Talk:Peter Cushing

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 02:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hound of the Baskervilles

On the Hound of the Baskervilles (1959) DVD Christopher Lee speaks about acting opposite Peter Cushing as well as commenting about their deep friendship. Lee also describes in detail the last time they met.

--- Can someone transcribe this?

Linen and Lavender

That was a story Fisher told in The Making of the Empire Strikes Back.

Also, during filming of Star Wars, a star-struck Carrie Fisher found it hard to deliver her lines to him and seem terrified in the presence of a charming, polished man who smelled of 'linen and lavender' when in their first scene together, her character speaks of Cushing's as having a 'foul stench'.

Can this sentence in the article be clarified/re-written by someone who has access to that source? It isn't clear what it actually means - is the point that the scene of her character being terrified came out well because she really was terrified (in some sense) of the actor? Also the description of him sounds like a quote, it should attribute it if so. Lessthanideal (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted it. There's no source for it anywhere other than copies of the text in this article. If somebody finds a direct quote from her on that, it should be re-added.

Here's what she did say (Starlog #71, 1983) but it's more about her then Cushing.

“When I first meet Grand Moff Tarkin [Peter Cushing], I wanted to say my line glibly, but George gave me my direction. I read the dialogue, my God—how would you say, ‘I recognized your foul stench when I was brought on board’? Since I had just been to school in England, the first film is funny to me in that I sometimes sound English, but that’s the only way I could say it with absolute authority. This is real talk. It was the only time George gave me lengthy direction other than ‘Faster, more intense.’ ”

Sln3412 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Whitstable

ok i don't know where too put this but its a rather good-o piece of information, peter cushing lived in whitstable when alan davies lived in whitstable see

Have you seen him on his bicycle? Have you seen him buying vegetables? --PkerUNO 03:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a reference to the song by the Jellybottys 'Peter Cushing Lives in Whitstable' which can be heard on You Tube, which Alan Davies sings on an edition of QI, after relating this fact, everyone knows this surely?. 81.111.127.132 (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Opinion paragraph with no facts

This paragraph is at the end of the Hammer Horror section: Although madness was always a stronghold for Cushing, he was also regarded by many as one of the most "grandfatherly" horror actors on the screen. During movies such as "Dracula A.D. 1972", the audience was often far more captivated by his sweet sensibility than his races through mod London." It seems to me that this paragraph is commentary and unless someone can demonstrate it, I move for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.186.119 (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Any children?

Is there any source information regarding whether he and his wife had any children? Also, were there any other relatives of note(brothers, sisters)? The family context is often both interesting and revealing in a biographical entry. For example, the existence or absence of family would add shades of meaning to Cushing's loneliness after his wife's death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.167.160 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars

Does anyone else think that the % of this article taken up by Star Wars reveals that the article is written from more of an American standpoint? I think it implies that it took up a significant portion of his life and more content needs to be added for other parts of his career. SGGH ^ping! 21:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it implies an american standpoint, but is probably more to do with age. I think for most people under the age of about 40, his role in Star Wars is probably the only one they are familiar with. 86.28.197.238 (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Model Soldiers

Cushing was a member of the British Model Soldier Society and enjoyed playing Little Wars. These facts come from an article at Mental Floss [1]. I'm not sure if this should be in the article and if so where. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Below information was tagged for needing references for a minimum of three months. Feel free to reincorporate this text with appropriate citations. Doniago (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Death

Cushing died of prostate cancer on 11 August 1994, aged 81 in Whitstable, Kent, where he was well known as a local celebrity resident and had a local beauty spot named after him, "Cushing's View". In August 2011 pub company JD Wetherspoon named its local pub "The Peter Cushing" (housed in the former Art Deco style cinema, originally the Oxford Picture Hall, which had closed in 1984, and was used as a bingo club until 2010).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Peter Cushing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for www.vegsoc.org/HQdata/cushing.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Peter Cushing/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs citing ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC) == Biography assessment rating comment == WikiProject Biography Assessment The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 02:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Should we delete the alleged Carrie Fisher statement about Cushing?

