Talk:The War Wagon

message: This is a classic John Wayne action film. Yet, with such a big budget, why all the snafus that could be reasonably, or, freely, corrected?:
The character Taw Jackson (John Wayne) mentions the War Wagon's guards: "Each carries a Henry rifle..with 60 rounds of ammunition". Yet, they carry 1894 or 1892 Winchesters. Henrys were pretty much dated by 1873 – the movie appears to be in the 1880s or 1890s. 
Two of Pierce's hired  gunmen (Bruce Dern and another) carry what looks like .30-30  or .30-40 Krag ammunition in their bandoliers, yet carry 1892 Winchester carbines in .44-40 caliber.
The character  Wes (Keenan Wynn) asks Taw Jackson if he'd: "Ever seen a round like This, before?"  Jackson replies:"Yeah, Gatling Gun!" The Gatling Gun was Standardized after the Civil war in the US to chamber the issue  US Army .45-70 (.45 US Govt) cartridge; such a round would have raised no eyebrows. No special chambering was ever made. Even  standard 30 mm cannon rounds  for the Spanish-American War.
The "nitoglycerine" stolen at Pierce's safe is in glass stoppered reagent bottles--this is the Stupidest way it could be contained. Any nitro on the ground glass surfaces of the stopper would be subjected to friction on closing or opening, and explode. The "nitro" looks and  runs like Water. Commercial-grade would appear like olive oil.  Putting it in gin bottles so it wouldn't be noticed would be wrong--whiskey would resemble its color, better. The nitro smoking white when being  poured is accurate, though. It was transported in zinc cans from the Nobel factory. Even if made on-the-spot, it wouldn't be in a reagent bottle.
The old-fashioned safe with the brass combination lock is Vintage  and refreshing, for a change.
When Pierce first addresses his new Gatling Gun, he moves the breech latch up and down, like some sort of "combination lock". Moving it would simply allow the breech cover to swing outward. There is no magazine in the Gatling at the time. Yet, he "cranks off" 25 rounds or so. When finished, there is Still no magazine apparent. Tintinteslacoil (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article described the movie as a "western", which is true enough, but it would be more accurate to call it a western comedy.  I don't mean that in a derogatory sense.  John Wayne made other western comedies, such as "McClintock!" and "North to Alaska", and I believe this picture has enough comedic aspects to justify it being classified as such.67.45.112.186 (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I made one small change. 

message: Before John Wayne did this movie, he'd  just  had  a lung removed due to lung cancer. This slowed him  down a lot. Kirk Douglas felt for him, a respected actor who had trouble even drawing a good breath at the movie location's  altitude. 65.129.176.4 (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wayne's lung removed 

message: Apparently Roger Ebert noted that Wayne plays a "bad guy" in this picture for "just about" the first time in his career. He's not actually "bad" in this one but I do recommend taking a look at Wake of the Red Witch a couple of decades earlier, an offbeat quasi-remake of Reap the Wild Wind in which Wayne plays an actual villain and the leading man rolled into one. Wayne's personality was so much richer and more powerful even than Kirk Douglas' that he makes a really scary villain. Trocadero Thunder (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wayne as "bad guy" 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion