Strain (1971)) 4. Richard O'Brien (VII) (Writer, Bali: Hope in Paradise (2004)) 5. Richard O'Brien (V) (Actor, Garage Days (2002)) 6. Richard O'Brien (III) (Actor, Cleo Bachelor of the Year (2000) (TV)) 7. Richard O'Brien (VI) (Miscellaneous Crew, Divine Inspiration (2002))

This is the uncredited roles being given extraordinary and untraditional credit to:

Carry On Cowboy (1965) (uncredited) .... Rider ... aka Rumpo Kid ... aka The Rumpo Kid

Zee and Co. (1972) (uncredited) .... Party Guest ... aka X, Y and Zee (USA)

In summary, I disagree with the statement that IMDb is taken as an authoritative source for the building of an encyclopedic work, and if they do change their information about Richard O'Brien I would still feel the same, because it is very clear to me that they are a casually scoped and professionally linked organization. However, not for the reason of being IMDb, but if they were to objectively perceive the observations that I point out, and declare so specifically, then that would be extraordinary impetus on their part to right the wrong. However, I believe that they rely on established institutions like film credits and wikipedia for that. Rather than you relying upon them, I do propose that the likelihood of their reliance upon WP is more appropos.

With this in mind, I would like to continue the project of clarifying the body of work I present, as a body of reference and therefore a source, of information, to the fact that the Richard O'Brien who wrote Rocky Horror and starred in it as well, is not the same Richard O'Brien who played John Dee in Jubilee, or the Butler in Digital Dreams, and so forth. A pleasant read to you.

--Lilysincere 23:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)