Talk:Urban Cowboy

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Houston (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HoustonWikipedia:WikiProject HoustonTemplate:WikiProject HoustonHouston articles

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Rodeo (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rodeo, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.RodeoWikipedia:WikiProject RodeoTemplate:WikiProject RodeoRodeo articles

Country music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Country musicWikipedia:WikiProject Country musicTemplate:WikiProject Country musicCountry music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ownership?

"a real country bar owned by country singer Mickey Gilley"

Can someone confirm this? My personal recollection is that Mickey Gilley licensed the use of his name to the Pasadena club but was not an owner except as one of several silent partners. The Gilley's Dallas site perpetuates the myth(?) that he was the owner. My further recollection is that there were several lawsuits in the mid 1980s over Gilley's, Johnny Lee's and some other clubs/ice houses in Pasadena. I'd be leery to make any edits without confirming one way or the other. Oswald Glinkmeyer 15:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's my recollection that he was the original owner though I could be wrong, but I think you're right that he had at some point just licensed his name and there was some legal wrangling around this (the club I think had actually closed down just prior to the fire over court stuff), I'll have to poke around a little bit and see what I can turn up. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I searched through Lexis, and about the closest I've found is that Gilley is described as a "partner" with Cryer. Apparently at some point Gilley yanked the naming rights for the club, and presumably his partnership, but Cryer continued to use Gilley's name, and that was what precipiated the lawsuit. So I'd say if you want to put "co-owner" or something in there, that might work without getting too bogged down in details. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cryer is who I was thinking of, but I had no source for it and couldn't dig it up anywhere. Oswald Glinkmeyer 17:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural phenomenon

Didn't this film start a whole cultural phenomenon? There's nothing about it, or even a link to it. -76.4.49.201 17:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Box office statistics

In the edit, 08:10, 6 March 2005 195.93.21.72 (Talk) (→Other information), information was added to the article stating:

It has been claimed in several sources since that the film fared poorly at the box office, but truth be told, it grossed almost $54 million in the United States alone, more than Saturday Night Fever (plus a further $24,000,000 in video rentals).

However this information does not state a verifiable source. A quick check of Box Office Mojo [1] indicates that the actual box office receipts were $46,918,287. Further, according to the same source [2], Saturday Night Fever grossed $94,213,184 domestically, not adjusting for inflation. As to the video rentals, I have no information.

Any objections to editing the article to reflect this information? Any suggestions on different sources to support the information in the article? — SMULaw09 | (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

Shey, Brittanie. "Urban Cowboy: How Does It Hold Up In 2010? (SPOILER ALERT)." Houston Press. Friday July 16, 2010. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change

I just added" Buford Uon Davis 'Bud' since Bud is an acronym. Kielhofer 21:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kielhofer (talk • contribs)

I went thru the article and changed the name BUDD to BUD which it should be. Even in the movie he says:My, my full name is Buford Uon Davis, but nobody calls me Buford 'cept my Grandmother, and she's half Indian. My initials are B.U.D., it spells Bud.

Kielhofer 02:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kielhofer (talk • contribs)

Merger proposal

I propose that Urban Cowboy (TV pilot) be merged into this article. The pilot is not even in production yet and may not even make it to series. Therefore having a separate article for the pilot at this point is does not really seem necessary. Also, per WP:TVSHOW, a TV pilot which has not been picked up to series, is not normally eligible for a separate article, and I don't see anything special about this pilot which makes it eligible. All the details in the separate article can be summarized and added to this article. --Babar Suhail (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Star beer

Editors Twinkle and Binksternet keep reverting my edit that points out that the beer being drunk by John Travolta in the bar in the photo at the top of the article Urban Cowboy is from Lone Star Brewing Company, calling it a promotional attempt. Obviously it isn't, it's just a needed legend to explain the photo, which has become an icon, and displays the product prominently, stirring reader interest. I originally wanted the explanation to be in the main article, but now think that a legend going with the image is more appropriate. The article Product placement is itself proof that when a product promotion in a movie is itself of historical interest, it is appropriate to cover it in an encyclopedia. Is there anything more to discuss? The repeated reversion of this info. is close to vandalism and edit warring. I am asking nicely that the last reversion be undone and left alone, else I will be forced to start going through channels so that readers won't be constantly left in the dark and forced to outside Wiki. - 74.95.112.141

When people write about this film, Lone Star beer is not mentioned very much. I oppose your caption because it places undue weight on the beer brand in the photo. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Urban Cowboy. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 14:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception and legacy

Most reviews were positive? "generally positive reviews from critics." Whoever wrote this pulled it out of thin air. I clearly remember this movie being less than positively reviewed in 1980. Naturally I will need to look those up. The next sentence: "On Rotten Tomatoes, the film received a 67% "Fresh" rating based on 18 reviews" sounds very clumsy after the first. Rotten Tomatoes wasn't even conceived of until at least 27 years after this movie came out. Most readers know what is intended however.

Also, someone please address the phenomena of movie reviews changing over time - this movie was panned, but today not so much. People say the same thing about cars that were pieces of crap, but over time, some kind of romantic delusion develops in the public conscience. Cars are probably a bad example of what I'm talking about. However, the Ford Pinto does have fans today, and it was on sale in 1980 shortly before it was widely condemned as the "The worst car made in the universe. Ever." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.187.237 (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

seemingly nonfitting sentence

The paragraph which begins: "Bob urges Bud to reconcile with Sissy, citing how he nearly ruined his own marriage." ends with a sentence which to me does not fit in with the rest:

"They are leaving for Mexico after Wes wins the mechanical bull riding contest."

I do not know the film well enough and have no copy near me to check, but it seems either this sentence is wrong or the rest of the text is. Maybe someone could check and edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3033:D:4604:1:2:C5A0:1CFD (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]