Talk:Enemy at the Gates
|WikiProject Film||(Rated Start-class)|
Maybe fluff out the historical inaccuracies section?
The movie is far more inaccurate than this article suggests; spectacles such as Soviet soldiers being handed one rifle between two or being machine gunned down for retreating serve are utterly fictional; the latter treatmentt was reserved for NKVD penal units. Henners91 (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- A lot of that stuff has been discussed before (see the archives). We can only cover it in the article if it has been discussed in secondary sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Are you sure that this implies that veterans of the war can't be considered a source? What, someone has to paraphrase it? What about the secretary of the State Duma which writes all of it down? If this is the state of Wikipedia then someone should see to it that it changes. If I am wrong on this assumption I will be willing to find those sources for us all. This movie is really fun but sort of a disgrace and its director a coward for never commenting on it. In fact I believe that Vasily Zaytsev himself has written that he was issued a rifle and grenade when he arrived. Does this not fulfill the criteria for an encyclopedic entry?126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree with the historical inaccuracies: the film fails to point out that the Soviet Union was on the Nazi's side until 1941, especially when they carved up Poland. No mention of Britain fighting alone. Also says that the world's future depended on the battle at Stalingrad. In reality, the world's future was saved when Britain defied Germany during the Battle of Britain. Russia would have lost without US and British logistical support. There is no doubting the tremendous courage and sacrifice of the Russian people but if Stalin had sided with Britain and France, none of this need happen. Kentish 12 August 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
worth mentioning that the story of Vasili is played out in the first chapter on the game Call of Duty 2 and is often referred to by players as one of the best stories in the game/franchise. while the claim of best story may be hard to verify if at all it being included in a war game may be worthy of noting considering it plays out nearly exactly to the movie and books about Vasili. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Unverifiable claims may not be included. Unless you can produce a reliable source supporting any of this, it cannot be included. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- "In the film, Jude Law uses a 7.62x54r Mosin Model 1891/30 sniper rifle with a PU 3.5 power sniper scope (i.e. the image is magnified 3 and a half times). Vasily Zaitsev used a Model 1891/30 sniper rifle with an earlier and larger sniper telescope (his rifle is preserved in a museum in Russia). Also, the poster for the film reverses the Mosin 91/30 rifle photograph so that the bolt handle appears on the left side of the rifle, instead of the right side where it should be."
This seems like unnecessary trivia. Does a casual moviegoer really care that the model of rifle that Law used is different from an actual World War II sniper rifle (from 60 years earlier)? Isn't that to be expected?
Also, the note on the reversed photo for the movie poster is silly. For ads and promotional material, photos are reversed all of the time...they are also enlarged, cropped, resized, color-enhanced, all to get the image that the creative art director wants. This is not newsworthy. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just read the Talk Page Archive Page. Wow! The ferocity of discussion there makes my criticism seem minor. I just saw this movie and approached as a movie with a love subplot, not as a depiction of World War II history. Most of these characters didn't exist; the main character was a real person (as was Nikita Khrushchev) but everything else is just story-telling, set during war time.
- I understand that people find historical inaccuracies appalling but this isn't Steven Spielberg or James Cameron here, doing years of research to get all of the details right. It's just a Hollywood movie and about as realistic as any Hollywood war movie ever was. Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List are the exception, not the rule. Is there anyone who'd try to argue that the film Tora! Tora! Tora!, A Bridge on the River Kwai, Pearl Harbor or Inglorious Basterds was historically accurate? I think not. Just my 2 cents. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I changed the battlefield.ru link in the external links section because it was a dead link. The article has been moved to this new link is http://english.battlefield.ru/enemy-at-the-gates.html . However, I am unable to change the link in the references list because I just get reflist 2 or something like that when I click on modify. Someone has an idea how to change it?