Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/B movie/archive1

I'm going to post these one-by-one, so that I don't have to go in the middle of a massive edit. Note they're not necessarily in chronological order. My wording is only suggestive; the main point is to compress.

"One of blaxploitation's biggest stars was Pam Grier, who began her career with a bit part in Russ Meyer's Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970). Several New World pictures followed, including The Big Doll House (1971) and The Big Bird Cage (1972), both directed by Jack Hill. Hill also directed her best-known performances, in two AIP blaxploitation films: Coffy (1973) and Foxy Brown (film) (1974). Grier has the distinction of starring in the first widely distributed movie to climax with a castration scene." -->

"One of blaxploitation's biggest stars was Pam Grier who often worked with directer Jack Hill. Her best-known AIP, Hill directed, blaxploitation performances were in Coffy (1973) and Foxy Brown (film) (1974)--the latter has the distinction of being the first widely distributed movie to climax with a castration scene."

No need to cover her entire career (you don't with any other actor in the article). Marskell 07:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking it was an efficient way to draw the industrial lines between Meyer, Corman/New World, and AIP; to give a sense of the formative career of a representative B-movie star; and also to illustrate a representative B-movie director who moved from B studio to B studio. Those great titles also, I think, increase readability while exemplifying the generic nature of sexploitation branding of the era. At the cost of an additional 1.2 lines of text, I think the present version conveys quite a bit.—DCGeist 22:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I brought this up as an "if this, why not that?" example. Why is her career described and not others? But you do mention her in the intro and she is representative, as you say, so no worries. Marskell 07:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

---

"The majors' "clearance" rules favoring their affiliated theaters prevented the independents' timely access to top-quality films; the second feature allowed them to promote quantity instead.[4] The B movie also gave the program "balance"—the practice of pairing different sorts of features suggested to potential customers that they could count on something of interest no matter what specifically was on the bill. As the president of one Poverty Row company would later put it, "Not everybody likes to eat cake. Some people like bread, and even a certain number of people like stale bread rather than fresh bread."[5] The low-budget picture of the 1920s naturally transformed into the second feature, the B movie, of the 1930s and 1940s—the most reliable bread of Hollywood's Golden Age."

"The majors' "clearance" rules favoring their affiliated theaters prevented the independents' timely access to top-quality films; the second feature allowed them to promote quantity instead,[4] and also gave the program "balance" as the pairing of different sorts of features suggested to potential customers that they could count on something of interest no matter what was specifically on the bill. The low-budget picture of the 1920s thus naturally transformed into the second feature, the B movie, of the 1930s and 1940s."

I don't mean to kill the literary flourish ("the most reliable bread") but I find the quote unnecessary. Marskell 07:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. Edited.—DCGeist 22:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Random section 1

The major studios, at first resistant to the B feature, soon adapted. All established "B units" to provide films for the expanding second-feature market. Block booking became standard: to get access to a studio's attractive A pictures, many theaters were obliged to rent the company's entire output for a season. With the B films rented at a flat fee (rather than the box office percentage basis of A films), rates could be set virtually guaranteeing the profitability of every B movie. The parallel practice of blind bidding largely freed the majors from worrying about their Bs quality—even when booking in less than seasonal blocks, exhibitors had to buy most pictures sight unseen. The five largest studios—MGM, Paramount, Fox, Warner Bros., and RKO (descendant of FBO)—also belonged to companies with sizable theater chains, further securing the bottom line. Poverty Row studios, from modest outfits like Mascot Pictures and Sono Art–World Wide down to shoestring operations, made exclusively B movies, serials, and other shorts; they also distributed totally independent productions and imported films. These studios were in no position to directly block book; instead, they mostly sold regional distribution exclusivity to "states rights" firms, which in turn peddled blocks of movies to exhibitors, typically six or more pictures featuring the same star (a relative status on Poverty Row). Two studios in the middle—the "major-minors" Universal and Columbia, rising in rank—had production lines roughly similar to the top Poverty Row concerns', if somewhat better endowed, and with a few up-market productions each year as well. They had few or no theaters, but they did have major-league-level distribution exchanges.

The five largest studios—MGM, Paramount, Fox, Warner Bros., and RKO (descendant of FBO)—innovated with "B units" for the expanding second-feature market, and standardized block booking and blind booking. Many theaters were obliged to rent the company's entire output for a season, with the B films rented at a flat fee rather than the box office percentage basis of A films (block booking); at once, exhibitors had to buy most pictures sight unseen (blind booking). The first allowed for profitable rates and the second freed studios from worrying about quality; these tactics, combined with the sizable theatre chains of the majors, meant that B Movie profitability was virtually guaranteed. Poverty Row studios, from modest outfits like Mascot Pictures and Sono Art–World Wide down to shoestring operations, made exclusively B movies, serials, and other shorts; they also distributed totally independent productions and imported films. In no position to directly block book, they mostly sold regional distribution exclusivity to "states rights" firms, which in turn peddled blocks of movies to exhibitors, typically six or more pictures featuring the same star (a relative status on Poverty Row). The so-called "major-minors"—rising Universal and Columbia—had production lines roughly similar to the top Poverty Row concerns', but were somewhat better endowed and produced a few up-market features each year. They had few or no theaters, but they did have major-league-level distribution exchanges.

Saw you did part of this. I trimmed a little bit more. Will revisit.—DCGeist 22:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Well, that's only three and I'm already tired. Notice in the last that the consolidation of wording is slight—thirty or forty words—but I think this could happen throughout and I think it would increase readability. Or is this not helpful? Should I make these changes myself and you evaluate after, or should I continue to post here? Marskell 08:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Great. Prob'ly best posting here, just so I can vet for fact and see where the issues are. E.g., the Big Five didn't "introduce" block booking and blind bidding in the 1930s. Paramount and Warners had instituted them in the late 1920s. They became "standard" (as previously stated) in the following decade. You're right on about the "bread" quote. It (and my li'l literary flourish) can go. If you've got the energy--and I understand if you don't (I don't at the moment)--post whatver else you have, and I'll get to work on 'em in the morning. Best, D.—DCGeist 08:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's 1pm for me, so I can probably post some more today. It's been four weeks of review; another three or four days won't kill us. Why not blue link block booking? You wouldn't need to add extra to the article. Marskell 08:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You suggest creating a stub for block booking? I'm good with that.—DCGeist 22:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. And a bit more substantially than a stub.—DCGeist 06:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Random section 2

"Celebrated filmmakers such as Anthony Mann and Jonathan Demme learned their craft in B movies, which also gave émigré directors from Europe such as Douglas Sirk an opportunity to establish themselves in Hollywood. B movies are where actors such as Robert Mitchum and Jack Nicholson got their starts, and the Bs have also provided work for former A movie actors, such as Vincent Price and Karen Black. Some actors, such as Béla Lugosi and Pam Grier, worked in B movies for most of their careers."

I think this list over-specific to an intro. At a glance, only Grier and Nicholson are discussed at any length later. My rule of thumb: if something's not mentioned after the lead it should not be mentioned in the lead. Marskell 13:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Help! I have the same rule of thumb, so I've been struggling with this for a while. I think it's an important overarching point to make about the history of the B movie phenomenon, one that ties together its different manifestations. I don't want to add, oy, more to the article in terms of detailing each of this people; nor do I want to make the statement in the lead abstractly, without examples, though I suppose that's possible. Any thoughts on this?—DCGeist 22:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

First, you'll notice I shifted the discussion of C, Z, movies etc. to a footnote. It just seemed a very tacked-on end to the intro. You might consider doing the same with this. Marskell 07:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

---

• In 1.3: "...Monogram was exploring fresh territory with what were being called "exploitation pictures." Variety defined these as...
• In 1.6: "...the production and commercial viability of a variety of B movie subgenres that have come to be known collectively as exploitation films. The term gained broader application as well:..."

I think this is really illustrative of why length can be problematic. You're introducing a concept twice when it should only be introduced once (unless there's a difference between "exploitation pictures" and "exploitation films.") And note the term "exploitation" occurs apx. eight times between the two definitions. Compare:

• Variety: "Films with some timely or currently controversial subject which can be exploited, capitalized on in publicity or advertising" in first mention.
• Your own sum-up in second: "The combination of intensive and gimmick-laden publicity with movies featuring vulgar subject matter along with often outrageous imagery dated back decades..."

There's definite redundancy here. Marskell 13:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. I've trimmed at both spots. The Variety quote was mainly to establish that the term was applied--however uncommonly--to certain B-studio productions of the era; but that's a historical point that's satisfactorily relegated to the series article. The main discussion needs to be in the 1960s section since that's where traditional exploitation content really starts affecting the B movie field in a significant way. I've made it a bit sleeker, hopefully eliminating residual sense of redundancy.—DCGeist 22:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Random section 3

Leave "Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959), directed by Ed Wood, is frequently cited as exemplifying the Z movie" and cut the description. This is tripled info: the Plan 9 page and the Z Movie page already describe it. Marskell 07:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done this myself. Given the blue-linked information I think it hard to just having a paragraph description. Marskell 07:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. Just tweaked a little.—DCGeist 08:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to pop back up in 24. I have one other little thing. Marskell 17:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

---

"In 1959, Levine's Embassy Pictures bought the worldwide rights to a cheaply made movie starring American-born bodybuilder Steve Reeves. On top of a $125,000 purchase price, Levine then spent $1.5 million on advertising and publicity, a virtually unprecedented amount. The New York Times was nonplussed: "Hercules, an Italianmade spectacle film dubbed in English, is the kind of picture that normally would draw little more than yawns in the film market...had it not been [launched] throughout the country with a deafening barrage of publicity. The exploitation film, which has been taken over by Warner Brothers for distribution, opened yesterday at 135 theatres in the New York area alone." Levine counted on opening-weekend box office for his profits, booking the film "into as many cinemas as he could for a week's run, then withdrawing it before poor word-of-mouth withdrew it for him.""

I find this odd, because the movie in question isn't introduced until the third sentence of the description. The Times quote is also too long (is 135 essential info here?)

"In 1959, Levine's Embassy Pictures bought the worldwide rights to Hercules, a cheaply made Italian film dubbed in English and starring American-born bodybuilder Steve Reeves. On top of a $125,000 purchase price, Levine then spent $1.5 million on advertising and publicity, a virtually unprecedented amount. The New York Times was nonplussed, noting that it would have drawn "little more than yawns in the film market...had it not been [launched] throughout the country with a deafening barrage of publicity." Levine counted on opening-weekend box office for his profits, booking the film "into as many cinemas as he could for a week's run, then withdrawing it before poor word-of-mouth withdrew it for him."" Marskell 09:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. The point of the 135 bit was to indicate that that was an enormous number for a single metropolitan region back then, while now (as suggested in the 1980s section) it would be perfectly normal. But I agree, the issue is satisfactorily covered without the extended quote. Edited.—DCGeist 10:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)