Talk:Inside the Actors Studio

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

this article needs much more attention. I hear all kinds of stories on some of the comments that this guy makes, and some of the acting he praises, and I hear it's hillarious. Many people don't have bravo (the station it's syndicated on), and would like to hear an extended commentary on the public view on what the show is like

207.162.99.89 06:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have only seen the episode with Dave Chappelle, but it was very interesting. Lipton almost acts like a psychologist, asking very deep personal questions about the actor's history, probing for soul searching answers. It was very unusual to hear Dave Chappelle talk dead serious about emotional issues and his childhood and things that scared him. I would add to the article but I've only see one episode so I can't really comment if they are all like this. J. Straub 19:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redunant List

I submitted the first comment on there. And I think that list needs to go. Absolutly redundant. You can find that list on Bravo's website, and no encyclopedia I have would compile such a list. I'll look into fixing it later if I have more time *ug.. university's killing me* I'll try and get some copies of the show and make a broader commentary on it.

Arthur5005 06:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

I am removing a bit of trivia that says only Sean Penn and Dave Chappelle have smoked onstage during taping. I know this to be untrue.

(Johnny Depp smoked before the interview started also - there was no discernable applause)

I've removed the whole note - we're up to six smokers now, and I don't think that's particularly notable anymore. (I accidentally submitted the change before finishing the edit summary.) --Brian Olsen 16:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the "this is the nth time a descendant was on the show". Although I personally don't agree, even the list itself is questionable as content. This seems even beyond the list itself. Do people actually find things like this noteworthy rather than just an indulgence of their love for trivia lists? Stuff like this mostly seems to descend into the level of "first lefthanded actor", "first pescatarian". The smoking at least was noteworthy in the show's run. And even that got axed. 87.211.83.160 (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

It was in fact Dave Chappelle who was introduced as "one of the acknowledged leaders of a generation" and not Eddie Griffin.

202.156.6.54 17:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget Chappelle, why the hell they invited Elton John? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.168.240 (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There has been some criticism of this show because of what is percieved to be Lipton's sychophantic interviewing style (The British-Iranian actor Omid Djalili singled out the Tom Cruise interview on the UK television show TV Heaven, Telly Hell). I'm not sure how widespread this opinion is but I certainly agree with it.--92.41.13.247 (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing apostrophe

I added [sic] to the article once before, but someone deleted it, stating that the title of show was not incorrect. It should of course read Inside the Actors' Studio, but since the show's makers — either through a poor knowledge of punctuation or for artistic reasons — have intentionally omitted the apostrophe, [sic] should follow the title. Chris 42 12:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - The Actors Studio is an organization to which the title of this show is referring, so if there's a sic to be placed, it's there, not here. If the title of a documentary, for example, was Inside Krispy Kreme, you wouldn't indicate a misspelling there. (And I actually don't think either the Actors Studio or Krispy Kreme merits, it, either, as I don't believe sic is generally used in proper names, only in quotations.) --Brian Olsen 17:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not meant to be Inside the Actors' Studio. You are assuming the possessive case meaning "inside the studio belonging to the actors". Without the apostrophe, it means "inside the studio for actors" which is an adjectival noun, for lack of a better term. A similar example is "tubling down the rabbit hole" which does not use the possesive "rabbit's". — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 22:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hand so the Singular would be the Actor Studio? That doesn't sound right to me. Theofficeprankster (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Point taken. I've reverted the edit. But is the "rabbit hole" example is a fair comparison? If the series was called Inside the Actor Studio, then yes. If I saw the expression "down the rabbits hole" I would be sorely tempted to either remove the 's' or insert an apostrophe. But then I notice that organisations such as the Writers Guild and Directors Guild don't bother with them either. :-) Chris 42 00:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are also plural not possessive titles, I think, if they're not then they give the impression it is meaning the possessive apostrophe isn't as redundant as some people make out. AJUK ^Talk!! 11:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved image down

Normally I would not make a note on a talk page about something like this, but this seems like a reasonable exception. A few times, I have tried adding a little space between the "About the program" and "Guests" chapters. This is because the image of the studio lines up under the infobox and the first chapter is a few lines too short to compensate for the problem that results. These combined elements cause the "Guests" chapter, which is a table, to bump into the image resulting in squashing it a lot smaller than the full length of the article. It looks bad and is harder to read with half of the last names wrapping to the next line. Since other editors insist on continually removing these spaces, I have tried something new and moved the image below the table (diff). If this is reverted, my next option will probably be switch to a three-row table instead of five-row to prevent the wrapping. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 06:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:InsideTheActorsStudioAtPaceSchimmelTheater.jpg

Image:InsideTheActorsStudioAtPaceSchimmelTheater.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Kavner

I've removed the note that Julie Kavner left early because she didn't want to be seen performing as Marge - both parts of that statement are true, but one wasn't because of the other. I was in the audience for the taping of this episode, and she was happy to perform as Marge on-stage, she just didn't want anyone to see her face while she did it. So she held a cardboard cutout of Marge (and Patty and Selma) over her face when she did their voices. She left the taping early because she had another committment - she had a train (or possibly plane, couldn't quite hear her) to catch (although I won't put that part in, since I can't cite it.) --Brian Olsen (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bands / Ensembles

On the most recent episode when Bon Jovi were interviewed, all four members of the band were interviewed together. Doesn't this count as an ensemble interview? I'm unaware of any other music groups that have done the show but it strikes me as a little odd that an interview involving four people is listed under the guest list and not the ensemble one. DVD Smith (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong info

It says in this article that Tom Hanks was the first guest to appear twice, in 2006, but according to the List of episodes Val Kilmer was the first guest to appear twice, in 2005. Which is correct? I can't believe no-one has noticed this before. Kingofthesalads (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that Denzel Washington was on the show. He wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.132.141 (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Columns

This was a VERY long list so I converted it to 5 columns. If I did not use the right format please correct. Otr500 (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inside the Actors Studio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923150541/http://www.cmc.dk/ to http:///

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]