Talk:Mad Men

Wtf. Plot Summary

This is the longest wikipedia page without a plot summary I have ever seen. I have no idea what this show is about. My friend linked me to this page to explain the show, then we both realized it summarized nothing but just gave a bunch of technical details about the show. Plot get. 72.200.206.113 (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

themes

excuse me, but alcohol is still an accepted part of society.

You should sign your comments, if only so readers can tell where one person's comments end and another's begin. Otherwise, yes, of course you're right. And this statement:

Engagement and marriage, for men, did not preclude relationships with other women;

I agree. There are times where i'll often wear my wifes underwear and tights when she's out at Tescos and Ill parade around wearing just these articles of clothing, dusting the mantlepiece, baking apple pies and flirting with the milkman. My only outlet is Springwatch - Bill Oddie is such a brilliant man it makes me weep. I thought about taking my life today. Stood by on the side of the M25 by Juction 12 for hours, eating packets of cheese & onion Walkers, listening to Simply Red on my iPod and dribbling. Sat in my car for 4 hours in the garage last week hoping to end it all peacefully; realised i'd forgotten to switch the engine on when it got to the 5 hour mark so went in the house and watched The Weakest Link.

is pretty silly, too. Is the writer claiming that adultery has vanished in our more enlightened time? Or that adultery was socially acceptable in 1960? It should go without saying that neither is true, but apparently it has to be said. 68.80.50.49 03:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)essex9999

Of course drinking is still accepted, but not in many of situations portrayed in the show as "normal" - drinking by pregnant women, the three Martini lunch, and driving while clearly impaired are all far less acceptable in today's society. It is a matter of degree Seaphoto 17:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Lawteacheredstudent deleted excessive references to smoking. Original post had definite anti-smoking bias that was unnecessary. Smoking is not a theme in the show, only something the characters did. No one ever says clothing is a theme of a show because everyone wore clothes, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawteacheredstudent (talk • contribs) 00:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much every show on television has people wearing clothes. Not many have that much smoking. Whether you or I think it's unusual is immaterial -- the amount of smoking on the show is usually commented on in the media, and Weiner often mentions it in interviews. And smoking is a recurring plot point because of the agency's work for Lucky Strike cigarettes. I think the Themes section needs improvement -- obviously the show isn't only about smoking, drinking and having sex with secretaries -- but the stuff in there now should stay. Greyfedora 16:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we include something about how the show highlights the social impact of various awareness campaigns? The show often depicts activities that would shock and horrify people today, such as smoking and drinking while pregnant, allowing children to put plastic bags over their heads, and mindless littering. I think one of the themes of the show is just how effective advertising is at controlling the behavior of people. These sorts of campaigns have profoundly affected our society's world view. I'm not that good at putting it words for the article. Thanks. 161.130.178.151 (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I just thought of another subtle theme of the show: the changing image of female beauty. In the first episode, they showed a stripper who was quite voluptuous and would certainly thought too hefty for that job today. There were several other times when models and strippers were intentionally shot in a way that highlights the more classic idea of female beauty that was more pervasive at that time. 161.130.178.151 (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That belongs more in a review or a blog posting. On Wikipedia, we're not supposed to do any original research or critical analysis; just summarize what other people have done. David (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

From the page: "Upon Betty discovering his real identity, however, he reverts back to Dick Whitman's mannerisms: fumbling with cigarettes, visibly shaking, and losing all of his composure. It is not because he had been caught, but because he had reverted back to his old self, Dick Whitman, that changed his mannerisms."

  -This sort of shaky critical analysis does not belong on a Wikipedia entry.

