Talk:The Butler
Film: American Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
United States: Cinema Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Comments
According to exclusive-exclusive report cited herewith, Matthew McConaughey is to play the role of JFK[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.156.159 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm assuming the 8th president would be HW Bush, who was VEEP when Allen retired. Though not sure why a WH butler would "serve" the VEEP in any sense more than he may have served the VEEP's son at some point at a dinner or something. Not to diminish his legacy, but it should be 7 presidents... Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan. 63.119.183.254 (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Shouldn't there be some mention of the controversy of having Jane Fonda play Nancy Reagan? For example, the article here: http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/liberal-jane-fonda-play-conservative-nancy-reagan-185931921.html and here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/jane-fonda-nancy-reagan_n_3053425.html I'm not much of a Wiki person, but the controversy is the only reason I know of the movie, so... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.223.31.214 (talk) 06:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- The 8th president is not GHW Bush, it's Truman. According to the article, the fictional Gaines and the real Allen began serving at the White House in 1952. Truman was President until January 1953, so he was the 8th (or the 1st, chronologically). 99.192.80.7 (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was not moved. Though I participated in this discussion, consensus is quite clear (and the nominator has been blocked for username policy violation), so I'm closing it in the spirit of WP:NOTBURO. Please contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The Butler → Lee Daniels' The Butler – The official title of the movie has been changed from The Butler to Lee Daniels' The Butler. All marketing materials moving forward will incorporate the new title Lee Daniels' The Butler, including the new poster that has been uploaded to this Wiki page. Please move the page to the new title so we can streamline this process. Weinsteinco (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment just because it is incorporating the possessive into the official title doesn't mean it won't still be referred to as The Butler in the wider sphere of reporting. I recommend sitting on this and seeing what the secondary sources do. Betty Logan (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- I actually came here to say this, I really did. Businessweek says, "Despite the name change, there's nothing Warner Bros. can do about the fact that audiences probably won't use the new name. Everyone's still going to call it The Butler." The lead sentence of this article should definitely say Lee Daniels' The Butler, but for the article title, we apply the policy WP:COMMONNAME. It was called The Butler up to now, and I agree that we shouldn't so readily change the article title because of some pseudo-legalese. We don't even have a Wikipedia article on the 1916 short film, and my cursory research shows nothing significant. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Official or not, it will be more widely known as simply The Butler. Film Fan 13:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- The issue is that the official name for the film is Lee Daniels' The Butler. Almost every movie in Wikipedia is listed under it's official name. Per COMMON NAME rules, the redirect should go from The Butler (common name) and point to Lee Daniels' The Butler (the official name). That way, it satisfies COMMON NAME rules but, more importantly, it follows the standard movie page convention and precedence. Weinsteinco (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Weinsteinco, the official name and the common name often overlap. However, there are instances where the common name is shorthand of the longer official name. Some examples include Precious (film), The Avengers (2012 film), and Borat. Not to mention that a lot of Disney films' titles preceded with "Walt Disney's" (though I'm not quite sure if that was official titling), and the related film articles don't include that prefix. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note: Weinsteinco created a second RM below with the same request. This is improper, though I've kept the new rationale, as the comment directly above this one. --BDD (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Compare to, for example, Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married?, which appropriately redirects to simply Why Did I Get Married? Note, however, if a new page comes describing something titled The Butler, it may be appropriate to make a move like this (Bram Stoker's Dracula is a similar case), although even then there would be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to consider. --BDD (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose for now per WP:COMMONNAME since this film was officially titled The Butler up until recently and since Google News currently continues to use "The Butler" as a common name even after the official renaming. In addition to the Businessweek commentary I mentioned, The Atlantic says, "We can all agree though that we're just going to refer to this movie as The Butler, right? Okay. Good." I think it is best to wait until the film is released and reviewed to see if "The Butler" is still favorable as an article title per WP:COMMONNAME. In other words, we can at that point start a new request to move if someone thinks it is worth changing the article title based on that future coverage. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Wikipedia uses common name and is not beholden to companies to assist in their marketing gimics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Truly Ensemble Cast?
I think this article misuses the phrase "ensemble cast". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.25.221 (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please explain how the article offends!
I quote:
An ensemble cast is made up of cast members in which the principal actors and performers are assigned roughly equal amounts of importance and screen time in a dramatic production.[2][3] This contrasts with productions which develop and focus on certain main characters more than others.
In Hollywood, the term has recently begun to be misused as a replacement for the old term "all-star cast"; just meaning a film with many well-known actors, even if most of them only have minor roles, sometimes just cameo appearances.
–
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 09:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- ^ Patterson, Steve. "Matthew McConaughey lands a role that's left people dazed and confused, he'll be the latest to portray John F. Kennedy". Hollywood Dailies. Reelz TV About Movies.
- ^ Random House: ensemble acting Linked 2013-07-17
- ^ Character design for graphic novels. Focal Press/Rotovision. 2007. p. 112. Retrieved 2009-09-05.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|authors=
ignored (help)
- 09:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Mariah Carey
Regarding the "Starring" field in the film infobox, one can see the billing block clearly here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Would anyone consider just having Whitaker and Winfrey in the film infobox? Especially considering that the billing block gives the film title after these two names? I feel like an extensive list of names in "Starring" defeats the purpose of the infobox providing a summary. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- That seems good to me. Personally, I think it should be this OR the whole cast according to the billing block. I'm fine with either one. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would also support just listing Whitaker and Winfrey in the infobox. STATic message me! 20:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 19 August 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I know Icon (through Lionsgate) will distribution it in the UK I need on this page. please
- You need to provide an adequate and verifiable source. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Protests from Reagan Camp: "Reagan saw everybody as the same and was colorblind"
Should some of the information below be added to Wikipedia's "Butler" article?
From Newsmax, we get several reactions from Ronald Reagan's White House; 'the portrayal of the president as racially insensitive in the movie "The Butler" was "absolutely wrong",' Ken Duberstein, the Gipper's last chief of staff, tells John Gizzi.
' "Ronald Reagan saw everybody as the same and was colorblind," Duberstein … said in an exclusive interview with Newsmax. "He accepted everyone for who they were and did not have a bad bone in his body".'
Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III concurs, telling Andrea Billups that 'the portrayal of the Reagans as racially insensitive was not accurate, saying the true Ronald Reagan "treated everyone extremely well, including people who were in a position of assisting him in one way or another".' Asteriks (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Louis's electoral politics
There was a poster shown that indicated the son ran for office. What office makes a lot of difference, as does whether the candidate passes various marks, like 10% of votes cast, winning the 90%-black precincts, finishing 2nd, or of course winning. Perhaps no such info appeared or was insinuated (but if it was, i missed it). If there was no such hint, it probably is just a way of communicating "he not only left the Panthers, but also at least devoted sustained effort to electoral politics", and the reconciliation he achieved with the father says as much as we need. But if it was clear that he was at least a wake-up call in his constituency, that probably needs brief mention.
--Jerzy•t 00:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Start-Class film articles
- Start-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- Start-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Unknown-importance American cinema articles
- WikiProject United States articles