Talk:Behind Enemy Lines (2001 film): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:55, 14 August 2011

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Criticism

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --71.172.37.93 (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, who is Sasha and who plays him. Whoever wrote this summary left that out. Timmyfitz161 (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Scenes details

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.8.246.12 (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clean up

Now that the plot is cleaned up how do i remove the cleanup notice? Tectaal (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Spigot Who? 20:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 "Good point" in cleaning up the plot, that was one of the details removed to lighten the heavily detailed version.
 [[User:Tectaal|Tectaal]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Cowbert|Cowbert]] ([[User talk:Cowbert|talk]]) 17:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 == Clean up ==