Talk:The Caine Mutiny (film)

Michael Caine

Why was the Michael Caine trivia removed?! 22:56, November 10, 2002 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mintguy (talk • contribs) .

Because it's already in the Michael Caine article, where it belongs. Wasted Time R 04:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Vessel Class

It was a DMS, a destroyer mine sweeper, not a minesweeper. 22:54, March 6, 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.77.102 (talk • contribs) .

Ferrers arm

Hi; In the courtroom scene, Ferrer's wearing a cast. Silly question, did he actually have a busted wing?

• Don't know--but it's part of the plot that he had been injured. Greenwald was not a military lawyer--he was a civilian lawyer who joined the Navy and flew fighter planes (notice his green uniform in one scene)--he got the Caine case while recovering from injuries received in a crackup in his plane (in the book his hands had been burned).--Buckboard 09:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I left the bit from Moviemistakes.com in the text, but it seems trivial trivia. The whole thing depends on the length of the chain, not how tight a circle a DMS can turn. Follow me here: Wouk was aboard two DMS during the war; Wouk wrote the book about a DMS; Wouk wrote the scene wherein the Caine cuts its own tow-line. Somebody at MovieMistakes.com forget to tell him?--Buckboard 11:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Queeg

Ok. I'm hoping maybe someone can straighten it out. Why, in the end, does Greenwald (and SINPAC) maintain that Queeg is NOT incompetent and that Maryk was not justified under 185?

1. Queeg on numerous occasions would blow his stack without cause. Example -- when he found out Keefer was writing a novel, he exploded. There was no justification for this -- the matter of a crewman's personal activities (baring violations of the law or regulations) are not under his jurisdiction.
2. The water crisis. When he ordered the men deprived of water, it seems to me Maryk would have been justified to act then. How can depriving the men of water be construed as an attempt to enforce discipline? The action endangered the lives of the crew and officers. Three days without water will result in death. In extreme heat as in the tropics, death could occur sooner. This would clearly constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
3. After the tow-line incident, it is clear that his superiors know -- or at least suspect -- him to be incompetent.
4. On his own, he showed himself to be a raving lunatic in the courtroom. This would show that the doctors who testified for the prosecution were probably told what to write in their reports. One doctor on the stand verbally admitted that Queeg was a sick man. This was omitted from his report -- and under the laws of perjury, an omission is as much a lie as a fabrication.
5. When Greenwald confronts Maryk and Keith afterward, he points out that if they had acted differently at a certain time, it would not have been necessary for him to have relieved Queeg during the storm. This makes no sense. What the man was in the past was irrelevant; the issue was what he was in the present. Maryk examined the Captain on the bridge -- he spoke to him, passed his hand in front of the Captain's face, snapped his fingers in front of his face, and got no reaction of any kind. The man was – only for the moment yes – catatonic. Queeg didn't even protest Maryk ‘s actions for 2 full minutes. Given the fact that he was clearly catatonic at the time, how could he NOT have been justified in taking command?

From all this -- including the crazy and outlandish statements Queeg made on the stand -- why is it the opinion of everyone that he is NOT incompetent?

For the record: in the book, Keith ultimately became Captain of the Cain. Maryk was given command of an LST. The Court-Martial convening authority disapproved the verdict (this goes against the principle that a trial verdict can not be impeached) and issued them both formal reprimands (brazenly proclaiming them guilty). -- Jason Palpatine 13:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Greenwald maintained that Queeg was a flawed but adequate commander who was undermined by subordinates who should have helped him, particularly Keefer. He only went after Queeg because Maryk ("the wrong man") was on trial. Greenwald gives a rather impassioned monologue about how the country owed a debt to professional servicemen like Queeg; a point that Wouk would explore more deeply in his Victor Henry novels. A very powerful scene, both in the movie and the book. -- Cranston Lamont 00:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read Greenwald's rather impassioned monologue -- more than once -- trying to understand what he was saying. His question to Maryk and Keith and their answer struck me as odd. Maryk said that it would not have been necessary for him to relieve Queeg if they had supported him when he deserted the other destroyers under fire -- i.e. helped him hide his cowardice. My answer in his place would be Yes. What happened was inevitable. What he was in the past -- no matter how distinguished his record -- is irrelevant. The only thing that counts is what he is now. -- Jason Palpatine 01:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Verdict

Out of curiosity, can anyone explain to me what gave the Navy brass (whoever it was) the authority to revoke a verdict of a general court-martial? Our laws have always held that a verdict can not be impeached. --Jason Palpatine 22:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the court martial convening authority can "disapprove" of a verdict, and this disapproval can be "endorsed" (approved) up the chain of command. This is what happened in the Caine Mutiny. This disapproval has no bearing on the verdict -- it is not overturned -- but becomes part of the record. AllanJ 13:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

An important point is that in the book the officers were not charged with making a mutiny, but with conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. Despite the disapproval of the verdict, Maryk and Keith managed to resume their Navy careers more or less unscathed, unlike Queeg who was given a desk job as the Navy recognised he was not fit to command a ship at sea, therefore confirming that the officers were justified in their actions. Keefer also eventually

gets command of a ship and proves himself a physical coward as well as a moral one. Nevertheless Keefer and Keith manage to restore a degree of friendship.

Exile 10:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Split article

I'd recommend this article be split into The Caine Mutiny for the novel, and The Caine Mutiny (film) for the film. There are significant enough differences between the book and film - a lot could be said on a literary front about the book that has nothing to do with the film. It would also help with all the "Projects" and templates to separate movies from books. -- Stbalbach 16:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

USS Doyle

Official US Navy history has the USS Doyle (DD-494) as the destroyer used in the movie the Caine Mutiny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chaveza (talk • contribs).

This article says it was USS Thompson (DD-627), which is confirmed in that article. Do you have a source that says it was the Doyle? -- Stbalbach 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/t5/thompson-ii.htm says

Commencing on 8 June 1953, Thompson served as a Columbia Movie Studio "prop" during the filming of the Herman Wouk novel, The Caine Mutiny. Operating out of San Francisco for one week, Thompson became Caine, while at the same time serving as the model for many of the Columbia sets used in the filming of the on board scenes.

http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/d5/doyle.htm says

[Doyle] returned to the western Pacific between 2 February and 21 July 1953, visiting Midway, Guam, Kwajalein, and various ports in the Philippines, as well as serving as station ship at Hong Kong for 5 weeks.

Doyle arrived at Charleston, S.C., 7 September 1953 from Long Beach.

So I'm not seeing the "Official US Navy history" that says Doyle appeared in the movie. It's not impossible however; at least two other ships, USS Richard B. Anderson (DD-786) and USS Surfbird (AM-383), had cameos. Perhaps Doyle did as well. But without a source it shouldn't go into the article.

—wwoods 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Strawberries

I inserted a piece which was taken out about the quirkiness behind Queeg and the strawberries. Maryk tells the other officers that the mess boys confessed to eating the strawberries, but Queeg refuses to believe their story and instead accuses the officers of having a duplicate key to the food locker. Is this a valid point to bring up? It seems open-and-shut about what happened to the strawberries, but Queeg refuses to accept it. USN1977 (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Indifferent Children

Regarding this passage recently added and moved here:

There are some similarities between "The Caine Mutiny" and Louis Auchincloss's The Indifferent Children (1947). The plot of both books takes place in the unheroic backwaters of the WWII US Navy (Wouk's book in the Pacific Theatre, but the Caine's part in the fighting is marginal and the conflict is entirely among its crew, rather than with the Japanese - while Auchincloss' book is set in the Carribean, far from any fighting front); both books have as the main protagonist the scion of a rich family, who becomes a naval officer without seeking a heroic or combatant role, and who undergoes a fast character development in the course of the story; and in both books there is a central role to a court martial in which the defence lawyer brillantly saves his client from a seemingly hopeless situation - only to afterwards turn on the client and tell him what a heel he truly is. There is, however, no direct evidence of Wouk being influenced by the earlier book.

I'm concerned about WP:NOR - if we can cite someone on this, it would be interesting to add - but I'm concerned there is an unspoken hint at plagiarism. Given how popular CM was, someone must have noted the similarities. -- Stbalbach 14:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Searched google, google books and Amazon's A9.com on a combination of "caine mutiny" + "indifferent children", as well as "wouk auchincloss" and couldn't find anything. -- Stbalbach 15:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This little sally never pretended to be anything but Original Research, and an unpleasant little hint of plagiarism at that (it took 57 years after the supposed event for somebody to notice the resemblance.) Are we compelled to keep OR in Talk forever? Seven years now. I hesitate to delete it only in case there's some procedure to follow first which I don't know about. A trial balloon of OR that never panned out. I propose somebody cut it. Profhum (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't generally delete Talk page discussion because it's meant to be a permanent record of discussion relevant to the article. That said, this could likely safely be archived. If you'd like more information, please refer to WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mutiny 0.jpg

Image:Mutiny 0.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) 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Innacuracy vs, artistic license

There is a difference. An innacuracy is when something doesn't accord with reality - with the real facts of the real world. Thus, there's an issue if a boat such as the Caine could really steam in a circle and cut the tow line. That is a potential (if not proven) inaccuracy.

The age of Queeg is not a fact of the real world. It's something made up for a piece of fiction, a book. In the translation of a book from a film, things get changed, for various reasons -- in this case the age of a character is changed (de facto) because the actor chosen to play the part is the not age specified in the book. That is artistic license. The makers of the film chose to alter an aspect of the book in order to make the film they wanted to make. They weighed the value of Humprey Bogart in the part versus the value of keeping the character at 30, and made the artistic choice that the one outweighed the other. That's not inaccuracy, it's artistic license.

Now, if in making the film, they had made Queeg a woman, while keeping everything else the same, that would be an inaccuracy, because in the real world women did not captain ships of the U.S. Navy in World War II. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point! Perhaps we should consider changing the section header, as per your suggestion. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I see you've already gotten rid of the "Queeg's age" issue. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I moved it into the section dealing with differences between the book and the script, which is where I think it belongs. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't belong to the script section—it's an innaccuracy, for a very simple reason: In WWII, a 55 year old man would not have command of a minesweeper. And a 55 year old commander would have been cashiered. But if you want to play games, fine—call it "artistic license" and delude yourselves. --TallulahBelle (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A Captain in the Navy is the equivalent of a full Colonel in the Army. So your idea of a Captain with 10 years service in the 20th Century is insane, whereas the idea of a 55 year-old Captain is not. Note that I am talking about the RANK not the ROLE. Lieutenants on occasion commanded ships in WWII. And apparently you don't know the meaning of the word cashiered. SIYFH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3780:D0D0:394C:5611:8A64:9EBC (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If you've got some evidence that in World War II, at the height of a military manpower shortage while the US is fighting the largest war ever seen on Earth in two separate theatres on opposite sides of the world, an experienced ship's captain in his late 40's to middle 50's (the age range that would be reasonable to see Bogart as -- we only say 55 because we happen to know that Bogart was 55 at the time) wouldn't be commanding a minesweeper, please post it. I'd be interested in seeing it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In the novel, Queeg was Annapolis Class of '36. There's that. Now, despite all that silly bluster in your entry about facts concerning WWII, any real Navy will know that there's no way a 55 year old would be given command of a minesweeper—war or no war. (In fact, in the novel, the 30 year old Queeg was disappointed that he was getting only a minesweeper—he'd been hoping for a destroyer, which would have been age-appropriate for the time.) But hey, like I said, delude yourself, what do I care: I'm not the one coming across as ignorant. --TallulahBelle (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

When you've got some evidence, please feel free to post it. Despite your telling me to "chill out" diff, and calling me "ignorant" and "deluded" (twice!) in this thread, if you have some actual evidence to support the contention that a man in his late 40's to mid-50's wouldn't be commanding a minesweeper in the midst of World War II, I'm willing to change my mind and admit your point. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Some things are so obvious to anyone with any sense, they cannot be proven. For instance, prove that the sky is blue. --TallulahBelle (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

THE SKY IS BLUE?!?!? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, explaining why the sky is blue isn't all that hard, but if you're getting into the whole question of "How do I know that what I perceive as "blue" is the same as what "you" perceive as "blue"?", then we start to talk about qualia, and, frankly, I quail before qualia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote before, "Some things are so obvious to anyone with any sense." Then you start to talk about qualia... Mm-hmm... Do people laugh right in your face, or do they wait for you to turn your back? Please answer, I'm honestly curious. --TallulahBelle (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Textual support?

The following text was posted on my talk page. I'm moving it here as the best place for the discussion to take place:

Hi, In the Plot section of The Caine Mutiny (film), you've taken out my contributions on the grounds that "There is no textual evidence that Maryk is 'prepared to forgive and forget'" and that "Keefer's motivations are not made clear in the film". When Keefer thanks him at the celebrations for not revealing his double-cross Maryk does say that the matter is "over and done with" and later tries to dissuade Greenwald from revealing Keefer's treachery with "Let's forget it, Barney". That strikes me as "evidence" enough. What do you need: a written statement by the actors, producers and director?

Also, Greenwald points out that "From the start, [Keefer] hated the Navy", as in it interfered with his writing. In the tow-line incident Queeg does state: "There will be no more novel-writing on the Caine". I think this describes some of Keefer's motivations, which were based on pure selfishness. Granted, Keefer does not make a full confession of his own, but the point of many great works of fiction, from the novel to the cinema, is that it is up to the reader and the audience to try and interpret a character's motivation and pass this on to others who are still a little puzzled by it.

With your permission, I'll restore my contributions. Cheers,--Marktreut (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My response is below. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. The lines you've quoted are not sufficient to support the interpretations you are putting on them. The conversation at the party takes place in front of or in the vicinity of the other officers of the ship, all of whom have to work together. It's possible that Maryk simply doesn't want to go into in under these circumstances, at that time, with those people possibly in hearing distance. He's smoothing out an awkward situation, not in any way saying that he's willing to forgive and forget. I don't need an affadavit from anyone to convince, what I would need is Maryk to say "I forgive you" or a later scene in which his attitude to Keefer is apparent.

As for Keefer's motivations, Greenwald speculates on them, but I do not see any real support for the speculation. Besides this one opinion from a character who's disgusted by what these officers did, there's no neutral source which pins down Keefer's motivations.

Your interpretations are plainly POV, and there is disagreement about them. Therefore, I'll remove them again on the basis of WP:POV and WP:V. As contested facts, you can reinsert them once you have a reliable source to support them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You dismiss my views as POV, but unless you or someone else can come up with better explanations for Maryk's attitude towards Keefer and Keefer's motives, I do not see why mine are not valid enough. If there are better explanations for their behaviour I'll accept them, but short of that I cannot find anything better than the ones I have suggested above.

It seems to me that in spite of your denials nothing short of an affidavit will do.

You're the third editor with whom I have been in conflict with this week. It's taking all the fun out of Wikipedia which I always thought was about people contributing to the knowledge of others or trying to find common ground, not taking it out completely.--Marktreut (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The plot section is for a straightforward description of the story, not for interpretation or analysis of the character's motivations. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a time when I felt the same as you. When I was doing English at school we would read a book or short story and then the teacher and the other pupils would discuss the characters and their motivations. All this went over my head. For me a story was a story and you enjoyed it or hated it. Nowadays I feel different: motivation is what drives the story and character development makes it interesting. It is Keefer's motivations, the way he manipulated Maryk into questioning Queeg's sanity, which is the driving factor in this case. After all, we need some kind of explanation for why Greenwald saw Keefer as the real mutineer, the perjury issue being the least of his wrongdoings.--Marktreut (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad for you that you've come to a greater appreciation of literature. And I would agree that motivations are appropriate for inclusion in the article, provided that certainly exists as to what their motivation is. That certainty can come from many places, including an explanation by the writer himself or the analysis of reviewers of the work. But per WP:OR, it cannot come from we, the editors of Wikipedia.

Now, to be perfectly honest with you, often such things do come from editors, who make the same assumptions that you have made in this instance. And if no one contests those conclusions, they generally stick. But in this case, another editor has challenged your interpretation of events and motives, and accordingly, you must provide factual backing from another source. It's just the way it works here on Wikipedia, and once you come to understand that more fully, you'll better enjoy your experiences here on Wikipedia.

There was a time when I felt the same as you. When I first came to Wikipedia I would edit articles and then the other editors would criticize my edits as POV or OR. All this seemed absurd to me. For me a fact was a fact and you understood it or didn't. Nowadays I feel different; Wikipedia's policies are what drive this project and collaborating with other editors makes it interesting. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But the point is "that certainly exists as to what their motivation is". There is evidence in the film of the issues that we are arguing here ! Maryk tells both Keefer and Greenwald to forget the matter and given Maryk's character (he does what he thinks is best for everyone, not himself in particular) I believe that he genuinely means it. Greenwald describes him as "an honest man" and when Maryk tells Keefer that it is "over and done with" I think he means it. They may not be friends anymore, but Maryk does not come across as someone who bears a grudge.

As for Keefer's motives, Greenwald's criticisms of him are, I think, good enough. He hates the Navy and would rather get on with his writing: Queeg's by-the-book tough style of command, which leaves little in the way for free time and levity, contrasts very much with the easy-going nature of his predecessor.

I have read a few reviews of this firm, but none go into the detail of what pushes the characters. Most of them focus on Bogart's performance and little is given in the way of the supporting characters' drives and motives.

I think a little leeway and POV should be permitted, especially if there is no other source to explain a particular issue and if it is based on scenes from the film itself. If we are supposed be "collaborating with other editors" over this, could you please indicate how you would explain Maryk and Keefer's behaviour. If they are good enough I'll accept them, but I think we need something.--Marktreut (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I disagree with your interpretation of Maryk's motivation. I have always made the same assumption as Ed, namely, that he was both an officer and a gentleman, and sought to avoid sullying the occasion with an attack on Keefer. Furthermore, even if he never does plan to bring the matter up one-on-one with Keefer, he might still be upset with him, but not want to get into it. I'm less sure what I think about Keefer; I think that it's wrong for him to be labeled as intentionally malicious; I think he was sincere in his analysis of Queeg, but he's too self-preservationist to place himself at any kind of risk at all. He's rather pathetic, in my book. In any event, it doesn't matter at all what I think or what Ed thinks or what you think, Mark. We're all just engaged in OR, and that doesn't fly on Wiki; at least, not when other people are shooting skeet. Sorry. Unschool (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

the "real" mutiny

The plot summary doesn't mention the story's critical turning point, probably because most viewers are so intent on hating Queeg (the name itself is hateable) that they don't see it. It occurs during Queeg's initial meeting with the ship's officers, after the "Do it my way and we'll get along" suggestion. Queeg is aware he has trouble with command, and asks, almost directly, for help in running the ship. (I don't remember the exact dialog.) He's given the cold shoulder, because the officers have already decided they don't like him, and don't want to cooperate. This is the real mutiny, not Maryk's later assumption of command. The officers have forgotten they're fighting a war, and there are things far more important than whether they like their commanding officer. This is not OR interpretation; it is the obvious, on-the-surface intent of the dialog and the way the scene is acted/directed/edited.

There is also the question of why the ship is named Caine. I have my opinions, but they would be OR. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Racism in the Navy

The parenthetical that Navy stewards during World War II were generally, if not exclusively, black, and later generally Filipino, is technically correct, but is it relevant to this movie? I don't think so. Is there any other reason to mention it in this article? Lahaun (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Mutiny?

When Queeg appears to become paralyzed in action, Maryk relieves him, with Keith's support. Upon returning to port, Maryk and Keith face a court-martial for mutiny.

Why is that? Relieving the captain is not a mutiny.80.141.24.11 (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The sentence isn't indicating that they committed mutiny, only that they are being charged with it. Just as one can be charged with murder without having committed murder. DonIago (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Template war and peace

One possible solution is to crate a broader Kramer template listing both directing and producing credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. BMK (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Done BMK (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary

I've made some WP:BOLD trims in the plot summary. I think it was going a bit overboard, not summarizing the plot but detailing it, and not only detailing it but providing a kind of "Wikipedia editors' commentary." For example, I've seen this movie a million times and I was surprised to learn from reading the plot summary that both Willie and DeVries were promoted by the end of the film. I was surprised because it's not mentioned in the movie, and only apparent if you freeze-frame the film and note the change in the number of stripes on each officers' sleeves. But it's not in the plot, if indeed mentioned it flits on by, and doesn't belong in a plot summary. Coretheapple (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually the promotion of both Keith and DeVriess is quite apparent and significant in the plot of the film even if it is not specifically "mentioned" in words. It indicates that Keith has not only had the charges of mutiny against him dismissed, he has also not had the incident held against him in any nonjudicial or unofficial way. This is evidenced by his being both promoted to LT(jg) and returned to sea duty, and also assigned to a higher class ship which is indicated by its captain being a CDR as opposed to a LCDR on a mine sweeper. I am surprised that someone who indicates he/she has seen the film many times would have never noticed and understood this significant element of the plot. I have seen the film many times as well beginning when it was first released in 1954. I both noticed the promotions and understood their significance the first time I saw it. Centpacrr (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

What you're saying above deals with just a tiny portion of my edit to the plot summary, and does not justify your pushing the "undo" button and removing the entire trim, So I'm going to go back and revert that portion other than the promotion material in the last paragraph. Meanwhile, please explain to me how this promotion is disclosed to the audience. Simple question. I'll suggest an answer: is it because of the change in the number of stripes on the sleeve? If so, everything else you say is original research. Coretheapple (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, the promotions are disclosed to the audience by the change in uniforms of both Keith and DeVreiss which are made quite obvious in the final shots of the film. That is not "original research" as I have not added the "reasons" to the article, just explained in here what the filmmakers depicted and made plainly visible on screen, i.e., that they had both been promoted and were wearing their new ranks on their uniforms. Centpacrr (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

So then you concede it's just an alteration in the costume the characters wear? Fine. Let's see if other editors concur. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not a "concession", but is a statement of fact. I never pretended it was anything else. What Keith and DeVreiss are wearing are not "costumes", but US Navy Class A dress blue officer's uniforms with gold braid sleeve stripes designating the wearer's grade. The insignia of rank which appears on both of them are clearly seen and are well known as to their meaning. With respect, sir or madame, I truly do not know why you are making such an issue of this. I have explained in great detail above what it shows and why it is significant to the plot even though this is unspoken by the characters themselves. Not everything that is part of the plot of a film has to be "spoken" by somebody to be recognized, understood as significant, and appropriately included. Motion pictures are intended to be more than just listened to. They are primarily a visual art form and thus intended to watched with eyes open as well. That's why they are called "motion pictures".Centpacrr (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that this is a plot summary, not a microscopically detailed depiction of everything happening in the film such as you might find on IMDB. In the novel there is much text devoted to what happens after the court martial. In the the movie very little, it wraps up fast, he goes on board the ship, they ship out, end of movie. There is no dialogue indicating that he has been promoted. He doesn't say, "May, I've been promoted, and gosh, I understand my old commander has too." Instead it's he just goes on board, sees his old commander, is startled, but the commander subtly shows no hard feelings, has him take out the ship. Yes, someone who has literally seen the movie since it first came out, as you have, might notice that both got promoted. But that doesn't make it a plot element worthy of inclusion in that already over-detailed plot summary. Coretheapple (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually for the reasons I explained above it does belong in the plot section. The promotions are significant to the understanding of the overall story as they represent the denouement of what happened to these two central characters that ties up everything else that happened in the story. Perhaps if you had read the book you would know that. Centpacrr (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, we can repeat ourselves two or three more times or bring some other editors into the conversation. Coretheapple (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

If the promotions are only indicated by changes in the uniforms, and no other mention is made of them, then they are not significant in terms of the plot, as only a small, specialized portion of the audience will realize they have occurred by "reading" the uniforms. If they were important to the storyline, they would have been spoken of by somebody, pointing them out to the audience. BMK (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Again motion pictures is a visual as well as aural medium intended to communicate information both ways. Many plot elements in movies are revealed only one of the two ways (sight or sound), but that fact does not make them any more or less significant. Simply because something that is shown is not mentioned or explained by a character does not lessen its importance. Centpacrr (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, motion pictures are a visual medium, but the rules for presenting important information are no different for visual material than they are for dialogue. If the promotions were important to the story, they would be visually emphasised in some manner, so the audience could take them in as they watched the movie for the first and only time they would see it. Analysis of passing shots enabled by video technology is not an indication that the director or writer thought these things were important. In fact, the positions of the officers in the ship's hierarchy did not change at all because of their promotions (accepting for a moment your analysis), and that is what is important to the plot.

You are going to need to drop the stick on this, the consensus here is quite clear. BMK (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Concur with BMK. Whether they are promoted or not makes no difference to the plot by this point, and in any case it's OR synthesis to take a visual cue, combine it with information garnered from a source outside the movie, and then draw a conclusion the movie does not explicitly state. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you would have a better understanding of the plot if you were to read the book. Centpacrr (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I have read the book, it sits across from my on my bookshelf even as I type this - but the book it not relevant to this discussion. Many details in novels are left out or glossed over when they're made into films - that's simply the nature of the beast, a 2 - 2 1/2 hour movie just cannot contain everything that's in a full-length novel, which is why writing a screenplay is not simply a matter of breaking down the book into shots and re-transcribing the book's dialogue. The writer has to actually pick and choose what to show, or make a single incident stand for several in the source material, or merge minor characters into one, or give up some background material that's too difficult to make sensible for the viewer. So, if the officers' promotions were important, you can be absolutely certain that the writers and the director would have made sure that the audience knew about it, not just by a passing change of uniform which is never highlighted out to the audience, but by having some bit of dialogue, or a closeup, or something to clue the audience in. They did not do that, and therefore it is incidental to the film's plot.

Please, you are making yourself look very, very foolish with this WP:IDHT behavior, and you need to stop. BMK (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The promotion is trivial and not worth mentioning. I've gotten the synopsis down to a reasonable length (again). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect, Coreoftheapple, you leave me wondering if you have actually ever seen the film at all. Your edit summary stating "promotion of these officers visible in last few seconds of film evident only in freeze-frame analysis" is just not accurate. In the 0:01:51 portion of the film between 2:01:49 and 2:03:40, the stripe-and-a-half of Lt (jg) on Keith's sleeves is plainly visible for a total of 0:50 (45% of the time) in four continuous segments lasting 24, 3, 10 and 13 seconds. Between 2:02:35 and 2:02:54, the three stripes of Commander on DeVreiss' sleeve are also plainly visible for 0:13 in two continuous segments of 9 and 4 seconds. On what basis do you thus contend that this requires "freeze frame analysis" to recognize? Centpacrr (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Because you just performed one. As has been explained multiple times by multiple editors, it isn't mentioned in the dialogue and is trivia. Coretheapple (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh my, do you really mean to contend that something clearly visible on the screen for almost a full minute during a less than two minute segment of a film has to be "freeze framed" to be seen and recognized? Really? Again, sir or madame, motion pictures communicate vast amounts of plot information only visually without ever being "mentioned in the dialogue". That's why they are called "motion pictures". You are confusing the necessity for something to be "mentioned in the dialogue" (or indicated by sound effects like a gun shot) to be considered a part of the plot with radio. The plot element being clearly communicated here by the filmmakers is that Keith has not only been exonerated of the mutiny charges and returned to duty, but also promoted. This could have also been mentioned in the dialogue, but the screenwriter chose not to as it was completely unnecessary because it is done adequately and far more efficiently simply by showing it. Having Keith state it in dialogue as well would have been unnatural for his character to do and superfluous.

As for visual plot elements take as an example, for instance, the 2013 Robert Redford film "All Is Lost", a winner of many awards including a Golden Globe and one from the New York Film Critics. It runs 105 minutes and certainly has a highly developed and definable plot. The one thing it does NOT have is anything "mentioned in the dialogue" because it has no dialogue. In "The Caine Mutiny" one of the key visual plot elements that is used to define the personality of Capt. Queeg are the two steel balls he is shown rolling in his right hand multiple times throughout the movie whenever he is under stress and yet the balls (but not what the signify) are mentioned only once in passing in the dialogue ("So he has migraine headaches and he rolls steel balls. So what?"). Does the fact that it is not "mentioned in the dialogue" that he is stressed every time he does so make him doing it just "trivia" too? Dialogue is only part of the "picture" when it comes to plot in movies, not the whole thing. See what I mean? Centpacrr (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What I "see" is that you are bordering on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tendentiousness. The "steel balls" have been mentioned numerous times in articles about this movie and Bogart's performance; if such sourcing is lacking, it's a reflection of the poor state of this article's sourcing and not a justification for picking over every little irrelevancy that can be gleaned from careful and repeated study of the film. You keep bringing up the novel and badgering editors as to whether they've read it. I have indeed, but it wouldn't matter even if I hadn't. This is an article about the film, not the novel. It is not a depiction of a real event. I'm not going to repeat further what I have said multiple times. The consensus has been established and you really need to move on. Coretheapple (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree on all these points, the most important of which is that consensus is established, and Centpacrr seriously needs to WP:DROPTEHSTICK. BMK (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

In the hope of putting this issue to rest, I have requested additional input with a neutral pointer on the talk page of WikiProject Film. BMK (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The point I am disputing here is the contention that Coretheapple seems to be making that if something it "not mentioned in the dialogue" then it is by definition not important to the plot. My point is that since movies are primarily a visual medium much of what is significant in a plot is often not mentioned in dialogue, just shown on the screen. Centpacrr (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

We are not holding a theoretical discussion. The purpose of this talk page is to provide a place to talk about improvements to or porblems with this article. The consensus here, at least so far, is that the promotions of the officers is not important to the plot of the film, as it is never mentioned, nor is it presented visually in any way that highlights it to the audience. If you wish to have a theoretical discussion concerning the role of visuals versus dialogue in sound motion pictures, you need to find some other place to do that, it is not appropriate to do so here. BMK (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur that the promotions are not important to the overall plot of the film. That said, the last sentence could always be changed to something along the lines of "With all charges dismissed, a newly-promoted Keith reports to a new ship commanded by DeVriess, who invites him "take her out", assuming we think it's safe to assume the promotion is new. DonIago (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with BMK. This article cries out for more sourcing on consequential stuff, not the trivia we're discussing here. Doniago, the facts conveyed by the last scene, the takeaway, is that Keith is surprised that his old adversary is now his boss again, and that DeVriess makes a friendly gesture. The promotion is not part of the plot. Coretheapple (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't intend to suggest otherwise, just offering a possible minimal word-count compromise for anyone who feels the promotion matters. DonIago (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

My comments here have been exactly on those two points and giving my reasons why I find both of them faulty, i.e. the two promotions are presented visually for almost a full minute of screen time which certainly is sufficient to highlight them for the audience, and that being the case there is no need to also "mention them in the dialogue" as their having been promoted is clearly depicted on screen. The editorial question that arose then was whether or not the unambiguously true plot point that both Keith and DeVriess had been promoted is significant enough to the story line to include in the summary. I gave my reasons why I think it is worth mentioning. Keith's promotion constitutes a natural denouement resolving all of plot points relating to Keith's earlier issues, i.e., it confirms that he had not only been cleared of the charges of mutiny that had been made against him, but also that he was accepted back in the full the good graces of the Navy by being promoted, assigned back to sea duty, and finally being accepted as fit and trustworthy by (now CDR) DeVriess, his first commanding officer on the Caine with whom he had earlier clashed. Showing the promotions serves, in fact, as an overt message to the audience that all has ended well for both Keith and DeVriees. That's what I took from seeing the promotions when I first saw the film in 1954, and what I still take from it today. That's exactly what talk is for, and what I did. Centpacrr (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Responding to 6 lines of comments from others with 8 more of your own repeating your thesis once again is not "dropping the stick", it is continuing to pummel the horse carcass into a bloody mass of protoplasm. You really, really must stop, lest some passing admin with a short fuse takes your commentary for tendentious and disruptive editing. BMK (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This is merely a response to your contention that "..the promotions of the officers is not important to the plot of the film, as it is never mentioned, nor is it presented visually in any way that highlights it to the audience" and why I think both are wrong. Nothing about theory. Centpacrr (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, this us useless. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over. Consensus has been determines, and there are no other issues. BMK (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am going to be a contrarian in that I am not sure the promotions as indicated by the new uniforms are "trivial" details. Sure, it isn't spelt out as it is in films nowadays but this film was made just ten years after WW2 when the population would have been much more familiar with naval uniforms than they are today. I am pretty sure 1950s audiences would have realized the significance of the uniforms: the new uniforms speak to the utlimate fates of the characters (i.e. that mutiny has not hindered or derailed their careers) and I don't think that's a trivial detail. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment. You are the first editor who has actually addressed the significance of why the promotions depicted in almost a full minute of screen time (and thus not needing "freeze frame" to see them) were deliberately included by the screenwriter, director and producers as a non-verbal means to communicate the essential plot denouement that makes clear the resolution of the post-trial fates of Keith and DeVriees, points which all other commenting editors continue to ignore. Centpacrr (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Plot length

