Talk:Hud (1963 film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hud (1963 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Hud (1963 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 20, 2013	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 11, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 1, 2015.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although Paul Newman (pictured) and director Martin Ritt conceived the eponymous lead of Hud as morally repugnant, they were astonished to find young audiences warming to the character?

Current status: Good article

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).

Film: American

	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.

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress 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.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Westerns: Film Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Western genre 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.WesternsWikipedia:WikiProject WesternsTemplate:WikiProject WesternsWesterns articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Film task force.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on February 16, 2015.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Previous copyedits:
/
	This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on October 28, 2013.

Move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Hud (1963 film). Fuhghettaboutit make a point worth keeping in mind for the future, though. Jenks24 (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to distinguish from Hud (1986 film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 21:30, 14 September 2015

Support WP:NCF ambiguous disambiguation should not be used WP:PRECISE ; the current title should point to the dab page per WP:NCF -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support In ictu oculi (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per WP:NCF Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of, waffling, supportish support. Given the current name of the other film article, supporting is obvious—and to be clear I am actually supporting at this time. However, it may be that the other film article should be moved to Vilde, the Wild One and if that ever occurs (it is not straightforward, e.g., searches are very skewed by Wikipedia's use of the title), then this should be at Hud (film), with a hatnote saying something like For the Norwegian film originally named Hud, see...--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alma is middle-aged?

Patricia Neal was 35 when Hud was shot. But here her character is described as "middle-aged". "Middle age" is generally understood to begin in the 40s, and is defined by Miriam-Webster as starting at age 45. Does Neal specifically play an older character, or are we defining "middle-age" down for women?

The bibliography used in the article defined the character as a middle-aged woman. The description may have to do with the fact that Alma was in her middle thirties and divorced. Nowadays that does clearly not indicate anything, but I guess that by the standards of the early 1960s society, she was maybe seen as middle-aged. Let's not forget that it was made clear throughout the film she had a turbulent relationship with her previous husband and a few years had gone by in-between that time and she working for the Bannon family.

Aside from whatever took anybody to say she was middle-aged, or to define whether she may or may not have been considered at the time so, I just erased the word from the article. I don't think there's too much need to look into that anyway. It may have been the opinion of the writer. Or it could just be that in the book "Halmea" was maybe older?

It should be mentioned by the way that Ravetch and Frank Jr. were really progressive writers for their time, and in my opinion did not intend to portray Alma in that light anyway. You can read their feelings about the character here.--GDuwenTell me! 19:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Essay-like plot

I have restored an old version of the article since it was again written to contain essay-like phrases or personal opinions. We've been through this before and it was clarified in the first Good Article Nomination that it should be avoided. Forget not Wikipedia:No original research.--GDuwenTell me! 21:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]