Talk:List of cameo appearances by Alfred Hitchcock

message: It should be merged somehow, these are two articles on the exact same subject.  It should also be added that Hitchcock's appearance at the beginning of Rope is disputed - most Hitchcock scholars AFAIK don't believe that is him. Шизомби 01:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I've removed that claim that Hitchcock makes a cameo appearance in the film ("Coming down the ship's gangway in front of Ashenden") as it clearly isn't Hitchcock.  The following are screen grabs from the best DVD release available. Davepattern 16:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible that the uncredited actor coming down the gangway in front of Ashenden is Francis De Wolff (who memorably played the role of Hardcastle in "The Smallest Show on Earth").  It certainly looks a little like him and he later had a credited role in "Under Capricorn".  De Wolff began his film career in 1935, so he was probably playing small bit parts around the time of "Secret Agent". Davepattern 11:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Although Davepattern posted this almost five years ago the screen shots are conclusive for me that it isn't Hitchcock. As I searched the web the only site I could find that lists this cameo is the FilmSite one that is hosted by AMC (which is already an EL in this article) and even they list it as "speculative". Other sites that don't list it include this one  at Hitchcock TV and ones as authoritative as Roger Ebert's  and Empire magazines . Per WP:SPECULATION and the screen captures I do not think that this film should be in the table. At best it might be mentioned in a footnote but even that is dubious considering the evidence. MarnetteD | Talk 20:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Davepattern did a good job of demonstrating that guy is not Hitchcock, assuming those screen shots are from 8 minutes into the film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret Agent 

message: I've changed the second cameo to "possible" and "unconfirmed" for "The Lodger".  I've just finished watching the best available DVD (from the German "Early Years" set from Concorde) frame by frame -- there is one man who looks a little like Hitchcock but, during a brief close-up, it clearly isn't him. Davepattern (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lodger 

message: It looks like people have begun refining the time resolution on some of the films by adding a seconds value. (eg, "I Confess", "The 39 Steps") If that's really what those are, the column header should read "Hrs:Min:Sec". The column sort seems to work fine with a mix of Hrs:Min and Hrs:Min:Sec values.
Chris Noe (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Resolution 

message: This cameo device has been since used by other filmmakers and TV series. I think it's worth adding a section discussing this. For example, James Cameron makes a cameo as a passenger in Titanic, and the TV series Fringe has made the "Hitchcock cameo" an actual plot point by having a character called "The Observer" appear in Hitchcock-style cameos in every episode, even before the character was officially introduced. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Use by other filmmakers

message: In the article's current form, if you sort by year, the table gets messed up (at least in Safari 5.1 on Mac OS 10.7.1). For instance, the first entry in the newly sorted list says "[Title:] 1:32 [Year:] In the crowd watching an arrest." and the remaining fields are blank. This seems to be because some movies have more than one cameo and, when sorted by year, the two cameos don't get moved with the year. If someone with more knowledge on how the tables work could fix that, it would be awesome! -Thunderforge (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting by Year Breaks Table 

message: There is no source for the previous time of 33 minutes.  Also, what kind of source do you want?  I just watched the film, and the cameo appeared at :27. Jem54 (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Two sources are in External links at the bottom of the page. Empire gives 00:32:27, Filmsite gives 33 minutes. (It looks like people aren't putting these links as refs in the table itself.) Your own observations unfortunately come under WP:OR, and they're contradicted by what's been accepted and backed-up on the page a long time. You probably saw an edited version of the film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the two sources that Gothicfilm has provided. Along with the possibility that you saw an edited version we could figure out the discrepancy by knowing how you watched the film. Cable TV, VHS, DVD or some streaming on the net. Also where were you viewing it - there can be runtime oddities between region 1 and 2 due to the difference in frames-per-second broadcasting. In any event the table should remain as is based on the sources we have at this time. MarnetteD | Talk 13:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitchcock cameo in ''[[Topaz (1969 film)|Topaz]]'' 

message: I've removed this as the new 2012 blu-ray transfer of the film clearly shows it's not Hitchcock: http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/files/captures/0810_012510.jpg Davepattern (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  crowd scene cameo in The Lodger 

message: I've removed the "0:02 Walking along a street (holding a newspaper) after the opening credits." entry for "Rope".  This has always been a contentious cameo, as there's nothing to indicate the man is Hitchcock (it certainly doesn't resemble him).  However, I spotted in Thomas Leitch's reference work "The Encyclopedia of Alfred Hitchcock" (pg 47) that an extensive search of the production records at Warner Brothers had shown that the only cameo is the red neon sign.  So, unless someone has evidence that trumps the film's official production records, the neon sign should be the only listed cameo for the film. Davepattern (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Dave's removal of this alleged cameo. In the current editing over this please note that IMDb cannot be used as a reference. It is an open wiki meaning that you, I or anyone can go there - enter info about this cameo - and within a week or so it will be added to the trivia section. They do not fact check entries and, because of that, their pages are full of inaccuracies and errors. MarnetteD | Talk 22:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I notice that this rumored cameo is still listed, while the neon sign is not. This must be fixed. Commonly mistaken or rumored cameos might be worth mentioning, but in any case there is no justification for not mentioning the neon sign. Richard K. Carson (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-added this cameo. There's a direct source for this at Rope (film), which is the film's writer Arthur Laurents on the DVD bonus feature. Laurents describes how the second more traditional cameo was conceived later, through concerns the neon sign was too obscure (which presumably explains its absence from production records). It's also included on the Filmsite external link. U-Mos (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don’t agree that a DVD commentary is a reliable source. It may be faulty recollection. I would rather go with the published reference work mentioned above. The majority of sources say there was only one cameo and the article should reflect that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a source. WP:VERIFIABLE - unless the production source states that the earlier figure is not a cameo (which it doesn't appear to from the above), there's no disagreement. --U-Mos (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove Rope cameo 

message: Just spotted that the BFI "Film & TV Database" entry for Easy Virtue casts doubt on the cameo: "It has been suggested that Hitchcock appears in the film as the man exiting the tennis court, but on close inspection it does not appear to be him." Not too sure what to make of this, but I guess the 16mm projection print held by the BFI (along with their recent restoration of the film) will be much better quality than the fuzzy unlicensed DVD releases. Is it worth changing the entry to "unconfirmed"? Davepattern (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that you should go ahead and make the change you suggest. BFI is a perfectly reliable source. Thanks for your vigilance in taking care of this page. MarnetteD | Talk 20:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easy Virtue 

message: I've just watched the Criterion HD streaming version of Sabotage and I'd say it's definitely not Hitchcock. The man hasn't got Hitch's profile (no receding chin) and looks to be of normal weight (his chest is only puffed out whilst he's bending back to look upwards). Hopefully there'll be a Bluray release at some point in the future which could be used to make a more definite judgement. Davepattern (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabotage 

message: A minor point, but in the version on YouTube he appears at the 43:08 mark.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.51.13 (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spellbound 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion