Jump to content

User talk:Upsmiler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, Upsmiler! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

May 2011

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page List of Maverick episodes has been reverted.
Your edit here to List of Maverick episodes was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://jackkellytribute.blogspot.com/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to the hell of verifiability. If you want your edits to survive you better take the time to ref them. My best. Parrotistic (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maverick photographs

[edit]

Thank you for your kind comment on my talk page. Bought the 3-episode DVD of the original Maverick series did some screen captures of James Garner and Jack Kelly from it. Tried to find some frames that fit the characters well. Unfortunately no Roger Moore or Robert Colbert episodes on the DVD (can't understand why this series has never been fully released). Besides the Air Force history, which I write about a great deal, I like to add photos and update articles in TV and Film articles from time to time. Maverick looked kind of bare, although I liked how it was written, so just added the video images. Anyway, take care and again, thank you :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Branded Maverick

[edit]

I do see the connection. What I don't see is the relevance. The scripts were reused by another show. It's therefore relevant to that show they were using recycled scripts. It's also relevant the star of that show was reusing "Maverick" dialog. Beyond a passing mention on "Maverick" of reuse of scripts, it's not significant, & I'm not sure even that is merited; that strikes me more a matter for the production company page (reflecting how cheap they were). It certainly doesn't merit an uncited & improable "equivalent to an audition", especially since I seriously doubt the "Maverick" producers considered the reused scripts in judging the matter. And wanting to add it to "Maverick" because it's a popular page smells of having an axe to grind with Warner, which is a bad reason to include anyow.

"imagine if Deep Space Nine had used a recycled script from The Next Generation" they did. Rick Berman wasn't the most creative guy in the world. They didn't quite use verbatim recycling, tho. 8o

Just to be clear: I'm not doubting the truth of it. The fact Warner did it routinely deserves mention on their page for sure, if it's as common as that. I'd want a better source than Moore for it, too. It shouldn't be hard to find it mentioned somewhere in books on show histories, if it is that common. Warner may not admit it, but insiders will know, & they'll talk.

Also, I haven't looked, but is it on Moore's page? It deserves mention there. He'd get more hits than "Maverick", & if he's saying it about himself & his own work, it's much less likely to be challenged. Not a perfect solution, but a start. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC) (P.S.[reply]

No, I don't work for Warners, I just know that bit of trivia better than most. ;p I'm not looking for a fight over it, either, so if ther was any offense at the "axe to grind", I apologize. You just sound really peeved by the resuse. If it really is as widely known as that, do add (with a better source, if possible; I'm leery of relying solely on Moore's word, especially for something so extensive) to Moore's page & to Warners'. I didn't know this before, & I'll bet most people don't. It's worth including it. Here's hoping we can work on something else without getting in an edit war. 8o TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always glad a disagreement doesn't get overheated. You do sound like somebody that'd be good to work with. :) As for the header, FYI, the actual Maverick didn't use a brand. Or did you know that already...? :( TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Just goes to show the public persona & the real guy can be totally different. Also shows some actors just can't do comedy. :) On Maverick, did you also know Rockford was a deliberate updating? Wardrobe wasn't as cool, tho. :( TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, you know your Garner. I bet you even know the engine number of the Esprit he drove. ;p Absolutely right about the suit jackets, which I never thought really worked for the character, myself. (Like he couldn't make up his mind if he wanted casual or formal or what...) Did you ever notice the flaring off the jacket? 8o Something about plaids & TV cameras, they just don't get along. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't heard he was ill. I'm sorry to hear that. I've never seen him turn in a bad performance. Even as the "bad" guy in "Grand Prix". I also really liked his attitude to co-workers. A very cool guy indeed. And if you're going to have a producer, Roy Huggins is about as good as they come. Good team working for him, too. (I especially thought Juanita Bartlett was a good one. Made me think of Dorothy.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
♠I totally agree, Garner's underrated. He was a natural. I also think he never did have to learn how to act. The best of them don't. (Could be he was kidding, too. ;p ) I'd put him in a very select group, with, frex, Spencer Tracy. IDK if this is actually a compliment (maybe actors are like Rip Torn & want to disappear into the character), but in every character he played, I always saw him, never the acting: it was seamless, as if he was playing himself. Which I got the feeling was real talent. Also good casting. ;p If you've never seen his Wyatt Earp, you've never seen how dark Rockford could have been.
♠On the female producer, I suspect it's Bartlett. She did all the later Rockfords, including the movies, IIRC, & for Garner to keep her close would be absolutely in character. IDK if they had a history before the show, but that would also explain Garner taking her side. She's also the only woman on the production staff I can think of. ;p
♠"I love him & he hates me." LOL. What was the beef, DYK? That was such a good team IMO. Steve Cannell, who did "Simon & Simon" (another one I loved) would've been good, too, IMO. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:13 & 02:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about Rosenberg. :( It's been too long since I've seen them. For all the garbage that's on cable these days, you'd think there'd be someplace it'd be syndicated we could actually see them... Maybe that's my cable company. ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We never got to see "Maverick" here. :( (American TV viewers have no idea how good they had it.) Knowing Garner, tho, I can believe it was superb. I had no idea he was as sick as that when he quit "Rockford", either. 8o TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
♠"There's only one DVD out " :( :( That's criminal. I'll look for it, tho. VHS I do have, so I can have a look for them, too. Thx for the tip.
♠Brit? No, & I see you haven't looked at my userpage. ;p Proudly Canadian. Which makes it really strange we never got "Maverick" AFAIK. (If you know anything about Canadian TV, you'll know just how strange.) It's never been syndicated by my local station(s), either (tho they used to broadcast "Cisco Kid" late nights 8o ). It's not helped, I suppose, being in a market that's about the size Yankee Stadium is when it's full. ;p (OK, maybe twice. ;p Current pop around 200K.) Or maybe the program director is an idiot. :D (Hmm, Herb Tarlek instead of Andy Travis? I can believe that... :D ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Grant

[edit]

Hi. Regarding this edit I made on Cary Grant that you labeled vandalism - it is not. Filmography tables are suppose to be sortable per accessibility which is what I did. If you disagreed with me removing some of the notes section, you could have contacted me on my talk page instead of labeling my edit as vandalism and simply reverting it. Pinkadelica♣ 21:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baclanova and Madonna

[edit]

Hi there-- you recently added comments about similarities in appearance between Madonna and Baclanova. There needs to be a source for this not to constitute original research. I did a quick search and found a review on AMC. [1] This might be a reliable source, though some might challenge it. I'm not sure the resemblance is especially encyclopedic, though. Just wanted to let you know why those edits might be deleted, and how you might be able to make a case for them. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Please do not add speculation about Olga Baclanova looking like Madonna, or vice versa, per WP:NOR. Do not add the non-free image File:Olga Baclanova.jpg to articles that are not listed in the non-free fair use rationale at the image page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the similarities between the two, but it's not really an important aspect of either entertainer's career. To answer your question, "Jokestress" is the name I have used since I first went online (I've written comedy for a living). I noticed the change you made because the article is on my watchlist. I'll have to check out The Man Who Laughs- just added it to my Netflix queue! Jokestress (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The San Francisco Silent Film Festival showed The Man Who Laughs a few years back but I had to decide between a dozen films with the sure knowledge that I could not possibly sit through all of them. Unfortunately, I chose to take a meal break during the film, so I missed it shown at the perfect frame rate with superb live music accompaniment. :(
I won't make that mistake again! Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your edits

[edit]

Youre not suppose to add a bunch of content to filmography tables like you did on Mabel Normand. The content being added was discussed - and removed from the page long ago - on the talk page which you can find in the archive. please get consensus before adding this kind of stuff to tables again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.176.240 (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 24.72.176.240, actually, the content wasn't the issue being most pointedly addressed at the time or discussed, it was the boxed format, which is fine. Whomever switched it to the boxed format didn't bother to include the prior information and noted that there was a "Notes" section in the boxed format for that if someone wanted to painstakingly add it, which I've just done. It's obviously an enhancement for the table since it's extremely readable and informative for anyone curious about her career, and when you look at the cast and director list in one table, you can see that throughout almost her entire career, she worked with an astonishingly small but extraordinarily talented array of actors and directors. I'm a bit of a Normand scholar and enthusiast myself and it surprised even me when I stood back and looked at it. Upsmiler (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

[edit]

I saw your note about an IP deleting photos of Hepburn and others. Could you post some details on my talk page - the editor's address, the image links? No images have been deleted from Hepburn's Wikipedia page. The old IP address from 2007 has not been used since then. Were all the images fully licensed? Hope to hear from you. Span (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's easy for us all to get a bit jumpy. Bette Davies is an FA and there are a great many images already up. Perhaps that is why the pictures were reduced in number. No doubt the article's stewards will have some insight. All best wishes for the weekend. Span (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worst actress?

[edit]

Not looking to get in an edit war or debate over it, so I'm just going to make a quick request. Will you look again at your resto of actors/actresses to the Maverick page? Are you sure they're big enough stars? I'd agree with Burstyn & Fletcher as given, Wells for "Gilligan", & Powers & Lee since I've heard of them. Knowles & the others, I'm less sure. (Even Anders, who I've heard of.) Don't need to answer or defend your position; I'll just ask you think about it & consider removing. If they stay, I can live with it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely, click on their links and have a look. Marie Windsor, the "Queen of the Bs," looms infinitely larger than Dawn Wells or Sherry Jackson and will as long as film noir eclipses Gilligan's Island, and the same goes for noir leading lady Coleen Gray of Kiss of Death who appeared as John Wayne's fiancee in Red River. Errol Flynn lookalike Patric Knowles was the highly billed leading man for Universal Horror movies like The Wolf Man and Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, and played Flynn's brother in The Charge of the Light Brigade and Will Scarlet in The Adventures of Robin Hood (1939), not to mention his dozens of other movies. Abby Dalton played the nurse on the smash hit sitcom Hennesey with Jackie Cooper as well as Joey Bishop's wife on The Joey Bishop Show and was a household word throughout the '60s. There was practically nobody in the United States who did not know precisely who Abby Dalton was, and it seemed like the most normal thing in the world to see James Garner and Clint Eastwood fist-fighting over her in Maverick. I'd normally have kept Playboy centerfold/actress Saundra Edwards for sheer macabre novelty; her career ended after she gunned down her husband with a shotgun blast to his chest, but she's not as famous these days as someone like Marie Windsor. Upsmiler (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for the info. I really do. :D I don't recognize the names. If they really are this big, you're absolutely right on all counts. I'd have been inclined to leave in Edwards for the novelty, too. Consider me chastened. :( TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scarcely chastened; it was an extremely good call to narrow down that encyclopedic list! Upsmiler (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chastened, indeed, for originally taking out those who deserved to remain. Had I known, these all would have remained in the first place. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is mutual. I respect your opinion on the selection, which is a major reason I didn't simply remove them. I'm glad I didn't. I'm also glad I mentioned it to you, as usual, 'cause I'd never have learned what I did otherwise. :D (Ain't WP great? :D ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mavericked

[edit]

A few of minor points. I say "starred" because it's off-air; IDK a better way for a show not still in production. I find "array" is a bit funky; "family", because they're all Warner productions. (I know, it's a bit too tradezine, but...) And "contend", because it's stronger: Huggins is effectively saying it was stolen, & I'd guess he's right (having not seen the episode). For that, "noted" is too weak. I won't just rv, tho, without hearing your POV. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you made a great catch with the Western (genre) mistake, I can't imagine who thought to use "movie" for a television series. And thanks for asking for my viewpoints!
It's hard to think of a better term than "array" for those series because of the strength it imparts; here are the salient definitions from Dictionary.com:
>a large and impressive grouping or organization of things: "He couldn't dismiss the array of facts."
>a large group, number, or quantity of people or things: an impressive array of scholars; an imposing array of books.
"Family" sounds a bit treacly by comparison in this particular context, I think, and the studio had a startling amount of these westerns on the air simultaneously. And if we call that a family, it was a legendarily dysfunctional one to put the very best face on it.
"Noted" is good for Huggins because it blithely communicates that the matter isn't in question while "contends" would make it seem that he was pleading a case for it; I don't feel at all strongly about that, though, although the phrase should be "contends that...." In fact, "contends that" is perfectly good, come to think of it, and I'll restore that right now.
James Garner still stars in the episodes of Maverick in the same way Clark Gable stars in Gone With the Wind. When you watch it on media, they star in it at that moment. To make it past tense almost indicates that Garner's been digitally removed from the series with a different actor substituted for him (Robert Colbert? Larry Hagman?). (He starred in it but doesn't star in it any more.) Clark Gable stars in Gone With the Wind (every time you watch it, he's starring in it) but Victor Fleming directed the movie (past tense). He directed it but he is in no way continuing to direct it, while Gable continues to star in it (present tense). It's subtle point but it imparts a vitality and immediacy to the writing. Upsmiler (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
♠On Western, if I'd looked a little harder, I'd have fixed that,:( so not sure a compliment is really apt. Thx, tho. :)
♠On array, I take your point, I just find it a bit odd. I've always heard a network or production company's product called their "family of shows", which, as noted, may be a bit too 'zine-like, but is fairly routine in the trade.
♠On "starred", I also take your point. English doesn't have a good way to deal with this... I'm split on which way it should go, because you're right, Garner does star--in a show no longer on the air... The simple past tense can't cope with this. I don't get the sense of vitality you do (more a peculiar disconnect between tenses :( ), but I don't disagree strongly,
♠As for getting your views, first, this isn't an issue as easily dealt with as some, & you're sensible enough we can discuss it. ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Hepburn review

[edit]

Hi there upsmiler. I see you have an interest in classic actors. I've just opened a review of the Katharine Hepburn article because I'd really like some feedback on how it stands, and maybe what could be done to get it up to GA status. No pressure but if you have any spare time it would be great to hear your opinions on the article. Review is here if you're interested, thanks! --Lobo512 (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be wonderful, thank you! Lobo512 (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note

[edit]

Hello Upsmiler. Thanks for your message responding to the edit summary that I left with my edit at the Destry Rides Again (1932 film) article. I hope that it didn't read as though I was insisting on a dab page - edit summaries have such limited space that its hard to be thorough in getting my ideas across. Also, your reasoning makes sense I was just amazed that in my 6 years of editing here I had never seen so many "see other pages" notes (I can't remember where I first read the term hatnote used but I have seen it several times so I adopted it) at the top of an article. I don't know if you would ever try to create a "Destry" dab page but I am sure that the members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation would be happy to help though, of course, you may not even need their help. Thanks also for sharing the story that PB told you. His DVD commentaries and interviews are always interesting and I sometimes wonder if he is better at telling the stories of Hollywood that he has been a part of then he is at making films :-) As to a child of Stewart and Dietrich, among the many possibilities, I can hear a low sultry voice saying "Well, well you know". Cheers and enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD | Talk 20:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for a fairly recent Bogdanovich film that I really loved, check out "The Cat's Meow" from a few years back, a story involving the murder aboard William Randolph Hearst's yacht when Hearst mistook a producer for Charles Chaplin, with whom Hearst's mistress Marion Davies was enjoying an affair. Very well-made movie with music from the period, which makes it quite strange and might be the reason it sank at the box office (I saw it twice during its first release). Upsmiler (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed it too. Especially remarkable, for me, was the fact that Eddie Izzard bore little resemblance to Chaplin, yet seemed to inhabit much that I had learned about his life off screen. MarnetteD | Talk 06:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rustled

