Major General James G. Blunt

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Westerns High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Western genre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WesternsWikipedia:WikiProject WesternsTemplate:WikiProject WesternsWesterns articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rooster and the Texas Ranger got into words over both their roles, or at least perceptions, of the Civil War --but I was unclear on the specifics. It sounded like Rooster was possibly involved in Bleeding Kansas. Did anyone catch that conversation better than I did? --166.205.139.123 (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be a good inclusion in the main article, if someone could add an answer. --Bobak (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the conversation does indicate that the Marshall Cogburn character served in the Missouri-Kansas Theatre during the Civil War, or 'Bleeding Kansas' as it is also known before the war. But it should be noted that per the conversation, Cogburn served in a 'Bushwacker' regiment under Captain William Quantrill. Ranger Le Beouf indicates in the same conversation that he served in The Army of Northern Virginia. Le Beouf probably served in a calvary regiment, since the Texas Rangers were unofficially mustered as such {i.e. 8th Texas Calvary), but this is purely speculative on my part. But it is clear to Civil War buffs that both Cogburn and Le Beouf were Confederate soldiers.

blindmage - 02:17, 2 January 2010

Actually the movie leaves me confused. Le Boeuf claims to have served under Gen Kirby Smith, who served in the ANV (but had no Texas troops under him there), an Army in Tennessee (ditto), then commanded all Confederate Forces west of the Mississippi (where he would have commanded a large number of Confederate troops).Le Boeuf also claims to have fought at Shreveport, which is consistent with Texas cavalry (and please stop misspelling that word!!!) and Kirby Smith. 71.171.89.90 (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

check out the article on the Lawrence Massacre, I didn't catch the exact lines in the film, but do know that Quantrill's Raiders were generally regarded as raiders and something closer to paramilitaries than real organized troops, since LeBoeuf served in the confederate army as well the dispute was almost certainly less about North/South issues than about the raiders' slaughter of women and children —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.68.40 (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that anyone interested in this movie read the book. While some details are changed between the book and the movies, most of the scenes included in the films have, not surprisingly, almost identical dialogue to that in the book. The conversation in question is much longer in the book than I recall it being in the 2010 version. It discusses more of La Boeuf's history in the war than Cogburn's. La Boeuf states "the army put me in the supply department and I counted beeves and sacked oats for General Kirby Smith at Shreveport." He then mentions that he "got there in time for Five Forks and Petersburg" but that was the extent of his fighting as the war then ended. All in all, La Boeuf states that he had wanted to be a calvaryman but was too young and did not own a horse, and was only enlisted during the last six months of the war.^[1]

Cogburn does not actually say anything in that scene about where he served beyond mentioning Captain Quantrill. The most he ever says, to my knowledge, about his military happens earlier in the story. I would have to see the movie again to confirm, but I believe the scene where Cogburn tells Mattie about his wife that left him for her first husband occurs before the ambush at the dugout while they are still riding. In the book, this conversation occurs while Mattie and Cogburn are waiting to ambush Ned's gang and Mattie asks Cogburn if he had fought in the war. He admits he was a bushwacker who served under Bloody Bill Anderson and Quantrill. He also mentions Frank and Jesse James being "with us at Centralia."^[2] I believe the movie conversation is restricted to mentioning his wife and son but, again, I would have to confirm. I hope this helps to answer your question. Fickce4 (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much any time a film is made that is a story that was previously filmed there will be an avalanche of people quick to call the film a "remake". But for the term "remake" to properly apply the newer film must use the prior film as source material. So in a case, such as this film, where there is a novel as the original source material and the second film uses the novel, and not the prior film, as its source material, it is incorrect to call the film a remake.

There are numerous sources people can find if they want confirmation that the film was not a remake of the earlier film, but the article as it reads today makes that point fairly well. For one source, here is an article in The Telegraph which says, "Emphatically not a remake of the 1969 film, the Coens’ version is much closer in tone and emphasis to the source material than that first adaptation."[1] 99.192.51.38 (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I write in my edit summary [2], you are correct  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 16:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most importantly, "Sequel" is defined as... "recorded work that continues the story or develops the theme of an earlier one." These two movies do neither. While great works, they are the same story, the search by the daughter for the murderers of her father (RC & TG), and merely add the nitroglycerin gang ("RC"). MCS 2/2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C3:300:BC0:FDDA:9D14:FDE:CDF2 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick Jaynes should be restored to the infobox, but with no piped link. The infobox should reflect the film's credits, nothing more or less. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Total Film gave the film a five-star review (denoting 'outstanding'): "This isn't so much a remake as a masterly re-creation. Not only does it have the drop on the 1969 version, it's the first great movie of 2011"." what is this? please remove this! this film is released in 2010, not 2011! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4426326a (talk • contribs) 06:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I know I shouldn't bother replying to an anonymous poster…)

That was a quote from Total Film. If you disagree take it up with Total Film. But you shouldn't, because they were right: TF is a UK publication, and this movie came out in 2011 in the UK. jae (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear that Hailee Steinfeld is the lead. This is also stated in the text: she's the first one listed, the whole plot centers around her, she narrates, and she has most screen time. I edited to list her name first in the cast list and it was quickly reverted. May I ask why? This is a very minor edit that is factual and supports women in leading roles in film. Brkanter (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood logic: Bridges is the star. Also Wikipedia logic, you need to show sources to support your claim, not your own opinion or original research, even if there is some sensible logic to your points.

Steinfeld was nominated for the "Best Supporting Actress", difficult to argue against that. -- 109.79.170.230 (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]