Talk:The King and I

message: In writing about American historian on Thailand A. B. Griswold, I noticed this statement from his obituary in the Baltimore Sun: In 1957, he made headlines as an expert on Thailand when he published a defense of 19th-century monarch King Mongkut, claiming that Anna Leonowens had fabricated parts of her account of her experiences as a tutor at his court that provided the basis for the musical "The King and I" and other works. The timing suggests that the attention was probably prompted by the release of the film adaptation, but does anyone know more about this? The publication in question is probably this article: "King Mongkut in Perspective", published in the Journal of the Siam Society, an English-language scholarly journal from Bangkok. But I'm curious as to what the headlines were that the Sun mentions. Did this particular piece of criticism become noticed in the United States? And for that matter, while such cultural sensitivities weren't of concern to most people back in the day, were there other contemporary critical voices? --Paul_012 (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A look at newspapers.com shows me a Reuters story that ran in a number of Canadian newspapers and also the Minneapolis Star-Tribune around August 20, 1957, an example is clipped here. None ran on the front page, which makes "headlines" a bit problematical. A Baltimore Sun piece followed on August 24, recast into something of an editorial, here. Also not page 1. I don't see anything else that year.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary criticisms on accuracy? 

message: recently reverted my edit that changed the short description from to "Musical by Rodgers and Hammerstein, premiered in 1951" (53 characters) to "1951 Rodgers and Hammerstein musical" (36 characters), saying "Do not identify stage shows by year like a film. Stage shows can be written, published and premiered in three different years". I'm not certain as to what publishing means in this context, but it does not appear to be a date given prominence in the article, similar article, or the infobox. Films are typically not written or filmed in one calendar year, but it is standard to refer to films by the year of release. Books and video games are also not typically written/developed entirely in the year of publication, but that is the year we use in a short description and generally (see WP:SDDATES). Looking around Wikipedia, for musicals, this would be the premiere date. In any case, per Wikipedia:SDLENGTH, short descriptions should generally be 40 characters or less to avoid truncation.  -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 09:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Films are different than plays/musicals/operas, which can be revived over and over again, and often their first production is a tryout at a smaller theatre before they go to Broadway, West End, or some other bigger theatre.  So identifying a musical by the year of premiere, without noting that this is the year being used, is not helpful.  They are not "released" like a film. We could just say Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, which would, I think, be an adequate short description. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Films get re-releases as well as well as having initial limited release before getting a wide release. For example, Avatar_(2009_film)#Post-original_release had re-releases in 2010 and 2022, but no one would be confused by the title and article saying its a 2009 film. Likewise, The Rocky Horror Picture Show has been on limited release since 1975, but is described as a 1975 film, and Call Me by Your Name (film) had a limited release in Fall 2017 before having a wide release in 2018 during awards season, but is called a 2017 film. In any case, even if this is a phenomenon for musicals, the article does not indicate that this is the case for The King and I, so there should be no problem simply calling it a 1951 film. Per WP:SDDATES, we should be trying to use dates when possible.  ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Avatar film you saw in 2009 was largely the same film you will have seen in different releases (maybe with an extra couple of minutes added onto the interminable length of the film, probably in a section when most normal people will have fallen asleep and have missed the "crucial" difference) You can watch the same film over and over and over and it won't change. A play may change from one night to another, let alone from one cast to another. I've seen Macbeth (for example) done in the classic sense in the the Rose Theatre, but in a hugely different 'classical' way by the RSC at Stratford - and I've also seen it set in a South American dictatorship, in the 19th century and one version in an intergalactic setting! (Bloody weird that was too!) Plays are always being "reinvented" by whatever is going through the mind of the director of the time, and while they may have some resemblance to the original, we're not talking about a "director's cut" difference of a couple of seconds here. "Premiered in xxxx" seems a much better way to cover this. - SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that stage works ought to be identified by the composer and author(s), and if you wish to add a date, you can say the year that it premiered or the year that it began its most important production. Tim riley talk 18:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

text: We could endlessly argue about the differences between art forms and the unique ways in which how they are experienced can change. Our article on director's cut gives multiple examples of film with substantial added run-time and/or major changes after the theatrical release. Nausicaä_of_the_Valley_of_the_Wind_(film)#Releases shows how international releases can mangle core elements of a film. All of these are arguably more substantial changes than the differences between casts, sets, directors, etc. for plays. However, this misses the core of this debate, which is that "XXXX work" simply means that the work was first published/released/performed in XXXX. People understand that films can be re-released, books republished, musicals re-staged, etc. after the calendar year it was first released. No one will see "XXXX work" and be misled into thinking that this means that it was only released/published/staged that calendar year and never again. Therefore "1951 Rodgers and Hammerstein musical" is fine as a short description. I don't see another way to include the date, medium, and the key names without going over the 40 character limit, nor do I see a compelling reason why it should use "premiered", be 53 characters, and have the date truncated for some users.  ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s fine - you don’t see a reason, others do, and the consensus appears to be against the wording. - SchroCat (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, what Patar knight wants to write is misleading, and in many/most articles for theatrical works would be simply wrong. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with our two immediately preceding colleagues. Tim riley talk 16:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description