Talk:The Wild Bunch

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: Various Versions

message: 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)
thread_title: Problems with "Motifs" and "Themes" section

message: 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)
thread_title: Jaime Sánchez

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Gore

message: 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)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Casting Mapache 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 JacobiteThe '45 12:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reversion of my edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  There was no "delight" shown