Talk:Roddy McDowall

Removed sentence fragment

I removed ", which had been severely cut by 20th Century Fox studio head Darryl F. Zanuck after skyrocketing production costs.".

There are two reasons. First, when I read this, I initially thought that the *restoration* process had been severely cut off, after skyrocking costs. The sentence was not clear, so if someone adds it back in, please make sure to clarify that it was the original production that had soaring costs, not the restoration.

The second reason I removed the fragment, is that the fragment really has no point in this article. The initial costs of the film have nothing to do with him working on restoring it. Was that fragment included, because the restoration was more than a restoration, and a new director's cut? In that case, there is not enough detail provided! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.111.174 (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

I've long heard rumors that he was gay, but do we have proof or a citation of this? His work on the Twilight Zone may also provide a decent entry. --AWF

I wondered that myself. Although it was always kind of assumed there doesn't seem to be anything in the article to confirm it.--T. Anthony 22:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If no source is provided by February 2007, I am going to remove him from the Gay Actors category.Apofisu 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the cat should remain, although you might make a distinction between actors and actresses who have publicly come out and those who have wished their private lives to remain private. Here are at least two web supports for putting him into this category: [1] and [2]. These were gleaned from the IMDb website blog postings to a query regarding Mr. McDowall's orientation. You have to be freely registered on IMDb in order to see that blog. I oppose removal of the cat.--River 23:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, I just wanted to see a source.Apofisu 19:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the 2 web sites actually provide any proof or citation as to him being gay. Supposedly it was a well known secret in Hollywood, but has anyone actually seen anybody from the Hollywood industry state he was gay?(DLW)

What would constitute proof? Also, why the assumption that he is heterosexual? Better to state that his orientation is unknown. Even better would be to point out that there was significant speculation regarding his orientation. Speculation itself is noteworthy, as long as it is presented as such, IMHO. (TW) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timwayne (talk • contribs) 20:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

There was no reason at all to hide his orientation upon his death in the 90's, so to categorize him without any evidence whatsoever is just simply ridiculous, not to mention defamatory. I have no proof that I'm NOT gay and I had better not ever (after my death) be listed as gay. He definitely deserves the same respect. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 06:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Then he needs to be added to LGBT Actors categories. Otherwise you need to take the rainbow flag stub off the top of this page. Period. DISCUSS. --98.232.188.173 (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And Magnolia, your argument is shitty. ^_^ --98.232.176.109 (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleopatra

This man was the actor who played Octavian Caesar, who became Augustus, the greatest Emperor Rome had ever known! He should be directly given credit for this, but he is not! He did a great job in the movie, and he is not given credit in this entry!

Fantastic Journey

I have added a brief mention of McDowall's role in the sci-fi series "The Fantastic Journey" in the main text, as this is where many of us in my generation were first introduced to him outside of his Planet of the Apes role.

FBI seizure

This passage is maddeningly vague:

In 1974, the FBI raided the home of McDowall and seized the actor's collection of films and television series. His collection consisted of 160 16 mm prints and over 10,000 videocassettes (this was before the era of VCRs and VHS tapes). ... McDowall was forthcoming about some of the individuals he had dealt with on the black market: Rock Hudson, Dick Martin and Mel Torme were some of the celebrities that were interested in his creations. No charges were pressed against McDowall.

What was the purpose of the seizure? What was on the films and tapes? What were McDowall's "creations"? —Whoville 15:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. Why was his home raided? What was the point of it all? It just seems like a piece of random trivia. Mohsin.Siddiqui 18:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

With a little research, I discovered the only thing missing from the trivia piece was mention of the raid being part of an investigation towards copyright infringement and the like. That being added in, the section may read more clearly. Cybertooth85 01:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction

This passage appears to contradict itself:

In 1974, the FBI raided the home of McDowall and seized the actor's collection of films and television series. His collection consisted of 160 16 mm prints and over 10,000 videocassettes (this was before the era of VCRs and VHS tapes). ...

Are we to believe he had 1000's of videocassettes before the era of VCR's? Nonsense! Jerry lavoie 16:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Videocassettes existed before VCRs. They were larger in size an film size as well. Visit any academic research library or older television news studio in the U.S. and they'll be happy to show you the 2" videocassettes they have (and unfortunately, no equipment on which to play them).--Spacini 04:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the first home video-recorders (With tape-reels, not yet cassettes) were launched by 'PHILIPS' in 1969. I know because I craved one. They cost BEF 40.000 in 1969 (Approximally $ 800). After this, during the early 70's came many different cassette-systems (Too numerous to enumerate here) until finally in the early eighties the Betamax><VHS war was won by the latter. AFTER the VHS-victory Philips tried to launch the Video-2000 system but it never really took off. It is noteworthy to state here that ALL of these systems were of (Sometimes considerably) better quality than VHS. It is likely that VHS won the battle on one single feature: At the time of its launch it had the longest possible recording-time (And hence lowest picture-quality) on one single cassette (Although Philips video-2000 system doubled this recording time, by that time VHS was already too well-established). One must bear in mind that the price of one cassette was considerable in those days. In 1982 I bought my BETAMAX video for around $400 and a single 3-hour cassette (Enough for recording ONE feature film, but NOT two) was selling for $ 20. At the same price you coud easily store TWO feature-films on a VHS-cassette and that was the only thing people had in mind, too short-sighted to have an eye for quality (A bit like in the APPLE>< IBM (Or Microsoft) Battle). 87.64.164.54 18:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

On the basis of the above comments, I am going to remove the contradiction tag (it was never a contradiction, anyway, just a potential error). --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Family tree

I have removed the reference to the online family tree. Although superficially the linked family tree looked interesting, analyzing it more clearly shows that it is a hodge-podge of very-poorly-sourced and completely-unsourced statements, and with no clear distinction even drawn between those. And there is no indication of the underlying source for this alleged note stuck in some book he had. We have no way to know who created that note, nor what part of what part of this tree it's supposed to represent. It's fairly certain that this tree is the work of an amateur, and for that reason we really cannot use it. Wjhonson (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality redux

A few sources report that McDowall was gay, though they aren't the most iron-clad. I'm wondering if anyone has any comments on me adding this information:

• Smith, Patricia Juliana (2002), "Roddy McDowall", glbtq.com
• Porter, Darwin (2006), Brando Unzipped: A Revisionist and Very Private Look at America's Greatest Actor, Blood Moon Productions, Ltd., p. 404, ISBN 0974811823
• Simpson, Mark (2002), Sex Terror: Erotic Misadventures in Pop Culture, Haworth Press, p. 68-9, ISBN 1560233761
• Skal, David J.; Rains, Jessica (2008), Claude Rains: An Actor's Voice, University Press of Kentucky, p. 1, ISBN 0813124328

Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The first one is pretty "iffy". I don't have immediate access to the other books, so I can not gage the context in which they could be used to support any statements about Roddy's supposed sexuality. Since his sexuality was not a widely discussed topic during his lifetime, and has not become a covered topic since his death, wouldn't our efforts to put together quippets of opinion to create a claim that he might have been gay be a little beyond the scope of an encyclopedia? I don't think that an encyclopedia is the place for "little known" facts and possibilities. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will agree with your last statement. But it seems like some people *have* covered the topic, at least tangentially. My point in asking here is to see if others have more solid information, which would then be a good foundation for adding the info to the article. So far I'm not particularly fond of the sources I found - an opinion in glbtq.com (though they are very good at providing sources, which I haven't been able to read), and mention in two biographies about other people. Does anyone have access to the sources mentioned in the glbtq.com article? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The online encyclopedia entry simply won't do. Anybody can say anything is a "well-kept secret," and "writer" is no authenticating credential. Anyone who has access to the U-KY volume might check that one -- that meets the WP:RS test. DavidOaks (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The 'open secret' nature of his sexuality is fairly well known. Would a citation from a Turner Classic Movies bio of his good friend Elizabeth Taylor be enough? It seems strange to not have the topic of his sexuality mentioned at all.Temp07 (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the category for the time being until this fact is actually incorporated into the article and sourced properly. Oddly enough, "glbt.com" doesn't count as a reliable source for reasons that should be obvious; IMDb is similarly unreliable, and on top of that user-edited. Now the book sources look reasonable if they are definitive, although would be fine for an "alleged by Brando" or whatever, but we need page referemces and all that jazz. I'm hoping to do a bit more work on this and other articles over the next few weeks, so any help would be greatly appreciated... I will be starting with removing any material that is a) unsourced, and b) even slightly contentious. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A year later and no progress has been made, and yet people are still adding category tags. Hearsay sources are never going to cut it, and as such category tags will continue to be removed. As it is currently written, the wording concerning his sexuality is highly WP:OR, and will probably have to be re-worded. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

?? I'm sorry? The facts are there - he didn't come out in his lifetime, though at least one reliable source states that he was gay - glbtq.com. And two sources report on his lovers - Brando and Clift. I see absolutely no WP:OR in that. What are you looking for? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In the case of someone's sexuality, if they have not come out themselves, then it must be couched in terms of hearsay, i.e. "so-and-so claim X", rather than presenting it as "fact". That, of course, scuppers the categories, or we'd have them on the article for Shakespeare as well. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

While I totally agree that having a statement from the person is the best source, in this case we don't have that. Therefore the article represents the facts:

• He didn't come out while he was alive.
• Two sources state that he was gay.
• At least two sources report his lovers.

Since those are the facts that are available, and the article states them with reliable sources, I'm curious what else you think is needed? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My only complaint would be with adding categories; the opinions of others does not fact make. He almost certainly was gay, but the addition of categories makes it sound like this is fact rather than opinion or hearsay. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I kinda understand what you mean - categories can't be sourced. But if two reliable sources state that he was gay, and that's in the article, why can't he be put in the categories? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've just slightly reworded the relevant sentences for clarity. We're not stating he was gay, so it's not appropriate to have him in gay categories. We're stating that some people have said he was gay, and some people have claimed he slept with Clift and Brando. But that's not the same as saying unequivocally that he was gay. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really agree with that. Two reliable sources do state that he was gay. If two sources stated that he was Catholic, wouldn't that be enough for adding him to a category? The wording as you have it is rumor and speculation - not the outright statements that are available: "The fact that he was gay ..." and "[McDowall] was gay". I recognize that some sources are less than direct about his sexuality, but we have perfectly good sources, and we're not representing the facts. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• The situation has not improved since last time I looked... we have no direct source stating that McDowall was gay, and probably never will, owing to him being, well, dead. All you have is the speculation of others; that is not fact. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry? We *do* have two direct statements that he was gay, both from reliable sources. Are you claiming that neither of them is a reliable source? As to the indirectness, Wikipedia deals with that all the time, owing to the guidelines on secondary sources. In this case, two different sources claim that he was gay - that's exactly the "information form multiple reliable secondary sources". Please read the sources -- and/or provide some other reason the information should not be in the article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The relevant guideline is presumably WP:BDP. The sources are hearsay, as they were a year ago when they were originally cited. I see no problem with stating that sources X and Y have stated that he was gay, which would be a) a more reliable representation of the situation, and b) what the article essentially stated before your edits. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, as an aside from an interested bystander, is there some reason that the Brando assertion is not mentioned on his article, nor is there an LGBTQ category tag on it, if we are according that particular source with credibility? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no clue how WP:BDP could possibly apply here - the very first sentence of that guideline says "This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased." If you're implying that stating that McDowall was a closeted homosexual is "questionable", I refer you back to my statements that two different reliable sources have stated so.

The issue I have with phrasing this as "Source X and Y have stated he was gay" is that it's counter to the way most of this encyclopedia is written. Would you need that phrasing for his being, say, a Catholic? Or of Russian descent? Why use round-about language for this statement when it's not needed for any other? For any other statement, we say "He was of Russian descent^[1][2]", include the footnotes, and that's that. I don't see why this needs to be different.

If it were simply rumors, the sources would say so. Take the Brando statement - the source for that is "Brando Unzipped: A Revisionist and Very Private Look at America's Greatest Actor". Any book with "revisionist" in the title slips down on the reliability scale (IMO). Thus "his lovers reportedly included..." is a fitting statement there. I haven't looked over the Brando article much, so I don't about that one.

So - tell me - how are glbtq.com and Claude Rains: an actor's voice "hearsay"? One of them is even a fully footnoted and reviewed article - not something usually termed "hearsay". -- ````

Stating that he is of Russian descent, for instance, is simply a question of tracing family history (although I would question its relevance, unless there is a notable reason for it to be mentioned in his biography). The claim for Catholic might well be questionable, unless he was a self-declared Catholic (i.e. we have a first-hand source); there are plenty are massively dubious claims for people's religiosity to be found across Wikipedia, often found in sources that pass WP:RS. For example, it would be trivial to find reliable sources stating that, say, Hitler was either an atheist or a Christian (of some variety; I don't want to get into No True Scotsman territory) in reliable sources, but to make a categoric statement either way would be absurd. This case is somewhat different... we have no official statement attributed to McDowell, and nothing from his estate, saying anything *at all* either way. We have third hand reports from people that either claim to have known, or (in the case of glbtq.com) clearly never knew him. It is therefore Hollywood rumour-mongering (although I am quite convinced in this case that McDowell was likely to be gay). The last edit I made maintains WP:NPOV, and reports the facts as they have been reported by your sources... I see that as a perfectly acceptable compromise, but feel free to take it to WP:RFC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Alos, whilst I'm here, any chance of direct quotes from the book sources cited? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I can live with "It has been stated that..." though I find it highly irregular. Using the Russian example above, you say one would "trace his family history" - presumably that's done by reading reliable sources that say he's of Russian descent, rather than performing original research - that's Wikipedia's preferred method. And then the article would state "He was of Russian descent.^[1]" It would not say "It's been stated that he was of Russian descent." I honestly don't understand why you want this particular statement to be different.

With regard to Hitler, if all the reliable sources said he was Catholic, then a categorical statement would, indeed, not be absurd - it would be matter of course to record "Hitler was Catholic.^[1][2]"

Lastly, I find your assertion that research done by others *must* be Hollywood rumor, rather than the reasoned synthesis of documents that presumably went in to the article on glbtq.com - an article that sites it's sources and is reviewed before posting it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Prostate cancer

His NNDB page [3] states he had prostate cancer in the 1980s - did he? Qzm (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fantasy Island

I know he was on Fantasy Island in one of the more notable episodes. He actually played the Devil in a battle with Mister Roarke. I didn't add it to the TV credits because I can't figure out the year of the episode. Struck out with TV.com on that one. Adam West was also in the episode, but it's not in his credits either. --PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)