Talk:Louis B. Mayer

Question

Why is Louis B. Mayer tagged as Canadian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.220.24.77 (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment

I don't have much interest in Louis B. Mayer other than his thoroughbred racing stable. However, as the article stands it needs removol of POV, unfounded opinions and statements. If no one bothers to fix it up, in a few days/weeks I'll give it a try. - Ted Wilkes 20:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Patricia Douglas Rape Controversy/Coverup

There's nothing on the page about the massive coverup around the Patricia Douglas rape and coverup. The documentary Girl 27 recently covered it.

12.180.65.2 06:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This had been in the article, but was removed without explanation by an IP. I've added it again with some slight changes. Ergative rlt (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the information about the coverup was removed again, should be added back. TailCallRecursion 18:24, 20 October 2017 (CST)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Factual issues

"This made Mayer the first executive in America to earn a million-dollar salary." This is patently false. Walter Chrysler was paid a million dollars a year to run Willys-Overland in 1919. I have deleted this sentence. Altgeld (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:MGM logo.png

The image File:MGM logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Star System

LB, as much as has been printed over the years did not create the star system. Zukor preceded him in the motion pictures with the Famous Players franchise beginning in 1912, though he also did not create what had already become the star system in the Broadway theatrical world. Charles Frohman is the true creator of the star system of which Mayer and Zukor mimicked in their respective companies. The star system put nearly every star under one banner with complete control over them. Mayer for example would groom talent for a period of time in supporting roles in films before launching them into a starring role in a prominent film, as Frohman did in a 'prominent play'. In fact many of Frohman's players would later work for Zukor and Mayer and the other various Hollywood studios. Famous Players was named as such because Zukor tried to lure every Broadway star of note over to his company and nearly succeeded. Mayer in later years refined these tactics that Frohman had pioneered. Koplimek (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

he spends almost all his life up to 19 years of age in Canada and he's not Canadian too ?

not only that but his family probably stayed there. something about Canada should be mentioned in the introduction.Grmike (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)grmike

Film Portrayals

1. Hollywoodland: No character listed as him for that film and he was dead by the time of the events the movie is showing

2. Last Tycoon: Not sure any specific mogul of that era is intended in this film —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.210.123.148 (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

How can a person be known "always" by one name and often by another?

Lead to the article needs to make a little more sense. I understand the sentiment, but the always needs to change.LeValley 01:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Taylor mention

User:86.46.119.43 and I are in disagreement with his recent edit. I have no objections to mentioning Taylor's opinion of Mayer; it provides a valuable counterpoint to the already extant more positive views. I do disagree, however, with highlighting her status at MGM in two sentences with mention of when she joined and her last film. In other words, there is no reason to treat her opinion any differently than we do Hepburn's, or Robert Taylor's, or Caron's. Now, if the article were filled out so that other mentioned actors were treated in the same way as Elizabeth Taylor's (not necessarily in the exact same way, but by citing some other details of their MGM careers), that'd be different, but as it stands the paragraph violates WP:UNDUE and, given her death which no doubt prompted this edit, WP:RECENT. Ylee (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Fits better in the National Enquirer than here. Books have been written about her life at MGM, so a single sensationalist phrase does not help her or Mayer. It makes her look dumb for staying, and him for keeping her as part of his flock of other child stars, like Mickey Rooney and Freddie Bartholomew. Seems out of balance in the article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, I have no objection to stating that Taylor considered Mayer a monster; it's a cited claim (although, certainly, another cite or two from one of the many books written on Taylor would be welcome). I object to treating her view with WP:UNDUE standing compared to others' views in the paragraph. Ylee (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ylee that Taylor's comment serves as welcome counterpoint to the others' opinions but that emphasizing Taylor's tenure at MGM is extraneous, and in context, confounds the point being made. JohnInDC (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And without context, it's trivia. When a child feels a controlling adult is a "monster," it's almost silly. For example, Mayer naturally tried to keep all his child actors in line, like any father figure. After one such episode, Mickey Rooney replied, "I won't do it. You're asking the impossible." Mayer then grabbed young Rooney by his lapels and said, "Listen to me! I don't care what you do in private. Just don't do it in public. In public, behave. Your fans expect it. You're Andy Hardy! You're the United States! You're the Stars and Stripes. Behave yourself! You're a symbol!" Mickey nodded. "I'll be good, Mr. Mayer. I promise you that." Mayer let go of his lapels, "All right," he said. (from The Leading Men of MGM, by Ellen Wayne, p. 246)

If he was a "monster" to treat the kids he was responsible for that way, we need more such "monsters." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree! But as a Wikieditor, that doesn't change the fact that Taylor, by all accounts, very much disliked Mayer. As a well-known MGM actress during Mayer's tenure her opinion is relevant. It is neither *more* nor *less* relevant than the others cited, which was my original objection to the IP editor's insertions. Ideally this article would have more than one paragraph on his actors' views of him and vice versa, with anecdotes such as yours above illustrating multiple perspectives. The article isn't at that stage, so the next best thing we can do is to balance the extant viewpoints, not giving any one undue or insufficient attention. Ylee (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV on legacy regarding child actors?

The article "Dark side of Oz: The exploitation of Judy Garland" at express.co.uk mentions Louis B. Mayer as an exploiter of children, notably legends like Judy Garland. It suggests the studio under his direction, exploited child stars by overworking them, spying on them, forcing their life-style, and even drugging them to keep his movie-making machinery working. The current revision of the article does not mention this view of the subject, and largely praises Mayer's work with child stars (lead even says "Mayer was skilled at developing star actors, including child actors, then placing them in consistently slick productions...", which sounds glowingly positive). If the accusations of this article have merit, then the current article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject, tending to favor a "purely business"-orientated view of his legacy, and not focus on other human factors. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

While some of the statements have merit, the Daily Express is a tabloid, and like most tabloids, they write stories to sensationalize details and gossip about the personal lives of celebrities. Their aim is attracting and titilating readers, not informing them. It's also unclear who the exploiters were: She was "bulldozed by her mother, Ethel, into movies at a very young age," notes the article. "Garland was a lost child from an early age. When her beloved father Frank Gumm, a flagrant homosexual, died in 1935, the 13-year-old Garland lost her best friend and was left to the mercy of her despicable mother." The article almost implies she saw Mayer as a father figure: "He sent people to spy on her to see if she was sticking to her daily diet of chicken soup... she was forced to lose weight and was put on a special diet." And her long battle with drugs and alcohol is covered in her bio. This article includes, "She loved L.B. Mayer to the end of her life", wrote her daughter Lorna Luft. --Light show (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how reliable it is, but this article in the National Post repeats Garland's allegation that Mayer sexually assaulted her when she was a teenager:

'I'll break you': Judy Garland faced her own Harvey Weinstein in MGM head Louis B. Mayer 188.141.25.160 (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Louis B. Mayer

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Louis B. Mayer's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Eyman":

• From Barbara Stanwyck: Eyman, Scott. "The Lady Stanwyck". The Palm Beach Post (Florida), July 15, 2007, p. 1J. Retrieved via Access World News: June 16, 2009.
• From MGM Holdings: Eyman, Scott (2005). Lion of Hollywood: The Life and Legend of Louis B. Mayer. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-0481-6.
• From Mickey Rooney: Eyman, Scott. Lion of Hollywood: The Life and Legend of Louis B. Mayer, Simon & Schuster (2005)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Light show (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Article Grooming for Positive Image

It seems as if anything clearly detrimental to Mayer's image has been removed from the article, repeatedly. This includes rape allegations and child fondling, such as with Judy Garland. Is is possible to make this a protected article, so that whatever needs to be added back in isn't removed once again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.163.105 (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Totally. "Being a father figure". Serously? This is a hagiography that is constantly being edited to remove any trace of negativity. NBeddoe (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louis B. Mayer. 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/20061030074416/http://www.canadaswalkoffame.com/inductees/04_louis_b_mayer.xml.htm to http://www.canadaswalkoffame.com/inductees/04_louis_b_mayer.xml.htm

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) 10:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"Staunch Conservative" based on...??

Supporting the "Republican Party" in the late 1920s and into the 1930s is, in itself, insufficient evidence to support the assertion that he was "conservative" - the two are not synonymous, especially not at this period in history.

There is long documentation for the "party switch" that begins to take root as early as 1912, gains some traction in 1932, 1964, '68, and '72 before it takes it modern entrenchment in 1980. With such a long, complex history of the parties' respective "bases", inferring his socio-economic views from his party support is speculative.

If there are quotes from either of the cited sources that can lend support to this assertion, they should be mentioned.

Without more documentation, I'd suggest simply stating he was "an active supporter of the Republican Party", which is factual, without speculating further. OughtThoughts (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

No, Republicans are always "staunch" on Wikipedia. 2A02:AA1:101E:9C47:E8EB:B562:2BAB:49BC (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Accusations of sexual abuse

I do not know the criteria for whether or not to add this, perhaps others can comment, but in the book Oscar Wars, pp.40-41, Michael Schulman describes incidents shortly after the very first Academy Awards, involving the actress Anita Page seeing her career decline after rebuffing advances by Mayer. In the notes section, Schulman cites two books by Scott Eyman as the sources - I think they are quoting Anita Page. I do not know if this is sufficient for warranting inclusion in the article but raise the question here. Michael Miller MD (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)