Talk:Million Dollar Baby

message: I began to restructure the page in an attempt to make it clearer. The pictures need to be moved, but that's not my area of expertise. --Jacquelyn Marie 20:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructure

message: There should be a redirect to the production Ronald Reagan was involved in. It happens to have the name "Million Dollar Baby" in it's title. A redirect link is necessary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.156.253 (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ronald Reagan 

message: The ending of this film is based on a common myth that Hollywood often uses for dramatic purposes.  The myth is that a person of sound mind cannot order a hospital to stop life-saving treatment.  In fact, if you are awake and aware enough to tell a friend to pull your plug, you can simply order the hospital to do so and they must comply.  This is not and has never been considered a form of suicide.  It is simply refusal of treatment, which anyone may do at any time unless they're declared incompetent by a court.  You can also specify the parameters of care you want and do not want imposed on you should you be unable to communicate your wishes. This is called a "living will."
:This may be true, but do you believe that the characters would know this.  The characters are not stupid, but they are neither educated nor sophisticated.  They probably did not know about living wills.  They probably did not know that a person is perfectly capable of living a happy life as a quadriplegic.  They clearly did not realize that Maggie was receiving substandard care.  In my opinion, part of the brilliance of the film comes from the fact that I can see that the characters are making poor choices, but I can also understand why they made those choices.
:Also, I am a psychologist, not a lawyer, so I do not know the legal definition of "sound mind."  However, I do believe that Maggie was depressed and that her depression clouded her judgment.  My guess is that there probably was enough evidence of impaired judgment for lawyers representing Christian groups or the boxer who injured her to tie the case up in courts for a long time.  --66.74.140.31 18:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ending wasn't about "pulling the plug", it was baout euthinasia. Ace-o-aces 14:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Great Myth of Pulling the Plug

message: I have removed an anonymous addition to this page. It purported to be the script of the film, but has no place here. Rednaxela 00:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Script

message: I'd expect that in reality they'd not just be disqualified, but be permanently barred from boxing and would also be likely to face criminal charges.
The punishment for premeditated murder is life in prison or the death penalty. Has that stopped murder yet? Olstar  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.203.32 (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Boxer who caused the injury

message: It's been several months since I saw this movie, but wasn't Maggie 33?  The article says she was 31.  Slap me if I'm wrong...
Oh, and hi Mikhail!
TJSwoboda 02:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Near the beginning of the movie, she says that her age is 31.  Then, during the birthday scene with Morgan Freeman, she says that she is turning 32. SweetP112 15:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, she first appeared at the gym at 31.  Dunn agreed to be her trainer when she turned 32.  The cupcake scene was exactly one year after that, when she turned 33. --Happy 17:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maggie's age 

message: Trivia Only the second movie related to sports to win an Academy Award for Best Picture...the first was Rocky (1976). 
Third. The second was Chariots of Fire--Syd Henderson 18:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports movies 

message: I added a POV tag to that section...as it stands, the section definitely violates Wikipedia's neutral POV policy, especially without any sources. Gzkn 12:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth of pulling the plug section 

message: If personal observations are acceptable for writing plot summaries, I guess I'll watch the film and rewrite the Plot section based on my personal observations. Is that okay with everyone? --Pixelface (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if you believe the current version could be improved, by all means do so. Marc Shepherd (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But also remember that one of the safeguards WP uses to ensure the plot description is objective and accurate is Consensus, so one editor's description of the story will not have more weight than another's. Don't expect to not have your contributions reviewed and edited by your colleagues.Jim Dunning | talk 04:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal observations

message: Shouldn't Mike Colter's character (Big Willie Little) be mentioned? Badagnani 00:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Willie Little

message: :Image:Clint eastwood old.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any sexy time fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Clint eastwood old.jpg

message: Does this film have any association with the 1941 film "Million Dollar Baby"? (starring Ronald Reagan). The title seams too much for coincidence. Perhaps there should be a redirect or mention of it in the article?--Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 03:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's the third film of that title.  The three films all have completely distinct settings, premises, and plots.  Recalling Alice Cooper's similarly-titled 1973 album. Billion Dollar Babies, I suggest that the title may have originated in a common phrase. --Tony Sidaway 15:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this film a remake?

message: Anyone have some ideas on how the Awards section can be significantly condensed? The list is impressive, but my eyes glazed over after scrolling through just a few lines. Which ones would be good to include in a summary?Jim Dunning | talk 19:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would look at the way it has been handled for other films that were big award-winners, such as Titanic (1997 film). Marc Shepherd (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was so impressed by all the work Troy34 did on the list that I didn't have the heart to remove it: it has excellent information in it. So I moved it to its own page.Jim Dunning | talk 22:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That page was recently tagged with a  template so I've merged it back into the Awards section. It could be written in prose if some people think it's too long. --Pixelface (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC
This works for me. I like the summary box someone added to the Awards section (the one that floats right). I suggest the section be converted to prose and the box be expanded to include all notable wins. As I scroll through the list looking at noms, I wonder how many really readers are interested that it lost 23 awards? lolJim Dunning | talk 11:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Condense awards section?

message: saw the film tonight for the first time A++!
a bit formulaic but still excellent.  Wasnt it very loosely based on the death of a real boxer, i recall seeing a review which comented on a real boxer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.196.153 (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  true story?

message: I removed Rotten Tomatoes reference because has no film critic value to movies.--201.247.28.25 (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worthless RT review 

message: how is this the last PG-13 movie to win best picture when the very next year crash, another PG-13 movie, won the award? i have deleted the sentence that says that it is --Strobes13 (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last PG-13?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Million Dollar Baby. 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/20051228102528/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050214/14crockett.peo.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050214/14crockett.peo.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is it worth mentioning that Swank was the first female in Academy history to be nominated for portraying a boxer? About the 1:45 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWGNsP26ttQ. I don't know how to add it myself. 47.196.133.144 (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academy Award