Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Casting Vivien Leigh

William Pratt wrote in his book Scarlett Fever,

It wouldn't be, actually, until after [producer David O. Selznick's] death twenty-seven years later that his personal effects would uncover a masterful public deception. These effects yielded a privately owned print of A Yank at Oxford, rental receipts for all of Miss Leigh's British films and various photographs of her — all date-stamped between February and August of 1938. His confidential correspondence of that time included a thank-you to M-G-M for the print of Miss Leigh's film and discussions with [his brother, agent] Myron Selznick asking that his client, Laurence Olivier, postpone divorce proceedings until after Gone with the Wind began. . . .

But his most guarded correspondence later showed that from February [1938] on Vivien Leigh had the inside track to play Scarlett O'Hara. Mr. Selznick began negotiations with [producer] Alexander Korda to secure her services for a commitment later that year and found the overseas movie man was not immediately receptive to the idea. However, ki was informed of the Selznick interest, sworn to secrecy and told that a screen test was not presently necessary since David Selznick could view her previous films instead.

Walloon 00:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistency

How come this article says that Scarlett was met with mixed reviews while the Scarlett article says it was universally panned? Ken Arromdee 08:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Casting Call

OK, now that we've established every woman in Hollywood tested for it (though Selznik had already chosen Viv Leigh), can we mention the role of Rhett? Beyond "I don't give a damn", I mean. It's not like Gable was the only choice. For instance (hard as it may be to believe), Margaret Mitchell's first choice was Groucho Marx... Trekphiler 14:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Margaret Mitchell's joke went right over your head. — Walloon 21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And into the bargain, might one perhaps request some variety of plot summary? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.97.17.122 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC.

academy awards

This articles claims that this movie won 8 academy awards. The 8 plus academy award reciever page article claims that the film won 9 academy awards. The cover of the dvd claims the film won 10 academy awards. I assume the dvd is right.

I think it's because it won 10 but two of them were 'special' one-off awards for which no other film was even nominated. See the list of Oscars at the bottom of the article. The Singing Badger 22:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone do a similar table job on the Titanic page? I really hate how they all bgrag about 11 Oscars when I'm sure several of those were technical awards which here seem to be considered a lesser award. Dollvalley (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

um, should we have a plot summery? Evil Deep Blue 02:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Why the "um"? — Walloon 06:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because Evil Deep Blue wanted to....ITS OK!!!!!- nena_linda 6:44 AM, 31 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.137.146 (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed quote from beginning

There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South... Here in this pretty world Gallantry took its last bow.. Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave... Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered. A Civilization gone with the wind...

The above quote was at the beginning of the article, placed there by an anonymous editor. I have removed it as it didn't belong at the top of the article. Should anyone desire to see the quote back in I recommend making a quotes section. — GT 11:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

He wanted to put the "um" leave 'em alone....lol

I think The quote shold be mentioned. Just say this statemnt was incuded at the beginning of the film when released on DVD. Ogioh (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

McDaniel and Gable

I've read numerous books on the making of this movie, and have never seen the claim that Clark Gable was threatening to boycott the Atlanta premiere because Hattie McDaniel was not invited. The accounts I have seen say that he did not like to attend premieres in general, and he became even more dubious about attending when he heard that his friend director Victor Fleming was also boycotting the premiere due to differences Fleming was having with producer Selznick. Can anyone offer a citation for the Gable-McDaniel allegation? — Walloon 08:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

V0.5 nomination

This article is rated by the Films project as B-class. While that alone doesn't make it ineligble, the lack of reference is legit and as V0.5 articles should be in the top 1-2%, the article fails on quality grounds, mainly due to there only being 1 reference. I suggest a peer review and then Good Article run, as the topic is clearly important enough for V0.5. Rlevse 16:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Argument against widescreen

I don't know how popular this is, but I read an article once where this film was the argument against widscreen formats (nothing's cut off in full-frame). If it has any leeway at all, I think it should be included in the article--Attitude2000 15:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh? What do you mean? The film was shot in a full-frame format, due to widescreen not being invented yet. For one of the many re-releases, the film was presented in wide-screen, with the top an bottom of the frame cut off, which displeased many. Perhaps that's what your'e thinkign of ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 01:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't have to be added to the article, but I just wanted to mention that.--Attitude2000 20:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw it with the top and bottom cut off back during that awful craze and it drove me out of my mind as I watched it. Saw the same abomination perpetrated upon "Casablanca" and that was even worse since that one has more closeups. Accubam (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Plot/Synopsis?

While all the "behind the scenes" features are fine, can someone please add a synopsis or plot summary? Without it, the article is missing a very important part of any film entry. Crito2161 00:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a plot synopsis. It's lengthy, but then, Gone With the Wind is twice as long as most movies. — Walloon 01:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the Plot Summary does need to be shortened, utilizing concise speech might also be a good idea. The plot summary is overly detailed, in my opinion. But I really came here to see where the picture was filmed (i.e. what location/s it was filmed in)... its not in the article as far as I can tell, unless I just missed it... if its it not in the article can someone add it... and if it is in the article, can someone move, or add it to the lead? (Where was this picture filmed?) Wolfpeaceful (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely far too long. A more concise version would be appropriate. Mllefantine (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much it's changed given the length of time elapsed since the previous comments, but I split this section into two parts given that the film had an intermission and is noted for its length. Perhaps that will help. Recognizance (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It needs a lot of work, with too many unnecessary modifiers ("rural" Georgia, "not "truly" loving Charles) that give the text the editor's POV tone.--Reedmalloy (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Aunt Jemima

I have removed Aunt Jemima as an example of a "happy slave." That visual trademark was created in 1893 long after slavery ended, and nothing of the trademark itself indicated that Aunt Jemima is anything other than a servant, specifically a cook. The Aunt Jemima of recent years, without the head scarf and with pearl earrings, looks more like a middle class African-American housewife. Likewise, Uncle Ben's rice was named for an African-American rice grower in Texas, and the model for the trademark illustration was Frank Brown, the maitre d' of a Chicago restrauant. — Walloon 02:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Motd

