Talk:Gods and Generals (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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gods and Generals (film) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Criticism 2 Boring 3 The movie section needs to be rewritten. 4 Realism? 5 Separate Page for Book? 6 Robert E. Lee quote 7 Fair use rationale for Image:Gods&Generals2.jpg 8 Fair use rationale for Image:Robert Duvall as Robert E. Lee in Gods and Generals.png 9 Quote section 10 Problem

[edit] Criticism

I think that the criticism section needs to be reworked. I don't believe that criticism of any work should be the bulk of the article. The plot section needs to be longer, the criticism section needs to be shorter, and there needs to be more sections dealing with specific topics about the movie. Perhaps some of the arguments in the criticism section can open new headers.Mrathel (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boring

Could somebody include a note about how it is just a really boring film? I, like the person who wrote in above, have never heard it discribed as neo-confederate, and I didn't see it as such when I saw the first half of it. I didn't see the 2nd half of it beacuse it's 4 hours long and doesn't go more than 10 minutes without a major character breaking out into a soliloquy that doesn't sound so much like a heartfelt outpouring of inner termoil, so much as men reading thier civil war era corrispondance back and forth to each other's faces.

Sorry man but thats ^ to POV

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with neutral information. The only note that could be added is a bad rating by well-known critics. We, simple Wikipedians, cannot "just" change articles if we feel different about a subject. --Soetermans 19:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though--this and its first were horribly mediocre movies, reflected in both critical pummeling and nonexistent box office grossings. That, if not the fact that the first movie alone perhaps catalyzed my dislike of the Civil War, and the second's preview (I didn't dare watch the movie) galvanized it, should be mentioned.

WOW! That is an amazing criticism you have... you want to include an OPINION on a pseudo-encyclopedia site! Not only that, you didn't even watch the second half of the movie! It IS a point of view, because I happen to think it is anything but boring. AndarielHalo (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The movie section needs to be rewritten.

This article is not only POV, but monotonous. Sentences such as "After the box office failure of Gettysburg, Maxwell was unable to get the prequel greenlit until media mogul Ted Turner provided the entire $60 million budget" are phrased in the sort of cynical, semi-fact way that you would expect to see in NNDB. And the paragraph dealing with departures from the book, although interesting, is far too long. Now I'm not a big fan of the movie, but it seems seriously imbalanced to me. I think this article needs a serious rewrite.

Which bits of the first sentence are incorrect? If there is something wrong, you can change it, keeping only the bits that are true.

Saying something is 'too long' is not really fair if it's providing information. If you think the article is too negative, you should try writing extra stuff about it rather than simply deleting things you don't like. The Singing Badger 01:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What bothered me about that quote is that 1)It seems to imply that Ted Turner himself payed for it, which is not true. His studio payed for it just as a studio would with any other movie, and 2)Although Gettysburg didn't gross all that well, it wasn't a box office failure. You have to remember it was a made-for-TV film, and they didn't really expect it to gross much anyway. But I guess I'll stop complaining and try to make the article better myself.

Ted Turner funded the money out of his own pocket, in much the same way that Mel Gibson funded The Passion. Of course the money was paid through a production company, but the $60m came from his own pocket. And I agree, in the modern world, unless a movie makes 10 times it's cost, people seem to want to write it off as a failure. The old logo Ars Gratia Artis seems to not apply to movies anymore; it is all about money. Mushrom 01:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Realism?

Should it be pointed out also, in any rewrite of this article that some kind soul might choose to complete, that some of the battle sequences in this film are actually better than Gettysburg? Gods and Generals really does cut down on some of the openly fake obvious reenactments of Gettysburg...

'Better' is subjective. If you can be more specific, stating why and how the director improves on his work in this film, it might be possible to add this in a non-POV way. The Singing Badger 01:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Page for Book?

Should there be a seperate page for the book? It doesn't seem right that Jeff Shaara's page, which links to the novels, has a link to a page that is mostly about the movie. Ridan 22:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have split the original "Gods and Generals" page. From now on the film info will be at Gods and Generals (film) while the novel info will stay at the original address. This is now a film discussion page only. -- Grandpafootsoldier 08:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

i think this movie was good

[edit] Robert E. Lee quote

Im pretty sure that Robert E. Lee said "it is well that war is so terrible..." not "horrible" thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.167.87 (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Gods&Generals2.jpg

Image:Gods&Generals2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Robert Duvall as Robert E. Lee in Gods and Generals.png

Image:Robert Duvall as Robert E. Lee in Gods and Generals.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quote section

Quote section has been removed. Wikipedia isn't for quotes. That's an IMDB thing. Goyston talk, contribs, play 13:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

In the article it is stated that, "the 'Director's Cut' version of Gods and Generals has an alleged running time of six hours, and has never been released to the public in any format, despite pleas from fans." First of all, what fans? And second of all, where did that information come from? Completely baseless! MagicBullet5 (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)