Talk:Behind Enemy Lines (2001 film): Difference between revisions
Tag: |
|||
(29 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|||
{{Film|American-task-force=yes |
{{WikiProject Film|American-task-force=yes|War-task-force=yes}} |
||
}} |
|||
== Criticism == |
== Criticism == |
||
Line 6: | Line 8: | ||
Yes, there is nothing wrong with being patriotic. There is wrong to make idiotic movies like Behind Enemy Lines. They'd better make film about O'Graidy eating insects. At least, they would shown TRUE events. [[User:Sea diver|Sea diver]] 08:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC) |
Yes, there is nothing wrong with being patriotic. There is wrong to make idiotic movies like Behind Enemy Lines. They'd better make film about O'Graidy eating insects. At least, they would shown TRUE events. [[User:Sea diver|Sea diver]] 08:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
Exactly, but I still think it is Serbophobic and on the top it is not true. They had O'Graidy available and if they wanted to make it true they could do it but since they didn't want to base movie on truth - it is obvious they made it on purpose against Serbs. So, we should look at the financing side and see who had such interests. |
|||
However, what is the most cynical part is that at the end of the movie they present comments like it is pure truth !!??? Even mentioning admiral retirement and other notorious lies. Instead, they should have put at least well-known text that the story is completely fictional and no such events took place anytime in history. Is it so hard to tell the truth? [[User:Selt|Selt]] ([[User talk:Selt|talk]]) 21:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:I think it somehow makes the French admiral the enemy in certain areas, like when he assumes command. I also noticed that the British journalist dude had really bad teeth, playing on the stereotype on how all British people have bad teeth. [[User:Seriphyn|Seriphyn]] 22:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
:I think it somehow makes the French admiral the enemy in certain areas, like when he assumes command. I also noticed that the British journalist dude had really bad teeth, playing on the stereotype on how all British people have bad teeth. [[User:Seriphyn|Seriphyn]] 22:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
:: The stereotype about bad teeth amuses me no end! Where the hell did it come from? I've noticed absolutely no difference in dental hygiene between the UK and US. Very odd. And as for the French.. it seems the US has a real thing for French. Always portrayed as either the bad guy or stupid. |
:: The stereotype about bad teeth amuses me no end! Where the hell did it come from? I've noticed absolutely no difference in dental hygiene between the UK and US. Very odd. And as for the French.. it seems the US has a real thing for French. Always portrayed as either the bad guy or stupid. |
||
:::I thought the Brits started the French thing. You went and beat up on poor Napoleon, who had never hurt anyone in his entire life. --[[Special:Contributions/71.172.37.93|71.172.37.93]] ([[User talk:71.172.37.93|talk]]) 06:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Um, who is Sasha and who plays him. Whoever wrote this summary left that out. [[User:Timmyfitz161|Timmyfitz161]] ([[User talk:Timmyfitz161|talk]]) 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC) |
Um, who is Sasha and who plays him. Whoever wrote this summary left that out. [[User:Timmyfitz161|Timmyfitz161]] ([[User talk:Timmyfitz161|talk]]) 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Similarity to Bat 21 == |
|||
i reckonZ its kinda clear that Behind enemy lines echos/ borrows from Bat 21. not copying but i think that the producers knew about this, i think thats why they cast gene hackman, and wilson even makes a reference to golf as a metaphor, which plays a big part in Bat 21. should I or someone else add this? |
|||
== SAM attack scene == |
|||
How faithful is the scene to real-life SAMs? Do the missiles actually have the endurance and maneuverability to track an airplane persistently as in the movie? [[User:Masterblooregard|Masterblooregard]] 02:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::It depends on pilot skill and plane maneuverability. Example, a pilot doing barrel rolls is not going to break a missile, however, a pilot who perhaps does a High-G Turn and manages to break the missile and/or releases chaffs / flares may have the ability to break a missile. However, if a pilot is doing multiple flips, multiple rolls, etc. as seen somewhat in the film, especially flying amongst clouds which may or may not interfere with radar (depending on the sophistication of the missile), chances are more than likely he will successfully evade a missile. Now a