Wikipedia:Motto of the day Check this! ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Vivien Leigh's pay

I have removed the statement that Vivien Leigh was paid $15,000 for her performance and that that was a huge amount for the time. According to a trivia item in the IMDb, "Vivien Leigh worked for 125 days and received about $25,000. Clark Gable worked for 71 days and received over $120,000." Even $25,000 was not a huge amount; Leigh's biographer Alexander Walker wrote, "It was not a large sum; indeed it was beggarly considering it was the rate for a part that had engaged the wiles and wishes of established stars for two years and more. She was already receiving as much under her old [Alexander] Korda contract." — Walloon 16:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Aspect ratio

I removed the mention that the 1998 reissue restored the original aspect ratio. Actually, all releases except the 1967 widescreen release had the original aspect ratio (1.37:1). The problem wasn't with the film itself having the correct aspect ratio, the problem from 1954 onward that the projector apertures and movie screens were shaped for widescreen movies (1.85:1 or higher). The 1998 reissue compensated for this by shrinking the image so that the top and bottom of the image would still be onscreen, and then filling in the left and right side of the image with black bars. — Walloon 20:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This article discusses aspect ratio and refers to the "original aspect ratio", but no where I can find actually states what that original ratio was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.18.14 (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Title Incorrect? Top grossing?

Firstly, isn't the title of the film "Gone With the Wind"? Why would "With" not be capitalized? Secondly, the article claimed, "Gone with the Wind is the highest grossing film in box-office history, adjusted for inflation." Is that adjusted to 1939 dollars? Because GWtW had many rereleases. The source listed doesn't say how it arrived at its figures. It does say its list is only for American films and only for money made in the U.S, so it's not a valid source for the claim of "in box office history" anyway. In fact, I can't find any source that claims it's the highest grossing film worldwide (adjusted or unadjusted). Box Office Mojo says its the highest grossing film domestically, when adjusted. I feel with an improperly sourced claim that may or may not be true, it's best to remove it. Celedor15 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the title of the book, it does say, "Gone with the Wind". So that probably is the correct title of the film. Odd. Celedor15 22:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The title on the film itself is displayed in all capital letters. But in publicity releases by Selznick International Pictures, the title was always given as Gone With the Wind. — Walloon 00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's because the word "with" functions as a preposition, and in titles, prepositions are not capitalized unless they are the first orlast word of the title. (See http://www.writersblock.ca/tips/monthtip/tipmar98.htm if you are interested). Mllefantine (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Somebody put back in that Gone With the Wind is the all time box office grosser when adjusted for inflation, but a look at the link provided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films#List_adjusted_for_inflation) says exactly what my concern expressed above was: "it treats all receipts as if they were earned in the initial year of release, which is clearly incorrect." Gone With the Wind has been released ten times or so, so to adjust all the money to 1939 dollars is not right. I'm taking the claim out of the article. If someone wants to put it back in, please show a source for this claim that adjusts the box office total correctly and deals with both international and domestic grosses. Celedor15 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody did it again... removed it again. 69.215.149.19 (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Somebody did it again... removed again.69.215.136.153 (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed it again 69.215.136.153 (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It is the highest grossing film ever. It should be included as the 08 edition of Guiness World Records recognised it as the highest grossing film of all time inflation included. I'll find a link. Ogioh (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are the actual domestic gross numbers for each release and adjusted for inflation for each year via the West Egg calculator:

1939-1940 $ 945,000.00 ACTUAL $14,357,665.60 ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION

1942 $1,500,000.00 ACTUAL $19,606,784.01 ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION

1947 $5,000,000.00 ACTUAL $47,699,889.91 ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION

1954 $7,500,000.00 ACTUAL $59,420,235.98 ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION

1961 $6,700,000.00 ACTUAL $47,710,802.12 ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION

1967 $30,500,000.00 ACTUAL $194,602,734.59 ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION

1974 $6,000,000.00 ACTUAL $25,915,759.10 ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION

1989 $2,403,316.00 ACTUAL $4,122,026.63 ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION

1998 $6,750,112.00 ACTUAL $8,877,792.78 ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION

TOTAL DOMESTIC GROSS ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION $422,313,690.72

Note that this figure does not include grosses outside of North America or its television fees. If anyone cares to do the research and find out what the rest of the worldwide grosses for the film were, we can end this debate this once and for all.

These figures come from Box Office Mojo, IMDB and the box office gross site The Numbers (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1939/0GWTW.php)

comparison with the book

too bad there is no comparison-with-the-book chapter in this article (like scarlet's son and daughter with her first husbands)... anyone? 84.227.159.190 08:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ted Turner

Ted Turner does not own the copyright to the movie Gone With the Wind. The copyright is owned by Turner Entertainment, whose parent company is Turner Broadcasting, owned by Time Warner Inc. As of 2003, Ted Turner owned only 3.23 percent of the stock of Time Warner. — Walloon 06:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Grosses

Adjusted for inflation, the film's original gross of $191 million would be around $2.6 billion dollars in 2006. ref Numbers may be entered in the form found on http://www.westegg.com/inflation/, a site which claims to be based on data found in the Consumer Price Index statistics from Historical Statistics of the United States and the Statistical Abstracts of the United States. /ref

That inflation-adjusted figure is quite wrong, and greatly exaggerates the amount GWTW has earned. The fault is in assuming that all $191 million gross was earned in 1939 dollars, when that certainly was not the case. GWTW grossed more in its 1967 release than it did in its original 1939-1940 release, and more in its 1998 release than in 1967. No inflated-adjusted figure will be correct unless it adjusts the individual grosses for the time periods in which they were received. — Walloon 13:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC) People seem to avoid looking at this discussion. I've had to edit the page for the 10th time on this matter. People, please, whatever boxofficemojo says, it has not been shown that it's the highest grossing film of all time adjusted for inflation. See above for the reason. 68.254.160.116 (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

GWTW, with inflation calculated (anyway you calculate it) is the highest grossing film of all time. See the discussion here: [1]. JCgirlandlegal (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

How was the current value ($400,176,459) calculated? I don't see a cite. According to boxofficemojo.com, the unadjusted gross was $198,676,459. CKL —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Where are we getting this 1.4 billion dollar adjusted value? The 2004 edition of Guinness World Records says that Gone With the Wind made $3,785,107,801 and sold 283,100,000 tickets as opposed to Titanic's 130,900,000. I believe this book over some random website let's change it to that instead? Crazybilby (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And i believe in simple math, common sense and printed sources of the era. Enlighten yourself here: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/forums/viewtopic.htm?t=82668. So while it's still possible GWTW remains domestically top grossing film, no way it's a worldwide champ, trailing behind both Titanic and Avatar. 77.45.252.16 (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Title of the film

The title of the novel is capitalized as Gone with the Wind. The title on the film, with its display font, has all capital letters: GONE WITH THE WIND. However, all press materials released by Selznick International Pictures at the time of its release capitalized the film's title as Gone With the Wind. This would argue that the film's title is incorrectly capitalized here at Wikipedia. — Walloon 21:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. It has been corrected. HM211980 (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)HM211980

Well, since then, it's been re-corrected, apparently. It does look quite odd to have "with" entirely in lower case. I'd like to change it back, but will wait for comments. It also affects the way we spell the title of the book. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The title of the article carries the correct capitalisation as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). Betty Logan (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have the greatest respect for such conventions. But this one "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". I would say that most educated people, if asked to write the title of this film, would capitalise "With". That's also how the studio spelt it. I don't think our latter-day conventions were ever intended to over-ride how the studios actually spelt the names of their films. This is a classic case of an "occasional exception". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think you'd most likely get a 50/50 split if people tried to spell it (at least with people unfamiliar with the film), so I don't think there is an argument for it either way based on common case. The case for capitalisation is that the promotional literature capitalises, the case against is that this is the title of an article not the film, and Wikipedia tends to ignore the various capitalisation/spelling quirks in favor of standardisation. However, in view of the guideline to not capitalise conjunctions, it would be wise to get further input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film to determine if an exception is warranted in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get the distinction you're making between the title of something and the title of the WP article on that something. Obviously, we have to include "(film)" in our title to distinguish it from our article on the novel or whatever other uses of the phrase exist. That alone makes it a different title, agreed. But that surely cannot justify changing the spelling of the core component of the title ("Gone With the Wind") just to suit our conventions. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that Wikipedia reserves the right to title their own articles, whatever the name of the subject. It's generally a good idea to get as close to the film title as possible, but we're not obliged to follow the spelling conventions of the film. I'm not saying your point isn't valid, just that I'm unsure how it weighs against the MOS. The fact that the promotional literature used a specific capitalisation might be reason enough to change the title, but WP:MOSFILM might have decided that their own titling conventions take precedence in cases like this. Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

How do reliable sources spell the title? If we use Gone With the Wind, would that eliminate the (film)?—Mike Allen 00:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be Gone with the Wind. The film guidelines are based on these general guidelines: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). "In general, each word in English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except for articles ('a', 'an', 'the'), the word "to" as part of an infinitive, prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., 'on', 'from', 'and', 'with'), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle." The status quo is correct. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Erik, as I already pointed out above, that guideline allows for occasional exceptions, and it should be used with common sense. You're regarding it as an iron rule that must never be diverged from, but that's not the correct approach. The studio spells "With" with a capital W. Our guideline does not prevent us from also doing that. And, in my opinion, we should do it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It seemed like you were pointing out the film guidelines, so I referenced the general guidelines on which these are based. It's even part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style here. Gone with the Wind is not a rare example of a film title that bucks this capitalization approach; it is the norm, but for purposes of presentation in the encyclopedia, it is formatted in this manner. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Lots of movies are released with their titles stylised in various ways; as Walloon brings up for example, the proper stylisation of this title is actually to write it in all caps. If we want any kind of consistency it would be completely unsustainable to go by anything other than the English standards for title capitalisation. Smetanahue (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Title of the novel

In the photo of the novel dustjacket (in the article), it clearly shows as "Gone With the Wind". Somewhere in that Talk page I saw a note that said editors had changed all the caps to conform to wiki standards. That seems strange when you can see the capitalization on "With" on the book jacket. shouldn't the capitalization be what was on the book and film when produced? --Parkwells 23:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Writing credits

Producer David O. Selznick was one of the very few people who knew exactly which writer contributed what to the final movie. He wrote in a memo from October 1939, about the movie's writing credits:

[Y]ou can say frankly that of the comparatively small amount of material in the picture which is not from the book, most is my own personally, and the only original lines of dialog which are not my own are a few from Sidney Howard and a few from Ben Hecht and a couple more from John Van Druten. Offhand I doubt that there are ten original words of [Oliver] Garrett's in the whole script. As to construction, this is about eighty per cent my own, and the rest divided between Jo Swerling and Sidney Howard, with Hecht having contributed materially to the construction of one sequence.

No Val Lewton, no F. Scott Fitzgerald. — Walloon 16:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Tara set at Selznick and MGM studios

It is indisputable fact that the Tara set was built at Selznick International Pictures, not at M-G-M, and that the set was sold, dismantled, and sent to Georgia in 1959. I have provided excellent reference citations for this, from both 1959 and today. If you believe that the set was built at M-G-M, and that there is a story in the Los Angeles Times claiming it was demolished in the early 1980s, it is your obligation to cite the title, date, and page of the article. — Walloon 04:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You give "excellent" references that are debunked by photographs on Wikipedia. The poster refered to them, and indeed he/she was correct. You can't argue with photographic evidence. It seems the Tara set was indeed on the Selznick lot long after it was supposedly sold and shipped to Georgia. As for the Los Angeles Times article, you are just as responsible for proving the material true as you are proving it to be false. Therefore one of you ought to do the research. Lexis/Nexis anyone?—Preceding unsigned comment added by SUNY Boy (talk • contribs) 00:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the 1965 aerial photograph of 40 Acres does not show the Tara set. And if you are claiming that there is an article in the Los Angeles Times from the early 1980s showing the set's destruction, it is your reponsibility to give the article title, date, and page. You are the same person who claimed who claimed you used to visit the set on the M-G-M lot. Now you say it was at the Desilu/Paramount 40 Acres lot. — Walloon 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no question Wallon is correct about the set and its fate. As another piece of evidence, here is this passage from the June 23, 1965, New York Times obituary of David O. Selznick:

"Nothing in Hollywood is permanent," Mr. Selznick said in 1959 on a Hollywood set, as Tara, the mansion built for Gone With The Wind, was being dismembered and shipped to Atlanta, Ga. "Once photographed, life here is ended. It is almost symbolic of Hollywood. Tara has no rooms inside. It is just a facade. So much of Hollywood is a facade."

We just need to work on the language of the ownership of the Culver City "Forty Acres" lot where the set was originally built. The backlot was established by Ralph Ince in 1919. From him it passed to Pathé and then to RKO when that studio acquired Pathé in 1931. According to The Genius of the System, by Thomas Schatz, in the mid-1930s

Selznick had been leasing space from RKO on a limited basis, and he decided to take over the entire RKO-Pathe facility, beginning in February 1937 when he planned to start shooting Gone With the Wind. (p. 181)

The lot was definitely back in RKO's hands no later than the late 1940s, when Howard Hughes acquired the studio. The only ambiguity is whether Selznick leased the entire lot from RKO or whether he actually bought it and then RKO bought it back. Schatz's language--and more common business procedure--suggest the former, but perhaps ambiguous phrasing (like Schatz's) should be used in the article until definite evidence is attained.—DCGeist 01:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The 1965 aerial photo of the Forty Acres lot shows that the Tara set was gone (with the wind, you might say). You can see the Atlanta Depot set in the center of the photo. The Tara façade was built to the left of the Atlanta Depot set, and at a right angle to it. (There's a photo of David Selznick standing in the Depot, looking to his right at Tara.) All that remains of that set is a mound of dirt, visible in the photo.

DCGeist, I found this in the New York Times, "News of the Screen" column, Feb. 16, 1937, p. 19:

Selznick International has taken over the sixty-acre RKO-Pathé studio in Culver City, including the famous "Forty Acres" location site in Baldwin Hills, under a long term lease.

— Walloon 02:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That cite's proved quite helpful for the RKO Pictures article.

Oh...and SUNY Boy, this isn't about Wallon "being right no matter what." It's about Walloon being right because he's provided good-quality evidence of what the truth is. So have others. You have not. "Nor" has 24.45.196.36. You've given us no reason in the world to believe we "may find the truth somewhere in between."—DCGeist 05:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop already. Enough. This isn't about your being right no matter what, and it's certainly not about a false pride of ownership in contributions. It's about getting the info right. If you have the ability to do the research, which I and preseumably the person you are debating with do not, then do it. If not, allow for the possibility of another side of the story. I think you may find the truth somewhere in between. Welcome to Wikipdeia. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by SUNY Boy 19:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The person I am debating with is you. You are posting as both "SUNY Boy" and as "24.45.196.36". See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. — Walloon 02:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[E/C] I've checked the L.A. Times archive and they have stories that clearly say the Tara set was located on the Laird Studios backlot (AKA Selznick International, RKO, Desilu) prior to its sale and move to Georgia. It also contains a July 16, 1978 correction to a July 9, 1978 article which incorrectly captioned a photo showing the demolition of the Twelve Oaks set as having been the Tara set. A 1985 article talks about the fight between two proposed GWTW them parks, one of which had the original Tara facade. The articles are in PDF format, so I can't simply cut and paste the citations, but if anyone wants more info I can provide more. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Was finally able to access pqarchiver.com. The "correction" you refer to is a correction regarding a photo used in the real estate section of the Los Angeles to illustrate how homes in Pasadena, California were copying the Tara look. The Times did not use a photo of Tara, but apparently used the Twelve Oaks set instead. The article had nothing to do with the actual Tara set on the RKO lot or the MGM lot. 24.45.196.36 13:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The date of the articles you cite are incorrect. The article ran either in 1980 or 1981 in -- if memory serves me correctly -- the Calendar section prior to the time when that section was devoted to entertainment articles. It contained two photos, a before and an after, with the story printed below it. 24.45.196.36 02:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Needed: Title of article, date of article, page number. You are obligated to do your own research; no one is obligated to do the research for you. I have provided two verifiable, independent citations, one from the New York Times, the other from a doctoral dissertation on the subject. Two other editors have verified it with other sources. You have not provided any verifiable, independent citations. — Walloon 02:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: The Los Angeles Times also covered the deconstruction of the Tara set at Desilu. See May 17, 1959, p. G10. — Walloon 03:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked the Times for 1980 and 1981, and can't find any mention of the Tara set. If SUNY Boy or the anon can provide a more specifc reference then we can look it up. However until then we need to stick with what we can verify. If the alternate explanation is correct there should be references beside a single 25-year newspaper article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps SUNY Boy is thinking of this article:

• "Movie Studios Boom Again in a Different Kind of Heyday" MARK STEIN, Los Angeles Times; Apr 29, 1979; pg. WS4

The layout of the article has two large photos that are side by side above the headline. The right photo shows a pillored mansion set being bulldozed. The caption of the photo reads:

• GONE WITH THE WIND: A push from a tractor did what Gen. Sherman and the Yankees didn't do to Twelve Oaks, one of the southern mansion sets for the classic of the '30s. Set was demolished in 1978 at old MGM lot 2 to clear sites for homes that will rival Scarlett's Tara.

The article itself is about studios selling off their backlots, and doesn't mention GWTW or its sets. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone with knowledge of the M-G-M backlot has written me about a mansion there:

"There was one at the back of Lot 2, by Cohn Park, the formal gardens and the Esther Williams Pool. It was seen as a mansion and embassies etc. in Man From Uncle episodes. It was a brick mansion with white pillars and sometimes a wall and wrought iron gates were used in front of it. Seen in the opening of The Spy With My Face."

That brick mansion sounds similar to the Tara facade, and is probably what is being confused for it. By the way, the L.A. Times was wrong about the set that was demolished at MGM in 1978. The only part of the exterior of the Twelve Oaks mansion that was built for Gone with the Wind was the front porch, for the scene where John and India Wilkes welcome the O'Hara family. It was built around the entrance of one of the soundstages at Selznick International (i.e., RKO-Pathé), so that the camera could dolly from the exterior into the interior in one shot, following Scarlett. The establishing shot of the Twelve Oaks plantation, with the mansion, the oaks, and the carriages going up the driveway, was a process shot, where the mansion and the oaks were a matte painting. Only the driveway and the carriages were real.

The only parts of GWTW that were filmed at M-G-M were the backyard scenes of Scarlett and Rhett's Atlanta mansion, where Bonnie practices riding her horse (and is killed in a fall). Those were filmed at Cohn Park at M-G-M. — Walloon 08:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Where the Tara set stood on the RKO-Pathé Forty Acres backlot: a map done by a professional surveyor, dated May 9, 1940. The Tara set stands northwest of the Atlanta Depot set, at the wide end of the triangular Forty Acres lot. Contrast with this 1965 aerial photo. Where Tara stood is now the prison camp of Hogan's Heroes. — Walloon 23:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here’s the problem:

I initially made a change to some references relating to the Tara Plantation set from Gone with the Wind (film). Wikipedia editors have wiped these changes away on numerous occasions despite the fact that I’ve supplied information casting doubt on paragraphs describing the set’s usage once filming had competed on that motion picture.

Wikipedia pages at Gone with the Wind (film) and RKO Forty Acres refer to a news story about the set having been moved from its Culver City, CA location on the RKO Forty Acres backlot in 1959 to a location in Atlanta, GA. As the story goes, the set supposedly sat in a warehouse for years, rotting away. The only thing that was salvageable was the front door which eventually made its way to the Margaret Mitchell Museum.

However, a story also ran in the Los Angeles Times sometime between 1979-1981 and documented the set’s destruction during that later period, not 1959. It’s also interesting to note that this did not happen on the RKO Forty Acres lot, but a mile or so away on MGM’s backlot #2, and was done in order to make way for a housing project. Was this set moved from the RKO Forty Acres lot or was a replica built on lot #2? Unfortunately the Los Angeles Times article doesn’t say. However, the article carried two photos -- a before and an after -- in which a bulldozer is shown wrecking the structure. In addition, I support this story as I personally visited the Tara set on backlot #2 on multiple occasions in the late 1970’s and in 1980. Unfortunately, getting a copy of the Los Angeles Times story costs money. Articles published in the Times prior to 1985 are available one of two ways: 1) via a $40 payment to a researcher at the Times, or 2) by giving the exact date, section, and page number to ProQuest who will then make a copy of the story… for a price. I’m unwilling to do this, and see no logic in an editor’s dismissal of a reference simply because a contributor doesn’t want to go out of pocket.

To further throw doubt on the story of the set being sent to Atlanta is the fact that photos of the RKO Forty Acres lot taken in 1965 (and used on Wikipedia) clearly show the Tara set still standing. Here’s how you can see it:

· First, it’s best to give a clear north-south orientation of the photo. The right side of the photo is the north side of the backlot. The road running along this side is Higuera Street (http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?q1=8509+Higuera+Street%2C+Culver+City%2C+CA+90230). The top of the photo is the west end of the backlot.

· Now take a look at the page that is given as a link on the RKO Forty Acres Wikipedia page at http://www.retroweb.com/40acres.html. If you click on this image, it will come up in larger form in a new window. In addition, here’s another map from a different source found at http://www.jimnolt.com/40acresmap.htm. The map on this page clearly shows the Tara set at the north-west corner.

· With regard to the map (above), pay particular attention to where the turn in the road is on Jefferson Boulevard. This turn will help further orient you in the following 1965 RKO Forty Acres photo link supplied by Wikipedia editor, “Walloon” (http://www.jimnolt.com/Graphics/x1.jpg). In fact Walloon made a claim to me that, “Tara set stood to the left of where the Atlanta Depot appears in the center of that [photo].” But as we can clearly see from the previous map, that was not the case. In fact, if you look at this photo that Walloon provides, go to the spot that was indicated for Tara on the map. Lo’ and behold, we find the standing Tara set.

· And thanks to Walloon for also providing a link of a close up of this photo where we can get an even better view of the set (http://www.jimnolt.com/tara2.jpg ). The arrow next to the text points toward the south side of the lot along Jefferson Boulevard… not the correct end of the lot, especially when you consider that it’s pointing to spot that’s on the ridge of a gully. But, if you look at where the set is supposed to be as per the above maps, you will see a car parked in front of none other than the Tara set. Now, compare this closeup to the 1940’s aerial photo found on the first Wikidpedia link I gave you above (http://www.jimnolt.com/40acresmap.htm). Notice where the house sits in that photo. Compare it again to the close-up provided by Walloon. There is no question it is one and the same.

Despite all of this information, I’ve been accused of engaging in an “edit war” any time I attempt to contribute it to the Gone with the Wind (film) and RKO Forty Acres pages. Although I initially deleted the version of events as contributed by others, I later conceded the possibility of there being two versions. Being respectful of other contributors and editors, my contributions at this point were very specific in acknowledging two separate theories. Unfortunately this was completely deleted by Walloon and others. The description of a so-called “edit war” seems to apply more aptly to Wallon and other editors who chose to delete my contributions… and who for a short time blocked my ability to make any further edits on the Wikipedia site.

I respectfully suggest that the information I’ve added be allowed to remain as a second theory. Further, if Wikipedia has the funds for research, an editor might want to find the Los Angeles Times article I’ve made reference to. Last but not least, the behavior as demonstrated by Walloon and other editors must be addressed. Wikipedia does not benefit by such actions as it only serves to alienate the public. 19:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You make the process of verifying the existence of this supposed Los Angeles Times article far more difficult than it in fact is. There is no cost at all for conducting a keyword search in the online archives which will give you the article's title, date, and usually either a brief summary or the first paragraph of the article--all for free. If you will note, editor Will Beback indicated that he did this above, and reported "I checked the Times for 1980 and 1981, and can't find any mention of the Tara set." If you can not identify this article you keep insisting exists by the same free, readily available method that I, for instance, have used to locate over a dozen L.A. Times articles on various matters, and if you also refuse to go to a free public library and search there, there's really no reason at all to give this claim any credence.

As for your photo analysis, it is suggestive, but very far from conclusive. Much of it, for instance, relies on the dating of Image:RKO Forty Acres.jpg as 1965. Yet there is no good evidence that this dating is correct. The image was uploaded without the required source information--we don't know where it came from, who the copyright holder is, or--yes--when it was taken. Aside from that, the resolution of all the photographic images in question is hardly high enough to establish what is standing there in 40 Acres' northwest corner. Without the fabled L.A. Times article--of which, again, there is not a shred of evidence, despite the ease of producing such evidence if it exists--the rest of the case I think is pretty obviously original research and must be deprecated.—DCGeist 19:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the north-south orientation is 100% on the money. Go to the Yahoo web page as I mentioned. Take a look at the curve in Jefferson Boulevard. This curve shows you exactly how everything is laid out. Furthermore, the photo was most definitely taken after 1959 as it has the Andy Griffith Show set on it, which began production after 1959.

And I did go to my library. They had the exact same problem as I did. If you want to give me the link to a free pre-1985 Los Angeles Times search, I'm more than happy to do that. I've just been completely unsucessful in finding one... and the researcher at the Times indicated to me that one did not exist.24.45.196.36 19:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't raise any question about the curve. I said the resolution of the photos wasn't good enough to establish that it's the Tara set visible in the northwest corner after 1959, as opposed to another set.
• I explained how to do the search. Go to the L.A. Times online archive and do it, just like Will Beback and I have done; it's pretty straightforward. No, you can't get the complete text of most pre-1985 articles for free, but you can see the dates and titles and usually some additional text for all articles that your keywords appear in. By your testimony, this fabled article appeared between January 1, 1979, and December 31, 1981 and should include the words "Tara" and "set" and "Gone with the Wind" at the very least, right? Once you've identified the title and date (or a couple possible title-and-dates), you can easily access the material at your free library.—DCGeist 20:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Where the Tara set stood on the RKO-Pathé Forty Acres backlot: a map done by a professional surveyor, dated May 9, 1940. The Tara set stands northwest of the Atlanta Depot set, at the wide end of the triangular Forty Acres lot. Note that if you draw parallel lines from the short sides of the Atlanta Depot set westward, the main part of the Tara set will be between those lines. Note also that if you draw parallel lines from Wesley and Patricia streets southward, the Tara set will be entirely between those lines.

Contrast with this 1965 aerial photo. Where Tara stood is now the prison camp of Hogan's Heroes. Draw the same parallel lines westward from the short sides of the Atlanta Depot set, and draw the same parallel lines southward from Wesley and Patricia streets. The box you will create will be inside the Stalag 13 set. An enlargement of the Stalag 13 set. Tara is long gone.

We have already established above that there was a brick mansion set on the M-G-M Lot 2 that resembled Tara, that it was demolished in 1978, and that the Los Angeles Times published photos of the demolition on July 9, 1978 (with a caption correction on July 16, 1978), and again in 1979 (Mark Stein, "Movie Studios Boom Again in a Different Kind of Heyday", Los Angeles Times; Apr 29, 1979; pg. WS4). — Walloon 20:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that string of evidence--along with the well-known authoritative sourcing of the Tara set's 1959 removal--is conclusive. It's all on you now, 196.36. Unless you, by whatever means, can provide an authoritative source that explicitly contradicts the above information, there's not the slightest need to change the existing language of the article.—DCGeist 20:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Geist, the set is clearly in the photo exactly where it's supposed to be. And Jefferson Boulevard is given as a way to orient you. As for the brick building you're talking about, I have no idea. The only brick buildings that existed were on the New York section of lot #2. And the demolition of lot #2 did not take place until 1980-1981 at the earliest. As for the research of the L.A. Times website, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. I've worked as a senior researcher back in the day. I think I know a thing or two about doing research. The pre-1985 articles cannot be accessed online. I've gone to the local library and a research librarian could not do it either. Strange how you seem to have abilities no one else has. Again, give the link if you're so sure. 24.45.196.36 22:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Aerial photo of M-G-M Lot #2. The famous New York City set is on the right side of the photo. To the left of that, but to the right of the large soundstage at the far left, can be seen the facade of a columned mansion. This is the mansion that is being confused with the Tara set. Even at this distance, there are clearly differences; the M-G-M set has five round columns, Tara had four square columns; the roofline to the left of Tara's porch drops below the porch's roofline, while the left side of the M-G-M facade extends higher than the porch roof, etc. — Walloon 23:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Walloon, thank you for the post. As for MGM backlot #2, this photo looks to be prior to when I was there. The soundstage was no longer there on the many ocassions I visited. Further, neither was the mansion you're referring to. I'm unsure as to when this photo was taken. Any indication as to the year? The Tara set, however, was in the area where those trees are in the photo, above the New York sets. It doesn't look to be in this photo. If the Tara set was re-created on lot #2 or moved there, it must have been after the date of this photo. When I was there, if you were looking at the Tara set from straight on, it was to the right of the house set used for a short-lived TV series called "Apple's Way". ALso, the photo of the Tara set is what I saw and what is shown in the Los Angeles Times story... with one big exception, it wasn't in such bad condition. This is why I have said above and in past posts that the set was either re-created or moved to lot #2. And if it was moved, it wasn't uncommon to fix sets up to be used for other productions in later years. Just look at the multiple re-uses of "Beave's" house from the Universal backlot. 24.45.196.36 23:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

To User:24.45.196.36 -- I read through all the material above, and the evidence provided strongly supports the positions of Walloon and DCGeist. The opposing argument seems to rest on (a) one photograph with a questionable date and (b) one person's memory of a newspaper article from over 25 years ago. While DCGeist appears to have been briefly pushed over the edge, the arguments of both editors have cited reliable sources and have been supported by contributions from other editors. Without reliable evidence to the contrary, the article should remain as is. It's an encylopedic article and not a discussion of alternative possibilities.

I tried the LA Times link, and it definitely works. Reading the articles is not free, but once you have identified an article, the cost of reading it is only $4.00. I quickly searched and didn't see anything relevant, although I'm sure you could do a much more thorough search given the amount of time and energy you have put into making your case. Saraalan 00:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations, Saraalan. However, I have never been "pushed over the edge" in this process. Everything I've written recently, I have written clear-eyed, having come to realize that we are dealing with a liar. The anon has obviously lied about not being SUNY Boy. The anon has obviously lied about having met me and knowing me (please notice that this bizarre claim was suddenly made two weeks into the debate and that the anon has still not identified him or herself). And the anon has lied either about (a) being an experienced professional researcher or (b) being unable to locate and access the readily locatable and accessible L.A. Times online archive or, most likely, (c) both. And it becomes increasingly evident that the anon is lying about an L.A. Times article that does not exist.

Could I possibly be wrong? Here's my challenge. A search of the L.A. Times online archive reveals one single article in the span between January 1, 1979, and December 31, 1981, that contains the words "Tara", "set", "Gone with the Wind", and "MGM." If the anon will identify him or herself and indeed we have met, I will humbly apologize and spend the $4 myself to purchase the article and report on its contents.

As we wait for this blessed event to occur, please keep in mind the anon's first ever edit on this subject matter. It ended like this: "Tales of the [Tara] set having once been on the Selznick lot, or being dismantled and shipped to Georgia are completely false" (see [2]). Got that? According to the anon just two-and-a-half weeks ago, any assertion that the Tara set was ever on the Selznick lot is completely false. And you don't think the anon is a troll? OK, then. I can't wait to learn his or her name.—DCGeist 10:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Saraalan, it could very well be a block on my provider. I'll certainly make another try using someone else's computer. What will be key to this is not only the story, but the photos that went with it. We'll take it one step at a time. If the article is sufficient, so be it. If it needs a bit more, we'll find a way to tackle the issue of getting a re-print through ProQuest.

With that aside, I do think it's important to note the already available photographic evidence we have. The set clearly did not make it's way to Georgia in 1959 since it's clearly shown on the RKO Forty Acres lot in at least one post-1959 photograph. 24.45.196.36 15:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The dismantling of the Tara set at Desilu was covered by reporters for the Los Angeles Times (May 17, 1959, p. G10) and the New York Times ("Hollywood Gives Tara to Atlanta," May 25, 1959, p. 33.); and the set's arrival in Atlanta was covered by the Atlanta Constitution (“Tara Vans Welcomed at Capitol,” June 2, 1959, p. 6) and the Atlanta Journal (“Tara Gets Bright Reception by Governor, Beauties, et al,” June 1, 1959, p. 13). Georgia Governor Ernest Vandiver spoke at the welcoming ceremony. — Walloon 16:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. How many rules of Wikipedia and general civility has DCGeist violated here? 209.139.23.116 15:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Walloon, I'd buy your argument if it wasn't for the fact that the set in the aerial photo (and better seen in the close-up) fits the footprint for the structure as per the blueprints from Pathe Studio Ranch blueprints. In addition, if you're looking at the set from the front, notice the tree to the left in both the Tara set photo you provide and in this 1965 aerial photo of Desilu that you also provided. Listen, I may be wrong. But I'm not yet convinced of that. I think it best to continue this discussion when I get my hands on the L.A. Times article. Until then, all back-and-forth seems to lead in giant circles. 24.45.196.36 17:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the façade in the 1965 aerial photo does not occupy the same footprint as Tara did in the 1940 surveyor's map. Tara stood equidistant between Wesley and Patricia streets on the surveyor's map. The structure in the 1965 photo is in line with Patricia Street. The ground where Tara stood in 1940 is the lower end of the Stalag 13 set in 1965. — Walloon 17:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We can have the only plausible candidate for this fabled L.A. Times article in about thirty seconds. Once again, all the anon has to do is give his or her name--that is, if the anon is not lying and we actually "have met several times."—DCGeist 17:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Walloon, the set in this 1965 aerial photo of Desilu shows the set in the exact same spot that is indicated in the 1940 surveyor's map. I can't imagine that our vision is that different as to give us such drastically different conclusions. As I mentioned earlier, this conversation is just going around and around in circles. Let's wait until I get the article. I just got off the phone with ProQuest and one of their researchers is assiting me. I hope to have something by the end of the day tomorrow. 24.45.196.36 21:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I've been able to dig up thus far. However, it falls outside of the date parameters. This may not be the article I referred to and wouldn't know for sure without seeing if the two photos I mentioned are part of it. I will do a bit more research.

OLD MGM SETS RAZED Gone With the Wind Home Goes With a Crash MGM SETS RAZED Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File) - Los Angeles, Calif. Author: STEVE HARVEN Date: Feb 23, 1978 Start Page: C1 Pages: 2 Section: PART II Text Word Count: 573 24.45.196.36 00:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked up the L.A. Times article. It specifically says the destroyed set was Twelve Trees Oaks located on MGM Lot #2. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote above on Sept. 25, "By the way, the L.A. Times was wrong about the set that was demolished at MGM in 1978. The only part of the exterior of the Twelve Oaks mansion that was built for Gone with the Wind was the front porch, for the scene where John and India Wilkes welcome the O'Hara family. It was built around the entrance of one of the soundstages at Selznick International…" Aerial view of the soundstages at Desilu (formerly Selznick). — Walloon 03:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone is able to get the photos that went with the article you will see that it is most definitely not Twelve Oaks. But is it Tara... or at the very least a Tara reconstruction? It sure looked like Tara to me. 24.45.196.36 21:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Schwartz Memorial Library at the C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University has ProQuest Historical Newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, 1881-1986. It's 11 miles from Franklin Square. — Walloon 21:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Long Island"? 24.45.196.36 21:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The IP appears to hail from Fairfield CT. The Fairfield University library ProQuest access, though I can't tell if it has the full L.A. Times archive. Regarding the L.A. Times, I think we've learned to be a little careful of their reporting on this matter as they seem to get a bit confused about which set is which and which lot is which. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with regard to the L.A. Times reporting. Never have been a fan of them myself. But photographic evidence doesn't lie. So I'll dig up the photos if I can. I'm really not a fan of going out of pocket.

And speaking of photos not lying... how about that RKO Forty Acres shot from 1965? You gotta admit, it does throw quite a bit of water on the reporting from 1959 about the set's transfer to Atlanta. 24.45.196.36 21:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No one familiar with filmaking should say that "photographic evidence doesn't lie". Everything about the filming of GWTW, and most other movies, is a visual lie. I don't see that photo as being definitive since the image of the house is small and blurry. Until you find the article that proves your point I don't see much point in going around and around on this matter. You may not want to spend any money, but we've all spent a lot of time. Let's not waste any more. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For entertainment purposes, yes, "photos" can and often do "lie". But photographs for other purposes such as surveying or photojournalism are a completely different issue. This is not "going around and around". It speaks quite specifically to the point that a photo exists post-1959, with a set matching the footprint for the Tara set on the Pathe surveyors' map, with the set sitting in the exact position on the Pathe map as well as other various maps of the lot... and lining up perfectly with surrounding streets outside the backlot, and with a tree in front of the set in the same position as the tree in a dead-on shot of the Tara set. It may not say that this *is* *the* set, but we certainly can no longer continue to say that the references used to "prove" the set's move to Atlanta are definitive. And this same argument can be made for the contrary side of the issue. Neither is definitive proof. In other words, the application of this argument must be consistent. Anything short of that tarnishes the credibility of Wikipedia. So I suggest that until we arrive at such proof, we treat the issue of the Tara set as currently stated in the Gone with the Wind (film) entry for what it is... conjecture. 24.45.196.36 23:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Interpreting photos amounts to original research. We have numerous printed sources which describe the move of the Tara set and the destruction of the Twelve Oaks set. Until someone presents equally reliable sources with different accounts we need to go with the verifiable information. Continued reinsertion of unsourced material against consensus is disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Will Beback", are you able to post the photos that ran with the Los Angeles Times story?

24.45.196.36 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Will", I trust you'll find a way to post those pics for all to see. You mentioned them above: "Movie Studios Boom Again in a Different Kind of Heyday" MARK STEIN, Los Angeles Times; Apr 29, 1979; pg. WS4 The layout of the article has two large photos that are side by side above the headline."

And I should also remind you that according to Wikipedia:

"Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about.. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; United Nations Security Council resolutions; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs."

Therefore if the photos are indeed of a Tara set, we know that more than one existed... especially since at one point at least one Los Angeles Times article in 1979 referred to the set in those photos as Tara. 24.45.196.36 04:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Pending submission of sources to the contrary, the existing material appears sufficient. In the meantime there are a million other articles that need attention. I'd like to leave everyone with the thought that the disposition of a papier-mache and plywood set is not particularly important in the overall scheme of things. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A few days ago I took a look at the RKO Forty Acres close-up shot from 1965 on Photoshop. Was able to zoom in on the set that is in question, and am now willing to concede that the majority of it is not the Tara set. It appears that the fronting of the set was taken off the wooden frame/anchors (usually telephone poles are used), and that was what was sent to Georgia. However, the confusion came into play due to the fact that another set had been laid upon the old rigging. Therefore the footprint, location on the lot, and surrounding trees were exactly the same as when the Tara set was in existence.

There is still the question of the other set on MGM's backlot #2. I'm a bit of an Internet/computer novice as compared to some others on Wikipedia. As a result, I still have not been able to see the photos from the 1979 Los Angeles Times article. I only know that their existence has been verified. I'm quite curious to see those photos. Will Beback says he's seen them and I've got my fingers crossed that he'll post them for all of us to see at some point. There's lots of people who saw the Tara set on MGM backlot #2 as I did. That Tara set even had the mound in front with the big tree. However, being able to see the Los Angeles Times photos will put to rest once and for all the question of whether or not another Tara set existed. And I know that's what "Will", others, and myself would like to do. 24.45.196.36 13:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Will Beback" - Having let over a year lapse since this conversation first began, I hope it's given time for tempers to cool a bit and for level heads to prevail. As things wound to a close on this topic last summer, you mentioned that you had come across the photographs in question from the Los Angeles Times. Having once stood in front of a Tara set on M.G.M.'s backlot #2 -- and having read all of the facts submitted by you and others -- I'm convinced that what was once there was a replica of the original that once stood a mile or so away on the RKO Forty Acres lot. Might it be possible for you to share these so they can be seen by others? It might help to put this discussion to bed once and for all. Many thanks. 24.45.196.36 (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gone with the wind rerelease.jpg

Image:Gone with the wind rerelease.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Production Costs

My source, http://books.google.com/books?id=4PnEvNC_F9oC&pg=PA33&dq=hell%27s+angels+production+cost&sig=X4-N-8rPqSr7QUbsWBhDVXuFLPk lists Gone with the Wind as the most expensive movie made at the time of its release at $4.25 million, ahead of Ben-Hur (1925) at $3.9 million and Hell's Angels at $3.95 million. IMDB lists GWTW production costs at $3.9 million. I realize that these estimated film production cost figures can be unreliable, and I don't feel I have the expertise to assess the validity of this claim. Someone who knows more than I do on this subject should verify the production cost numbers, update the article and cite a reliable source. Thanks in advance,

Baileypalblue (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)