Talk:Apocalypse Now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is on the project's core list.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Southeast Asian cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the War films task force.
 
WikiProject United States / American Cinema (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Library of Congress (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Vietnam (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Whaley, Donald B. (2007). "Adaptation Studies and the History of Ideas: The Case of Apocalypse Now". In Welsh, James M; Lev, Peter. The Literature/Film Reader: Issues of Adaptation. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0810859491. 
  • King, Mike (2008). "Apocalypse Now". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 130–131. ISBN 0786439882. 

Kurtz inspiration[edit]

As a Vietnam veteran myself, I'd always heard that the Kurtz character was inspired by David Hackworth. Deserve a mention? It should also be noted that, to an actual veteran, many parts of the movie were simply ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.238.59.36 (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Kurtz's character is completely fictitous, invented by Joseph Conrad, who wrote the book: THe Heart Of Darkness, the novella the film is loosely based on.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)hammerandclaw

I wouldn't say "completely fictitious." The novella is largely autobiographical and Kurtz is either an actual person or composite of those Conrad met during his voyage up the Congo. See the Conrad page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.152.200.178 (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The movie seems to be based on the James Taylor song, Fire and Rain. In addition, the Kurtz character is named after the Conrad character, however, I recall reading a short article in Time magazine in 1972 or 1973 about a rogue Colonel. In those days there was a page that included about a half dozen very short articles similar to what Sports Illustrated called their "Face in the Crowd" pageFrizb (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Someday they will tear down the George W Bush CIA building and then we will know. Tear down the wall. Frizb (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the movie is based on Dante's Divine Comedy; the trip to Hell and back. A few visual clues to consider. The Playmates (the Sirens) hovering in the 'copters' after the "show", the soldiers in the water trying to get on boat, yelling 'take me home', 'take me home' (stranded between Hell and Heaven) and the white-faced villagers (fallen angels) parting (the Gates of Hell) to let the "travelers" into the camp.Dcrasno (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Workprint article[edit]

Hello, I have written two articless in my blog discussing the differences between the cuts of apocalypse now, including the 5hr working cut (which I have seen :) ). So even if you do not think that links should be added, perhaps a new section containing some information about the workprint can be made? Looking forward to your remarks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanasiskappa (talkcontribs) 16:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use material from self-published blogs and original research. Your blog articles have no place as external links nor as sources, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding external links and reliable sources. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis...[edit]

Anyone else think the synopsis is just a plain ol' mess? It shouldn't have any section headings, those are discouraged & the choppy way it's presented is really atrocious. I say it needs an overhaul. Plus, it's too damned long, there are plenty of other ones in here that are much shorter & look better! Tommyt (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've tagged it for plot (guessing that was what you were trying to do a moment ago :) ). AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I've trimmed it somewhat by replacing it with an adapted version of the plot summary from a previous revision [1]. I've trimmed two massive block quotes even from that version, summarising the content. --Tony Sidaway 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll quote Pee-Wee Herman, "Thanks a lot, dudes!" Heh heh, tried to clean up the summary a few mos ago & got bitched out for chopping too much of it out. Ludicrous! Tommyt (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The plot looked fine to me, I think there's much worse than this. I found it fine, obviously you disagree...--Hammerandclaw (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact I think you've made it worse, it's just far too choppily wriiten, not enough detail, at all.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we haven't. It reads much more like a synopsis than before. It was choppy when it had section headings which are generally discouraged (take up too much room). Also, the fact that some of the sects were only one sentence while the next one was several paragraphs really made it look unprofessional, so to speak. And we want to avoid having every single miniscule detail in there b/c the synopsis becomes too bloated & crufty. Now, I'll agree we can prob work on this one some more but to revert back to the vers we had b/f would be wrong. I'll admit that I love the film myself (even tho I don't consider it to be a prime example of a "Vietnam film", its more of an existentialist drama that uses 'Nam as a backdrop) BUT that doesn't mean we need to incl every favorite detail of every fan who reads this article. Same thing plagued the Braveheart plot; every fan of the film wanted to incl their abs favr moment & every detail about who got chopped up in the battles. Tommyt (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree, I understand it's a synopsis, but you've included details in completely the wrong places, and the text appears to be extremely similar to a copyrighted source. I will attempt to provide a source for you, do reply. And I have seen the film, so you don't need to tell me it's a existentialist drama! I look forward to your reply.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)



