Talk:George Reeves
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Superman. The purpose of this project is to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on and/or related to Superman on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
| Article | This article is a Article. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | |||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | |||||||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | |||||||
|
||||||||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 To-do list for George Reeves: |
edit · history · watch · refresh | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] Inconsistency
In this particular article, it is stated that George Reeves willed everything to Toni Maddox. However, in the entry for Hollywoodland, the "Historical inaccuracies" section reports that this is an urban legend. One of these must obviously be incorrect. 128.165.175.172 14:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- You're misreading the Hollywoodland paragraph. It says (in less than perfectly clear wording) that Leonore was not at the reading of the will, because the will left everything to Toni, and that LEONORE got nothing in the will. Monkeyzpop 01:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know much about story, and reading "stated publicly on several occasions that he always believed that Reeves had taken his own life and that quotations implying that he ever believed otherwise were either in error or deliberately falsified" seemed to me not a good fit with the quotation after (source) which says "Jack and I never really tried to get anyone to re-open George's death," Neill said. "I am not aware of anyone who wanted George dead. I never said I thought George was murdered. I just don't know what happened. All I know is that George always seemed happy to me, and I saw him two days before he died and he was still happy then."
Idea that he always believe Reeves had taken his life to me feels UNSOURCED as the source quoted instead is more ambiguous in saying "I just don't know what happened" with hints that go both ways"never tried to reopen investigation" and "always seemed happy" 198.53.235.197 (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Unsourced information, removed from article
I removed this from the article:
[NOTE: From Lou Koza: It should be noted any and all details throughout this Wikipedia essay is subject to various accounts and depending on who provided information and who can be trusted to tell the truth at any given time is open to interpretation. Most especially, in detailing the hours of which the tragic moment occurred. Various newspaper accounts have the death happening at 1:00am, others as much as 2:30am. The police report states between 1:30am to 2:30am. Some, like me believe George died on 6/15/59 approx. 11:05PM. Also, are the varied accounts of who was where in the house at the time. In May 1989 Leonore Lemmon gave an extended interview of the events surrounding the night of June 15-16, 1959. In her statements she claimed she and George had gone out to dinner. This is supported by Merrill Sparks, the piano player in the restaurant as detailed in Jan Alan Henderson's book, "Speeding Bullet." Mr. Sparks would repeat his account for Bill Ritter of 20/20. There he saw George and Leonore in the restaurant while he played the piano for the patrons. In fact, he said George was at arms length away listening to the music while Leonore was working the bar. At one point, unable to hear them, he stated they were arguing. He said, it was something about Tijuana. Later, during his break which he described as "a little after ten" the two while waiting for their car continued to argue. Although, according to Mr. Sparks, Leonore was doing most of the talking. Mr. Sparks could hear what they were arguing about. Soon they drove off. Unless they stopped off at another place, the two would arrive home no later than 10:30 worse case, since George's Benedict Canyon Drive home was about three miles distance. Robert Condon was not with the couple. Leonore claimed when they arrived home they went to bed. Soon after, she went down the stairs to the living room because George had rejected her. She noticed the outside light over the front door was off and turned it back on. She wondered why it was off and told her interviewer (May 1989) that George always left the light on during the night, and as an after thought years later wondered if George turned it off planning to do her in too. That moment she turned the light back. Soon, Bill Bliss arrived to the party, the one that never started. She invited "Bud" as he was known for in for a drink. Various accounts of her description has George coming down stairs, then not coming down. The story as detailed in the reports is he came down from upstairs because he was agitated at the arrival. After apologizing to the "guest" he soon went upstairs. According to Leonore, ten minutes later while she and Bud were sitting on the couch they heard a gun shot. "ah, that George is going to shoot himself." she would say in jest. Then another ten minutes goes by and it's too quiet upstairs she says, "Bud, go up there and see what he's doing." Bliss returns with a descrinption of what he saw. Reports in newspapers is he called the police immediately, asking them to come over because his friend is dead. At this time Leonore follows with the reason it took long to call the police. Carol and Bob had entered the living room from the guestroom (the room above the garage). Leonore took one look at her and realized she had to get Carol out of the house because she didn’t want her husband to find out Carol was at the house. In addition, Carol wore only a bed room nightie. Carol had arrived earlier while George and and Leonore were out to dinner. In doing so, she arrived with no other clothes other than the nightie. Leonore called Polly Adler to help with the situation. Perhaps one reason was to bring clothes for Carol. Leonore states she spoke to Polly, others state Polly was in Europe at the time. Nonetheless, Polly did not arrive. Leonore then got her own clothes for Carol to wear. She would describe Carol as looking like a baggy pants clown since the garments were too large on her. The four would later corroborate their story of that night to the police. Interesting to note is Carol would state she was not in the room when George and Bill argued. Carol's 1959 statement would inadvertently support Leonore's May 1989 claim that Carol was with Bob on the guest room, "getting friendly." As it stands this is the only explanation ever given for the time lapse before the police were called and when they eventually arrived. Leonore's claim that Carol was already at the house when Bill Bliss arrived is contrary to what was told to the police and reported in the June 16, 1959 newspapers. Are we to believe the Leonore of 1959 or the Leonore of 1989? Some would be satisfied that by 1989, Leonore's memory was questionable and far from reliable due to her bloated alcoholic state and therefore her testimony is of no value. At 68 years old, she appeared 88. Nonetheless, throughout her hour long interview she was candid and spoke freely. And yes, had a drink. She was flushed as a result, spoke sarcastically, but bounced back in a straight forward manner to continue and eventually finish on a high note. Throughout, she was at times having difficulty with some details, but eventually for example remembered "that dummy what's his name" was William "Bud" Bliss. She was sharp and adamant to her interviewer not to include Richard Condon, since it was his brother Robert who was at the house. Some of the details are sketchy, some well remembered. Some details are inconsistent and some same as told in 1959. Including her not being clairvoyant in predicting George’s death act.
From the time described as 6/15/59: "A little after ten" to 6/16/59 2:30am is filled with an enormous amount of varied accounts. Many open questions arose throughout this case. One is, if we are to accept the theory of the gun retaining no finger prints belonging to George because it was recently oiled, why then was the hand not checked for oil? Some would want to know about powder residue remaining on the hand. We won't know because the police didn't do a full investigation before the body was embalmed and prepared for the wake viewing. Why?
In summary, there is much of George's life and death that is told, but not always is it accurate. Not everything you read and hear is absolute. There is no absolute defined account of the events leading to the death of George Reeves. That includes any and all details stated herein.]
If it can be sourced, please add it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.atwell (talk • contribs) 20:54, 28 July 2007
Lou, bless you, you're really not getting it. This essay of yours is not "sourced" in the Wikipedia style, and it keeps getting bounced. It is "POV," that is, "point of view," so it keeps getting bounced. It's too long proportionate to the entry, so it keeps getting bounced. And the only thing that's going to happen is other people are going to keep bouncing it-- rightly so. Maybe you should start a related entry on "The death of George Reeves" or something. There's a specific way to put this into the style that fits, which you haven't done, regardless of the detail in the essay. It would probably be a lot easier-- and less frustrating for you-- to provide a link to some other site or address where people can immerse themselves in the minutea of the case, rather than state it in pretty interminable form here. Your heart is in the right place, I know.Ted Newsom 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
[edit] Back-and-forth additions & subtractions
This business about Jack Larson waffling seems silly. First or all, it has nothing to do with the entry. More importantly, it's untrue and/or using an out of context quote to make him look like he's been in the "It was moider!" crowd. If a TV editor took the middle sentence out of this : "I've always felt the same way about George's death and I've never varied. Somebody told me he'd been murdered for an inheritance. That made no sense at all."-- it makes the quote "sexier," but it also makes him appear to say something 180 degrees opposite every public statement he's made since 1957. That's just silly. Ted Newsom 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
- MonkeyZ-- you've removed the reference to Reeves's house being given to him by Toni Mannix, which is factual, verified and straight out of Henderson's "Speeding Bullet," as well as any other well-researched bio article or book... all of which are properly cited. I'm not going to get into some idiotic flip/flop war here, but it is the perfect pay-off to the paragraph.Ted Newsom 15:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- If you would like to put it back and give it a citation, fine by me. I don't buy anything just because it's in Speeding Bullet, by any stretch, but that would be a legitimate WP citation. As it was, it was uncited and thus justifiably removed. I personally haven't seen any actual evidence that she paid for the entire house. All I've seen is people (including Henderson) assuming she did. Monkeyzpop 17:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unclear "eternity" section
- Eternity director Fred Zinnemann, the screenwriter Daniel Taradash and others have maintained that every scene written for Reeves' character was shot and included as part of the released film. Zinnemann has also asserted that there were no post-release cuts, nor was there even a preview screening. Everything in the first production draft of the script is still present in the final product seen ever since 1953[14].
Can someone clarify this? Does this mean that the oft-repeated story (and as shown in Hollywoodland) is false? Does it mean he wasn't shot for the film? What? Tempshill (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- It means the oft-repeated story is false. Reeves was NOT cut out of "From Here to Eternity." Every scene ever written for his character is still in the film. Monkeyzpop (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
