Talk:Once Upon a Time in the West/Archive 1

What a mess...
This article is a mess...whoever gave it a B-rating?

There's no chronological order to the chapts...no synopsis...no cast listing...geez.

There should be a spearate section for the finally released DVD, with all its bonus material.

Come on!

If I wasn't involved in other projects I'd take it on myself...who's the main watchdog on this film?

trezjr 03:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the picture of the "final shootout" should be removed, or at least changed. Anyone who knows anything about guns knows that ***FREAKING SPOILER!*** the only reason Frank would be facing away from Harmonica is because he got shot. Otherwise, they'd be facing each other. If there's a picture of them facing off, it should replace this one.

How am I doing...and the DVD release...
Started some badly needed clean-up on this article tonight.

How about someone writing up a chapter on the DVD release of the film that also encompasses the 2nd included disc of special features?

trezjr 00:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations...
...please respond to citation requests immediately as these items will be removed this week.

trezjr 00:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Characters
Okay, so I tackled the DVD version.

Would someone like to write up a profile of each of the main characters--like on the Harry Potter movie pages?

trezjr 02:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If this is a "spaghetti western", I will call myself "Noodles"  --80.136.162.247 07:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Link
Maybe I'm wrong but the link for the still photographs of monument valley demands a password!!!! Shouldn't everybody be allowed to see them? I think this should be changed! 83.191.179.158 18:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice
Wow, good job removing almost everything informative from the article. --Kaizer13 (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Harmonica's Tearing of Jill's Dress
Someone deleted the description of the scene where Harmonica begins to sexually assault Jill. He or she wrote that Harmonica "tears the lace from her dress to make it appropriate for mourning." This is an obvious falsity. Is this supposed to be funny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.128.130 (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno anymore man. Somewhere along the way, my plot summary got weird. --Kaizer13 (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Movie references
surely Once Upon a Time in Mexico should be in this section Luke12345abcd (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary Cleanup
I tried to clean up the plot summary as suggested by the broom icon. The one for 3:10 to Yuma (1957) has only 567 words in seven paragraphs, but it leaves out half the plot. The one I started with for this film (17 November 2007) was just awful. (It was full of errors in content and grammar; it left out important plot points and fabricated others.) This one is longer by only 314 words (fewer than what this comment has). At 1,527 words in 15 paragraphs, it is half the length of the one at the Internet Movie Database (3,057 words in 29 paragraphs). I deleted the ten least-important plot points (as many as I dared) but no complete paragraphs. One paragraph is 10 lines long, but the others are all shorter: two have 6 lines, seven have 5 lines, two have 4 lines, and three have 3 lines. Three complete scenes were already omitted or referenced only obliquely, and I replaced ten instances of quoted dialogue with shorter narrative. The pared-down result has a style that is clipped (concise). It's tight without gutting the plot.

The scene in which Harmonica interrogates Wobbles was already omitted entirely. The scene in which building materials arrive at Sweetwater and Jill recognizes the station sign by the shape of its outline is referenced in the sentence "At the farm, supplies sufficient to construct eight buildings have arrived." The scene between Frank and Morton at the Navajo cliff is referenced in the clause "Morton has had it with Frank's butcher tactics."

How does one go about asking that the broom icon be considered for removal?

PS: Harmonica does not sexually assault Jill--or begin to sexually assault her. It looks as if that's what he's doing, but we find out (by continuing to watch) that it is not. You're right though, unsigned, that his motive is not stated. Maybe he tears off her lace to get a better look at her cleavage, but that would be just speculation. Sguardo (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, He never assaults her, though the big hand on her increasingly bare chest is a good touch (no pun intended) in making it ambiguous. His motives are unclear, though my own would have been more obvious (due to the drool...) Tre.fire (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

oh GOD someone please spare us from these "plot descriptions" that sound like the breathless recounting of an eight-year-old's annual trip to the cinema. ffs a PLOT SUMMARY doesn't list all, or even most, of the plot points. It gives a description of what the film is about IN GENERAL. At the very least, most people want a general description so they can get an idea of the film without settling in for an afternoon's reading, and the asperger child version, if included at all, should be relegated to an appendix, preferably off site. I guess the broom icon will be removed when someone who can grasp the nature of encyclopedia entries replaces this rubbish with something appropriate 202.134.236.190 (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)dsanchez

Yes, this section is retarded. It's depressing that idiots like this not only write wikipedia entries, but they cannot grasp obvious criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.172.4.44 (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If it takes you all afternoon to read 1500 words, I understand why your plot description is not the one in the article. What became of the Charles Bronson still from the final duel? He was never more beautifully photographed, according to the running commentary on the DVD. Sguardo (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Why grasp criticism when it's asinine? But okay, okay, I chopped it to 890 words--a 41.7 percent reduction (51.4 percent overall, including the first cleanup). Maybe you can read it in half an afternoon. Now it's 323 words shorter than the one I started with on 17 November 2007. (That one was really atrocious.) Silly me, I thought the plot chapter would include the plot, but I guess it's supposed to be about the plot without actually giving the plot. Who died and made dsanchez editor in chief, anyway? Sheesh! At IMDb you're encouraged to include every plot point. (They do make a distinction between the plot summary and the full synopsis: one is a tease; the other imparts knowledge. Which is more appropriate for an encyclopedia?) In reducing the word count by 637, I deleted at least 87 more plot points (97 overall). (Of course, a plot point is sometimes conveyed by only a word or two.) I made it as dry and boring and detached and uninformative as I could. Hope you like it a little better. Sorry, it still gives the plot, but I promise to stay away from Wikipedia. Sguardo (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I added eight words--"As the film opens" and "the film ends as"--to comply with the real-world-perspecitve requirement (new word count 898 [892 on 3 January 2009]--the next step will be to delete all of them, leaving three pictures and their captions). Sguardo (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Word count 849. Sorry, but I had to fix some faulty constructions. (Some people can hack away but can't write.) Jill does not have a shootout with Cheyenne's prison escort. Harmonica's dead brother does not face Frank in the final duel. The flashback should be in past tense or present tense but not both. If the brother "jumps" off any part of the boy, it's his shoulders not his back. Sguardo (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of the plot summary: "Having been shot while escaping his guards, Cheyenne collapses almost immediately." Is this right? Cheyenne tells Harmonica it was Mr. Choo Choo who shot him. Choo Choo, going back to the scene where Cheyenne rescues Harmonica from Frank's gang, is Cheyenne's nickname for Morton. Or am I off-base here? AsstGoonLeader (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Accepted truths
It's funny how much irritation there is in the comments about the style of the document, but not about the content, per se, or the editorializing. By this I refer to OUTITW being generally considered one of the best westerns ever made. From the stand point of anyone other than a Leone/Italian/European cinema fan this would be a laughable statement. I mean, the acting is almost a parody of bad acting; the sound appears to emanate from a rusty tin cup; the dialogue is absurd; it could easily have been edited to 30 minutes without losing content (I mean, how many endless scenes of deeply moved faces in mirrors or slow, meaningful walks through desolation is really necessary?); it's disjointed, not in a good way, just confused - it had the air of a film they were making up as they went along, like it was a serial or something and they didn't bother editing out the mistakes. The one thing I think it had going for it was Fonda in a violent, evil role and film angles/lighting. Other than that it is a crude attempt. Even the Eastwood Leone films look polished compared to this, though Once Upon...is obviously the more expensive.Tre.fire (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, let's forget about the stated opinions of numerous directors and film critics and go with yours instead. Buscompany (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Harmonica Mexican?
Is Harmonica supposed to be Mexican?

What puzzles me much is the Asian (or native American?) look of Dino Mele playing young Harmonica. Despite his Italian nationality he strongly reminds me of George Takei. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.231.51 (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)