Talk:3:10 to Yuma (2007 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as B-importance on the importance scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Mexico, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New Mexico. Join us on our project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Headlines

[edit] Part 1

[edit] Part 2

[edit] Part 3

[edit] Part 4

[edit] Part 5

Headlines to use. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrected writing credit

The official WGA writing credit on this film, which is verified by the IMDb listing, is: Michael Brandt & Derek Haas. Beattie does not receive a writing credit. 71.185.74.177 20:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What's declared by an organization is not necessarily true. Stuart Beattie was involved, so while he does not officially have credit, he was a writer, for encyclopedic purposes of this place. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Either way, the "writing" was pretty pathetic. Other than a bunch of pointless bad language, there wasn't much serious writing at all. For example, what's the point of a character announcing that he has to go "piss" with the word "piss" then repeated a few more times? Lazy, dumb "writing." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.148.23 (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Release

I've started a Box office performance subsection, and I would encourage any editors who have seen the film to start a Critical reaction subsection using notable reviews like those found here. I'd do it myself, but I haven't seen the film yet. I would suggest modeling the section after Road to Perdition#Reception. If anyone has any questions about how to include new information, feel free to ask! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I added "Canada" to a report of the domestic box office: U.S. and Canada combined is the "domestic" market in Hollywood terms. All grosses published reflect domestic earnings, i.e., United States and Canada, unless otherwise noted. in Box Office Mojo Key Terminology. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Odd, I've always thought of "domestic" as United States. I wonder if news reports of box office figures assume that most people know this or not... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I know. It sounds odd but Hollywood distribution considers the U.S. and Canada as one ' domestic' market. Movies released in the U.S. are released in Canada on the same day and the box office receipts are combined. If you look at this wire story [1] you'll note it says "U.S. and Canadian theaters" or this wire story [2] and it says "Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at U.S. and Canadian theaters". Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Good call, I didn't pick up on that. Might need to look at some previous articles I've done to do a little fixin'... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel the Reception section is way too long, both here and in the Road to Perdition article. If people want many different opinions, they can go to Rotten Tomatoes and or Metacritic and look at reviews there. One way of cutting it down could be to write "Crowe and Bale were generally praised by reviewers|FOOTNOTES" instead of 4+ diffrent quotes praising Crowe and Bale. 80.165.154.154 (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

I added a spoiler warning under the "Plot" section. I don't know if the plot details are sufficiently well-known to merit removal of the spoiler tag (the film is a remake), but I put it there as a precaution. FSHero 12:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SPOILER, it says that a spoiler is implied when the heading of a section is "Plot"! Hence, I shall remove the tag. FSHero 12:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Appreciate that! Some people still tend to add the spoiler tags, so we're still trying to spread awareness of WP:SPOILER. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you compare the plot to the 1957 original, the updated version suffers by comparison. The modernized language, too, has a lot of gratuitous cursing. The Crowe version also has two of the bad guys (Crowe and the guy who used twin pistols) be almost cartoonishly good and quick shots. In general, the modernized version was simply sleazed up and dumbed down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.144.158 (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] quote 'tough son of a bitch'

my hearing of this quote was 'for a one-legged rancher he sure was a tough son of a bitch'.

I think that's correct. Certainly to call him a redneck would be inappropriate, and hadn't been used thus far, whereas rancher had.

Phatmattbaker 23:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last sentence in the plot description

But then he whistles to his horse, which runs after the train revealing that he allowed himself to be captured in order for Evans' family to receive the money, but the deal only said Wade had to get on the train, not go to prison.

I disagree. Given the fact that it was Raining in Bisbee by the end of the movie, and therefore it was established that the Evans family no longer needed the money that got Dan there in the first place, this is an inadequate explanation for why Wade got on the train, only for the implication to reveal that he wouldn't remain on it for long.

No, I believe it is because Wade has decided that to do otherwise would have required him to shoot or be shot by William, neither of which he wants to happen. So ultimately he gets on the train as a sort of illusion for William, so that he does not lose respect for the rule of law that his father has taught him. To consider the money relevant by this point in the story is to have missed an important plot point.

--76.224.90.253 17:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot section too long

Someone needs to make the plot section more concise. At the moment, it reads more like a narrative of the movie. Compare for instance the difference in length between the plot section of the '57 original and that of this article. --Owain loft 23:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

3:10 to Yuma (1957 film) isn't a good article, either. It helps to understand that there is much more rabid interest in this 2007 film's Wikipedia article than its predecessor. I haven't had a chance to see the film yet, so I'd suggest being bold and trimming the section per WP:MOSFILMS#Plot. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)