Jump to content

Talk:3:10 to Yuma (2007 film)

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

Headlines

[edit]

Part 1

[edit]

Part 2

[edit]

Part 3

[edit]

Part 4

[edit]

Part 5

[edit]

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

Corrected Location Reference

[edit]

... in first paragraph. 3:10 to Yuma takes place in modern day Arizona, at the time known as New Mexico Territory. Existing article mentions only New Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.231.130.2 (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected writing credit

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Release

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree entirely with the preceding comment. I think I'll carry out his suggestion soon unless anybody violently objects. gramorak 12:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gramorak (talk • contribs)

Plot

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It says in the current version that Dan Evans admits to being a deserter. The dialogue, transcribed from the film, is: "I ain't no hero, Wade. Only battle I seen, we was in retreat. My foot got shot off by one of my own men. You try telling that story to your boy. See how he looks at you then." I have changed the account of the plot accordingly. Even better than that (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

quote 'tough son of a bitch'

[edit]

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)[reply]

That's correct. I just saw it.2600:6C50:800:2787:F002:AF44:5C3B:13C2 (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence in the plot description

[edit]

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)[reply]

No, he got on the train to save the boy and his family, who would get everything the Pinkerton agent promised. He didn't want Evans to die, which is why he shot his gang members. He mentioned that he lost his father and his mother abandoned him at a train station. He knew he could escape from prison (he'd done it twice before) and he could easily escape from the train. He had no respect for the law at all. It was all to save the family.--andreasegde (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section too long

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Last sentence of Plot section: NPOV?

[edit]

I think the last sentence, saying "this is one of the best movies in the world" represents an opinion of the writer and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.184.86 (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Academy Award Nominated"?

[edit]

I corrected the entry at the beginning of the article concerning the nomination for this movie. While it is technically true that it was nominated for an Oscar for something (music) the term "academy award nominated" is rightly reserved for those very few movies which are nominated for Best Picture. That is tantamount to releasing a DUD of a movie which nevertheless gets a good review from some local newspaper in a small town, and then calls itself "critically acclaimed".

Philosopher2king (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plot error

[edit]

In the plot it says that Ben Wade uses Dan's cattle as a road block.... this isn't true. The cattle are roaming and are simply there. 68.105.141.91 (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogger Requests Nude Stills

[edit]

This is possibly one of the most bizarre things I've seen in a Wikipedia article. Why on earth is it mentioned? Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completly agree. I don't think this has any bearing on the movie, and should not be mentioned on this page. It should be on the blogger's wiki page, not the movie's. Any dissenters?--Tacit tatum (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on 3:10 to Yuma (2007 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:3:10_to_Yuma_(2007_film)&oldid=1197029360"