Talk:Million Dollar Baby

I was disappointed in this movie. I thought Eastwood's acting was way too forced. It was a good movie, but not a great one. - Kyle 17:55, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

That's nice to know, but this is not so much a page where to discuss the movie as a page where to discuss the article about the movie, so don't expect too many answers and lively discussion (although I could be wrong -- who knows?). MikeCapone 08:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I had seen the talk page on another movie page used to discuss the film. Kyle 19:55, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more about the criticism from the sportwriters. I thought the boxing stuff was way more realistic than other boxing movies.

Importance of article

This probably shouldn't be a stub, but I've never seen the movie, so there's not a lot I can add to it. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 00:55, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

For one, it contains next to nothing on the plot. Cburnett 01:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Once I get motivated, I'm going to fill in the plot section (unless someone beats me to it). – flamurai (t) 19:12, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

(SPOILERS)

This is a film about forwarding the cause of assisted suicide (eutha-nazia) and very little else. That should be clearly mentioned in the wiki article. Many think Eastwood is a nazi who wants all disabled exterminated just like the nazis did. Shame it got 5 oscars. I wonder what Mr. Superman would say about this movie?

Eutha-nazia? Sorry 'anonymous', but I think that this invented term is ignorant. Euthanasia means 'gentle death' and there was not very much gentle about the Nazi party. Please do not trivialise such a sensitive issue. There is absolutely no call to accuse Mr Eastwood of Nazism on the basis of this film. Oh! And by the way, his name was Christopher Reeve. --Rednaxela 23:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The best I can do is to point you towards http://www.rogerebert.com which features long articles discussing the controversy surrounding this film, that can explain it better then I could. Also remember that this film is a tragedy, in the end there is little to be uplifted about (one is dead, the other will be haunted for life). While we're at it, let's attack Shakespeare for his support of witchcraft and regicide. --Poorpete 21:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Religious fanatics... It's wonderful that we, the rest of the world, are superior to you, in any possible way. I won't argue nor discuss anything with you, as I'm above all of you. I pity you, though.

Restructure

I began to restructure the page in an attempt to make it clearer. The pictures need to be moved, but that's not my area of expertise. --Jacquelyn Marie 20:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Title

I'm curious as to what the name means. I know it came from a story out of a book with the same title, but why was this story called "Million Dollar Baby"? Drop me a line on my talk page if anyone knows. Thanks. David Bergan 05:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The main character (Hillary Swank) wanted to make a million dollars in order to buy a house.

Actually, the book was called "Rope Burns". It was only re-released as "Million Dollar Baby" after the film had been released. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 07:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Slight clarification. The short story upon which the film is based is "Million Dollar Baby," originally from a book of short stories called "Rope Burns" by F. X. Toole. There is also a short story called "Rope Burns" in the same book.

The Great Myth of Pulling the Plug

The ending of this film is based on a common myth that Hollywood often uses for dramatic purposes. The myth is that a person of sound mind cannot order a hospital to stop life-saving treatment. In fact, if you are awake and aware enough to tell a friend to pull your plug, you can simply order the hospital to do so and they must comply. This is not and has never been considered a form of suicide. It is simply refusal of treatment, which anyone may do at any time unless they're declared incompetent by a court. You can also specify the parameters of care you want and do not want imposed on you should you be unable to communicate your wishes. This is called a "living will."

This may be true, but do you believe that the characters would know this. The characters are not stupid, but they are neither educated nor sophisticated. They probably did not know about living wills. They probably did not know that a person is perfectly capable of living a happy life as a quadriplegic. They clearly did not realize that Maggie was receiving substandard care. In my opinion, part of the brilliance of the film comes from the fact that I can see that the characters are making poor choices, but I can also understand why they made those choices.

Also, I am a psychologist, not a lawyer, so I do not know the legal definition of "sound mind." However, I do believe that Maggie was depressed and that her depression clouded her judgment. My guess is that there probably was enough evidence of impaired judgment for lawyers representing Christian groups or the boxer who injured her to tie the case up in courts for a long time. --66.74.140.31 18:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The ending wasn't about "pulling the plug", it was baout euthinasia. Ace-o-aces 14:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because it was legal for Maggie to refuse treatment, it doesn't follow that the nurses would necessarily comply with the refusal. What if the nurses conspired to continue the treatment against Maggie's will? How could Maggie force the nurse to remove the respirator? She might have demanded it, and the nurse could simply have refused. That might have been illegal for the nurse, but some people are like that, especially some strongly religious individuals. Another possibility is that Maggie might have been embarassed to ask the nurse, because it would have made her look like a quitter. Asking a stranger to kill you would be very awkward, and she simply wanted Frank to do it because she trusted him.(Kenect2 07:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

Script

I have removed an anonymous addition to this page. It purported to be the script of the film, but has no place here. Rednaxela 00:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Boxer who caused the injury

I'd expect that in reality they'd not just be disqualified, but be permanently barred from boxing and would also be likely to face criminal charges.

The punishment for premeditated murder is life in prison or the death penalty. Has that stopped murder yet? Olstar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.203.32 (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Maggie's age

It's been several months since I saw this movie, but wasn't Maggie 33? The article says she was 31. Slap me if I'm wrong...

Oh, and hi Mikhail!

TJSwoboda 02:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Near the beginning of the movie, she says that her age is 31. Then, during the birthday scene with Morgan Freeman, she says that she is turning 32. SweetP112 15:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, she first appeared at the gym at 31. Dunn agreed to be her trainer when she turned 32. The cupcake scene was exactly one year after that, when she turned 33. --Happy 17:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sports movies

Trivia Only the second movie related to sports to win an Academy Award for Best Picture...the first was Rocky (1976).

Third. The second was Chariots of Fire--Syd Henderson 18:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Myth of pulling the plug section

I added a POV tag to that section...as it stands, the section definitely violates Wikipedia's neutral POV policy, especially without any sources. Gzkn 12:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot

The first paragraph in this section, prior to the spoiler warning, seems like a summary of the film and does contain spoilers - • The Giant Puffin • 23:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned in the article that Roger Ebert used a spoiler warning when describing the plot of the film. --Pixelface 08:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The opinions of critics do not belong a Plot section, which exists simply to relate the plot. Marc Shepherd 14:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This does look to me as if it belongs, if anywhere, on Ebert's own article. It is one critic's opinion on a subject only tangentially related to the plot of this movie. As such I think it looks out of place in the plot summary. --Tony Sidaway 07:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#INFO says "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." Citing interpretations by film critics that certain information may ruin a film is sourced analysis. It is directly related to the plot of the film. Would you like me to cite more reliable sources that use spoiler warnings? --Pixelface 10:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That covers articles, yes - I've yet to see a guideline or policy page that advocates making the plot section anything other than a plot summary. Then again, I've yet to see one that advocates for the purity of the plot section either. That said, the single sentence at the start of the plot section lacks any contextual ors tylistic links with the rest of the section. If we want to rewrite the plot section entirely to remain contextual throughout, that would probably be good - I did something similar a while back on The Daleks. But the entire section would need to be rewritten to integrate the real-world perspective - not just a single sentence at the top. -- Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, it would be worth having a glance over the Manual of Style for Films, which briefly covers this subject too. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 21:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a Spoiler alerts section with 8 citations to the article. --Pixelface (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an excellent section, but the article needed to be reorganized to give it better context. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Interpretations by reliable sources that a plot description should be preceded by a spoiler alert is only in context when presented before a plot description. The Spoiler alerts section has nothing to do with an evaluation of whether a film is good or not, and doesn't belong in the Critical reception section. I've reverted your re-organization and removed the Plot section because it appears to be original research. --Pixelface (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This has now turned into plain vandalism. It is widely accepted that an article on a fictional work may use the work itself as the source of the plot summary. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Removing unsourced material is not vandalism. I challenge the Plot section because I think it's all original research. The burden of evidence is on you Marc. --Pixelface (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Pixelface, WP:V only states that unverifiable information can be removed. It doesn't always have to be sourced, though sources are encouraged in the event the verifiability of the information is challenged. However, the plot section can be verified by watching the film, thus removing it because there is no sources isn't legitimate grounds to remove it. --Farix (Talk) 17:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Big Willie Little

Shouldn't Mike Colter's character (Big Willie Little) be mentioned? Badagnani 00:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not realy. He was part of the side story that was taking place during the main storyline. It might be interesting and all but you take him out all together and no aspect of the main storyline is affected. Olstar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.203.32 (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Clint eastwood old.jpg

Image:Clint eastwood old.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this film a remake?

Does this film have any association with the 1941 film "Million Dollar Baby"? (starring Ronald Reagan). The title seams too much for coincidence. Perhaps there should be a redirect or mention of it in the article?--Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 03:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the third film of that title. The three films all have completely distinct settings, premises, and plots. Recalling Alice Cooper's similarly-titled 1973 album. Billion Dollar Babies, I suggest that the title may have originated in a common phrase. --Tony Sidaway 15:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)