Talk:Cut to the chase

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jump Cut

I'm not sure whether the use of the term "jump cut" is correct in this context. The Wikipedia definition of "jump cut" seems to mean something different. (unsigned)

No, it would NOT be correct to call this a jump cut. The essence of a jump cut is a discontinuity during a specific action. El Ingles 17:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the reference to a jump cut in June.--Londoneye 12:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from User:195.8.190.54

User:195.8.190.54 left the following unsigned message on my talk page:

My apologies if this is not the correct method of addressing the problem, but I am otherwise unaware of how you may be contacted. On the page "Cut to the Chase", I have updated the article using known, checkable facts, in an attempt at accuracy. Recent criticisms aimed at Wikipedia syggest that it cannot be seen to be accurate anymore if anyone can affect the entries; ergo, I understand the need for 'policing' alterations to entries. However, there has been a noticable trend in certain Monitors apparently unwilling to allow, seemingly peevishly, "Their" pages. or "their" pet subject to be upgraded or updated. The current problem, CUT TO THE CHASE, might appear to be a case in point. In short, the statement that this term is taken from the era of silent movies is quite simply wrong; at best it is a mild joke, at worst it is wildly innacurate; this is meant to be an accurate encyclopedia. My statement that the origin of the word comes from an older source is true, a verifiable historical fact. However, this has been repeatedly dimissed and ignored as it simply doesn't seem to suit somebody who clings childishly to his own interpretation. Now, I have received a threat of 'final warning' for 'vandalism' when I am trying to add a correction to a mistake. This smacks of a 'Fanboy' mentality better suited to TV Show conventions where fans can argue their point of veiw ad infinitum; The difference here is that You are clinging to a misinformation and propogating said mistake by wiping off a factual account to reiterate a statement nothing more grounded than an old wives tale. This is tantamouint to bullying of the worst kind, and a revelation of perhaps a lower standard of information than might be expected. Wikipedia is being degraded by such behaviour, and I for one must reconsidder its accuracy from this point: Student entries proffered for my attention containing Wikipedia citations may need to be rejected from this time forth for this very reason Please consider your misuse of power.

Prof. Richard Cohen, Bsc. Bed.(Hons)

The solution is simple. Prof. Cohen has "updated the article using known, checkable facts" and that what he says is "a verifiable historical fact". All he has to do is provide references showing that his explanation of the origin of the phrase is correct, as other editors of the page have done to confirm their explanation; see WP:V and WP:RS. It would also be helpful to link his university page, which as a professor he no doubt has; I have been unable to locate it. Not only has he provided no references, he has tried to delete those given by others. As a professor, he will be well aware that it is poor practice to dismiss well-referenced claims without giving his own references. How would he mark a student entry that disagreed with something he had said, dismissing it as "wildly innacurate (sic)" and "an old wives tale", and asserted that the student was "using known, checkable facts", but failed to include any references? I stress that this is not my pet subject, merely one that has come to my attention. I also draw the user's attention to WP:NPA and WP:Civil. Finally, I agree with him that at university level, students should not just cite Wikipedia as a source; he should be rejecting such essays already. - Runcorn 20:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this talk page because I find the article, as it is now, under-sourced. Several factual statements are made, but there is only one citation toward the end. Does that footnote apply to everything? If there's only one source for this, how do we know it is accurate? Ileanadu (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musical sense

Somebody stuck the following in the references section. (Why do people take the time to write whole paragraphs of stuff but not figure out where it belongs?) Since it wasn't integrated well, and seems a bit doubtful to me, and of course it isn't sourced, I'm moving it here.

In the music business the "chase" or bow music is what the band plays when the act is finished. (Taking bows). If the act was real bad, or their time was too long the band leader would say "Cut to the chase!" (Get the act off. Like when an Academy Award speech is too long and the music cuts in.

- furrykef (Talk at me) 06:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now, nearly three years later, I removed it again...

The 'Chase" in show biz, is the music that the band plays when the act is finished, also know as "Bows". If the act was bombing, the bandleader would yell, "Cut to the chase", or "Get that sad act off the stage!

Please supply a reliable source for this origin. I've done some research, and I cannot find a single source, reliable or otherwise, for this origin.
— Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 19:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cut to/from the chase

An unsigned user claims that the phrase should be "cut from the chase" but does not offer any explanation why, or any sources. Another user attempts to justify the original phrase but in doing so removes the first sentence of the article. It doesn't make sense to begin an article talking about usage before the phrase in question has even been stated, so I have removed the paragraph and restored the missing first sentence. If anyone seriously thinks that the phrase should be "cut from the chase" and has references to prove it, they can always insert something to that effect after the first sentence. --Rabascius (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logical Error

"The phrase is unusual in that its common meaning of 'Get to the point' is opposite to its logical meaning of 'I am completely out of ideas and have ten minutes to fill up. I'll just give them ten minutes of chase.'"

I went ahead and removed this last sentence from the first paragraph as I believe it is incorrect. The fact that "Cut to the chase" refers to "Get to the point" is not unusual. The original meaning of moving abruptly to a chase scene rather than spending time to set up a lengthy transition is not logically opposite. Immediately skipping to the most interesting part of a film is almost logically identical to the modern meaning of "Get to the point". 75.114.27.46 (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with the comments above. "Cut to the Chase" does not mean that the chase is filler material; quite the opposite. The dialog preceding the chase scene is most often boring, so "cut to the chase" means "get to the exciting part - which in silent movies, was the chase."