Talk:Requiem for a Heavyweight

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Professional wrestling Low‑importance

	Requiem for a Heavyweight is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article 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
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Untitled

I appreciate that this is not a film review but the old one was more informative and indicative of what this is. Yes it could be pared down but not punted. The new article is an uninformative bore. That there are guidelines, does not mean that everything should look like mathematical structured fact not description. No doubt you think you are right and somehow a saviour but all you have done is make an interesting article boring. The above unsigned comment was contributed by Hotspur

Yes, those "guidelines" can be murder when wrongly applied by the unimaginative. And there are loads of vandals roaming Wikipedia using those rules to rob the whole endeavor of any entertainment value whatsoever. Good comment, Hotspur! The Final Edict (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TV movie?

I would defy anyone to show me in a reputable published source where the original Rod Serling Requiem was designated a "TV movie". It was one in a long line of distinguished "Golden Age" dramatic scripts, and was not the only one to be turned into a highly regarded feature film — Paddy Chayesfsky's Marty would be another example of this. But it was not a "TV movie" in the sense of being a film produced primarily to be exhibited on television as opposed to being exhibited in movie theaters, which is what this term means, so I have removed this unverified, undocumented comment until it can be shown to be verifiable. Rlquall 16:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a TV movie.

Requiem for a Heavyweight was indeed not technically a "TV movie," a term that wouldn't exist until almost a decade later (with Fame Is the Name of the Game starring Tony Franciosa in 1966). Requiem was a 90-minute episode of the great anthology series Playhouse 90 and put Rod Serling on the map (I once heard, in person, Serling declare that it was his best work, by the way--his shockingly early demise was and remains a horrifying loss). I think the later movie with Jackie Gleason and Mickey Rooney was far superior to the TV version: Gleason and Rooney were the two finest actors of their generations. Also, there are stills from the Sean Connery British version online if you Google Image it, and that's most fascinating. Connery wore much heavier makeup for the role than Palance or Quinn. The Final Edict (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "needs infobox" tag

This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB. Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 20:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]