![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I cut this whole part as it was not sourced. "The Vietnamese government did not greet the film with approval. In fact, Don Duong the Vietnamese actor, who played the Vietnamese commander Lt. Col. Nguyen Huu An, was officially condemned as a traitor, subjected to interrogations to force him to sign a "confession" to "crimes" he had supposedly committed. Duong refused to give in. After months of negotiations between the Bush White House and Hanoi, Duong and his family were allowed to immigrate to the United States in 2003. [1]<NO LINK TO ARTICLE>" If you source it it might stay, but sounds heavily POV right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.78.183.102 ( talk) 09:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
References
mel gibson is a figgin idiot, but since when is "graphic depiction of the loss of life" anti-war? telling the truth means you are against the truth, wtf? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.185.127 ( talk • contribs) 29 May 2006
Moving to Australia just changed which country drafted you. 500 Australians, many of them drafted died in Vietnam 121.220.24.171 ( talk) 09:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC) kim_dimsim
interesting movie about a challenging tactical situation, but the popcorn-throwing, movie-ending mass bayonet charge with helicopter support didn't happen. that was pure Hollywood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.225.35 ( talk • contribs) 12 June 2006 One thing that has to be considered about the supposed "pro american" POV is that the film depicts the very first days of the war, when the whole deal hasn't yet spiral down into a clusterfuck. Vietnam in 1965 wasn't the same sitution as in the late 60's/early 70's, and the movie reflects that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.242.213.64 ( talk • contribs) 25 June 2006 I think this is a great war movie. But I think that despite the various inaccuracies, the point of the movie was accurately made: When the bullets start flying , as any soldier or Marine will tell you, You don't fight for your country - You fight to keep your buddies alive. There is no bond as strong as that shared between men who have faced death in battle. I saw the movie yesterday (to be honest i am re-seening it). IMHO: It's an ambiguous movie, to say the least: to me resemble, more than a 'FMJ/Platoon' or Green Berets, a sort of mix 'Black Hawk Down/Braveheart'. The final bayonet attack seems the Stirling battle, Gibson lacked just the blue painted face. This movie AFAIK is very mixed: it's full of ideology as 'God, family, country' all around, agiography etc. but also with some good moments that shows the battle nonsense carnage (just look to the jap guy that lost half face due to 'friendly' napalm). Overall cleary much near to Green Berets than FMJ as 'ideology'. Gibson and R.Wallace were from Braveheart movie. Not a masterpiece, perhaps, but not a bad one also.-- Stefanomencarelli 23:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The whole Debate section of this article is a mess. Any chance of cleaning it up and making it more encyclopedic in nature? At the moment, it reads like some of my Livejounal postings.-- Raguleader 02:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone wrote in the article that the bayonet charge at the end never actually happened. Please reference Chapter 16 (pages 249-253 of the movie tie-in edition). It may have been a little over-dramatized and over-emphasized as compared to the book, but Moore did lead two of the companies out with fixed bayonets. 207.103.48.49 04:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Whats the point in listing the entire crew of the movie? Cilpot 11:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Factual error in the film and in the preceeding article: Custer was a Lt. Col. at the Little Big Horn--same as Mel's character. He did hold the brevet rank of major general (two stars)in the Civil War. He also graduated last in his class at West Point. 69.179.40.119 06:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Daniel
I can't believe the "Debate" section. It is completely unreferenced and is probably just one editor's opinion, in other words original research. I think the whole section should be deleted. Anyone disagree? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The second para in the lead section said 'while the book is a documentary work' with a wiki link to the disambiguation page for 'documentary'. Documentary is not usually used that way to describe a book so I've changed it to 'non-fiction'. This may not be the best way to describe it but it's the best I can do. Also, this is the first mention of 'the book'. There is no actual citation of the book being referred to before this mention. Needs cleaning up I think. Sterry2607 00:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This question was inserted into the article by another editor. I moved it here: Question? When did Rick see the movie and know his unit was not written in the movie? This movie was premiered on February 25, 2002 and released March 1, 2002 to theaters. Rick Rescorla died September 11, 2001 at the WTC. Niteshift36 ( talk) 01:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm tired of censor crusaders "fixing" it. It's is discussed in the movie why that is his nickname. It is shown in the movie when his flight helmet has "Snake" stenciled on it and "shit" written on a piece of tape after it. I provided a source from Joe Galloway himself, who was actually there, knows that man and wrote the book. So why are certain editors so damn bent on removing a sourced fact? Stop watching the censored for TV version and assuming it is only one. Niteshift36 ( talk) 00:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
86.16.134.133 ( talk) 21:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I have found this page http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277434/quotes that I think would make a useful reference. Anyone got any thoughts?
86.16.134.133 ( talk) 21:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
86.16.134.133 ( talk) 21:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
86.16.134.133 ( talk) 23:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi
An ip editor pointed out, quite rightly, that the battle was not the "first major engagement of the US military".
I have amended the lead to "US Army" and left their statement in as a hidden messaage in case of problems.
Chaosdruid ( talk) 07:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
See the end of the 7th paragraph under the plot section, these two sentences don't make the most sense as they are. "they weren't able to reach the command post because it was to far up the mountains and their orders were to find the base camp and kill all soldiers the hidden entrance that would lead underground tunnels to Nguyen Huu An he had already retreated up higher in the mountains was block of badly with nettles & bushes they couldn't find it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.162.177 ( talk) 07:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that Major Bruce Crandall (depicted by Kinnear in the movie) was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions at Ia Drang? He also received four Distinguished Flying Crosses and 23 Air Medals in his career. 71.154.158.126 ( talk) 06:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
why not a section about the production of the movie? I know it was filmed in part at Fort Benning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.239.149 ( talk) 00:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
From the current revision of the article:
"Although the FFL unit kills many Vietminh, the unit is soon overrun. Nguyen Huu An (Don Duong) hypothesizes that if they do not take no prisoners the French will at some point stop sending troops to Vietnam, he then orders the execution of all surviving French soldiers."
I'm watching the movie for the first time and came in after this part so I can't attest to the veracity (hence not editing it myself.) But it seems to me that if the battle survivors were executed the reason would be because, "...if they do not take prisoners the French will... stop," or alternatively, "...if they take no prisoners the French will... stop," The double negative implies to me the opposite. Or am I imagining it. (Maybe it was meant to say that if they do not take any prisoners?)
Anyway, has anybody else who has seen the beginning of the movie want to edit that? LaughingVulcan 23:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)