# Art & Cinema — Fact Check for Legal Review

Compiled 24 August 2026.

**Standard applied.** Every row rests on a source that was actually retrieved, or it is marked NOT CONFIRMED / NOT CHECKED. Nothing here is filled in from memory. Where the only reachable source is weak, secondary, or blocked to automated retrieval, that is stated in the Notes column — those rows need a human to open the page before transmission.

**How to read the table.** "Claim as currently written" is the script's wording. "Corrected wording" is broadcast-safe text supported by the cited source. Where a cell says NOT CONFIRMED, no source of adequate standard was found — that is a finding, not an omission.

**Two process warnings.**
1. **Item 14 (Queen) failed and is substantially unverified.** An early draft of that item contained sleeve wordings, a quotation and URLs that were never retrieved and appear to have been invented. That draft was retracted; what survives is flagged in place. **Item 14 is not cleared for broadcast in any form and must be re-run.**
2. **Items 7, 9a and 9b were not researched at all** — see the NOT CHECKED list at the end. Item 9a in particular ("almost shot for shot") is the most legally exposed line in the script.


---

## 1. VAN GOGH

| Claim as currently written | Verdict | Corrected wording | Source URL | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| He worked from black-and-white engravings after Jean-François Millet | NEEDS REWORDING | "He worked from black-and-white reproductions after Millet — wood engravings, etchings, and in at least one case a photograph of a Millet drawing." | https://vangoghletters.org/vg/letters/let839/letter.html | Van Gogh's own phrase in letter 839 is "his drawings or the wood engravings". The prints were mostly Adrien Lavieille's wood engravings after Millet, plus etchings by Lerat and Delauney. *First Steps* was painted from a **photograph** of a Millet drawing (letter 839, editorial note 10), not an engraving — so "engravings" is inaccurate for the series as a whole. |
| He called it a "translation" | CONFIRMED | "Van Gogh wrote to his brother Theo that painting after Millet's drawings was 'much rather to translate them into another language than to copy them.'" | https://vangoghletters.org/vg/letters/let816/letter.html | **Letter 816**, to Theo van Gogh, Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, on or about **Sunday 3 November 1889**. Exact sentence in the Van Gogh Museum / Huygens Institute English translation: "It seems to me that doing painting after these Millet drawings is much rather to translate them into another language than to copy them." Full text retrieved and read directly. |
| — the fuller statement of the same idea | CONFIRMED | "'So working either on his drawings or the wood engravings, it's not copying pure and simple that one would be doing. It is rather translating into another language, the one of colours, the impressions of chiaroscuro and white and black.'" | https://vangoghletters.org/vg/letters/let839/letter.html | **Letter 839**, to Theo van Gogh, Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, on or about **Monday 13 January 1890**. This is the more quotable of the two and is the passage the Musée d'Orsay itself draws on. Full text retrieved and read directly. |
| ...comparing a painter copying to a musician performing another composer's score | **CONFIRMED — but it is a different letter, and it does not use the word "translation"** | Do **not** present the music analogy and the word "translation" as one sentence or one quotation. | https://vangoghletters.org/vg/letters/let805/letter.html | **Letter 805**, to Theo van Gogh, Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, on or about **Friday 20 September 1889** — six weeks before letter 816, four months before letter 839. Letter 805 uses **"interpretation", not "translation"**. Splicing the two into a single quoted sentence would produce a fabricated quotation. This is the most important single finding in this item. |
| — the music passage, verbatim | CONFIRMED | "'We painters are always asked to compose ourselves and to be nothing but composers. Very well — but in music it isn't so — and if such a person plays some Beethoven he'll add his personal interpretation to it… and it isn't a hard and fast rule that only the composer plays his own compositions.'" | https://vangoghletters.org/vg/letters/let805/letter.html | Letter 805, retrieved in full. He continues: "I place the black-and-white by Delacroix or Millet or after them in front of me as a subject. And then I improvise colour on it… that's my own interpretation." And a few lines later: "So then my brush goes between my fingers as if it were a bow on the violin." That violin line is the strongest single image if the film wants one quote to read aloud. |
| **Recommended broadcast wording** | — | "In the asylum at Saint-Rémy, Van Gogh painted from black-and-white prints of Millet. He told his brother it was not copying — it was 'translating into another language, the one of colours'. Months earlier he had put it another way: a musician playing Beethoven adds his own interpretation, and it is no rule that only the composer may play his own compositions." | (letters 805, 816, 839 above) | Keeps the two letters separate and quotes each accurately. Note the chronology runs music-analogy first, "translation" second — so "months earlier", not "later". |
| The Reaper — Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam | CONFIRMED | "*The Reaper (after Millet)*, Saint-Rémy, September 1889, oil on canvas, 44 × 33 cm — Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam (Vincent van Gogh Foundation)." | https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/collection/s0198V1962 | Museum's own catalogue entry, retrieved directly. The museum states the credit line "Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam (Vincent van Gogh Foundation)" is obliged. |
| First Steps — Metropolitan Museum of Art | CONFIRMED | "*First Steps, after Millet*, 1890, oil on canvas, 72.4 × 91.1 cm — The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, accession 64.165.2, Gift of George N. and Helen M. Richard, 1964." | https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/436526 | Verified against the Met's own collection API (object 436526). Listed in gallery 825. |
| Noon / Rest from Work — held by the Van Gogh Museum or the Met | **NEEDS REWORDING — wrong museum** | "*La Méridienne* (*Noon: Rest from Work*, after Millet), December 1889–January 1890, oil on canvas, 73 × 91 cm — **Musée d'Orsay, Paris**." | https://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/artworks/la-meridienne-750 | Not in Amsterdam, not in New York. Note the French title *La Méridienne*; also catalogued in English as *The Siesta*. ⚠️ **Source flag:** musee-orsay.fr returns Cloudflare 403 to automated retrieval, so the Orsay page itself was not read. Confirmed instead from the Musée d'Orsay's own catalogue record as supplied by the museum to Google Arts & Culture (https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-siesta-after-millet/LwFmpmDARcicFQ), which states "Musée d'Orsay, Paris". **Open the Orsay URL in a browser to confirm before lock.** |
| The Sower — held by the Van Gogh Museum or the Met | **NEEDS REWORDING — wrong museum** | "*The Sower (after Millet)*, January 1890, oil on canvas, 64 × 55 cm — **Kröller-Müller Museum, Otterlo**." | https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-sower-after-millet-0001/RwF8H-odOHgsOw | Museum-supplied record; rights line reads "Kröller-Müller Museum, Otterlo, The Netherlands". **Two traps here, both easy to fall into and both checked directly:** (1) the Van Gogh Museum's *The Sower (after Millet)* (https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/collection/d0443V1962) is a different work — an **1881 drawing** made at Etten, nine years earlier; (2) the Kröller-Müller's famous *The Sower*, KM 106.399 (https://www.krollermuller.nl/en/collection/vincent-van-gogh-the-sower-km-106-399) is the **1888 Arles painting**, not an after-Millet copy. Do not illustrate the Saint-Rémy series with either. |
| "Which museums actually hold them — Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, Metropolitan Museum of Art?" | NEEDS REWORDING | The four works named sit in **four different institutions**: Van Gogh Museum (Reaper), Kröller-Müller (Sower), Musée d'Orsay (Noon / Méridienne), Metropolitan Museum of Art (First Steps). | (rows above) | The script's two-museum framing is wrong. |

