Talk:Twelve O'Clock High

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.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.


Contents

[edit] Novel v film

This has become a bit of a jumble. As with most films made from novels, there are notable differences, mostly in the interests of compacting written material into a form digestable in two hours screen time. This article would benefit greatly by reorganizing / breaking down the story into novel and film elements, in a manner similar to The Enemy Below. This is well on the way to becoming the Cliff's Notes version of 12 O'Clock High, and that is not the function of an encyclopedia.--Buckboard 14:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see where the article might benefit from distinguishing between the novel and the film -- and perhaps we should immediately separate this article into two articles, one about the film, and one about the novel.Vivaldi (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Tone?

I'm removing the "TONE" tag from this article, just as I removed the "NPOV" tag a few days ago. If you want to add these tags to this article then please provide the reason(s) for their inclusion here on the talk page and provide some suggestions and examples on what sorts of changes you are seeking. Slapping a "this article stinks" label at the top of the article isn't useful. Yes this article needs to be improved, but I suspect the reason it needs to be improved aren't because the thing isn't written from a neutral point of view, because I see no POV pushing. I also don't see where this article is written in a non-formal tone, but I'm willing to be open to persuasion.Vivaldi (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that there is a problem of tone, but it's not so much the language in the way that the template has it — it's really the general adulatory tone of the piece. There's no criticism of the film, everything is positive (there's even a section with the peculiar and unencyclopædic title "Acclaim"). I've re-added the {{NPOV}} template for that reason. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


The film is dirty propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.126.85.141 (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:259025.1020.A.jpg

Image:259025.1020.A.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) 04:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] location shooting

I have some serious reservations about the supposed use of RAF Barford St John as the location for the opening-closing scenes. Allen Duffin, whose primary sources on the film are extensive, states that location shooting took six weeks between April and June 1949. The use of Ozark included the "construction of a little bit of fence and road" and "King figured that he could use the field for some B-17 aerial shots but more specifically for the opening and closing scenes of 12 O'Clock High, when Harvey Stovall visited his old English airbase, now overgrown and fallen into disuse. 'Ozark Field was the ideal answer,' said King. 'It was more English than any field I have seen in that country. Weeds had grown as high as a man's shoulders in some places, and the adjacent scenery was perfect as an English countryside.'" Moreover, location shooting was concurrent between Eglin's Duke Field and Ozark, using a chartered DC-4 to shuttle back and forth. The script was in its final stages in March 1949 when the field was selected because its runways were asphalt, not concrete, and thus similar to English wartime runways. A last minute glitch because the base was Army-owned and not Air Force did not delay shooting. Given that the entire location shoot was as described, followed by interiors and process shooting with the B-17 cutaway in Hollywood, the time and expense (not to mention English weather) of traveling to the UK to shoot at an RAF station--but particularly this station, when so many closed US stations dotted the countryside--is extremely lacking in credibility. As apocryphal as it is, I am not going to delete the information, not only because it is sourced but because the location is also mentioned in IMDB (where I first got it). I suspect the two are connected, and I think it needs further documentation in the face of Duffin's research and interviews. It will be left in, but as an alternate explanation. --Buckboard 07:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. FWIW, Orriss appears to be the principal source for the later book and entirely validates the information on the U.S. locations, albeit with slight variations as to details (11,000 miles flown versus 16,000 miles, etc.) and I have made suitable changes to reflect the use of both reference sources. Bzuk (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC).
Thanx mucho for the reply. The problem with sources is "we can't quite be sure"--the RAF location makes a good story and I would like it to be true too! Also, Duffin has errors (on one page he states the location filming took 6 weeks, which it did, but on another only 4 weeks, and more seriously, placed Ozark as part of Maxwell AFB) but access not only to scripts, memos, letters, etc., he also interviewed most of the principals (btw, Orriss was one of his secondary sources, so he must have known about the Barford assertion, yet chose not to debunk it in his book--go figure). Anyway, thanx for your help and discussion. I like this article and am trying to bring it up to standards of other film articles.--Buckboard 02:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
No, Orriss is the source for the Ozark Army Air Force Base information not the RAF locations. I couldn't find anything about location shooting in the UK other than the IMDb site, which I used reluctantly for a citation source. I am also a bit leery of the claim but until I can find solid evidence to the contrary, I will use it as is. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC).