Jump to content

Talk:Blazing Saddles

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wahkeenah (talk | contribs) at 05:47, 16 May 2007 (→Spoiler tag). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconFilm Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Can anyone please look into the fact that Gilda Radner is not a cast member of this movie - especially in the church scene as pointed out by a contributor to the article. I have viewed the entire movie many times and reviewed the cast listing having found no mention of Gilda. The woman in the church scene is Carol Arthur (wife of Dom DeLuis). ESQ24

It's a rumor that started who-knows-where. Unless someone can provide a verifiable citation, it doesn't belong in the article. MFNickster 19:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of its most famous scenes is of a group of cowboys sitting round a fire eating plates of beans; the soundtrack has repeated, loud evidence of the most notorious side-effects of beans..

Huh huh, fart jokes. The scene where the sheriff distracts some Ku Klux Klan members by yelling "where are all the white women at?" paints a different picture of this movie. -- Merphant

  • It's meant to attract the Klan members, so they are drawn into the ambush. One of the Klan's irrational views/fears is about helpless white women being 'soiled' by black men. 208.59.171.97 20:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "a different picture". I get the sense that maybe you don't approve of the over-the-top racial satire. Many ethnic groups get verbally "shot at" in this movie. Wahkeenah 3 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)

Merphant, buddy, that was a joke.

This writeup is absolutely horrible... anyone care to write a better one?

I'll take a shot at it. 209.149.235.241 02:37, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

'Ni' vs. 'Nit' in Quotes section

Wahkeenah, I noticed you reverted this 'correction' with another correction, but I'm still left wondering which is correct! This is a small point, but it would be nice to get a definitive answer. Here's what I've found so far:

  • On the first pass (talking to Bart), the Gov. clearly stops at "ni--" but the DVD subtitles show "nig--".
  • On the second pass (talking to Hedley), the DVD subtitles show "can't you see that man is a nig?"
  • When I listen to the audio track, I hear the Gov. say "can't you see that man is a nit?" with an audible 't'. (which makes a certain amount of sense, because it's a real word and it's plausible that the Gov. would call him that - after all, what's a 'ni' or a 'nig'?)
  • The closed-caption on the second pass stops at "can't you see that man is a ni?"
  • The novelization has the Gov. actually saying "this man's a nigger" to Hedley.
  • I would like to get a look at the screenplay to see if this is something they changed during shooting.

What do you think? Is there any reason to favor one version over another? MFNickster 03:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Forget the screenplay and the subtitling (closed-captioning). What is he actually saying in the film? I've never heard it as "nit", and I've seen the film many times. But I could be wrong. Wahkeenah 14:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he is saying "nit." That's how I've always heard it, but relying on your hearing or mine (or anyone else's) isn't definitive, unfortunately. I'd rather have a cite. MFNickster 16:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the cite sites are uninsightful. :( Wahkeenah 17:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to ask Mel! Anybody got his number? MFNickster 18:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I left it in my other suit. Wahkeenah 18:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, then we'd have to put Shrubbery under "See Also"! MFNickster
I'm bushed. Wahkeenah 17:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hearing "Ni" both times he says it on the DVD, which I just now put on, but that doesn't necessarily prove anything. Wahkeenah 19:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of "original research" (which, of course, is not admissible to the article) and ran the recording through a spectrum analyzer program, a "voiceprint." I also recorded myself saying "that man is a ni..", "that man is a nit", and "that man is a nig". I'm no expert on spectrograms, but the second Brooks line is clearly different from the first, and the second one resembles my voice saying "nit" more than the other two I recorded. Food for thought! :) MFNickster 19:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I saw the DVD with closed captioning, and it said "nig" both times... but that's not very reliable, given the many, obvious differences between the closed-captioning and what they were actually saying on-screen. Wahkeenah 01:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's at least one other source (apparently NOT spun off wikipedia) that thinks he's saying "ni" both times... and by the way, I thought that was the point of the joke anyway, that you think he's going to say the "n-word" and stops himself, whereas he was just saying "ni", which admittedly is a pretty lame joke. [1] Look for an item titled "Reminds me of Blazing Saddles". Wahkeenah 19:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have no doubt that there are other people hearing it the same way you are. Probably some are hearing 'nit' as well.
You got the point of the joke just fine-- you think he's going to say the 'n-word', but in fact it's a different n-word. The problem is (for me) that 'ni' isn't a real word (unless he's calling Bart the chemical symbol for nickel!) and 'nit' is. I wish they would have used 'nitwit' instead, it would have made things simpler for us! MFNickster 19:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calling him a nitwit would be more logical. Nit is also a word, but it doesn't make much sense, but neither does 'ni'. Maybe somebody will have to write to Mel and ask him. And given his sense of humor, he'll probably tell us to go talk to the scriptwriter... Richard Pryor. Maybe it would be better just to take the joke out altogether. There are still a few more others to choose from. Wahkeenah 20:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I think we should just keep correcting the corrections to the previous corrections!
As for talking to Richard Pryor... good idea! I'll go get my ouija board. <g> MFNickster 21:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know what he has to say. Meanwhile, we could qualify it by saying that some hear it as "ni" and some hear it as "nit". Maybe that would be ni(t)-picking. Wahkeenah 00:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave it as-is for now, since the subtitle agrees with the quote. If any new evidence comes along, we can always change it back. MFNickster 15:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Richard Pryor says "You can do anything you want and you can say anything that comes to mind - just so long as it's funny. If you ain't funny then get the fuck off the stage, it's that simple." :D MFNickster

Self-plagiarisation

The last section looks to me like an essay written for school. --62.255.232.178 14:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Wikipedia reads 'like an essay written for school.' If you think you can improve the style, be bold and take a stab at it! MFNickster 04:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

inscription on headdress

After reading the tidbit on the hebrew on the headdress, and inspecting the movie poster image, I noticed that what it said was not exactly "kosher l'pesach" because the first letters of each were reversed (it read "posher l'kesach") I edited the page accordingly, but I don't know the proper formatting for words in foreign languages so correct as necessary. 208.59.171.97 01:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with 208.59.171.97, it does look like the letters are reversed on the headdress. Hard to say, though, whether it's a deliberate spoonerism or just a mistake made by the artist. MFNickster 19:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe I'm crosseyed, but it looks to me like it matches the Hebrew in the articles for the terms Pesach and Kashrut. Keep in mind that the word order is Passover-Kosher, not Kosher-Passover. Wahkeenah 19:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I compared it to some product labels, such as this one. MFNickster 19:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hebrew is read right-to-left, and the order should be Kosher (L)Pesach... the L (the letter lamed in hebrew) means 'for', i.e. kosher for passover. Also the strict hebrew pronounciation is closer to Ka'sher, not Kosher, but I think it makes more sense to use Kosher when talking about it in English.208.59.171.97 19:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I see what you're getting at. Those letters are pretty similar-looking. But the first letter of "Kosher" on the headband has a dot inside it, not connected to the top of the letter as it would be if it were the first letter of "Pesach". So you can argue for a possible unintential spoonerism or maybe just mediocre artwork. Wahkeenah 23:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh that's what was throwing you off... now I get it :) in the article on Kashrut the 'backwards-c' letter thing has a dot in it. You may also notice alot of marks seperate from the main letters themselves in that representation. That is fully annotated hebrew, with vowels and marks used to help one pronounce new words, in contrast to the writing on the headdress which is done in the more traditional form without vowels. I could go on about what the dot in the 'backwards-c' (on the wiki page) means if you're curious. 208.59.171.97 23:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point exactly (don't pardon the pun). That standalone dot is a vowel point. That letter was done correctly, but they messed up the first letter of "Pesach". Again, poor artwork or some such. Shalom! (:-)# Wahkeenah 23:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmmm I managed to acquire an even higher-rez copy of the DVD cover than of the poster, and you while you are right that the dot is seperated, I do think that the artist was indeed drawing the (pey) letter for a few reasons... too tired to explain now. Wish I had a tablet PC to draw easily :P. I'll post a picture later with my reasons. 208.59.171.97 23:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, tell me if I've got it right, as far as what it should be (forgetting the left-to-right part). Feel free to correct and embellish (Hebrew 101):

k - caph
sh - shin
r - resh
l - lamedh
p - pe
s - samekh
ch - he

Wahkeenah 23:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salon.com as a source for this article

This article uses salon.com as a reference. A concern has been raised about the reliability of salon.com. You can read the following discussion and comment if you like. SeeTalk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia.Andries 04:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Salon.com review really doesn't offer any substantial additions to what's in the DVD commentary. In this case, I think it serves only as a published reference for the verbal content of the DVD commentary, unless someone disputes what Brooks said there? MFNickster 07:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most if not all of the material in the wiki article seems to be true. However, the section describing the film's themes has the look of a film commentary that was ripped off from someplace. If it came from that salon site, or predominantly from any site, then it should be altered or abolished. Wahkeenah 07:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reaction a quotefarm

84% of the content in this section is quotes. Can we put these into our own words, keep the citations, and avoid weasel words when doing so? Chupper 17:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War - let's talk this out

72.76.13.100 (talk · contribs) and Wahkeenah (talk · contribs) seem to be involved in a minor edit war about the merits of a particular passage in the article. So, I'm opening up a dialogue for them.

The disputed copy:

In 2006, Blazing Saddles was among 25 films named to the National Film Registry by the Librarian of Congress.[1] Films chosen for inclusion in this registry are rated on several criteria, including historical significance. The American film critic Dave Kehr queried if the historical importance of Blazing Saddles lay in the fact that it was the first film from a major studio to have a fart joke.[2]

Please state your reasons for wanting it removed/kept. Note that I'm keeping it out of the article until this conversation has run its course. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Such a citation is obvious POV-pushing. It is clear from the critiques that not everyone liked it. Adding this particular sarcasm so near the beginning of the article is inappropriate. I don't care which list of films it appears on or not. That stuff is also POV-pushing. Today, that film stands out because of its blatant political incorrectness, much more than the campfire scene, which was avant-garde in its day, but is no longer a novelty due to many less-funny imitators over the years. Wahkeenah 11:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really having trouble understanding your rationale. The NFR listing is a major deal, and adding it can hardly be considered a POV push. As for the fart joke comment, why couldn't that just be put under the "Critical reaction" heading? EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that should work. You can also put back the NFR listing if you want. Wahkeenah 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rating today

Would this be PG-13 or R today if it was rerated by the MPAA?

No way to tell, but I would guess a PG-13. There are no "f-bombs", and aside from Miss Stein's cleavage, the sexual situations are mostly innuendo. MFNickster 19:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

The last time I saw this on TV it was so heavily censored that it lost much of its punch. It would be interesting to comment on the degree to which this movie gets censored. It was a movie that satirized bigotry--to totally censor its indelicate words is to defeat the whole point of the movie in the history of film.

In the article, the link to "blackout" as an artistic device leads to Blackout(disambiguation), where the user would have to search for exactly what the word "blackout" means. And since there is no article for this, it may be better to just explain it in the article.

I noticed that, but didn't change it because I'm not familiar with the term "blackout scene." I Googled it, but most of the results referred to a scene in which there are voices but the picture is black. MFNickster 23:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler tag

I agree with David and Doc that a warning like the spoiler tag in this article was very inappropriate to an encyclopedia. I've removed it. --Tony Sidaway 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I please remind you to follow Civility and No personal attacks. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 04:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How "civil" is it for a group of editors to decide to screw the readers based on some pretentious notion about what's "encyclopedic"? I hate nannyism, and removing spoiler tags is nannyism, because it pre-empts the readers' choice. There was the comment by one of those characters about the way readers "should be using" wikipedia. That's nannyism. It's academic fascism. Where do they get off presuming to dictate to the readers how they "should be" using a so-called encyclopedia? That is offensive in the extreme. Now, cease your lectures about "civility", and focus on making this website better for the readers, not for the inflated egos of nannyistic editors. Wahkeenah 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have strongly held opinions on this. Please try to recognise that the "group of editors" you describe also have opinions. "Academic fascism" seems to be pushing it a bit far, when all they're proposing to do is remove a redundant notice under "Plot" that says, in effect, "what follows is details of the plot".
Speaking as an editor, I'm also a reader of this encyclopedia. I don't think much of spoiler warnings, but when I do I think of how ugly and unnecessary they are. I wonder why I would need to be told what I already know: that if I read an encyclopedia article about a fictional narrative, I will discover information about that narrative that I didn't already know. --Tony Sidaway 05:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most writeups about movies, "plot summaries", either don't give away the key points of the climax, or if they do, they post a warning or caution or whatever you want to call it, giving them the option of stopping, if they want to. There is no censorship, nothing is hiddne. It's just a courtesy to the reader. Why don't you all get that? Y'all's obtuseness on that point is just incredible. Wahkeenah 05:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Boliek, Brooks (12-28-2006). "'Rocky,' 'Fargo,' 'Saddles' join Nat'l Film Registry". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2006-12-30. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ National Film Registry Announces New Titles
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blazing_Saddles&oldid=131230176"