Talk:The Butler

Comments

The Butler Casting News

According to exclusive-exclusive report cited herewith, Matthew McConaughey is to play the role of JFK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.156.159 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 26 January 2013

I'm assuming the 8th president would be HW Bush, who was VEEP when Allen retired. Though not sure why a WH butler would "serve" the VEEP in any sense more than he may have served the VEEP's son at some point at a dinner or something. Not to diminish his legacy, but it should be 7 presidents... Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan. 63.119.183.254 (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some mention of the controversy of having Jane Fonda play Nancy Reagan? For example, the article here: http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/liberal-jane-fonda-play-conservative-nancy-reagan-185931921.html and here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/jane-fonda-nancy-reagan_n_3053425.html I'm not much of a Wiki person, but the controversy is the only reason I know of the movie, so... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.223.31.214 (talk) 06:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The 8th president is not GHW Bush, it's Truman. According to the article, the fictional Gaines and the real Allen began serving at the White House in 1952. Truman was President until January 1953, so he was the 8th (or the 1st, chronologically). 99.192.80.7 (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Though I participated in this discussion, consensus is quite clear (and the nominator has been blocked for username policy violation), so I'm closing it in the spirit of WP:NOTBURO. Please contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Butler → Lee Daniels' The Butler – The official title of the movie has been changed from The Butler to Lee Daniels' The Butler. All marketing materials moving forward will incorporate the new title Lee Daniels' The Butler, including the new poster that has been uploaded to this Wiki page. Please move the page to the new title so we can streamline this process. Weinsteinco (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment just because it is incorporating the possessive into the official title doesn't mean it won't still be referred to as The Butler in the wider sphere of reporting. I recommend sitting on this and seeing what the secondary sources do. Betty Logan (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  I actually came here to say this, I really did. Businessweek says, "Despite the name change, there's nothing Warner Bros. can do about the fact that audiences probably won't use the new name. Everyone's still going to call it The Butler." The lead sentence of this article should definitely say Lee Daniels' The Butler, but for the article title, we apply the policy WP:COMMONNAME. It was called The Butler up to now, and I agree that we shouldn't so readily change the article title because of some pseudo-legalese. We don't even have a Wikipedia article on the 1916 short film, and my cursory research shows nothing significant. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Official or not, it will be more widely known as simply The Butler. Film Fan 13:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• The issue is that the official name for the film is Lee Daniels' The Butler. Almost every movie in Wikipedia is listed under it's official name. Per COMMON NAME rules, the redirect should go from The Butler (common name) and point to Lee Daniels' The Butler (the official name). That way, it satisfies COMMON NAME rules but, more importantly, it follows the standard movie page convention and precedence. Weinsteinco (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  Weinsteinco, the official name and the common name often overlap. However, there are instances where the common name is shorthand of the longer official name. Some examples include Precious (film), The Avengers (2012 film), and Borat. Not to mention that a lot of Disney films' titles preceded with "Walt Disney's" (though I'm not quite sure if that was official titling), and the related film articles don't include that prefix. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Weinsteinco created a second RM below with the same request. This is improper, though I've kept the new rationale, as the comment directly above this one. --BDD (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Compare to, for example, Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married?, which appropriately redirects to simply Why Did I Get Married? Note, however, if a new page comes describing something titled The Butler, it may be appropriate to make a move like this (Bram Stoker's Dracula is a similar case), although even then there would be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to consider. --BDD (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per WP:COMMONNAME since this film was officially titled The Butler up until recently and since Google News currently continues to use "The Butler" as a common name even after the official renaming. In addition to the Businessweek commentary I mentioned, The Atlantic says, "We can all agree though that we're just going to refer to this movie as The Butler, right? Okay. Good." I think it is best to wait until the film is released and reviewed to see if "The Butler" is still favorable as an article title per WP:COMMONNAME. In other words, we can at that point start a new request to move if someone thinks it is worth changing the article title based on that future coverage. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia uses common name and is not beholden to companies to assist in their marketing gimics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Truly Ensemble Cast?

I think this article misuses the phrase "ensemble cast". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.25.221 (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how the article offends!
I quote:
An ensemble cast is made up of cast members in which the principal actors and performers are assigned roughly equal amounts of importance and screen time in a dramatic production. This contrasts with productions which develop and focus on certain main characters more than others.
In Hollywood, the term has recently begun to be misused as a replacement for the old term "all-star cast"; just meaning a film with many well-known actors, even if most of them only have minor roles, sometimes just cameo appearances.
 –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 09:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

09:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Mariah Carey

Regarding the "Starring" field in the film infobox, one can see the billing block clearly here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone consider just having Whitaker and Winfrey in the film infobox? Especially considering that the billing block gives the film title after these two names? I feel like an extensive list of names in "Starring" defeats the purpose of the infobox providing a summary. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems good to me. Personally, I think it should be this OR the whole cast according to the billing block. I'm fine with either one. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I would also support just listing Whitaker and Winfrey in the infobox. STATic message me! 20:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 August 2013

I know Icon (through Lionsgate) will distribution it in the UK I need on this page. please

You need to provide an adequate and verifiable source. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Protests from Reagan Camp: "Reagan saw everybody as the same and was colorblind"

Should some of the information below be added to Wikipedia's "Butler" article?

From Newsmax, we get several reactions from Ronald Reagan's White House; 'the portrayal of the president as racially insensitive in the movie "The Butler" was "absolutely wrong",' Ken Duberstein, the Gipper's last chief of staff, tells John Gizzi.

' "Ronald Reagan saw everybody as the same and was colorblind," Duberstein … said in an exclusive interview with Newsmax. "He accepted everyone for who they were and did not have a bad bone in his body".'

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III concurs, telling Andrea Billups that 'the portrayal of the Reagans as racially insensitive was not accurate, saying the true Ronald Reagan "treated everyone extremely well, including people who were in a position of assisting him in one way or another".' Asteriks (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's complete and utter bullshit to say that Reagan liked blacks. He was a racist, and this is alluded to in more than one bio. Nancy was not much better, I seem to recall her comment about seeing all the "beautiful white people" at a campaign rally for her husband's presidential bid.

People seem to conveniently forget that this is BASED ON someone else's life, and yes, lots of dramatic license is used. Lots of white films play fast and loose with historical accuracy, and they are not attacked the way white right-wingers are attacking The Butler.Bo sez so!!! 16:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Remember Wikipedia:NOTAFORUM and Wikipedia:CIVILITY--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Louis's electoral politics

   There was a poster shown that indicated the son ran for office. What office makes a lot of difference, as does whether the candidate passes various marks, like 10% of votes cast, winning the 90%-black precincts, finishing 2nd, or of course winning. Perhaps no such info appeared or was insinuated (but and if it was, i missed it). If there was no such hint, it probably is just a way of communicating "he not only left the Panthers, but also at least devoted sustained effort to electoral politics", and the reconciliation he achieved with the father says as much as we need. But if it was clear that he was at least a wake-up call in his constituency, that probably needs brief mention.
--Jerzy•t 00:53 & 01:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

   BTW, the real-life model seems to have had only one son, so don't take the plot details too seriously. Oh, here: only one son, who served in Nam but worked as an investigator for the State Department and never ran for public office.
   But this hostile reviewer does have the film making the son "a far-left Congressman".
--Jerzy•t 01:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Naming issue

First off, the naming issue isn't that of an article rename, as the film's common name is The Butler, per WP: COMMONNAME. There's no arguing that. Instead, the issue lies with how the film's title is presented in the lead and infobox. The film's official name is Lee Daniels' The Butler. That is how the film is referred to on-screen, by The Weinstein Company, the film's official website and various secondary media sources. The way the lead sentence is currently written now ("marketed as Lee Daniels' The Butler") is partially misleading, as the Lee Daniels' prefix is used beyond the film's marketing, (e.g. the film is credited onscreen as that). Marketing is defined by promotional advertising (such as trailers, posters, etc.), not by the final film itself.

The argument that "the infobox and first part of the lead" is a relatively weak one, considering other films such as The Avengers and Borat don't follow that rule. The common names of those films are The Avengers and Borat, therefore their respective articles are rightfully titled as such. However, their leading sentences and infoboxes display their actual names; Marvel's The Avengers and Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. I've been attempting to employ that logic here on The Butler, but my edits are constantly being reverted. If the opposing argument were to really be upheld for validity, then The Avengers, Borat, and other similar articles, should be scrutinized as well— but they're not and yet this article is. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because other articles I have never viewed do not follow the guidelines, does not mean this one should not either. If you see Template:Infobox film, the parameter for the name says, "Insert the full common name of the film, default to {{PAGENAME}}". If the common name is decided to be "Lee Daniels' The Butler" then it would be appropriate to be changed there. Per WP:LEADSENTENCE, "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence", which means the first word (subject) should be the page title. And per WP:BETTER; "As a general rule, the first (and only the first) appearance of the page title should be in boldface as early as possible in the first sentence." I have no opinion on what the title of the article should be, but the lead and infobox should clearly represent what the current page title it. STATic message me! 23:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to change "marketed as" to "full title". Other than that... WP:OSE. Film Fan 00:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll change that part accordingly then. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Jedi94. Since another studio owns the rights to the title The Butler and there was much to-do in the press about that studio not wanting to relinquish it, the full title Lee Daniels' The Butler is something integral to its even getting made under some semblance of that title.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If it is as integral as you say, then Lee Daniels' The Butler should be the title of the article. Then all the places in the article under would be appropriate to be changed accordingly. STATic message me! 16:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

removed sentence to talk

RE:

As for his supposed racial behavior in the film, during his life President Reagan was well known for being courteous to African-Americans long before the Civil Rights Movement. One notable example was when a young Reagan invited two black football teammates to spend the night at his house when hotels refused to accommodate them. Another occurred when he publicly encouraged the Screen Actors Guild to provide more employment for black actors during his career in the industry.

1. this has nothing to do with the movie,
2. it is not sourced,
3. it seems to be a long stretch to show how Reagan was not "racist"
4. in the movie, didn't reagan allow the black people to get raises and promotions, this hardly indicates Regan had bad "racial behavior".

Igottheconch (talk)

Length of plot summary

The plot summary is currently 788 words, a bit too long; I will try to trim it down some. Invertzoo (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

As this film is fictional, differences between Martin and Allen are not historically inaccurate. They are different people, one is a fictional character loosely based on the other, so it is not appropriate to put those differences under such a context.174.73.5.74 (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)