This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Million Dollar Baby article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
(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?
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.
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)
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)
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.
There should be a redirect to the production Ronald Reagan was involved in. It happens to have the name "Million Dollar Baby" in it's title. A redirect link is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.156.253 ( talk) 00:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
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."
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))
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)
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)
There is no discussion over Billie's foul when there should be. The movie should have stripped the character of the title and sent to prison as an example to bad sportmanship. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.234.106.1 (
talk) 08:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've added a Spoiler alerts section with 8 citations to the article. -- Pixelface ( talk) 16:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
There's no need for a citation for Plot sections. They're inherently cited, being the source of the topic itself. This has been the approach of WikiProject Films, and the only concern about such sections is ensuring neutrality in the writing. Please do not mark such removals as vandalism -- this is a content dispute and does not warrant such assumptions of bad faith. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I edited this article yesterday so this discussion has made it onto my watchlist. A plot summary is not original research because whether the summary includes lots of detail or very little detail, it does not contain any new detail. A summary, by its nature is not original as it is a retelling. It does not introduce new ideas, conclusions, theories, etc. At most it can be described as a cropping of the original work, but it does not add anything or change anything. The fact that it does not add anything means that if a source is required, a source to the material in question is acceptable. A plot summary is not an interpretation of the story, merely a shortened version, thus it is still verifiable using the source media as it is not fundamentally different from it. ● BillPP ( talk| contribs) 15:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Undent] Pixel, the bottom line — which you have yet to deny — is that if your interpretation of WP:NOR is correct, thousands of Wikipedia articles have policy-violating plot summaries, since the situation in this article is the norm: namely, that the plot summary has been compiled by an editor, with no other reference but the work itself.
There is no shortage of editors around here who quote policies and aggressively edit articles based upon them. What, then, is the probability that a practice that blatantly violates WP:NOR would have for so long endured without, as far as I am aware, any substantial opposition?
Clearly there is no policy stating that an article about a work of fiction cannot include a plot summary sourced from the work itself. If such a policy existed, you would be able to quote it to us. Instead, you are quoting policies and interpreting them to produce a result that (if the community accepted it) would invalidate thousands of articles.
The community is not likely to adopt such an interpretation. Marc Shepherd ( talk) 18:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If personal observations are acceptable for writing plot summaries, I guess I'll watch the film and rewrite the Plot section based on my personal observations. Is that okay with everyone? -- Pixelface ( talk) 21:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 sexy time 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)
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)
The section mentioning some debate about reviewers including or not including spoilers in their reviews adds no value to the article. Perhaps a few lines referencing what some perceived as a major plot twist is appropriate, but what point does this section serve? The article is about the film, not film reviewing practices.
Jim Dunning |
talk 03:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the deleted section, shortened. I will de-quote it when I have more time, shortening it further. Concerns about weighting should be addressed by reducing the size of section, not eliminating it altogether. Strange that the huge list of awards (half the length) or the overlarge criticism section did not need re-weighing.-- Nydas (Talk) 14:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help))(ref
Roger Ebert (
2005-01-29).
"Critics have no right to play spoiler".
Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2007-11-24. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)) Susan Wloszczyna of
USA Today said the film "packs a surprise plot twist" and said "spoilsports already have begun to leak details about this drama", saying "the urge to divulge the story's secrets will only grow worse when the film finally goes nationwide." Wloszczyna noted that David Thomson of The Independent "offered readers only a hint of the story basics" and said "most reviewers have coddled the sports saga with similar care..." Wloszczyna said Thomson said "My great wish always, which is difficult to achieve, is to go in knowing nothing about a film."(ref Susan Wloszczyna (
2005-01-23).
"USATODAY.com - 'Million Dollar' mystery".
USA Today. Retrieved 2007-11-24. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)) Mark Moring of
Christianity Today said "Who wants to watch a movie when you know how it ends? We've actually had to wrestle with that question around here lately..." Moring said "We wondered if our "moral obligation" to warn Christians about the potentially disturbing subject matter somehow "trumped" our professional commitment to avoid plot spoilers—especially the worst plot spoiler of all: divulging the end. After some discussion, we agreed that the right decision was to not give away the end to Million Dollar Baby."(ref Mark Moring (
2005-01-18).
"Spoil the Ending?".
Christianity Today. Retrieved 2007-11-24. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)) Michael Atkinson of
The Village Voice said the film had a "spoiler-spawning shift in narrative."(ref Michael Atkinson (
2004-12-13).
"Aging Bull".
The Village Voice. Retrieved 2007-11-24. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)) Ian Grey of
Baltimore City Paper said the last act seems to be from another film at first, and said "Naming this misfortune and its consequences, however, would be an unforgivable spoiler."(ref Ian Grey (
2005-01-12).
"Kid Gloves".
Baltimore City Paper. Retrieved 2007-11-24. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help))@ Marc Shepherd, Nydas, Pixelface, BillPP, Tony Sidaway, and JimDunning: I don't know who's still around from this debate, but as a reader of this article, this section seemed clearly out of place and off-topic. The section is about an issue in film reviewing, not about Million Dollar Baby. I'm removing it, but figured I should let y'all know. Sondra.kinsey ( talk) 20:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Anyone have some ideas on how the Awards section can be significantly condensed? The list is impressive, but my eyes glazed over after scrolling through just a few lines. Which ones would be good to include in a summary?
Jim Dunning |
talk 19:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This works for me. I like the summary box someone added to the Awards section (the one that floats right). I suggest the section be converted to prose and the box be expanded to include all notable wins. As I scroll through the list looking at noms, I wonder how many really readers are interested that it lost 23 awards? lol
Jim Dunning |
talk 11:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
saw the film tonight for the first time A++! a bit formulaic but still excellent. Wasnt it very loosely based on the death of a real boxer, i recall seeing a review which comented on a real boxer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.196.153 ( talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed Rotten Tomatoes reference because has no film critic value to movies.-- 201.247.28.25 ( talk) 18:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
how is this the last PG-13 movie to win best picture when the very next year crash, another PG-13 movie, won the award? i have deleted the sentence that says that it is -- Strobes13 ( talk) 15:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if any other PG-13 movie won Best Picture after Million Dollar Baby, but lemme tell you that Crash was R-rated.-- 69.248.1.200 ( talk) 18:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved, WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 04:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Million Dollar Baby → Million Dollar Baby (2004 film) To disambiguate from Million Dollar Baby (1941 film). 31.52.4.146 ( talk) 12:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Million Dollar Baby. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that Swank was the first female in Academy history to be nominated for portraying a boxer? About the 1:45 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWGNsP26ttQ. I don't know how to add it myself. 47.196.133.144 ( talk) 22:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Million Dollar Baby article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
(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?
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.
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)
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)
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.
There should be a redirect to the production Ronald Reagan was involved in. It happens to have the name "Million Dollar Baby" in it's title. A redirect link is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.156.253 ( talk) 00:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
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."
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))
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)
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)
There is no discussion over Billie's foul when there should be. The movie should have stripped the character of the title and sent to prison as an example to bad sportmanship. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.234.106.1 (
talk) 08:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've added a Spoiler alerts section with 8 citations to the article. -- Pixelface ( talk) 16:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
There's no need for a citation for Plot sections. They're inherently cited, being the source of the topic itself. This has been the approach of WikiProject Films, and the only concern about such sections is ensuring neutrality in the writing. Please do not mark such removals as vandalism -- this is a content dispute and does not warrant such assumptions of bad faith. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I edited this article yesterday so this discussion has made it onto my watchlist. A plot summary is not original research because whether the summary includes lots of detail or very little detail, it does not contain any new detail. A summary, by its nature is not original as it is a retelling. It does not introduce new ideas, conclusions, theories, etc. At most it can be described as a cropping of the original work, but it does not add anything or change anything. The fact that it does not add anything means that if a source is required, a source to the material in question is acceptable. A plot summary is not an interpretation of the story, merely a shortened version, thus it is still verifiable using the source media as it is not fundamentally different from it. ● BillPP ( talk| contribs) 15:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Undent] Pixel, the bottom line — which you have yet to deny — is that if your interpretation of WP:NOR is correct, thousands of Wikipedia articles have policy-violating plot summaries, since the situation in this article is the norm: namely, that the plot summary has been compiled by an editor, with no other reference but the work itself.
There is no shortage of editors around here who quote policies and aggressively edit articles based upon them. What, then, is the probability that a practice that blatantly violates WP:NOR would have for so long endured without, as far as I am aware, any substantial opposition?
Clearly there is no policy stating that an article about a work of fiction cannot include a plot summary sourced from the work itself. If such a policy existed, you would be able to quote it to us. Instead, you are quoting policies and interpreting them to produce a result that (if the community accepted it) would invalidate thousands of articles.
The community is not likely to adopt such an interpretation. Marc Shepherd ( talk) 18:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If personal observations are acceptable for writing plot summaries, I guess I'll watch the film and rewrite the Plot section based on my personal observations. Is that okay with everyone? -- Pixelface ( talk) 21:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 sexy time 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)
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)
The section mentioning some debate about reviewers including or not including spoilers in their reviews adds no value to the article. Perhaps a few lines referencing what some perceived as a major plot twist is appropriate, but what point does this section serve? The article is about the film, not film reviewing practices.
Jim Dunning |
talk 03:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the deleted section, shortened. I will de-quote it when I have more time, shortening it further. Concerns about weighting should be addressed by reducing the size of section, not eliminating it altogether. Strange that the huge list of awards (half the length) or the overlarge criticism section did not need re-weighing.-- Nydas (Talk) 14:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help))(ref
Roger Ebert (
2005-01-29).
"Critics have no right to play spoiler".
Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2007-11-24. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)) Susan Wloszczyna of
USA Today said the film "packs a surprise plot twist" and said "spoilsports already have begun to leak details about this drama", saying "the urge to divulge the story's secrets will only grow worse when the film finally goes nationwide." Wloszczyna noted that David Thomson of The Independent "offered readers only a hint of the story basics" and said "most reviewers have coddled the sports saga with similar care..." Wloszczyna said Thomson said "My great wish always, which is difficult to achieve, is to go in knowing nothing about a film."(ref Susan Wloszczyna (
2005-01-23).
"USATODAY.com - 'Million Dollar' mystery".
USA Today. Retrieved 2007-11-24. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)) Mark Moring of
Christianity Today said "Who wants to watch a movie when you know how it ends? We've actually had to wrestle with that question around here lately..." Moring said "We wondered if our "moral obligation" to warn Christians about the potentially disturbing subject matter somehow "trumped" our professional commitment to avoid plot spoilers—especially the worst plot spoiler of all: divulging the end. After some discussion, we agreed that the right decision was to not give away the end to Million Dollar Baby."(ref Mark Moring (
2005-01-18).
"Spoil the Ending?".
Christianity Today. Retrieved 2007-11-24. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)) Michael Atkinson of
The Village Voice said the film had a "spoiler-spawning shift in narrative."(ref Michael Atkinson (
2004-12-13).
"Aging Bull".
The Village Voice. Retrieved 2007-11-24. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)) Ian Grey of
Baltimore City Paper said the last act seems to be from another film at first, and said "Naming this misfortune and its consequences, however, would be an unforgivable spoiler."(ref Ian Grey (
2005-01-12).
"Kid Gloves".
Baltimore City Paper. Retrieved 2007-11-24. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help))@ Marc Shepherd, Nydas, Pixelface, BillPP, Tony Sidaway, and JimDunning: I don't know who's still around from this debate, but as a reader of this article, this section seemed clearly out of place and off-topic. The section is about an issue in film reviewing, not about Million Dollar Baby. I'm removing it, but figured I should let y'all know. Sondra.kinsey ( talk) 20:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Anyone have some ideas on how the Awards section can be significantly condensed? The list is impressive, but my eyes glazed over after scrolling through just a few lines. Which ones would be good to include in a summary?
Jim Dunning |
talk 19:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This works for me. I like the summary box someone added to the Awards section (the one that floats right). I suggest the section be converted to prose and the box be expanded to include all notable wins. As I scroll through the list looking at noms, I wonder how many really readers are interested that it lost 23 awards? lol
Jim Dunning |
talk 11:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
saw the film tonight for the first time A++! a bit formulaic but still excellent. Wasnt it very loosely based on the death of a real boxer, i recall seeing a review which comented on a real boxer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.196.153 ( talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed Rotten Tomatoes reference because has no film critic value to movies.-- 201.247.28.25 ( talk) 18:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
how is this the last PG-13 movie to win best picture when the very next year crash, another PG-13 movie, won the award? i have deleted the sentence that says that it is -- Strobes13 ( talk) 15:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if any other PG-13 movie won Best Picture after Million Dollar Baby, but lemme tell you that Crash was R-rated.-- 69.248.1.200 ( talk) 18:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved, WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 04:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Million Dollar Baby → Million Dollar Baby (2004 film) To disambiguate from Million Dollar Baby (1941 film). 31.52.4.146 ( talk) 12:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Million Dollar Baby. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that Swank was the first female in Academy history to be nominated for portraying a boxer? About the 1:45 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWGNsP26ttQ. I don't know how to add it myself. 47.196.133.144 ( talk) 22:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)