Cast and characters

I made a tentative list of the cast and main characters, which will be later added to with info on each character. The section will also be turned into prose instead of a bullet-pointed list. Articles for each character are not necessary and wouldn't pass Wikipedia guidelines on notability. Cliff smith 05:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I made the section prose, with info on each character. The info may be added to and/or changed as the season plays out, of course. Cliff smith 06:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to place a spoiler warning in this section because the unveiling of the character details are part of the story line. The details of Drapers character spoiled an on-demand episode for me. Avermillion 18:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I edited the spoiler warning to fit the proper format. I also read the spolier warning page guidelines - and I think a spoiler warning is appropriate for this page because it is a topic that concerns a TV show in production with new shows coming out weekly - and previous shows available on demand. Avermillion 18:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I added some characters last names and updated info, based on AMC's website. please rewrite if you can do it better. 38.112.225.84 22:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add a spoiler warning after myself having a plot ruined. Why was this removed? What justification is there to not warn readers that the characters section has multiple spoilers on every character? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.81.113 (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable is the absence of Rachel Menken (played by Maggie Siff) in the list - a strong, independent and intelligent woman who also happens to be Jewish, really ought to deserve a mention or two, no? The character's a very important signifier of the social changes gradually taking place in the era. Likewise, why no mention of Helen Bishop? A young single mother, holding down a job, raising kids and finding time to work in support of JFK's election campaign, she's another vital example of the people pushing society forward at the time. Compare both to the Francine character - likable, but fundamentally just a foil for Betty's thoughts and an outlet for some of the more offensive views of the era (she's such a minor role, we don't have to like her - we still maybe kinda do, because Dudek's brilliant, but it shouldn't affect the viewer's appreciation of the show if they hate her, so Weiner gives her all the dated prejudices), at least until her minor marriage trouble storyline. Can't understand why some of the vague sketch characters have writeups and the two most progressive women don't??

Reception

This was the first sentence of "Reception":

On June 20 2007, a consumer activist group called Commercial Alert filed a complaint with the United States Distilled Spirits Council alleging that Mad Men sponsor Jack Daniel's whiskey was violating liquor advertising standards since the show features "depictions of overt sexual activity" as well as irresponsible intoxication.

No objection to mentioning this, but seemed an odd place to lead off the section; doesn't seem like the most notable or important response to the show, however you judge that. And that's of a different character to the rest of the information in the section, which focused on critics' opinion of its artistic merit, so seems like the complaint should be placed in its own paragraph.

Episode listing

The episode listing has been moved here until the season ends after the 13th episode. The info will then be moved back into the LOE and the general plot of the first season will be summarized here. Cliff smith 20:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

The lead paragraph for this article says that show has been "praise for its historical accuracy." In the first episode they claim that Lucky Strike started using the slogan "It's Toasted" in 1960, the year the show is set, when Wikipedia's own article on Lucky Strike says the company has been using that slogan since 1917! The IBM Selectric typewriter also featured in the first episode didn't come out until 1961. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of those facts. It appears that they took poetic license on the slogan. The anachronism with the typewriter, however, is fairly arcane, and rather minor, especially since they were only a year off. I think the main thing about the critics citing historical accuracy was with the more obivous facets of the show, like furniture, clothing, hairstyles, architecture, etc. Cliff smith 21:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem with wikipedia stating that the show has been praised for its historical accuracy -- it has. Regardless of the inaccuracies, it has been so praised. User:Pedant (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What about the "Medium is the message" reference in season one -- 1960 -- even though that phrase wasn't published until 1964... Perhaps a section on historical accuracy with balancing quotes praising it and a list of minor inaccuracies? 87.127.95.198 (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead

The single review of the show from Metacritic doesn't belong in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. Cliff smith 19:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Referencing

The quote from Draper is good, but I can't remember which episode he said this in. It should be cited. Cliff smith 19:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Which quote? User:Pedant (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Music

Could someone list name of the music and music artists played throught the series categorized by episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.110.62 (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that should be in the article; it might be a little bit too detailed for Wikipedia's purposes. But AMC lists the music used in each episode at [1]. Greyfedora 23:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a music list like that would get rather trivial, and would probably fall under something in WP:NOT. Good link, Greyfedora. Cliff smith 02:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the song that plays in the titles, RJD2's "A Beautiful Mine" - didn't think I could source youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHS-0xMmlFk - Leland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.147.248 (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Madmen.jpg

Image:Madmen.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 21:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Episode List

While I heartily approve of setting up a seperate Episode List article for Mad Men, I think the identical list in this article should be removed. The wiki cops don't seem to approve of the redundancy. Cranston Lamont 23:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Specious title trivia

It's been claimed that:

The title Mad Men is a portmanteau of Mad Ad Men.

Can also be spelled as "MAd Men" although that capitalization is only implied in the title.

