Talk:The Hateful Eight/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pre-production

The pre-production section is in terrible state and needs rewriting, I don't have the time to do so, so I just fixed some grammar mistakes that were present to make it more understandable in the meantime. M BARTELS M 00:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: the company's press release, as quoted for example here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"Claiming to be" extensions?

Walton Goggins as Chris Mannix ("The Sheriff "), a southern renegade claiming to be Red Rock's new sheriff.[4][5][7][10] Demián Bichir as Bob ("The Mexican"), the caretaker of Minnie's Haberdashery.[5][4][11] Tim Roth as Oswaldo Mobray ("The Little Man"), the hangman of Red Rock[5][7][4][12] Michael Madsen as Joe Gage ("The Cow Puncher"), a cow-puncher.[7][4][5][13]

Not to give away the plot, but shouldn't there be a few more "claiming to be" if there needs to be one on the first line? NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Should be OK to give away the plot on the talk page, I think. Actually it's given away in the plot summary, too. Chris Mannix's claim to be the new sheriff of Red Rock is a prominent feature of his character, and is vehemently disbelieved by John Ruth. Major Warren never goes as far as to say he believes it either, and we never do find out if it's true. (It seems implausible; as far as we know he's never been there, he's a renegade, i.e. criminal, comes from 2000 miles away, has never been to Red Rock as far as we're told, and it's before the age of electronic communications, so how would he have gotten elected or hired? Moreover, he probably would have a letter or telegram to prove it).

Three members of the Domingre gang are claiming false identities, but we (eventually) know they're false, and that's all part of a major plot element. You could say THE central plot element. So, their claims are not suspect, they're false, and to give that away in one of the first paragraphs of the main page WOULD be serious spoilers. (If you haven't seen the movie, and you're reading the plot summary, of course it's your own fault if you read spoilers, but it's possible someone might just read the first few paragraphs and decide not to spoil the entire movie for themselves).Neurodog (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC) You could list them as, for example, "Bob" aka Marco the Mexican, but that would spoil things nearly as badly. These guys eventually turn out to be someone else; John Roth knew from the beginning that at least one of them would, but we don't find that out for sure until halfway through. With Chris Mannix, on the other hand, his suspect claim to be Sheriff of Red Rock is practically the first thing out of his mouth, his main identifying characteristic, and it never does get proven or disproven, so his case is different from theirs. I think the way it's handled is exactly right.Neurodog (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Oswaldo Mobray says three of us were on the stage. There's only him and Joe Gage. If he is referring to Bob, in the stable, their "story" falls apart, Bob says he has been there a number of months. If he's talking about the General, that "story" could possibly fall apart. My conclusion is the Oswaldo just screwed up and John Ruth didn't catch the mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.95.139.71 (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Piracy

Why does the piracy section keep getting removed? ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It's just as important as the script leak. This film has had rocky beginnings, and they should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4003:1700:A4F5:7651:4A3D:44FE (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Leaked Script ending.

I was wondering if we could find any place to put the original ending in the article? Having read the ending, it was pretty sweet. Tarantino said on Kimmel that he considered this an ending, but not the ending he wanted just yet.

Like in the final cut, in the leaked script Ruth is poisoned by the coffee which leads to his death. Major Warren then puts Oswaldo, Joe Gage, Sheriff Mannix, and Joe (who is a Frenchman in the original script, not a Mexican) against the wall at gun point before calling Sheriff Mannix back over to his side. Unlike in the final cut where Major Warren threatens Daisy with the poisoned coffee, he instead plays three rounds of Russian Roulette with her until Joe Gage gives himself up. Oswaldo and Bob then temporarily throw Gage under the bus as Gage takes full responsibility for attempting to kill Ruth and save Daisy. Oswaldo and Bob then take similar "kill positions" behind Major Warren and Mannix as they did when they killed Minnie and Sweet Dave earlier in the movie. Daisy and Joe Gage try to reason with Major Warren and Mannix similarly like they do in the final cut of the movie, claiming that Jody has fifteen men waiting to descend on the Haberdashery as soon as the blizzard ends. Oswaldo and Bob attempt to stick to their covers and convince Warren and Mannix that they don't want to die for two criminals, but Warren and Mannix agree that they are willing to die to see justice fulfilled on Daisy and Gage. Mannix then attempts to force Gage to drink the poisoned coffee in retaliation for Ruth's death, which causes Oswaldo and Bob to draw their weapons. In short order, Major kills Bob, and Mannix shoots Oswaldo in the stomach causing him to writhe in pain for the rest of the movie. Joe Gage shoots both Warren and Mannix in the back, which causes both men to kill Gage. Jody who is also hiding in the basement in the original draft shoots Major Warren in the groin, and the gets into a firefight through the floor with Mannix. Daisy picks up Oswaldo's gun and uses it to kill Major Warren as Mannix finally kills Jody. Before she has an opportunity to fire again, Daisy is killed by a bleeding Mannix. The door now opened again by the fire fight lets in the blizzard as Mannix wraps himself in buffalo skin and falls asleep on a bed as Oswaldo continues to scream in pain.73.30.186.225 (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. I found a source, so I added it to the article (concisely summarised, of course!). Popcornduff (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Chapter 3: Minnie's Haberdashery

"Ruth, suspicious that the lodgers may seek to protect Daisy, disarms all but Warren and Mannix" pretty sure he has already disarmed Mannix and doesn't re-arm him as Warren does that later on in Chapter 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.68.202 (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Auckland, New Zealand

Six Horse Judy is mistaken. Dunedin, not Auckland, would have been New Zealand's most populous city at the time this movie was set. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunedin

$50,000

$50,000 in 1870 dollars (approximately $1,205,000 today). Billy the Kid was $5,000 in 1880 (approximately $158,000 today).

Wyoming

The article states:

According to the script, the story is set in Wyoming, in the 1870s ("six or eight or twelve years after the Civil War"), and while a town called "Red Rock" is mentioned numerous times, the actual state where Red Rock is supposed to exist is never stated or shown in the script or in the final film.[15][16]

This is just patently untrue. The final film makes multiple references to Minnie's Haberdashery and Red Rock being located in Wyoming. 2601:2C2:100:3968:1580:C86C:CF8:7666 (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Cited sources take precedence over claims of personal memory. Also, the plot is at 700 words exactly as per WP:FILMPLOT and should not be added to. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, what if the user is correctly remembering? The movie itself is the source here. Does anyone know exactly if the movie states Wyoming or not? Popcornduff (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There's the rub — no one making these claims regarding personal memory seems to be able to state where exactly in the movie "Wyoming" is stated. If they can't do that, then what are they remembering? That they think they heard it. In any case, two cited sources in the article contradict the claim of "Wyoming". Personal memory doesn't supersede WP:RS citations. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Wyoming is not mentioned in the actual film. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That's odd, because I clearly remember Wyoming being mentioned once or twice at least, although I've only seen the movie once, so I don't exactly remember at what point or in what context Wyoming was mentioned.--BigPig (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The film is set in Wyoming. Several publications mention this:

- “The Hateful Eight” takes place in postbellum Wyoming" - [The New Yorker]
- "Tarantino's screenplay — profanely agile, as always — lays Agatha Christie's template in Wyoming, several years post-Civil War." - [Tampa Bay Times]
- "Set in Wyoming shortly after the Civil War, the film maroons the titular group of unsavory types at a stagecoach stopover during a blizzard." - [LA Times]

And I know personal memory is often disregarded, but just for fun (and from someone who's seen the film three times):

- When Marquis Warren is telling Sanford Smithers about meeting his son ("I swear, if you let me go home to my family, I'll never set foot in Wyoming again.")

- When Chris Mannix talks to Sanford Smithers about his visit ("What are you doing in Wyoming, sir?")

- When Sanford Smithers talks with Jody in the flashback ("I don't give a damn about any of these people! Or you! Or anyone in Wyoming for that matter!").

2602:306:CD79:7540:601A:AA82:E88B:56A4 (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

These sound specific enough and eminently checkable in the film itself. If another editor can confirm statements are in the film, Wyoming seems correct to me. What do other editors think? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I just watched the film again last night. The three quotes given above are correct. Red Rock, of course, is mentioned numerous times, but I'm quite sure it's never mentioned what state it is in, so it could be somewhere else, maybe Montana, although Wyoming certainly seems most likely. According to the Wikipedia article for Red Rock (disambiguation) there are a lot of things and places called Red Rock, but the only one in Wyoming is a rock, not a town. There are a few towns by that name, but the closest one to Wyoming is in Oklahoma, not really close at all.Neurodog (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Positive reviews

Would anyone have any issue adding some positive reviews since it's not particularly well balanced/reflective? We've only got one pro against two cons despite being considered positive overall. Frankly Man (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Added a couple. Popcornduff (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Adaptation

The movie is loosely based on the movie The Spessart Inn which is based on the 1827 novel by the same name written by Wilhelm Hauff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.53.13.18 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 23:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Added a new section about the complexities of the treatment of Daisy

The debates about Daisy form a significant point of disagreement in the critical discussion of the Hateful Eight. These debates deserve to be noted, as they are different to much of the critical reception of other Tarantino films, given that there are always some objections to his style and tone, the commentaries about the Hateful Eight and Daisy are not simply people not "liking" or not "understanding" stylistic elements of the film nor are they about inhibited and conservative misreadings of Tarantino's aesthetic, or feminists hating Tarantino they interrogate whether the film plausibly expresses his state political intentions. This debate is real and present in press and journal and blog accounts and to ignore it is to distort the reception of the film. Movie internet comment boards tend to buy the Daisy is a racist psychopath line and applaud the treatment of her as valid

I don't dislike Tarantino's filmmaking recognise his unique skills but all sides of the reception of the film needs to be present

Its very early in the morning and I need to add more details into the references ... but am too tired Bebe Jumeau (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the many hours you have labored on the new section, so far. (I noticed it while fact-checking films that had roots to The Black List.)

In the 'original' final paragraph, a couple of glaring comma/parentheses typos stuck out, inside a quotation, so when I checked your cite (which was the source for the bad grammar) it became obvious that the website was from an ordinary blogger with poor typing skills & not a reliable source.

Opinion pieces about living persons (in this case, Tarantino and not just his film or characters) must be held to a higher standard of verifiability here on Wikipedia.

Actually, I think your overall structure & balance of the section works better without the blog quote: Your opening two paragraphs outline the issues & various reviewers' objections; and then you balance the discussion starting at "Other reviewers commended the [film's] treatment of its female characters..." The deleted blog text didn't even fit in with that paragraph.

Cheers!— DennisDallas (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you - I was so busy thinking of the characters and the treatment in an aesthetic and imaginary sense that I actually did not think in terms of noticing the collateral damage in the shape a statement about a real person that could be arguable and unpleasant - and violate the rules for real people representation from a source that I thought was something to do with Etihad Airlines inflight magazine - but as you say seems to be a blog with personal raves - and thank you for not junking the whole of the addition - I think the h8ful 8 has many complex cultural resonances that deserve being presented Bebe Jumeau (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

About daisy. I think that the scene after they drink the cofee (where she says to Roth "when you get to hell. Say daisy sent you") and her brothers passy are sufficient to define her caracter as a big bad badass criminal. This in a 1870 setting is enough to put any anti-feminist claims to shame. She is a very bad caracter in a mens world.

this should be a democratically written page - not policed by one person

This page should reflect a wide range of viewpoints - and it should not be policed by one person and also edited to maintain a hagiographic point of view - I think it is a mark of the film's rapid assimilation into popular culture that it is used in political cartoons in four countries within a few weeks of its release - you don't see that happen with a superhero movie and therefore it is a mark of credit to Tarantino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bebe Jumeau (talk • contribs) 16:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, first, Wikipedia isn't a democracy (see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). And besides, the article already contains material written and edited by many many people, not just one person.

Second, I'm confused by your statement "it should not be policed by one person and also edited to maintain a hagiographic point of view". This is ambiguous. Does this mean you think it should "maintain a hagiographic" point of view, or that it shouldn't? In either case I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Third, the disputed section isn't an easy read. For example: "In 2016 a number of political cartoons have been based upon likening various groups of politicians to the Hateful Eight characters and using the now famous line-up of portraits and the colours and graphic style featured on the cinema poster." I can, to be brutally honest, barely make sense of this sentence.

Fourth, the section contains claims that look suspiciously like original research, such as the claim that the poster is "famous", which is not in the sources given.

Fifth, the section might constitute trivia; I'm not convinced it is notable enough to warrant mentioning, let alone deserving of its own section. (Wikipedia is not interested in collecting "marks of credit" to Tarantino; we should report notable material without bias.) I could be wrong on that, though, and perhaps other editors have an opinion?

These are the reasons I removed the section; I think it is right now quite difficult to defend and at the least needs rewriting. Popcornduff (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it belongs. The sourcing seems pretty weak. It includes a blogspot blog, which is pretty obviously not a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Chapter Titles

Should chapter titles be included? I believe they should, given that they're listed prominently on the screen, and the narrator/director, in the course of advancing the plot, even specifically refers to them at one point ("That's why this chapter is called 'Domergue's Got a Secret'"). Raider Duck (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand the temptation to include the chapter titles, because it makes the summary feel more "complete". But the plot summary is just that: a summary of the plot. It isn't meant to be a comprehensive account of everything that happens in the movie. See WP:FILMPLOT, which states: "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail." The chapter titles do not actually have anything to do with the film's plot, and are instead a stylistic detail. They might be featured prominently in the film, but then so are the soundtrack and special effects; these things also do not have anything to do with the plot. (Remember: a plot is a series of events.)

Another way of looking at it is this: no one's understanding of the events of the film is improved by including chapter titles.

There are cases where including chapter titles is justified. For example, the Pulp Fiction plot is essentially a series of separate plots that are best explained by separating them under different headings. The Hateful Eight has a fairly straightforward plot, though, so there's no need to split it into different sections. Popcornduff (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hollis paragraph under "Critical reception"

Since that addition and related edits are made by an IP-hopping anon user, I'm cc'ing here a note I left at the most recent IP's page, to better the chances that he or she will see this:

I've left your shorter graf — thank you for the judicious edit — and have removed the link since it goes to a commercial-link page where one can buy the article, a vio of Wikipedia guidelines on promotional content and advertising.

I'm also confused: are you citing an article titled "US History in 70mm" or a review of a book by that title, or a review of the movie itself? Could you please clarify?

--Tenebrae (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Greeting Tenebrae -- I did not know my IP had changed: I just got your last message. The piece is a scholarly review of the film, addressing mostly the 70MM aspects and what QT was doing with the format. It's not a book review but a scholarly film review. 69.167.24.81 (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Joe.