Talk:Duck Soup (1933 film)

Duck Soup (1933 film) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 6, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
April 29, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Film: War / Core / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is on the project's core list.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Comedy Top‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Duck Soup (1933 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Pre Code or not?

In the first sentence of the article the film is described as pre-code, but then later in the 'Other scenes and jokes' section, a joke is described which made fun of the code. According to the [Hays_Code] article the code started in 1930, and this movie is 1933, so that surely means it can't be considered a pre-code movie?

I am WP:BOLD and removing pre-code from the first sentence.

GeneralJohnsonJameson (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralJohnsonJameson: Someone put the erroneous "Pre-Code" back in, so I deleted it again. Per Pre-Code article, "...the pre-Code era is either dated to the start of the sound film era, or more generally to March 1930..." Acwilson9 (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Pre-Code Hollywood, which states: "Pre-Code Hollywood was the brief era in the American film industry between the widespread adoption of sound in pictures in 1929 and the enforcement of the Motion Picture Production Code censorship guidelines, popularly known as the 'Hays Code', in mid-1934. Although the Code was adopted in 1930, oversight was poor, and it did not become rigorously enforced until July 1, 1934, with the establishment of the Production Code Administration (PCA)." The Code existed in 1933, but it wasn't taken seriously until the following year. By common understanding, a 1933 film would be Pre-Code -- although not much in the Marx Brothers' pre-1934 films would have required changing had the Code been in place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we make the assertion that this is the best Marx Bros film here?

Stack ranking a set of works where there are no agreed-upon criteria of what defines "best" or "finest" tends to yield contention over time. Although I personally consider this my favorite Marx Brothers film, and most fans I know agree, I do recall a time when critics lauded "A Night at the Opera" as the best Marx Brothers film. This may change again. For the sake of restraint and objectivity, perhaps we should soften the language slightly. Sterlingjones (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that Duck Soup "is now widely considered to be... the Marx Brothers' finest film," and backs that up in the Reception section with quotes from two recognized critics and Rotten Tomatoes' critical consensus. In my opinion, saying "widely considered" is appropriate in that case, even if there are critics who may disagree now or in the future.

That being said, I'm curious what you have in mind. Is there a specific change that you'd like to see? Toughpigs (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fast reply. Generally speaking, I think adding "one of" in front of top-ranking adjectives is sufficient to prevent future contention. I don't mean to be nitpicky. I just want to avoid future absolutist arguments, because Wikipedia is prone to them and they are so unpleasant to see. Sterlingjones (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be misrepresenting the sources. The sources in the article say that it's the best, not one of the best. I understand your concern, but I think what we've got is fine. Toughpigs (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]