But are either of these interpretations of the title actually claimed by the creators of the program? It appears to me that the main allusion of "Mad" is "Madison Avenue"--the iconic street of US advertising in the '60s--along with the implication that these men are crazy-mad and sometimes angry-mad. I'll delete these unsourced speculations unless someone can provide a citation supporting them. --Jeremy Butler 12:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• To me there is a strong sense of "mad" = "crazy" because most of the characters seem to be treading a fine line between sanity and insanity. I'm surprised more isn't made of this in the article. It's really a very dark drama, where everyone seems on the brink of going completely off the edge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.128.199 (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

Roger Sterling (John Slattery) ... makes a sexual advance on Draper's wife (while intoxicated), which Don never knows about ...

I think he did know something of this nature had happened. He walked in on them in the kitchen and it was clear something had been going on. Then Draper took his revenge by arranging it so Sterling would throw up in front of their visitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.128.199 (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Draper very clearly knows about the sexual advance because Sterling TOLD him about it. He came into the office the next day with a bottle of liquor and an apologetic story about "parking in the wrong garage", only leaving when he's confident Draper has forgiven him. It's likely for this reason that, when Draper is considering a move to another advertising agency, Sterling sees it as possibly personal - Don's knowledge of the advance itself, however, is unquestionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.105.145 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Salvatore "a closeted homosexual"? Dubious no longer!

Maybe this is a small point, but I think the characterization of Salvatore Romano as "a closeted homosexual" is overstated. I would guess that most gay businessmen in New York in 1960 would have been closeted - suggesting that the term would apply to the character that propositions him - but Salvatore confesses only to having "thought about having relationships with men" (at least according to the article, I don't remember the dialogue very clearly) which suggests that he is gay-curious or bi-curious. There are no concrete suggestions that he is exclusively attracted to men and possibly some evidence that he has never acted on his homosexual desires (as the article states but, again, I don't remember the exact dialogue). I think the character is written and performed with more subtlety than "closeted homosexual" implies: clearly the character is dapper and flamboyant and most contemporary viewers would see him as sexually ambiguous (although there's no indication that his fictional 1960 colleagues see him that way), but at this stage of the program there's no indication that he's homosexual, closeted or otherwise. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.153.156 (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC) 142.1.153.156 (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're on to something. I watched the episode again, and I also checked out Salvatore's official character page on AMC. Rewording is in order, I'd say. Cliff smith (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems to me that it's pretty clearly implying that Sal is a closeted homosexual. He basically tells the Belle Jolie guy that he won't go up to his room because he's afraid of being found out. He also pretty clearly isn't interested in women. I really don't think this is at all questionable - he's being presented as gay, whether or not he's actually had sex with a man before. john k (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think using the term "closeted homosexual" is anachronistic, regardless. In those days the term wasn't in use AFAIK. He might be called a "confirmed bachelor" maybe, without quibble? User:Pedant (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

@Pedant--This entry is being written for a 1960 audience?96.247.91.210 (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you prefer "bun junkie"? (1)Using a modern euphemism implies a modern cultural context. (2)Nowhere in the series is Salvatore described as a "closeted homosexual". (3)Nowhere does he engage in any homosexual acts. (4)He is unmarried and has no romantic attachments.

Ergo, he is a confirmed bachelor: the term is quite descriptive and accurate, and no more opaque to a modern reader than "woman of easy virtue". If the show doesn't describe him as homosexual other than by innuendo, I feel a 60's euphemism is entirely appropriate. User:Pedant (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

here it says More personally, he was the subject of switchboard operator Lois Sadler’s crush and the recipient of romantic overtures from Elliot, a salesman for Belle Jolie. The latter invited Sal up to his hotel room after the two shared a few drinks but Sal demurred. -- to demur is to contest (a charge) without admitting or denying (the basis of the charge). User:Pedant (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain I recall the term 'latent homosexual' being used in that era. 'Confirmed bachelor' works for a gay man who never marries. I think a gay man who isn't sexually active in that area or even is sexually active with men but hasn't accepted his own orientation would be accurately called a latent homosexual both then and today.JJ Bosch (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You make no sense, Pedant. You bitch about the term "closeted homosexual" being used because the show is set in the sixties. I ask what's wrong with that, the show may be set in the past but the entry if for a modern audience, i.e. us, people in 2008 who don't need euphemisms of the past. You go on to mouth off incoherently. Discussion over.71.189.237.68 (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

At least the is 'he or isn't he?' issue is resolved. Brian Batt has been doing interviews here in the US and is quite clear that Sal is gay (as he is himself), as was the content of at least one recent episode. Pedant, I'm finding your logic a bit pretzel-like. I'm not at all sure why use of the term "closeted homosexual" is viewed as inappropriate; it's still part of the common parlance, at least in the US. Moreover, I fail to understand why any level of opacity is needed in the article. Regardless, the article is written for a contemporary audience, and should be written with whatever level of clarity is needed for the reader to understand that Sal is gay, and as the social mores of the time demanded, remains in the closet, now having gone so far as to marry in order to hide, or perhaps deny, his sexual orientation. Drmargi (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

According to us, the term would have been in use by then. Huw Powell (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, does anyone feel that Bert Cooper's sister might be a lesbian? When they first met, they were talking about Florence, whom the sister seems to spend time with and Bert refers to Florence as "a good companion". Bringing this up because I don't know how well Bert, as a republican, takes to homosexuality. Haracas (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

main vs. supporting characters

On what grounds is Joan called a main character? Her role seems to be more comparable to those of the various supporting characters than to those of the four main characters. Don, Pete, Peggy, and Betty are clearly the main characters of the piece, and Joan is not at all clearly more important than most of the so-called supporting actors. john k (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, looking at AMC's official cast page, Joan is listed before Peggy. And Roger is second to Don, ahead of Pete. That notwithstanding, I do agree with you. Cliff smith (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also, would there be any objection to making a Characters of Mad Men page? The character list here is begging for summarization. Cliff smith (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There's five main characets and Joan is one of them. The credits and the opening montage in episode 2.01 is proof. Sterling is not a main character; John Slattery was listed as "special guest star" for the first season.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 19:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The opening credits determine who is/isn't a main character. Five seems like an arbitrary number based on season one; the producers treated six, including John Slattery and Christina Hendricks, as main cast for season two based on the pre-season promotional program that was shown on AMC, and the story thusfar is consistent with that view. Drmargi (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See Also section

an IP 173.63.1.83 has added a rather long list of tangential items as a 'see also' section. I have twice removed it. Not wanting to get caught in a 3RR violation I won't revert it again today. Indeed, perhaps some find the section useful. Was it useful? Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

US-centric

This article is written by someone from an American perspective (spoilers due to being aired in the US, but not other countries). It should contain warnings regarding anything about season II which is yet to air in other countires (eg. Australia). The ratings parts especially, should contain the words 'US ratings', rather than assume America as the central part of the universe. This article should be reviewed in its entirety with a global perspective. Lemon Pickets (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Accurate but Wrong

"The network was looking for distinction in launching its first original series," according to AMC Networks president Ed Carroll "and we took a bet that quality would win out over formulaic mass appeal."

This may be an accurate quotation from the president of AMC but it is factually wrong. "Remember WENN" was AMC's first original series, back in the '90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.51.11 (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional External Links

Wanted to propose another Mad Men reference site that I think should be considered for inclusion: an unofficial Mad Men fan site. The content is considerable and updated daily by the community. Thanks for the consideration. 216.168.54.229 (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

adding a fansite would, I think, violate the external links policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, see WP:ELNO no. 11. WCityMike (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

First Cable Series

In the first paragraph last sentence it says "It is the first basic cable series to win the Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series". Not true. The Sopranos was the first and it won the previous year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darknaveed (talk • contribs) 23:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

HBO is not basic cable, AMC is from what I understand. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Time Period

This page, as well as many other sources about the show say it is set in the early 1960's. How can this be so in the early episodes? There is much talk about Dick Nixon's presidential campaign. That would be the 1960 presidential election.

So if the show is talking about his campaign, it would be in the late '50's. Maybe early 1960 if they were getting involved late.

Anyone else notice this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.121.154 (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

guy who had his foot run over with a lawn mower as an entry in the list of supporting characters

I have reverted (twice) the addition of this character as it seems to me this character is not notable as he was in only a single episode. An IP disagrees. What do others think? Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP has not as of yet taken it to talk, yet has changed the article again. I will not get into a 3RR situation here, but I would like to add that if we add this character to the list we ought to also add the couple that gave Don pills that he picked up hitchhiking (for example). The list might get excessively long if we do this. I await your comments. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted again, but this turkey is an anon IP and is willing to go 3RR with it, that's obvious. He's done something similar with a long-winded and overly crufty description of the portrayal of Conrad Hilton on the real person's page as well. This is clearly a non-notable character. There's a litany of significant-for-an-episode characters such as this one that could be discussed on individual episode pages, but not in the main article. Drmargi (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)