[edit]

I can't claim the credit for adding the pic. I did rv adding a non-free, if that's what you meant.... As for adding pix, you're right. :( That's one reason I bought a digital camera: anything I shoot, I can add, & if you have a look at this, many of the pix are mine. (In fact, the lead here is. {Brag, brag ;p }) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Maverick

[edit]

There's more! File:Roger Moore Kathleen Crowley Maverick 1961.JPG We hope (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started doing a lot of free use photos a couple of months ago. Basically you have to see what's out there and what's "legal" for here. Guess it really started when Red Skelton had to be almost re-done from scratch due to copyvios. I wanted to show as many of Skelton's different characters as possible, so I started looking for photos that could be used here. That entire page is all "free use". Saw there were a lot of other photos that could be used here too, so started uploading them. We hope (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you handle another Garner photo?

[edit]

File:James Garner Connie Stevens Maverick 1959.JPG :-) We hope (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Fury

[edit]

looked at new articles when this was the very newest, fixed it a bit, and decided to create article for Frank McDonald (director). Not a western fan myself (I am a bogart fan of course), but i like to imagine the pleasure all those b movies gave filmgoers, and how the people behind them need to be honored.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's baack! :-)

[edit]
Pappy was a bit of a problem because the newspaper had whited out some of the background, but this was the first free use one I've seen. If one turns up without the background issues, I'll upload it. We hope (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ginger Rogers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link to Monkey Business
Kaye Elhardt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link to Richard Long
Mob film (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link to Little Caesar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great!

[edit]

I think someone who's done a lot of work on an article or list is the best judge of where photos should be added. When I re-did Red Skelton, I knew I needed and wanted to show as many of his characters as possible, but space was an issue because there were many other photos that needed to be added. So I did a gallery for most of the characters. When I have a photo or photos and haven't worked on the article, I try to find a good spot for it, but may not do as well with it as someone who's been editing that article a lot. If anything else we can use turns up, I'll leave the link or links for it here for you and will keep my eyes open to see if we can't get a "Pappy" copy with the original background. We hope (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Russell S. Hughes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Robert Preston, The Last Frontier and Yellow Mountain
Breakfast at Tiffany's (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to The Misfits
Bruce Bennett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Undertow
Dean Martin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rio Bravo
Edward G. Robinson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Little Caesar
Fredric March (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to The Desperate Hours
Lauren Bacall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Leslie Howard
Marie Wilson (American actress) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to The Maltese Falcon
The Big Shot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to High Sierra
Tom Santschi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Jeff Chandler

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

[edit]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Ownership

[edit]

I started writing this on the James Stewart page, but it clearly isn't the place for that so I'm putting it here:

I have to say, I feel a bit dejected by that comment you made about me and the Hepburn page...I've put so much work into it, it would be nice to have some appreciation for it rather than bitterness...I'm only ever trying to improve it, and I'm constantly looking for other people's opinions (I even asked you to step in for the peer review, but you chose not to) so I do resent being told that I act like I "own the page". I mean with the amount of work I've done for it (which just "happened", I never knew I would end up re-writing the whole thing, I just got a bit addicted to it) I've inevitably got attached to the article, and keep a close eye on it. And since I was going for GA and now maybe FA, I have to make sure that any changes made to it are within those guidelines—otherwise all my hard work is in vain. So if it sometimes look like I "own the page" that is why, and I wanted to explain that. But I am 100% open to other people working with me on the article. I'd like it in fact since I'm constantly second-guessing myself and wondering if what I'm doing is okay...

Please be a bit more sensitive to how hard some people work on here to make articles as good as they can possibly be. It's a good thing, not something to be bitter about. --Lobo512 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, 20,800 words?! Are you getting that by pasting it into Word? Because in that case, it will be including all the references (of which there are a lot) and captions, which don't count. Using the User:Dr pda/prosesize script, which counts "readable prose", it is 10,400 words. Anyway, that thing I said about 200 words an image was complete bollocks, I can't have been thinking at all when I said that. About the Philadelphia Story image, I guess that's purely a matter of personal opinion. I think they're both *great* images from one of my favourite films ever. If it wasn't for the pool one, which I also prefer because it's upright (I always think that looks good), the one of her being carried would be my second choice. I do really really love the current one though, there is such spark between them in that picture.
I didn't care a damn about wiki rules when I started here either, but somehow I've been caught up in the whole thing...this place is ridiculous the way it does that. Most editors here do care about them, so you will get any edits that go against the guidelines (such as tons of pictures) being challenged. And I know that FA doesn't mean anything when it comes down to it, 99.5% of readers won't notice the difference, but now that I've put so much work into the page I can't help but want that recognition...it's the only step left, really. And it would mean I could get her featured on the main page for a day. If you're a Kate fan, I'm sure you agree that would be pretty cool.
You should definitely add back a couple more pictures to the Jimmy Stewart page. Like I said, no-one was suggesting it be stripped down that much. --Lobo512 (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I forgot that you asked the question about Hepburn and Margaret Sullavan. That sounds like rubbish to me. She was certainly bitter when Leland Hayward married her (Sullavan), but apparently she moaned to her mum about it, and her mum told her she was being stupid because it was her own fault for not marrying him when he had asked. So then Hepburn called Maggie to congratulate her, and remained friends with Leland for years. She was with Howard Hughes pretty soon after Hayward, so I can't imagine she was hung up on the whole thing. --Lobo512 (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, with the story I've gotten, it wasn't personal in the least, it was high-velocity professional. If you think about it, they were sort of twins in playing extremely similar roles in extremely similar movies, and Sullavan and Hepburn were always competing for the same kind of part, with Sullavan arguably ranking slightly above Hepburn during much of the 30s. I think Sullavan's best movie is Borzage's The Mortal Storm (oh god is it ever going to be suppressed in a few years!!) and for Stewart, I rank it right alongside my own favorite Stewart film, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (although that's really more of a John Wayne movie). But for me The Mortal Storm is both Sullavan's and Stewart's signature film. By the way, Scorcese's The Aviator is one of my unsung favorites, and wasn't Blanchett smashing in that one? Upsmiler (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In all the many things I've read about Hepburn, I've never been made aware of a rivalry between her and Margaret Sullavan. I've not yet seen The Mortal Storm - I've heard good things about it so need to. Actually the only Stewart-Sullavan film I've seen is The Shop Around the Corner. I've only been watching classic-era films for a couple of years, so there's still tons I need to see. Lucky me. :)
Yeah I really like The Aviator too. It gets a mixed response, but I enjoy it very much. Since I know Hepburn inside-out it is easy for me to see problems in Blanchett's performance (and they change lots of things about her life, but of course that's inevitable) but she does a damn good job. Hepburn was so bizarre, lol, it would be impossible to get her perfect. I'm just waiting for a Tracy-Hepburn biopic now! What's stopping them?! --Lobo512 (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think finding someone to play Tracy is the biggest stumbling block in the world. Who could take that part on? Blanchett would have to repeat her bravura work as Hepburn (if she weren't in it, I would assume that the script was faulty). I'd be curious to see how they handle this recent "gay" controversy, probably something some writer dreamed up. You know, there's a library of books indicating that Cary Grant was gay but, based on what I've read and the people who actually knew him, I intuit that he wasn't, not that it matters. I've seen a lot of Tracy's early films on full-sized movie screens lately and he was even more incredible earlier in his career. The board meeting scene in The Power and the Glory remains electrifying and it's no wonder that Tracy was paired with Clark Gable as a team; of young leading men of that time, no one else had their force and power (for more of that, you have to look to an older actor named Wallace Beery, contractually MGM's highest paid actor in 1933, and for extremely good reason).
You mentioned just getting into early films. If you happen to live in New York, by all means be sure to join the Museum of Modern Art. They run double features in two huge theatres every night, often with the director and cast introducing the movie and taking questions afterward, and run films all day on weekends, seldom showing a film more than twice in a week, if that, unless it's one that they're showcasing for some good reason. The movies are from every time frame and nation on earth, and they run all sorts of festivals and retrospectives. The annual Indian retrospective knocks everyone's socks off (the best of India's gargantuan film output will turn you into a different person by the end of the week) and they've done retrospectives for Janet Gaynor and Isabelle Huppert that I've loved (Huppert attended and introduced the long version of Heaven's Gate, which is a truly great film when not hacked down, believe it or not, and the whole cast delivers superb performances; Gaynor couldn't make it to hers, probably because it would involve exhuming her corpse). The mammothly comprehensive Hitchcock retrospective even included the early silent films for which he'd written the intertitles! The membership fee is only $75 per year and includes the galleries and bringing friends to see and tour everything for $5 apiece (for your friends, everything's available to members for free).
Like Bogdanovich before me, I've cultivated a love of the "transitional" films, those from 1927-1929, often with orchestral soundtracks and no dialogue. Bogdanovich has always preached that the transitional period aces out 1939 as the best era for films, and he is so very right. I now prefer silent film to sound film anyway (it's true that it's a different art form, like opera or ballet) and it's where you'll find the best performances ever recorded on film, like Lon Chaney, Sr. in The Unknown (with 19-year-old Joan Crawford). F. W. Murnau's Sunrise is my favorite film, the damndest thing I've ever seen in my life, and Seventh Heaven and Street Angel, which altogether comprise the three films for which Gaynor won the first Best Actress Oscar, are also rapturous to behold. Gaynor continued an entrancing career when film shifted to sound and remains one of America's most compelling film actresses--and no matter whom she worked with, she was always top-billed during the sound era, partly a reverberation of the stunning greatness of Sunrise. Whatever you do, be sure to try to explore her work under the best possible circumstances.
Oh, at your request, I did put back a couple of Stewart photos (I get so tired of Wikipedia Photo Wars that I had simply removed the dozen or so that I'd earlier put in). I also expanded the directors list in the "Legacy" section. Somebody had left out Borzage(!!!), De Mille, Lubitsch (!!!), George Stevens, and Don Siegel. By the way, I'm not that much of a devotee of The Shop Around the Corner (I actually like the remake, You've Got Mail, better but don't tell anybody) although I have seen some earlier work by Lubitsch that set my brain on fire. For Sullavan's finest film, don't miss The Mortal Storm. Upsmiler (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that it would be very hard to find someone to play Tracy. And knowing Hollywood, they probably would bring in the homosexual rumours. That would piss me off to no end, it's so obviously bollocks. James Curtis has just written a brand new biography of Tracy (which I highly recommend, I never knew a biography could be so detailed) and at the end makes a point of dismissing the rumours. He researched Tracy to death, had access to his private notebooks and everything, and found no evidence of it at all. And Katharine Houghton said she never had any reason to suspect Hepburn was a lesbian (and literally laughed at the idea that Tracy was gay). And I think she would know better than William Mann, who is gay himself and just wants to claim everyone in Golden Age Hollywood was gay (he wrote a whole book specifically about that).
I'm afraid I'm on a whole different continent from New York, but I do live in London which also has lots of wonderful film-going opportunities. Unfortunately I rarely take advantage of them... I enjoy silent films too. There's something so poetic about them. Sunrise certainly is wonderful, but I think The Passion of Joan of Arc is even better. Have you seen The Artist yet?--Lobo512 (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen The Artist but I think they ran it at MoMA (the Museum of Modern Art) lately or maybe they will very soon (I neglected to mention that they run a lot of first run movies once, and also premiere a lot of films there--you never know whom you'll run into in the halls). It's also playing at the Paris Theatre right behind the Plaza Hotel, one of the loveliest places for seeing a film, aside from having to spring for full price. I think I'll make a point of seeing it somewhere, though. You know, I've had many opportunities to see The Passion of Joan of Arc but somehow never have. I know all about it, though, and will catch up with it eventually and be enthralled when I finally do.
