Talk:Blazing Saddles/Archive 1

Carol Arthur

Can anyone please look into the fact that Gilda Radner is not a cast member of this movie - especially in the church scene as pointed out by a contributor to the article. I have viewed the entire movie many times and reviewed the cast listing having found no mention of Gilda. The woman in the church scene is Carol Arthur (wife of Dom DeLuis). ESQ24

It's a rumor that started who-knows-where. Unless someone can provide a verifiable citation, it doesn't belong in the article. MFNickster 19:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

One of its most famous scenes is of a group of cowboys sitting round a fire eating plates of beans; the soundtrack has repeated, loud evidence of the most notorious side-effects of beans..

Huh huh, fart jokes. The scene where the sheriff distracts some Ku Klux Klan members by yelling "where are all the white women at?" paints a different picture of this movie. -- Merphant

• It's meant to attract the Klan members, so they are drawn into the ambush. One of the Klan's irrational views/fears is about helpless white women being 'soiled' by black men. 208.59.171.97 20:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "a different picture". I get the sense that maybe you don't approve of the over-the-top racial satire. Many ethnic groups get verbally "shot at" in this movie. Wahkeenah 3 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)

Merphant, buddy, that was a joke.

---

This writeup is absolutely horrible... anyone care to write a better one?

I'll take a shot at it. 209.149.235.241 02:37, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

'Ni' vs. 'Nit' in Quotes section

Wahkeenah, I noticed you reverted this 'correction' with another correction, but I'm still left wondering which is correct! This is a small point, but it would be nice to get a definitive answer. Here's what I've found so far:

• On the first pass (talking to Bart), the Gov. clearly stops at "ni--" but the DVD subtitles show "nig--".
• On the second pass (talking to Hedley), the DVD subtitles show "can't you see that man is a nig?"
• When I listen to the audio track, I hear the Gov. say "can't you see that man is a nit?" with an audible 't'. (which makes a certain amount of sense, because it's a real word and it's plausible that the Gov. would call him that - after all, what's a 'ni' or a 'nig'?)
• The closed-caption on the second pass stops at "can't you see that man is a ni?"
• The novelization has the Gov. actually saying "this man's a nigger" to Hedley.
• I would like to get a look at the screenplay to see if this is something they changed during shooting.

What do you think? Is there any reason to favor one version over another? MFNickster 03:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Forget the screenplay and the subtitling (closed-captioning). What is he actually saying in the film? I've never heard it as "nit", and I've seen the film many times. But I could be wrong. Wahkeenah 14:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe he is saying "nit." That's how I've always heard it, but relying on your hearing or mine (or anyone else's) isn't definitive, unfortunately. I'd rather have a cite. MFNickster 16:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems like the cite sites are uninsightful. :( Wahkeenah 17:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to ask Mel! Anybody got his number? MFNickster 18:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I left it in my other suit. Wahkeenah 18:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Not to be confused with The Knights Who Say 'Ni'. Wahkeenah 14:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No, then we'd have to put Shrubbery under "See Also"! MFNickster

I'm bushed. Wahkeenah 17:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm hearing "Ni" both times he says it on the DVD, which I just now put on, but that doesn't necessarily prove anything. Wahkeenah 19:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I did a bit of "original research" (which, of course, is not admissible to the article) and ran the recording through a spectrum analyzer program, a "voiceprint." I also recorded myself saying "that man is a ni..", "that man is a nit", and "that man is a nig". I'm no expert on spectrograms, but the second Brooks line is clearly different from the first, and the second one resembles my voice saying "nit" more than the other two I recorded. Food for thought! :) MFNickster 19:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I saw the DVD with closed captioning, and it said "nig" both times... but that's not very reliable, given the many, obvious differences between the closed-captioning and what they were actually saying on-screen. Wahkeenah 01:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Here's at least one other source (apparently NOT spun off wikipedia) that thinks he's saying "ni" both times... and by the way, I thought that was the point of the joke anyway, that you think he's going to say the "n-word" and stops himself, whereas he was just saying "ni", which admittedly is a pretty lame joke. [1] Look for an item titled "Reminds me of Blazing Saddles". Wahkeenah 19:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt that there are other people hearing it the same way you are. Probably some are hearing 'nit' as well.

You got the point of the joke just fine-- you think he's going to say the 'n-word', but in fact it's a different n-word. The problem is (for me) that 'ni' isn't a real word (unless he's calling Bart the chemical symbol for nickel!) and 'nit' is. I wish they would have used 'nitwit' instead, it would have made things simpler for us! MFNickster 19:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling him a nitwit would be more logical. Nit is also a word, but it doesn't make much sense, but neither does 'ni'. Maybe somebody will have to write to Mel and ask him. And given his sense of humor, he'll probably tell us to go talk to the scriptwriter... Richard Pryor. Maybe it would be better just to take the joke out altogether. There are still a few more others to choose from. Wahkeenah 20:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I think we should just keep correcting the corrections to the previous corrections!

As for talking to Richard Pryor... good idea! I'll go get my ouija board. <g> MFNickster 21:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me know what he has to say. Meanwhile, we could qualify it by saying that some hear it as "ni" and some hear it as "nit". Maybe that would be ni(t)-picking. Wahkeenah 00:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's leave it as-is for now, since the subtitle agrees with the quote. If any new evidence comes along, we can always change it back. MFNickster 15:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Richard Pryor says "You can do anything you want and you can say anything that comes to mind - just so long as it's funny. If you ain't funny then get the fuck off the stage, it's that simple." :D MFNickster

Self-plagiarisation

The last section looks to me like an essay written for school. --62.255.232.178 14:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• What are you referring to, specifically? Wahkeenah 15:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of Wikipedia reads 'like an essay written for school.' If you think you can improve the style, be bold and take a stab at it! MFNickster 04:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• I can't argue with that. I would just like to know what's special about this article that caught your attention? Wahkeenah 04:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

inscription on headdress

After reading the tidbit on the hebrew on the headdress, and inspecting the movie poster image, I noticed that what it said was not exactly "kosher l'pesach" because the first letters of each were reversed (it read "posher l'kesach") I edited the page accordingly, but I don't know the proper formatting for words in foreign languages so correct as necessary. 208.59.171.97 01:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• No. Follow the links to Pesach and Kashrut and you will see that the letters on the headband are not spoonerized. Furthermore, I asked a Jewish acquaintance and got confirmation on this point. Wahkeenah 02:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well then your Jewish acquaintance either doesn't know Hebrew or he isn't looking close enough at the headdress. See my explination at http://www.chriscarter.org/images/viewer.php?id=3020comparison.JPG ...changing back to my edit 208.59.171.97 12:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Then you're also saying that wikipedia's own entries for those two words are incorrect? Wahkeenah 17:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The entries are correct, I think you're confusing the letters which make a 'K' sound, which looks like a backwards C, with the letter which makes a 'p' sound, which looks like an inverted & flipped english G. 208.59.171.97 19:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with 208.59.171.97, it does look like the letters are reversed on the headdress. Hard to say, though, whether it's a deliberate spoonerism or just a mistake made by the artist. MFNickster 19:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm crosseyed, but it looks to me like it matches the Hebrew in the articles for the terms Pesach and Kashrut. Keep in mind that the word order is Passover-Kosher, not Kosher-Passover. Wahkeenah 19:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I compared it to some product labels, such as this one. MFNickster 19:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hebrew is read right-to-left, and the order should be Kosher (L)Pesach... the L (the letter lamed in hebrew) means 'for', i.e. kosher for passover. Also the strict hebrew pronounciation is closer to Ka'sher, not Kosher, but I think it makes more sense to use Kosher when talking about it in English.208.59.171.97 19:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• The inscription on the Coke bottle top is the same as on the Indian headband. Wahkeenah 23:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• No. http://www.chriscarter.org/images/viewer.php?id=1133switch.jpg Case closed? 208.59.171.97 23:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Now I see what you're getting at. Those letters are pretty similar-looking. But the first letter of "Kosher" on the headband has a dot inside it, not connected to the top of the letter as it would be if it were the first letter of "Pesach". So you can argue for a possible unintential spoonerism or maybe just mediocre artwork. Wahkeenah 23:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oh that's what was throwing you off... now I get it :) in the article on Kashrut the 'backwards-c' letter thing has a dot in it. You may also notice alot of marks seperate from the main letters themselves in that representation. That is fully annotated hebrew, with vowels and marks used to help one pronounce new words, in contrast to the writing on the headdress which is done in the more traditional form without vowels. I could go on about what the dot in the 'backwards-c' (on the wiki page) means if you're curious. 208.59.171.97 23:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• My point exactly (don't pardon the pun). That standalone dot is a vowel point. That letter was done correctly, but they messed up the first letter of "Pesach". Again, poor artwork or some such. Shalom! (:-)# Wahkeenah 23:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmmm I managed to acquire an even higher-rez copy of the DVD cover than of the poster, and you while you are right that the dot is seperated, I do think that the artist was indeed drawing the (pey) letter for a few reasons... too tired to explain now. Wish I had a tablet PC to draw easily :P. I'll post a picture later with my reasons. 208.59.171.97 23:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, tell me if I've got it right, as far as what it should be (forgetting the left-to-right part). Feel free to correct and embellish (Hebrew 101):

k - caph

sh - shin

r - resh

l - lamedh

p - pe

s - samekh

ch - he

Wahkeenah 23:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• All correct except the last letter is called 'chet', 'he(y)' is a different letter 208.59.171.97 23:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com as a source for this article

This article uses salon.com as a reference. A concern has been raised about the reliability of salon.com. You can read the following discussion and comment if you like. SeeTalk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia.Andries 04:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Salon.com review really doesn't offer any substantial additions to what's in the DVD commentary. In this case, I think it serves only as a published reference for the verbal content of the DVD commentary, unless someone disputes what Brooks said there? MFNickster 07:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Most if not all of the material in the wiki article seems to be true. However, the section describing the film's themes has the look of a film commentary that was ripped off from someplace. If it came from that salon site, or predominantly from any site, then it should be altered or abolished. Wahkeenah 07:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Critical reaction a quotefarm

84% of the content in this section is quotes. Can we put these into our own words, keep the citations, and avoid weasel words when doing so? Chupper 17:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit War - let's talk this out

72.76.13.100 (talk · contribs) and Wahkeenah (talk · contribs) seem to be involved in a minor edit war about the merits of a particular passage in the article. So, I'm opening up a dialogue for them.

The disputed copy:

In 2006, Blazing Saddles was among 25 films named to the National Film Registry by the Librarian of Congress. Films chosen for inclusion in this registry are rated on several criteria, including historical significance. The American film critic Dave Kehr queried if the historical importance of Blazing Saddles lay in the fact that it was the first film from a major studio to have a fart joke.

Please state your reasons for wanting it removed/kept. Note that I'm keeping it out of the article until this conversation has run its course. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Such a citation is obvious POV-pushing. It is clear from the critiques that not everyone liked it. Adding this particular sarcasm so near the beginning of the article is inappropriate. I don't care which list of films it appears on or not. That stuff is also POV-pushing. Today, that film stands out because of its blatant political incorrectness, much more than the campfire scene, which was avant-garde in its day, but is no longer a novelty due to many less-funny imitators over the years. Wahkeenah 11:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm really having trouble understanding your rationale. The NFR listing is a major deal, and adding it can hardly be considered a POV push. As for the fart joke comment, why couldn't that just be put under the "Critical reaction" heading? EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that should work. You can also put back the NFR listing if you want. Wahkeenah 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Rating today

Would this be PG-13 or R today if it was rerated by the MPAA?

No way to tell, but I would guess a PG-13. There are no "f-bombs", and aside from Miss Stein's cleavage, the sexual situations are mostly innuendo. MFNickster 19:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

The last time I saw this on TV it was so heavily censored that it lost much of its punch. It would be interesting to comment on the degree to which this movie gets censored. It was a movie that satirized bigotry--to totally censor its indelicate words is to defeat the whole point of the movie in the history of film.

Blackout link

In the article, the link to "blackout" as an artistic device leads to Blackout(disambiguation), where the user would have to search for exactly what the word "blackout" means. And since there is no article for this, it may be better to just explain it in the article.

