Talk:Unforgiven

message: I would like to question the removal by Trut-h-urts man + TheOldJacobite of prologue and epilogue text I added to the plot synopsis.
I feel that the prologues and epilogues are a faithful retelling what happens on screen in the first and last scenes of the movie (critical parts of any film). The prologue text is the first scene in the film and is very important for setting the opening emotional subtext of the film. The epilogue text is the final scene and links back to the prologue text. Both the prologue and epilogue text provide the starting and ending emotional subtext that frames the entire film.
I feel to exclude this information not only alters the story as told by the filmmaker, but omits critical parts of the story for the Wikipedia reader. It's the start and end of the film that gave the movie its heart and soul.... hence the name "Unforgiven"... omitting the prologue and epilogue reduces to the plot synopsis to a series of random violent encounters without any real reason or purpose.
Ultimately Wiki's plot description is meant to tell the story from the filmmaker's perspective, not individual Wiki users, so I ask that the original prologue and epilogue text be re-instated. I've included samples of the text I originally edited in below.
Clearly the inclusion of this prologue/epilogue text has a profound impact upon how the Wiki plot summary reads and the conclusions the reader would draw about the movie. To omit would be to change the filmmaker's film/story. I think it needs to be reinstated.
Suggested/Original Prologue: 
The first scene is a bookend shot of a farm and with prologue text describing the heart break of a mother whose only daughter married a "known thief and murderer" called William Munny who was "a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition". The prologue explains that when Munny's wife died in 1878, it wasn't murder like the mother expected but death caused by smallpox.
Suggested/Original Epilogue: 
The final scene is a bookend shot of Munny's farm, and of Munny paying a final visit to his wife's grave. The epilogue text that follows reads that Munny's mother-in-law, whose name is revealed to be Mrs Ansonia Feathers, came to visit her daughter's grave but found that Munny and the children had long disappeared, rumoured to have moved to San Francisco and "prospered in dry goods". The epiloque text explains there was nothing on the grave's marker to explain to Ansonia Feathers why her only daughter married a "known thief and murderer, a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition". The credits then roll.
Signed Bigcity2000 (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagreement: Removal of Prologue and Epilogue Text

message: :Unforgiven is commonly considered to be among the five best westerns ever produced.
This is one of those statements which is impossible to disprove, but also non-encyclopedic, because it involves a subjective judgment among an undefined group...who considers it to be so? Critics? Film school professors? Fans? Actors? Film actors? Actors in western films? 
See also Films considered the worst ever for an example of how this can get out of control. Ellsworth 19:41, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: Clint (on "Charlie Rose", I think) said, "If I didn't have to have stars, I'd have cast this whole damn thing out of Edmonton."
BTW, I consider Unforgiven among the five best Westerns ever produced, up there with "Silverado", "Josey Wales", & a couple I can't think of offhand...  Pale Rider 07:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: You can quote me

message: The opening line calls this a revisionist film.  This seems like a very strong statement, which is not backed up by any discussion in the article.  I'm not saying it is or it isn't revisionist, but if it is in the topic sentence, it needs support.  Since there is none, I'm removing it. -- Samuel Wantman 07:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisionist?

message: I've seen this movie (an indisputable classic) a few times recently on cable stations in Canada that do not have the final text about Munney's move to San Francisco and prosperity in dry goods; they just run the final image of him visiting his wife's grave followed by a fade-out. Does anyone know why I might be seeing this, why they would remove the final on-screen text, and is this version is seen elsewhere? I swear it looks to me like they cut it because it wouldn't fit properly in full-screen. Is it worth a mention in the main article? - dharmabum 08:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Final sequence?

message: This is a guess, but I think the pigs were suffering from swine flu, and Munny caught it from them and this is how he got sick by the time he got to Wyoming  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooker (talk • contribs) 21:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Fever

message: Immensely good article, good discussion, but no citations.  Which is a shame since most of this stuff can be cited by a good film student (I use this in the general sense of students of film, not in the particular sense of those going to film school) with access to materials, so if any such students read this, cite on young man.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.227.246 (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I removed the section about Munny's motives for killing Little Bill. It was poorly written, orignal research, and some of it was just factually incorrect. Dancemotron (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moral ambiguity

message: I've deleted the "Themes" subheading from the article.  While it is fairly interesting and detailed, it is original research and thus not appropriate.  While I suspect many of the points raised can be verified, I think that given the essay-like nature of the content means that re-editing it to conform with standard guidelines would be far more labor-intensive than simply rewriting it from scratch.
Sadly, I don't have enough time now to take a look myself, but I would suggest that the next step be to read through some of the critical analyses of the movie--I imagine it can't be too difficult to find critical commentary talking about the ideas that were raised in the deleted section. Here are some links that should prove useful:
* Find sources for "unforgiven+eastwood" ( you must add "+" between words for phrase search ) : gbooks, a9, msbooks, gscholar, msacademic, gnews current, gnews archives 
--jonny-mt 06:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of [[WP:OR|original research]]

message: I removed the advertising from this section, but it still amounts to little more than original research and doesn't improve the quality of the article. The article could include greater critical analysis, but it should cite sources. Doctofunk (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Role of women

message: Alcohol and its relation to violence is another theme explored in this movie. Munny stresses throughout the movie he was a different person before his wife helped him stop drinking, and he repeatedly says he does not remember much of his early violent life, because he was drunk. Munny is sober when he kills the first cowboy and his behavior lacks any bloodlust or rage; he seems quite normal. However, towards the end of the film, when he begins to drink after learning Ned's fate, he quickly becomes a fearsome and intimidating individual. By the time he enters the saloon in the film's climax, he has finished the whiskey bottle and is full of murderous intent. Indeed, his rage is palpable, and the viewer sees in the end the demon that alcohol fully unleashes in Munny.
86.146.53.119 (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Alcohol and violence

message: The character William Munny should not have a stand-alone article.  Most of that article is anyway a reiteration of the plot of the movie. --Slashme (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I boldly redirected it to this article. The essay that was there did little except reiterate the plot while peppering in some WP:OR reflections. Also, the character has no independent notability, and therefore does not need a separate article. oknazevad (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from William Munny

message: Typo: pavement -> payment. I am sure that the two gun fighters were really not getting pavement from the prostitutes. Despite being "stone" cold killers. Proknosis (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pavement

message: The opening paragraph of the plot section reads as follows:
* In 1881, in Big Whiskey, Wyoming, a cowboy—Quick Mike—slashes prostitute Delilah Fitzgerald's face with a knife, permanently disfiguring her, after she laughs at his small penis. As punishment, sheriff "Little Bill" Daggett orders Mike and his associate who was with him at the brothel, David "Davey" Bunting, to turn over several of their horses to her employer, Skinny DuBois, for his loss of revenue. Outraged, the prostitutes offer a $1,000 bounty for the cowboys' deaths.
A bounty for the deaths of what cowboys?  This might make sense to someone who has seen the movie, but to anyone else, this reads like it was written by someone who thinks we're all omniscient. Unschool 02:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Synopsis Hole 

message: The prolog and epilog both refer to the role of the mother, of the wife, and of the situations that the women of the times found themselves. The facts that the women risked their lives, and also the only support that they had, to help Munny are ignored in the synopsis. The prostitutes especially, the character played by Fransis Fisher, gave a true picture of what life was like for some frontier women and the epilog and prolog introduced the true nature of women's roles as mates in an embattled frontier. I am sure that the writer and the director would have wanted us to see these characters as heros also. They may be more heros than antiheros actually. Tyanne G (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women's Roles as Heros in the Plot