Talk:Hacksaw Ridge

A Link

The link (no 23) regarding where the 'graveyard scene' is filmed is called Centennial Park Cemetery, with a link with takes you to the place, which actually is in Adelaide South Australia. Yet it states the film was made in NSW. Is this right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHADWICK (talk • contribs) 04:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope, it is not right. You are right to question it. The ref says "...in an eerie graveyard in Sydney's Centennial Park" and "A quaint graveyard had been created in the middle of the park". I have changed the wording and removed the link to Adelaide. JennyOz (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy Question

I saw this film in a theater on opening weekend. I really enjoyed it. It seems to be very accurate too. There's one point I'm particularly interested in knowing if it's true: at the end the soldier's won't advance up the ridge again until Doss is done praying and they're already 10 minutes late. Does any one know if this scene is true and is there a good source for this? 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This event happened and is mentioned in the documentary made on Doss's life, The Conscientious Objector. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

add location

a single world Okinawa is mentioned and since that battle is the worst in global history with 350,000 dying in ab 30 days (50-60x more than Normandy e.g.) there should be added like a line or two to show the location of the movie events in that larger battle of Okinawa... gyrene joans sempa fi 24.44.215.132 (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The film compresses action over a number of days into a single day/night and location. The main event, lowering 75 or more men over the cliff, occurred in a single night. It is unfortinate that for presentation reasons they compressed Doss's heroics into a shorter time frame and omitted actions for which he received heroism awards in the Philippines and Guam. Legacypac (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Christian film?

Should this article be categorized as a Christian film? It says in "Theme" section that It also incorporates recurring religious imagery, such as baptism and ascension. which is technically in the body of Christianity. Bluesphere 07:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a hollywood blockbuster still being shown on planes - just saw it on Hong Kong Airlines! Legacypac (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Doss's

Whatever your supposed source is that apostrophe only is more common, it is incorrect and against the MOS at WP:POSS. Because it is pronounced with two s sounds it should be spelled with two. Reywas92^Talk 21:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hacksaw Ridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 10:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to give reviewing this a go. Honestly, it looks like quite a bit of work from my initial quick skim-read, but I'll have a better look at it tomorrow. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, the first major issue for me is that the article has quite a few section with not much content in them. Writing, themes, music, marketing—there must be more info out there on these. Have a go at expanding those sections, as well as looking for more info that may not be added yet (post-production stuff, home media release). I'll give this a more thorough review once that is done. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

This page requires quite a bit to get to GA standard, in my opinion, and the nominator doesn't have the time to address those concerns, so I am going to have to Fail this article at this time. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The Conversation review

At some point an editor included this summary of a review: "Guy Westwell, writing for The Conversation, criticized the depiction of Doss' pacifism as contributing to the jingoism of the film." The statement accurately represents the review and it has a correct citation. Another reviewer has several times removed this review, claiming that The Conversation is a fringe publication and that the review gives undue weight to the view of the reviewer. This seems to me to be entirely baseless. The review is legitimate and the inclusion of it among many other reviews hardly gives it undue weight. I'd respecfully like to know what other editors think, please. Many thanks, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

That review is jumbled and not from a major publication. I don't think it adds anything useful to the article. Legacypac (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry did not see this before reverting, apologies. I read the article, struggling to work out who he is, why his opinion is important, and actually didn't even make a coherent argument at all in the review. The film was highly praised in most regards by lots of notable people, I think this guy just wanted to play devils advocate for the sake of it? Just to add, this was a block buster by Mel Gibson. If it had been an indie film then the weight of the lesser know movie critics, if you can call this guy one, goes up. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Themes

"an anti-war film, with pacifist themes" This is a bad joke. This movie is continously heroizing soldiership, and is aiming to cover the moral gap between pacifist beliefs and going to war. Hey, all you Christians out there! Join the forces and become a war hero, Jesus is fine with it. --AllIC (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You do know Doss never used a weapon and is a hero for saving men's lives under great personal risk, doing a job he asked for? Yes, Jesus also healed and saved at great personal risk, one of the reasons the Jews wanted him dead. Legacypac (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do. So what? Totally off-topic. He (Doss) did. And there is no doubt it takes guts. But there is also no doubt this movie is no anti-war movie, because it is glorifying american soldiers, espacially one of them, fails to depict the suffering or bravery of 'the enemy' to the same extent, and tries to suggest: 'yes, Jesus would be fine with this way of supporting war', which is 100% made up out of thin air. Any part in the bible reporting about that? 'Defending the home country'? Ridiculous, just as your final sub-clause is. --AllIC (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bible includes many stories glorifying solders fighting for their country. Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't intend to refer to the bible in general, but Jesus 'citations' in particular. Real hardcore right-cheek-left-cheek new testament stuff, ya know? Doesn't matter anyway. My point is: this movie is not even close to be an anti-war film, and is not pacifistic at all. This should be corrected in the article.--AllIC (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

So if no one opposes, I am going to correct this. --AllIC (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)