I noticed that, but didn't change it because I'm not familiar with the term "blackout scene." I Googled it, but most of the results referred to a scene in which there are voices but the picture is black. MFNickster 23:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tag

I agree with David and Doc that a warning like the spoiler tag in this article was very inappropriate to an encyclopedia. I've removed it. --Tony Sidaway 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Their arguments against the spoiler tags are bogus. They care nothing about the readers. I will be adding it back. Wahkeenah 04:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  Please assume good faith. That's a really very nasty thing to so. --Tony Sidaway 04:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • You have no idea what's been going on with this. Wahkeenah 04:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

May I please remind you to follow Civility and No personal attacks. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 04:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How "civil" is it for a group of editors to decide to screw the readers based on some pretentious notion about what's "encyclopedic"? I hate nannyism, and removing spoiler tags is nannyism, because it pre-empts the readers' choice. There was the comment by one of those characters about the way readers "should be using" wikipedia. That's nannyism. It's academic fascism. Where do they get off presuming to dictate to the readers how they "should be" using a so-called encyclopedia? That is offensive in the extreme. Now, cease your lectures about "civility", and focus on making this website better for the readers, not for the inflated egos of nannyistic editors. Wahkeenah 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have strongly held opinions on this. Please try to recognise that the "group of editors" you describe also have opinions. "Academic fascism" seems to be pushing it a bit far, when all they're proposing to do is remove a redundant notice under "Plot" that says, in effect, "what follows is details of the plot".

Speaking as an editor, I'm also a reader of this encyclopedia. I don't think much of spoiler warnings, but when I do I think of how ugly and unnecessary they are. I wonder why I would need to be told what I already know: that if I read an encyclopedia article about a fictional narrative, I will discover information about that narrative that I didn't already know. --Tony Sidaway 05:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Most writeups about movies, "plot summaries", either don't give away the key points of the climax, or if they do, they post a warning or caution or whatever you want to call it, giving them the option of stopping, if they want to. There is no censorship, nothing is hidden. It's just a courtesy to the reader. Why don't you all get that? Y'all's obtuseness on that point is just incredible. Wahkeenah 05:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as an active member of the Film project, I'm here to tell you that you are misinformed. Most "writeups" do give away the key points of the film. —Viriditas | Talk 05:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So there is no shortage of disrespect toward the readers. Wahkeenah 06:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. Please don't confuse the internal world of your mind with the external world of reality. —Viriditas | Talk 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, we're talking about an encyclopedia article. The article is about a film and the plot is outlined in a section clearly marked "plot". How stupid would the reader have to be to read past the word plot and not expect to read about the plot? --Tony Sidaway 06:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of discussions about movie plots don't give away the ending. And it's contemptuous of the editor to assume that the reader would somehow naturally expect to see all the film's plot secrets in the writeup. Wahkeenah 06:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Quanitfy: how many don't give away the ending? I've been working on film articles for years. Close to all of them give away the ending. —Viriditas | Talk 06:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And why should wikipedia lower itself to the level of those that show contempt for the reader by spilling everything? Wahkeenah 06:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean like Fermat's last theorem and E = mc^2? Those editors must be disrespectful for revealing the secrets in the first paragraph! Quick, let's file an arbitration case! —Viriditas | Talk 06:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, it's an encyclopedia. If the reader doesn't know what to expect of an encyclopedia, he'll learn soon enough. There's no need to splatter these ugly tags all over the encyclopedia on the off-chance that all of our readers are particularly stupid people. --Tony Sidaway 06:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think this website is really an encyclopedia, you can't have been here very long. Wahkeenah 06:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe he's been here since 2004 or early 2005. How long have you been here? —Viriditas | Talk 06:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have all managed so far not to spoil the final conversation and best line of the picture:

Waco: Where you headed, cowboy? Bart: Nowhere special. . . . Waco: Nowhere special. I always wanted to go there. . . . Bart: Come on. . . .

Posher for Kassover

I don't know Hebrew, but I do know the Hebrew Alef-bet, at least enough to know that the beadwork on Mel's Indian headdress didn't say "Kosher for Passover", at least not quite. It was obviuous that the kaf and pe were reversed (I probably didn't spell those right), but most trivia collections simply repeat the "Kosher for Passover" thing without comment. This is the first citation I've ever seen that acknowledges the "error." (And I've always wondered if it was intentional or not.) That's why Wikipedia rokks.PurpleChez 21:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Themes and motifs

I have added an Original Research tag to this section. It reads like it was either ripped off from some film commentary website (without any citation provided), or a film school student simply copy/pasted his essay into the article. I think it should be taken out entirely and re-written from scratch, with proper research citation added. --Ilyag (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The guy who was originally to play Wilder's part

Did he really have alcoholic tremens himself? Sounds like a myth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Wikipedia article about "the guy" -- Gig Young -- says: "Alcoholism plagued his later years, causing him to lose acting roles. He was fired on the first day of shooting the comedy film Blazing Saddles after collapsing on the set due to withdrawals from alcohol." (And it gives two footnotes at this point, too. . . .)

"You're sucking on my arm"--citation?

Right now the article says (in "Production"),

When asked in a television interview if anything was so offensive it had to be cut from the movie, however, Mel Brooks confided that one bit between Madeline Kahn and Cleavon Little had to be edited. In the darkened dressing room when Lili asks Bart if it's "twue" what they say about black men and then she says, "It's twue, it's twue!", he cut Bart's punchline of "I'm sorry to disappoint you, miss, but you're sucking on my arm."

I've heard one version or another of that story my whole life (with some people swearing they can actually hear the line in the released movie), but never with any citations. Here, again, the story is just attributed to "a television interview", no dates or names. Google turns up a slew of people who are totally sure they totally heard that story, but again with no data.

I think it's an urban legend. If Brooks actually did say this, it shouldn't be so hard to find a real cite (I'd think it'd be pretty notorious). So... can anyone offer a citation? If not, I'll take this out in a couple of days. -- Narsil (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a citation other than the DVD commentary, but in the commentary Mel Brooks says (roughly transcribed, about 50 min. 30 secs.):

So we had the screening, and Ted Ashley, who was running Warner Brothers, corners me and says "Okay, Mel, great picture - but, you've got to do the following:" (He doesn't know my contract, he doesn't know that I have final cut in my contract) So representing the studio (he runs the studio), he says "here's what we have to do: you've got to take out the word 'nigger.'" I said, "Okay - I've got a pad: 'nigger,' out." "The bean scene: farting, out." He said, "you've got to take out punching the horse; we can't get away with it." I said, "okay, punching the horse is out!" "The scene with Lili von Shtupp and the black sheriff - 'you're sucking my arm,' or something - you've got to take that out. Otherwise I can't release it." And I said "okay, they're all out!" He left, I crumpled up my paper, threw it in the waste paper - I never heard another word from him. We opened, it was a success...

MFNickster (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Iiinteresting. I'll hold my fire until I can get Netflix to send me the DVD and I can listen to that. But it strikes me as inconclusive at best. I mean, the producer mentions four things that need to be cut, Brooks says he'll cut them, and three of them stay in. Brooks doesn't seem to be saying "I lied about cutting three, but I gave in on the fourth". So it could be that when the exec said " 'you're sucking on my arm', or something", he was just vaguely describing the scene as it atually showed (the "is it twue how you people are gifted, oh, it's twue, it's twue" line), and in that case, too, Brooks said "yeah, sure, I'll cut it" and left it in. After all, the punchline of the story is that Brooks threw away the notes he'd taken--implying he ignored all the instructions.

Like I say, it's hard to tell just from that. If the dialogue is as you describe it, I think the best thing to do would be to just include Brooks' comment as a direct quote from the DVD commentary, attributed as such, and leave it at that. So I'll get ahold of the DVD and listen for myself.

Thanks much for the pointer! -- Narsil (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I no longer have my copy of the novelization, but I'm pretty sure I read that "arm" joke there for the first time. That probably means it was at least scripted. Anyone have a copy of the paperback that they can check?Just1thing (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have the novelization handy. Here is the passage, verbatim:

Lili found her way back to the couch where Bart was sitting, feeling her way along with both hands.

"Vere are you, my dollink? Let me sit next to you... I have much to talk to you of. Is it twue, schatzi, vot zey say about ze vay you people are gifted?"

Lili had felt her way back to the couch now, and she flung herself down on Bart.

"I must find out... must find out... slurp, slurp... oh, oh, it's twue! It's twue, it's twue, it's twue..."

"Excuse me," said Bart as diplomatically as possible. "I don't want to criticize your technique, and this may have been what you had in mind all the time, but you're sucking my arm."

MFNickster (talk) 03:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Some Googling indicates pretty conclusively that this tidbit was originally revealed on an episode of Later, with Bob Costas, somewhere amongst episodes 521-524. Good luck tracking down archival footage of that.

Fortunately, we don't have to. On the Blazing Saddles 30th Anniversary Special Edition DVD, in the documentary special feature Back in the Saddle, at 19:15, Mel Brooks says: I did a lot of dirty, crazy things and got them into the movie. The one thing Warner Bros. would not let me put in was a very good joke, really a good joke. A little dirty, a little risque, but really a good joke. There in the dark, Cleavon Little and Madelin Kahn-- Black Bart and Lili Von Shtupp-- are in the dark, and they're obviously making love, and she says-- [cut to film] "Tell me, Schatzie, is it, uh, twue what they say about the way you people are... gifted? (sound of zipper) Oh, it's twue. It's twue. It's twue it's twue!" [cut back to Mel Brooks] And then you hear Cleavon Little say, "I hate to disappoint you ma'am, but you're sucking on my arm".

So, there you go. Clayhalliwell (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand (the DVD commentary and other interviews) Brooks claims he had final cut in his contract. But in the "Back in the Saddle" documentary he says, "The one thing Warner Bros. would not let me put in was ... [the arm joke]." Can both be correct, or does it depend on what day Brooks is being interviewed? Just1thing (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Final cut means final say on the edit of approved material. It doesn't mean Warners had no say on the final cut or what the approved material was. There's no contradiction here. Final cut refers to the arrangement of material, not to the content. Monkeyzpop (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In the "sanitized" version, is there an expectation that viewers understand that Lili's diction is deteriorating each time she says "twwue" because her mouth is being, ahem, occupied? That was always my understanding. elpincha (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No original research

This statement does not belong in the article without a source to back it up:

• Blazing Saddles is widely credited with temporarily ending the Western genre of motion pictures due to its astute parodying of genre conventions.

The no original research policy is clear - "This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." This addition is a statement that, unless you can specify who said it, appears to be an opinion held by the author of the article (which is editorializing). MFNickster (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, it's not original research, it was a statement without a source. It could have been deleted as being "POV", but that's not the same thing. In any case, I've provided a cite for it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Without a source, it is an unattributed statement, and fits the definition of "weasel words." So that is not permissible, but thanks for your efforts. A direct quote from the primary source (Elly in the Variety Movie Guide) would be better. MFNickster (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It would, but it is now, nevertheless, sourced, so please do not remove it, as removing sourced information without very good reason is frowned upon. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Allmovie

• Blazing Saddles at AllMovie ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards

Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Not the first major U.S. film to depict human flatulence

Blazing Saddles was not the first U.S. film to depict someone farting. Edward Everett Horton, in his last film role as Hiram Grayson in the 1971 United Artists film, Cold Turkey, was depicted as passing gas in the back of his limousine just prior to him giving a check for $25 million to the fictional town of Eagle Rock, IA after the residents of the town had quit smoking for 30 days.

Cold Turkey was actually filmed in 1969 (but released two years later), so Horton's depiction of flatulence actually took place five years prior to the famous fart scene in Blazing Saddles.Bill S. (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Shhhh.....tup

(When broadcast on television, Lili's last name is usually changed to "Shhhhhh..." to avoid use of the vulgarism, but is still written normally on the title card).

I've seen this film numerous times on UK television, and have never noticed any such change to Lili Von Shtup's name; this is literally the first I've ever heard of it. It's unclear what exactly is meant to be 'changed' - the voices dubbed, the credits amended? If such a 'change' is genuine, it's possible this is just in the US - where the possible offence to those familiar with Yiddish may be worried about more? - while not reproduced in other countries.

If someone can verify or explain the 'change', that would be appreciated. Clarifying the article would be a good idea (eg "Lili's last name is usually changed in the credits..."). Also, the word 'usually' might want to be changed to 'sometimes', or 'in the US' added. -- 87.113.72.191 (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that they no longer censor it that way. In recent years, TV has gotten a lot more liberal with what words are allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)