Talk:To Kill a Mockingbird (film)

Separation

It was better off with this new article joined with the one about the novel. People could learn about both topics at the same time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.221.28 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

See discussion at book talk page [Talk:To_Kill_a_Mockingbird#Two_Separate_Articles?] Petersam 01:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Elaboration

This article needs a lot more textual content. I'm going to try to add some over the next few months, but no promises. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rtcpenguin (talk • contribs) 03:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

A significant expansion is coming.

I will be chasing down some sources, and working on this article quite a bit over the next while. Please place suggestions and ideas here for sections, sub-sections, and general thoughts. Bellwether ^B_C 09:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to put back the plot summary that has been deleted, otherwse I have no special thoughts on the article.JeanColumbia (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry, my error-there was no plot summary to be -- or that was--deleted. So, obviously I'd like to see one! JeanColumbia (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I thinks that the Plot is critical to this article since there are several differences between the book and the film user:topio —Preceding undated comment added by Topio~enwiki (talk • contribs) 01:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Need a section on differences between film and book

While refraining from original research, we need to pull together some material from the sources that compare the two versions. Here's a little list to start with (for me, it's too hard deciding which bits to cite, and we certainly can't just paste in the material verbatim):

• Cliff's Notes
• Film Study Guide: To Kill a Mockingbird
• Lawyers and Film - James R. Elkins

Lawikitejana (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with your reasoning here. A section comparing the two would be helpful, and should be available somewhere in a secondary source. My students (middle-schoolers) have written some on this very issue, but I don't think WP would like citing the work of 12-year-olds ... ;) -- Bellwether ^B_C 18:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That's actually the section I came here looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.138.213 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Importance assessment of this article

I have assessed the importance of this article as "Top", for the following reasons:

1. It is widely considered a classic movie, appearing on every "Top 100 Films of All-time" list I can find.
2. A legendary actor (Gregory Peck) considered his work as Atticus Finsh in the movie to be his finest role.
3. It is a movie based upon a book that is considered a classic of American letters.

If anyone wishes to contest this rating, please do so in this thread. Regards, -- Bellwether ^B_C 18:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

I've spent much of the last week researching films alleged to be in the public domain, and, having started off with the wikipedia PD Film list as my starting point, I've been kind of shocked at how many were wrongfully listed as PD. Kurosawa's films, for example, which seemed to be in the PD in Japan for a short while before the courts reversed themselves last year. Triumph of the Will, before Riefenstahl's copyright was restored under GATT in the mid-'90s. The Man Who Knew Too Much, before the Hitchcock estate had the copyright restored in 1998. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, the soundtrack to the Broadway play of which is in the public domain, but the movie of which is not. And so on. I ended up making a lot of corrections.

When it comes to this movie, I've found some very circumstantial evidence that it *could* be in the public domain: it's been issued by some discount houses known for re-releasing PD titles (as well as some non-PD titles). It is also available for viewing on a couple of websites. I've run into other evidence that it may still be under copyright, and that the book is definitely still under copyright (the reason Capra's It's a Wonderful Life is no longer considered PD). Archive.org won't touch it, the consensus there is that it's copyrighted. http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=137652

Now, I'd love to have this movie truly be in the public domain, but, with penalties for mistakes being pretty severe, I think that some evidence to support the claim is needed. Has anyone got any reference for the PD claim which is even slightly reliable? It's been tagged for several months. 68.124.190.92 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright of To Kill a Mockingbird is expired. I indicated [1][2][3] for citation. In Japan, pre-1954 films are public domain (Roman Holiday, Shane,etc.), but copyright of post-1954 films are continued for 70 years, except in public domain in created country (Charade, McLintock!,etc.) If copyright is continued, these are illegal. Mikomaid (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have also been under the impression that the film is no longer under copyright. I need an impeccable source for this, as I've placed movie stills in the article for the book, and that is under review for a Featured Article Candidate. If anyone knows of a source that can either dispute this or confirm this, please post it - English, please. --Moni3 (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for steering you wrong, Moni3. I heard it from several sources and assumed it was the truth. I've tried to find more info but have been unable to do so. – Scartol • Tok 11:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Renewal of the book's copyright can be found here: http://collections.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/bin/search/simple/process?query=to+kill+a+mockingbird So this movie probably comes into the same category as It's A Wonderful Life, where the film itself is public domain, but cannot be treated as such because the contents of the film are copyrighted. 69.108.216.8 (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I found renewals for the screenplay and music used in the movie as well. http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=75&ti=51,75&Search%5FArg=to%20kill%20a%20mockingbird&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=11095&SEQ=20080416020

I'm going to go ahead and remove the PD tag now, since clear evidence to the contrary seems to be lacking. 69.108.216.143 (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

^Your link makes error. What's those 3 DVD-links?Mikomaid (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I comfirmed that rights of Roman Holiday abd Gentlemen Prefer Blondes are renewed, but, I can't find To Kill a Mockingbird in 1962. Look Type of Work! If you point here, it's error. The link points text (book), NOT motion picture. Probably, To Kill a Mockingbird is in public domain.Mikomaid (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary??

The summary doesnt seem to be a summary at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.38.61 (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sheriff

A pivotal character and performance is not mentioned - the Sheriff, memorably portrayed by Arthur Franz. Jmaster1999 (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Sheriff is played by Frank Overton. Arthur Franz is not in the film. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 07:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Boo Radley

Boo Radley is described in the article as a recluse. I got the impression that he was probably mentally retarded and/or neglected. Could we find a more descriptive term than recluse? __meco (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot Plagiarized???

Seems to be verbatim from the IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056592/plotsummary

Should be deleted unless copyright is released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.37.52 (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a placeholder plot summary synthesized from IMDb and TCM. It's no longer a copyvio, but it's alos not very good, someone should re-write it or start from scratch. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 07:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

gossip?

Significant portions of this article (see Production, Critical Response) read like reminiscences from the "making of" add-on to a DVD version of the movie, complete with hagiographic tone. Isn't there more hard fact out there? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Metz, Walter (2004). "The Redemption of Domestic Violence: The New Hollywood Family from To Kill a Mockingbird to Sling Blade". Engaging Film Criticism: Film History and Contemporary American Cinema. Peter Lang Publishing. ISBN 0820474037.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik II (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

production site

Where was this film shot? Griffinofwales (talk) ^{Come and join the}_{Simple English Wikipedia} 04:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• On the Universal backlot in Hollywood. Ficticious Maycomb was based on Harper Lee's hometown of Monroeville, Alabama. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Differences from novel section

The differences from novel section is filled with trivial differences any way we can clean this up? JitteryOwl (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hymen was broken?

"...to check for signs of rape or to determine if her hymen was even broken, and even after..." This sentence doesn't seem to be appropriate, because neither the film nor the novel mention specifically that Atticus means this by medical evidence. I want to change it to remove the "hymen" section. If you want to contest, please do so within two days of me posting this. And please, please, PLEASE, for the love of God, don't argue WP:NOT CENSORED; censorship isn't my point, my point is that "if her hymen was even broken" was not mentioned in the film nor the novel. Regards, Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Rosemary Murphy Death

Rosemary Murphy died on July 5, 2004 so that makes Robert Duvall the last surviving adult cast member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

She died July 5, 2014, not 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdarrenbailey (talk • contribs) 16:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Cast listings

Hi. Editor Gareth Griffith-Jones correctly suggested that this change be discussed, so input is requested. As the list stands now four of the five main members of the cast and their characters are listed last or near the bottom of the list. Would anyone mind if the second to fifth names on the list become: Mary Badham as Scout, Phillip Alford as Jem, Brock Peters as Tom Robinson, and Robert Duvall as Arthur "Boo" Radley. The change was made because they seem to be the major characters in the movie after Gregory Peck's rendition of Atticus Finch. Will also suggest that the 'with' following Peck's listing, and the 'introducing' before Badham's be removed, but that's just a style nitpick. Thanks. Randy Kryn 11:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I heartily agree with Randy's proposals.

The present arrangement is careless, insensitive, and regrettable.

I respectfully suggest that Randy's edits, now reverted, were of such a self-evident nature that they should not have needed prior discussion or permission.

As always, best wishes to all!

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC).

