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 No matter who says it was supposed to be 1913; it had to be 1914-1915 from historical references.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. Also, the mention of: "..go back to Yuma" was impossible. Sam needs to read his history. Yuma Territorial was shut-down in 1906. After Arizona's statehood in 1912, Florence became the central prison. Sergio Leone tries to be accurate, it only costs "a few dollars more"...68.231.185.24 (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually it did cost a lot of dollars less. Leone's West was much cheaper than Peckinpah's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.69.40 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

According to the Internet Movie Firearms Database, the film's firearms are mostly correct for the period. Some of the main characters' "Colt M1911" pistols are actually lookalike Spanish Star Model Bs made for German forces in the Second World War and chambered for 9mm Parabellum -- used in the film because they function better with blank ammunition than real Colt .45s -- and some of the "Mexican soldiers" appear to wield British Enfield No.2 .38 revolvers, again of Second World War vintage; but not many viewers would spot this. http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Wild_Bunch,_The https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30030830 The anachronistic M1917 Browning machine gun may have been used as a stand-in because the production could not source a working example of the M1904 Maxim gun which was actually in US Army service in 1913. The two guns look quite similar in outline except for the M1917's pistol grip, an unfortunate visual giveaway compared to the M1904's twin handles. As a weapon of the Great War, the M1917 was made in large numbers, but only about 300 M1904s were made for the small pre-war US Army, the first 90 of them produced by Vickers in England. A working Vickers-built M1904, adapted to fire blanks, was auctioned for some $75,000 in 2014. It formerly belonged to Fox Studios and bears their stamp, but the auctioneers did not know which films it might have appeared in. https://www.morphyauctions.com/jamesdjulia/item/1006-369/ The price reflects the rarity of such a gun in working condition: it may be unique, or near unique. And The Wild Bunch wasn't a Fox production. Much easier for Peckinpah's unit to source an M1917. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2019 (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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Wild Bunch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 14:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

On first pass, this looks reasonably comprehensive, well-written, and ripe for promotion. The article does a particularly good job of explaining the film's role in cinema history as well as the usual facts about the film itself. I've made a few tweaks as I read; please feel free to revert those you disagree with.

• It's confusing to say that the bridge explosion kills the entire posse, and then to say Deke and the "remaining posse" catch up later--or do these characters fall into the Rio Grande but survive? (I saw this way back when, but it's been a while.) This might be clarified.

 Done ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• "would be perfected in The Wild Bunch" -- "perfected" seems mildly non-neutral here, and should probably be attributed in-text to the critic saying it

- Toned down the wording and added a source reinforcing the Dundee -> Bunch connection & transformation. Weddle never actually says this although the reader gets a clear picture of it over the page range listed in the citation. Wdyt? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• "would forever change the way movies were made" -- this is a bit hyperbolic; another moment that it would be useful to attribute to a critic in-text

 Done ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Such complex oppositional ideas lead to the film's violent conclusion, as the remaining men find their abandonment of Angel intolerable. Pike Bishop remembers his betrayals, most notably when he deserts Deke Thornton (in flashback) when the law catches up to them; and when he abandons Crazy Lee at the bank after the robbery (ostensibly to guard the hostages)." -- this bit of interpretation needs an inline citation.

- Added a quote from Weddle that reinforces the "guilt" theme. He never uses the exact words "complex oppositional ideas" although the meaning stands to reason. Again, wdyt? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. What would you think about cutting the word "complex"? I buy that Weddle interprets it in terms of oppositional ideals, but I'm not sure the ideas are that complex, especially if Weddle doesn't use the word himself. Other than that, I think this works. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• The Empire 100 greatest list seems like it would fit better in the Awards, honors, and nominations section with the AFI lists.

 Done ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, changes look good so far. Thanks for getting to these so quickly. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I only have one more quibble about the "complex" above; otherwise, this seems to me good to go. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Er, sorry, added one more action point below. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Note that in the era of the film's release" -- "note that" is language that should be cut per WP:WTA; this is also mildly original research-like unless a citation is provided connecting this individual to the film. (I agree that the connection seems likely, but a citation is still needed.)

I have quickly checked my various Peckinpah books and can find no definate references connecting this individual, although I seem to remember that several critics at the time of the initial release - did comment on this point. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've also checked my sources and did a quick google search but could find no reliable source so I removed the sentence. It always bothered me anyway, the way it sort of just hung there. If someone can find a WP:RS they are welcome to add it back in. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems like the best solution. The connection drawn here makes a lot of sense, but without an RS I don't think we could keep it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Minor clarity issue with posse/bridge above. Spotchecks show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	One bit of interpretation, above, seems uncited.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	One or two opinions that appear to come from Weddle should probably be attributed in-text for neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The production stills are a particularly nice touch.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Referencing

I noted: "..the machine gun" late in synopsis was not referenced previously. I added a parenthesized inventory earlier in the text.184.99.188.176 (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Wild Bunch. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716070826/http://connect.afi.com/site/PageServer?pagename=100YearsList to http://connect.afi.com/site/PageServer?pagename=100YearsList
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.empireonline.com/500/1.asp

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) 21:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Wild Bunch. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080904232417/http://www.loc.gov/film/nfr99.html to http://www.loc.gov/film/nfr99.html

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) 13:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Casting Mapache

I am removing the following line from the article: "Mario Adorf was considered for the part of Mapache, but the role went to Emilio Fernández, the Mexican film director and actor and friend of Peckinpah". I can find no supporting reference. If someone can find and cite the Adorf assertion, please add it back. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit

User:TheOldJacobite Sir, I do not appreciate your referencing my action as "Not an improvement". Ask somebody who reads the litigious paragraph for the first time what they gather from the previous wording, as compared to my edit. I am sure there must have been some mistake, so I reverted back to yesterday's wording of said paragraph. Goodbye. - 80.12.39.253 (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Previously logged in as: User:80.12.43.208

I stand by my statement of yesterday. Your rewrite did not improve the paragraph. Now is the time for you to explain why you believe it did. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with TheOldJacobite comments above. The Ip's changes did nothing to improve the article and they would be better employed by creating a Wikipedia account, rather than hiding behind a IP. David J Johnson (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There was no "delight" shown

In the plot summary this statement is not supported by a reliable source and you can simply watch this part of the movie to confirm it did not happen:

"Thornton finally catches up, and is delighted to find his rivals dead"

That statement is a literal rewrite of the ending. Thornton showed NO delight or similar feelings when he found Pike's gang dead. It should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:8740:D24:3D64:1825:124F:F46 (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)