Regarding BMK's wholesale revert that violates WP:FILMPLOT: First, it is not "absolutely standard" to have actors' names in the plot. Countless films do not since it adds to word count and is redundant with cast. Second, you cannot go over 700 words. Finally, restore the names if you want, but we not revert legitimate edits wholesale. Other editors, would you weigh in before this blows up into yet another fight?--Tenebrae (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This happens with you all the time, and you always end up apologizing and trying to be friends. Just stop now, please.[[Parabr}}First, MOS is a guideline, it is not mandatory, and 700 is not an absolute limit, it is a suggested length. Second, putting the actors' names in the plot helps the readers because they don't have to keep bouncing back and forth from the plot to the cast list in order to keep straight who is who. It is standard practice, and used on every single one of the hundreds of film articles I have edited.{parabr}}We are here to serve the readers, not to follow foolish rules without consideration. SO, before this becomes the bigger megillah you always turn it into, I beg you to just stop and consider the purpose of the encyclopedia - it is not to follow rules, but to provide information to our readers in a helpful way. Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, you do not seem to understand WP:BRD. You are not supposed to continue to revert the article to your preferred version. As discussion goes on, the article stays in the status quo ante until you have a consensus to make the changes you desire. In the meantime, please just stop reverting and leave the article be. If a consensus of editors agrees with you, then I'm not going to stand in your way, but I'm also not going to allow you to try to force your version in without consensus. Now, please stop, and discuss. BMK (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I truly want to be friendly with you since you're such a good editor, though as I've said in the past you have a bad temper. First, let me I take exception to your claim that I "always end up apologizing" since there have been times when my requests for proper citing of boundary claims at New York City articles, for instance, have resulted in your providing citations, which is right and proper and as I know you believe in when you're angry with me.

Second, the whole idea of guidelines is that we follow them except when there are exceptional circumstances. Otherwise, we're all free to break all the guidelines anytime we want. I've worked with editors of good faith at articles with such convoluted plots as the Mission: Impossible films, and as a group collaborated to show that even these can be encapsulated within 700 words. And I could link a hundred film articles that do not include the cast.

But look, I'm willing to do the grunt work of what is almost always just a matter of grammatically trimming wordiness (changing passive voice to active voice, adjusting phrases like "he then decided to go for a walk" to "he went for a walk", etc.). I'm happy to do that if you want to restore the names. But you copy-pasting the names back in is easier than forcing another editor to re-do a dozen minor nips and tucks that were done in good faith in an attempt to follow a guideline. What do you say? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand WP:BRD. The consensus of editors is that film plots be between 400 and 700 words. The onus is on editors who don't want to follow these consensus guidelines. Regardless, why don't we compromise as I suggest above: You restore the names and leave the other edits, and I'll make further trims to bring it down with the names intact. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead. Link a hundred film articles in which a plot section of anything more than a paragraph doesn't include actors the actors playing characters. I don;t think it's possible.

But I will take you up on your offer. I will restore your edits, and then manually restore the names, if you will not then revert my restoration. BMK (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Than you. I appreciate that. In the meantime, to start, since you asked: Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (672), Titanic (1997 film) (682). --Tenebrae (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

We did it! You and I working together have brought it to 700 words exactly, including actors' names. I like working together so much better than fighting. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Glad everything worked out. I just wanted to mention that it's useful in plot summaries with multiple characters to have the actors' names attached. I'm glad the summary is now compliant with our guidelines. Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

• I've tagged for sources. This movie has been written about a fair amount and the sourcing (ebay? tcm? imdb?) needs improvement. We can get this mother up to GA I am sure. Coretheapple (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I disagree. The sourcing is more than adequate for a film article. If there are particular items which you think should be sourdced, please tag them with CN, but the article as a whole is well-sourced. AFI, in particular, is quite reliable, as is TCM, and e-bay has been removed. BMK (talk) 22:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but we can do a lot better. It's just a question of finding the time, really. Lots out there. It may be acceptable to use, for instance, Robert Osborne's comments on a film, though I tend to think it presents WP:V problems, but probably better to find published work and more easily verifiable material. IMDB has been challenged repeatedly, I know that. Coretheapple (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Treating fiction as real events

I notice that we have two notes in the article, one of which relates to a real-life typhoon and the other to the Queeg in the novel and how that fictional character is much younger than the actor playing him in the movie. The fictional character in the movie is older too. So friggin what? As for the typhoon, it is not named in the movie. It is a fictional typhoon. This movie is a work of fiction and in my view these notes simply don't belong here unless there is source for it. In which case, fine. The physical descriptions of the characters in the novel are different too, and "May" is portrayed as Italian in the novel. Are we going to get into that too? We are Wikipedia editors, not film critics. This is not IMDB. This is original research and should go, in my view. Coretheapple (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• With respect, sir or madame, this in not "original research", but material that is very well sourced and properly cited. To begin with, the typhoon is absolutely not fictional. It was in fact known as "Halsey's Typhoon" and was one of the most well documented (the subject of several books) and devastating natural disasters ever suffered by the US Navy in WWII or any other time in the history of that service resulting in the complete loss of three ships and 776 crewmen. If you consult the movie this particular storm is referred to directly in the dialogue when Maryk, Keefer and Keith decide to not talk to ADM Halsey and return to the Caine. As they do so they are told by a Halsey aide to "Hurry back. We received a storm warning and the fleet's sailing." The storm being referred to is Typhoon Cobra that raged east of Luzon in the Philippine Sea (which is where the Caine was at the time) between December 14 and 19, 1944. Three destroyers in the Task force of which the Caine was a part in the film (TF-38) foundered and 28 other ships were badly damaged and put out of action until repaired.

As for the age of Capt. Queeg's character and it being played by a 54-year old Humphrey Bogart, this was a matter of considerable discussion at the time the film was produced -- especially when Kramer insisted that Bogart be cast instead of the 15-year younger Richard Widmark (age 39 at the time) that Columbia wanted for the part. That is why I added this to the section of the article on production. A 54-year old Lt. Commander in the regular Navy (as opposed to a reserve officer in a non sea duty billet) simply would not have happened in WWII or any other time. An officer of that age who was still on active duty would either by an O-6 or flag rank, not an O-4. The fact that an actor 25 years senior to what Queeg would have logically been (and Wouk made him in the book) is an absolutely relevant and well sourced piece of information to be included as a note in the "production" section of the article.

As for this being a "fictional" story and film that is only partly true. The Caine and the "mutiny" were indeed fictional, but WWII and the actions depicted in the film certainly were not. The genre of Wouk's book and of this film based on it are, in fact both, what is known as historical fiction which sets a fictional story in an identifiable factual period and context with many non-fictional elements. This is why the Navy assigned a senior line officer, CDR James C. Shaw, USN, to Columbia to be a full time technical advisor during the film's preparation and production over a period of over two years. That being the case, the verifiable and properly sourced fact the three destroyers of the class of the fictional Caine actually foundered in the Halsey Typhoon is relevant information to include as a note in the plot section as whether or not Maryk was justified in relieving Queeg because of his failure to employ proper ship handling in this historic typhoon thus endangering the Caine is a central plot element.

Although under WP policy and guidelines I could have properly included these two relevant items of information in the text of the main article, I have done so as notes purely for space considerations. Just because a single editor does not find this information of particular interest to him or herself, however, does not mean that they are of no interest to others as they both provide relevant background information to help those who read the article to better understand and appreciate both historically accurate elements of the plot (the typhoon), and also what happened during the 15 months of casting and pre-production work (the controversy over casting the 54-year old Bogart instead of the 39-year old Widmark or another younger actor as the film's protagonist).

With respect, Coreoftheapple, WP is not written only to appeal to the "lowest common denominator" of readers. If you are not interested in this material you are perfectly free to ignore it. That does not mean, however, that there are not many readers who would find its inclusion to be both enlightening and encyclopedically appropriate in advancing the mission of the Wiklipedia Project. Centpacrr (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Would you please get a grip? If you continue with these personal attacks and wall-o-text rants I'm going to bring this up at ANI. Coretheapple (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• What "personal attack" are you possibly referring to? What I posted above was nothing more than a detailed explaintion of why the two notes I contributed provide relevant and appropriate information and conform with WP policy and guidelines. Simply because any one editor disagrees with the position of another and explains why does not constitute a "rant" or "personal attack" or anything close to it. I did not accuse anyone of doing anything improper, cast any aspersions on anybody else, nor have I failed to assume good faith on the part of anybody in this or any other thread I have commented on in the talk page. Again with respect, sir or madame, under these circumstances telling a fellow volunteer contributor "get a grip" and threatening "to bring this up at ANI" is neither appropriate nor is it a collegial way in which to interact with fellow editors. Centpacrr (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Do the sources provided reference the film? If not, and if these notes are being provided as "points of historical interest", then I might instead recommend WP:SEEALSO links to the appropriate articles, though I'd like to hear what other editors have to say on the subject. DonIago (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doniago: Ah, good question. The novel, of course, does not reference the casting. However, the typhoon book does reference the book and movie on p. 286, according to an Amazon search, and that can be retained if the page number is added to the text. Coretheapple (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Have added, but that leaves the other note and it is problematic. Coretheapple (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes they do. Herman Wouk writes in the introduction to the book that much of what is included in the story (and shows up in the film) such as Typhoon Cobra is non-fictional material which he drew from extensive diaries he kept while serving as an officer (including as an XO) on two converted destroyer-minesweepers (USS Zane (DD-337) and USS Southard (DD-207)) of the same class as the Caine in the South Pacific during WWII. The material about the casting of the 54-year old Bogart to play a much younger man comes from a variety of cited contemporary sources including the New York Times and TIME Magazine. Centpacrr (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Then fine, all it needs is sourcing. The problem is not that we're talking about these things but that they're not footnoted. If I had felt it was horrible stuff that didn't belong in the article, I'd have removed and then posted here. It's just that we can't put our own analysis into the article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If you are now saying that "The problem is not that we're talking about these things.." and that my contributions do not constitute "...horrible stuff that didn't belong in the article...", than why did you say "So friggin what?" about the two notes in your original post? These seem to me to be diametrically opposed positions. Centpacrr (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What I am now saying is that I'm not going to waste any more time responding to you. Coretheapple (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Well, Coretheapple, you are of course free to not respond further if that is your want. Please understand, however, when any editor starts a thread in a talk page (as you did here), that act implies an affirmative expectation that other contributors who have an interest in the topic -- especially if the original posting relates to something such a responding editor did to the article in question -- are going to respond. That's all I did in this case by providing a detailed explanation of why I had added what I did in the article.

Any editor is, of course, free to disagree with what any other contributors comment, and to then provide his or her reasons therefore. That's what "talk" is for. It is unhelpful to the process of building the project, however, to instead reply only with gratuitous invective, unsupported accusations of "personal attacks" and "wall-o-text rants" (whatever those are) when none of that is present, and then to threaten to "bring this to ANI", all of which is against the letter and spirit of WP policy and guidelines. With respect then, Coreoftheapple, if you don't think you can do that, I urge you to (in your own words) "get a grip", take a "Wikibreak", or if necessary to find a different hobby that will be less stressful and more rewarding for you. Remember Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative project with no "Editors-in-Chief". Please don't try to be one. Centpacrr (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Footnote Two: Queeg's age (Bogie vs. film vs. novel)

This is a pretty good analysis and synthesis of published material, describing how Bogie is older than is portrayed in the film screenplay and novel. Only one problem: it is by a Wikipedia editor, and thus is a no-no under WP:SYN. I think the text of the footnote has to go in all or in part, and also I think that we need to rethink the language in the main text referencing Queeg's age. Thoughts? Coretheapple (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Truly, sir or madame, I am puzzled about what your issue is here. I added this "Note" to the article to provide efficient access to the extensive supporting source material that elucidates and confirms that there is a large disparity (25 years) between the actual age of Bogart the actor compared to that of Queeg, the character he played, as revealed in both the original Wouk novel and in the text of the screenplay. This statement in the article and in the Note is extensively sourced with half a dozen footnotes (#s 6 through 11) citing published material from multiple reliable sources including direct quotes from the texts of both the novel and screenplay that confirm what those sources say.

The fact that Kramer and the studio selected a particular high profile actor who at 54 was almost twice as old as the character he plays instead of a less prominent one who was about 30 (the Queeg character's documented age) is certainly significant information and encyclopedically justified to include in the casting section of the article. The very same kind of information is also included on the WP entry about the film The Spirit of St. Louis when the 25-year old Charles Lindbergh was played by a 47-year old Jimmy Stewart. The reasons that the ages of none of the other actors in the film are discussed is because they are all age appropriate for the characters they portray and so that is not relevant. The material in the text and associated note about the Bogart/Queeg disparity is demonstrably relevant, however, as well as accurate, appropriately and reliably sourced, and also not a case of WP:SYN. Centpacrr (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

In the Spirit of St. Louis film, which is about a real, I repeat, real person, Charles Lindbergh, the difference between the age of the actor Jimmy Stewart and the real person he portrayed was noted by reviewers and there isn't a speck of OR or SYN in the Wiki article on that movie. See [1] I'm beginning to wonder not only if you have trouble distinguishing OR from non-OR content, which is obvious, but can distinguish real from fictional characters. Fictional characters only exist when they appear on screen or in the novel. They are, by definition, neither "too old" or "too young." We cannot make a fuss about any discrepancy in ages unless the source material does. And by "source material" I don't mean "the dialogue shows a graduation from Annapolis in Year X and that means A, B and C when contrasted with the lines in the novel on page X." That is, uh, the textbook definition of "original research." I mean the source material saying "Queeg in the movie is much older than is portrayed in the novel." OK? The source material saying that, not you saying that. You can now respond with another wall-o-text, but I think this needs to be addressed by editors other than you. Coretheapple (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• When works of fiction provide information that clearly defines a character—including his or her age or age range—as both the novel and screenplay do in this case, than that affirmatively establishes what the author(s) intend should be understood and accepted as contextually true about that character irrespective of whether he or she is real or fictional. This is exactly what the direct quotations from both the book and movie's screenplay that I cited in the note do that supports the age range intended by the authors of both the novel and screenplay derived from it for the Queeg character when he takes command of the Caine in November, 1943 as being 28 to 34. Citing verbatim quotations is not "original research" but simply accurate transcriptions of the author's words that established Queeg's age range, not my words. As the quotations from both the novel and screenplay are also consistent with each other, they do not require any "analysis" or "interpretation" to clearly understand what they mean. In such a case as this, when an actor is then chosen to portray an already age range defined character in a film or play—even if that character is fictional as opposed to real—is either much older or younger than the person he or she is playing, that is certainly significant and appropriate information to include in a WP entry about the film. And again for emphasis, when a character's age or age range has been affirmatively established by the author(s) as a known element of the story it then becomes irrelevant whether or not that character is fictional or real.
• I have already addressed above whether or not it is appropriate for anyone to suggest that any other editor not post his or her comments in a thread in talk or any other WP forum, and especially commenting about issues raised about something in which an editor has a direct interest. Neither I nor any other contributor should ever be expected to arbitrarily remain silent on such an issue, and it is really quite inappropriate and against WP policy to suggest such. Again there are no "Editors in Chief" in Wikipedia so please stop trying to act as if you are one. Centpacrr (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think there are circumstances where major changes made to a character's, um, characteristics between the source material and the film made from it can be relevant -- if properly sourced, of course. If a male or female character has their gender changed, that's significant, if a character who is supposed to be a child is played by an adult, that might be signififcant, depending on the circumstances - for instances, Judy Garland was much older than Dorothy in the stories, but a concerted effort was made for her to "play down" to the younger age, so a brief mention of the age differential is warranted; on the other hand Peter Pan, a boy, is traditionally played by an adult woman, and that is very significant and deserves (sourced) analysis.

However, when we come to a situation where an adult male is played by an adult male -- even when there is a 25-year difference -- I think we've entered the realm of fan trivia. If anything is required, a simple statement saying "At the time of production, Bogart was several decades older than the character as portrayed in Wouk's novel" is the very most that is needed - anything more is, frankly, WP:OR. If the director or producer is on record as saying "We cast Bogie in the role despite the age difference because we felt he was the best actor we could possible have", or words to that effect, fine, that (if sourced) can go in as well. Or if the casting of a much older actor contributed to a lack of believability by the audience, which lead to the film not being successful that (again, only if sourced) is legitimate materal. (Remember, though, that audiences are quite willing to suspend their disbelief - look at the Americans, Brits and French people Cary Grant played without changing his manner of speaking one whit.)

An encyclopedia is not an exercise in editorial exploration, interpretation or analysis, it's a presentation of sourced, verifiable facts, and going beyond that is going beyond our mandate. That kind of stuff is appropriate for a fan Wikia or a blog, but not for Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I was asked to comment as a disinterested third-party editor since I've edited this article previously, and was doing so at the same time of the above editor so there was an edit conflict. I didn't know he was posting, and I am simply copy-pasting what I'd already written. By coincidence, we agree:

I don't believe the article should get into a discussion of the actor's age in the movie as opposed to in the book or to any supposed real-life character. Are we really going to do that with the ages of the actors of every fictional work that may be based on some aspect or another of real life? Bette Midler played a character apparently based on Janis Joplin in the fictional movie The Rose — so are we going to have a section there comparing Midler's age with Joplin's? That just seems way overboard, pardon the expression. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: @Tenebrae: Actually I should amend my post by noting that the other footnote, re the typhoon, also contain unacceptable amounts of OR and trivia. We can say that a certain 1944 typhoon was portrayed in the film. Fine. That's sourced. But all the rest, naming this destroyer and that destroyer, is fancruft/trivia and OR in my opinion. I'd appreciate it if editors could take a look at that other footnote too. Coretheapple (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have decided to remove both of my notes and, in an abundance of caution, all my other recent text contributions, references, new images, and test edits which may also be objected to for whatever reason and returned the article to its status quo ante. This was not a totally lost exercise for me, however, as I personally have learned a lot of new information about the production and other aspects of this film that I have watched many times since it came out in 1954 and had intended to share this with others who may be interested as well. (It has inspired me to read the original novel again too which I last read in 1966.) Centpacrr (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• You reverted back to some arbitrary point in January or February or Lord knows where, back dozens or hundreds of edits, reverting not just your edits but those of others. You're being disruptive. Please stop. Coretheapple (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Well you seem to have restored virtually all of my contributions, quotations, references, and images with the exception of the two notes and Bogart's out of range age so I guess they weren't really OR after all. (You see I can be succinct. ;) )Centpacrr (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• No, the mega-footnotes are gone. No one objected to anything else. However, I see that you expanded the plot summary and in so doing went against consensus by reinserting a reference to the ensign's promotion, and that's been reverted by another editor. Coretheapple (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Well actually after you prematurely claimed that consensus had been achieved (it really hadn't) after only one day of discussion, support was posted by another editor (Betty Logan) to include the reference to the promotion of Keith for the same reasons I gave, i.e., contrary to the demonstrably false claim that the promotion from Ensign to Lt (jg) could only be seen in "freeze frame", it was clearly and intentionally depicted in the film by showing the new stripe-and-a-half on the sleeves of Keith's uniform for fifty seconds of screen time representing 45% of the final less than two minute closing segment of the film. Next time you watch the movie (assuming that you ever have), just bring along a stop watch and time the four continuous segments lasting 24, 3, 10 and 13 seconds respectively that his new rank is shown. The "reinsertion" of the reference, by the way, took up exactly one word ("promoted") to accomplish. Considering it is something that is clearly shown in the film and it constitutes a material change in status of Willie Keith, continuing to object to including this single eight-letter word really seems a bit petty. Centpacrr (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Totally ridiculous conversation. Done with it. Coretheapple (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• No reply was really anticipated or necessary. Qui tacet consentire videt ubi loqui debuit ac potuitur. Centpacrr (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Centpaccr: Your action was extremely disruptive, as well as being immensely childish. If you do something like that again, you'll find yourself being reported to the noticeboards, so I'd advise you to keep a level head on your shoulders from now on, and don't fixate on trivial aspects of an article, especially in the face of almost universal disagreement. BMK (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• With respect, sir, it would probably be more constructive if you (and Coretheapple) would actually address the points that I raise on their merits as opposed to simply gainsaying, failing to address them, or just "hanging up". What you call "trivia" I see as relevant details (and explained why both in here and in my notes) which I contribute because I believe they enhance the understanding of the topic being discussed. What I add I always endeavor to well source and cite reliable and verifiable references to support. A perfect example of this is the promotion of Keith from ESN to LT (JG) at the end of the film, how it is communicated to the audience, and why it is a significant plot element. (see above).
• I must observe that your comments to me would carry more weight if your demonstrated approach to the project, editing entries, and postings in its forums as revealed by your user logs did not show that you have been disciplined and blocked from editing on at least eight occasions under your current account for multiple policy violations, tendentious and disruptive editing, uncollegial behavior, and other misconduct. I note that you admit in your "Backstory" posted on your userpage that the two earlier accounts you operated under between 2005 and 2010 had also been blocked as well for similar reasons but there is no way to tell how many times. (On the other hand, I have been blocked only once—for 24 hours in 2009—which the admin later advised me was unjustified and had been done in error.) As for what you claim to be "almost universal disagreement" with my contributions seems to be primarily just two editors -- you and Coretheapple -- which does not strike me as meeting anyone's definition of "universality".
• We are all in here (at least I am) to contribute information and knowledge in our areas of interest for the benefit of those who consult the project and that's what I have been doing to the best of my ability since registering and beginning to edit here almost a decade ago. I have been a professional writer for almost half a century and am the author of seven published books (and contributed material to many others), appeared in a number of historical documentaries (including one on HBO), and have also authored many hundreds of published articles. I do take what I do here seriously and assume good faith on the part of my fellow volunteer contributors to the project. I would appreciate if you would do the same. Centpacrr (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Another footnote on trivia, military abbreviations, WP:NOTGALLERY

