Jump to content

Talk:Pre-Code Hollywood

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.189.41.10 (talk) at 04:59, 7 January 2018 (→Franklin Roosevelt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articlePre-Code Hollywood has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 16, 2010Good article nomineeListed

Hays Office/Breen Office

I believe it was called the Hays Office more than it was called the Breen Office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.152.105.200 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

Race Relations

The sentence about Southern Protestants and race relations seems tendentious. I doubt that it would have occured to anyone to make a film about miscegenation in that era. The "true state" of race relations in that era, South and North, was nuanced and complex; it would be more accurate to say that films tended to present an oversimplified, stereotyped, and paternalistic view of race relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.152.105.200 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

Did the code explicitely forbid showing blacks as main characters? Today's "lemonde" newspaper is claiming that and the wikipedia's section about "back bellboys" does also suggest this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.235.59.230 (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2007‎ (UTC)[reply]

1930

Um, I'm not sure that the pre-code era began in 1930. There were a great many risque films made in the 1920s, some silent, some not. The Broadway Melody of 1929, which won the Oscar for best picture, includes references to homosexuality, drunkenness and some skimpy outfits. If there's some reason why pre-1930 films have been excluded from this page, a reason should really be given. Since the need for a production code emerged in the 1920s, it seems that the early risque films should be mentioned here, as on-screen behaviour brought on the code as much as off-screen antics did. Wencer 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wencer above, at least on the need to include behavior prior to 1930, since it is the impetus for the code that is first written in 1930 and then finally vigorously enforced in 1934. I personally don't see the necessity of the Code, even at the time, so I don't agree with the above comments in that aspect. However, I do recognize that at the "event horizon" there is always a precursur of activities that have driven the event to the surface. So to start coverage with 1930, is a bit intellectually irresponsible. Stevenmitchell 08:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah really, there are silent movies (in their uncensored forms) which are worse than most "pre-code". In Foolish Wives and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde there's profanity. Anyone ever seen Haxan? That documentary/movie's incredible, I'm not surprised that it was banned in several cities. JungleMouse5644 (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Butler

Who is Jeremy Butler to delete anything from this page, much less almost half of the page b/c he deems it "too long"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.2.108 (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

OK, Ali

I'm here, Ali, waiting to discuss why some ass*** from Alabama thinks he can gut half my article.

I don't see anyone waiting to discuss, so I'm editing, now!!! Brandubh Blathmac 19:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali: any excuse whatever not to admit to the censorious doings of your countrymen, especially Demiurge, the boilerplate who thinks he is the new Cardinal Spellman. I no longer believe you are at all different from your countrymen in any regard, and am no longer interested in you at all. Stop harrassing me through Wikicyberspace. Unfortunately I cannot sign in since this might extend the block that GraemeL. (one of those "useful idiot" of whom Lenin spoke who has joined forces with the "Irish-Scots" fifth columnists and Irish censors) put on me like a coward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.0.15 (talk • contribs)

  • Still crying about censorship, Robert? Maybe if you tried working with other editors instead of pushing your opinion and yours only, then you might get a better response. I've better things to be doing than "harrassing [you] through Wikicyberspace", so don't flatter yourself. Post sectarian nonsense and I (and many others) will revert. - Ali-oops✍ 15:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can call the history behind film censorship in America "sectarian POV" because it does not redound the way you want it to??

You didn't mind what I inserted re conservative Southern Protestants and their own censoring of films re race relations and miscegenation. I did not cite any sources and yet -- miraculously --no complaints from any Irish Wikipedians.

The fact is that the Roman Catholic church was behind movie censorship, and obviously, as such, the Irish were involved (Breen, Quigley, etc.) and anything that could be questioned (except for the above re Protestants which no one complained about) has been sourced and cited. You are absolutely beyond disgraceful and shameful. When sources are demanded and I cannot provide them I accept that any edits based on material that cannot be sourced may be deleted. But for you to try to get away with gutting half a page of sourced, cited, quoted material b/c you (and/or your master) personally don't like it is unacceptable, as is relying on an ass**** from Alabama and a boilerplate censor to do your dirty work for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.0.15 (talk • contribs)

I don't know what you mean by sockpuppets. I told you I couldn't sign in b/c of fear of extending a block. That is not sockpuppetry. Wikipedia expressly permits people to edit w/o signing in. If I could sign in right now I would, but I am not going to risk being reblocked when I never should have been blocked in the first place. Has Demiurge or yourself been blocked for 3rr lately (or worse, some boilerplate b***s*** excuse)?

Why should I act against my own interests, just to please the would-be wannabe censors?? That my computer (my home PC, the same computer I always use) sometimes apparently allows me to redit earlier than the block expires is not my fault. I am not a computer scientist, like your buddy Camillus, and I don't understand these things.

And I dismiss anything you have to say about POV in light of the above. 216.194.58.76 00:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi yet again, Robert. Why are you being blocked in the first place? Could it be because you refuse to co-operate with other editors? Vandalise userpages? Get into silly revert wars? Continually push sectarian POV? Maybe that's why all this has gone to WP:RFAR. Now, other than your berating of other editors, was there something you wanted me to respond to here? - Ali-oops✍ 06:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit

Howdy 70.19.67.28 00 ! You don't seem to have a talk page, so I've responded to your comment regarding my recent reversion of your edit on my own talk page, where you posted. Hope that's ok.

Oh, and while I'm here, would anyone care if I alphabetized the list of Pre-Code actors? It's really bothering me that they're all haphazard and such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wencer (talk • contribs) 04:39, 20 April 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Regarding the lengthy quotation: I generally dislike long quotations given that Wikipedia is not an essay but simply a resource. If this information is too be included, could someone work on a paraphrasing? The first sentence of it is a sentence fragment, too, which bothers the hell out of me. Also - is this information not more appropriate to the article on the Code itself? The Pre-Code article should be explaining the lag between the creation of the code and its enforcement... information indicating the motivations behind the Code itself belong in the Code article. Included here, the quotation in question misleads readers into thinking that the years before the Code was enforced are the ones filled with dogma and private censorship, when the rest of the article is explaining that the term refers to the period BEFORE such things became pervasive. I realize that the persistent inserter of this particular piece is determined to leave it in, but perhaps it would be better to move it to the Code article, or at least re-work it heavily because its presence here is rather misleading in its current form. Wencer 21:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

It seems to me that everything under the headline "censorship" doesn't belong in this article, but rather in the article for the code itself. This article is on "pre-Code," and what the term indicates: specifically, films in the late 20s and early 30s of a risque or graphic nature which made it to release because the code wasn't being enforced. Once the pre-Code era came to a close in 1934, there is nothing else to be said pertaining to "pre-Code" other than renewed interest or attention to the films in question. All the information about 40s, 50s or 60s film is irrelevant to this article, and belongs in other articles. If no one objects strenuously, I will move all the information accordingly the next time I have a few hours available. Wencer 23:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical epics

I have removed the phrase "such as Biblical epics (frequently directed by Cecil B. DeMille)" as an example of what kind of film was encouraged by the enforcement of the Code. DeMille's Biblical epics were directed either before the Code was written or enforced—The Ten Commandments (1923), The King of Kings (1927) and Sign of the Cross (1932)—or long after—Samson and Delilah (1949) and The Ten Commandments (1956). There were no other "Biblical epics" in the 1930s or 1940s.—Walloon 04:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a still image from Birth of a nation (1915) for the same reason. 50.101.244.144 (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I have restored it, as the film is from the pre-Code period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Pre-Code period as defined in the article lasted from 1929 to 1934. The Birth of a Nation was released in 1915. About 14 years before the period started.
It is also a silent film, while the article covers sound films of the 1920s and 1930s. Dimadick (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both points are accurate, and I failed to consider them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some

The article credits the Hays Office to base motives like the "Great Depression". Some things never change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.206.96 (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2007‎ (UTC)[reply]

Libertine vs. Liberal

According to this online dictionary, the adjective-form of "libertine" has three definitions, one of which applies specifically to religious matters (not entirely the context in which it would be used here), and another one of which is noted as "archaic." The accepted definition, then, is #4, which is connotating "dissolute" and "licentious." The term "liberal" has the same denotative meaning but without these specific implications. If anybody wants to rewrite passages so that neither word is used that's fine; otherwise, changing the word to "libertine" seems almost like vandalism. Wencer (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mummy

I just added "The Mummy" (1932); there's no way its themes of black magic and reincarnation (coupled with Zita Johann's dress) would have passed the Breen office. Stuthehistoryguy 08:40, 1 December 2008

Remember, in the code, it says that evil and crime may be portrayed as long as it is shown to be wrong. I don't think that simply portraying the evil would be a problem. Legalthis322 (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stars section

What's the benefit of this listing? Wouldn't it be more fruitful to mention actors whose careers actually got crippled by the code rather than summon up every big shot of the 20s and 30s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.68.33 (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood

I'm no english major, but doesn't the term understood (section censorship) suggest that the problem in question actually is a fact? Martinor (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List cruff

I moved these exhaustive lists to the talk page and will incorporate some of their info later. Maybe a list could be made out of them. Quadzilla99 (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Column-generating template families

The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.

Column templates
Type Family
Handles wiki
table code?†
 Responsive/
mobile suited 		Start template Column divider End template
Float "col-float" Yes Yes {{col-float}} {{col-float-break}} {{col-float-end}}
"columns-start" Yes Yes {{columns-start}} {{column}} {{columns-end}}
Columns "div col" Yes Yes {{div col}} – {{div col end}}
"columns-list" No Yes {{columns-list}} (wraps div col) – –
Flexbox "flex columns" No Yes {{flex columns}} – –
Table "col" Yes No {{col-begin}},
{{col-begin-fixed}} or
{{col-begin-small}} 		{{col-break}} or
{{col-2}} .. {{col-5}} 		{{col-end}}

† Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead.

Notable pre-Code films

1929

Column-generating template families

The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.

Column templates
Type Family
Handles wiki
table code?†
 Responsive/
mobile suited 		Start template Column divider End template
Float "col-float" Yes Yes {{col-float}} {{col-float-break}} {{col-float-end}}
"columns-start" Yes Yes {{columns-start}} {{column}} {{columns-end}}
Columns "div col" Yes Yes {{div col}} – {{div col end}}
"columns-list" No Yes {{columns-list}} (wraps div col) – –
Flexbox "flex columns" No Yes {{flex columns}} – –
Table "col" Yes No {{col-begin}},
{{col-begin-fixed}} or
{{col-begin-small}} 		{{col-break}} or
{{col-2}} .. {{col-5}} 		{{col-end}}

† Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead.

1930

Column-generating template families

The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.

Column templates
Type Family
Handles wiki
table code?†
 Responsive/
mobile suited 		Start template Column divider End template
Float "col-float" Yes Yes {{col-float}} {{col-float-break}} {{col-float-end}}
"columns-start" Yes Yes {{columns-start}} {{column}} {{columns-end}}
Columns "div col" Yes Yes {{div col}} – {{div col end}}
"columns-list" No Yes {{columns-list}} (wraps div col) – –
Flexbox "flex columns" No Yes {{flex columns}} – –
Table "col" Yes No {{col-begin}},
{{col-begin-fixed}} or
{{col-begin-small}} 		{{col-break}} or
{{col-2}} .. {{col-5}} 		{{col-end}}

† Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead.

1931

Column-generating template families

The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.

Column templates
Type Family
Handles wiki
table code?†
 Responsive/
mobile suited 		Start template Column divider End template
Float "col-float" Yes Yes {{col-float}} {{col-float-break}} {{col-float-end}}
"columns-start" Yes Yes {{columns-start}} {{column}} {{columns-end}}
Columns "div col" Yes Yes {{div col}} – {{div col end}}
"columns-list" No Yes {{columns-list}} (wraps div col) – –
Flexbox "flex columns" No Yes {{flex columns}} – –
Table "col" Yes No {{col-begin}},
{{col-begin-fixed}} or
{{col-begin-small}} 		{{col-break}} or
{{col-2}} .. {{col-5}} 		{{col-end}}

† Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead.

1932

Column-generating template families

The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.

Column templates
Type Family
Handles wiki
table code?†
 Responsive/
mobile suited 		Start template Column divider End template
Float "col-float" Yes Yes {{col-float}} {{col-float-break}} {{col-float-end}}
"columns-start" Yes Yes {{columns-start}} {{column}} {{columns-end}}
Columns "div col" Yes Yes {{div col}} – {{div col end}}
"columns-list" No Yes {{columns-list}} (wraps div col) – –
Flexbox "flex columns" No Yes {{flex columns}} – –
Table "col" Yes No {{col-begin}},
{{col-begin-fixed}} or
{{col-begin-small}} 		{{col-break}} or
{{col-2}} .. {{col-5}} 		{{col-end}}

† Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead.

1933

Column-generating template families

The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.

Column templates
Type Family
Handles wiki
table code?†
 Responsive/
mobile suited 		Start template Column divider End template
Float "col-float" Yes Yes {{col-float}} {{col-float-break}} {{col-float-end}}
"columns-start" Yes Yes {{columns-start}} {{column}} {{columns-end}}
Columns "div col" Yes Yes {{div col}} – {{div col end}}
"columns-list" No Yes {{columns-list}} (wraps div col) – –
Flexbox "flex columns" No Yes {{flex columns}} – –
Table "col" Yes No {{col-begin}},
{{col-begin-fixed}} or
{{col-begin-small}} 		{{col-break}} or
{{col-2}} .. {{col-5}} 		{{col-end}}

† Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead.

Claudette Colbert in Cleopatra. It took a number of years for the studios to begin to take following the Code seriously.

1934

Column-generating template families

The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.

Column templates
Type Family
Handles wiki
table code?†
 Responsive/
mobile suited 		Start template Column divider End template
Float "col-float" Yes Yes {{col-float}} {{col-float-break}} {{col-float-end}}
"columns-start" Yes Yes {{columns-start}} {{column}} {{columns-end}}
Columns "div col" Yes Yes {{div col}} – {{div col end}}
"columns-list" No Yes {{columns-list}} (wraps div col) – –
Flexbox "flex columns" No Yes {{flex columns}} – –
Table "col" Yes No {{col-begin}},
{{col-begin-fixed}} or
{{col-begin-small}} 		{{col-break}} or
{{col-2}} .. {{col-5}} 		{{col-end}}

† Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead.

GA nom

OK, I've done a ton of work on this and think its ready for a GA evaluation. I'm still going to add a huge amount more for an FA attempt later on, but I think it definitely meets the GA criteria right now. Quadzilla99 (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pre-Code Hollywood/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dincher (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I am working on this review. I am going over six points. I will use non-wiki formatting for the points I have yet to address. Wikiformatted points are addressed and are good to go or awaiting a response. Dincher (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?: The article is well written and follows the manual of style. Dincher (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Factually accurate?: Article is well referenced with sources to verify the information. most sources are offline, others check out, assuming goood faith. Dincher (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in coverage?: Very thorough and detailed sections about the various types of film that were "risque" at the time. Dincher (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral point of view?: Article is written in a neutral point of view. Dincher (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Article stability? Article is very stable except for the occasional vandalism revert - the article is very stable and looks like it's been largely the work of one main editor. Dincher (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Images?: Article contains sufficient images and they are all properly tagged. Dincher (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. Continue to improve the article, making sure that all new information is properly sourced. To anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Keep up the good work, and I hope that you continue to bring articles up to Good Article status. If you have any further questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Dincher (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources

The following are some sources that can be used to work on this article: Quadzilla99 (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hays article:[1]
kissin:[2]

Cartoons

There's a category called "Category:Films made before the MPAA Production Code". Is it OK to add theatrical cartoons to this category? GolgiApparatus165 (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on adding a section to this article on how the Hays Code affected cartoons. It had a major impact on how Betty Boop was portrayed! Ogram (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mae West LAT.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mae West LAT.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical movies

It doesn't seem to addressed in the article but, why were movies from this time period so fast-paced, and feature abrupt nonsensical endings? There are movies from the late 1920s which are longer, leisurely paced, resolve most of the plot points, and have sensible/satisfactory endings. Is it due to the considerable expense of sound movies and the depression which resulted in lower budgets (for writing, etc.) and the focus on quantity over quality? (Hollywood was churning out 500 movies per year) It would be nice to see this addressed in the article since I can't seem to find any info. on this in the books I've read. Smiley4523 (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just an (uncited) opinion, but I think the fast-paced, staccato dialogue was a device to make the dialogue seem pithier and the characters seem wittier; you see the same style today, in TV shows like Gilmore Girls. I'm not sure I follow your point about abrupt nonsensical endings.—HarringtonSmith (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall reading anything on it either. I mentioned that the movies were shorter in the second paragraph of the Social Problem Films section.

