Talk:Green Zone (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citation dump[edit]

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

was released March 12, 2010??[edit]

today is march 11, 2010, does not make much sense to have the sentence as it is. Oub (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"minimalist movie star"?[edit]

What would this entail? minimalist movie star? Not to mention, does it belong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsjoholm (talk • contribs) 19:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the source article and that is all part of the direct quote. Ugly bit of writing though. -- 109.76.147.207 (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

political controversy[edit]

while there is a controversy, and it does involve politics, it doesn't really seem to involve actual politicians, but rather movie critics, so perhaps that section should be merged with critical response, or given another title. 76.224.126.61 (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-title seems appropriate, just because politician are not involved does not mean that the issues are not political in nature. Perhaps the title could be re-written as 'The controversy surrounding the political issues addressed in the film', which would be more accurate, but also much more clunky. 'Political controversy' seems to work. --Evenmadderjon (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that political controversy is out of order. First of all I really don't see the politics in this movie, yes its a movie about a war thats going on but in any way it can not be labeled anti-war flick. The movie involves a couple of guys in the Iraqi war try to achieve the same goal (obtain a prisoner and win a war) and there is your strongest thriller element. If this movie has a political controversy section on it only because some conservative on FOX or liberal on NBC, a lot of excellent articles about movies have to down the toilet same way. Keep wikipedia PR free! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.179.191.27 (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It is precisely a political controversy. In the UK, the sources cited as responding negatively (the daily mail and the daily telegraph) are respectively acknowledged as a hugely, spectacularly right wing tabloid paper (read it and see) and a more moderate right wing paper aimed at more educated readers, but still the furthest to right of British "broadsheet" (as opposed to tabloid - and the telegraph is so conservative it's sheets are actually still broad, despite costs) papers. On the other hand, the paper cited as responding positively was "the guardian", a broadsheet paper aimed at educated people with left wing or very left wing politics.

So, of course the reviews were political. Look at Rotten tomatoes. The mean (sum divided by count) score was low, but the cream of the crop mean of papers that generally reach an audience that is more educated and liberal was more than one standard deviation higher! That's what we scientists call "statistically significant". I'm not saying it was a great film. It was ok. But as the man said "don't be naive". Duracall (can't be bothered to log in have my IP instead) 78.86.176.22 (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI. Paul Weikoff (?) head of Iraq and Afganistan Vetrans of America is in the movie as Gonzales, one of the presenters during the military internal briefing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.33.183 (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rieckhoff is IAVA Executive Director & Founder (http://iava.org/content/paul-rieckhoff-iava-executive-director-founder) --80.148.27.211 (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the difference: guys, the critical response section is for film critics. There's enough to keep a separate political response section. Everyone happy? Fluous (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fact v fiction[edit]

be good to seperate the factual aspects - this is a history from the fiction - this is one person's view on the subject. Given the recent nature of its time period it should be easy to do for a balanced NPOV wikipedian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK and France[edit]

Since this film was co-produced by Working Title and StudioCanal, in the infobox the film should be listed as also from the United Kingdom and France. I believe that's wikipedia's policy on deciding a films country of origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.72.78 (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fooling the USA[edit]

See:Curveball (informant) 30 Sept 20012 kazuba

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Green Zone (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Green Zone (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Green Zone (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgy Reasoning[edit]

Media Weapons of Mass Distraction[edit]

Ilana Ozernoy in Newsweek criticized the film, writing "it is Greengrass's insistence on making the thing look and feel authentic that made it all the more unbelievable."

Is that to imply that, the more evidence the film-maker put into presenting a truthful and honest account of events, the more fake the film looked? Give the hostile reaction of comments the right-wing media, might not this article highlight some of more dodgy reasoning used to sex-up the case against The Green Zone?

Nationality of film[edit]

Working Title is the only production company sourced as such and listed in the lead, the other companies listed in the lead are only investors in the film providing financial support and don't have a part in the actual artistic creation of the film itself. Working Title is British so so is film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_Zone_(film)&oldid=1215789595"