---

## 2. WARHOL

| Claim as currently written | Verdict | Corrected wording | Source URL | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A lawsuit was filed over the *Flowers* photograph | **CONFIRMED — from the original federal court file** | "In November 1966 Patricia Caulfield filed a copyright infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, docketed **66 Civ. 3776**. Warhol was one of nine named defendants — the others included Leo Castelli, his gallery, and the Museum of Modern Art." | https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7580767 | **Primary — the court's own file**, held at the National Archives at Kansas City, Record Group 21, NAID 7580767, 55 pages, fully digitised and unrestricted. Filed 9 November 1966; file closes 26 June 1967. Case-file PDF: https://catalog.archives.gov/medialz/nyc/rg-021/595418/7580767/7580767.pdf. ⚠️ The frequently repeated detail that **Warhol alone was sued is wrong** — MoMA and Castelli were co-defendants. |
| Settlement or verdict? | **CONFIRMED — SETTLEMENT** | "The case never reached trial. On 5 June 1967 both sides filed a stipulation dismissing the action under Rule 41(a), without costs to either party. No court ever ruled on whether Warhol had infringed." | https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7580767 | The final document in the file is a **Stipulation of Dismissal**, read in the original scan (pages 54–55): "IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED… that this action be dismissed, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a), without costs to either party." Dated New York, 5 June 1967; endorsed "SO ORDERED". ⚠️ **Never say "verdict", "won her case", "was awarded damages", or "the court ruled".** This primary record directly contradicts the widespread secondary claim that Caulfield "was awarded $6,000 in damages". |
| The terms of the settlement | **NEEDS REWORDING — the terms are real but not in the court record, and the $6,000 is routinely mis-described** | "According to the New York Times, the settlement gave Caulfield two new *Flowers* paintings — which the Castelli gallery sold for $6,000 — and a 25 percent share of royalties from a portfolio of *Flowers* prints. The terms were private and do not appear in the court file." | https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/07/arts/patricia-caulfield-dead.html | NYT obituary, "Patricia Caulfield, 91, Dies; Battled Warhol Over Use of Her Photograph", 7 September 2023 (readable archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20241220071353/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/07/arts/patricia-caulfield-dead.html). The settlement agreement was **not filed with the court** and the stipulation recites no terms. ⚠️ **Critical correction: $6,000 was the price the Castelli gallery later obtained for the two paintings — not a cash payment by Warhol, and not a damages award.** Attribute the terms to the NYT on screen rather than stating them as established fact. |
| Published in *Modern Photography*, June 1964 | CONFIRMED — from the complaint itself | "Her photograph ran across pages 85 to 88 of the June 1964 *Modern Photography*." | https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7580767 | Complaint ¶2: the photograph appeared "as illustrations on pages 85, 86, 87 and 88 of Vol. 28, No. 6 of Modern Photography Magazine, more specifically the June, 1964 issue thereof." ¶4 gives the publisher as Billboard Publishing Company and the copyright registration as Class B, No. B118545, 1964. |
| — the allegation that Warhol tried to buy the image first | CONFIRMED **as an allegation only** | "Her complaint alleged Warhol had first phoned the magazine to buy the image, called the price too high, and then reproduced it anyway. The allegations were never tested in court." | https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7580767 | Complaint ¶7 and ¶8: Warhol "stated that the price requested by the magazine was too high and declined to purchase", then had silkscreens made "from photostatic reproductions" and produced "not less than thirty" paintings titled "Flowers, 1964". ⚠️ **Flag these as allegations on screen.** Because the case settled, nothing in the complaint was ever proved. |
| "an article on a Kodak processing product" | **NOT CONFIRMED — drop the Kodak detail** | Say only "appeared with an article in the June 1964 issue". | — | No mention of Kodak, Ektachrome or any processing product anywhere in the 55-page case file, nor in the NYT obituary. The NYT says only that the photograph — an arrangement of blossoms taken in Barbados — "appeared with an article in the June issue." The June 1964 issue would have to be inspected physically. (The "hibiscus" identification comes from the NYT, not the complaint, which never describes the subject.) |
| Marilyn source: which photograph, film, photographer | **CONFIRMED — with a spelling correction** | "Warhol's Marilyns all derive from a single image: a 1953 publicity photograph made by **Gene Kornman** to promote the Twentieth Century-Fox film *Niagara*." | https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/andy-warhol-2121/what-was-andy-warhol-thinking | Tate: "His paintings and prints were based on a photograph taken by Gene Kornman in 1953 to advertise the film Niagara which Monroe had starred in." Corroborated on film and year (not the name) by the Art Institute of Chicago on the 1967 *Marilyn Monroe (Marilyn)* portfolio: https://www.artic.edu/artworks/150046/marilyn-monroe-marilyn. ⚠️ **It is KORNMAN, not "Korman"** — the misspelling is extremely common. Tate is the only major museum found that names the photographer. |
| The 2023 Supreme Court case | Context — keep separate | Mention only to distinguish. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf | *Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith*, decided 18 May 2023, concerns "Orange Prince", derived from a 1981 photograph by **Lynn Goldsmith**. ⚠️ **Nothing to do with Caulfield or Marilyn.** Conflating the two would be a serious error. |

---

## 3. MANET / RAIMONDI

| Claim as currently written | Verdict | Corrected wording | Source URL | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| *Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe* composition derived from Raimondi's engraving after Raphael | **CONFIRMED — by the holding museum** | "The Musée d'Orsay describes Manet as taking his inspiration for the composition of the **central group** from Marcantonio Raimondi's engraving after Raphael's *Judgement of Paris*." | https://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/artworks/le-dejeuner-sur-lherbe-904 | Orsay's own text: "…borrowing his subject from the Concert champêtre – a painting by Titian attributed at the time to Giorgione (Louvre) – and taking his inspiration for the composition of the central group from the Marcantonio Raimondi engraving after Raphael's Judgement of Paris." Painting per Orsay: 1863, oil on canvas, 207 × 265 cm, Donation Étienne Moreau-Nélaton, 1906. ⚠️ Orsay blocks automated retrieval; verified via https://web.archive.org/web/2024/https://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/artworks/le-dejeuner-sur-lherbe-904 — **re-open the canonical URL in a browser before lock.** Note Orsay says "central group", not "group of three figures", and frames it as **inspiration**, not derivation. Match that register. |
| The engraving itself | CONFIRMED | "Marcantonio Raimondi's engraving *The Judgment of Paris*, after a design by Raphael." | https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/337058 | Met's own catalogue record, retrieved via the collection API. Artist Marcantonio Raimondi (Italian, ca. 1480–before 1534); engraving, sheet 29.1 × 43.7 cm; accession **19.74.1**, Rogers Fund, 1919. |
| The figure group is the river gods in the lower right | **CONFIRMED for the engraving; NEEDS ATTRIBUTION for the mapping onto Manet** | "The specific group is in the lower right corner of the engraving — the Met, which holds an impression, describes it as **two river gods and a naiad**." | https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/337058 | The Met's own descriptive title names it: "…at lower right two river gods and a naiad above whom Jupiter, an eagle, Ganymede, Diana and another Goddess." A naiad is a water nymph. **Orsay does not itself specify the river gods.** The identification of Manet's trio with that corner group is made by Smarthistory (Harris and Zucker): https://smarthistory.org/edouard-manet-le-dejeuner-sur-lherbe-luncheon-on-the-grass/ — scholarly, museum-partnered, but a transcript of a spoken conversation. **Quote it as commentary, not as documentary record.** If the script asserts the reversal/re-dressing reading (naiad → seated nude, river gods → the two clothed men), attribute it to an art historian on camera. |
| Dates for the engraving and the Raphael design | **NEEDS REWORDING — museums disagree** | "Raimondi's engraving, made after a design by Raphael, is dated by the Metropolitan Museum to about 1510–20; other museums narrow it to about 1517–20." | https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/337058 | Met: ca. 1510–20. National Gallery of Art: c. 1510/1520 (https://www.nga.gov/artworks/641-judgment-paris). Art Institute of Chicago: 1517/20 (https://www.artic.edu/artworks/106561/the-judgment-of-paris). Do not state a single date as settled. |
| — a strong extra beat, museum-sourced | CONFIRMED | "Raphael in turn based the composition on a Roman sarcophagus relief — so the river-god group is itself an antique borrowing." | https://www.artic.edu/artworks/106561/the-judgment-of-paris | Art Institute of Chicago. This is a genuinely useful beat for a film about borrowing, and it is museum-sourced. |
| "a lost cartoon by Raphael" | **NOT CONFIRMED** | Do not specify the medium or fate of Raphael's original. | — | No museum source reached states this. Every museum verified says only "after Raphael" / "after a design by Raphael". |

---

## 4. LION KING / KIMBA — legally sensitive

| Claim as currently written | Verdict | Corrected wording | Source URL | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| **Recommended single broadcast sentence** | — | "Disney has consistently denied that *The Lion King* derived from Tezuka's work, saying the film was inspired by *Hamlet* and by its own *Bambi*, and that the people who made it were not aware of *Kimba*. Tezuka Productions never sued, and no court has ever ruled on the question." | (rows below) | Every clause rests on a source read directly. This is the safe formulation. |
| Disney denied it | CONFIRMED | "Disney said the film was inspired by Shakespeare's *Hamlet* and by Disney's own *Bambi* — not by Tezuka's work." | https://www.csmonitor.com/1994/0830/30132.html | Christian Science Monitor, 30 August 1994, Cameron W. Barr. Contemporaneous, newspaper of record, retrieved and read directly. **Safest single citation for Disney's position.** |
| — the Howard Green quote ("None of the principals involved in creating 'The Lion King' were aware of Kimba or Tezuka") | NEEDS VERIFICATION BEFORE USE | Hold. | https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-07-13-ca-15117-story.html | Los Angeles Times, 13 July 1994, Robert W. Welkos, "A 'Kimba' Surprise for Disney". The URL is canonical and the outlet is a paper of record, but latimes.com blocks automated retrieval — **the quote is being relayed from secondary citations. Pull the archive page or microfilm before broadcasting it as a quotation.** |
| — the Eisner quote ("It's our original thing — it's not based on anything else") | **NEEDS REWORDING — do not attribute to Eisner** | Either drop it, or: "an animator quoted Eisner as saying…" | https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/ROA-Times/issues/1994/rt9407/940711/07110088.htm | San Francisco Chronicle, syndicated in the Roanoke Times, 11 July 1994, p.A2; full text retrieved. In the source the line is spoken by **former animator Robin Leyden**, characterising Eisner: "People are screaming, especially when Mr. Eisner says, 'It's our original thing…'" That is second-hand hearsay. **Attributing it to Eisner on air is a real exposure.** |
| Was a lawsuit ever filed? | CONFIRMED — none found, from three directions | "Tezuka Productions never sued. The dispute was never tested in any court." | https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/07/26/lion-king-has-been-clouded-by-intellectual-property-controversy-years-heres-story-behind-it/ | Washington Post, Hannah Denham, 26 July 2019: "Tezuka's family and production company in Tokyo never pursued litigation." (Read via the licensed Seattle Times reprint: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/lion-king-has-been-clouded-by-intellectual-property-controversy-for-25-years-heres-the-story-behind-it/.) Corroborated by **Frederik L. Schodt** — Tezuka's translator and the leading Western authority on him — "There was also never a lawsuit from Tezuka Productions" (https://otakuusamagazine.com/interview-frederik-schodt-guides-us-through-the-lion-king-kimba-controversy-just-in-time-for-mufasa/), and by a CourtListener/RECAP docket search returning zero matching US federal cases. ⚠️ RECAP's 1990s coverage is incomplete, so the docket search corroborates rather than proves; the Post and Schodt carry the claim. |
| — "considered suing but decided against it" | NEEDS REWORDING | Say **"chose not to bring a claim"**, not "considered and rejected a lawsuit". | (as above) | The circulating quote about being "urged to sue Disney by some in our industry. But we're a small, weak company…" could **not** be traced to a primary source. **NOT CONFIRMED — do not quote it.** |
| What Tezuka Productions said | NEEDS REWORDING — paraphrase only | "Tezuka Productions said publicly that it regarded the two works as different, and that Tezuka himself would have been flattered by any Disney influence." | https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/07/26/lion-king-has-been-clouded-by-intellectual-property-controversy-years-heres-story-behind-it/ | Company president **Takayuki Matsutani** reportedly called the works "absolutely different" in 1994 — but **the Post itself hedges with "according to news reports"**, and every English chain leads back to unnamed 1994 wire copy. ⚠️ **WEAK ON ATTRIBUTION.** Use the paraphrase without quotation marks, or commission a Japanese-language archive check (Asahi / Yomiuri / Kyodo, July–August 1994). That check was **not** completed — the search budget ran out. It is the one genuine research gap in this item. |
| On-record Lion King staff: Roger Allers | CONFIRMED — verbatim | "The whole time I worked on The Lion King the name of that show never came up. At least I never heard it… If I had been inspired by Kimba I would certainly acknowledge my inspiration." | https://fumettologica.it/2014/12/intervista-roger-allers-re-leone/2/ | Fumettologica, December 2014, interview by Andrea Fiamma, conducted in English and published verbatim; raw page text retrieved. **Production flag: Allers reportedly died 18 January 2026** — check tense, and note he cannot be approached for comment. |
| — Tom Sito | CONFIRMED | "I can say there is absolutely no inspiration from 'Kimba.'" and "I watched 'Kimba' when I was a kid in the '60s… but I don't think anybody consciously thought, 'Let's rip off Kimba.'" | https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lion-king-kimba_n_6272316 | Sito is the most useful voice here because he **concedes awareness while denying derivation**. He also wrote on this in Fred Patten's *Watching Anime, Reading Manga* (2004). ⚠️ That book passage was only seen in Italian translation — get the English original before quoting it. |
| — Rob Minkoff and Linda Woolverton | CONFIRMED | Minkoff: "It was never discussed and there was no intentional parallel ever made that I was ever aware of… The similarities are undeniable, but again, I don't think it was done with any intention." | https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/the-lion-king-kimba-the-white-lion-disney | Retrieved directly. Woolverton in the same piece: "I originated the story, myself and the people in the room with me, and that wasn't a part of it." |
| — Don Hahn | **NOT CONFIRMED** | **Do not attribute anything to Don Hahn.** | — | The only reported instance traces to a podcast, reported second-hand by The Hollywood Reporter, which returned HTTP 402. The podcast could not be identified reliably. If you want him, request a statement. |
| — Matthew Broderick "thought he was working on a Kimba remake" | **PARTIALLY CONFIRMED — and the popular framing is wrong** | "Matthew Broderick, who voiced the adult Simba, recalled in a 1994 press interview that when he was cast he had assumed — mistakenly, by his own account — that he was going to be playing Kimba, the cartoon lion he remembered from childhood." | https://www.hollywoodoutbreak.com/2019/07/01/how-matthew-broderick-went-from-kimba-to-simba-with-the-lion-king/ | A real 1994 press-junket audio interview by Greg Srisavasdi exists, with an embedded MP3. **But Broderick blames himself, not Disney** — he describes his own misunderstanding, not being told he was on a Kimba remake. Presenting it as evidence of Disney's intent would misrepresent a living, litigation-capable subject. Exact wording not verified against a transcript; clear the audio before use. |
| — "Disney served a cease-and-desist on the 488 Japanese animators who protested" | **NOT CONFIRMED — drop entirely** | — | — | Appears in low-quality aggregators only. This alleges specific legal conduct by a named company and is **the most dangerous unverified claim in this item.** The protest letter itself is confirmed — cartoonist Machiko Satonaka published a letter signed by "hundreds" of animators (Washington Post, above) — but the figure 488 is not primary-sourced. **Say "hundreds."** |

---

## 5. OLDBOY

| Claim as currently written | Verdict | Corrected wording | Source URL | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manga writer and artist | CONFIRMED | Writer **Garon Tsuchiya** (土屋ガロン); artist **Nobuaki Minegishi** (嶺岸信明). | https://www.futabasha.co.jp/introduction/old_boy/ | Publisher-primary, plus Futabasha's Web Action page (https://comic-action.com/episode/13933686331636733777) and the National Diet Library catalogue. **Note:** "Garon Tsuchiya" is a pen name of the writer Karibu Marley (狩撫麻礼), d. 2018 — relevant if the script names him as a person. |
| Serialised 1996–1998 | CONFIRMED at year level | "Serialised from 1996, collected in eight volumes 1997–1998." | https://www.futabasha.co.jp/introduction/old_boy/ | **Do not state issue-level dates or a chapter count** — sources conflict (79 vs 159) and this was not resolved. |
| Publisher | CONFIRMED | **Futabasha** (双葉社). | https://www.futabasha.co.jp/introduction/old_boy/ | — |
| The magazine "Weekly Manga Action" | NEEDS REWORDING | "Futabasha's weekly comics magazine *Manga Action*." | https://mediag.bunka.go.jp/article/article-16155/ | The masthead was 『漫画アクション』/ *Manga Action*, **without "Weekly" in the title**; the magazine was weekly at the time. Frequency corroborated by Japan's Agency for Cultural Affairs — a government source. |
| English publisher | CONFIRMED | **Dark Horse Comics**, eight volumes, July 2006 – October 2007. | https://www.darkhorse.com/Books/13-755/Old-Boy-Vol-1-TPB | Vol. 1, 5 July 2006; Vol. 8, 10 October 2007 (https://www.darkhorse.com/Books/14-388/Old-Boy-Volume-8). ⚠️ **Dark Horse's own blurb misnames the Cannes prize as "Grand Jury Prize" — do not copy it.** |
| Park Chan-wook's film, 2003 | CONFIRMED | "Released 21 November 2003." | https://www.koreanfilm.or.kr/eng/films/index/filmsView.jsp?movieCd=20030350 | Korean Film Council (KOFIC/KoBiz), South Korea's statutory national film agency. |
| Cannes prize | **CONFIRMED — the year is 2004, not 2003, and the prize is the Grand Prix** | "A 2003 film that won the **Grand Prix** at Cannes in **2004**." | https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/retrospective/2004/palmares/ | Official palmarès: Palme d'Or — *Fahrenheit 9/11*; **Grand Prix — OLD BOY, by PARK Chan-Wook**. Film page: https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/f/old-boy/. ⚠️ **Prize-name warning: not "Grand Jury Prize", not "Jury Prize"** (a different 2004 award), **not "Palme d'Or".** Phrase it so the two years cannot collide. |
| Tarantino was jury president | CONFIRMED | "The jury was presided over by Quentin Tarantino." | https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/retrospective/2004/juries/ | Official jury listing: Quentin Tarantino (President), Benoît Poelvoorde, Jerry Schatzberg, Kathleen Turner, Edwidge Danticat, Emmanuelle Béart, Peter von Bagh, Tsui Hark, Tilda Swinton. Festival announcement, 16 February 2004: https://www.festival-cannes.com/2004/quentin-tarantino-president-du-jury-de-cannes/ |
| Spike Lee remake, 2013 | CONFIRMED | "Released in the United States on 27 November 2013." | https://variety.com/2013/film/reviews/oldboy-review-1200848857/ | Distributor FilmDistrict (US theatrical). ⚠️ Trade press only — no newspaper-of-record citation was reachable, and both trades sit behind a paywall gateway; have someone open and screenshot. UK release was 6 December 2013, so **qualify 27 November as the US date**, and do not say FilmDistrict distributed it worldwide. |

---

## 6. INFERNAL AFFAIRS / THE DEPARTED

| Claim as currently written | Verdict | Corrected wording | Source URL | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Directors of *Infernal Affairs* | CONFIRMED | **Andrew Lau and Alan Mak.** | https://www.screendaily.com/infernal-affairs-hero-share-honours-at-hong-kong-film-awards/4012885.article | Screen International, 7 April 2003 (Best Director, 22nd Hong Kong Film Awards). Writers: Alan Mak and Felix Chong. ⚠️ The Chinese-character forms were not confirmed from a reachable source — don't put them on screen unverified. |
| Hong Kong release 2002 | CONFIRMED at month level | "December 2002." | https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/7993-the-infernal-affairs-trilogy-double-bind | Criterion: "Released in December 2002 to record-breaking grosses." **Say "December 2002", not a specific day** — the exact date is wiki-only. |
| *The Departed* is an official remake | **CONFIRMED — say it plainly** | "The remake was licensed. In February 2003 *Variety* reported that Warner Bros., with producers Brad Grey and Brad Pitt, had won a competitive auction for the remake rights, beating at least four other studios and paying a reported 1.75 million dollars. The Hong Kong rights-holder, Media Asia, took Greater China distribution rights to the remake." | https://variety.com/2003/film/markets-festivals/warners-hot-for-infernal-affairs-1117879861/ | Variety, Michael Fleming, 2 February 2003, verbatim: "Warner Bros. and producers Brad Grey and Brad Pitt have won a shootout for the right to remake 'Infernal Affairs' … WB beat out at least four other studios, paying $1.75 million." Corroborated by Screen Daily, 3 October 2003 (https://www.screendaily.com/miramax-tempted-by-infernal-affairs/4015345.article). **The decisive document** is the rights-holder's own filed company report: eSun Holdings Limited Annual Report 2005 (HKEX 571), stating Media Asia "has the distribution rights to the remake of its highly successful blockbuster Infernal Affairs by Warner Brothers, tentatively titled The Departed" — https://www.laisun.com/esun-holdings/f/upload/4821/e_571_Annualreport_20052005.pdf. That is the rights-holder describing the remake as a contractual benefit, not a grievance. No dispute or litigation between the parties was found. |
| — the price and the parties | NEEDS CARE | "a reported 1.75 million dollars", credited to *Variety*; "Warner Bros., with producers Brad Grey and Brad Pitt"; "early 2003". | (as above) | Variety says $1.75m, Forbes $1.8m (https://www.forbes.com/2007/01/23/scorsese-china-movies-face-lead-cx_jc_0123autofacescan02.html). The February 2003 Variety piece does not name Plan B — the company was still unnamed at purchase. |
| The screen credit | NEEDS ONE REWORDING | Say **"based on"**, not "story credit". | https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/wga-drafts-sunshine-departed-awards-129956/ | WGA credit determination: "The Departed, Screenwriter: William Monahan; based on the film 'Infernal Affairs,' writer: Alan Mak and Felix Chong." "Based on" and "story credit" are distinct WGA forms and conflating them is exactly what a screenwriter's lawyer notices. The **Academy citation names only Monahan** — don't imply the Oscar credited Mak and Chong. |
| It won Best Picture; directors of both | CONFIRMED | "*The Departed*, directed by Martin Scorsese, won Best Picture at the 79th Academy Awards in February 2007, honouring films released in 2006. Scorsese won for Directing." | https://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2007 | Academy's own record: 79th Academy Awards, Kodak Theatre, Sunday 25 February 2007. Best Picture — The Departed — **Graham King, Producer**. Directing — Martin Scorsese. Four wins from five nominations (Picture, Directing, Adapted Screenplay, Film Editing); Wahlberg's Supporting Actor nomination did not win. ⚠️ oscars.org CDN-blocks automated tools; text verified against the Academy's own page as archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260526120809/https://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2007. **The Best Picture recipient is producer Graham King** — not Scorsese, not Pitt. The Academy's category name is "Directing", not "Best Director". |

---

## 8. THE TARANTINO QUOTE

| Claim as currently written | Verdict | Corrected wording | Source URL | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| "I steal from every single movie ever made. Great artists steal. They don't do homages." | **NEEDS REWORDING** — the quote is real in substance, but the script's version is compressed and altered, and no primary source could be found | "Asked in 1994 about accusations that *Reservoir Dogs* copied *City on Fire*, Tarantino said: 'I steal from every movie ever made… Great artists steal; they don't do homages.'" | https://www.bfi.org.uk/lists/10-great-films-influenced-quentin-tarantino | **This is the best available citation and it is institutional, not primary.** British Film Institute, "10 great films that influenced Quentin Tarantino", Paul O'Callaghan, 7 January 2016; page retrieved and read directly. The BFI attributes it to "a 1994 interview" and supplies the context — it was his answer to the *City on Fire* accusations — but **does not name the publication.** Note the BFI wording is "every movie ever made", not "every single movie ever made". |
| — the "Empire magazine, 1994" attribution | **NOT CONFIRMED** | **Do not name Empire on screen.** Say "in a 1994 interview". | https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Quentin_Tarantino | Retrieved directly. Wikiquote — and every aggregator downstream of it — cites only "Empire magazine interview, 1994": **no issue number, no date, no page, no byline.** The original article could not be located and Empire's own online archive does not surface it. A citation with no issue and no author will not survive legal scrutiny. |
| — the long form, with the middle clause | **NOT CONFIRMED in that form** | Do not use the long version. | https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Quentin_Tarantino | ⚠️ **Clearest evidence the quote has degraded in transmission:** the middle clause appears as **"tough tills"** in Wikiquote and across the aggregators — an obvious mis-transcription of "tough tit". A quote visibly corrupted in circulation must not be presented as verbatim. |
| **Recommendation** | — | Use the short BFI-sourced form attributed to "a 1994 interview" — or drop the quote. | — | If the film wants a Tarantino admission on this theme, a better-documented one should be sourced first (see NOT CHECKED, item 9a). |

---

## 9c. TARANTINO — AWARDS (verified against the Academy and Cannes)

| Claim as currently written | Verdict | Corrected wording | Source URL | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oscar for *Pulp Fiction* | CONFIRMED, with two corrections | "Tarantino won his first Academy Award for *Pulp Fiction* at the 67th Academy Awards, 27 March 1995 — in the category the Academy then called **Writing (Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen)**. The official credit reads: **Screenplay by Quentin Tarantino; Stories by Quentin Tarantino & Roger Avary.**" | http://aaspeechesdb.oscars.org/link/067-24/ | Retrieved directly from the Academy's own Acceptance Speech Database (Margaret Herrick Library). Record reads: Year 1994 (67th); Category "Writing (Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen)"; Film Pulp Fiction; Winner "Screenplay by Quentin Tarantino; Stories by Quentin Tarantino & Roger Avary"; Presenter Anthony Hopkins; 27 March 1995, Shrine Auditorium. ⚠️ **Two traps:** the category was **not** called "Best Original Screenplay" in 1995 — it was renamed later; and **Avary's shared credit is on the story, not the screenplay.** Both men spoke on stage. |
| Oscar for *Django Unchained* | CONFIRMED | "His second was for *Django Unchained* at the 85th Academy Awards, 24 February 2013, for **Writing (Original Screenplay)** — 'Written by Quentin Tarantino'. He won that one alone." | http://aaspeechesdb.oscars.org/link/085-25/ | Retrieved directly. Record reads: Year 2012 (85th); Category "Writing (Original Screenplay)"; Winner "Written by Quentin Tarantino"; Presenters Charlize Theron and Dustin Hoffman; 24 February 2013, Dolby Theatre. |
| Any other Oscars; Best Director | CONFIRMED as stated | "He has won two Academy Awards, both for writing. He has never won an Academy Award for directing." | (both records above) | The negative is safe to broadcast on the strength of the two records retrieved. ⚠️ **Not checked:** his nomination count (the frequently quoted "three Directing nominations", and his Best Picture nomination as a producer on *Once Upon a Time in Hollywood*) was **not** verified in this run. Do not put a nomination number on screen without checking the Academy database. |
| Palme d'Or | CONFIRMED | "*Pulp Fiction* won the Palme d'Or at Cannes in 1994." | https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/retrospective/1994/awards/ | Official Festival de Cannes retrospective, retrieved and read directly: "PULP FICTION by Quentin TARANTINO — Palme d'or". ⚠️ **Keep straight:** he won the **Palme d'Or**, the top prize. The 1994 **Award for Best Screenplay went to Michel Blanc** for *Grosse Fatigue*. Do not let the edit juxtapose his Cannes and Oscar honours in a way that implies both were screenplay awards. |

---

## 10. SAVE THE CAT!

| Claim as currently written | Verdict | Corrected wording | Source URL | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Published 2005 by Michael Wiese Productions | CONFIRMED | "*Save the Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You'll Ever Need* by Blake Snyder, published 2005 by Michael Wiese Productions, Studio City, California. 195 pp. ISBN 978-1-932907-00-1." | https://openlibrary.org/books/OL3291903M/Save_the_cat! | Library-of-Congress-derived cataloguing data: LCCN 2004009134, LC class PN1996 .S65 2005. Corroborated by the LC-deposited scan at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/savecatlastbooko0000snyd. ⚠️ lccn.loc.gov currently errors and catalog.loc.gov is behind Cloudflare, so the LC record could not be displayed directly. ⚠️ **The publisher's own site (mwp.com) no longer lists the title** — rights moved to Save the Cat! Press. Do not cite MWP's website as a live source. |
| The fifteen beats, with page numbers | CONFIRMED | **1** Opening Image (1) · **2** Theme Stated (5) · **3** Set-Up (1–10) · **4** Catalyst (12) · **5** Debate (12–25) · **6** Break into Two (25) · **7** B Story (30) · **8** Fun and Games (30–55) · **9** Midpoint (55) · **10** Bad Guys Close In (55–75) · **11** All Is Lost (75) · **12** Dark Night of the Soul (75–85) · **13** Break into Three (85) · **14** Finale (85–110) · **15** Final Image (110) | https://web.archive.org/web/20060203171558id_/http://www.blakesnyder.com/THE_BLAKE_SNYDER_BEAT_SHEET.doc | **Primary for the page numbers:** Snyder's own downloadable BS2 template from his own site, captured 3 February 2006; renders as "1. Opening Image (1):" … "15. Final Image (110):". **Primary for the beat names and capitalisation:** the official Blake Snyder Enterprises handout, © 2010, https://savethecat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/STC_BeatSheetRev3.pdf — confirms house spellings "Set-Up", "Fun and Games", "All Is Lost", "Break into Two/Three". Independently corroborated in Snyder's own prose (*Strikes Back*, ch. 3 official excerpt, https://savethecat.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/STCSB_Chapter3.pdf): "The Theme Stated moment on page 5", "B Story's introduction on page 30", "it's not all on page 55!", "when he 'dies' on page 75" — matching beats 2, 7, 9 and 11 exactly. ⚠️ Chapter 4 of the 2005 book could not be read directly (IA copy is lending-restricted). If the film quotes the book *as a book*, have a researcher check pp. 70–86 of a physical copy. |
| — "page numbers" | **NEEDS REWORDING — flag for voiceover** | "Snyder pegged each of his fifteen beats to a page number **in a 110-page screenplay** — the Catalyst on page twelve, the Midpoint on page fifty-five, All Is Lost on page seventy-five." | (as above) | These are **screenplay page targets**, not pages in Snyder's book. Snyder's model script is 110 pages, which is why Final Image is page 110; his book is 195 pages and the beat sheet sits in Chapter 4. **Do not say "on page 12 of Snyder's book"** or let the two page systems blur. |
| Citing savethecat.com for the page numbers | **NEEDS REWORDING — that citation will not check out** | Credit the book, or Snyder's archived template — not the current site. | https://savethecat.com/get-started | The site has been redesigned and now expresses every beat as a **percentage** of the script, explicitly dropping page numbers (Opening Image 0–1%, Theme Stated 5%, Catalyst 10%, Midpoint 50%, All Is Lost 75%, Final Image 99–100%), and now says "most feature screenplays run between 90 and 120 pages." ⚠️ The percentages are **not** a clean re-expression of the page numbers — B Story is 22% ≈ p. 24, where Snyder's own sheet says p. 30. **Do not mix the two systems in one graphic.** |

---

## 11. ROMEO AND JULIET — THE LINEAGE

> Workhorse sources for this whole item: **P. A. Daniel, ed., *Originals and Analogues: Romeus and Iuliet / Rhomeo and Iulietta*, New Shakspere Society, 1875** (https://archive.org/details/originalsandana00englgoog), whose Brooke text was collated against the Bodleian first edition; and **J. J. Munro, ed., *Brooke's 'Romeus and Juliet'*, 1908**, digitised by the Library of Congress (https://archive.org/details/brookesromeusjul00broo).

| Claim as currently written | Verdict | Corrected wording | Source URL | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Masuccio Salernitano, *Il Novellino* (1476), novella 33, "Mariotto and Ganozza" | **NEEDS REWORDING — the heroine's name is misspelled** | "Masuccio Salernitano's *Il Novellino*, first published at Naples in **1476**, posthumously. The relevant story is the **thirty-third novella**, of **Mariotto Mignanelli and Giannozza Saracini of Siena**." | https://archive.org/details/brookesromeusjul00broo | Munro, Introduction p. xxvii. Daniel 1875 independently concurs. ⚠️ It is **Giannozza**, not "Ganozza". The editors differ on the surname (Saracini / Saraceni) — if spoken, "Giannozza" alone is safest. ⚠️ **Both editors caution that whether da Porto actually drew on Masuccio is uncertain** — Munro: "Da Porto's story may have been (and probably was) an independent record of the same legend." Present Masuccio as the earliest **analogue**; do not assert direct descent. |
| Luigi da Porto, published c. 1531/1530, written c. 1524 | CONFIRMED | "Luigi da Porto's *Historia novellamente ritrovata di due nobili amanti* was written by about **1524** and first published — undated and posthumously — at Venice by Bendoni, probably in **1530–31**. It gives the lovers the names Romeo and Giulietta and sets them among the Montecchi and Cappelletti of Verona." | https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/luigi-da-porto_(Dizionario-Biografico)/ | Treccani's *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* — the standard Italian scholarly biographical dictionary: "probabilmente attorno al 1524" for composition; "presso Bendoni a Venezia, senza data, ma probabilmente del 1530-31" for first publication. Daniel 1875 concurs; da Porto died 10 May 1529, so the edition is posthumous, and composition before 9 June 1524 is inferred from Pietro Bembo's letter of that date. ⚠️ **Say "about 1530" or "1530–31", not a flat "1531"** — the first edition is undated and the dating is a bibliographers' inference. Composition **before June 1524** is the firmer fact. |
| Matteo Bandello, *Novelle* (1554) | CONFIRMED | "Matteo Bandello retold the story in his *Novelle*, published at **Lucca in 1554**. Bandello follows da Porto's main incidents but introduces the Nurse, and is the first to name the Count of Lodrone **Paris**." | https://archive.org/details/originalsandana00englgoog | Daniel 1875, Introduction p. x, giving the full title *La sfortunata morte di dui infelicissimi amanti, che l'uno di veleno e l'altro di dolore morirono, con varii accidenti*. ⚠️ The **printer** of the 1554 edition (Busdrago is the usual attribution) is **NOT CONFIRMED** here — don't name him on screen. |
| Pierre Boaistuau, *Histoires Tragiques* (1559) — and Brooke worked from him, not Bandello | **CONFIRMED, with one factual correction** | "In 1559 Pierre Boaistuau published at Paris his *Histoires Tragiques extraictes des Œuvres italiennes de Bandel*. The Romeo and Juliet story is the **third tale**. Boaistuau did not translate Bandello closely — he recast the story, adding among other things the scene with the poor Apothecary. **Arthur Brooke worked from Boaistuau's French, not Bandello's Italian.**" | https://archive.org/details/originalsandana00englgoog | Daniel 1875: "From Boaistuau's novel Arthur Brooke now produced his long metrical version of the story." Daniel also records the *privilège du roi* of 17 January 1558 and printing finished 28 August 1559. ⚠️ **CORRECTION TO A WIDELY REPEATED ERROR:** many sources place the tale in the **second volume**. Per Daniel, the 1559 Paris edition is two octavo volumes — **volume 1 holds Boaistuau's six tales**, volume 2 twelve further tales by Belleforest. Since R&J is Boaistuau's third tale, it is in **volume 1**. Do not say "second volume." |
| Arthur Brooke, "The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet", 1562 | **NEEDS REWORDING — the year is right, the "exact spelling" is not** | Original spelling: "THE TRAGICALL HIS-torye of Romeus and **Iuliet**, written first in Italian by Bandell, and nowe in Englishe by Ar. Br." | https://archive.org/details/originalsandana00englgoog | Daniel 1875 transcribes the title page and colophon, collated against the Bodleian first edition. Colophon: "Imprinted at London, in Fleet Street… by Richard Tottill **the xix day of November, An. Do. 1562**." ⚠️ **Early modern printing has no distinct J — it is "Iuliet".** Also "historye", "nowe", "Englishe". The commonly cited "The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet" is a **half-modernised hybrid that is not what is on the page**. Modernise consistently and say you are modernising, or reproduce it exactly. ⚠️ Do not let the **1587 reprint** (different, longer title) stand in for 1562 in the edit. |
| — **a strong, verifiable documentary beat** | CONFIRMED | "Brooke's own title page credits Bandello — 'written first in Italian by Bandell' — but Brooke was in fact working from Boaistuau's French. The attribution printed on the book is, strictly, wrong." | https://archive.org/details/originalsandana00englgoog | A genuinely good beat for a film about borrowing, and fully sourced. |
| **Recommended broadcast passage** | — | "Shakespeare didn't invent Romeo and Juliet. A version of the story surfaces in Italy in 1476, in a tale by Masuccio Salernitano about two lovers in Siena. Around 1524 Luigi da Porto moved it to Verona and gave them the names we know — Romeo and Giulietta, of the Montecchi and the Cappelletti. Matteo Bandello retold it in 1554; Pierre Boaistuau turned it into French in 1559; and in 1562 an Englishman named Arthur Brooke turned Boaistuau's French into three thousand lines of English verse. That poem is the book Shakespeare had open beside him some thirty years later." | (rows above) | "A version of the story surfaces" is the cautious opening scholars would want, given the uncertainty about the Masuccio link. |

---

## 12. NEWTON — "SHOULDERS OF GIANTS"

| Claim as currently written | Verdict | Corrected wording | Source URL | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The 1675 letter to Robert Hooke | **NEEDS REWORDING — there are TWO calendar issues, not one** | "Isaac Newton wrote to Robert Hooke on **5 February 1675/6**. The original is held by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, in the Simon Gratz collection." | https://digitallibrary.hsp.org/index.php/Detail/objects/9792 | HSP Digital Library item 9792 (archived copy actually read: https://web.archive.org/web/20260217222619/https://digitallibrary.hsp.org/index.php/Detail/objects/9792). ⚠️ **Issue 1 — year-start:** England's legal year began 25 March, so an English writer in February 1676 wrote "1675". Modern reckoning gives **5 February 1676**; scholars write the hybrid **"1675/6"**. ⚠️ **Issue 2 — Julian vs Gregorian:** England was still on the Julian calendar, ten days behind the Continent, so the Gregorian date is **15 February 1676**. "New Style" is used for **both** conventions, so "1675, or 1676 in New Style" invites a correction from anyone who expects 15 February. **Safest voiceover:** "On the fifth of February sixteen seventy-six — dated sixteen seventy-five at the time, because the English year didn't turn over until March…" ⚠️ HSP's own catalogue titles the item a flat "1675" with no dual date, so it will appear to contradict your voiceover if shown. Caption it "1675/6". |
| The exact sentence | **CONFIRMED — read directly off the manuscript** | "If I have seen further it is by standing on y^e sholders of Giants." | https://web.archive.org/web/20231208182628im_/https://digitallibrary.hsp.org/media/pawtucket/images/7/0/4/13381_ca_object_representations_media_70422_large.jpg | HSP's own high-resolution digitisation of the original, read at magnification. **"sholders"** — no *u*. **"y^e"** — the y-with-superscript-e abbreviation for "the", a survival of the thorn; it is **not** the word "ye" meaning "you" and must be **read aloud as "the"**. **"Giants"** — capital G. ⚠️ **There is no comma after "further"** — the very common rendering "If I have seen further, it is by standing…" inserts one that is not in the manuscript. ⚠️ **HSP's own catalogue prose modernises the quotation**, so the institution's text and the institution's image disagree — if you caption old spelling, cite the image, not the blurb. |
| "The Newton Project has transcriptions" | **NOT CONFIRMED — and the evidence points the other way** | Cite HSP for the manuscript and Turnbull for the scholarly edition. | — | The Newton Project's keyword search for "sholders", "shoulders of Giants" and "Hooke 5 February", and its correspondence indexes, return **no transcription of this letter**. The only hit is the title of a chapter in a secondary work the site hosts — about the phrase, not the letter. **Do not credit the Newton Project as the source.** The correct scholarly citation is **H. W. Turnbull, ed., *The Correspondence of Isaac Newton*, vol. I (1661–1675), Cambridge University Press for the Royal Society, 1959, letter no. 154.** |
| Bernard of Chartres via John of Salisbury, *Metalogicon*, 12th century | **CONFIRMED, with a spelling correction** | "John of Salisbury records the image in his *Metalogicon*, completed in **1159**, at **Book III, chapter 4**, attributing it to **Bernard of Chartres**: we are 'like dwarfs seated on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more things than they, and things farther off — not by any sharpness of our own sight or height of our own body, but because we are carried up on high and lifted up by their giant size.'" | https://archive.org/details/ionnissaresberie0000clem | **C. C. J. Webb, ed., *Ioannis Saresberiensis… Metalogicon Libri IIII*, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929** — the standard critical Latin edition; passage at **p. 136**. Webb dates composition to 1159 (he dates one chapter to October 1159 and uses Adrian IV's death, 31 August 1159, as a fixed point). ⚠️ **SPELLING: Webb's critical text reads "gigantium", not "gigantum".** The brief's "nanos gigantum humeris insidentes" is the popularised form. If Latin goes on screen use Webb's **"nanos gigantium humeris insidentes"** and credit the Webb edition — or avoid the Latin. Standard English translation for citation: Daniel D. McGarry, trans., University of California Press, 1955. |
| The line was a barb at Hooke, who was short and stooped | **NOT CONFIRMED — contested interpretation. Must not be stated as fact.** | "It's usually quoted as modesty. Some historians have wondered whether it was a dig — Hooke, by some accounts, was stooped and slight. But the letter itself says nothing about Hooke's body, and Newton wrote it while trying to make peace. The reading is an argument, not a fact." | (manuscript image, above) | **What is fact:** relations later soured badly over optics and the inverse-square law. **But the sentence sits inside a passage of conspicuous courtesy** — Newton is accepting Hooke's proposal of a *private* correspondence, writing that "what passes between friends in private usually deserves y^e name of consultation rather then contest", and telling Hooke "Des-Cartes did was a good step. You have added much severall ways." In context it reads as a peace overture. ⚠️ **The physical premise is itself weak:** there is no reliable contemporary portrait of Hooke, and descriptions of him as stooped come from later, often hostile sources. **"Hooke was short and stooped" is NOT CONFIRMED.** ⚠️ **Do not say "Newton was mocking Hooke, who was a hunchback"** — that is two unverified claims in one sentence and is exactly the line that draws a complaint. |

---

## 13. EINSTEIN

| Claim as currently written | Verdict | Corrected wording | Source URL | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Riemann's geometry "published 25 years before Einstein was born" | **NEEDS REWORDING — as written this is false** | "Riemann **delivered** his lecture in 1854, twenty-five years before Einstein was born — though it was not **published** until 1868." | https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Riemann/ | "Über die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen" was delivered **10 June 1854** as Riemann's *Habilitationsvortrag* at Göttingen, with Gauss present as examiner (MacTutor, University of St Andrews). It was published **posthumously in 1868** — Riemann died in 1866 — communicated by **Richard Dedekind**, in *Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen*, vol. 13, pp. 133–152: https://eudml.org/doc/135760 (Göttingen scan: http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/dms/resolveppn/?PPN=GDZPPN002019213). Einstein was born **14 March 1879**. So: 1854 → 1879 = **25 years** ✓; 1868 → 1879 = **11 years** ✗. **The word "published" is the error.** ⚠️ Some secondary sources wrongly credit Dirichlet with the posthumous publication — Dirichlet died in 1859. It was Dedekind. |
| "Relativity stands on Riemann's geometry" | NEEDS REWORDING for accuracy | General relativity rests on Riemannian geometry **as recast into the absolute differential calculus (tensor calculus)** by Ricci-Curbastro and Levi-Civita, which Marcel Grossmann brought to Einstein in Zurich in **1912**. | https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Grossmann/ | MacTutor: "It was Grossmann who pointed out to him the relevance to general relativity of the tensor calculus." The Ricci/Levi-Civita paper: "Méthodes de calcul différentiel absolu et leurs applications", *Mathematische Annalen* 54, 125–201, https://eudml.org/doc/157997. ⚠️ Volume dated 1900 in some catalogues, 1901 in others — flag if a date goes on screen. The Einstein–Grossmann "Entwurf" paper followed in 1913. |
| Lorentz's equations "written while Einstein worked at the patent office" | **NEEDS REWORDING — false as a general statement** | True only of the **1904** paper. | https://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/IL-publications/Lorentz.html | Einstein joined the Bern patent office in **June 1902**. Lorentz's 1892 paper, his 1895 book and his 1899 paper all predate that by three to ten years — as do Voigt (1887), FitzGerald (1889) and Larmor (1897/1900). Only "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light", *Proc. KNAW* 6: 809–831 (**1904**), falls inside Einstein's patent-office years. Leiden University's official Lorentz bibliography links directly to KNAW Digital Library PDFs. ⚠️ The KNAW primary PDF (https://dwc.knaw.nl/DL/publications/PU00014148.pdf) returned 403 to automated fetch but opens in a browser. Poincaré gave the transformations their name in 1905. |
| Einstein at the patent office 1902–1909 | CONFIRMED | "Einstein began work at the Swiss patent office in Bern on 23 June 1902 and resigned in July 1909." | https://www.ige.ch/en/about-us/the-history-of-the-ipi/einstein/faq | The **patent office's own institutional history**: "Einstein started working as a level III technical expert on 23 June 1902… On 16 July 1909, he handed in his resignation." Appointed 16 June 1902; promoted to Technical Expert II class 1 April 1906; last day 15 October 1909. Corroborated by https://einstein-website.de/en/patent-office/ |
| **Recommended broadcast sentence** | — | "Relativity stands on Riemann's geometry — delivered as a lecture in 1854, twenty-five years before Einstein was born, though not published until 1868 — and on Lorentz's transformation equations, whose fullest statement Lorentz published in 1904, while Einstein was working at the Bern patent office." | (rows above) | If the film wants the tensor-calculus nuance: "…delivered as a lecture in 1854, twenty-five years before Einstein was born, and reworked into the tensor calculus that Marcel Grossmann handed Einstein in 1912…" **Do not say "published 25 years before Einstein was born."** |

---

## 14. QUEEN — ⚠️ SUBSTANTIALLY UNVERIFIED, MUST BE RE-RUN

> **Read this before using anything in this section.** The research pass on this item failed. An initial draft contained per-album sleeve wordings, a Roger Taylor DVD quote and several URLs that were **never actually retrieved and appear to have been invented**. That draft has been retracted in full. What follows is only what was genuinely fetched — which is very little. **This item is not cleared for broadcast in any form.**

| Claim as currently written | Verdict | Corrected wording | Source URL | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| *A Night at the Opera* (1975) carried the note | CONFIRMED — the only solid finding in this item | "'No synthesisers!' appeared on the sleeve of *A Night at the Opera*." | https://brianmay.com/queen-news/2014/02/six-million-queen-fans-cant-be-wrong-can-they/ | A Mike Monahan article, originally *The Telegraph*, 12 February 2013, republished on **Brian May's official site**, referring to "the band's proud, DIY proclamation on the sleeve of *A Night at the Opera*: 'No synthesisers!'" ⚠️ It is a **reproduced newspaper piece, not Brian May's own writing** — do not attribute the phrasing to May. |
| *Queen* (1973) carried a note | WEAK — usable only with hedging | "The debut album's credits reportedly said 'nobody played synthesizer'." | https://ultimateclassicrock.com/queen-play-the-game/ | Music journalism, medium quality. **Exact wording not scan-verified.** Do not present as a facsimile. |
| First synthesiser use: *The Game* (1980), Oberheim OB-X | WEAK — directionally right, not properly sourced | "Queen's first studio album to use a synthesiser was *The Game*, released 30 June 1980, on which an Oberheim OB-X appears." | https://ultimateclassicrock.com/queen-play-the-game/ | The OB-X on "Play the Game" is confirmed only by this one music-journalism source, pointed to by an aggregator. **Not adequate for a legally scrutinised film.** |
| Freddie Mercury on synthesisers | WEAK — second-hand | "We've built up a terrible aversion to them" (1977). | https://ultimateclassicrock.com/queen-play-the-game/ | Reported second-hand; **unverified against the original interview.** Do not quote. |
| *Queen II*, *Sheer Heart Attack*, *A Day at the Races*, *News of the World*, *Jazz*, *Live Killers* | **NOT CONFIRMED — no evidence gathered for any of these** | — | — | Includes all per-album sleeve wordings, the -iser/-izer spelling question, UK vs US pressing variation, and whether the notes continued past 1975. |
| Whether *The Game* or *Flash Gordon* came first | **NOT CONFIRMED** | — | — | Both 1980. Order not established. |
| The Deacy Amp / Red Special rationale for the notes | **NOT CONFIRMED — drop it** | — | — | It is well established that John Deacon built the amp and May used it with the Red Special for the layered guitar orchestra. But **no source was found connecting the Deacy Amp to the sleeve notes' purpose**, and there is a chronology problem — the debut album's note predates the amp's best-known uses. |
| **What to do** | — | Re-run this item in a session with search budget, or — better — **inspect physical UK EMI original sleeves.** The sleeves are the primary source, and given the spelling appears to vary by album, they are the only way to settle exact wording. | — | queenonline.com, discogs.com and soundonsound.com all block automated retrieval. |

---

## 15a. COMICS — THE 1954 SENATE HEARINGS (primary document)

| Claim as currently written | Verdict | Corrected wording | Source URL | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The 1954 US Senate subcommittee hearings on comic books | CONFIRMED from the primary document | "*Juvenile Delinquency (Comic Books)* — hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-Third Congress, Second Session, pursuant to S. 190. Held **21 and 22 April and 4 June 1954**, in Room 110, United States Courthouse, New York." | https://archive.org/details/juveniledelinque54unit | The actual US Government Printing Office transcript (Washington, 1954; LCCN 54060869), digitised from the Boston Public Library copy; title page and contents retrieved and read directly. Plain text: https://archive.org/stream/juveniledelinque54unit/juveniledelinque54unit_djvu.txt. Library catalogue record with HathiTrust page images: https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=olbp83239 |
| Chaired by Estes Kefauver | **NEEDS REWORDING — wrong chairman** | "The subcommittee was chaired by **Senator Robert C. Hendrickson of New Jersey**. Estes Kefauver, who took over the subcommittee later that year, sat as a member." | https://archive.org/details/juveniledelinque54unit | The transcript's own masthead: "Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency in the United States — **ROBERT C. HENDRICKSON, New Jersey, Chairman**; William Langer, North Dakota; Estes Kefauver, Tennessee; Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., Missouri." Kefauver is listed as subcommittee chairman on the March 1955 interim report, which is the likely source of the confusion. (William Langer chaired the full Judiciary Committee.) **This is a common and checkable error — fix it.** |
| Fredric Wertham testified | CONFIRMED | "The psychiatrist Fredric Wertham, director of the Lafargue Clinic in New York, testified on the first day, 21 April 1954." | https://archive.org/details/juveniledelinque54unit | Transcript contents: "Wertham, Dr. Frederic, psychiatrist, director, Lafargue Clinic, New York, N.Y. — **79**". Testimony begins at printed page 79, under the heading "TESTIMONY OF DR. FREDERIC WERTHAM…". ⚠️ **Spelling:** the official transcript prints "Frederic"; he published as **Fredric**. Use "Fredric" in narration; if you caption the document, reproduce its spelling and don't let anyone "correct" it. |
| — the "Hitler was a beginner" quote | **NOT CONFIRMED — do not use** | Characterise his position rather than quoting it. | — | The widely repeated line "I think Hitler was a beginner compared to the comic-book industry" **could not be located in the retrieved transcript text.** The OCR mixes oral testimony with exhibits, so absence is not proof — but it must be **read off the printed page** before broadcast, or dropped. |
| — William Gaines also testified | CONFIRMED (useful, if the film wants the scene) | "EC Comics publisher William M. Gaines testified the same day, beginning at page 97." | https://archive.org/details/juveniledelinque54unit | Transcript contents: "Gaines, William M., publisher, Entertaining Comics Group, New York, N.Y. — 97". |
| *Seduction of the Innocent* | CONFIRMED as to publisher and year; day NOT CONFIRMED | "*Seduction of the Innocent*, published by Rinehart & Company in 1954." | https://www.loc.gov/item/mm87062110/ | Rinehart & Company, 1954, 397 pp., LC card no. 54-5890. The Library of Congress holds the Fredric Wertham papers, including drafts. See also https://blogs.loc.gov/headlinesandheroes/2024/06/censorship-the-comic-book-and-seduction-of-the-innocent-at-70/. ⚠️ A publication date of **19 April 1954** (two days before his testimony) is reported but is **single-sourced — confirm before broadcasting the day-level date.** The book was also entered into the hearing record: exhibit 10c, "Bound copy of Seduction of the Innocent by Dr. Frederic Wertham — 90". |
| The hearings produced the Comics Code | **NEEDS REWORDING — and the legal distinction matters** | "Congress passed no law. The industry regulated itself — in October 1954 the publishers formed the Comics Magazine Association of America and adopted the Comics Code." | https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/artifact/code-comics-magazine-association-america-inc-1954 | US Capitol Visitor Center, noting the original Code document is held in the **Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress**, and that after the spring 1954 hearings "comic book publishers voluntarily developed new standards of content control." The **Code was adopted 26 October 1954**. ⚠️ **Sources conflict on the CMAA's own formation date** (September vs October 1954) and this could not be settled against a primary source — **do not conflate the two dates.** ⚠️ **The Code was industry self-regulation, not legislation. No federal law was passed** — this distinction should survive into the voiceover. |
| — the subcommittee's interim report | **NOT CONFIRMED — verify the report number before use** | — | — | Reported as **Senate Report No. 62, 84th Congress, 1st Session, ordered printed 14 March 1955**, warning that "this country cannot afford the calculated risk involved in feeding its children, through comic books, a concentrated diet of crime, horror, and violence." ⚠️ **The report number and date come from a search snippet** — the ProQuest PDF was oversized and thecomicbooks.com returned 403. **Verify directly before broadcast.** |

---

## 15b. COMIC-BOOK ADAPTATIONS' SHARE OF GLOBAL BOX OFFICE

| Claim as currently written | Verdict | Corrected wording | Source URL | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A figure for the share of global box office from comic-book adaptations | **NOT CONFIRMED — drop the percentage** | Use the all-time-list alternative below instead. | — | **No defensible global figure exists, for structural reasons:** (1) **no industry body reports it** — the MPA's THEME report covers territory, demographics, ratings and top films, but does not break out source material (https://www.motionpictures.org/research-policy/); (2) **Box Office Mojo tags films "Comic Book Adaptation" but computes no aggregate** — its page returns a ranked list with no totals, no market share and no stated tagging criteria (https://www.boxofficemojo.com/genre/sg1256190209/); (3) the one provider that does aggregate, The Numbers, reports **domestic (US/Canada) only**; (4) **the category is unstable** — does *Transformers* count? *Men in Black*? *Road to Perdition*? Providers differ, so figures are not comparable; (5) **the number swings violently** — the domestic share for comic/graphic-novel films peaked at 30.96% in 2022 and fell to 3.2% in 2024, so any single percentage misleads. |
| **Recommended replacement — sourced and checkable in one click** | — | "Fifteen of the fifty highest-grossing films in history are comic-book adaptations." | https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top_lifetime_gross/?area=XWW | From Box Office Mojo's worldwide all-time chart **as of 24 August 2026**: 5 of the top 20 are comic-book adaptations — *Avengers: Endgame* (#2, $2,799,439,100), *Spider-Man: Brand New Day* (#6), *Avengers: Infinity War* (#8), *Spider-Man: No Way Home* (#9), *The Avengers* (#14) — and 15 of the top 50. ⚠️ **State the caveats on screen:** these are **nominal grosses, not inflation-adjusted**, and the count is a classification of a published list, so state the criterion (films adapted from comic-book or graphic-novel properties) and the as-of date. |
| — a domestic figure, if one is wanted | USE ONLY IF VERIFIED IN A BROWSER, AND LABEL IT DOMESTIC | "Films based on comics or graphic novels took $28.4 billion at the US and Canadian box office between 1995 and 2026 — about 10.35 percent of the market." | https://www.the-numbers.com/market/sources | ⚠️ **SOURCE-QUALITY WARNING: these figures came from a search-engine snippet; the site returned 404/blocked to every direct fetch attempted.** The methodology note could not be read. **Load it in a browser and confirm before broadcast**, and label it **US/Canada, not global**. |

---

## NOT CHECKED — nothing below was verified

**None of these may be broadcast on the strength of this document.**

| # | Item | What still needs doing |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | **STAR WARS / KUROSAWA** — an on-record Lucas statement on *The Hidden Fortress* | Nothing retrieved. A Lucas interview was recorded for the Criterion Collection edition of *The Hidden Fortress*; that recording, or a print interview, needs to be found and **transcribed against the source**. Note the influence Lucas has reportedly described is narrower than the popular claim — the device of telling the story through the two lowest-ranking characters, not the plot. Do not state even that until sourced. |
| 9a | **RESERVOIR DOGS / CITY ON FIRE** — is "almost shot for shot" defensible? | Unverified. ⚠️ **This is the most legally exposed line in the script and must not go to air in its current form.** Needs sources that perform the actual shot-level comparison — the resemblance is generally said to concentrate in the closing Mexican standoff rather than across the whole film — plus any on-record Tarantino acknowledgement. |
| 9b | **KILL BILL** — yellow tracksuit / Bruce Lee's *Game of Death* | Unverified. Best evidence would be Tarantino or the costume designer on record. |
| 14 | **QUEEN** — per-album sleeve notes, first synthesiser use | Retracted and substantially unverified — see the warning in item 14. Re-run with search budget, or, better, **inspect physical UK EMI original sleeves**, which are the primary source and the only way to settle the -iser/-izer spelling per album. |
| — | Tarantino's Oscar **nomination** count | The two wins are verified against the Academy. The frequently quoted "three Directing nominations" and his Best Picture nomination as a producer were **not** checked. Do not put a nomination number on screen. |

---

## THE TWELVE THINGS TO FIX FIRST

1. **Do not splice the two Van Gogh letters.** The "translation" wording and the musician analogy are four months apart, and the music letter says "interpretation", not "translation". Splicing them produces a fabricated quotation.
2. **"Almost shot for shot"** (Reservoir Dogs / City on Fire) is unverified and is the script's biggest exposure.
3. **Item 14 (Queen) is not usable.** Treat the whole section as unverified.
4. **Warhol: it was a settlement, not a verdict.** The federal case file shows a Rule 41(a) stipulation of dismissal. Never say "won her case" or "was awarded damages" — and the $6,000 was the gallery's later sale price for two paintings, not a damages award.
5. **Do not attribute "It's our original thing" to Michael Eisner** — in the source it is an animator's paraphrase.
6. **Drop the "Disney cease-and-desist against Japanese animators" claim** — unverified, and it alleges specific legal conduct by a named company.
7. **Do not name Empire magazine** as the source of the Tarantino quote — the attribution has no issue, date, page or byline behind it.
8. **The 1954 subcommittee was chaired by Hendrickson, not Kefauver.**
9. **Einstein: "published 25 years before Einstein was born" is false.** Riemann's lecture was *delivered* 25 years before his birth and *published* only 11 years before. And Lorentz's 1892 work predates Einstein's patent-office years — only the 1904 paper falls inside them.
10. **Three of the four Van Gogh Millet works are in museums the script does not name** — Musée d'Orsay and Kröller-Müller, not just Amsterdam and New York.
11. **Cannes: Oldboy took the Grand Prix in 2004** — not the Palme d'Or, not 2003, not the "Grand Jury Prize".
12. **Newton: there is no comma after "further", "y^e" is read aloud as "the", and the Hooke-as-hunchback barb is contested interpretation, not fact.**

---

## ITEMS WHERE A HUMAN MUST OPEN THE PAGE BEFORE LOCK

These rows are sourced but the source blocked automated retrieval, so the citation is being relayed at one remove:

- Musée d'Orsay pages (item 1 *La Méridienne*; item 3 *Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe*) — Cloudflare 403
- Los Angeles Times, 13 July 1994 — the Howard Green quote (item 4)
- oscars.org ceremony pages (item 6) — CDN block
- The Numbers market-share figures (item 15b) — read from a search snippet only
- Senate Report No. 62 number and date (item 15a)
- *Seduction of the Innocent* day-level publication date (item 15a)
- The Wertham "Hitler was a beginner" quote (item 15a) — read it off the printed page or drop it
- Blake Snyder's Chapter 4, pp. 70–86 of a physical copy, if the film quotes the book as a book (item 10)