Jump to content

Talk:Danny Elfman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Claim about Elfman composing multiple versions of cues

[edit]

Poking through the edit history here, I noticed that at one point there was a claim here that Elfman composes different versions of score cues and presents them to the director he's working with to choose which version they like better. However, this was an unreferenced claim that had been flagged for five years and was recently removed. As far as I know, this is indeed true, but the only time I've heard Elfman actually talk about it is in the DVD/Blu-ray commentary track for Pee-wee's Big Adventure. It sounds like this is typical of the way he works with Burton, or at least was at one point in time. I don't know if they still collaborate in this way. Anyone have a decent published source for this claim? —The Keymaster (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elfman sexual assault lawsuit claims

[edit]

Elfman is one of my favorite film composers, and I was devastated when the lawsuits came out about sexual assault. While I understand the cases were thrown out, I noticed on Dec 4 a user removed all instances of his sexual assault case, even the mention of the cases being dismissed. I struggle with the removal of this entry because it was a controversial part of his life that I feel people should know about when they come to his page, to help them make an informed decision on how they want to continue to think about the composer.

Is it standard practice to remove legal cases from someone's page if they are dismissed? Has a precedence been established for removal of dismissed sexual assault lawsuits before? HicksHudsonVasquez (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HicksHudsonVasquez: Per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS "there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011" --FMSky (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Unanimous consensus among editors" Hasty generalization and appeal to authority notwithstanding, the lawsuits were filed, as was the defamation lawsuit filed against him by Nomi Abadi. Are you implying because some editors claim that Rollin Stone magazine is unreliable, therefore the lawsuits are fake? LA Times and The Guardian reported on the lawsuits as well. Just because /some/ journalists say Rolling Stone is unreliable, the lawsuits still happened, as did the lawsuits being dismissed. 142.134.23.36 (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]