Just another personal opinion from me also but I'm not sure I see it the same way you do in that this was a flaw. I think in many ways this was of this era's strength. I love a lot of long movies, but even some 90 minute ones feel padded out. Its like they feel they have to hit 90 minutes to qualify as a feature film. They could just make the movie 65-75 minutes many of them would be a lot better. Also you even see a lot of B movies that go on for over two hours now, which is needless in most cases imo. I like that most of them are shorter personally, and I think it makes the films from this period more unique. AaronY (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aaron, the fast pace of these films is a feature, not a bug -- and it's hardly unique to the pre-Code time period, look at His Girl Friday (1940) for what may be the apotheosis of the fast-talking style, or any screwball comedy from any period, for that matter. It's much easier to see the conventions of films from the past because they differ so much from those of our own time, but any "anthropologist from Mars" would tell you that contemporary films have just as many nonsensical aspects as those from any other period -- we're just used to them, and accept then more easily as the hallmarks of satisfying story-telling. The way to appreciate the hallmarks of another era is to watch more of that era's films, and get used to the way they told stories then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One other thought: if someone from the 1930s were to be time-traveled into 2011, they would probably ask why our films all seem to have an edit every 15 seconds or so, instead of giving the audience some time to contemplate what they're seeing. In fact, in my opinion it's the pace of cutting more than anything else which allows contemporary films to be successful when their plots have massive holes in them, holes which you aren't really aware of until afterwards when contemplating the film's story. While viewing the film, the pace and energy of the editing, along with the special effects, stunts and other flim-flamery, keep the viewer from having the time or inclination to attend to the deficiencies in the plot. This doesn't mean that current films are better or worse than earlier films, or vice versa, it just means that different storytelling conventions are being utilized. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't His Girl Friday a remake of The Front Page from 1931? :) Just sayin'. Have you seen The Purchase Price (spoiler) certainly you must have wondered (afterwards) what happened to the guys who burned the wheat? What about at the end of Night Nurse (spoiler) you must have wondered (afterwards) what happened to the mother and her children, that was a major plot point.
Anyway, the initial poster should watch some more movies, there are a bunch which are coherent from beginning to end and really enjoyable. The thing is, this was a time when the depression (at least from 1932 onwards) was causing everyone to cut costs (as mentioned) and block booking was standard, you could get one great movie and a maybe couple ones of varying quality in a package. It wasn't until the late 1940's that Hollywood had to start marketing each movie on it's own merits when the supreme court broke up the vertically integrated studios. Ya gotta understand the context of the movies you watch. :) JungleMouse5644 (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the "abrupt nonsensical ending" thing too. I have looked at contemporary reviews for old movies at the New York Times, Time, etc. sites and they sometimes criticized the endings back then as well. I recall such words as "implausable", "jarring", "unbelievable" and so on. Just so you know that you are not alone in your observations! If a movie was criticized for certain reasons when it was released, it seems kind of ridiculous to not be allowed to criticize it for similar reasons in later years. :-) Also, you mentioned "five hundred movies per year" which raises a valid point, you can't expect five hundred pristine quality films. Some movies were made really well, some were really poorly made. 142.167.175.64 (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ten films per week—500 a year—they didn't call them "programmers" for nothing. And 15-seconds-a-shot is a leisurely cutting pace these days! One unintended consequence of today's frenetic style is that when you need, say, 15 shots a minute, you'll choose shots just to fill that roster. So you get crazy extreme close-ups of unimportant things like electric window buttons in cars, fingertips pressing doorbell buttons, human lips speaking into telephones—all of which "cheapen" the legitimate close-ups and rob them of their power. Not to sound like a fogey, but there's a whole generation of directors now who have no idea how to build a scene through effective cutting, because they're slaves to the 4-seconds-per-shot style. Where's my ear trumpet?—HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really great article

