Talk:Pearl Harbor (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
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.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.

Can anyone shed some light on the movie's historical inaccuracies? --Cammoore 10:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would take up a LOT less space if you focused on the accuracies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No plot summary? Most films on Wikipedia have one, while this article just focuses on the inaccuracies and failures...

Contents

[edit] Intro

Says it won an Oscar. For what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.206.209 (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Baseball playing boys

Removed the part about it being false, from what I read that actually happened. -unsigned

Need sources. 66.109.99.18 22:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kimmel and Short

"subsequent investigations showed that both commanders were not informed by US intelligence"

So, a telegram received on December 2, headed "THIS IS A WAR WARNING", warning of possible Japanese attacks on U.S. interests in the Pacific, was not informative enough? Rsduhamel 00:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, read the article. Or read the test of the message! "attacks in Russia, Philippines, Kra Isthmus, possibly Borneo". No mention of Pearl Harbor. (No inkling of it in DC, either). Unfortunately for history, Kimmel & Short (unlike in the movie) didn't have Capt. Kreskin on their staff, doing intel analysis (not done in fact) & saying, "They'll attack here." & pointing to Pearl. Trekphiler (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of Racial Tension Concerns?

I remember that when this movie was released, there were fears by Japanese-Americans of increased racial tensions between Caucasians and Japanese-Americans because of the movie. The fears were, from what I understand, not widespread, and the racial tensions didn't materialize. Should we cover that here? --Arbiteroftruth 03:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If there's an obscure, not widely held fear of something that never existed? No, I don't think we should. elvenscout742 21:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Funeral Scene

In the funeral, Cuba Gooding's character was shown attending. In real life, African-Americans weren't permitted to attend.

[edit] "I think World War II just started"

Hartnett's line is not mentioned in the inaccuracy section. WWI was still called the Great War back then, so this war was not considered "II" until the Great War was renamed the World War after the end of second World War. Also, Pearl Harbor was in '41, but the actual war started in '39 with the invasion of Poland.

This was probably repeated endlessly on other sites, but I think it's still worth mentioning.


It would be more accurate to say that it started in '37 with the start of the Sino-Japan war

It depends how you define "World." The war which commenced in 1939 was only between European states, while the two most industrially powerful countries on the globe (USA and Soviet Union) were not at war. It only becomes an actual world war in 1941. It could be rationally argued that if the war had ended before 1941, before the USA and SU got involved, then it would just have been called the European War, or the Great Nazi War, or the Anglo-Franco-German War or something similar. It is difficult to see why a war which leaves out the two most powerful countries on Earth could in any real sense be called a "world" war. (And I am writing this as a European.) Still, the war has to be called something, and once it became a world war in 1941 then the name could retrospectively be applied to the fighting which preceded it.

By the time of Pearl Harbor, the war had spread outside the European continent into Africa. The Atlantic (North and South) Ocean was a battlefield. The Commonwealth nations were involved. The USSR had invaded Poland. There were American volunteers in Europe. American products were being bought for use in the war. Hardly limited to Europe. GraemeLeggett 10:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I may be just splitting hairs, but where does the Second Italo–Abyssinian War, the Mukden Incident of 1931, and the Battle of Shanghai in 1932 fit into all of this? In my humble opinion, it's difficult to pinpoint a start to what is now considered the "Second World War."--XRedcomet 02:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Presumably there is a 'tipping point' at which a merely very very large war becomes a world war? If the UK and France had defeated Germany on their own in 1940, so that neither the USA nor USSR were ever formally involved, then would it still have been called a "world war"? Anyway it is all slightly pointless I suppose, a bit like arguing at what precise minute of the day twilight starts. --Spring rain 16:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a great deal of interesting discussion about the point at which the 1937-1945 period fighting became a "world" war (ie at 1937, at 1939 or at 1941) on the World War II talk pages.

[edit] Team America: World Police

Shouldn't there be some mention of the song "Pearl Harbor sucked and I love you"? AnonMoos 07:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

add it 81.110.2.1 17:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

yea someone add this it really should be there ManningMan

[edit] Doris Miller

Under Historical Innacuracies, it is claimed that the movie exagerated Doris Miller's heroism. How so? He shot down at least 1 attacking Japanese Aircraft before running out of ammo and being ordered to abandon ship. He was the first African American to be awarded the Navy's second highest honor, the Navy Cross. I think that the line should be removed unless someone wants to show how the movie exagerated what was observably true heroism.

In addition to the Navy Cross, Miller received the Purple Heart, American Defense Service Medal - Fleet Clasp, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, and the World War II Victory Medal. Not bad for a cook.

Agreed, saying that his 'heroism is exaggerated' is maybe not the best way to put it, since that is a subjective judgement. If there were historical goofs in his scenes, perhaps 'his actions were exaggerated' is better. It has been too long since I last saw the movie, so I can't recall if there was anything wrong. Identity0 04:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
His heroism is exaggerated. (See the debate at Attack on Pearl Harbor.) It's getting attention for doing something a bunch of white sailors were doing, too. Aboard Tautog, for instance, who shot down the first Japanese aircraft of the attack. And Miller got a Navy Cross, & lived; other sailors got the Medal, & were killed doing their duty. Valiant? Yes. Admirable? Yes. Worth this much attention? Not a chance. And if he was white, would it have gotten so much? I doubt it. ::That troubles me, because it suggests we don't expect blacks to be as heroic, or as capable, or whatever, that it's somehow a surprise. It shouldn't be.
Or maybe it's we're so poorly educated about minority contributions. Did you learn about the 442 RCT in school? The 99h FG? The 761t Tank Bn? The 555h Para Bn? A destroyer (Evans?) with a black crew? (Just to name ones I can recall.) Did you learn there was an all-black bomb group? An all black cavalry outfit, which got converted to a labor formation in North Africa? I didn't. And I'd say I should have. We (U.S., Canada) all should have. And should. Not as Dorie Miller, not overblown as a rare heroism, but as the usual. How do I phrase it? For the 99h et al. it was "Will you let us fight?" not "Are we able?" or "Are we willing?" Able shouldn't be an issue for us, today. Overemphasis on Miller, to me, calls the ability, or willingness, of other blacks into question, because it "puffs him up" as special.
Am I reading this wrong? 'cause, when I see a white guy doing the heroic (except the melodramatic Hollywood bullshit nobody takes seriously), I don't think twice about it; that's what you should do. Maybe it's just so few blacks (black characters) being given the chance to be heroic in film/TV. Windtalkers, who's the hero? Nick Cage, not Adam Beach. Amistad, it's about the courtroom, instead of taking over the slave ship. What was the last film you saw with a black hero that didn't have an all-black cast? Doesn't that make Miller just another token?
Is this all way OT? Trekphiler (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeros used: A6M5 instead A6M2?

I think the Zeros in the movie were 1943-thereafter A6M5 models. The length of wings makes the external differance between A6M2 (longer) and A6M5 (shorter). There are a few flyable A6M5s today (and no A6M2s to my knowlage), and it was probably them that appeared in the movie - but they also came with their later-war green paint. If they had made replicas they would have probably painted them "correctly" -light gray.

However, this article states incorrectly that a Zero destroyes USS BB Arizona in the movie. It was clearly visable that the aircraft that threw the bomb had eliptical wings and fixed (lowered) landing gear, clear indications that the aircraft "acted" as Aichi D3A Val dive bomber.

Also it should be noted that the two pilots` actions during the attack were loosely based on two real-life pilots: Taylor and Welch (who downed "only" six aircraft, though and only one amoung them was a Zero - the rest being Vals).


I've just looked at that scene from the YouTube, but it seems that the bomber which actually released the bomb in the movie seems not be a Val, but a Kate. I could not find any fixed landing gear. So, could you check this once again? This article states that it is one of the inaccuracies of the movie. However, if my opinion is correct, it seems that it is not an inaccuracy.
Another problem is that in the case of a Val, there are only two crews : a pilot and a gunner. However, in the movie, a crew, possibly a bombardier, aims at the target and releases the bomb. So, we can clearly see that it is an impossible case with a Val. So, it's another reason why I believe that the movie tried to describe a Kate.
In sum, I believe this is not an inaccuracy of the movie, and if no reply to my opinion is given, then I will remove the following statement in the main text.
"In the movie, the USS Arizona was sunk by a Aichi D3A Val using a single bomb. In reality, the Arizona was sunk by a "special bomb" from the B5N Kate utility bomber. "


chanwcom Sep 7, 2006

Yes you're right. Soryy, my bad - the bomber doesn't have it's wheels down. I had no opportunity to check it for a long time.

Veljko Stevanovich 5. Sep 2007. 19:00 UTC+1

[edit] Trailer Music

Months before its US release, theatres showed trailers/teasers for the film. The musical score heard in these early trailers was not in the film nor in the trailers just prior to its release. Does anyone know any details about this score?

Having never seen the trailer, I can't but it's common practice to use music from previous films. Examples I can think of are music from Crimson Tide being used in an Independence Day trailer, Conan music in Gladiator and so on.
It's from the Thin Red Line released in 1998. The musical score is by Hans Zimmer. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 18:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "THIS IS INCORRECT"?

That's in the article proper, under Pearl Harbor sequences. What is incorrect? And furthermore, how unpolished. Can someone who has a better grasp of what that is about word this more clearly?


[edit] P-40s outrunning Zeros

The historical innaccuracies includes this:

At the Airfield where the pilots are composing themselves and trying to take action against the strafing Japanese planes, Ben Affleck's character erroneously says "P-40s can't outrun Zeroes, we'll just have to outfly them." In fact, the standard tactic for American and Allied pilots, from the AVG (Flying Tigers) in late-1940 through 1941 and throught the Pacific War, was basic "hit-and-run." They would dive on Zeroes, get what "hits" they could, and then outrun them.

While bening technicaly correct the P-40 could outrun a Zero in a dive, a P-40 could not outrun the Zero if the zero is flying and the P-40 is just taking off and the P-40 has to climb. For the same reason as their tremedous speed in dives, P-40s were not great climbers (their weight). I also believe (but am not certain) that in straight and level flight the Zero would outrun a P-40. So I could put the statement in a context where it is close. Though I would say more inaccurate is the P-40 outmaneuvering and out turning the Zeros.say1988 03:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Right both times. The Zeke was faster & had better rate of climb @most altitudes it'd encounter the P-40. Would have been more realistic to have Zekes firing on them & having little/no effect, thanks to the chintzy 7.7s against the '40's armor. Trekphiler (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unrelated Link Removed

The link for the double dip angle of the 4 DVD set vs. the 2 DVD set was removed. I felt this was pure satire, and not to be included as a serious matter, as it doesn't not relate to the movie other than reffering to the movies 2 disc and 4 disc formats.--Ben414 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yamamoto's "famous quote"

I don't think anyone knows what Yamamoto said when he heard about the successful attack, but the makers of "Tora! Tora! Tora!" admitted that they had made up the line about awaking a sleeping giant because they couldn't figure out how else to end a movie like that aimed at American audiences.

[edit] Vandalism?

A huge portion of the page has been removed, isn't this vandalism? Pearl Harbor was criticised for it's inaccuries, and while most war films have them (lets face it, how many real Tiger Tanks for instance exist today), this was more telling than most. It's not just that that's been removed. I call for it to be reverted. Douglasnicol 13:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taylor and Welch

I decided to add a blurb about George Welch and Kenneth Taylor, the real pilots who took to the skies during the Pearl Harbor attack. I think it was important that it be mentioned, that there were indeed pilots that fought the Japanese, but at the same time they were completely different from the two main characters. I also added a new reference for it.

EDIT: Made a second full draft; more clarity, brevity and neutrality.

--Elbrigadier 02:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese reception

I remember reading an article around the time this came out about the studio pushing this movie hard in Japan, and emphasizing as much as possible the romantic aspects to avoid reminding the audience that their people are the villains. Does anyone know if this worked? (I believe the article implied that it was working.) Brutannica 04:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Date at Mitchel Field and the Queen Mary

I'm the poster who first mentioned that the year at Mitchel Field must be incorrect to coincide with the Battle of Britain. I've accepted that I may be wrong, but I also contributed the point about the Queen Mary. In my book on famous Clyde built vessels it mentions that by mid 1940 the Queen Mary made a crossing to New York, which would fit in with the film if the Mitchel Field date was an error, especially considering that the Queen Mary set sail shortly afterwards to Sydney to be used as a troopship. Opinions? Douglasnicol 13:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do we really need this blurb?

Mark Carnes, history professor at Barnard College and general editor of Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies (ISBN 0-8050-3759-4), commented on this subject in general terms during a NewsHour interview broadcast three years before Pearl Harbor was released:

The difficulty is this. The truths of the movie tend to be clean and pure and powerful and simple. And history never is; history is complex, muddy, difficult. Movies make good guys too good, bad guys too bad. They adopt narrative lines that are too simple, all in an effort to reach a broad audience. The more expensive the movie, the greater the need to reach a huge audience, an audience that can quickly apprehend its themes. You know, this emphasis on simplicity and power and immediately hitting your audience means that the movies are much too simple compared to the past. I don't think there's any harm in that.[5]

Now seriously, can anyone expressly point out what bearing this has in relation to the film, other than the whole Historical inaccuracy debate?--293.xx.xxx.xx 07:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot?

Need plot info Iamhungey 03:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reception? Controversy?

There is no mention in the article about the critical or commercial reception of the film, nor the controversy over it. This article is sorely lacking overall. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.119.165.62 (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Reception of movie restored

The reception part that was deleted for some reason has been restored. Elbrigadier 05:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starting to rewrite the summary

I've started to rewrite parts of the summary to make it more neutral and less like a fan review. I've only done minor parts so far, but if anyone else feels like altering it, feel free, the summary really needs work. Douglasnicol 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


Great job Doug, but when i watched the movie i felt that there should be another edit, u left out a chunk of the movie for ex: when the japanese planned the attack,japanese sending fake codes to us intel,other shit. can i add some stuff in? CrazyHermit 21:36, 3 January 2008 (PTC)

[edit] Wow!!

Jesus Christ, people, it's ONLY a MOVIE!!! It wasn't produced as (or meant to be) a documentary. Lighten up! 65.69.81.2 18:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your point? It's a movie based off a real event which doesn't just take some liberties with the truth, it downright distorts them. Besides, most movies have similiar criticism sections. I'm sure if you look up Braveheart or Gladiator or whatever you will find similiar feelings. Douglasnicol 21:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
While I think that historical accuracy is important, it is also important to realize that much of the attack sequence was filmed on location in Pearl Harbor, HI and in Suisun Bay, CA, both locations featuring actual ships being "attacked." As this is the case, many classes of vessels that did not exist during WWII appeared in the movie, but were felt to portray greater realism than CG ships with CG explosions. Additionally, very few WWII-era ships exist anywhere but as museum ships around the country and using them for the movie woudl have prohibitivly expensive. Also, to address the concern of flight deck inaccuracies during the Mitchell raid, the shots of the B-25 actually taking off from the carrier were taken off of an actual US Navy carrier during filming and the flight deck was probably left as is instead of being CG'd out due to the expense that woudl have been involved and the low liklihood that most movie patrons would recognize the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.133.140 (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Does it occur to anybody, with just some small substitutions, this film could have been a "Star Wars" sequel? Or an Eli Cross comedy? Trekphiler (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References to ships

This article could use cleanup of a few issues related to conventions about ships:

  • the name of a ship (but not its prefix) should be italicized (USS Texas, Japanese battleship Nagato, etc).
  • the name of a class of ships should be italicized (Iowa-class battleship).
  • the name of a type of ship should not be capitalized (battleship, destroyer).
  • most of the interwiki links to ships need to be disambiguated (don't link to USS Texas but rather to USS Texas (BB-35)).

I'll put this on my todo list, but appreciate if anyone could start working on it, as it will probably take a few passes. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maralia (talk • contribs) 04:23, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Some one can add this bit to the faults of the movie part Under errors for ships, it should be noted that the USS Oklahoma did not turn fully turtle, that should did not roll completely over. In the movie you can clearly see all four of her screws. In reality her masts kept her from turning completely turtle so only two of her propellers would have been showing. Trynn Allen (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] where in the film does it show HMS Torrens footage?

From what I have seen of the film I do not remember seeing footage of a torpedo hitting a ship edited for the film. can anyone provide with me with details on when this happens in the film? RiseDarthVader

[edit] Major rewrite required

There is a great deal of detail here that needs to be "pruned". I won't do anything till other editors have a chance to make a comment. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC).

A cast list is normally only a listing of actors and their roles. My recommendation is that in order to have an acceptable table, only those two criteria are necessary. Bzuk (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC).