Talk:The Magnificent Seven

Surviving Cast Members

This article says Robert Vaughan is the only surviving cast member. I don't know about the other credited actors, but of the seven, Eli Wallach is apparently still alive as of 11 Oct 2009. Blearner

Wallach was not one of the Seven, he played the bandit leader Calvera!

Production notes and feud between McQueen and Brynner

Just a quick mention that in the production notes we see: "Brynner, who was only half an inch taller than McQueen, would often build up a little mound of earth to stand on when the two actors were on camera together" It was actually the other way around, Yul Brynner was 5'8" tall and McQueen 5'10", hence the reason for Brynner creating the mound of dust to stand on in scenes with McQueen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indieshack (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Publicity photo with Cast

(Forgive my lack of formatting or knowledge of wikipedia terminology, this is my first time looking into making a contribution)

My Dad, an avid Magnificent 7 fan, wants to contribute a publicity photo of the cast members, all sitting in folding chairs with their names. He got it from press kit when the film was released in 1960. There is no copyright information included with the photo, so it might fall under PD-pre1978 (?), but this being a *press* kit for a *movie*, I'm thinking the image must be under some kind copyright. If I'm reading the image uploading guidelines correctly, the fact that there is this doubt is reason enough not to comtribute it. Correct? Thanks!

--Flickercuts (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Influence on A Bug's Life

The article says that "The Pixar Animation Studios film A Bug's Life is also clearly based on the themes in "The Magnificent Seven" including: the Ant colony (Mexican village), the invading Grasshoppers (Caldera's gang), the Circus Bugs (the Magnificent Seven themselves); the battle, reversal and eventual triumph...even the music is clearly evocative of the sweeping, memorable themes in the "The Magnificent Seven".." Why say that A Bug's Life is influenced by The Magnificent Seven instead of that both are influenced by Seven Samurai? The only element said to be specific to The Magnificent Seven is the music, and there's no source regarding the similarity of the music in the two films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.79.39 (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That paragraph probably shouldn't have been kept anyway (I just removed it). The persuasive language (e.g. repeated use of "clearly") and the lack of source make it look like original research. That being said, however, it's not invalid to think of a derivative work as an influence. For example, if I've only seen the derivative work and never the original, is it fair to say I was influenced by the original? I think it's more accurate to say I was influenced directly by the derivative work (perhaps indirectly by the original, but that's a bit misleading, and involves some synthesis, and might be slightly superfluous information anyway). --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Sword Kurosawa Presented To John Sturges

It has been reported that Akira Kurosawa presented John Sturges with a samurai sword after viewing The Magnificent Seven. I felt this was noteworthy of inclusion and did so using a reputable third-party source as per Wikipedia guidelines. Now user Hijiri88 is waging an "edit war" with me on the issue, claiming I am in error. It is true some question the story, but there are no reputable third-party sources to back it up, only personal blog entries like this one: https://satorukun0530.wordpress.com/2015/05/10/did-kurosawa-really-give-a-samurai-sword-to-john-sturges/

I insist that this anecdote is worthy of mention, and will tweak it to reflect how some doubt the story as soon as I uncover a Wikipedia-worthy third party source.TH1980 (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

All right, I went and tweaked the entry so it read like this: "Akira Kurosawa, however, was reportedly so impressed by the film that he presented John Sturges with a sword." Can we please compromise with this?TH1980 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This book describes the gift as a "ceremonial sword", as does the source it cites — visible only as a snippet on Google Books, which says "Sturges received a ceremonial sword from Kurosawa after the Japanese director saw the film and enjoyed it." So the new wording seems fine to me. There is another thread at Talk:John_Sturges#"Samurai sword"? KateWishing (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you KateWishing for finding a source that actually gives the proper detail. TH1980 apparently doesn't understand that taking a problematic source like the Ryan article and "fixing it" without a better source is a violation of WP:NOR, but your sources have solved the problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Hijiri 88 is being highly irrational now. I tweaked my contribution to this article as a compromise to his arguments that John Sturges never received a sword from Akira Kurosawa, and that there is no such thing as a "samurai" sword. Now he is accusing me of violating WP:NOR? His negative reaction to my compromise attempt is deplorable.TH1980 (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

First off, TH1980, stop pinging me. You're not providing me with any new or relevant information, and given that a lot of what youve written about is obvious AGF-violation (speculating about my personal views on such-and-such topic -- "his arguments that John Sturges never received a sword" -- when such speculation is always wrong) and borderline personal attacks, constantly pinging me in order to force me to read about how you think I'm a "deplorable" person who should be site-banned is bordering on WP:HARASSMENT. Kindly stop it now.

As to the substance: Yes, if you have one, problematic source that gives inaccurate information, it is not acceptable (it is textbook OR) to say "well, I'm sure the author meant to say this instead. You need a separate source and you need to drop the problematic one -- KateWishing already found one, so why are we still talk about this? I don't care if you see it is a "compromise" with me, because I specifically stated on the John Sturges talk page that this would be an unacceptable NOR-violation before you did this. Your "compromise" consisted of doing something I specifically requested you not do. You could not therefore have been compromising with me -- who did you think you were compromising with?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC).

TH1980 and KateWishing have found a compromise. One needs no adjective for sword, to introduce one, whatever sources say ('ceremonial', 'samurai' etc) is only to complicate what is a handed down story. That TH1980 found the info or factoid on an unreliable source is in itself neither here nor there, since reliable sources were soon found to validate the claim. There should be no fussing over this. There's a lot of good information on what wiki calls unreliable websites, which if one reads them, provide stuff that must then be verified in sources Wikipedia accepts. I do that all the time. When the RS is found, the unreliable source is disposed of (it should never be used in the first place of course). Nishidani (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I too came across the source KateWishing mentioned above, but decided not to use it since I could not link the pertinent page to the entry.TH1980 (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I also take issue with the accusation that my use of the word "reportedly" qualified my addition as violating WP:NOR. The source I cited was reporting the story about the Sturges sword as fact, ergo my use of the word "reportedly" fits with its definition as "according to report or rumor". Nowhere in WP:NOR does it forbid such word usage.TH1980 (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I see Kate found a better source and edited the section accordingly. I am content with that, but I stand by my use of the word "reportedly."TH1980 (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I need to get a few things clear: (1) I never said using the word "reportedly" qualified as OR; (2) I said using the word "reportedly" or similar when the "report" was a random movie review from 2001 was a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE because it would be a single piece of dubiously sourced trivia essentially cited as one author's opinion; (3) I said citing a source that uses the phrase "samurai sword" as a reliable source for the claim, but removing the word "samurai" because "I'm sure the author didn't mean it" violates WP:NOR; (4) Kurosawa did not give a "samurai sword" to Sturges, and any source that implies he did is unacceptable for our purposes; (5) I was perfectly clear several times what I thought was OR and what I thought was INDISCRIMINATE; (6) if TH1980 is misinterpreting my clear statement by accident then we have WP:COMPETENCE issues; (7) if TH1980 is misinterpreting my clear statement on purpose that is WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I feel the above statement by Hijiri 88 would qualify as WP:HARASSMENT. I came to this page to add things to it as per Wikipedia's guidelines, not get into a pushing contest with members who have partisan or otherwise extreme views about things such as the sword John Sturges received. Wikipedia is supposed to be open to all and be run in a democratic manner, not an autocratic one.TH1980 (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@TH1980: Throughout all my interactions with you, you have constantly claimed you are acting in accordance with Wikipedia "rules", but you have shown consistently that you don't understand said "rules" and have never once actually quoted a policy or guideline correctly. Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is based on reliable sources and not an indiscriminate collection of "facts". You above accuse me of having some kind of "extremist agenda", but it's pretty obvious that you either didn't read or didn't understand any of my posts in this discussion, since I made it quite clear that my personal belief is that Sturges was presented with an ornamental sword, but that this story is almost completely unverifiable and can't be discussed in an accurate manner.

You need to get over this and move on with your life. Edit other articles. English Wikipedia is a mess and I don't frankly care if you mess it up a little more. Just stop following me around and complaining about me every chance you get. Please.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I will not tolerate being pushed around by you. You have one set of rules for you, another set of rules for everyone else here at Wikipedia. Either leave me alone or keep getting pushed when you push me back. Do you understand?TH1980 (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? One set of rules for me...? When did this happen? I keep trying to explain our core content policies to you because you keep violating them, and then you get all defensive and start insulting me personally and casting aspersions about "my motives". Additionally, when you passive-aggressively wait six weeks after a dispute was resolved before showing up on the article talk page to post a completely off-topic personal remark about me, you are in no position to request that I leave you alone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I will be switching our discussion to your talk page.TH1980 (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to keep the discussion complete and in one place: TH1980 waited five weeks to post his June 26 comment and get the last word (a petty ad hominem remark about me) in without me noticing; I did notice, but only after a further five weeks; he posted more ad hominem remarks here; then he went to my talk page and accused me of "bullying" him. This is of course ridiculous, since TH1980's actions both here and elsewhere (see for instance his posting a completely ridiculous, off-topic comment on an unrelated dispute he clearly had not read on Talk:Battle of Nanking, because "whatever it's about, Hijiri88 must be wrong") indicate that he is more interested in antagonizing me than actually building an encyclopedia or studying up on Wikipedia's "rules" so he could present a coherent argument. I pointed this out in an edit summary while removing his baiting from my talk page. Any further antagonism/blatant-hypocrisy of this kind will be dealt with appropriately. (And no, this is neither an off-topic personal attack nor a "threat from a cyber-bully"; it is a warning.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Shut up. I am sick and tired of being one of the targets for your rants.TH1980 (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Second most shown movie on TV?

The Reception section currently says, "It is the second most shown film in U.S. television history, behind only The Wizard of Oz.[citation needed]."

My gut is telling me that It's a Wonderful Life has been shown more often than The Magnificent Seven. IWL is ranked higher than MS on various American Film Institute popularity lists. I hope this stirs someone to find the missing citation data. AdderUser (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The second-most claim is made in the documentary "Guns for Hire: The Making of The Magnificent Seven" that is part of the bonus material on the DVD. No mention as to what is first. That's a primary source, so we really need a secondary source for the claim. As for IWL, it is popular, but seldom aired outside of December. On the other hand, to be most-aired, a film needs the be cheap, and IWL was in the public domain for nearly 20 years.it isn't a reliable source, but https://www.quora.com/What-movie-has-been-aired-on-TV-the-most-times-in-history discusses this.

How about as a temporary fix while we figure this out we simply don't say what film is first? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Comma

@WikiPedant: Re: this revert: can you point to a style guide supporting this? MOS:DATE does not allow such an exception. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Curly Turkey: -- I'd say that the style guide prescription does not apply to this turn-of-phrase ("Variety magazine's December 31, 1960 review") because here the date is the direct modifier of the immediately-following noun "review". To put a comma before the noun interrupts this modifying relationship. Perhaps the MOS authors would disagree or perhaps they never contemplated this sort of grammatical structure. In any case, MOS is on your side, so I have no problem if you want to change it back. Regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm also watching the page (following unrelated vandalism) but left the comma in place per MOS. I would never use a comma in such situations outside Wikipedia. Certes (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear, @Certes, that we think alike. IMO educated Brits are the most capable users of spoken and written English. -- WikiPedant (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Brad Dexter/Frank Sinatra

The article currently states "Brad Dexter was cast at the urging of Frank Sinatra, who knew Sturges well, because Dexter had saved Sinatra's life when the two were swimming off the coast of Hawaii." without citation. The incident that sentence references happened in 1964, well after the casting (and release) of the Magnificent Seven. Just mentioning it in case anyone with more editing experience than I wants to look into that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.78.144 (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the statement that Brad Dexter was cast at Sinatra's urging. Dexter did rescue Sinatra, but in May 1964, several years after The Magnificent Seven was made. RHodnett (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)