If you can find a source for the copyright infringement, that will merit removal of the current version. I agree with Tommyt on the problems of the previous version. To help resolve the question of whether the current briefer version, or at least a non-copyright infringing version resembling it, is more suitable, I'm putting a RFC up about it. The two versions being compared are here (new) and here (old). --Tony Sidaway 12:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


Understood. Do you have any idea, you the original writer of the article was, by any chance. As I said to Tommyt, I will try and re-locate the source for you, I shall attempt to have it by the end the week, but sadly I cannot guarentee.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You can see the plot summary being constructed over a matter of some weeks by a number of contributors in early 2005, here. Contributing substantial portions were 66.71.77.222 (Kilgore quote, Kurtz death scene), User:TimBray (tightening up and general copy editing), 82.41.88.12 (expansion of plot following encounter with Kilgore), and 131.114.116.44, who in this edit on January 10, 2005, created the first substantial version of the current synopsis. --Tony Sidaway 13:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I want this re-written damnit!--Hammerandclaw (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The synopsis is far too long. You might want to look up what the word synopsis actually means. Since I know not a single one of you will, I looked it up for you: "synopsis, plural synopses (n): 1] a condensed outline or statement of a treatise, 2] a brief or condensed statement giving a general view of a subject, 3] a compendium of short paragraphs or heads giving a general view, 4] a brief summary of a play or plot." As the acute reader might have noticed, nowhere does it say "300 word essay". C'mon you guys, this article is ridiculous. 82.181.201.82 (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Made some stylistic edits to the Plot section in keeping with the WP Film Project style guidelines. Plot summaries are recommended to be under 900 words.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

french plantation[edit]

they don't have sex your porn lovers! remember she's a widow and she lives in her husband's home. he only touches his cheeks and she goes away. Cliché Online (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

colonialism criticism?[edit]

i'm not sure this a criticism on colonialism i felt much to be a criticism of the communists in france! check the First Indochina War article to learn it was true. Cliché Online (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Charlie Don't Surf[edit]

Should there be a mention of the song by The Clash which references this movie? The song is called Charlie Don't Surf from the album Sandinista!CambridgeLion (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Um... why?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.164.127 (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Because many other articles in the wikipedia have a section about references to the topic in a Cultural References section?

I say yeah put in a reference to Charlie Don't Surf - it would be consistent with other wikipedia articles. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.59.161 (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the surfer from Orange County stole Kilgore's surfboard after coming in from the surf.Frizb (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Character Named 'Chef'[edit]

The plot discussion mentions a character named 'Chef' and a character named 'Chief'. Are they one and the same? If so, is it 'Chef' or 'Chief'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.176.83 (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, two different characters, 'Chief' is commander of the PBR and 'Chef' is the machinist of the boat, who trained as a cook, hence the nickname. Pkmink (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Ivan's Childhood as inspiration to Apocalypse[edit]

Ivan's Childhood (Russian: Иваново детство, Ivanovo detstvo), also known as My Name Is Ivan in the US, is a 1962 Russian film directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. [2] I'm sure Coppola must have loved that film as a cinema student. Ivan is a orphan boy that does reconnaissance jobs that require him to cross the front line. In the last 20 minutes, Ivan and two soldiers go along a marsh in a little boat, in the night, hearing distant combat and under continuous fall of flares. They pass in front of shooted down planes, hanged civilians... the horror of war. 85.50.143.180 (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Program booklet existance.[edit]

There appears to be some question about the existence of the original program booklet. I have a copy in front of me now that was given out at early screenings of the film in Australia. It consists of 14 pages, 7 by ten inches closed. Printed in B&W it consists of a short photo diary of filming, several pages of credits and bios of the major actors and crew. The cover is black with the Apocalypse Now logo in small type on front and "FROM OMNI ZOETROPE STUDIOS HOYTS DISTRIBUTION" on the back. The inside front pages are of the pushing thru the canoes to enter compound scene over the two pages. It’s the only one I have seen for many years but I can confirm it does exist. It was only available for the first week or so of the films AU release.

Trailboss99 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC) (minor edit -DePiep (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

song adaptation[edit]

for what it worthes there's a song by Iron maiden about the movie and (heart of the darkness) it's called "the edge of darkness" from the 1995 "X Factor" album. Cliché Online (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Headlines[edit]

Here are several articles to help beef up this article and provide some much needed citations.--J.D. (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's another one.--J.D. (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not all early audience reactions were positive:

  • "Response to screening makes Coppola Reel". Montreal Gazette. May 29, 1979. "The most popular comment as the invited guests fled the theatre was, 'It's boring.' "
  • "Apocalypse Now had better be a blockbuster". Spokesman-Review. May 23, 1979. "The audience at the 8 p.m. showing [in Los Angeles] reacted with polite applause. On the street, well-wishers offered Coppola praise of one sort or another. "I don't know if it's worth $4.50, but it's entertaining," said one. "Conrad would have been proud of it," remarked someone else, tying the picture to one of its sources, Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. "Brilliant, it was worth the wait," said Sandford, who arrived at 9:30 in the morning to see Apocalypse Now."
    I'm looking for more reports about the preview screening. --Lexein (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Willard -- Special Forces or not?[edit]

Watching the Redux version of the movie yesterday, I noticed an important detail about CPT Willard that this article seems to have gotten wrong, or at least not quite right. While this article describes Willard consistently as a Special Forces officer, there is no explicit indication at any point, even in the augmented version of the film, that he is, in fact, a Green Beret. The only point where the script flirts with the idea (as FlieGerFaUstMe262 pointed out) is when Willard, reading through Kurtz's dossier, marvels at Kurtz's passing jump school and doing Special Forces training at "38 fucking years old." Both programs are notoriously grueling and difficult even for young men in their physical prime, and when Willard mentions that he "did it when [he] was 19 and it damn near wasted [him]," it's somewhat ambiguous whether he's taking about jump school or Special Forces training. If it is the latter, Willard does not indicate whether or not he was one of the extremely small percentage of candidates who actually make it all the way through the selection and qualification process. Indeed, he is never seen wearing a green beret or any Special Forces insignia.
Just after his bedroom freak-out at the beginning of the film, Willard's unit is stated by the visiting sergeant to be the fictional 505th battalion of the real 173rd Airborne, but attached to SOG. This seems to be accurately reflected in the uniforms he wears from that point on in the movie: the insignia on his right shoulder, indicating his former combat unit, is of the 173rd Airborne Brigade, and the SSI on his left shoulder indicates that his current assignment has him working directly for MACV. There is also a Ranger Tab there, showing him to be a graduate of Ranger School. If he was with the Rangers before apparently becoming some sort of black-bag-man-without-portfolio for the CIA and the top echelon of MACV, the affiliation with the 173rd Airborne would make sense, as Company N, 75th Ranger Regiment, was attached to it in Vietnam. If he had been with the Special Forces, the insignia he wears doesn't make any sense at all. There may be an element of OR in this, but certainly not more than there is in making him out to be a Green Beret. At least in calling him a Ranger you can point to concrete elements in the costuming as evidence. What's everyone else's take on this? --Dynaflow babble 05:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

As an intirim solution, I have changed the lead so that it introduces Willard as an officer with MACV-SOG, rather than as a Ranger or Special Forces officer per se. This affiliation is explicitly stated in the film, and so using it is probably the best way to avoid the appearance of possible original research in the lead. --Dynaflow babble 06:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Well there was no Special Forces tab during that time, and for him to be wearing the Green Beret in the combat zone would be a little tacky. I'll have to admit I have not seen the beginning of this move in a long time, and cannot remember the scenes you are talking about. So I must take your word for it. If what you say is true, I would say that you accurately represent his status. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok I think the author above has it. I'm a former soldier of the 173rd and a military history buff. He is wearing a 173rd unit combat patch on the right shoulder, indicating that he was in combat with the 173rd and having a ranger tab on the left shoulder with his current unit assignment MACV-SOG, he would have been most likely a Ranger in N company (but may have not been either), the movie never clearly mentions the Captain's military career, its only eluded to by what he mentions. He could have simply been a Ranger qualified paratrooper in the 173rd, then was assigned to MACV-SOG at a later date from the time he earned his combat patch with the 173rd. If he was indeed a ranger in combat during this period, he should by all account be wearing a ranger combat patch in lieu of the 173rd patch, but may have been given the choice of what to wear (as with some soldiers who go to combat with x number of units X number of times.) In his position, its strange he is wearing any insignia at all, as with most SOF missions, especially one of this nature, he most likely would have not been wearing anything at all, or just maybe a 173rd patch to identify him as a "normal" infantryman instead of a SOF soldier in case of capture by VC or other enemy forces. On another note, it is very unlikely he was a green beret or went to SOF school or training "At 19", this at the time was almost impossible, you had to be identified and selected to be a green beret and I know of not one soldier that went through SF training before the age of 21 during that period. it is more likely that he volunteered for an Airborne assignment at 19, in which he went directly to school after basic training, I'm still trying to figure out how or when Willard was commissioned as an officer. This is an ongoing argument with my father a 4 year Vietnam Vet with SF. If I'm wrong please let me know. SSG Perkinson, 173rd Combat Veteran 1998 to 2006 14:10, 16 July 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.83.215 (talk)
When Willard talks about going through a course at 19, he was talking about airborne training. They never make his commissioning source clear, although if we could actually see some of the briefing papers that might make it clearer. Also, given the timeframe of the movie Willard could have been with the LRRP unit of the 173rd, although the comments about him working for COMSEC Intelligence could hint at an assignment to one of the Field Force LRRP companies. With reference to the SOG assignment, they did wear fatigues with patches when in the rear (on occasion, at least...the "profile" fatigues). When in the field they tended to wear unmarked OD jungle fatigues (although some did break up the outline with black spray paint or even wear NVA uniforms). The tiger stripes Willard wears would most likely have been one of the "profile" uniforms.Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The unit currently listed for Willard in the article is wrong, too. The MPs who get him from his room give his original assignment as 5th Battalion, 503rd Infantry. There was, of course, no 5th Battalion active in Vietnam (the 173rd Airborne Brigade had the 1st through 4th battalions. The direct quote mentions that he's "assigned SOG," meaning that he would have been detached from his parent battalion and seconded to MACV-SOG. Intothatdarkness 19:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Soundtrack[edit]

I'm amazed there isn't a section in this article dealing with the soundtrack, which probably warrants an article in itself. In addition to the pop/rock music used in various scenes there was a lot of remarkable incidental music created by Mickey Hart and Bill Kreutzmann (along with Carmine Coppola I think). Some of this was released as an album The Apocalypse Now Sessions – The Rhythm Devils in 1991. It also features in the various versions of the soundtrack album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.241.222 (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. It looks like a soundtrack section made it into the article on the Redux version of the film, but not this one (see Apocalypse Now Redux#Soundtrack). Was a soundtrack album released for the original movie as well, or would discussion of the soundtrack fit more into the technical discussion about production issues? --Dynaflow babble 15:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There was indeed a soundtrack done for the original release, which included all movie dialog associated with specific bits of music (as in the famous airmobile assault featuring Wagner).Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone add a soundtrack section to the article! Cbmccarthy (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Allmovie[edit]

Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

anticolonialism?[edit]

I've seen Apocalypse Now Redux and I still don't understand how the French plantation part is "an anticolonialism chapter". I listen to the arguement and I feel for those French. Indochina would be nothing if not for the French. They earned that plantation. So I don't really get how the scene has an anticolonial theme to it. - It's for the Lutz (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Cannes Film Festival Section[edit]

The article isn't clear as to why there was booing and jeering from the audience after the Best Film Award at Cannes. I think that ought to be cleared up. --Hkobb7 (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Does Surf[edit]

Wondering if under 6.4 Legacy mention should be made on impact of film on the Philippine Locations used? Example; the surf shots were filmed in Baler, Aurora. The film left behind surf boards, locals picked them up. Now there is booming surf tourism, providing a substantial income to one of the countries poorest provinces. Also, led to the shop 'Charlie Does Surf' a livelihood project in Baler. Inspired by both the film and the song by the clash. Manoknok (talk) 07:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, Eleanor Coppola's book....Notes on the Making of Apocalypse Now


         The BBC article on the above: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21941069 (Manoknok (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

Hallucinations[edit]

An anonymous editor with nothing better to do has repeatedly removed the assertion that Capt. Willard is hallucinating in his hotel room at the beginning of the film. I think there is no question that he is sick and demented and hallucinating when he wrecks the room. I need some support on this, though. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see the point, although I agree with you: I would agree that Willard is hallucinating, but this is more an interpretation of the plot and the character than what really happens on screen. He could have simply REMEMBERED, not necessarily HALLUCINATED the visions of destruction in Vietnam. We might think he wrecks the room because he is allucinating and thinks he still is in Vietnam, but it might as well be that he acts like that because of his anger and frustration, and that doesn't necessarily leads to hallucination. By the way, I'm not the anonymous editor you've mentioned. --Marco Ettore (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was No Consensus. This discussion should have been closed a long time ago. Jusdafax even said so in his post, so I have no idea why he didn't close it. Anyway, both sides have made reasonable points that haven't really been addressed, so there's pretty clearly no consensus here for either position.NukeofEarl (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Apocalypse Now Redux should be merged into this article, it seems silly to have a seperate article for an alternate version of the same film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Essie (talkcontribs) 17:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - This is essentially a director's cut of the same film, and thus shouldn't require it's own article. The existing section in this article about Redux should be sufficient (or perhaps already too large) to discuss the differences from the original; a listing of every minor difference is unnecessary. The production and reception sections can be copied near verbatim into this article. Additionally, perhaps the soundtracks for both movies should be given a separate article, though I'm not sure on their notability, and standard practice for movie scores. db26 (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The differences between the two are so great as to almost be two separate films. The Redux article is heavily detailed and, even with a significant copy-edit, would be too unwieldy to integrate here. It is a separate article for this very reason. The Redux section here could be trimmed, though. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Those examples are not relevant. Redux is significantly longer and significantly different than the original film. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
But not different enough to warrant a new article. If it were a full remake, then yes. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support merge. It is just an alternate cut of the same film, and does not warrant its own article. Any information regarding the "redux" version should be housed on the original article. The cast and production sections would be practically the same and the information relating specifically to the "redux" version can be added on the end in a subsection. The list of differences is excessive. If these differences are notable, I wouldn't rule out a page of List of differences in alternate versions of Apocalypse Now or similar, but personally I think this is probably not encylopedic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per above reasons. Film Fan (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Normally I would agree that it's just an alternative cut and thus not eligible for a separate article, however different and longer. However, Redux is different from most other "director's cuts" as it actually premiered at the Cannes Film Festival and then had a run in cinemas in some 35 countries around the world, grossing a combined total of $12,5 million in US and foreign cinema sales (plus an unknown amount in global DVD and TV sales). This makes a separate article defendable, but if possible this uniqueness compared to other "director's cuts" should be highlighted more.Thomas Blomberg (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
To add context for the status quo of (arbitrarily chosen) movies with significant alternate cuts and (sometimes) theatrical re-releases, Touch of Evil, Star Wars, Alien and Watchmen do not have separate pages (as far as I know), while Blade Runner does. Not to say this is absolutely correct, but just to give some reference. db26 (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose If it was a directors cut I'd support. A different cast and other reasons given above indicate too wide a fork, like Android from Linux, so Oppose. Widefox; talk 02:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per reasons stated above. JTBX (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - even though Coppola believed that the redux film would be the one people remembered (hence allowing the cutting of the original's negative), he was wrong: its box office take was abysmal. The redux should be prominently mentioned here in the lede and body, but should remain separate from this article, because the details there are sufficiently deep, and its notability is sufficient. --Lexein (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • SupportThis is no different than any other extended edition of a film. For example, the Lord of the Rings Film Series has an extensive extended editions and they (to my knowledge) don't have their own article separate from the main film. -- MisterShiney 16:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Two different films, two different articles. Merging would pose considerable issues. This stale proposal is now nearly a year old, and I do not see consensus. Suggest we close the discussion now and remove the templates. Jusdafax 04:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Joe Estevez[edit]

It somehow surprises me that Joe Estevez (Martin Sheen's younger brother) is not mentioned anywhere in the article. He stood in as a double for his brother when Martin had the heart attack, and then, when Martin had a major clash with Francis Ford Coppola regarding the narration (the voice-overs), Joe came in and did most of the narration - if not all of it. It looks weird to me that his work on the film is not recognized at all. Ugo1970 (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you can find references for these claims you should just edit them in! Or, include the references here and they will eventually be added in by myself or a maintainer of this article. db26 (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
That's certainly interesting. Joe Estevez is listed as "stand-in/voice-over: Willard (uncredited)" on [imdb http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/fullcredits]. I believe the credits for imdb are based on official sources, correct? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
No, IMDb is user edited, in the main, and for that reason it's not usually considered a Wikipedia WP:RS. Some entries are "verified" by staff and are so tagged. This was not so tagged. --Lexein (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes[edit]

Can you remember when the movie originally came out how the Rotten Tomatoes website rated it?...

Are you all so young that no one remembers the original receptions? Are they gone?... or don't people care anymore, so everything has to be "fresh" and instantly relatable?

Do we really need that as the absolutely first thing under "Critical response"?

UFF

89.150.187.161 (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur, and go further: RottenTomatoes and Metacritic scores should not be used. If used, they should go last, and be used minimally, as I expand in User:Lexein/Review aggregators reconsidered.
  1. Aggregators are derivative, and like other tertiary sources and compendia, are generally not used as sources.
  2. They aren't frontline reviewers, so they have no place at the beginning of reception sections
  3. They aren't considered reliable by others: they are never quoted in other reliable sources.
  4. Their aggregation algorithms are unverifiable, subjective, and inconsistent
  5. The websites are heavy with ad spam, so being listed on Wikipedia is just more promo for them
  6. There are several POV editors who keep pushing RT to the beginning of ==Reception== sections
--Lexein (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
This should be discussed at WikiProject Film, and a consensus reached there. This has been discussed in the past, but no firm consensus was ever reached. I am highly dubious about the use of RT, especially in regard to older films. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
True about discussing at WikiProject Film. Here, though, I've removed it from the lead, moved it to the end of the reception section, and minimized its use. --Lexein (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Personally I don't think these aggregators have any place on articles about older films. They don't provide a comprehensive survey of contemporary reception, and have limited value in assessing the legacy of older films. Betty Logan (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
(I assume you mean the film's contemporary reception above)
To me, grouping reviews by release dates helps: original theatrical period, video/DVD/streaming releases, re-releases/director's-cuts, etc. As written elsewhere (thanks), RT is most applicable to recent (>2000) releases, so that's how I (already, without thinking about it) treat them. I would prefer to only use RT when all the reviews aggregated are unambiguous in their approval/disapproval. Of concern to me is RT's interpretation of ambiguous/low-passion/conflicted "it was good/enjoyable/fun but I didn't like it" reviews. --Lexein (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus at WT:FILM#Film review aggregators - RS? is for WP using Rotten Tomatoes, as has been long established. One can debate its use in older films, but it should still be mentioned. The high score it got here is notable, and should not be buried. And in particular, its Ext link should not be removed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, consensus here is that it does not merit multiple mentions in the article, does not merit placement in the article lead section. Its placement at the top of the reception section is still disputed, and given time, consensus will form for placement at the end, not the beginning. Your pre-emptive edit has been reverted, since you didn't really discuss it, and attempted to enforce some unrelated discussion onto this article. --Lexein (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: What you call "buried", I call cited, or listed in EL (not both). To elevate RT higher than that is pro-RT POV, and PROMO, and possibly COI (for any editors with an undeclared conflict of interest involving RT). Hi, RT employees! Tag! --Lexein (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Your 3rd statement above They aren't considered reliable by others: they are never quoted in other reliable sources is quite false. And some unrelated discussion? It's on the WP:FILM Talk page. And is your repeated removal of RT's Ext link just sloppy or deliberate? You haven't even mentioned it here, much less justified it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, "quite false" is false. RT is so unreliable it should only be cited specifically when it is cited by RS. So that will be rare, and will satisy my concerns. Aside from that, no, at WP:FILM, I realize one point at a time is best, and I argue RT is not RS, because it's patently derivative (on this I sadly disagree with Betty). Here, I argue four things: never using RT more than once, not in the lead, not first in the reception section, and not for this particular pre-2000 film. Consensus is forming against RT for this film, and hopefully all pre-2000 films, because I strongly value actual source reliability, as should you. --Lexein (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Betty about not needing Rotten Tomatoes here. This is the kind of film where we should have plenty of coverage about its critical reception—contemporary and retrospective—in print. I'm not entirely opposed to mentioning RT in passing, just that it does not have to be used to lead coverage of the film's reception as with current films. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I think in this case the RT scores are pretty much worthless, they are not really indicative of the film's reception. However, they do provide a review index so I have no objection to it as an EL. Betty Logan (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

theme[edit]

was this movie, by any chance, an anti military? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-dub4 (talkcontribs) 22:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Airstrike in final scene[edit]

The plot section currently says there was an airstrike in the final scene. However, there is also a note that basically contradicts this. I think the consensus among viewers is that there was no airstrike and the plot section should be edited to reflect this. There is definitely no airstrike in Redux, and if that article is merged in, another clarification should be made. Jrmrjnck (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm editing out both the claim that the ending credits scene shows the airstrike occurring and the footnote. There's no indication, from Coppola himself or from the actual course of the movie, that Willard calls in the airstrike. Willard turns off the radio connected to the ballistics base, pretty good indication that he doesn't mean to "drop the bomb" as Kurtz wanted. Plus this source [3] corroborates an uncited bit from the endings section of the article:

In any case, when Coppola heard that audiences interpreted this as an air strike called by Willard, Coppola pulled the film from its 35 mm run, and put credits on a black screen. (However, prints with the "air strike" footage continued to circulate to "repertory" theatres well into the 1980s.) In the DVD commentary, Coppola explains that the images of explosions had not been intended to be part of the story; they were intended to be seen as completely separate from the film. He had added them to the credits because he had captured the footage during the demolition of the sets (required by the Philippine government), which was filmed with multiple cameras fitted with different film stocks and lenses to capture the explosions at different speeds.

I don't have the DVD to double check this at present, but until someone actually has Coppola's commentary to cite, the best information says Coppola didn't intend the closing credits to be a continuation of the plot, and there's no reason to refute that in the summary section. Also, the footnote is obsolete in light of the same information being relayed in the Endings section of the article. Presumably readers who are confused about the matter can simply head there. MVanHoose (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)