Talk:The Show of Shows
Add topic | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Untitled
[edit]Added additional information to the Carpentier sequence entry, cast entries, and corrected some minor formatting, grammar, and spelling errors elsewhere. Vitaphone1 16:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added a bit. This film is a favorite of mine- a real "Guilty Pleasure"- and one of the very rare films of Beatrice Lille.Saxophobia 03:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say Wheeler Oakman is "Uncredited"- he provides his own verbal introduction: "Wheeler Oakman......no joke man"Saxophobia (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Who's Not in the Film
[edit]This article states: "At that time, the sophisticated and musical talent that had characterized the 1920s was replaced by a new set of stars, more in tune with the common man and with more sober times, headed by the likes of Warren William, Bette Davis, Barbara Stanwyck, Glenda Farrell, William Powell, Kay Francis, Lee Tracy, Joan Blondell, Dick Powell, Clark Gable, and James Cagney." Why point out who's not in this film? Robert Redford and Steve McQueen aren't in it either, nor are Ben Affleck or Matt Damon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.139 (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Title
[edit]I have tried to determine whether the film's official title is The Show of Shows or Show of Shows, and there is no general consensus among the many media accounts that I found. There are many references to The Show of Shows in media accounts and reviews, but I believe that the inclusion of the definite article is more a product of the fact that but those in the media probably didn't know the answer either and were guessing or inserting it where they thought it belonged.
We have these solid pieces of evidence supporting the title as Show of Shows without the preceding The:
- The film's title screen: It reads The "Show of Shows", with the definite article outside of the quotation marks. This indicates that the true title is Show of Shows and that the "The" is just there for context, sort of like how Great Wall of China doesn't sound right without "The" preceding it even though the article is definitely not part of the name.
- Promotional materials: This advertisement from The New York Times of November 21, 1929 and the official movie poster clearly indicate the title as Show of Shows.
For these reasons, the article's title should be changed to Show of Shows, with an indication included that some sources list it as The Show of Shows.