Surface to Air Missile with the properties of a Quick-Maneuvering Ground-to-Air, Sea-To-Air, or Air-to-Air, missile just may, but only so much. I guess the simple answer to your question is "no". [[User:Evilgohan2|<span style="color: #DD0000">ⒺⓋⒾ</span><span style="color: #AA0000">ⓁⒼⓄ</span><span style="color: #660000">ⒽⒶⓃ</span><span style="color: #330000">②</span>]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Evilgohan2|talk]]</sup> 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[User:Masterblooregard|Masterblooregard]], the answer to your question is NO. A [[2K12 Kub]] (aka SA-6) SAM missile shown in the movie cannot turn 180 degrees and keep following the aircraft it already missed head-on for two important reasons 1) it is not so maneuverable 2) it is a short-range missile - it would have run out of fuel. Another idiocy in the movie was the use of flares (and a fireball from a dropped fuel tank) to confuse a non-infrared guided missile (Kub has a command + semi-active radar homing). The aircraft needed radar jammer or at least chaff to hope to confuse this kind of missile. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.110.220.113|89.110.220.113]] ([[User talk:89.110.220.113|talk]]) 21:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==film== |
|||
this is very stupid film.I just watched them.on the lake are a hunderad soldiers but ice doesnt crash and film is very unreal.–[[User:Sinji soko|Sinji soko]] ([[User talk:Sinji soko|talk]]) 21:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Okay, but this is not a forum for the breaking down and bashing of an individual film's points. While entitled to your opinion, this is a talk page for the purpose of the betterment of the associated article and those seeking to further their knowledge in relation to such (see above discussion), not a discussion board. [[User:Evilgohan2|<span style="color: #DD0000">ⒺⓋⒾ</span><span style="color: #AA0000">ⓁⒼⓄ</span><span style="color: #660000">ⒽⒶⓃ</span><span style="color: #330000">②</span>]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Evilgohan2|talk]]</sup> 16:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Behind the Scenes details== |
==Behind the Scenes details== |
||
Line 38: | Line 28: | ||
:: If you can watch the film and find a respected link online and can truly verify that such is the case, then consider it verified. [[User:Evilgohan2|<span style="color: #DD0000">ⒺⓋⒾ</span><span style="color: #AA0000">ⓁⒼⓄ</span><span style="color: #660000">ⒽⒶⓃ</span><span style="color: #330000">②</span>]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Evilgohan2|talk]]</sup> 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC) |
:: If you can watch the film and find a respected link online and can truly verify that such is the case, then consider it verified. [[User:Evilgohan2|<span style="color: #DD0000">ⒺⓋⒾ</span><span style="color: #AA0000">ⓁⒼⓄ</span><span style="color: #660000">ⒽⒶⓃ</span><span style="color: #330000">②</span>]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Evilgohan2|talk]]</sup> 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
== |
== SA-13 == |
||
⚫ | The article mentions SA-13 , any source ? Taking in mind that SA-13 is very short range missile up to 500 meters only ! The most appropriate SAM would be SA-12 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.8.246.12|209.8.246.12]] ([[User talk:209.8.246.12|talk]]) 22:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
I would just like to point out that the directors obviously didn't think about filming this properly because while it has been recorded in reverse the American flag patches on the soldiers shoulders are BACKWARDS! Kristy - Sydney |
|||
⚫ | |||
:God this is old stuff but i just wanted to paste this answer here "The flag is worn with the "appearance" of being backwards on soldiers RIGHT arm to symbolize early American armies which had a flag carrier holding our flag high (which looks backwards from one side while correct from the other). The "backwards" flag signifies this and gives the perception that every soldier is carrying a flag. Left arm patches are correctly laid." |
|||
⚫ | |||
:Its done on purpose |
|||
They were SA-13s based on the vehicle that launched the missiles. If you are going to remove this then you will need to remove the BMP-1 reference since the APC is even more ambiguous (there is no way to tell whether it was a BMP-1, 2 or 3!). Also SA-13s have a flight range of 5km (not 500m!) and are very resilient against countermeasures with their onboard triple channel guidance system, adding to the authenticity of an F-18F unable to evade a pair at the same time. In addition to the plot cleanup, the political subplot between Reigart and Almeida has been omitted, even though it is important for the overall interpretation of the plot itself. [[User:Cowbert|Cowbert]] ([[User talk:Cowbert|talk]]) 17:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== About the armpatches.. == |
|||
⚫ | |||
It's not common knowledge - I asked a US soldier why his patches were backwards and he had no idea. Also, there was no flag on his other shoulder, only a unit insignia. Therefore, the only flag on his uni is backwards. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.19.142.15|98.19.142.15]] ([[User talk:98.19.142.15|talk]]) 14:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
⚫ | |||
[[User:Tectaal|Tectaal]] ([[User talk:Tectaal|talk]]) 20:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:The article still needs cleanup. The entire production section should be removed as it's all original research and/or speculation. No need to remove the notice yet. [[User:SpigotMap|<span style="color:#458DD9;">Spigot</span>]][[User talk:SpigotMap|<span style="color:green;">Who?</span>]] 20:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== SA-13 == |
|||
== Cultural reference == |
|||
⚫ | The article mentions SA-13 , any source ? Taking in mind that SA-13 is very short range missile up to 500 meters only ! The most appropriate SAM would be SA-12 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.8.246.12|209.8.246.12]] ([[User talk:209.8.246.12|talk]]) 22:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
At the beginning of the film, Wilson (Burnett) muses about piloting celebrities after his service ends, and mentions several musicians who'd still be alive with better pilots than they actually had. Could somebody please name them here? Thank you, --[[User:Hodsha|Hodsha]] ([[User talk:Hodsha|talk]]) 00:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
He mentions specifically Richie Valens; so the others would presumably be Buddy Holly and The Big Bopper. |
|||
⚫ | |||
-- |
|||
⚫ | |||
[[ |
[[User:MrDemeanour|MrDemeanour]] ([[User talk:MrDemeanour|talk]]) 14:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Anti-American Propaganda Removal== |
|||
I'm only going to say this once. I've put a watch on this page and whatever non-english speaking person thinks they're going insert Anti-American propaganda into this article know I'm going to revert as many times as you put it in. [[User:Iwalters|Iwalters]] ([[User talk:Iwalters|talk]]) |
|||
==Unit of currency== |
|||
Why are the budget and grossed amounts given in Lebanese Pounds, instead of US Dollars? <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/117.216.83.231|117.216.83.231]] ([[User talk:117.216.83.231|talk]]) 14:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Bosnia vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina == |
|||
I did not expect this to be an issue but here we are. Since this is an encyclopedia rather than a fansite, I believe we should use the correct name. We use United Kingdom instead of England when talking about the sovereign state rather than the constituent country, United States instead of America when talking about the country rather than the continent, the Netherlands instead of Holland when talking about the country rather than the region, etc. In this case we refer to the country by the name of one of its regions, which is ''not'' accurate despite what a substandard American film might suggest. If this were in the Plot section or part of a quote, I would understand, but it's not. The usage in the film strikes me as most irrelevant in the Historical inspiration section. |
|||
Why should we perpetuate misconceptions? Doing so is obviously not common practice. We do not do it in [[Princess Diana Memorial]] or [[Princess Diana's Revenge]], for example, where we correctly refer to the historical person as [[Diana, Princess of Wales]] rather than as Princess Diana. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 21:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:When we are referring to what is actually said in the film, we use that name. This is not complicated. As long as we use the piped link, we are not "perpetuating misconceptions". ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;">[[User:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#009900">The Old Jacobite</span>]]</b><i style="font-family: Courier New;"><sub>[[User talk:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#006600">The '45</span>]]</sub></i> 23:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::But [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Behind_Enemy_Lines_(2001_film)&diff=820423258&oldid=820408132 here] we are not referring to what is actually said in the film. Those are our words, especially in [[Behind Enemy Lines (2001 film)#Historical inspiration]]. If the film refers to the actual former Yugoslav republic, then we should use the correct name in all instances except, perhaps, in [[Behind Enemy Lines (2001 film)#Plot]]. If the film refers to a fictional country called Bosnia, then by all means we should use Bosnia. Piped links such as <nowiki>[[Bosnia and Herzegovina|Bosnia]], [[The Netherlands|Holland]], [[United States of America|America]] or [[United Kingdom|England]]</nowiki> certainly do perpetuate misconceptions, and I see no reason to [[dumb down]] the readers. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 20:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::You are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. Bosnia was the name used in 90% of the coverage of the war as well as in the critical coverage of this film. And I say again that using the piped link is not creating or perpetuating a misconception, it is in keeping with the common name used in US media. As the film used Bosnia, so did the reviews of the film. If you can find a reputable source that deals with what you call a misconception, feel free to add it. Otherwise, leave the article as it is. ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;">[[User:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#009900">The Old Jacobite</span>]]</b><i style="font-family: Courier New;"><sub>[[User talk:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#006600">The '45</span>]]</sub></i> 02:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::And England is the name used in 90% of the coverage of anything related to the United Kingdom. England is the common name for the United Kingdom in both the US and the world media. Why is accuracy important when it comes to the United Kingdom but not when it comes to Bosnia and Herzegovina? [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 17:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If other articles are inaccurate, they should be fixed. It's not a valid argument for altering this article. Once again, the article should say what the film says, nothing more. ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;">[[User:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#009900">The Old Jacobite</span>]]</b><i style="font-family: Courier New;"><sub>[[User talk:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#006600">The '45</span>]]</sub></i> 18:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 08:30, 27 January 2024
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Criticism
[edit]Who idea? There's nothing wrong with being patriotic, and I don't see the film being Serbophobic in any way. Just because a movie is made about Nazis, does that mean it's an attack against all Germans? I'm removing that section.
Yes, there is nothing wrong with being patriotic. There is wrong to make idiotic movies like Behind Enemy Lines. They'd better make film about O'Graidy eating insects. At least, they would shown TRUE events. Sea diver 08:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, but I still think it is Serbophobic and on the top it is not true. They had O'Graidy available and if they wanted to make it true they could do it but since they didn't want to base movie on truth - it is obvious they made it on purpose against Serbs. So, we should look at the financing side and see who had such interests. However, what is the most cynical part is that at the end of the movie they present comments like it is pure truth !!??? Even mentioning admiral retirement and other notorious lies. Instead, they should have put at least well-known text that the story is completely fictional and no such events took place anytime in history. Is it so hard to tell the truth? Selt (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think it somehow makes the French admiral the enemy in certain areas, like when he assumes command. I also noticed that the British journalist dude had really bad teeth, playing on the stereotype on how all British people have bad teeth. Seriphyn 22:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- The stereotype about bad teeth amuses me no end! Where the hell did it come from? I've noticed absolutely no difference in dental hygiene between the UK and US. Very odd. And as for the French.. it seems the US has a real thing for French. Always portrayed as either the bad guy or stupid.
Um, who is Sasha and who plays him. Whoever wrote this summary left that out. Timmyfitz161 (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Behind the Scenes details
[edit]I recall from the commentary of this film and Zoolander that;
a. Gene Hackman picked to cast Owen Wilson for this movie after watching Wilson's performance in Shanghai Noon which is part of the commentary in this film.
b. That Owen Wilson was also filming Zoolander with Ben Stiller around this time frame and that he that he had to wear a wig for his Zoolander role.