Also the super-lengthy footnotes on minor bits of trivia (e.g. one minor character says "ninety-day wonder" and so naturally that has to go into the plot summary with a footnote that goes on and on and on and on) have got to stop. Ditto the military abbreviations like "OOD" that are completely unnecessary for plot summaries. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• While movies are copyrighted, trailers are not as you will see in the images' host pages.
• The only reason that Keith was charged along with Maryk is because he was the OOD at the time Queeg was relieved and told Stillwell to follow Maryk's orders over Queeg's. If another officer had been OOD than he would have been charged instead of Keith.
• The fact the Keith was a "ninety day wonder" is also an important plot element because it showed he was very inexperienced compared to De Vriess, Queeg, Maryk and Keefer which is a major factor in the story. I only included the note that shows that "ninety day wonder" is said by "Meatball" in the dialogue is to blunt another one of your complaints that it can't be included in the plot because it isn't in the screenplay. You can't have it both ways.
• Nothing that I have contributed is untrue, unsourced, or not relevant. You apparently just find it of no personal interest to you. That does not mean, however, it is not of interest to others. Again please stop trying to act an "Editor in Chief" of this article or asserting "ownership". Centpacrr (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• 1. The precise reason under military law why Keith, a fictional character, was charged, and his being a "ninety-day wonder," is absolute trivia and fancruft. Your fixation on trivia has got to stop. You are wasting people's time with that crap. 2. Your image files provide no links to any trailer; the only one I see online does not have the images you uploaded. 3. There are too many even if the copyright is OK. 4. As you have before, you have a bad habit of rolling back many edits and providing a misleading edit summary. In this case you reinstated the superlong footnote and military abbreviations without explanation while your edit summary only covered the photos. You really need to stop these stunts. Coretheapple (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• An identical scene of Queeg taking command of the Caine appears a 0:10 of the trailer, and of Queeg, Maryk and Stillwell on the bridge during the typhoon at 0:50. Motion pictures are a visual art form, thus including "pictures" that illustrate key elements of the plot is therefore more than appropriate. There are also TWO different Caine Mutiny trailers on YouTube. The one I am referring to is located at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MeErathhsg.
• All of the rank abbreviations were wikilinked.
• You have not addressed the plot significance of Keith being a "ninety-day wonder" which is in fact the subject of the very first scene of the film! The three month (90 day) period of training being only the beginning of their necessary ongoing education to be effective Naval officers—the central element of the development of Keith's character over the course of the film—is the exact topic of the film's establishing remarks made by the Admiral at the commissioning ceremony to Keith and his fellow Midshipman's School graduates: "And so today you are full-fledged Ensigns. Three short months ago you assembled here from all parts of the nation, all walks of life -- field, factory, office and college campus. Each of you knew what the fighting was about or you wouldn't have volunteered. Each of you knew that the American way of life must be defended by life itself. From here on, your education must continue in the more demanding school of actual war. Wearing the gold stripe of Ensign in the United States Navy, you go down to the sea to fight in the toughest conflict of all time. Your fellow Americans carry my confidence that you will serve the Navy and the country with honor and distinction. Good luck and good hunting." Keith's being a "ninety-day wonder" is thus certainly not trivia or "funcraft" (whatever that is), but an important and essential plot element as it relates to how he behaves throughout the film and responds to the challenges he faces compared to the far more experienced officers (De Vriess, Queeg, Maryk and Keefer) he serves with. (A similar such relevant plot element would be the development of the character of Sub-Lieutenant (later Lieutenant-Commander) Keith Lockhart RNVR in the 1953 British WWII Royal Navy film The Cruel Sea from fresh midshipman school ("King Alfred") graduate to experienced Naval officer.) So instead of again just blowing this point off, please specifically address why you apparently disagree as to its significance as a plot element. (And again Keith being a fictional character with regard as to why he was charged along with Maryk as opposed to Keefer or somebody (or nobody) else, and his being a "ninety-day wonder" is completely irrelevant as to whether or not these elements should be included in the plot summary. If this were to be used as a criteria what to include, then the entire plot section would be blank because everything in it is "fictional".) Centpacrr (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no plot significance to the term "90-day wonder." As you yourself point out, it is mentioned once, by a minor character, in passing. That doesn't even establish that he was a 90-day wonder. It's enough to say that he's new. So enough on that bit of trivia. Contrast that with Article 184, to which you've added another lengthy footnote. While I think the footnote is overkill, since there is a link to the regulation that I added, that is an important, indeed crucial plot point. The whole film hinges on it.

I'm not going to waste any more time explaining this to you. You are deep into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory on your latest obsession as with all the others. Coretheapple (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Again after opening this thread to raise this particular issue, for whatever reason you have yet again decided to not address the question you posed, i.e., why you claim that Keith's being a "ninety-day wonder" (which both the opening scene and "Meatball's" remark proves his character is) is not significant to the plot. As you do not endeavor to refute anything I have explained in detail above either, I have to assume either that you have nothing with which to do so or that you did not even bother to read my reasoning as you make no reference to it at all.
• Again Keith's being a "nine-day wonder" is not only mentioned specifically in the screenplay, but his being the recent graduate of a wartime three month (90 day) Midshipman school is the specific purpose of the entire opening scene from the movie, is the specific topic of the extensive remarks made by the graduation speaker (which I have included above in its entirety for your convenience), and is what clearly establishes the status of Keith being an inexperienced, just commissioned reserve Naval officer three months removed from having been a civilian, i.e., the exact and classic definition of a nascent, just minted "ninety-day wonder".
• An editor just saying "no it isn't" and nothing else isnot an "argument" or an "explanation", it's just Pythonesque gainsaying and only a statement of one's individual, personal opinion unsupported by anything else. With respect that's just not how discussions on WP work. Without support, justification or at least some reasoning presented it means nothing.
• And as you again say "I'm not going to waste any more time explaining this to you" (i.e., yet another "hang up") when you still haven't "explained" anything at all, I have to accept that you have no "explanation" for your position. Centpacrr (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The new images added to the article

There have been three new images added to the article. While copyright isn't a problem here (in the case of images taken from the trailer presuming the trailer does not carry a copyright notice) I think the article is now becoming overloaded with images. Images ultimately should not be decorative, they should enhance a reader's understanding of the text. For that reason I find it difficult to foresee why we would ever need a screencap in the plot summary.

In the case of the other images, I simply think there are too many. Each section in this article is relatively short, and as such this number of images ruins the aesthetics. There are currently three images in the casting section and it now looks cluttered. If you want to add images of the principal cast I suggest using a gallery approach similar to the one at Gone_with_the_Wind_(film)#Cast which achieves the same objective in a tidier fashion. Betty Logan (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• These are not actually "new" images, but the restoration of three images previously existing in the article two of which were being challenged as being "unfree" (they have proved to be demonstrably PD, see below), and the other just removed this morning by another editor.

The single image in the "plot" section is both relevant and significantly enhances the readers' understanding as it essentially serves as the "title" image for the entire movie by representing and clearly depicting the exact moment and circumstances of what actually constitutes the "mutiny" about which the rest of the entire plot revolves. It seems to me that a single image in this section that succinctly illustrates this pivotal element of the plot is neither "decorative" nor does it "ruin the aesthetics" (whatever that highly subjective contention is supposed to mean) of the page, but is instead both absolutely central and relevant to the plot, and enhances the reader's understanding of exactly how the "mutiny" took place. I do not in any way see how this disrupts the flow of this section of the article, and am not aware of any WP policy prohibition to include demonstrative images in the plot sections of motion picture entries.

As for the image of the "change of command" restored to the casting section, it is the only available free image that shows not only Bogart (the casting of whom is the subject of the paragraph in which it is placed), but also three of the film's other four top billed players (MacMurray, Francis, and Johnson) cast for leading rôles together in the film together in a single frame. The existing image of the June 7, 1954 TIME Magazine cover depicts and enhances the understanding of the significance of Bogart's appearance on the cover of this iconic magazine (the only time he ever did so) and how it relates to the film. The other existing image of José Ferrer shows how he, the fifth and final top billed actor cast in the film appears as he plays the pivotal rôle of Lt. Greenwald, Maryk's defense counsel in the Court Martial that concludes the picture.

The third and final so-called "new" image under discussion which was restored to the "Navy involvement" section depicts Headquarters Building at US Naval Station, Treasure Island, the then headquarters of the Twelfth Naval District in San Francisco. The location of the Court Martial, next to the USS Caine more action takes place here than anywhere else in the film. This is also an unquestionably "free" image as as it is a photograph that I took myself.

As for the PD status of the "mutiny image" in the plot section and the "change of command image in the casting section, both are demonstrably derived from image frames in one of the several uncopyrighted 1954 trailers for the film and are thus fully compliant for use in the WP main space as "free" images under the terms discussed and resolved nine years ago at WikiProject-Film Talk Archive #12 (§10): "Free Images for Films" (April, 2007), and also explained HERE.

Finally let me observe that the central essence of all of the many thousands of "motion pictures" that are the subject of WikiProject-Films entries is pictures, and thus nothing is better suited to "enhance the understanding" of key elements of this important visual art form than "pictures" themselves. Centpacrr (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually the two "Queeg" images are listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 March 14. But they are in fact too crowded as Betty Logan points out, and that is the primary reason they don't belong here. The crowding of images in the article is simply excessive. The building photo is particularly excessive and UNDUE. Coretheapple (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)