Sorry, this isn't a terribly constructive comment, but I just had to say that this is one of the most comprehensive and fascinating articles I've read on Wikipedia. Someone should probably nominate it for Featured Article status. I don't know to what extent it's mostly the work of one person, but if it is they should feel very proud of themselves. Thanks for writing it. Robofish (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Myself (formerly I went by Quadzilla99) and others put a lot of work into it. Believe it or not I was only halfway done with whst i wanted to do with it when I stopped, lol. There was still a lot more I wanted to do with it. AaronY (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you stop? Carry on, young man. Quis separabit? 16:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Talbot

I removed Lyle Talbot from the section regarding forgotten stars of the Pre-Code period. Talbot's starring roles may have ended but largely because "Talbot's activism in SAG union affairs severely impacted his career path.[citation needed] Warner Bros. dropped him from its roster, and Talbot seldom received starring roles again." He remained active until the 1980s in film, television, radio and even musical theatre. To classify him as forgotten in the same way as Ruth Chatterton and Warren William (brilliant both) appears to me to be inaccurate. Quis separabit? 16:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if anyone disagrees strenuously please feel free to restore it as it was. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article length

The article is too long to read in one sitting. Could several sections of the article be split by movie genre? The article would still be a good article if the paragraphs are more concise. Epicgenius(give him tirade • check out damage) 00:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the length of the article comes about because it is a well-written and comprehensive look at the subject. There is no requirement that our articles be short enough to read "in one sitting", and we should be rewarding those who create admirably comprehensive articles, not punishing them by dumbing things down for those who can't read anything longer than a tweet, and get lost in a sentence any more complicated than "See John run." This article is excellent as it is -- and is, after all, a Good Article Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The good article 7 Subway Extension is at least five times shorter. The 2003 Chicago porch collapse, also a good article, is at least ten times shorter. Here are more examples of short good article: New York State Route 23, six times; Gun Hill Road, 12 times; East 233rd Street, 15 times. Good articles don't have to be long to be good. Epicgenius(give him tirade • check out damage) 01:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And this is an example of a long good article - your point being what? My point is that the article was about this same length when it was evaluated as a good article, so there's no need to go shortening it unnecesarily, since it was good then and it's good now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Short good articles are more concise and direct. Long good articles, while detailed, fail to grasp the main ideas of the article until three or four sections into the article. Epicgenius(give him tirade • check out damage) 02:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That a short article is more "concise" than a long one is a tautology. There is no "fail[ure] to grasp the main idea" here, since the lede does an admirable job at establishing those right off the bat.

The truth is, some subjects only require short articles -- subjects like Gun Hill Road, East 233rd Street and New York State Route 23, which are, after all, just stretches of pavement -- and some subjects are complex because they deal with complicated human issues involving politics, sociology, the arts and economics. An article on Hollywood films under the Production Code has to be considerably longer than an article which is essentially a listing of exits and other hard-and-fast physical facts. One cannot be judged by the same standard appropriate for the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some content is already elsewhere, with two sections having links to them.
    Main article: Pre-Code sex films
    Main article: Pre-Code crime films
    Dream Focus 03:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization: Pre-Code or pre-Code?

Any objections to my changing it from "Pre-Code" to "pre-Code" in the article, as in The New York Times book review[3], a Harvard Film Archive article[4], etc.? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   The only reasonable basis for objection would be if the Turan quote in the Pre-Code Hollywood#Social problem films section were accurate in attributing to Turan "the king of Pre-Code", as if that quote were verbatim et literatim. And there's pretty good evidence that it's not (even) what Turan wrote! Perhaps that was already suspected: This Google-books page purports to reproduce "Never Coming to a Theater Near You: A Celebration of a Certain Kind of Movie" / "By Kenneth Turan" saying (at an indeterminate page number) under a presumable section title "Pre-Code Hollywood"
... the ever-smooth Warren William, a.k.a. "the king of pre-code" ...
and on that basis i'm changing '(later dubbed "the king of Pre-Code"<ref name="Tu371"/>)' (where the reference is to Turan's book) by changing P to p (consistent with my position that "pre-Code" refers to the Production Code, but is not itself a proper noun) tho i think our casing "pre-Code" (when speaking on behalf of WP rather than quoting) is correct, and that we need not comment on his down-casing to "code" (even tho i prefer our up-casing "Code") when he up-cases it, simply on the basis that what we put in quotes and attribute to him necessarily matches his casing in his work. (And i'm satisfied that the contrast between our usage and his can speak for itself, with neither a (snarky but otherwise still) obligatory "[sic]", nor discussion of the fact that if he is referring to the Pro'n Code as merely one actual instance of "a production code" (whether the historical Production Code, or hypothetical other codes never given names nor actually imposed in Hollywood), we've done our job.
--Jerzy•t 04:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pre-Code Hollywood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More good work, and size issues

A.S. Brown is doing good expansion work! However, I think it's really time that either some of the material be spit off to related articles or subarticles, leaving a summary behind, or the sections be juggled somehow so readers can get an overview in the first 1/3 or 1/2 of the article. But I'll leave that hard work to others. EEng 21:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you EEng. I'll to address your concerns. Thanks for the kind words. --A.S. Brown (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, @AaronY: wrote 67% of the article, so I'm pinging them so they can get involved in this discussion as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Rabid" anti-Semite

(Per WP:NPV and WP:TONE) The article contained the sentence that Breen was a "rabid anti-Semite," with an illustrative quote and references to two works. I removed the word "rabid" on the grounds that the tone is inappropriately hyperbolic and that the quote is sufficient to establish his view. "Rabid" is not a neutral description of the strength of his feelings. My perfectly good-faith edit was reverted without explanation. I'd be perfectly content with any appropriate adjective. If an editor who knows the subject well (the referenced works are unavailable to me) thinks an adjective such as convinced/unashamed/secret/strident/published/zealous is correct for this person of course that would be suitable for WP:TONE. I have thus reinstated my edit, pending improvement. Kind regards, J. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 10:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The adjective is sourced. Per WP:BRD, I've restored the status quo ante until you have a consensus here to make the change. P_lease do not change it again until you have the consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Beyond My Ken:, I'm inclined to agree with the removal of "rabid". It may be sourced but it is an adjective that is a bit WP:UNDUE in my opinion. Perhaps an RfC or survey is in order? I'll place a talkback template on 82.69...'s talk page as I don't think IPs get pings. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 14:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we remove "rabid", are we then removing "devout" from "devout Roman Catholic"? Are we banning all comparative adjectives? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think "strong" or "ardent" would be better. Rabid is unencyclopedic because it's usually applied to dogs. DrStrauss talk 14:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or squirrels, or anything else that gets rabies. Obviously, its use here is metaphorical, and the meaning is clearly not that Hays is a dog, it's that his anti-semitism wasn't of the casual variety (as much of racism and other prejudices is), it was active and outer-directed. I'm at a loss to understand why this word is being softened when it's attested to by sources. (Incidentally, the word is also used metaphorically in a positive sense: "He was a rabid fan of the Boston Red Sox", is clearly not meant to be negative, but it literally means "a fanatic with rabies". Would we remove that, too, as "UNDUE"? I don't think so.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its use in the source is metaphorical but because of its connotations I think it should be removed. Yes, he was definitely a racist, and a strong one too, but just because a source uses a particular word doesn't mean we have to use it when there are more appropriate words available. And yes, I would say that the positive use of the word should be removed and replaced with "avid". DrStrauss talk 14:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with its removal, as I think it's the mot juste, but if we're going to talk about compromise, "strong" doesn't really do it for me. How do you feel about "zealous"? "Ardent" would be OK, but it's a little too high-falutin' for my taste, too polite a word. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at a thesaurus: "extreme", "fanatical" (goes too far, I think), "passionate" (too positive a word), "diehard". Geez, "rabid" is just the absolutely correct word. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would "staunch" for antisemitism and "avid" for the fan statement do? DrStrauss talk 14:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be perfectly happy with "zealous". Kind regards, J. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DrS? "Zealous"? (Staunch has too many positive connotations: "a staunch defender of liberty".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not zealous. BeyondMyKen, what are your opinions on my two suggestions? DrStrauss talk 15:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be perfectly happy with "avid", "ardent". Kind regards, J. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
82.69.229.22 I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) that BeyondMyKen is satisfied with "avid" and "staunch". If you can confirm that you're content with this, we can edit it. DrStrauss talk 15:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly content with avid/ardent/staunch (but thought Ken found "staunch" too positive). Thanks, J. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, "avid", "ardent" and "staunch" are all too positive in connotation. Anti-Semitism is not a good thing and positive words should not be used in connection with it.
How about "extreme"? (I'd go with "virulent", but even I think that goes too far.)Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about "avid" for the baseball bit and extreme for the antisemitism bit? I wouldn't say "staunch" is positive but I'm fine with extreme and avid. DrStrauss talk 16:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The baseball thing was just an example, there's nothing like it in the article. "Extreme" works for me, if we can't keep "rabid (which I still think is the perfect word). 82.69? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put "extreme" and call it a day. Kind regards, J. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: thanks to both parties for your civil co-operation! DrStrauss talk 16:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A vast Pan-Asian army made up of Asians and Muslims