Can anyone verify these details? -71.59.237.110 (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you can watch the film and find a respected link online and can truly verify that such is the case, then consider it verified. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
SA-13
[edit]The article mentions SA-13 , any source ? Taking in mind that SA-13 is very short range missile up to 500 meters only ! The most appropriate SAM would be SA-12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.8.246.12 (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
"Good point" in cleaning up the plot, that was one of the details removed to lighten the heavily detailed version. Tectaal (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
They were SA-13s based on the vehicle that launched the missiles. If you are going to remove this then you will need to remove the BMP-1 reference since the APC is even more ambiguous (there is no way to tell whether it was a BMP-1, 2 or 3!). Also SA-13s have a flight range of 5km (not 500m!) and are very resilient against countermeasures with their onboard triple channel guidance system, adding to the authenticity of an F-18F unable to evade a pair at the same time. In addition to the plot cleanup, the political subplot between Reigart and Almeida has been omitted, even though it is important for the overall interpretation of the plot itself. Cowbert (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Clean up
[edit]Now that the plot is cleaned up how do i remove the cleanup notice? Tectaal (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- The article still needs cleanup. The entire production section should be removed as it's all original research and/or speculation. No need to remove the notice yet. SpigotWho? 20:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Cultural reference
[edit]At the beginning of the film, Wilson (Burnett) muses about piloting celebrities after his service ends, and mentions several musicians who'd still be alive with better pilots than they actually had. Could somebody please name them here? Thank you, --Hodsha (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
He mentions specifically Richie Valens; so the others would presumably be Buddy Holly and The Big Bopper. -- MrDemeanour (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Anti-American Propaganda Removal
[edit]I'm only going to say this once. I've put a watch on this page and whatever non-english speaking person thinks they're going insert Anti-American propaganda into this article know I'm going to revert as many times as you put it in. Iwalters (talk)
Unit of currency
[edit]Why are the budget and grossed amounts given in Lebanese Pounds, instead of US Dollars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.83.231 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Bosnia vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina
[edit]I did not expect this to be an issue but here we are. Since this is an encyclopedia rather than a fansite, I believe we should use the correct name. We use United Kingdom instead of England when talking about the sovereign state rather than the constituent country, United States instead of America when talking about the country rather than the continent, the Netherlands instead of Holland when talking about the country rather than the region, etc. In this case we refer to the country by the name of one of its regions, which is not accurate despite what a substandard American film might suggest. If this were in the Plot section or part of a quote, I would understand, but it's not. The usage in the film strikes me as most irrelevant in the Historical inspiration section.
Why should we perpetuate misconceptions? Doing so is obviously not common practice. We do not do it in Princess Diana Memorial or Princess Diana's Revenge, for example, where we correctly refer to the historical person as Diana, Princess of Wales rather than as Princess Diana. Surtsicna (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- When we are referring to what is actually said in the film, we use that name. This is not complicated. As long as we use the piped link, we are not "perpetuating misconceptions". ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- But here we are not referring to what is actually said in the film. Those are our words, especially in Behind Enemy Lines (2001 film)#Historical inspiration. If the film refers to the actual former Yugoslav republic, then we should use the correct name in all instances except, perhaps, in Behind Enemy Lines (2001 film)#Plot. If the film refers to a fictional country called Bosnia, then by all means we should use Bosnia. Piped links such as [[Bosnia and Herzegovina|Bosnia]], [[The Netherlands|Holland]], [[United States of America|America]] or [[United Kingdom|England]] certainly do perpetuate misconceptions, and I see no reason to dumb down the readers. Surtsicna (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- You are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. Bosnia was the name used in 90% of the coverage of the war as well as in the critical coverage of this film. And I say again that using the piped link is not creating or perpetuating a misconception, it is in keeping with the common name used in US media. As the film used Bosnia, so did the reviews of the film. If you can find a reputable source that deals with what you call a misconception, feel free to add it. Otherwise, leave the article as it is. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- And England is the name used in 90% of the coverage of anything related to the United Kingdom. England is the common name for the United Kingdom in both the US and the world media. Why is accuracy important when it comes to the United Kingdom but not when it comes to Bosnia and Herzegovina? Surtsicna (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- If other articles are inaccurate, they should be fixed. It's not a valid argument for altering this article. Once again, the article should say what the film says, nothing more. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- And England is the name used in 90% of the coverage of anything related to the United Kingdom. England is the common name for the United Kingdom in both the US and the world media. Why is accuracy important when it comes to the United Kingdom but not when it comes to Bosnia and Herzegovina? Surtsicna (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)