Talk:1941 (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 POV 2 Novel? 3 Definition of a decade 4 More detail 5 Comments and a suggestion for article organization 6 Popular culture

[edit] POV

I think that the opening sentence definately gives the point of view that the film is not worth watching. It does this by means of Weasel terms. Jack 17:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novel?

Was this based on a novel, or was it a tie-in book based on the movie? I read it years ago, but forget who wrote it.

[edit] Definition of a decade

'the film is generally considered to be Spielberg's first major box office flop after nearly a decade of box office success.'

A decade? His first big success was with Jaws in 1975. 1941 was released in 1979. Four years is now a decade, is it?--Stu-Rat 14:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More detail

I have written the plot outline for 1941 in detail and added a spoiler warning. I have also added some more information for the trivia section and added a music/score section. Perhaps the article can be updated from a start class to a B class and be cleaned up anyone? LordHarris 14:57 5 September 2006 (GMT)

Have also added a section with a list of the main cast and changed one of the titles of subection to reception instead of box office flop. Added references also. LordHarris 12:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments and a suggestion for article organization

Kudos for everyone who contributed. However, the article might be better served by a revision of the article structure:

Overview: Short description of movie. Brief credits, including director, studio. Popularity, reviews, box office return and mpaa rating.
1. inspiration and origins of movie.
2. movie production and screening timeline
a. script
b. casting
c. sets and locations
d. shooting
e. production credits
f. promotion
g. premier
h. reviews and box office returns
i. run dates
j. television and home video releases
3. storyline
4. characters
5. soundtrack
6. Influences
7. Movie, historical and cultural references in the film
8. Impact and consequences
9. footnotes and references
10. internal and external links

I suggest that the article open with the statement that this is a completely over-the-top comedy about the hysteria that seemed to grip much of the media and populace of the West Coast of the U.S. in the days immediately following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, as people mobilized in preparation for a feared Japanese invasion.

The current story description is too long. It's a good start, but could use condensing. Rather than put so much description into the plot, I think it would be better to briefly describe the overall structure and content of the plot, including the statement that there are multiple interconnected stories that tend to all converge at the end of the movie and that each one explores in human terms certain events and rumors from that place and time.

Give a two- or three-sentance description of each storyline and how many of them intertwine. Perhaps make the intertwining aspect a separate issue. Describe how each storyline illustrates an historical event or series of events.

Mention that there are a number of running gags, but only give a couple of examples.

I would like to see a mention of the reference made to Kubrick's "Doctor Strangelove" during the scene on board the submarine where actor Slim Pickes as Hollis Wood is being interrogated. An officer places items captured with Wood, one-by-one on the sub's map table. As he does so, Wood enumerates each, remeniscent in "Doctor Strangelove" of the pilot of the B-52's enumeration of the contents of their survival kit (that role also played by Slim Pickens).twfeline 02:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the above analysis. This is an interesting film that deserves a more precise description in the plot synopsis and more details in other sections. The notes/references section also needs to be rewritten in a more standard style. IMHO Bzuk 02:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Popular culture

Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content before adding any "Popular culture" items. The example must have a MAJOR or "especially notable" role in what is listed. Random cruft and speculation will be removed. Items should be able to have attribution if challenged as non-notable. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC).