Talk:The Thin Red Line (1998 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The Thin Red Line (1998 film) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 26, 2007 Peer review Reviewed January 11, 2008 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

	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.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (general topics): War films task force

	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.
GA This article has been rated as GA-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: Related task forces (general): War films task force Related task forces (nations and regions): Australian cinema task force

Contents 1 Adaption 2 Lost scenes and narration 3 Factual error 4 "Battle on Hill 210" 5 Fair use rationale for Image:Trlstillphoto.jpg 6 Fair use rationale for Image:Trlstillphoto.jpg 7 Fair use rationale for Image:Trlstillphoto.jpg 8 Fair use rationale for Image:Behindtrl.jpg 9 GA Review 10 Dont use the featured article for help

[edit] Adaption

While the story often differs from James Jones' novel, there are a lot of things in common with Norman Mailer's novel 'The Naked and the Dead' from 1948, which takes place in the 2nd World War Pacific and is about the conquest of a Japanese-hold island by American forces. I cannot work out the details, but after having read both books, I had more the impression that the film is actually a mix of both books. --Dspalthoff 11:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would find a link to the author of the novel, and to the novel, an important addition. 128.97.39.100 (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving this info here until it can be properly sourced. --J.D. (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous differences between Malick's film and Jones's novel. The novel makes no mention of the native inhabitants of Guadalcanal, whereas Malick depicts them throughout. In the film, Captain Staros is a Greek-American, in the novel this character was a Jewish Captain called Stein (a continuation using a different name of a similar character in From Here to Eternity). In the novel, the last rank of Private Gordon Bell is Lieutenant Gordon Bell. He received a commission during the campaign. Most of the other main characters are also promoted into NCO positions or higher. There are entire segments of dialogue and character interaction, such as Witt's interrogation by Sergeant Welsh, that are taken directly from the James Jones novel From Here to Eternity. In the film, a character called Queen carries a shotgun; in the novel, this character is called Cash, and Queen is a different character.

[edit] Lost scenes and narration

I don't know where the original contributor of the info regarding edited scenes and Billy Bob's narration got his facts from, but if this stuff is going to stay in, we should have a reference for it. Buck 20:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and to be honest points about the editing of the film and the removal of Billy Bob belong in the trivia section at the end, not in the general section about the film. JRJW 7 February 2006

I've moved those references to a different section, but left the citation flag up. Also, I switched talk of a "hard bitten NCO"--which would appear to refer to Penn's character--to "hard bitten Colonel", since the reference to promotion and a disregard for the lives of his soldiers obviously refers to Nolte's character, Colonel Tall.

On another subject: I could have sworn I'd made the section much longer than it now is, on my last edit, but that's not showing up in the history of the page. Am I just losing my mind, or is it possible to erase that kind of thing without a trace? Buck 15:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This quote in the article doesn't make sense to me: The unfinished film was screened for the New York press on December 1998 and Adrien Brody attended a screening to find that his originally significant role, "to carry the movie" as he put it, had been reduced to two lines and approximately five minutes of screen time.[10] Malick was upset that the studio screened his unfinished version for critics and Penn ended up helping him in the editing room, shaping the final version.[3] Malick spent three more months and cut 45 additional minutes from the film. The director refused to subject his film to test screenings before delivering his final cut" . . . This says to me that the unfinished version was released in 1998 and that the finished version was not done until 3 months after that, which would be March 1999. I first saw the film (in Canada) in late February of 1999 (almost 2 months to the day after the 25 December 1998) limited release and it was the same version released on CD (there is no way that I could forget 45 minutes of this film simply vanishing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.242.2 (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual error

In the first paragraph about the narrative of the film it states that Guadalcanal was the first allied victory. The first allied victory against the Japanese was the repulse of the Japanese landing at Milne Bay in Papua New Guinea.

Are we really comfortable that there is no "central protagonist" ? Witt/Caviezal(sp)is clearly the central protagonist and also a christ-figure.--Win7ermute 03:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

To say that Guadalcanal was the first decisive Allied victory against the Japanese as it did in the previous version seems inaccurate as the Battle of Midway had occurred in June. However this battle is generally held to mark the end of Japanese expansion and I changed the wording to reflect that.

[edit] "Battle on Hill 210"

The screenshot labeled "Battle on Hill 210" actually takes place after C-Company had secured the hill, advanced past it and launched an attack on a Japanese bivouac (which in the novel they discovered purely by accident, but in the film it appears as a planned attack). Perhaps the image should be relabeled in the article. D Boland 23:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Trlstillphoto.jpg

Image:Trlstillphoto.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Trlstillphoto.jpg

Image:Trlstillphoto.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Trlstillphoto.jpg

Image:Trlstillphoto.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) 06:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Behindtrl.jpg

Image:Behindtrl.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) 19:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

1. Per WP:MOSLINK, each rank in the "Cast" section should only be linked once.
2. The cast section needs to comply with WP:MOSFILM, In particular, using the style that you have chosen, characters that were not introduced in the "Plot" section need to have a description after their names (Fife and Keck)

   What happened to this section? No need to re-add it (at the moment), but I'm wondering why you removed it. Cheers, CP 23:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

   I decided to take it out as most of the characters mentioned in it were included in the detailed Synopsis and most of the actors listed were mentioned in the Casting section.--J.D. (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

3. When Sean Penn met Malick he famously told him, "Give me a dollar and tell me where to show up." (Casting) "famously told him" is not a very neutral way of describing what happened, unless it is directly backed up by a source. Since I don't own a copy of the source used at the end of the sentence, I can't tell if it describes the statement as "famous," but it needs a citation as it is challengeable (specifically, I've never heard of it, so I challenge that he was "famously" told that without a citation). It's hard to describe in words, but saying that something was "famously told" can be a very subjective analysis without a proper citation.
4. All one-two sentence paragraphs must be either expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs as they cannot stand alone; they chop up the prose to a distracting level. The "Awards" section is exempt from this (but see below).
5. Some statements require citations:

   "Malick finished on time and on budget." (Principal photography) If it can't be cited, as sometimes these "absence of evidence otherwise" statements are, then just take it out, as it doesn't really add much.

   The direct quote in the fourth paragraph of "Principal photography" — even if it is cited with the citation at the end of the sentence, it is still a direct quote and thus requires a citation immediately following the punctuation

   "Geisler and Roberdeau told their story to Vanity Fair magazine and Medavoy's attornies declared them in breach of contract and threatened to remove their names from the film unless they agreed to do no future interviews until after the Academy Awards." (Principal photography)

   The "Awards" section

6. The "Soundtrack" section is incomplete. It lacks any information on the individual tracks, background to the production of the score (if any), a picture of the album cover, with an appropriate infobox (if possible) or even a general description of what is on the two CDs, not to mention a lack of references as well, since the section is currently too small to consider it inherent to the material

   What happened to this section? No need to re-add it (at the moment), but I'm wondering why you removed it. Cheers, CP 23:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

   Not enough info on the Soundtrack to really warrant its own section so I decided to remove it.--J.D. (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

7. Under the "Awards" section, it mentions that it was nominated for all those Academy Awards, but does not note whether or not it won them.
8. All references require access dates. As a side note, and one that won't be held against a GA pass, but it is helpful to editors if the citation templates are rendered horizontally, rather than vertically.
9. Reference #19 does not work for me.

   Fixed it.--J.D. (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

10. The lead touches on every major point/heading made in the article, per WP:LEAD, except what the plot of the film is! All it says about the "Synopsis" section is "tells a fictional story of United States forces during the Battle of Guadalcanal in World War II." The summary of the plot summary needs to be a bit more detailed than this - the lead should leave the reader with a basic understanding of the premise if they were to read only the lead.

To allow for these changes to be made, I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Also, if all the above concerns are addressed, I will return and check the references. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 08:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I think I have addressed all of them in my recent revisions. --J.D. (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the review above. Cheers, CP 23:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the review once more. Once the lead has been dealt with, it should be good to go. Cheers, CP 04:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have improved on the lead paragraph. Let me know if it is okay. Thanks! --J.D. (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I will now be passing the article as a Good Article. Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dont use the featured article for help

I believe that in another language this is a featured article, but I don't think it should be used to help because it seems overly long, and mislead. For example there is a picture of the British painting "The Thin Red Line", but that refers to a completely different war. Another example is a picture taken during the battle of Guadalcanal, but not from the movie. Overall, I dont think it's a help. Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)