Talk:The Wild Bunch

Untitled

If someone could clarify the runtimes of the various versions in the info box -- they're deeply confusing at present. 202.168.10.176 03:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the film doesn't take place in 1913- the Machine Gun featured in the finale is a Browning M1917, not introduced until 1917. Seeing as most of the rest of the film is surprisingly accurate (down to the correct markings on the rifle crates!), and one of the characters makes mention of aeroplanes- "They're gonna use them in the war", which the US didn't enter until late 1917- it would stand to reason that this is when the film is set. --Commander Zulu 13:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The film takes place in 1913, referencing several books written on Sam Peckinpah and the "Wild Bunch" film. The use of the machine gun in the film was most likely historically inaccurate, though this point has never been critiqued and is not really considered a flaw in the film. I deleted the information related to the guns used in the film as this is original information that has never been written about. If there is an article or book that points this out, it would be great to reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskent2002 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, anachronistic guns subtract from films--like John Wayne using an 1892 Winchester in 1866. No matter who says it was supposed to be 1913; it had to be 1914-1915 from historical references. And, even though the U.S. didn't enter the war until 1917; we all knew of the war in Europe, starting in 1914. "They're gonna use 'em in the War" didn't necessarily mean just the US. Sergio Leone tries to be accurate, it only costs "a few dollars more"...68.231.185.24 (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Various Versions

I first saw this movie in about 1969 or 1970 in Cape Town. The opening scenes were somewhat different (in my memory) from the scenes that one sees today on a DVD hired from the local video store. In the old version I saw, the "Salvation Army band" is shot to pieces in vivid and shocking detail. Can anybody explain this? Was there more than one version of the original movie? Captainbeefart 13:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I haven't seen the dvd but the Sally Army band was most definitely shot up.Twobells (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

They were the "South Texas Temperance Union" (no where did it say: "Salvation Army"); and every version I have seen was them caught in the crossfire..the children burning a scorpion on an ant hill--symbolism? The dying bird, later?68.231.185.24 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems with "Motifs" and "Themes" section

Hi everyone, the "Motifs" and the "Themes" sections, while well-written and providing commentary and analysis that I agree with, certainly seems like the product of original research. While there is always the temptation for movies we love to just go ahead and write about them, Wikipedia is not the place for essays or personal analysis. What is needed in this section are referenced quotes from established film critics about this film. Considering its acknowledged greatness, this should be not too hard. Lipsticked Pig 00:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Themes" had some terrific stuff, though most of it was original work. Much of it could be referenced in critiques, though not all of it. I deleted most of it, and left the themes that are generally common knowledge. I plan of referencing them. Chriskent2002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskent2002 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Jaime Sánchez

The link here leads to an athlete who was born after the movie was made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.60.174 (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Gore

Wild Bunch is on the AFI Top 100 list, I forget where it falls, though. I remember in the AFI tv special that covers the 100 films, somebody says Wild Bunch is really the first movie to actually show realistic blood/blood effects. (The MPAA ratings system had been created the previous year.) Anybody else remember this? I can't remember who said it, or the exact wording. It would be good to add to the article if we could find out who/what. --24.21.149.124 (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Body squibs (simulated bullet hits) had already been used in Bonnie and Clyde realesed two years before. Peckinpah enhanced the effect slightly with "pieces of meat", but what really made this movie controversial at the time was the completly new way of editing with a combination of slow-motion and inter-cutting from many different angles. This combined with dirty caracters you could almost smell because of the way they looked, gave an impact of violence and gore never achived before. Still the best western ever made to my opinion! --Towpilot (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Glitches?

There is a Browning model of 1917 machine gun prominently used in a movie that had to be around 1914-1915. "War " is mentioned; also "Pershings troops" deployed around border (starting in 1914).Nothing about the Villa raid or Pershing's expedition, so it would have to be before 1916. This makes a gun, not invented until 1917, a bit of an anachronism. Most went to France, first in late 1917. Plus, their U.S. .30-'06 caliber would be a bit difficult to find in Mexico; as 80% of the guns used were German, taking 7mm or 8mmm Mauser. An '08 Maxim or even a Vickers would be more in place--our army did buy a few.

Also, the model 1917 Enfields--'03A3 Springfields would have been more like it. But again in American calibers, this would cause confusion among federal troops with Mausers, getting ammo mixed up.

American M1 Grenades, although fun to see, weren't there until 1917, also.68.231.185.24 (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)