Could I suggest a change here? There is no indication in the film "Mask of Fu Manchu" that the horde being addressed by the titular villain in the climactic scene are Muslim -- they seem instead to be made up of the standard Hollywood mixture of just about anyone non-European (except for Africans, whom Fu Manchu considers as worth nothing more than slaves) : a motley crew of scimitar-waving, turban-wearing bearded men who could be anything from Persian to Arab to Indian and a mixture of "Orientals" who could be Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. -- essentially anyone fitting under the heading of "Asian". There is no implication that any of them are adherents of any particular religion and it seems unlikely that Muslims would join an army intended to bring to power the "new Genghis Khan" (which is the premise of the film), as the real Genghis Khan invaded both what is modern-day Iran and Irak, as well as Afghanistan and Egypt, slaughtering countless Muslims in the process.Partnerfrance (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Roosevelt

I would like to add:

Franklin Roosevelt served as a script doctor for the film. He wrote to the producer “I think it is an intensely interesting picture and should do much to help.”

My references:

1) Goldberg, Jonah. Liberal Fascism. Broadway Books (2009) p. 202-203.

2) www.nationalreview.com/article/369702/tinseltowns-propaganda-problem-jonah-goldberg

3) https://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/the-hollywood-movie-made-for-f-d-r-s-inauguration

4) https://www.chronicle.pitt.edu/story/harviths-give-talk-gabriel-over-white-house-fdr-presidential-library

Of course we should not exclude references just because they come from conservatives!

The article is poorly written and biased and in violation of Wikipedia rules. It needs many improvements.24.189.41.10 (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Goldberg is a conservative political commentator, and not a reliable source for information about politicians, especially politicians on the other side of the aisle from him, such as the progressive FDR. He is not a historian, nor is he historically trained. The National Review is the magazine founded by William S. Buckley, the ur-paleoconservative. Neither Goldberg (who writes for NR) or the magazine are unbiased concerning FDR.
There is no way these count as WP:RS, and this (rather trivial) material should not be added to the article.
The New Yorker article does not support the material. It doe snot mention FDR as a "script doctor", or that he had any participation in the film at all. It merely says "the new U.S. President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, loved [the film]". Similarly, the Pitt citation has no relevance either.
So, two unreliable sources, and two unspportive sources.
I'll ignore your comments about the article, which are untrue. In any case, if the information in the article is faulty, adding more faulty information in an attempt to "balance" it is not the way to go -- that's not what WP:NPOV means. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The New Yorker article says: "the new U.S. President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, loved it."
The University lecturers state: "The film, which came out shortly after FDR’s inauguration, was one of the six top film hits of spring 1933 and was reportedly a favorite of the new President."
So I'd like to add: "The film was a favorite of FDR's."
This statement is supported by my 4 references.
Of course nonprofessional historians are cited in history articles (including this one) all over Wikipedia. Your belief that conservatives are biased and leftists unbiased is perhaps not well thought out.24.189.41.10 (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That FDR liked the film is irrelevant to the subject of the article. Your motivation for wanting to add it is obviously political, and not to improve Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many facts about these Pre-Code films are included in the article. Why do you want to cover up this particular fact? 24.189.41.10 (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pre-Code_Hollywood&oldid=819058441"