Thanks Doc, and best wishes to you too. If another day goes by and nobody objects I'll put them back if no one else has. I see what you mean about being insensitive, if I were a member of Mary Badham's or Phillip Alford's family I'd have noticed the pecking order (pun unintended) of the cast list long ago and made a gruff sound of displeasure. Randy Kryn 23:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Billing order within film cast listings is a matter of contractual arrangements between performers and the production company which employs them. Wikipedia film articles endeavor, to the degree that it is possible, to use each film's own on-screen credits to reflect the cast list and the character names as depicted within that cast list. Most helpful in this respect are two websites, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) and the American Film Institute Catalog of Feature Films (AFICat), especially in constructing cast lists for films which are unavailable for viewing. That is not, however, the case with To Kill a Mockingbird, which is easily accessible on the Internet, with the opening credits separately provided on YouTube. It would create a chaotic situation if Wikipedians started deciding the billing order of film actors based on their perception of who are the "major characters".

2. In the case of To Kill a Mockingbird, the cast list consists of seven tiers, with the star name, Gregory Peck, above the title. The second tier, immediately after the title, shows the words, with John Megna      Frank Overton. The third tier lists Rosemary Murphy      Ruth White      Brock Peters. The fourth tier names Estelle Evans      Paul Fix      Collin Wilcox. The fifth tier indicates James Anderson      Alice Ghostley      Robert Duvall. The sixth tier has William Windom      Crahan Denton      Richard Hale and the seventh tier depicts the word "Introducing" with the words, Mary Badham as Scout, above it, and the words, Phillip Alford as Jem, below it. As the word "Introducing" fades, the two names remain on-screen for a few seconds longer.

3. It has long been common film practice to place names of first-time actors, as well as cast members whom the production company wishes to single out for special attention, at the end of the cast list with a special indicator such as "And" or "Introducing", with no slight intended as to such positioning — to the contrary, end-of-credits special billing is considered a privileged and highly-desirable placement. I will reorder the cast list in the article into the six-tier arrangement mentioned above (tiers one and two will be combined to save space) to illustrate how the names appear on-screen. I realize that some Wikipedians would like the names of Brock Peters and Robert Duvall to appear higher in the list, but such special adaptations would invite others to place their favorite actors into privileged positions in the cast lists of other films. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I've changed your edit back until this can be discussed further, with hopefully more people coming in for the discussion. It makes no sense whatsoever to list the names of four of the five name characters near the bottom of the list. Names on screen have nothing to do with Wikipedia cast lists, as far as I've ever seen (I'm not a member of the film project, so going by memory of movie lists), the cast list lists members of the cast. Importantly to this discussion, in the list-of-characters sister-article to this movie the cast is given by order of importance, as it should be in this important film page. I know order of importance is subjective, and Bedham's role in the film should likely even go above Peck's if going by film importance, but some common sense should be applied in the listings which would place the few names moved nearer the 'top' of the cast list. Randy Kryn 13:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Randy, I agree with you.

The contractual relationships with actors and actresses do not impose obligations on the Wikipedia or any other publication, online or otherwise.

Parroting the sequence of credits on screen serves the vanities of some of the individual performers, but it does not serve a useful purpose for the benefit of the readers of the articles at the Wikipedia.

If RS or anyone else quotes a specific written requirement in the Wikipedia MoS or elsewhere, then we'll need to reconsider.

Clearly and undeniably, in the perception of readers and viewers, Scout (Mary Badham) and Jem (Phillip Alford) deservedly occupy the second and third spots respectively right below Atticus (Gregory Peck).

That's what matters to readers and viewers – not the contractually required priorities on screen.

Anyone else?

As always, best wishes to all,

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC).

1. This matter does, indeed, need to be discussed further, because the changes made to the cast list, particularly the repositioning of Brock Peters and Robert Duvall, are unsustainable. A number of points have been raised above and these will be taken up one by one. It unquestioningly makes sense to list characters, main or otherwise, in the manner that these are listed in the credits since that is how film cast lists are constructed. Based on your own words, "I know order of importance is subjective", it would be deleterious to film research or scholarship if we were to create our own cast lists based on what we perceive to be the relative notability of each film's characters, instead of following WP:RELIABLE SOURCES — and there is no source for film that is more reliable than the American Film Institute Catalog of Feature Films produced by the film industry's own American Film Institute. I invite Wikipedians to glance at this film's entry in the AFI Catalog, as linked here. Disregarding AFI (to say nothing of IMDb and all other sources, such as film books and magazines), and creating Wikipedia's own haphazard cast listing system would be almost tantamount to writers of entries delineating American politicians ignoring the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, physicists and chemists ignoring the periodic table or physicians and pharmacists ignoring the Merck Manual.

2. Names on screen have everything to do with Wikipedia cast lists since, again, that is how such lists come into being. Please correct any list you come across which does not list the cast according to your own viewing of its on-screen appearance, or according to the AFI Catalog. If such is not feasible, other options include putting a revision-requesting note at such film's talk page, or contacting me at my talk page, or dropping a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film.

3. Regarding the statement, "Importantly to this discussion, in the list-of-characters sister-article to this movie the cast is given by order of importance", a key point needs to be considered. As we well know, books and their film versions frequently differ, sometimes to a very extensive degree. Film versions condense plot elements, drop portions or entire story lines, eliminate or reduce the importance of characters and so on. Authors rarely provide a "cast list" of a novel's characters — such function is usually fulfilled by CliffsNotes and other student aids. Harper Lee certainly did not include a cast list rating her Mockingbird characters in order of prominence. As an example of the differences between the book and the film, while Boo Radley is an important character in the book, Robert Duvall's entire screen time in the film is 1 minute, 56 seconds in the final scene (the scene lasts nearly 7 minutes, but Duvall is on-screen for only 1:56). Due to overlength, almost all of Mrs. Dubose's scenes wound up on the cutting room floor, thus, while Ruth White retains her fifth billing, above Brock Peters, her role is now little more than a cameo. Should we move her to the bottom of the cast list? Where do such changes end? Surely Collin Wilcox's role was as extensive as that of Brock Peters. Should she be billed ahead of him? James Anderson had more screen time than Rosemary Murphy. Should he go before her? William Windom had a more prominent part than Paul Fix. Should we move him up? And so it goes.

4. There is more to be said, but I will leave those positions for the next set of arguments. Addition, below, of the exact form of on-screen credits may be helpful for those who may wish to participate in the discussion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Randy's proposal is not a "haphazard" one; quite to the contrary, it fairly and accurately represents the perceptions of viewers (of the flick) and readers (of the article).

Yes, the AFI Catalog is a "reliable source" about the credits as they appear on screen.

However, neither the AFI Catalog nor any similar reference is binding or controlling on what appears in an article at the Wikipedia.

Again, please:  Does anything in the Wikipedia MoS require that we slavishly parrot the order of the on-screen credits (that is, the contractual requirements of the performers)?

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC).

1. The arbitrary rearrangement of a film's cast list is, indeed, haphazard, nor does it "fairly and accurately represents the perceptions of viewers (of the flick) and readers (of the article)". One does not grant to oneself one's own set of facts or change the order of actors' names to suit one's own liking by highlighting one's favorite actors. An arrangement of this nature is of such obvious incompatibility with generally accepted procedures, if not common sense, that it may not have even occurred to WP:WikiProject Film to create such a guideline, although it now appears that it should be in place, if it isn't there already. In film history and research terms, to say nothing of natural science terms, it is tantamount to rearranging the periodic table to suit one's predilections and then proclaiming that the periodic table is "not binding" on Wikipedia, since the online encyclopedia is own entity, creates its own reality, and is not obligated to "slavishly parrot" any other references.

2. Upon examining the matter further, we soon come to realize that all film resources "parrot" film credits' order of names since that is the sole method of fairly and accurately representing the historical details specifying the creation of that particular work. Moving past the AFICat to the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) and continuing to Turner Classic Movies (TCMDb), AllMovie, the Motion Picture Guide, Citadel Books' long-running "Films of…" series, and film history publications such as Film Comment, Classic Images, Films of the Golden Age, and the back issues of National Board of Review's publication, Films in Review, all use on-screen credits to provide cast and technical credits lists. Likewise, one may consult back issues of Variety, Hollywood Reporter or daily newspapers to discover that credits correspond to on-screen order.

3. Not wishing to further belabor the point, I will leave other examples for future discussions on this topic. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roman Spinner, cast lists on Wikipedia at least come close to putting the main film characters at or near the top of the list, and even if it's a subjective view of the editors the final list arrives at a point where people are satisfied that it's close enough to the "importance" of each portrayal. This page, however, had some of the main cast members listed last. As you point out, this was based on the films cast listing, but on translating that to a Wikipedia page the weight of the portrayal and importance to the film is lost. So the edit move was to place those cast members just under the Gregory Peck listing, which would make this page consistent with other film cast lists. Does this make sense in terms of encyclopedic data? The main reason I put Boo Radley's role higher on the list is that the character is hinted at and seen throughout the film as a constant metaphor of fear of the unknown and the different, so his character has more of an onscreen presence than the actual time in seconds of the portrayal (as for small-roles which loom large, Anne Hathaway's performance in the 2012 Les Miserable may top them all - subjectively of course - but she was only on-screen for 18+ minutes), but you are right that maybe Duvall's performance is listed too high. Randy Kryn 11:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is not – and should not be – a handmaiden of the movie industry.

The AFI Catalog and similar sources report whatever on-screen credits may appear according to the order which the performers managed to obtain in their contracts with the production companies.

The users – the writers and editors – of the Wikipedia do not have any duty or obligation to repeat those same negotiated preferences.

On the contrary, we users, while writing, rewriting, editing, and revising our articles, are free to express our own views, to discuss them, and to achieve consensus in them.

Has anyone here doubted or questioned the significance of the contributions of Mary, Phillip, Scout, and Jem?

By the way, the periodic table of chemical elements is based on natural truth, whereas the order of on-screen credits is based on the relative negotiating power of the performers, so they do not compare well to each other.

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC).

1. Hello, Randy Kryn. As I typed the words, "a film is not a book", planning a discourse (or going on a rant) about the transition inherent in the very basic nature of character transformation from page to screen and the manner in which screenplays re-imagine, condense, merge or even eliminate book characters, plot lines and occasionally revise the author's philosophical and political intention, the sound-alike titles, A House Is Not a Home and Man Is Not a Bird came to mind, and I decided that pursuing such line of argument would only diffuse and scatter the central issue. In fact, while I feel it a matter of principle that film, as an entity separate from other representations of a work, such as the printed page or theatre, must be respected within its own terms, when it comes to To Kill a Mockingbird, fights of principle, especially those measuring nobility of spirit, should be best left to Atticus Finch.

2. For Wikipedians who care about the film's cast credits list in its on-screen form, I appended the section header and text below this discussion thread and, of course, this film, along with many others, has the external link to its entry in the AFI Catalog. Because earlier editors had been including uncredited names such as Kim Stanley, Kim Hamilton, William "Bill" Walker and Jester Hairston to the cast list, I had created last November the sub-header "Unbilled speaking roles (in order of appearance)" to incorporate such players, then revised it in March to "Unbilled roles (in order of appearance)", thus enabling inclusion of Paulene Myers, all of whose dialogue fell victim to pre-release editing, along with most of Ruth White's Mrs. Dubose scenes. The ordering of these unbilled actors in a neutral "Dramatis Personae" theatrical form (with use of defining spoken lines) was, again, designed to forestall any disputes regarding their relative prominence in the plot.

3. You, DocRushing, myself, as well as others who have not weighed in on this, such as Gareth Griffith-Jones, are longtime editors, so we know the lay of the land, so to speak. While I stand by my view that Wikipedia film entries should follow established cast listings, this matter is unlikely to set a precedent, so while I'm always open to discussions and welcome a productive exchange, including clearing up whatever unresolved questions or details still remain here, I don't feel the necessity to pursue this matter any further, although there is always the possibility of returning if additional controversies develop. In the meantime, the content of this exchange may serve as a guide over the forthcoming years for those who question such things and wonder if they were ever discussed. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I've learned a lot about the movie industry from this exchange, thank you Roman Spinner and DocRushing. As for the credit list on the page, maybe some of the other names should be reshuffled out of their order of the contractual agreements and a little more into "film importance" status. I don't have much of an idea of that order past the first few characters, I'm not a student of the film and have only seen it twice, the second time not long ago. Roman, you know the movie well, and the names you mention and have added to the page in the past are very interesting. Did the director make a director's cut using the discarded scenes? Please move the Duvall role if it seems out-of-place, and the rest. I was mainly concerned with the two children's roles and bringing the two main children's roles nearer to the top of the cast list. Good to meet you guys, there must be some pretty interesting discussions and data on movie talk pages if this is an example of the depth of interest and subject-knowledge. Randy Kryn 4:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gareth Griffith-Jones. You brought the article back to the cast list as contracted by the studio which lists the two main child actors last. I've reverted that yet won't revert again if you want to totally open the discussion. Obviously I've walked into something here which I was unaware of - the use of credits from a studio or the use of cast listings in encyclopedic style. If this is to be talked out with more people maybe you can do the pings and all or list it on the film project page. But to have a cast list of To Kill a Mockingbird on Wikipedia with Mary Badham listed at the end seems wrong in several ways, so this seems to be a film discussion which hasn't been held or a consensus that has been reached at some point (which I come to this page unaware). Thanks for sticking to your point of view, I just don't understand it outside of Wikipedia using cast listings arrived at through film company negotiations, in this case, a semi-old negotiation. I don't believe if the movie were made now that Badham would have second-to-last-credit, but might even, like Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday, be listed over the title with Gregory Peck. Should this error or studio policy (the third child actor is now listed second on this Wikipedia cast list after Peck) follow and be duplicated on Wikipedia? Thanks. Randy Kryn 10:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I have read your contribution here and in the edit summary but prefer not to agree. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You've reverted again, so I'll ping Roman Spinner and DocRushing again to see if they agree and to check if this question needs a wider ping to a project or others. What's the best way to proceed? Randy Kryn 11:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest here. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Randy Kryn 16:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment When we provide a full cast list in the article it should adhere to the cast list in the film as much as possible. The reason for this is because by providing a cast list we are not just providing a list or actors who appear in the film, we are also providing a factual record of something that actually appears in the film. Readers who come to the article may be under the assumption—a reasonable one at that—that the article represents the cast list as it appears in the film so we should take care to present it accurately. Some editorial discretion is permitted in other parts of the article, such as the lead for example where we are primarily summarising the article, or in the plot section were we provide accompanying cast names in brackets and the plot structure itself dictates the order of the names. But when we explicitly present billing credits or cast lists these should factually reflect the credits and casts lists as found in the film itself. Betty Logan (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • So the third kid in the movie, the one based on a young Truman Capote, gets second billing from the studio and Wikipedia has to follow that, so Mary Badham and the other kid, the stars of the film and still alive to maybe even someday read this discussion (Hi Mary), again have the pleasure of being listed last? Something isn't right about it, doesn't seem encyclopedic in style or intent. Scout, listed second to last, just doesn't seem logical. Randy Kryn 19:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

We are not here to correct the studio's decisions regarding credit attribution; we are here to convey facts. If readers want to know who appeared in the film then this information is available. If they want to know how they are credited in the film then this information should also be available. If they want to know how prominent the character is in the film then that is what the plot summary is for. Betty Logan (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That's actually a guideline at the Film Project, that the cast has to be listed exactly as the studio wants them to be listed? If that is really a guideline, then this proposal to elevate Mary Badham's and Phillip Alford's roles as Scout and Jem to second and third spot in the cast listing is a common sense exception to that guideline. Badham even received an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actress for this role. It's hard discussing this because it is just common sense, that if an encyclopedia is listing the cast members that the second and third stars of the picture get second and third billing. We are an encyclopedia, and even if most or all other cast lists from studios get it right, this one didn't, and this exception seems very reasonable. Randy Kryn 21:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is not under any legal, moral, ethical, logical, or philosophical duty or obligation to blindly and slavishly reproduce the order of the cast lists as they appear on screen.

That's in part because the Wikipedia is not an organ of the movie industry but rather an online encyclopedic resource intended for the benefit of the general public.

Three users have written in support of the pro-industry view.

One of them has written in a patient and gracious way; the other two have written in a demanding and dictatorial way; the work (above) of one of those two looks much like the pontifications of a windbag.

The huffing, puffing, and blustering of one of them, to say nothing of his careless or unpolished composition, do not produce a strongly persuasive result.

Further, the tone of the two outspoken users resembles the behavior of schoolyard bullies who seek to get their way by their steamrolling techniques.

Again, though, the Wikipedia is not under any duty or obligation to parrot the credits in the order in which the performers, along with their agents and lawyers, have managed to wrangle from the studios.

By the way, the purpose of Randy's revision is not to "correct" on-screen credits but rather to provide an opportunity for us users of this online resource to express our perceptions and to build a consensus about the relative contributions (of the performers and their characters) as seen and heard from the collective viewpoint of us users.

If someone wishes to see the order of the on-screen credits, let that person go the IMDb or the AFI Catalog; on the other hand, if someone wishes to read a collaboratively written description of a flick, including its cast list, let that one read the applicable article at the Wikipedia.

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC).

I fully support the principle that the film's credit's should be reflected on WP pages, and have often corrected them to that end. I agree with Roman Spinner and Betty Logan above. Many similar conversations have been had on this topic over the years, and as far as I can recall they always end with the consensus to follow the film's credits. Note Roman's point that Robert Duvall's entire screen time in the film is 1 minute, 56 seconds in the final scene. I am somewhat sympathetic to the desire to see Mary Badham and Phillip Alford listed higher, but you must notice they are listed second in the infobox. I have a suggestion for the Cast list: in order to more accurately reflect the intention of the credits, which was to give them more prominence, the last two should be given this way, with introducing a line above and in bold -

Introducing

• Mary Badham as Scout
• Phillip Alford as Jem

If no one objects, I will implement this shortly. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I support your proposal above. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 06:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully object, for instead of at the end Badham and Alford's names should be second and third in the list. Maybe this topic should be talked out some more here and then brought to a wider audience. I would think, and correct me if I'm mistaken, that studio contracts in 1962 would have run roughshod over newcomer children, giving their parents or guardians few if any options in credit negotiation. But that should make no difference in Wikipedia, Badham was nominated for Best Supporting Actress for this role, the youngest nominee for an Academy Award up to that point, and her listing should be 'above' the third child actor in an encyclopedia. Not doing so seems a decision that doesn't benefit an encyclopedic approach. Why wouldn't this be an exception to the written or unwritten "follow the studio listing" rule? Randy Kryn 9:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This unchallenged and unassailable principle remains in place:

The Wikipedia is not under any legal, moral, social, ethical, logical, or philosophical duty or obligation to blindly and slavishly reproduce the order of the cast lists as they appear on screen.

Any argument to the contrary is based merely on a combination of preference, tradition, and groupthink.

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC).

• Further comment Despite the wall of text from the proponents of altering the credit order, I am finding the arguments sadly unconvincing. There seems to be a severe case of "too much talk and too little said" in this discussion. To review the arguments so far:

1. I think the sentiment "If someone wishes to see the order of the on-screen credits, let that person go the IMDb or the AFI Catalog" is counter-productive in terms of building an encyclopedia: we could pretty much say that about any piece of information we include in an article. What we should be doing is ensuring that the information we do include conforms to Wikipedia's core policies and ensure that it is not misleading.
2. "Clearly and undeniably, in the perception of readers and viewers, Scout (Mary Badham) and Jem (Phillip Alford) deservedly occupy the second and third spots respectively right below Atticus (Gregory Peck)." I stated in my first comment that the plot summary is the most convenient section to convey the relative importance of each character in relation to the plot. As yet, there has been no counter-argument as to why the plot summary is insufficent in this regard.
3. Most good quality databases and film records maintain the historical credit order. You can see this for example at the AFI catalog, the BFI database and the AMPAS motion picture credits index. The reason they do this is because it is an industry convention and generally because historical revisionism is poor practice. If editors want a policy based reason for using the historical credit order then WP:V would seem to suggest we follow the precedent set by other high quality sources while WP:NOR would seem to discourage editors from formulating their own credit order.

Clearly a proposal that involves eschewing the ordering that can be found in high quality sources in favor of editor based preference will get short shrift from the Wikipedian community. The proposal by Gothicfilm above seems to be a good one and has my support. Betty Logan (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Betty's three points above. I have placed the Introducing as proposed. It seems to work as intended, maintaining the Cast list order, but just like the film's credits, drawing more attention to those last two names. I also removed the with as it was unneeded and not shown in any of the secondary sources (though I do appreciate Roman including it in his rendition of the on-screen opening credits in the next section below). - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record: on-screen opening credits indicating cast of To Kill a Mockingbird

Universal International Edward Muhl in charge of production

Gregory Peck

IN

TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD

with John Megna          Frank Overton

Rosemary Murphy          Ruth White          Brock Peters

Estelle Evans          Paul Fix          Collin Wilcox

James Anderson          Alice Ghostley          Robert Duvall

William Windom          Crahan Denton          Richard Hale

INTRODUCING

Mary Badham as Scout          Phillip Alford as Jem

Based upon Harper Lee's novel "To Kill a Mockingbird"

—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Roman Spinner for your volubility and eloquence in the section immediately above this one;
and for your fortitude in producing the opening credits here. Sincerely, — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus sought to mention Academy Award nom for Badham in intro

I'd like to propose the following line revision for the intro. The reasons I think it is noteworthy to mention in the intro is that Badham's character is central to the film and the Oscar nomination for her due to her age was an Academy first.
Current line:

• "The film won three Academy Awards, including Best Actor for Peck, and was nominated for eight, including Best Picture."

Proposed revison:

• "The film won three Academy Awards, including Best Actor for Peck, and was nominated for eight, including Best Picture and Best Actress in a Supporting Role for Badham, the youngest ever nominee in that category at the time."

Seeking consensus, won't fight it if there is opposition. Not a regular here. Should there be agreement, please do go ahead and make the change without me. 5Q5 (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support — Noteworthy, for reasons Gareth Griffith-Jones suggests. Professor JR (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC) ( @Gareth Griffith-Jones: )
• Support — for the rationale expressed; however, I suggest the wording "for Badham, the youngest nominee in that category until that time". ["Youngest ever nominee" or "ever nominee" is awkward; further, "ever" conflicts with the qualifier "at the time", whereas "until" covers that point nicely but obviates a need for "ever".]  Doc – DocRushing (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC).
• Oppose in lead but Support in Awards and honors section, with the wording "for Badham, the youngest nominee in that category at that time". It would be out of place and too verbose for the lead, which does not include the directing nomination or the screenwriting win. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This may represent an overly specific detail, but (in the context of discussing her) it should be worth noting that Mary Badham (born October 7, 1952) was 10 years and 141 days old on the day (February 25, 1963) she received her Academy Award nomination. She held the record for 11 years, until February 19, 1974, when Tatum O'Neal (born November 5, 1963) received her nomination for Paper Moon at the age of 10 years and 106 days. Tatum O'Neal won and has held the record as both the youngest nominee and the youngest winner to this day, over 41 years later. While Tatum O'Neal would still keep her record as the youngest winner, had Mary Badham been born 35 days later, on November 13, 1952, instead of October 7, she would have held on to the record as the youngest nominee to this day, over 52 years later, as of 2015. Those interested in such records, will discover many similar details in Wikipedia's List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees where we will also find the virtually unbeatable record of Jackie Cooper who was nominated in the top category, Academy Award for Best Actor (for Skippy), on October 5, 1931, at the remarkable age of 9 years and 20 days, and has held that record for the past 84 years. His nearest competitor (to this day), Mickey Rooney, was 19 years, 142 days old on the day (February 12, 1940) of his Best Actor nomination (for Babes in Arms). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Length of the story and years the film is set in

In the second line of the plot section, it's said "The story covers three years", but this is directly contradicted by the film itself, which very clearly states its length as two summers and a fall (the ending narration states: "The summer that had begun so long ago had ended, and another summer had taken its place, and a fall"). Unlike the novel, the film only covers a year and a half. The only element of doubt is the fact that the age of the children are given as 6 and 10 at the beginning of the story, then Atticus wonders if Jem is 12 or 13 at the end, but that might easily be a residual from the novel's dialogues (plus, he might be 4 and a half years older than his sister, and already past his 12th birthday by the end). The passage of time is otherwise accurately described on screen. Similarly, I can't find any confirmation of the year the film is set in. The opening narration by adult Scout says, "Maycomb was a tired old town even in 1932 when I first knew it." But if that's meant to say the film begins in the summer of 1932, it's a strange phrasing: she already knew the town by then, being 6-year-old, and her family didn't move there just then. It almost seems to intend that 1932 was the year she's born, which would put the beginning of the story in 1938. Now, Harper Lee (upon which the character is based) was born in 1926, so she would be exactly 6-year-old in 1932. And the novel is set between 1933 and 1935. Plus, 1938 seems to be too late in the decade, closer to WWII than to Black Tuesday. So I don't know what to believe, but I think the summary should at least acknowledge these uncertainties. Kumagoro-42 00:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)