Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El duderino (talk | contribs) at 20:42, 19 December 2011 (Undid revision 466744577 by Lhb1239 (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Television B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

2011/11 2012/01 2012/03 2012/04 2012/05 2012/07 2012/10 2012/12 2013/01 2013/03 2013/04 2013/08 2014/02 2014/03 2014/10 2014/12 2015/01 2015/02 2015/07 2016/03 2016/06 2017/04 2017/11 2017/12 2018/08 2018/09 2019/07 2020/03 2020/06 2020/10 2021/08 2021/12 2022/09 2023/11 2024/01

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Themes

excuse me, but alcohol is still an accepted part of society.

You should sign your comments, if only so readers can tell where one person's comments end and another's begin. Otherwise, yes, of course you're right. And this statement:

Engagement and marriage, for men, did not preclude relationships with other women;

I agree. There are times where i'll often wear my wifes underwear and tights when she's out at Tescos and Ill parade around wearing just these articles of clothing, dusting the mantlepiece, baking apple pies and flirting with the milkman. My only outlet is Springwatch - Bill Oddie is such a brilliant man it makes me weep. I thought about taking my life today. Stood by on the side of the M25 by Juction 12 for hours, eating packets of cheese & onion Walkers, listening to Simply Red on my iPod and dribbling. Sat in my car for 4 hours in the garage last week hoping to end it all peacefully; realised i'd forgotten to switch the engine on when it got to the 5 hour mark so went in the house and watched The Weakest Link.

is pretty silly, too. Is the writer claiming that adultery has vanished in our more enlightened time? Or that adultery was socially acceptable in 1960? It should go without saying that neither is true, but apparently it has to be said. 68.80.50.49 03:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)essex9999

Of course drinking is still accepted, but not in many of situations portrayed in the show as "normal" - drinking by pregnant women, the three Martini lunch, and driving while clearly impaired are all far less acceptable in today's society. It is a matter of degree Seaphoto 17:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Lawteacheredstudent deleted excessive references to smoking. Original post had definite anti-smoking bias that was unnecessary. Smoking is not a theme in the show, only something the characters did. No one ever says clothing is a theme of a show because everyone wore clothes, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawteacheredstudent (talk • contribs) 00:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much every show on television has people wearing clothes. Not many have that much smoking. Whether you or I think it's unusual is immaterial -- the amount of smoking on the show is usually commented on in the media, and Weiner often mentions it in interviews. And smoking is a recurring plot point because of the agency's work for Lucky Strike cigarettes. I think the Themes section needs improvement -- obviously the show isn't only about smoking, drinking and having sex with secretaries -- but the stuff in there now should stay. Greyfedora 16:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we include something about how the show highlights the social impact of various awareness campaigns? The show often depicts activities that would shock and horrify people today, such as smoking and drinking while pregnant, allowing children to put plastic bags over their heads, and mindless littering. I think one of the themes of the show is just how effective advertising is at controlling the behavior of people. These sorts of campaigns have profoundly affected our society's world view. I'm not that good at putting it words for the article. Thanks. 161.130.178.151 (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I just thought of another subtle theme of the show: the changing image of female beauty. In the first episode, they showed a stripper who was quite voluptuous and would certainly thought too hefty for that job today. There were several other times when models and strippers were intentionally shot in a way that highlights the more classic idea of female beauty that was more pervasive at that time. 161.130.178.151 (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That belongs more in a review or a blog posting. On Misplaced Pages, we're not supposed to do any original research or critical analysis; just summarize what other people have done. David (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

From the page: "Upon Betty discovering his real identity, however, he reverts back to Dick Whitman's mannerisms: fumbling with cigarettes, visibly shaking, and losing all of his composure. It is not because he had been caught, but because he had reverted back to his old self, Dick Whitman, that changed his mannerisms."

-This sort of shaky critical analysis does not belong on a Misplaced Pages entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.5 (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about smoking

Wondering if Mad Men is a vehicle for cigarette marketers to skirt rules prohibiting TV commercials?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting theory, but if it were then Marlboro would have won the bidding war, not Lucky Strike. Hanxu9 (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah intriguing theory but I doubt it. There is Alot of smoking but actually, relatively very little specific (brand) product placement. It might even have the opposite effect that the OP is suggesting, given the contrasts with how smoking is generally viewed/depicted today. And considering the era depicted and how prevalent smoking was back then. Some scenes even seem morbidly laughable given the health problems we now know about. -anonAlph 72.151.121.170 (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This deserves further discussion as it relates to improving the article. Withn the body text there is some discussion on how smoking is depicted:

• in Filming and production design

On the scenes featuring smoking, Weiner stated: "Doing this show without smoking would've been a joke. It would've been sanitary and it would've been phony." Since the actors cannot, by California law, smoke tobacco cigarettes in their workplace, they instead smoke herbal cigarettes.

• in Themes

Mad Men depicts parts of American society and culture of the 1960s, highlighting cigarette smoking, drinking, sexism, feminism, adultery, homophobia, and racism. Smoking, far more common in the United States of the 1960s than it is now, is featured throughout the series; many characters can be seen smoking several times in the course of an episode. In the pilot, representatives of Lucky Strike cigarettes come to Sterling Cooper looking for a new advertising campaign in the wake of a Reader's Digest report that smoking will lead to various health issues including lung cancer.

• On a side note, User:Lhb1239 keeps removing the above discussion because he thinks it violates WP:NotAForum and I disagree. El duderino (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Cast and characters

I made a tentative list of the cast and main characters, which will be later added to with info on each character. The section will also be turned into prose instead of a bullet-pointed list. Articles for each character are not necessary and wouldn't pass Misplaced Pages guidelines on notability. Cliff smith 05:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I made the section prose, with info on each character. The info may be added to and/or changed as the season plays out, of course. Cliff smith 06:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to place a spoiler warning in this section because the unveiling of the character details are part of the story line. The details of Drapers character spoiled an on-demand episode for me. Avermillion 18:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I edited the spoiler warning to fit the proper format. I also read the spolier warning page guidelines - and I think a spoiler warning is appropriate for this page because it is a topic that concerns a TV show in production with new shows coming out weekly - and previous shows available on demand. Avermillion 18:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I added some characters last names and updated info, based on AMC's website. please rewrite if you can do it better. 38.112.225.84 22:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add a spoiler warning after myself having a plot ruined. Why was this removed? What justification is there to not warn readers that the characters section has multiple spoilers on every character? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.81.113 (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should start putting "WARNING: May contain spoilers" at the top of every damn article about a film, novel or television program from now until the end of eternityVonbontee (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Notable is the absence of Rachel Menken (played by Maggie Siff) in the list - a strong, independent and intelligent woman who also happens to be Jewish, really ought to deserve a mention or two, no? The character's a very important signifier of the social changes gradually taking place in the era. Likewise, why no mention of Helen Bishop? A young single mother, holding down a job, raising kids and finding time to work in support of JFK's election campaign, she's another vital example of the people pushing society forward at the time. Compare both to the Francine character - likable, but fundamentally just a foil for Betty's thoughts and an outlet for some of the more offensive views of the era (she's such a minor role, we don't have to like her - we still maybe kinda do, because Dudek's brilliant, but it shouldn't affect the viewer's appreciation of the show if they hate her, so Weiner gives her all the dated prejudices), at least until her minor marriage trouble storyline. Can't understand why some of the vague sketch characters have writeups and the two most progressive women don't??

The Lane Pryce section has a complete misinterpretation of why he was being sent to India. He was being punished for one reason or another, which is rather unclear. 'But what will I do there?' (in bombay) 'I imagine about what you accomplished here.' (in new york). Saint John Powell and Harold Ford are insinuating that he accomplished nothing.----Bernard

Strongly disagree. Lane's success at cost-cutting (largely through layoffs) and increasing receipts--i.e., increasing profitability, at least in the short run--are clearly established by the time of that conversation, and that's clearly what they are referring to as his accomplishment. Lane's role for the parent company is evidently to make the subordinate company look better on paper so that it can be sold off for a profit. Sterling, Cooper, and Draper all agree that none of them can do what he can do in their conversation regarding whether to take him on as a partner in the new firm.--Schoolmann (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The Salvatore Romano section states that Don implies that "Sal is at fault for not keeping his proclivities out of sight and mind." What Don actually implies is that Sal should have given in to the client, as the cited reference clearly states.--Schoolmann (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to question this sentence but did not want to change the article without consulting other writers. "Draper's real name is Richard Whitman: he assumed the identity of Don Draper during the Korean War after the death of his Lieutenant, taking his name to escape from the war." My memory from that episode is that Dick Whitman took the name of his comrade who was accidentally killed in order to escape his identity, family, and home. He did not escape from the war by taking another name. I believe that Dick Whitman volunteered for Korea and his bravery and patriotism are key aspects of his character -- so this is very "insulting" statement to make unless the writer can show evidence that it is so. Can someone help reconcile my memory with the statement? Should it be changed? -- SDK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ednastvincent (talk • contribs) 17:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant in reference to header

In the Critical reaction section there are a few thing that are mentioned that did not seem relevant to the header.

This seems non-notable at best. It may be appropriate in a section titled controversies, but this not related to critical reception or reaction.

A simliar problem presents itself in the Product placement section.

Although there is a mention of Heineken beer in the product placement section, this does not relate to product placement within the show. I think they should be removed, any thoughts? @Discover10

above comment from 21 July 2010 adding datestamp 12/16/11

Mad Men userbox

I have just created a Mad Men userbox and figured some other fans might also like to use it:

The code to use is {{User:ZeroOne/Userboxes/Mad Men}}. Cheers! —ZeroOne (talk / @) 11:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

shortening lists of cast & writers at Infobox

I've suggested a condensed list in my recent edit. Seemed like the lists were way too long for what is meant to be a summary box. I've edited each down to a more manageable/readable number of the top 6, with "and more" link to respective lists. The shortened cast list now corresponds to the lead characters as listed in the body text. -anonAlph 72.151.121.170 (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

1. ^ Matthew Weiner et al. (2007). The Making of Mad Men (Documentary). AMC. {{cite AV media}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |authors= (help)
2. Cite error: The named reference witchel was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Cite error: The named reference nyreview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes". Mad Men. Season 1. Episode 1. 2007-07-19. AMC.

• B-Class television articles
• Mid-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles