Talk:1941 (film)

POV

I think that the opening sentence definately gives the point of view that the film is not worth watching. It does this by means of Weasel terms. Jack 17:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Novel?

Was this based on a novel, or was it a tie-in book based on the movie? I read it years ago, but forget who wrote it.

Definition of a decade

'the film is generally considered to be Spielberg's first major box office flop after nearly a decade of box office success.'

A decade? His first big success was with Jaws in 1975. 1941 was released in 1979. Four years is now a decade, is it?--Stu-Rat 14:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

More detail

I have written the plot outline for 1941 in detail and added a spoiler warning. I have also added some more information for the trivia section and added a music/score section. Perhaps the article can be updated from a start class to a B class and be cleaned up anyone? LordHarris 14:57 5 September 2006 (GMT)

Have also added a section with a list of the main cast and changed one of the titles of subection to reception instead of box office flop. Added references also. LordHarris 12:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The plot section suggests that the Japanese sub believes it has surfaced at Hollywood; it explicitly does no such thing: the dialogue between the sub captain and the German observer makes reference to Hollywood being a target, the German tells the Japanese that Hollywood is in land, and probably an unsuitable target for a sub, the Captain over-rules his objections, and commands a course be set to take them there (the German having already said that he doubts that they could find Japan, let alone Los Angeles). Jock123 (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments and a suggestion for article organization

Kudos for everyone who contributed. However, the article might be better served by a revision of the article structure:

Overview: Short description of movie. Brief credits, including director, studio. Popularity, reviews, box office return and mpaa rating.
1. inspiration and origins of movie.
2. movie production and screening timeline
a. script
b. casting
c. sets and locations
d. shooting
e. production credits
f. promotion
g. premier
h. reviews and box office returns
i. run dates
j. television and home video releases
3. storyline
4. characters
5. soundtrack
6. Influences
7. Movie, historical and cultural references in the film
8. Impact and consequences
9. footnotes and references
10. internal and external links

I suggest that the article open with the statement that this is a completely over-the-top comedy about the hysteria that seemed to grip much of the media and populace of the West Coast of the U.S. in the days immediately following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, as people mobilized in preparation for a feared Japanese invasion.

The current story description is too long. It's a good start, but could use condensing. Rather than put so much description into the plot, I think it would be better to briefly describe the overall structure and content of the plot, including the statement that there are multiple interconnected stories that tend to all converge at the end of the movie and that each one explores in human terms certain events and rumors from that place and time.

Give a two- or three-sentance description of each storyline and how many of them intertwine. Perhaps make the intertwining aspect a separate issue. Describe how each storyline illustrates an historical event or series of events.

Mention that there are a number of running gags, but only give a couple of examples.

I would like to see a mention of the reference made to Kubrick's "Doctor Strangelove" during the scene on board the submarine where actor Slim Pickes as Hollis Wood is being interrogated. An officer places items captured with Wood, one-by-one on the sub's map table. As he does so, Wood enumerates each, remeniscent in "Doctor Strangelove" of the pilot of the B-52's enumeration of the contents of their survival kit (that role also played by Slim Pickens).twfeline 02:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the above analysis. This is an interesting film that deserves a more precise description in the plot synopsis and more details in other sections. The notes/references section also needs to be rewritten in a more standard style. IMHO Bzuk 02:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Popular culture

Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content before adding any "Popular culture" items. The example must have a MAJOR or "especially notable" role in what is listed. Random cruft and speculation will be removed. Items should be able to have attribution if challenged as non-notable. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

Claim of OR in 1941 (film)

Three pages in the Culhane book are devoted to the special effect editing and photography which validates the original statement. The book details the landmark special effects and "movie magic" and specifically refers to the 1941 (film) as an example of Sfx at its best. An editor who happened upon the original statement may have been confused over the use of a quote as the source of the statement that was in question. The quote was put in for an entirely different reason as there was some contention in talk and edit comments that the film was not carefully produced and although it was not a well-received product, it was a good example of production values especially in harnessing small-scale miniatures and composite photography. That led to the note being added to the citation. FWiW, unless anyone has noted something other in the reference source, I will be removing your tag. Bzuk (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC).

Introductory crawl?!

Is this necessary? It appears to be overly indulgent for a minor film. If there is no comment or explanation, the section will be deleted as unnecessary. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

It is not necessary, and I removed it. Information from primary sources should be limited to basic descriptions that help readers with context for coverage from secondary sources. The crawl emulates the film more than it serves as a guide in reading the article. Erik (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Cult Film?

Even with the cited article which clims it has somehow received the success it did not have during it's theatrical release by becoming a "requested title" on home video, this film is still relatively obscure despite it's huge budget and notable cast. "Cult film" is such a vague and opinionary term that it really has very little tangible meaning. The movie was a relative flop, and it remains so. Many unsuccessful films have been re-defined as "cult films" on Wikipedia, and about the only criteria for citation is finding a web site that calls it one. As it stands , this seems to allow many unsuccessful films to be-reinvented and to make a almost magical case that it somehow isn't a flop after all. I think, especially in the case of this film, the criteria needs to be a lot more specific. We can call just about any film released on home video that has had moderate success a "cult film", and that does not negate the film's overwhelming failure.

And before anyone counters my argument by citing that this film was ultimately profitable, I will admit right now that it was , but given that it was a Steven Speilberg film it was a masive failure given the expectations and the time, even after factoring in it's later video releases. (24.62.126.170 (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

That’s pretty POV in and of itself; I agree that “cult film” is a pretty pointless credential to wave for a movie, as there are no set definitions for what makes one. However, the term “flop” is equally subjective - while I would have agreed with you for a long time, there is a strong case I have seen made that objectively “1941” was *not* the disaster it has come to represent, and that its reputation was manipulated to imply that losses made by the studio for other reasons were actually down to this film (better to bury bad news in plain sight and say that they made one big stinker, than that they had had a string of under-achievers). Jock123 (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC) it is my belief after a review of the film we may have all overlooked the timeless amount of good aspects of this work by Spielberg.The energy of the actors in carrying out their scenes is extraordinary, the acting is superb in a comedy, actors performing flawlessly, there are also many signs of classic symbology by the producer in how he revealed the behavior of the Japanese sub crew and the Nazi officer...this is extremely well done art. An art form. I may have overlooked it for its importance long ago when it was a serviceable movie comedy but now looking back on it in a era of high tech sci fi robots and special effects I see 1941 now as a special film for all...Blondeignore (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Latest edit

The large scalloping of the article is not discussed previously and needs an airing first. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have found some additional refs and tucked in some of the information, awaiting comment. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC).

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://timeout.com/film/newyork/reviews/63428/1
  • In 1941 (film) on 2011-05-25 03:16:31, 404 Not Found
  • In 1941 (film) on 2011-06-04 16:14:17, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.timeout.com/film/newyork/reviews/63428/1941.html
  • In 1941 (film) on 2011-05-25 03:16:31, 404 Not Found
  • In 1941 (film) on 2011-06-04 16:14:17, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit excised

See the following that has "the ring of truth" but is unsourced: "Writers Zemeckis and Gale, first asked John Milius to do the film, due to their U.S.C film connection. Originally they wanted to do a screenplay called Bordello of Blood then moved to another LA-based story called "The Night the Japs Attacked", dealing with many important moments in early World War II such as the Battle of Los Angeles in February 1942 and the Zoot Suit Riots in 1943.

Around 1975, Milius signed a four picture deal with Metro-Goldwyn Mayerafter receiving praise from his film, The Wind and the Lion. Allowing his next picture to be "The Night the Japs Attacked", then president Daniel Melnick turned down the offer. Milius was friends with Steven Spielberg, going skeetshooting once a week. Spielberg was interested in making the movie because of the scene of the Japanese submarine shooting the ferris wheel at the Pacific Ocean amusement park as it rolls off into the ocean.

In 1976, now with Spielberg attached to the product, Zemeckis and Gale decided to go to Columbia Pictures and once again ask Melnick to make the movie, believing that Spielberg was a more bankable name than Milius, Melnick agreed to make the film. During this time, Sid Sheinberg, who worked at Universal wanted Spielberg make another movie. The decision was to be a coproduction between Universal and Columbia with Universal getting domestic distrubition and Columbia getting foreign distribution." FWiwW Bzuk (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but where did the editor get all this information? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1941 (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005222825/http://lalalandrecords.com/1941.html to http://www.lalalandrecords.com/1941.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Tribute to The Searchers (1953)

While being pressurized into returning the Crackerjack compass he swallowed, Slim Pickens exclaims Hey Boy, what that knife!

This was a line from the 1953 movie The Searchers spoken by the Rev Clayton, played by Ward Bond