Jump to content

Talk:Spencer Tracy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner Page needs to be cleaned up

Hi, I've already brought this up on the "Guess Who..." page (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Guess_Who%27s_Coming_to_Dinner), so I'll repeat my concern here. That page is not only loaded with subjective and sensational statements about Hepburn really crying because she knew Tracy was dying and they would never be on screen together: (ex: " In Tracy's final speech of the film, Hepburn's tears were real—they both knew that this would be the last line of his last film, that he had not much longer to live" ) which already tests the limits of Wiki's rule about objectivity, but here it says he died of a heart attack. What's the story? A heart-attack is a sudden thing, not a lingering illness that takes place over months. Someone who knows more about Tracy and is a better editor than me, should really look into this and clean up the discrepancies. --121.133.218.142 (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


I've cleaned up some of the errors on this page including the often made error that Louise Tracy was a Catholic. She was, in fact, an Episcopalian.

Donna

Hepburn 5 years with Hughes?!

Someone needs to verify that claim. Hepburn's autobiography ("Me") says three years. 76.95.129.132 (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hepburn lived with Hughes for about a year. Their affair lasted at most for three years although the indications were that it was shorter. She was not seeing him when she met Tracy.

This article and the bio for Spencer Tracy on IMDB are quite similar in wording. It looks like either the same person wrote both, or one was copied from the other. The author of the IMDB bio is Ed Stephan <stephan@cc.wwu.edu>. --Zippy 05:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ___________________________

I wrote most of the article about Spencer Tracy. I did not copy anyone. IMDB may have copied me but that I don't know.

Ariel Suarez


Photo

The photo of Spencer Tracy really doesn't do the man justice. Anyone mind if I sub another one for it?--Mantanmoreland 01:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.... better photo but I think it may be too low-res.....--Mantanmoreland 01:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

devout roman catholic?

to say that he never divorced because he was a "devout" catholic in the same article that talks about his extra-marital affairs seems very silly. it's like saying "she was a virgin adult film star". he was not devout catholic when he was willingly having an affair. Keltik31 16:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. To say that he was carrying on an extra-marital affair with her but that he was a "devout Roman Catholic" and didn't divorce his wife is quite ridiculous. AnnH ♫ 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The reason I reverted it was that I found it to be a biased charge. Is he removing every reference to anyone of any faith who may have fallen short? No. Keltik31 has made it very clear that he is biased against Catholics. Beyond that, if "devout" is completely defined by flawlessly following the tenets of faith...who would be devout? People are human and humans make mistakes. Granted, he was being unfaithful to his wife, but he did it openly so. His wife knew. Beyond that, he was faithful in going to mass and observed other rules of his faith. IrishGuy talk 18:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

irish guy, how do you of all people know this? how do you know he followed all the other rules of his faith. and because he was open about it its ok? what if spencer was a child molester? as long as he was open about it would you still call him "devout"? are there any real standards to be adhered to in order to be a catholic? would the pope feel a man who is willingly breaking one of the ten commandements is a devout catholic? if he was an alcoholic that kept falling off the wagon i may see your point. but having an affair is a willful choice that a person makes. i reject your assertion that i am biased against catholics. i am not biased against anyone for the religion. just because i ask questions that you cannot answer or point to practices in a relgion that cannot be justified, that does not make me biased against anyone. i think you are biased against anyone who asks good questions that you cant answer. 1/2 of my family is irish and they are all catholics. the majority of them are in ireland. you think i hate them because of their religion? what a joke. Keltik31 18:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to your rudeness in the Catholicism article talk page, then yes, I actually did answer your questions. You simply didn't like the answers. As for the rest of your rediculous claims, there is a monumental difference between child molestation (which is assault) and having a mistress (which is consensual). If you cannot see that difference then I don't know what to say to you. IrishGuy talk 21:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

in the eyes of god, commiting adultery and molesting a child are both sins. sin is sin to god. maybe not to you because as i am finding, most catholics believe there are little sins and big sins. i do see the difference, but i dont believe that the bible says that god sees any difference in the sin. if you read the bible you will see what i am talking about. Keltik31 15:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep your personal opinions of Catholics to yourself. They are entirely irrelevant here. IrishGuy talk 17:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

i'll do what i want to do, "irish guy". but thanks for your input. Keltik31 18:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Most biographies refer to Tracy as a "devout Roman Catholic". Personally, I think he wasn't. But if that's how he is referred to, than that's the way it should be stated in the article. Really, there is no point in getting in debate about someone else's personal life, especially someone who has been dead for nearly 40 years. --Cinefille 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Cinefille

Tracy was not a "devout" Roman Catholic. In fact, when used in reference to persons in his position, the term "devout Roman Catholic" is a form of mockery.

Domestic Partner

I eliminated the designation of Hepburn as his "domestic partner." She was nothing more than his mistress. At the time, adultery was a crime in many jurisdictions, and persons who engaged in it, especially women, were considered to have low moral character and were thought of as whores. That is why they did not "publicly discuss" their relationship (see above). John Paul Parks (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Photo

The photo at the top of the filmography is of really poor quality, very dark and almost impossible to distinguish his features. Is there any particular reason why the much better publicity photo of Tracy, which was moved down, can't be exchanged with it? --Mantanmoreland 16:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The poorer quality version is public domain so it should always be the first option even if the quality is lesser. Rossrs 13:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I realize that, but the other photo it replaced is still in the article. I was just suggesting switching their position within the article.--Mantanmoreland 13:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The public domain image is the one that is supposed to be displayed first or more prominently. There is less justification for even keeping the second image as it is used solely to identify him, but I guess because the second one is more representative, it should stay. Rossrs 14:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, well you know these copyright policies better than I do! I'll hunt around for a better pub domain image. --Mantanmoreland 15:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Children?

His son John was deaf and had a clinic named for him. He died a couple of days ago.[1] Is that worth mentioning?--T. Anthony 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Alcoholism?

It's a well-known fact that Tracy was a (rather extreme) alcoholic. Is there any particular reason why it is not in the article? Or am I blind? --Stephan Schulz 12:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources? AUTiger » talk 13:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I would suspect that any biography of Tracy or Hepburn discusses the issue. It certainly is a central issue in "Kate: The Woman Who Was Hepburn" by William J. Mann, and is discussed in "An Affair to Remember: The Remarkable Love Story of Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy" by Christopher P. Andersen. Unfortunately, not being a film buff, I own none of them myself and only know this second-hand. --Stephan Schulz 14:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion campaign by 76.176.167.130

An editor identifiable only by 76.176.167.130 has been on a campaign to remove material he apparently finds personally offensive or discomfiting from a number of articles. He has deleted entire sections (and removed any citations which might support those sections) dealing with quite legitimate topics regarding the sexual orientation or sobriety of various celebrities, in particular Randolph Scott, Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, and Cary Grant. Although I myself am rampantly opposed to gossip and to the increasingly frequent "outing" of anyone and everyone that seems to be de rigeur in some circles, I believe that the material relating to sexual orientation may well have a legitimate place in these articles, especially as cited and most currently expressed. Therefore, the wholesale deletion of anything which in some fan's eyes "denigrates" the subject is in direct contravention of Wikipedia's stated purposes. I have reverted a couple of times, but see an edit war brewing. Is there a means of preventing this activity when the editor, 76.176.167.130, is not a registered editor? Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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) 00:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see more substance in this article, along the lines of the excellent article on James Cagney. I have a Tracy bio somewhere in the house and I'm going to hunt for it.--Stetsonharry (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The article was linking to 1 AD. I commented the link out but the ISBN might have need the one somehow. JIMp talk·cont 18:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Academy Award table

I started explaining in my edit summary why I was removing, but I hit the enter key by mistake, and saved it prematurely. A significant number of actor articles for multiple award winners/nominees show the wins and nominations in the filmography table. Tracy's filmography contains such information. To create a new section to expand upon information that is already covered, at the exclusion of other types of awards, is placing undue emphasis on this aspect. If anyone wishes to read further to find out about these awards and/or nominations they can access this information via the links in the filmography table, or from the navigation box/boxes at the bottom of the article. Rossrs (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Roles he turned town

The legendary actor turned down the role of the judge. In the end, the role was played by the real-life judge who participated in the Army-McCarthy hearings.

In the poker-themed movie, the master actor and top film star Tracy declined the role of "Lancey Howard."

Spencer Tracy was proposed for the role of lumber tycoon Barney Glasgow.

Director Robert Wise wanted Tracey for the part ot "Klaatu", but he turned it down because he didn't want to play second fiddle to a giant robot.

In the masterful original film version directed by William Wyler, Tracy was intended as the co-star of his good friend Humphrey Bogart. When the terms of the starring billing could not be worked out to the actors' satisfaction, the role was recast.

Hepburn and Tracy turned down this MGM project about a long-married couple having relationship problems.

Spencer Tracy originally signed on as the co-pilot Dan Roman but backed out after hearing of director William Wellman's hard reputation. Actor who got the part: John Wayne

Turned down the role of "Lt. 'Doc'" in the movie version of the big hit Broadway play set on a Navy ship during the Second World War.

Spencer Tracy was considered in the late 1930's to be cast as Mr. Brown. The film was not made for another 8 years.

The great star was a leading contender to play opposite Greta Garbo in the sophisticated comedy directed by Ernst Lubitsch.

Katherine Hepburn wanted Spencer Tracy for the part of MaCaulay Connor, but Tracy wasn't available.

MGM originally tried to make a film of Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings' novel in 1941 with Tracy in the lead, but production delays forced the project to be canceled.

Mr Hall of England (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a point to this posting? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of it is absurd. Spencer Tracy and Claude Rains were considered for Klaatu, but were ultimately rejected, because an unfamiliar actor would be more believable as an alien. There really isn't much point to this, anyway. Many actors turn down parts they "should" have taken. So what? Most movies are "correctly" cast, anyhow. When an actor declines a role, it usually indicates a lack of interest, or the belief he/she isn't suitable for it. These are great reasons for not taking the role. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Filmography

Yesterday (Sept. 3) an editor created a separate filmography page without broaching it here for discussion first. When I reverted that and made the new page a redirect, the editor posted to my talk page and I responded on his. I am copying those posts here for wider discussion.

I believe this page could work because it is a tribute to his film career. If Katharine Hepburn has one so should Spencer Tracy. Mr Hall of England (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we don't make articles as tributes. Spinning off a second page is based on page size and need and is decided by discussion and consensus on the main article talk page. Hepburn's main article is 41kb, with the filmography page at less than 15kb, so there is no compelling reason based on article size that would compell the filmography to be spun off - the entire article would come in at less than 60kb and that is adequate. Thus, I'm not convinced Hepburn's filmography should be on a separate page, and that is something that WP:ACTOR will be addressing in the near future - for all spin off filmographies, not just Hepburn's. However, Hepburn's was spun off before the filmography was tabled. Spencer Tracy's filmography was not tabled on the main page until January 2009, as part of WP:ACTOR's ongoing drive to get all Academy Award winners' filmographies tabled. Even with the tabled filmography, Tracy's article is only 23kb, woefully less than average for major film stars. Since the filmography already exists, there is really no valid reason to create a separate page that also tables the filmography. If it were removed from the main article, the article would be even smaller. What Tracy's article truly needs is expansion in the text area, to fill out details of his career. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Today, again with no discussion broached here, the same editor removed the entire filmography from the article page to the old filmography page. I have reverted that on the same grounds - there has been no discussion regarding removing this large portion of the main article, no consensus for doing so, and as I noted in my post to the editor's talk page, the size of this article in no way is approaching the need to split off the filmography. In fact, the article itself really could and should be expanded to better cover Tracy's career. With the filmography missing, the majority of Tracy's films are not even mentioned in the article. I count about 15 films mentioned in the article text. Removing the filmography removes mention of over 70 film roles. That isn't acceptable to me, and certainly has no consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless the actors has a substantially large body of work (over 100 films or more), I don't see the need for a separate article for a filmography or a list of awards. I find those kinds of articles incredibly needless. I could see the need for a separate article if we didn't have those filmography tables, but those were created so the filmography section of articles could be presented in a neater and more detailed format. Pinkadelica♣ 03:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both comments. The current size of the article, including the filmography, is quite small compared to many other articles. If the article was larger, there may be some benefit in splitting off the filmography, simply to make the article easier to access, but currently that is not the case. The filmography is quite small anyway, so in my opinion, splitting it into its own article may never be necessary. It now fills in a lot of gaps that are not covered in the article, so I think it should stay within the article. Also, looking at a comment made in the previous section - the purpose of the article and/or the filmography is absolutely NOT to create a tribute. A factual, neutral and comprehensive article can "do justice" to any subject. I think that is something better to aim for. Rossrs (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Bio shortened?

