Talk:True Grit (2010 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Poster: International v US

I have to admit, I'm not happy with the look of the international poster. The US poster gives the idea of the film which is supposed to be raw. I don't think the character poster gives that impression. It is, in fact, just another character poster. Quentin X (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we move this discussion to the talk page of the film article?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

First let me say thank you for starting discussion and moving it here. However I respectfully disagree, aesthetics aside I feel the international poster better represents the film with the inclusion of the cast and unlike the character posters it does not single out one character. I do like the wanted poster look of the US version so I do not have a strong opinion either way.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Page Rating

What's with the page rating thing at the bottom of the article asking for us to rate the quality, completeness, etc of the article? I've never seen that thing before and I can't tell how it was added to the article. Where can I find more information? Tex (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This article was selected to be part of the pilot program for the Article Feedback Tool, which was announced here. There is a FAQ (possibly slightly out of date).

While True Grit is not part of the Public Policy Initiative, the Article Feedback tool has been enabled on several pages that meet various criteria in order to help us gather data about its effectiveness. This article is (almost) perfect for our testing needs: it was a short, near-stub when the tool was introduced and we expect that the article will receive a large amount of traffic (and editing) in the near future (as it is released, and then probably as it enters Oscar season). This life-cycle arc will enable us to see how effective the tool is with measuring quality over time in a more rapid, predictable environment.

If you want more information, please let me know and I'll answer any questions you may have.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jorm. I have responded over here on your personal account. Tex (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Total Film

I have referenced Total Film's 5 star review in the Reception section of the page. I hope this is not removed as spam. Total Film rarely gives 5 star reviews and this seemed to fit better in the Reception area (given the tone set by the information from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) than External Links. NB Quote from review added 23 Dec 2010.LizHawkins (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

LaBoeuf vs. La Boeuf

I hate to be anal retentive and pedantic, but I've noticed that there seems to no clear consensus online about how LaBoeuf's name is spelled. The 2010 version gives the credit for the character as "LaBoeuf" (which is the spelling I use), however, I have also found his name written as "La Boeuf" or even "Le Boeuf". The version of the book I own is the 2010 Overlook Press paperback with the movie cover, so I'm not sure if the use of the "LaBoeuf" spelling in the book is faithful to the original or a minor edit to fall in line with the new movie. I will have to verify the spelling of the name in the 1969 adaption (via the end credits) and the original novel (an older edition, and hopefully the Saturday Evening Post version). For the time being, I'm going to change this article over to the "LaBoeuf" spelling for consistency. If anyone else can verify the spellings, I would appreciate the help. Fickce4 (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

My 1968 edition of the novel uses "LaBoeuf". The 1969 film credit is "La Boeuf", with a space. >>> 76.234.168.91 (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter how previous versions spelled it. The end credits of this movie spells it "LaBoeuf", so that's what should be used here. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I was curious about the other versions so that their respective pages can be updated with the correct spelling. I know the novel page uses the "Le" spelling, which didn't seem right. Thanks IP for the info!Fickce4 (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Question on Mattie

I heard this from several non-reputable sources, but in short they said that if the actress playing Mattie were to receive an award nomination, it would be for best supporting actress. Why? She is definitively the main character. She is in every scene, the story revolves around her will and begins and ends with her narration. I understand that she didn't get top billing because this was her first movie, and Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon have significant roles, but why is Josh Brolin listed higher than her in the cast list when he only has ten lines and appears for twenty minutes? IT just doesn't seem right that she is not getting credit she deserves because it was her first movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.94.110 (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It's politics. I was confused as well why Hailie would end up in a 'supporting' nomination despite being the main character. According to the acting rules for an Oscar nomination, the lead/supporting role terminology is more of a misnomer and has nothing to do with the size of the role. The names really refer to who generally wins them (leads vs supporting roles). To be nominated, you have to receive a certain number of votes in a category. It appears that Hailie was probably nominated for both categories, but either failed to receive the amount needed for Best Actress or some of the voters elected to give her the vote in a category she has more of a chance of winning.

The billing is generally based on contracts. An actor's contract can stipulate that they only get first billing or what not. Otherwise, the billing generally goes by the most 'decorated' actor and failing that, will use the size of role. In this case, since this is Hailie's first movie, almost any of the actors in the movie have bigger 'clout'. Brolin has won numerous awards and is well known, so he is also a publicity draw (and he probably has a nice contract). In both cases, politics win out. Fickce4 (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Bible Verse in the opening

Is the Bible verse in the film's opening important enough to include in the article? Capt. Colonel (edits) 21:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Barte (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Fourth Outlaw

The climactic gunfight in all versions of True Grit has Rooster Cogburn confronting four mounted outlaws. He seriously wounds the leader, Lucky Ned Pepper, who is then killed by Ranger LaBoeuf's "bully shot". Rooster also shoots and kills the two "touched" Parmalee brothers, Harold and Farrell. The fourth outlaw, however, escapes with his life and his loot. This last point is explicit in the novel, but is often missed by viewers of the two film versions.

The fourth outlaw is described in the 1968 novel as a Mexican gambler known as "The Original Greaser Bob" (p148). and it is clear that he survives the final gunfight: "The Original Greaser Bob rode wider than the others and he lay flat on his horse and escaped clear with his winnings." (p201)

In the 1969 film the fourth outlaw is referred to as "The Original Mexican Bob" and, in the credits, as "Dirty Bob". This change from the novel is doubtless due to a desire to reduce possible ethnic offense. Bob is portrayed by actor Carlos Rivas, and he is clearly seen escaping the battle while Rooster is busy dispatching the Parmalees.

In the Coen Brothers 2010 version, the Mexican outlaw is replaced entirely by an Anglo character named "Doctor" or "Doc", who is seen, very briefly, escaping the gunfight. You never see him take a bullet, you never see his body on the ground, and you never see his riderless horse. The online script confirms this:

    "The Doctor Indian-rides past, sliding down and hooking an ankle on his saddle so that he may ride in the cover of his horse’s body. 
    He makes for the treeline on the far side of the meadow." (p105)

Although the Coens replaced the Mexican character, they apparently liked his original name so much that they used it elsewhere in the script. The strange "Bear Man", Dr. Forster, suggests that Rooster and Mattie take shelter in a nearby dugout whose traveling owner, "The Original Greaser Bob", wouldn't begrudge its use. Greaserbob (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What in the hell does this have to do with anything? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This has to do with the error in the plot summary concerning the outcome of the climactic gunfight. The summary says that Rooster kills three of the outlaws. In fact, he kills two, and the third escapes. It also has to do with the introduction in the Coen film of a new character, The Doctor, who replaces the Mexican outlaw of earlier versions. Greaserbob (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

All of these details about the novel, the earlier film, etc., are utterly irrelevant. And the plot section should not be burdened with unnecessary details. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems, RJ, that the love of accurate detail does not abide in thee. How would you like to summarize the plot? Perhaps: "They crossed the river. They killed some outlaws. They killed some snakes. They recrossed the river." Greaserbob (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you assume good faith and not make assumptions about other editors and their motivations. My thought is that an edit summary should conform to WP's guidelines, which means not being overburdened with tedious details. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Your own rude responses do not assume good faith. I suggest you give some thought to practicing what you preach. Greaserbob (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You have a nasty attitude, sir. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The only 'attitude' I see here is yours RepublicanJacobite. Greaserbob has been a model of good humoured restraint. The film is significant and so is plot detail and analysis--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Mattie & horse forded, swam, crossed.......

A revert war is not the best way to achieve consensus. So please discuss here.Barte (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

She crossed the river. Why do we need to say anything more complicated than that? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

And we have no way to know if the horse was swimming or walking. "Crossed" works. Capt. Colonel(edits) 05:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You could consult the novel (p106): "Blackie ... swam as though he was raised to it." Or you could see the film, where it is obvious that the horse is swimming vigorously. 76.234.168.91 (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Saying Mattie crossed the river is like saying Sherman visited Georgia. It doesn't quite capture the drama of the event, does it? 76.234.168.91 (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not even close to a valid comparison. And saying "swimming" doesn't make it more dramatic. Capt. Colonel (edits) 05:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, here's how the production notes on truegritmovie.com describe the stunt: "One of the most difficult stunts, which took preparation and training for the stunt rider and the horses, was the river crossing that demarcates Mattie's journey into the territory of legends, as Mattie and her horse Little Blackie take an unlikely swim to the other side." (I'm not suggesting this un-encylopedic wording, just noting the phrase.) Training began at a racehorse training facility near Austin. According to the wrangler, "We started there, then increased the distance they swam each day. When they got to where they could swim double the distance of the river with the saddle, and pulling the rider, then we thought, okay, we're ready." Divers then scouted the river for a crossing free of debris, and a ramp was built to help the horse exit.

My take, the scene depicts Mattie and the horse crossing the river; the horse swam; Mattie rode the swimming horse.Barte (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It is confirmed (as stated by Barte) through the official movie website that the horse swam and it appears Mattie swam while holding the saddle horn (you are not supposed to ride a horse that is swimming, if it's even possible). Swimming does not conform to the definition of fording a river so that term cannot be applied. I also agree that the term 'crossed' does not convey the right impact since choosing to dangerously swim across exemplifies Mattie's determination. I suggest that the plot summary use the term swam; at the very least, it is the most accurate term. Fickce4 (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

How about: "After she is refused passage on the river ferry conveying Cogburn and La Boeuf, Mattie catches up by riding her horse as he swims across. On the far side, she learns that the two men have agreed to split the Texas reward for Chaney." Barte (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good, I just have a couple of bones to pick. First, as I stated above, one does not ride a horse that is swimming. The rider rides the horse into the water then floats alongside while holding the saddle. It's only after the horse regains its footing that the rider remounts and rides the horse out of the water. This is shown in the movie (though the dismounting and remounting are not as obvious). The other change I would make would be to use 'conveyed' rather than 'conveying', as Cogburn and LaBoeuf were already on the other shore when Mattie arrives. Beyond that, I have no qualms but I imagine this will require a consensus vote. Fickce4 (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Some here want to treat Mattie's "river crossing" as a trivial event, hardly worth mentioning, when in fact it's the first important demonstration of her courage and determination — her own true grit. Not for nothing is John Wayne's Rooster inspired to exclaim from the ferry: "By God, she reminds me of ME!" >>> 76.234.168.91 (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. One critic (can't remember who) noted that the Coens' substituted a knowing look from Bridges for the quote from Wayne, but that the narrative point was the same. Combining a few threads here, including the wrangler's quote above:

"After she is refused passage on the ferry that conveyed Cogburn and La Boeuf, Mattie demonstrates her own "true grit" by riding into the river and being pulled across by her swimming horse. On the far side, she learns that the two men have agreed to split the Texas reward for Chaney." Barte (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This version by Barte, incorporating suggestions by Fickce4, is spot on. >>> 76.234.168.91 (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

V2.1: "After she is refused passage on the river ferry that conveyed Cogburn and LaBoeuf, Mattie demonstrates her own "true grit" by riding into the water and being pulled across by her swimming horse. On the far side, she learns that the two men have agreed to split the Texas reward for Chaney." Barte (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There being no further objections....I'm adding the above to the article. Barte (talk) 06:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that this is a whole lot of unnecessary detail for a very minor plot point, all to satisfy an anonymous user who has not made a single positive contribution to this site. She crossed the bloody river, period. Instead, we get this rubbish about Mattie demonstrating "her own 'true grit'", which is entirely POV and inappropriate wording. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Then feel free to go revert it back to the neutral wording or get consensus here. I disagree with you about the plot point--I think it's major, not minor--and worth noting with due emphasis. (But not enough to spend any more time on it.) I would add that plot summaries are by nature POV, and for that matter, OR. In every one I've seen, editors have decided what points to include, what to emphasize, and what to omit--without a single cite to back it all up. Barte (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both Barte's rationale and with Barte's wording which economically covers all the bases. @republicanjacobite --we do not denigrate or exalt the opinion of an editor based on either their anonymity or the size of their previous contributions--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully there is some encyclopedic way to discuss the event, and how it fits in with the theme, and even the title of the moview. It seems clear to be the event that explains why Rooster would allow her to continue the journey, much less his other actions, without getting too deep into literary analysis. Mattie was refused to be able to ford the river, but went anyway, probably knowing the probability of contracting or even dying from diseases like dysentery.Cander0000 (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Plot Summary

I don't want to get into a revert war so I'm flagging this up here. I thought the plot summary was in very good shape after Wecantdoanythingaboutit's edit on the 8th April. I feel that the subsequent edits have started to take the summary towards a blow-by-blow account of the whole film and is leaving the section looking cluttered. I would point editors towards Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. Specifically the following advice:

"The objective of a summary is to condense a large amount of information into a short, accessible format. It is not to reproduce the experience of reading or watching the story, nor to cover every detail. For those who have not read or seen the story, it should serve as a general overview of the major points. For those who have, it should be detailed enough to refresh their memory—no more.

A plot summary is not a recap. It should not cover every scene and every moment of a story. A website like Television Without Pity is a great resource, but we're not doing the same thing they are, and we shouldn't follow their lead on summaries."

What do people think? Arthur Holland (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. It's a summary, not a shooting schedule. Barte (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, the plot summary has (to my mind) continued to go downhill since my post above -- too much detail, too much poor/unclear prose. Therefore (and since there's been no negative reaction to my comment above) I'm reverting to the 8th April version mentioned above. I'm happy to discuss if anyone has issues. Arthur Holland (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

entertainment weekly

uh. i'm all down for the bar thing that summarizes rottentomatoes/metacritic scores, but honestly: if we're going to pick one review in particular from one publication to highlight, ew? really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.126.112 (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

date of narration

It seems clear that the narration is not occurring when Matty is 40, but much later (in the book it is apparently in 1928, so when she is about 65). She is 40 when Rooster dies, but the narration is happening sometime later. We know from his tombstone that Rooster died at the age of 78 in 1903 - he is thus 38 years older than Matty. In her narration, Matty says that if LaBoeuf is still alive, he is over 70, and closer to 80 than 70. If the narration is going on in 1903, then she is saying LaBoeuf is the same age as Cogburn, which obviously is not intended to be the case. I also thought that the Matty contemplating Rooster's grave looked older than the Matty at the Wild West Show, but that's probably not dispositive. Anyway, something vaguer might be in order? john k (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I added 25 to 14 and I got 39, not 40. I've not read the novel. But just this afternoon I saw the movie and I didn't see or hear anything specific about her birthdate. So how did other people get that her age was 40 rather than 39, by movie's end? Also, I was so taken aback by how different older Matty looks from her teenage self, that I found it difficult to accept her as being the same person. So I agree that she looked too old to be merely 39 or 40. I thought of Margaret Hamilton's Wicked Witch minus the green, so severe looking was older Matty's face. So yes please, some futher clarification about theri ages, especially Matty's, thank you! 70.129.174.192 (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the plot summary says the movie takes place in 1877, seeing as the official plot given for the movie only states that it is "in the 1870s". I also see in a number of places that claim Mattie was 40 in 1903, but I cannot find a verification on that. It may have been stated in the movie, but I do not recall anything of the sort, just an older Mattie narrating. The movie does not seem to contain much detail about such things as dates. But given the closeness of the film to the novel (especially in terms of the dialogue), I went ahead and used the book to roughly calculate the ages. Note: All numbers in parenthesis allude to page numbers in the 2010 Overlook Press paperback version of "True Grit".

The most concrete details are given about Rooster Cogburn. Cogburn's headstone states that he lived from 1835-1903 (223). As Mattie goes to visit him in the summer of 1903 only to discover he had died a few days beforehand (220-222), the year of death is accurate. It is worth noting that "Younger reckoned his age at sixty-eight years" (222), meaning that the birth year may have been based on that figure and may not be accurate. However, it is also mentioned that he received a small headstone from the CSA, so unless there were no dates included on it (unlikely as most pictured online have dates), the age would then have been confirmed (223). Cogburn states that he spent four years in "the bullet department" during the war (157). The page on Quantrill's Raiders states the years active as being 1861 - May 1865 (just before the death of Quantrill). Cogburn states that when he "heard that they had all give up in Virginia... [we] turned over our arms" (142). The Confederacy surrendered April 9th, 1865, but many were not immediately aware of this and some armies did not immediately disband. By the end of 1865, all major groups were essentially nullified so it is likely that May 1865 would be a reasonable date for Cogburn leaving the army. If he left in May 1865, his four years would have begun in 1862. Using 1835 as his year of birth, this would have made him 27 years old when he joined and 31 when he left. Given his birth in 1835 and given Mattie's description of Cogburn as being "about forty years of age", then the main story of True Grit occurred somewhere between 1874 and 1876 (1875±1). This would then imply that 28 years had passed between the end of the story and his death. Also, placing his age at about forty during the story would make him approximately 26 years older then Mattie.

Using the years determined from Cogburn's history, it is then possible to determine the age of La Boeuf. Mattie describes him initially as being "around thirty years of age" (71). By his own admission, he joined the (Confederate) Army of Northern Virginia on his fifteenth birthday until the war ended six months later (156-7). Seeing as he was in the Third Battle of Petersburg which was commanded by Lee and was a week before the surrender, it is fairly safe to assume he knew of the war's end quickly (157). Subtracting 6 months of service from the date of surrender (4/9/1865), this approximately places La Boeuf's 15th birthday in December 1864, and subsequently places his date of birth as 12/1849. Then working from the approximate dates of 1874-1876 for the date of the main story and using his approximate birth date, this places La Boeuf's age as being 25-27 years old during the main story. He would have been approximately 11-13 years older than Mattie. This is slightly younger than Mattie's initial impression, however, using a larger error would account for this. Mattie states in her final narration that at the time of writing, La Boeuf would be "in his seventies now, and nearer eighty than seventy" (224). Approximating his age between 75-80 during the final narration and using his approximate birth year, this would place the year of the narration (and writing, as it is implied to be Mattie's autobiography) as 1924-1929.

Finally, from there we can infer the age of Mattie during the various periods. Mattie states herself to be 14 at the time of the story (11), so using the approximate dates of 1874-6, this places her birth year as being 1860-2. This would make Mattie 41-43 years old in 1903, when she goes to visit Cogburn only to find that he has died. Given that the year of the final narration is between 1924-9, Mattie would have been 62-69.

I believe this analysis is fairly accurate for the book, but it is possible small details were changed for the movie. It is also worth noting that with the exception of Hailee (who was 14 at the time of shooting), the other actors did not necessarily reflect the age of the original characters (Jeff Bridges being 61 rather than ~40, Matt Damon being 40 rather than ~30, Josh Brolin being 42 rather than ~25 (12)). Finally, it can be inferred that the date of narration of the novel and film as being after 1918 as Mattie states she "exchanged letters every Christmas" with Yarnell (the man with her at the beginning of the story) "until he passed away in the flu epidemic of 1918" (13). This then verifying that my analysis is somewhat accurate. Despite the lack of verification behind the dates in the plot summary, they would appear to be fairly accurate based on my analysis. That being said, I considered the parts with the older Mattie the worst in the movie. Her appearance and voice were so different from Hailee's it was really jarring. Fickce4 (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there is some Chaos_theory there, that is, slight differences in the earlier assumptions or interpretations, or for that matter disagreements amongst viewers as to those interpretations, lead to modest if not large variations rather than the exact ages arrived at... Maybe better to describe the ages in an order of magnitude (e.g. Mattie was 40-45, or 'early 40's). After all, these are fictional characters for which such definitive dates are in fact, 'fictional'.Cander0000 (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In the book, Odus Wharton - the defendant in the trial scene - appeals to President Hayes to commute his death sentence. Hayes was in office March 1877 to March 1881, so that's when the action in the book is set. Of course, both movie screenplays are works of fiction in their own right so it could be argued that they aren't tied down by evidence in the book, but late 1870s (or even early 1880s) rather than early 1870s seems right for the firearms used, too (Winchester 73, Sharps 74, Remington 75). — Preceding Paul J Williams (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC) comment added by Paul J Williams (talk • contribs) 11:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Mention of Younger and James in plot summary

I added the mention of Cole Younger and Frank James to the plot summary as they are both notorious Wild West outlaws and I assumed this notewrothy enough. I see no reason the edit should have been reverted, it's not adding massive amounts of extra detail to the summary. Bobfordsgun (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate this post, I still do not see how this information is relevant. It may not be a "massive amount" of information, it still has to be relevant and noteworthy. I do not see any indication that it is. I will wait to see if other editors post here before reverting. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

IMO, it has no bearing on the plot and is just needlessly cluttering the synopsis. Arthur Holland (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Their being "... both notorious Wild West outlaws ..." is interesting but not germane to the plot. I can see no value to including this edit. I recommend the reversion should be made. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 16:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Very well, then. Apologies. Bobfordsgun (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

However, while it may not be integral to the plot, it is both noteworthy and relevant, imo haha. Bobfordsgun (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I have just re-watched the film (for the second time) and paid more attention to the scene and what led up to it. I confess that, prior to your revision, Bobfordsgun, here, the identity of the two men had escaped me. If I may be so bold, I believe this is a good example of where your completing an edit summary might have avoided a revert together with a direction to start a discussion before any re-instating should be carried out.

Thank you for the information, but it still need not be in the plot summary, although I am pleased to read it in the cast/character list.

Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 20:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

When I found out it was Younger and James in the scene, I was pleasantly intrigued as I've always been interested in the James-Younger gang, hence my screen-name haha. That's why I included it as I thought it noteworthy, I guess it'd be more of an interesting side note and can see now it really has no bearing on the plot summary. Nonetheless, I appreciate the goodwill showed by yourselves rather than just reverting the edit and ignoring the matter. Bobfordsgun (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked at your User page on the 17th inst. and realised the James connection then. It is always pleasing to meet a polite editor of whom one has no prior knowledge. All the best to you, until we come up together somewhere else on Wikipedia. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 17:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)