Talk:Classical Hollywood cinema

message: I would urge the editors to explore how 1940s America used black men, specifically Bill Robinson’s representation in movies starring alongside Shirley Temple, to paint a picture of blackness in a manner that assumes all black men are the same and therefore should be treated as a single cohort. This lack of representation of black men as unique and individual enforces a continuation of racial stereotypes. This is a vital piece of information to be included because it explores the tendency for American society to apply specific stereotypes to a broad cohort of people, specifically to racialized groups, and how these stereotypes reinforce the paradox that blackness is unchanging yet must be changed. I would recommend that this information be added in a new sub-section of the Wikipedia article, as the article does not speak to these racial stereotypes and representations in any section. Ataps365 (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new section about 1940s Racial Stereotypes in Film 

message: Whoever keeps removing the famous Hollywood actors and actressses from the article page, please stop. It is relevant information that should stay where it belongs. 172.74.203.83 (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop 

message: As I'm typing this William Shatner is alive. He was in movies in the 1950s and early 60s and is older than some of the people included on the living actors list. He is also extremely notable. 184.14.244.236 (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Shatner should be on the list of living actors of the golden age. 

message: This page declares and delineates that the "Golden Age of Cinema" is, approximately, from the year 1927 to 1969. There is nothing that says that certain actors, be they, at the time, well-known or not, are certainly well-known now, and are of a generation of ever-dwindling numbers, should be excluded or omitted for any particular reason. If an actor appeared in numerous films of the era, and were emerging as a talent, and are now established movie stars of today, why should any actor or actor(s) be omitted? What is the criterion for inclusion or exclusion? What is the standard?
I added, to this page, Jack Nicholson and Michael Murphy. To say that these two are not associated with this period of American cinema is purely and factually untrue, and as they were both in numerous films--eighteen for the former, and five for the latter--these men not only worked before the end (1969) of this era, but also, worked with landmark people who pioneered cinema with great stars and directors, both, of this period.
Murphy has, also, like Nicholson, starred opposite legends from this same time period, be it Kirk Douglas, Deborah Kerr, Elvis Presley, Kim Novak, Peter Finch, Ernest Borgnine, Robert Duvall and Sandy Dennis, and directors like Elia Kazan, Robert Aldrich, Norman Taurog and Robert Altman.
So, to just discard their names, from this page, to simply disregard their presences without any qualified explanations or technical litmus acting as bearers of either standard or concreteness, then I have to say that there is no rightful reason for stripping Jack Nicholson's or Michael Murphy's names from this article.
My opinion is backed by objective logic and practical reasoning, as well as by historical fact and technical standards: they both worked a lot during this time period, with legends of this time period. These two movie stars, both Misters Nicholson and Murphy, and they should remain on this page, and if they are removed again without a valid and credible argument backed by some kind of universal calculus and mutually-agreed-upon technical standard, then I shall report these removals and demand a critical and scientific standard for this article, and those like it. PERIOD.
Anything otherwise will just look like fascist, arrogant and opinionated manipulations of historical and cultural content management, something we are all seeing more and more in the credibility-reduced realm known as "Wikipedia", a shrinking planet composed less and less of facts borne from objective and scientific truth, found in an expanding galaxy bearing, more and more, a composition comprised even more so of pompous opinion and revisionist control. 64.38.125.171 (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions are Opinions, Facts are Facts, But at Least My Opinion is Supported by Facts  

message: This article seems to have been monopolized by an individual or small group of individuals whose perception is warped...and no one's doing anything about it.
There are a couple of major issues. First is the timeframe used to define "Classical Hollywood". Some Joe Schmo has put 1969 as the cutoff, but the reference that immediately follows this dubious claim - Oxford Dictionary website - says 1960! Which means the editor who put '69 is lying (misrepresenting, fabricating, whatever).
For perspective, Raquel Welch said that she thought of classic Hollywood as finishing off in the '50s, while TCM's Alicia Malone considers a classic film to be anything before 1980. There is no clear definition.
Even if you approximate, 1969 is such a random year. Smack dab in the middle of counterculture, it's completely inappropriate to use as a cutoff. 1959 or 1979 would make sense.
The second major issue is the compilation of actors and actresses that are ostensibly "major figures from classical Hollywood cinema". Some of the names on there are laughable. Tippi Hedren? She starred in exactly two films. And while she was born in 1930, her first credit isn't until 1963. By that standard, Ron Howard should be on the list, since his debut well precedes Hedren's. By that standard, there are hundreds of names you could add to the list. The inclusion of Clint Eastwood is also absurd, as he didn't star in a Hollywood movie until 1968 when he was 38. Fabian Forte and Tuesday Weld, both of whom are 13 years younger than Eastwood, were household names a decade before he was, yet they aren't even on this bogus list.
It looks like someone has thought up all the famous or semi-famous performers born within a certain time, and that's the measurement they've used to determine eligibility....regardless of whether the performers were part of "Classical Hollywood" or not. It's ageism and pigeonholing, and it has nothing to do with "Classical Hollywood". Parts of this page have been written by editors who don't even understand what classic Hollywood is.
This isn't going to get resolved without administrative intervention. The talk page is no use. There have been attempts to start a discussion over the years, but nobody ever replies.
If you're going to pick a cutoff, the cutoff should be backed by a consensus. As for the index of actors and actresses deemed "major figures from classical Hollywood cinema", the only names that should be retained are those on AFI's 100 Screen Legends, since it's the only criteria that has been established. I'm removing the rest. Namwidow (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The list even had Zsa Zsa Gabor (!). These fanboy article are ridiculous.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namwidow (talk • contribs) 06:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To prevent future abuse, it might be a good idea to remove the "major figures" list altogether. I'm looking through the edit history and no such section even existed until a decade-plus after the article was forked.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namwidow (talk • contribs) 06:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the list "Living performers from the Golden Age of Hollywood cinema" because again, it's subjective and there is no backup for it. Some of the people on that list were not even participants in the golden age of Hollywood.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namwidow (talk • contribs) 07:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

text: "Classical" is a stylistic description, not a temporal one. It is perfectly possible for some Hollywood films produced in the 1960s to be classical while others, even though produced earlier, are not. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've BOLDly restored the removed edits; AFI is not the final word on cinema notability or eras, and they themselves gathered their list based on input from others with diverse views, so they're certainly not the final word. And 1969, the last decade of the 1960s, is hardly a random year; it was the first full year the Motion Picture Association film rating system was in effect, which is appropriate era demarcation as everyone now had to work around them. Do not remove those edits again without consensus (which isn't just you plus one person). Nate • (chatter) 17:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

text: I'm inclined to somewhat sympathise with Namwidow; I feel like the lists in the article violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE. The section "Living performers from the Golden Age of Hollywood cinema" is especially unnecessary—clearly UNDUE original research—but there does not appear to be any justification in RS for most of the "selected" films and major figures. The inclusion of an (unsourced) subsection titled "Selected international films made during the Golden Age" in an article titled "Classical Hollywood cinema" is quite frankly bewildering, and I am going to remove it per WP:CHALLENGE: "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's even worse then! --Aquillion (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have boldly removed most of the lists, only retaining the actors listed on the AFI's list (because, well, sourced). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And with someone in the topic addressing the article's issues now, I'm withdrawing from this as I was more concerned about removal without explanation and discussion rather than content itself. Thank you, Airship. Nate • (chatter) 21:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time frame for "Classical Hollywood" unclear; there's no established criteria for "Major figures" except the AFI's list