I remember this article was quite extensive in its coverage on his personal and professional life, hell I must have last read this article in January. Now it's just a brief summarization of his life. What the hell happened? Who deleted that majority of his stuff and why? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it's your memory that's the problem. On January 1, 2008 (over two years ago), this article contained 17,306 bytes of data. It has consistently grown since then, reaching 24,000 bytes on 23 Sep 2009, and a high thus far of 24,462 bytes on 8 Feb 2010. The current article stands at 24,248 bytes, barely a sentence different from the high on February 8. Reading the history of the page, it is clear that nothing of substance has been removed in a very long time, and that, in fact, the article has grown steadily in length since the end of 2007. Monkeyzpop (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

First Broadway role

There's some conflicting information about his debut on Broadway. The New York Times says [2]: "His first professional work cast him as a robot in a stage production of R.U.R. at a salary of ten dollars a week. He made his Broadway debut in 1923's A Royal Fandango and later co-starred in a number of George M. Cohan vehicles.", while the Biography Channel claims [3]"In 1922 he went to New York, where he and his friend Pat O'Brien enrolled at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. That same year, both men made their joint Broadway debut, playing bit roles as robots in Karel apek's R.U.R."

The article is currently adopting the Biography Channel version, but is this true? Universalcosmos (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Karel Capek's R.U.R. opened 9 Oct 1922 and closed in Feb., 1923. The IBDB lists neither Tracy nor O'Brien in the cast, but I have seen photographs of them in it, and if they were non-speaking supernumeraries, they probably weren't billed. A Royal Fandango (starring Ethel Barrymore and Edward G. Robinson) didn't open until 12 Nov 1923. It looks to me as though both versions can be read as true, depending upon one's definition of "Broadway debut," one meaning first appearance, the other meaning first speaking role. Monkeyzpop (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I see. The sentence on the article is coherent with both sources then. Thanks :) Universalcosmos (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

billing

i came here to learn something about his issues with his billing but found nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.177.100 (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


Have deleted Catholic comment

I have deleted the part saying Tracy wouldn't divorce because he was a catholic as there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this was the case. On the contrary, Hepburn has said that this *wasn't* the reason. It was obviously far more complex than that, or Louise Tracy would have pursued a divorce herself (she was not a catholic). Please can my version be left as it was (someone inexplicably reverted it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.215.95 (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I imagine your edit was reverted because you deleted several well-referenced chunks of text. If you wish to posit a contrary position here with solid references, then please do. Span (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Also note that this topic is fairly thoroughly discussed above at Devout Roman Catholic? —Tgeairn (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and no-one made any changes despite it being agreed that it makes no sense for him to refuse to divorce on the grounds of devout catholicism, whilst having a very uncatholic extra-marital affair. It is stupid to suggest it as a reason on the page. No-one understands the reasons why him and Louise never divorced, so we just shouldn't suggest a reason.

I was aware that I was deleting some references about the Gene Tierney thing (not 'several' chunks of text at all), but I cut and pasted the line about his affairs into the Hepburn section, which left a reference there. Is that not good enough? If not I will copy and paste all the other references as well.

I really, strongly don't think the Catholic comment should be there. I'm getting annoyed by people ingoring my perfectly reasonable edit, and deleting it without even coming here to explain. Three seperate users have now done this. Could you please comment here and tell me what the problem is. And if you're going to say it is the references, then that is not true because every one of them were kept in my last edit (as I clearly stated). (82.47.215.95 (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Spencer Tracy/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Lacks citations. Yksin 00:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spencer_Tracy/Archive_1&oldid=1142317493"