The Hollywood Reporter obtained private eye Fred Otash's secret files, which also reveal a recording of JFK and Marilyn Monroe having sex and where Judy Garland hid her pills. This story first appeared in the June 14 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. On January 21, 1958, Rock Hudson's wife. Welcome to the Unofficial Rock Hudson Web Page! This site's goal is to provide the most comprehensive information on the web about the immensely talented actor of such films as The Giant, All That Heaven Allows, and Pillow Talk. Last Quote: 'I am not happy that I am sick. I am not happy that I have AIDS. But if that is helping others, I can at least know. Rock Hudson Posters at AllPosters.com. Choose from over 500,000 Posters and Art Prints. Value Framing, Fast Delivery, 100% Satisfaction Guarantee. Ship Time Ship time indicates the typical number of business days it takes for your item(s) to leave our.
Talk: Rock Hudson - Wikipedia. Orphan redirect. I remained a virgin until I had sex.
I have a suspicion, but I'm not sure. Mar 2. 7, 2. 00. 4 (UTC)His very public admission that he was homosexual, had contracted AIDS by that route, his search for treatment and his subsequent death from AIDS? Cite: http: //www. Karada 1. 2: 0. 7, 1. Jun 2. 00. 4 (UTC)and most remembered as being a raging homosexual who died of complications due to AIDSThis is not true and is inflammatory.
Hudson is best known as an actor who starred as a leading man in numerous films. That he died of AIDS related illness is likely but does not over shadow his career. I removed the statement. What is important is Hudson as an actor who arguably remains unparalleled even to this day. Therefore, all references to his personal life and preferences should be very short and crisp, and focus should be given to the huge volume of his performance as an ace actor.
One of the most popular movie stars of the 1950s and 1960s, Rock Hudson became well-known as a leading man in an array of romantic comedies, particularly opposite close friend Doris Day. But he also displayed considerable acting chops in a number of dramas and earned himself an Academy Award.
It is almost as important as his acting, and to some more so. Many younger people, those who were teenagers during the 1. The awareness that he brought to AIDS and homosexuality is, also unfortunately, a big part of his life. Many people can not watch one of his films or television show without thinking about his personal life. He came to the attention of many people in foreign nations around the world through his illness near the end of his life, before that, many were unaware of who he was. Lets look at the movie Giant. From the time it was made until about 1.
Texas. After 1. 98. The 'Good 'Ole Boys' wouldn't watch Hudson any longer. On the flip side, there arose a new group of people who hadn't watched him prior, but were now checking out his work, it changed the whole dynamic of his fans. But, more importantly is the effect that it went beyond his acting to people concerned about homosexuality and AIDS. The awareness that he had on these two issues was larger than anything he did on movie or television set. IP4. 24. 02. 07xx 1. November 2. 00. 7 (UTC)Re: .
Should we thus conclude that Rock Hudson is mainly unknown? The answer, of course, is, .
Rock Hudson is notable for his acting, and this, his acting, his professional career, should be the subject and the focus of the article. Editors need to resist the temptation to gossip. The. Scotch (talk) 1.
December 2. 00. 7 (UTC)I agree that Hudson is notable primarily for his acting that his acting career should be the main focus of the article. However, IP4. 24. Talk page and is perfectly appropriate if the goal was to discuss improvement of the article, and I believe it was. It is quite acceptable to discuss other aspects of Hudson's life on this Talk page to determine what should be included in the article.
I think it is a POV assumption that the statement was intended as gossip. Ward. 30. 01 (talk) 1. December 2. 00. 7 (UTC)I think there is some confusion here. My comments are intented to support Sourav.
I am not particularly concerned about gossiping on a discussion page, and IP4. I would deem gossip in this article. The wikipedia proscription against . The. Scotch (talk) 0. December 2. 00. 7 (UTC)I'll assume good faith that you weren't criticising talk page .
I mostly agree that the focus of Hudson's article should be on his acting career. However, his struggle with AIDS and his open secret of homosexuality probably got more press coverage than most actors in similar circumstances, such as Anthony Perkins for example.
An exception might be Liberace. I think it deserves more than a few words in the Hudson article.
Ward. 30. 01 (talk) 1. December 2. 00. 7 (UTC)The shortest way I can think of off the top of my head to explain how Hudson died- -He died of AIDS- -involves four words (if you count AIDS as one word, that is). Since four is the lower limit of several and several is more than a few (a few is two or three), it is not unreasonable for the article to devote, literally speaking, . It is quite another matter for it to expound, as it does, at length on Hudson's sexuality.
The article as it currently reads is grotesquely disproportionate. Wikipedia should strive to rise above tabloid and otherwise sensationalistic journalism.
The. Scotch (talk) 0. January 2. 00. 8 (UTC)Without getting into a debate about how many words, syllables, or letters should be devoted to the issues, I agree that the homosexual and AIDS issues should be shortened. That having been said, I think it should be more than simply . He truly contributed tremendously to public awareness of AIDS, and even though his acting career should receive more attention in the article, his celebrity was greatly influenced by the events related to his illness. I personally think the urban legend about Jim Nabors should be reduced to a few words. Some day when I have time I may try to rewrite the section about Hudson's AIDS and death, but I invite any editor to try to do so, possibly presenting a version on this talk page before changing the article.
Ward. 30. 01 (talk) 1. January 2. 00. 8 (UTC)I don't think it needs to be . The Jim Nabors stuff is hardly illuminating, but the number of words is not the problem.
As long as it remains relevant it should be fully discussed. The problem as I see it, is that the sections relating to his career need to be greatly expanded. His death from AIDS was notable and highly newsworthy at the time. For a major celebrity to die from it was pretty shocking, and his homosexuality, which had always been kept from the public, was also extensively discussed in the media.
There was a huge amount of hysteria around the time of his death. Does anyone recall the sensationalist media ranting about his irresponsibility in agreeing to kiss Linda Evans while filming Dynasty? It was probably the AIDS death that first brought discussion of AIDS into the open. He is seen as a significant figure in the history of AIDS. But, I strongly disagree with your reasoning.
It doesn't matter from the point of view of writing an encyclopedia if Hudson's films have dated and he's no longer in vogue. It matters what he actually did during his career and what he achieved. Of course, if someone's stature has grown or diminished notably since their career ended, it should be mentioned, but it also be assumed that in most instances, the stature would have diminished.
If we are only to concentrate on how people are perceived now, or whether most people today have heard of a particular person, we could completely avoid writing articles about, for example, Mabel Normand or Clara Bow (just plucking a couple of old- time names at random but the same applies equally to thousands of performers, writers, artists, inventors, scientists... If we wrote about them only from how they are currently perceived by the majority of the population, we could probably discuss them in one short paragraph. The homosexuality and AIDS topics are relevant, but at the moment they dominate the article. Rossrs (talk) 1. 5: 4. January 2. 00. 8 (UTC)I did say I agreed with you about the AIDS and sexuality section, didn't I? Whether or not he was talented is irrelevant.
Perhaps the deaths of Hudson and Liberace were considered more significant than Perkins's or Davis's simply because they were more famous. Hudson was the first major celebrity to reveal that he had AIDS and was the first major celebrity to die from it. That the end of his life contrasted so sharply with his carefully cultivated film image as a robust heterosexual male made it all the more incongruous. It didn't need a political connection for his death to have been noteworthy. It was a huge news story at the time.
It's very simple - he was a notable actor with a substantial career. This should be discussed in appropriate detail. His death from AIDS and the revelations that he was homosexual are notable. This also should be discussed in appropriate detail.
The article should be balanced. At the moment it's not. The emphasis is currently on the sexuality and AIDS discussion. It needs to be placed into it's proper context without being diminished so that the article fairly represents all the relevant facts relating to his life and to his death. Rossrs (talk) 1. 7: 1. January 2. 00. 8 (UTC)I don't want to get into a POV shouting match , but I must disagree with some of 1. Freddie Mercury was not the most famous AIDS victim in entertainment.
Mercury died 6 years after Hudson, and the public's understanding of AIDS progressed sharply during that time. Hudson's illness and death received substantially more press coverage than Mercury, largely because Hudson was the first major star to go public with his condition.
Secondly, Hudson was far from a has- been in his last years. He may not have had the same celebrity status as he had earlier, but he was still considered a major star in both film and TV. Equally absurd is your statement about Arthur Ashe or Robert Reed. Ashe's illness and death did receive a lot of press (for very different reasons), but it likely would have been the same if he had died before Hudson. Reed's lifetime stature as an actor was small compared to Hudson. Ward. 30. 01 (talk) 1.
January 2. 00. 8 (UTC)You are totally misunderstanding what I'm saying if you think I'm attempting to . All I am saying is that it would be wrong if an encyclopedic entry for a person dealt only with how they are perceived now. You are completely correct in saying that young people don't know about him other than his death from AIDS. Everything can't be written from a 2. In fact, any biographical article should start at the beginning of the person's life, discuss their accomplishments, and if there is any need for a contemporary summary of that person, it should come at the end. If Hudson exists in the minds of most young people as nothing more than an AIDS victim, and I agree that is probably how he is perceived by most people, an encyclopedic article should fill in the gaps and allow people to understand exactly where he came from before he became the notable AIDS victim.