Talk:The Conqueror (1956 film)

N/A

I don't really think that the term 'incubation period' is exactly applicable to the development of non-contagious diseases like cancer, but I don't know of a term to improve this. I do think that in this usage that incubation refers to incubation of a pathogen, but alternatives like 'waiting period' or 'development period' sound even more wrong.

Rlquall, 18:15 8 Jul 2004 UTC

More smoked than just Wayne

While John Wayne was known to have been a heavy smoker, somehow I think it was fairly well-known that Moorehead and Hayward, particualary Moorehead, lit up pretty often, too. Given the era, somehow I would guess that all of those named smoked at least some. Rlquall 12:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Moorehead lit up pretty often...

Try this cited claim: Agnes Moorehead was a nonsmoker, teetotaler, and a health fanatic, yet died of cancer. Valetude (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Cause of Death 1) Smoking or 2) The Conqueror

Okay, for the fun of it, I decided to test a theory. I picked another popular movie at random from about the same time period as The Conqueror, I picked the The Caine Mutiny. Of the 42 actors listed in the credits at IMDb for The Caine Mutiny, it only list the cause of death (or that have died) for 15 of them. Of those 15, 8 died of cancer, 1 of a brain tumor, and 1 of leukemia. That is 53% outright of cancer, and 66.7.% of cancer related diseases.

• The Caine Mutiny (died of cancer related diseases):
  • Humphrey Bogart
  • José Ferrer
  • Tom Tully
  • E.G. Marshall
  • Warner Anderson
  • Claude Akins
  • Jerry Paris
  • Steve Brodie
  • Don Dubbins
  • Todd Karns
  • Tyler McVey

• Filming Locations for The Caine Mutiny (1954):
  • Los Angeles, California, USA
  • Naval Station Treasure Island, San Francisco, California, USA
  • Pearl Harbor, O`ahu, Hawaii, USA
  • Yosemite National Park, California, USA

I suppose Yosemite gave those people cancer?

WikiDon 23:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd point out at this late date that in your example you are only counting the principal actors, a tiny percentage of the entire cast and crew. A rough estimate is that for every individual listed in the credits there are ten who aren't. Measure *those* persons against the entire cast and crew of The Conquerer (which is what is discussed here, not just a few.

Also please explain how uterine cancer, brain cancer, and stomach cancers are caused by smoking. Lung, throat, and mouth cancers (and, surprisingly, kidney and bladder cancers) are often but not always smoking-related, but the others are not. --NellieBly (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I say it was the frickin' strawberries. Wyss 23:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Test Two

For a second test I picked The Swan (1956). Only 14 actors members are listed. 8 have cause of death (or have died). 4 died of cancer. 50%......again....hummm...?

• Filming Locations for The Swan (1956):
  • Biltmore Estate - 1 Approach Road, Asheville, North Carolina, USA

Must have been downwind of a tobacco cigar rolling factory?

WikiDon 23:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks like they're still proud of that old pile of bricks in Ashville [1]. Wyss 00:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a hole in the "logic" that smoking caused these cancers rather than exposure. Smoking is known to cause or contribute to mouth, throat and lung cancers (among other sometimes fatal respiratory diseases), yet Hayward died of brain cancer, Armedariz was terminal with kidney and bone cancers, and Moorehead died of uterine cancer. I know of no oncologist who would attempt an argument that smoking was the cause of these deaths. 12.22.250.4 21:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No, there isn't a hole because the argument is not that smoking accounts for all of the deaths, but that a good many of them were throat, mouth and lung cancers (most famously Wayne and Powell) and that deaths caused from smoking would inflate the supposedly "unprecedented" number of cancer deaths. If it was not for the fallout angle, I doubt anyone would have found Hayward and Moorehead dying in their late 50's and early 70's (at a time when the average lifespan for women was late 70's and that was if your were lucky) unusual and hard smoking Wayne and Powell's death would have been attributed to what probably caused their cancers, cigarettes. And let's not forget how common heavy drinking and drug use was in Hollywood at the time The Conqueror was filmed. (Hell, it still is.)

yeah, but I know many anti-smoking ads that use that logic 69.219.238.88 02:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: I think there's a hole in the "logic"....That is the POINT! WikiDon 08:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Those are interesting bits of fact. Cancer is the cause of death of a lot of people in this country, but from a statistical viewpoint, the figures are just that - figures. I don't think one can conclude coincidence or causation from looking at the listed deaths of 15 of 42 persons, or 8 of 14 persons, without doing comparative studies of the deaths of the others, and against the population as a whole from the same time period. In any case, it at least deserves a mention since it has been at least an urban legend for at least 30 years. Wildhartlivie 18:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we make any conclusions based on figures? The supposed "proof" that all those deaths were caused by radiation fallout is based on figures. So by pointing out those numbers what is shown is that the number of supposed deaths caused by the fallout is not that unusual.

Then we need to find credible outside sources, and quote & cite those sources, and show BOTH sides of the story. When need to say: "XYZ says: blah blah blah. But, ABC counters with: blue blue blue." WikiDon 18:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Another test

The Conqueror/Caine Mutiny test above doesn't include the crews. I ran the numbers including the crews and found that 23% of Caine's cast and crew had died of cancer issues (14 of 61), while only 12% of Conqueror's cast and crew (9/73) had died of cancer issues. However, the average age of death from cancer was 68 for Conqueror and 74 for Caine. It must be noted that Caine was made two years earlier, which I suppose could be construed to mean people had two more years to die in. (Coincidentally, both films had actors who committed suicide after a cancer diagnosis, Pedro Armendariz and Richard Farnsworth.)

I ran another test -- this one potentially more telling. I ran the same numbers for The King and Four Queens, which was made the same year as The Conqueror, but more importantly was also filmed in St. George, Utah. Only two out of 32 cast and crew (6%) were listed as cancer casualties, but the average age at death for them was 62. One of them, Chuck Roberson, was on both films. There are two or three other films filmed within the same year or so in the same location, Run of the Arrow being most prominent among them. I didn't run the numbers on them, but a glance at their cast list suggests relatively few cancer deaths, certainly quite few within a short period after the film.

There is nothing scientific about these tests. They're merely suggestive. And The Conqueror not only shot almost entirely in the one location, but brought dirt back to the studio for use in interiors. Some of the other St. George-shot films may have only been there a few days. Also, the crews listed for any of these films on IMDb are but a handful of the people who would actually have been on set. Add those additional people to the ones listed for whom no cause of death is noted, and the figures start to be extremely unreliable in terms of whether there was a real effect from radiation. But, as I say, mild inferences can be made, and it looks more and more like The Conqueror death myth is just that. Monkeyzpop 07:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

---

For what it's worth, and having been around film sets for decades, I would suggest that the proportion of any cast and crew who smoked, and especially the amount they smoked, was always much higher than the average in the population in general. There are dozens of people on a film set and for long periods of the day most are waiting for other people to perform their part of the process. Combine long and frequent periods of waiting, frustration and impatience with a great deal of performance stress - as well as free hands - and you had the ideal circumstances for smoking well in excess of the average worker (many of whom would be "lucky" to grab a single cigarette between official breaks). 12:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Artwest57 (talk)

Plot, etc.

This article needs more about the film. How did Powell (an actor who had one previous directing credit) get to direct such an all-star vehicle ? -- Beardo 14:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's particularly mysterious. Powell had made a decent film for the same studio. RKO wasn't the most fashionable studio at the time and would soon go out of business altogether. Some of the bigger name directors (those that weren't under contract to other studios anyway) might not have wanted to work there, especially with Howard Hughes looking over their shoulders. Powell directing might well have been a draw for the bigger stars. He was personally popular in Hollywood and actors often like working with directors who have themselves been actors as they understand their problems. Artwest57 03:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Artwest57 (talk)

Downwind?

The article mentions twice that the movie was shot "downwind" of the nuclear testing site. I seriously doubt that the movie was always downwind of the testing site the entire time shooting took place. Can't we just change it to "near" the nuclear testing site? DarthJesus 06:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Checking the article of St. George, Utah, apparently fallouts from one Nevada nuclear test was blown by wind to the filming location. So we need to better word the sentence, rather than simply say "near". Also, it is possible that the area of St. George could be usually "downwind" due to the local weather pattern. I think it can be kept as is. --Revth 05:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

'Downwind' refers to the fact that nuclear tests were never conducted when the wind was blowing toward Las Vegas but tests were conducted if there was a mild breeze (15 mph) or lower blowing toward the east or northeast (a west or southwest wind). There were a number of tests in 1955 (14) where radioactive dust was (or could have been) blown 'downwind' but only one in 1956 (January). 76.20.213.245 22:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

2019

Thats fine, but radiation does not follow the wind! Radiation goes every way!--Apemonkey1 (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Radioactive dust follows the wind, causing there to be more radiation downwind 128.193.8.124 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Conqueror DVD cover.jpg

Image:The Conqueror DVD cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I added the NPOV tag, this article is almost entirely about the bad aspects of the film, the cancer controversey and how bad it was. Production info and other pertinent information is unrepresented. See undue weight. There needs to be more balance here. Even if it was a bad bad film. IvoShandor 13:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that NPOV is violated here. Along with the cancer allegations, there is substantial information about the film in the article. The infobox gives the director, writer, actors, cinematographer, editor, distributor, running time, producers and language. Also, additional information about the film is given in the "Cancer controversy" section. -- Kjkolb 08:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical Innacuracy

Anybody want to write about some of the jistorical innacuracies of this film? This is a popular thread for historical films — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.103.158.84 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Cancer

The Mayo clinic states that the lifetime incidence of cancer is 44% for men and 38% for women. I'd say this heavy smoking hard drinking Hollywood group got off easy at 41%. Can't we have a little more objective entry rather than repeating old Hollywood stories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.115.147.16 (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's one thing to have a 44% chance to get cancer by age 80 and another thing to have so many young people get cancer so early in their lives. But it's not up to us to do original research, we have in this article a reliable quote about the issue, find another reliable quote that points to the other conclusion and you are free to add it. man with one red shoe 18:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats 44% of people getting cancer including those who die from it! So your by age 80 argument is wrong but also argues against your claim!--Apemonkey1 (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Young people early in their lives? I've looked at the deaths and I don't see a lot of young people who got cancer early in their lives. Wayne, Moorehead and Hayward didn't get cancer until over 20 years after they made the movie and were in their 70's when they died. Pedro was middle aged when he made the film. Powell was in his 50's. When are all your young people who got cancer early in their lives? And don't get me starting on using the fact that a few visitors to the set got benign tumors to bolster the case, a lot of people get benign tumors in their life.

As for the reliable quote, just because you throw someone out there with Dr. in front his or her name does not make everything they say reliable. All the quote is is pure speculation and vague insinuation. Any true biologist knows cancer does not effect the population like snowfall where it falls equally among all groups so you can't make conclusions based on pure numbers from one case. It's ridiculous. Your so called reliable quote is insubstantial, meaningless, unscientific drivel.

And why is it we have never seen this so-called downwinder effect anywhere else and with any other group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.57.121 (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone with any expertise in radiation medicine, public health, or even statistics ever evaluated this claim? As-is, the article smacks of "conspiracy theory". Exposure time is a factor in radiation-related cancer deaths. More salient would be the death rates in people who frequented the area - like area residents - and the type of radiation in question. Are days spent filming more important than decades of cigarette smoking and the constant inhaling the side-stream smoke of others? Smoking is a risk factor in many disease conditions (pancreatic cancer and bladder cancer are examples), not just mouth, throat, and lung cancers. And where did "Dr. Robert Pendleton, professor of biology" publish his statements? People Magazine! PM may be considered a reliable source for celebrity news, but is it also one for the evaluation of radiation effects on human health? I am by no means a nuclear lobbyist, but someone who doesn't want to see cigarettes get off the hook so easily, either. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Added - What other factors have been evaluated and eliminated in the film group in order to say with any confidence that the cancers were caused by the film location? Sheer coincidence cannot be dismissed out of hand, either. Wordreader (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the actual stats of the people, you find they lived a longer average life! The rate of cancer was less than the average. The story picks out the famous people (Including many heavy smoker and drinkers etc) while overlooking the non famous people who also worked at the site and did not get cancer or die young! It is pure myth!--Apemonkey1 (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Conqueror (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117083443/http://www.dbcult.com/movie-database/conqueror-1956/ to http://www.dbcult.com/movie-database/conqueror-1956/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"However" what?

>> [...] Several cast and crew members, as well as relatives of those who died, considered suing the government for negligence, claiming it knew more about the hazards in the area than it let on.[12][18] Statistically, however, the odds of developing cancer for men in the U.S. population are 43% and the odds of dying of cancer are 23% (slightly lower in women at 38% and 19%, respectively).[19]

What is the point of the last sentence? "However" what?

It's unclear how, or if, the cited cancer death rates are supposed to contradict the previous report by Dr. Robert Pendleton. - 86.131.209.59 (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense read in conjunction with the sentence that follows it. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop, go.

Temujin falls for Bortai and steals her away... Bortai spurns Temujin and is taken back in a raid. Temujin is later captured. Bortai falls in love with him...

Confusing. Needs a little flesh on the bones. Valetude (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

It's written in classic "Boy meets girl, boy loses girl..." Hollywood plot-summarizing style. AnonMoos (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Using the life-time cancer risk in isolation is EXTREMELY MISLEADING

You cannot just use the life-time cancer risk in isolation like this in the article. For example, while life-time risk of getting cancer is 1 in 2, the risk of getting stomach cancer is 1 in 96 (John Wayne). He was also diagnosed well before the median age of being diagnosed with stomach cancer of 68 (John Wayne died at 72 and he has been battling with cancer for over a decade)

The director passed away from lung cancer at the age of 58… the median age of being diagnosed of lung cancer is 65.

You can see how misleading it is quoting just the life-time cancer risk aline. TonAMG53 (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)