Hatrack River Writers Workshop: 3:10 to Yuma, anybody seen it?

This is topic 3:10 to Yuma, anybody seen it? in forum Discussing Published Hooks & Books at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=000239

Posted by Patrick James (Member # 7847) on :

This is a place for discussing books, I know. But I just watched the movie and tried to imagine it as a screenplay and that it was on my desk and I was a producer. I would never have accepted the story. It didnt make sense. Not from any point of view I could think of. I have read at least a dozen stories from people who have posted here who had more interesting and better thought out plots. None of them published yet. Does anyone know how a story so poorly thought out can be accepted?

Posted by Wolfe_boy (Member # 5456) on :

Dunno if you are aware, but 3:10 to Yuma actually started out its life as an Elmore Leonard short story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Ten_to_Yuma

Jayson Merryfield

Posted by annepin (Member # 5952) on :

I'm curious, what did you think was so terrible about it? I actually thought it was a good movie. It worked for me. I think the moment of realization for the Russel Crowe character was a bit too quick and subtle. Otherwise, I was there all along.

I read the short story, and it's quite different from the movie. But that's no surprise. Better to say "the movie inspired by the story..."

Posted by InarticulateBabbler (Member # 4849) on :

I didn't like 3:10 to Yuma either. I felt Christian Bayle's character was wishy-washy until the end, when he realistically should've been. I didn't believe the end at all (not wanting to spoil any elements for those who haven't seen it, but Christian Bayle's character has a major physical flaw that makes it less believeable--and he proves a terrible shot). I can't conceive that the short story wasn't better (I'm hoping it was).

Did anyone else notice that the antagonists were all excellent shots until they needed to be?

Posted by Patrick James (Member # 7847) on :

Thank you, Wolfe boy. I figured that there was a novel that it was based on, which is one of the reasons I brought it up. I have not read that novel and dont intend to. My point wasn't just to pick on a movie that I am sure many people liked.

I didn't understand why any of the characters did any of the things they did. Let me rephrase that so people dont just say that I must therefore be a moron: I didn't believe the reasons why they did these things were strong or even possible for a human to hold.

There seemed a great confusion for motives on a step by step basis. I want to know how this screen play was acceptable. Whatever the author/adaptor did to make such an unlikely story get purchased for such a big budget movie. Whatever it was I will definitely try it.

Posted by Bent Tree (Member # 7777) on :

I didn't think it was too bad. Maybe it is just because I hadn't seen a good Western in a while. The part when they were in the hostile indian territory was the biggest let down. All the getting away and comming back seemd far too contrived. I liked the end.

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

Original version or remake. I saw the original version---which was terrific---but not the remake.

I gotta say I never thought the bad guy could intimidate the guy taking him in that easy. The simple solution is if anything started happening around the two of them, the bad guy would be the first one to get it. (John Ford plotted "Rio Bravo" around this rebuttal thought.)

Posted by johnbrown (Member # 1467) on :

The problem with 3:10 the remake for me was belief and a massive let down at the end.

1. I simply couldn't believe they didn't hog tie the guy after he killed the first time. Dumb. Nobody would be so dumb. Sacrificing believablity for a forced plot. Bumped me out every time the dude did another nasty thing.

2. It was supposed to be showing the bad man turning into a half decent guy. But it's not telegraphed enough, not prepared enough for me to believe it at the end. Bad structure.

3. We're rooting for the hero and he becomes pathetic in the end. Pitiable. Instead of it being a triumph, it becomes a sham ending. I want to root for someone, not pity him. Bad structure caused this one.

Alas. I loved all the main characters in this one. A better Western for me is Open Range and Unforgiven.

Posted by Doctor (Member # 7736) on :

Spoiler Alert

I thought it was one of the best damned movies I've seen in a long time! And I positively HATE westerns.

Our hero was a coward, as explained in dialog he was a civil war soldier who was shot by his own men as he tried to run away from the battle. He's had to live with his cowardice, and struggle with it, as demonstrated at the begining of the film when his barn is torched and he does nothing about it. And most of all he has difficulty respecting himself because his own son doesn't respect him, sees him for the coward that he is.

This opportunity to take Russell Crowe to the train, is a chance not just to get some money but to prove to himself, and his son, that he isn't a coward. Or, at least, he isn't anymore. It's about principle, it's about the need for self-respect. So, setting that example, he carries out what he believes is the right thing, argue with him or not, he thought it was. And he died for it. There is a dynamic to this character, and even though I wouldn't have taken him to the train, I still have to respect the change. It was beautiful.

They drive this point with his refusal to just take the $200 and walk away. Becaus ethat's what the government offered him for losing his leg. Gave him his $200 and stepped out of his life, after washing their hands and not caring. The same situation was about to happen, "Here's $200 for being a coward." Instead he found his courage and, with the promise that the wealthy dude would take care of his family, he was going to swallow his fear and just go for it.

Not bad, I say, not bad at all.

[This message has been edited by Doctor (edited April 18, 2008).]

Posted by Patrick James (Member # 7847) on :

I must admit, it sounds alot better the way you look at it Doc.
A real coming of manhood type story. I fail to see it that way, I would have enjoyed it more if I did. All I saw was a story where I couldnt believe the motivations of the characters.
Now I only saw the Crowe movie, not the original or the book, so maybe that is why we get a different perspective on it.

P.S. I love westerns. Weird huh?

Posted by Doctor (Member # 7736) on :

Actually, I only saw the Crowe movie as well, lol. But, like any art, some people can connect with it, others can't. I'm certain here is a film or novel out there which you find absolutely stunning, and I'd be bored and disappointed by it. Such is the fickle nature of our craft.