Carrie Fisher stated in an interview that she found the interrogation scenes in Star Wars so difficult, not due to the nature of the scenes, but because in real life Peter Cushing was such a nice man it was difficult when acting against him to be intimidated by him and she was quoted as saying she found it difficult to be intimidated by a man wearing carpet slippers.[citation needed]

Well, I searched far and wide and there is no evidence of Fisher making that statement. Other web sites quote this Wikipedia article and NOT Carrie Fisher or any News source or book about Carrie Fisher.

Peter Cushing readily admitted that he was wearing slippers; see the interview at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdXLDvx_tHQ However, the Carrie Fisher statement cannot be confirmed. It's no surprise that Wikiepedia says [citation needed]

I don't want to revise that sentence (to remove mention of Carrie Fisher) without consensus. How do others feel about this? Peter K Burian (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Cushing has been dead long enough that this isn't a BLP, and the statement was only tagged this month, so I see no harm in letting it sit around for a bit, given that there's no deadline. That said, I'm also not opposed to someone removing it if they feel particularly strongly about it. DonIago (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

On a side note, I see that you edited your original post after I'd replied. Please don't do that without making it clear that you're refactoring your statements, given that it could put other editors in a situation where their own statements are invalidated to some degree (though not in this particular case). Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Cushing and Rogue One

The section begins with the sentence "Cushing later gained renewed popularity" yet not a single one of the references claim renewed popularity. After I pointed this out, 89.240.160.133 decided to add a list of blogs and page ranks to "prove" renewed interest claiming "Both this page's views (which went from 1000 a day to 50,000) and the PCAS have confirmed record numbers of renewed interest." but this is original research. Page views don't "prove" renewed interest in an actor and unless this is verifiable information it doesn't belong here. The only actually reliable sources are about the ethics of using a CG actor and this belongs in the Rogue One article, not here and certainly not in the lede. Justeditingtoday (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

AgreedEmrabt (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup. DonIago (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Doniago: @Emrabt: ... Was the agreement by the two users above that 1) we not include the mention of re-creating Cushing with digital effects in the lede? Or 2) was it about the level of his popularity? Peter K Burian (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't Think either belongs (I've looked but can't find a source which mentions popularity increasing, otherwise i'd have kept it), BUT I would personally leave the 'Rogue One' bit up until the hype around the movie dies down or we will keep getting constant reverts. Maybe some temporary compromise to stop people adding it? Something like "and his performance as Grand Moff Tarkin in the star was franchise". Emrabt (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd remove both as noted by Emrabt. As for concerns about constant reverts, I don't personally have issues telling people "discuss at Talk", but I'm willing to be overruled on that one. DonIago (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

CGI Who agrees to retain this info? Or should it be deleted?

Another User asked that we not delete part of the article about the digital re-creation of this actor who had died over 20 years earlier. At least don't delete until it is discussed and we reach a consensus. Still, it keeps getting deleted. I re-inserted it but I'm sure it will get deleted again. So, we definitely need to decide what to do about this; get a consensus.

Cushing's likeness in Rogue One (2016) raised questions around the morality of using a dead actor's likeness. cite news|title=CGI resurrection of Peter Cushing is thrilling – but is it right?|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2016/dec/16/rogue-one-star-wars-cgi-resurrection-peter-cushing%7Caccessdate=24 December 2016|work=Guardian}} name=RadioTimes>Fullerton, Huw (December 15, 2016). "How a Holby City actor brought one of Star Wars' most iconic characters back to life". Retrieved December 15, 2016.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/21/peter-cushing-rogue-one-resurrection-cgi.

Your thoughts? Peter K Burian (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

There have been dozens of articles in the major news media (particularly in movie reviews) that caused the controversy over the extensive CGI used to "reincarnate" a dead actor. I believe this is important info about this actor so I vote to keep that in the lede. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The section just above already deals with this and thus far the consensus is that it doesn't belong here. Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

See this Variety article for example: Many debates have raged on the ethics of these characters being digitally placed in the film and if Industrial Light & Magic (the Star Wars visual effects company) even pulled it off. Certainly, the computerized characters look stunningly lifelike, but still kind of creepy in an uncanny valley sort of way. http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/news/a52078/rogue-one-leia-tarkin-cgi-characters-star-wars/

Where is the consensus that it should be deleted from the lede? Peter K Burian (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Under which heading has it been discussed?

'Contents 1 Biography assessment rating comment 2 Hound of the Baskervilles 3 Linen and Lavender 4 Whitstable 5 Opinion paragraph with no facts 6 Any children? 7 Star Wars 8 Model Soldiers 9 Unsourced Material 10 External links modified 11 Assessment comment 12 Should we delete the alleged Carrie Fisher statement about Cushing? 13 Cushing and Rogue One 14 CGI Who agrees to retain this info? Or should it be deleted? Peter K Burian (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Before seeking WP:3O on this issue, it is essential that we discuss it on the Talk page (with input from several users). Since that was not previously done, I started this topic. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This was previously discussed just as I said in the section right above this one. Your references state that it has become a larger discussion about the ethics of using dead actors in films none of which has anything to do with Cushing specifically and everything to do with the ethics of using CG to resurrect a dead actor. These articles are not about Cushing and are instead about new technology in film. Just as the lede of Fred Astaire makes no mention of the Dirt Devil advertisement even though that garnered a discussion at the time. Justeditingtoday (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Think about it this way. The actor died over 20 years ago. He is all but forgotten by 99% of the world. Suddenly he is in all of the major news media around the world, because of the debate re: resurrecting him using CGI. This might be the single most significant item in his Wikipedia article. Surely this is more significant than a debate about a Dirt Devil commercial. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

That's called original research. Not a single reference says anything about renewed interest in the actor but instead they are calling for a discussion on the ethics of using actors after they are deceased. It is incredibly reductive to claim the most significant thing about an actor with literally hundreds of credits is a posthumous CG appearance. Justeditingtoday (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I did a google search for Peter Cushing. A year ago, I might have found a few thousand sources. Google, 505,000 results tody

e.g. recent articles in NY Times, Forbes, Telegraph, The Guardian Esquire, Hollywood Reporter, and the BBC, Washington Post, all within the past month. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I will reiterate what I said. That's called original research. Please take a moment to actually read that guideline before continuing using original research to make your argument. Further, those articles aren't about Peter Cushing as an actor but are only in reference to the CG discussion which belongs on the Rogue One article and not here. Justeditingtoday (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I can prove an increase in interest in this actor who died 20+ years ago. e.g. Why would this top critic review Cushing's career if there were not an increased interest. OK, let's say a major increase in interest in the various media. http://www.rogerebert.com/balder-and-dash/the-return-of-peter-cushing-another-look-at-an-underrated-career Peter K Burian (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read original research. You continue to ignore it and make the exact same arguments using original research. The article you linked to (and a single article is undue weight) clearly says "Cushing left behind an incredible body of work, especially for genre fans." and that directly contradicts your earlier claim that his CG appearance "might be the single most significant item in his Wikipedia article." You are just throwing every argument you can come up with, even ones that contradict each other, just to wedge this undue weight information into the lede. I will ask you to please read both of those guidelines before responding again. At this point, the consensus is plainly against you because policy is on the side of not including this information. Justeditingtoday (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I really do not need a primer on Wikipedia policies. Here is what I have added:

This aspect has certainly brought Cushing's name to the forefront, generating frequent new coverage of a lengthy career which ended over 20 years ago.[4][5] Why would newspapers and magazines cover the career of an actor who died over 20 years ago. The Rogue One controversy has led them to rediscover a long dead career. I am not using the word popular. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The consensus is NOT against me since there has been no discussion at all so far about the statement I just added. This aspect has certainly brought Cushing's name to the forefront, generating frequent new coverage of a lengthy career which ended over 20 years ago.[4][5] Peter K Burian (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The consensus is exactly the same because your edits are WP:OR. Not a single one says the Rogue One has brought "brought Cushing's name to the forefront." You are using a synthesis to create something that isn't being said. You may think you don't need a primer, but your actions say otherwise. Please read WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:RECENTISM. You are violating all of them. Justeditingtoday (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think it's time that I request WP:3O. Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors. When two editors do not agree, either editor may list a discussion here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires observance of good faith and civility from both editors during the discussion in order to be successful. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

After noticing the comment that this topic was discussed in 13. Cushing and Rogue One, I posted a note there too asking for clarification. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Justeditingtoday that the passage based on the given sources is original research. More specifically, it is synthesis, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." We need a source that explicitly states on a high level that Cushing's career is being reviewed. The RogerEbert.com reference is a good reference that a higher-level reference would bring up in a statement like what we're debating here. Cushing's thoughts as published by Express is a different kind of perspective and not really applicable here. To think of it another way, we cannot report three individual and positive reviews and conclude on a high level that a film was positively received. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment My comments relate to this version:
  1. I think it is appropriate to mention that Cushing's digital likeness was used in Rogue One because his role in Star Wars was a notable aspect of his career but it is not necessary to go beyond that in the lead.
  2. I don't think the comment that Rogue One has raised questions about the morality of using a deceased actor's likeness belongs in the lead. The debate has been going for years and Rogue One is just simply the next iteration of that debate, but the purpose of the lead is to summarize the article and explain why the subject is notable and the debate does not come under that umbrella. The particulars of the debate pertaining to Cushing are acceptable to cover in the article body though.
  3. Using a dead actor's likeness in a hit film will of course cause a spike in their current popularity but it seems like WP:RECENTISM to assume it confers on them a renewed interest in their career. Every time a new Elvis album gets put out I am sure Google hits spike and a flurry of articles are written about him and so forth but usually the interest becomes latent again. If the use of Cushing's likeness leads to a reappraisal of his career and a renewed and sustained interest in his work then this will be eaiser to judge in a few years time and can be documented from a historical perspective. Betty Logan (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Peter Cushing is a British actor so the article should be written in Brit English, therefore "neighboring" should be written as "neighbouring".

Betty Logan (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the third opinions, Betty and Erik. This system really works well. Cheers Peter K Burian (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Religious convictions

"Although not conventionally religious...": he was a devout Catholic, was he not?; another similarity with Christopher Lee which doubtless cemented their friendship. Later in the same paragraph, mention is nade of his "deep Christian beliefs". Nuttyskin (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a horribly vague sentence. It's nice that it's cited, but as there's no page number and the book is hundreds of pages, I wasn't inclined to myself go digging for more information as to the specifics of how he was unconventional. DonIago (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Personal Life section contains two statements that somewhat conflict: "deeply religious" and "not conventionally religious." My edit is an attempt to reconcile this conflict while preserving both references contained in the original statements. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

'The Ghoul'

I'm no expert on film histoty, but are we perhaps missing 'The Ghoul' in which Peter played 'Doctor Lawrence'? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4cysngsj70 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilnic (talk • contribs) 15:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Length

Is it just me, or is this article much longer and more detailed than it needs to be? 24.29.56.240 (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Kind of a vague comment. Do you have more specific suggestions for what could be trimmed? DonIago (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Images

I found this video from 1946 that seems to be in the public domain, a still from which (around 3:19) could be used in the WWII and early career section. Additionally this image claims to be Creative Commons, though I don't know who the original uploader is. Anyone know if either would be usable on Wikipedia? jonas (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The Legend Of The 7 Golden Vampires

How could you forget about a movie with a title like that? But you must have because it's not in your filmography, though Peter Cushing was very definitely in it. In fact, he was the star. 81.152.163.175 (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It is in the filmography. DuncanHill (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

CBE not OBE

Peter Cushing was awarded a CBE (Commander of the Order of the British Empire) and not an OBE (Officer of the Order of the British Empire. You need to amend that. 82.26.1.91 (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Source? DonIago (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)