Oh, I left a lengthy new message in the Stewart/Talk section. It's amazing to me that our correspondent somehow detects no difference between those starkly different photographs yet advocates using a Hollywood Walk of Fame photograph, the most definitively repetitive and meaningless picture that could possibly be uploaded anywhere.
This recent business about Tracy being gay echos the Cary Grant phenomenon. As I mentioned, there's a cottage industry of books by gay writers claiming that Grant was gay but those who actually knew him debunk it, as did Grant himself (Grant would say, "There's nothing wrong with being gay, I'm just not"). It's impossible to be in the entertainment business, or even to have much of any sort of life, without having gay friends, and Grant was anything but an exception. I think there's something unique about Grant that makes people want to claim him for some reason: some Jewish people seem to resent that he somehow isn't Jewish (practically all successful modern actors are and a huge percentage of the earlier ones were, of course, even Paul Newman and Harrison Ford), many gay writers insist that he was gay and offer baroque constructs verifying it, and so on. It all stems from the real phenomenon that people have presumably been discussing since The Awful Truth first hit theatres: everybody wants to be Cary Grant. It's true of him like no other actor ever: everybody wants to be Cary Grant.
I just saw the new Tracy book you're talking about in a bookstore window and I'll definitely have a look at it. I'd also like to read the most recent George Raft biography (no longer very recent) since he led a really fascinating life, complete with a humiliating career decline of almost Shakespearean intensity. His stunning dancing talent, for which we have too little film, really sets him apart as a major talent and he was wonderful with great directors like Raoul Walsh. God, I really like The Bowery (1933), and it doesn't hurt that my favorite sound era actor, Wallace Beery, was the lead in that one. Upsmiler (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know wikipedia can be extremely frustrating, but I'd urge you to try and be a bit more objective about this. Everyone on here is only ever doing what they think is the right thing to do. It can be annoying as hell when someone else disgarees with you, but that really is the nature of it. And ultimately, the person whose desire more closely fits the WP guidelines is always going to be able to come out on top. I'm afraid to say I have noticed you make a few edits that go against the guidelines—incorporating your point of view, using WP:Words to watch, adding multiples pictures—and these are things that people will change. I think if you do want to carry on posting here, you're better off reading through all the guidelines...even if you do resent them, it will ultimately make your time here a lot less frustrating if you are editing in the same way as other people. Otherwise, maybe you really should enforce a break on yourself because you seem pretty bitter about this place...I don't know, I hope you don't think I'm being rude, I'm just trying to help.
I've already had to concede things on the Hepburn article that I personally valued because I was told they were inappropriate/against the rules. I think as it is now there aren't too many things people can argue with...That's the key, you see, just keep everything within the rules and then you're safe. ;)
I have to take issue with this statement: "[he] will doubtless campaign to take out all those various Davis faces, so different that it's hard to believe they're the same woman, and easily the most valuable aspect of that page". Bette's aticle is one of the only classic actor pages that someone has bothered to write a full, coherent summary of her career. It is wonderful for that. I'm wondering if you place too much value on the images...Remember that someone only needs to type "Bette Davis" into google to get hundreds of pictures of her, but nowhere else can they get a comprehensive, yet concise, summary of her career. This is clearly the important thing about the article, and is what all articles on here should ideally be. I actually do find Bette's article a bit on the crowded side. I'd also like to replace all the blurry trailer images with high quality production stills, like I have on the Hepburn and Tracy articles. It's something I plan to do at some point (when I don't have a million other things I want to do as well, haha). --Lobo512 (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't forget ;-)

[edit]

File:James Garner Jean Willes Maverick 1960.JPG We hope (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Action in Arabia

[edit]

Did some work on this article. Take a look. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here Comes the Navy

[edit]

Take a look at some revisions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Upsmiler&oldid=1204640725"