Talk:Platoon (film)

Remeber to sign your posts with ~~~~. IP Users can do this too! It greatly helps communuication to see who's saying what.

Film B‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article has an archived peer review.

Kaisershatner - like the change. I think it reads better than it used to. --Looper5920 17:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the sergeants are cynical, aren't they? It's just that one cares about human life and the other pretty much doesn't. I think Willem Dafoe's character is cynical about the war, whereas the other guy is cynical about the rights of others.

It seems like the word "cynical" is thrown around to often these days. :) It seemed to be a struggle between civilized personal morality and primitive group mentality.

What makes you think that Crawford and Big Harold die? Harold is next to Lerner with the other wounded after the ambush and certainly isn't dead.

Your correct neither of them die, Crawford was shot in the lung and Big harold has his leg blown off but the last we see of them they are being evacuated seemly in a stable condition. Lerner on the other hand seems to be in a more serious condition but is also still alive the last we see of him.

This Article needs to be cleaned up to meet a higher standard of quality.

Trivia

I just added a trivia section to this film which includes the statement "Johnny Depp's portrayal of Gator Lerner was considered so amazing by Oliver Stone, that most of rising star Depp's scenes were deleted because it was felt that they "upstaged" Charlie Sheen." Please do not delete this because you are a huge Charlie Sheen fan and don't want anything shown that mocks him. It was a fact and not put on this page to make Charlie Sheen look bad, it was just put in because its interesting. DurotarLord 23:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia "The Rolling Stones track 'Paint it Black' accompanies the film's credits."

   That's 'Full Metal Jacket', Asshole

Swastika

At the end of the film an US armoured unit rescues Taylor. It is flying a Swastika (though the flag is slightly tangled around the pole). Does anyone know if there is any truth to Americans flying this flag in reality? It is just a commentory on the US and the 3rd Reich? Hobo 04:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 I haven't seen this film in a while but I think it's not. It's the Kriegsmarine flag shown, with the Balkan cross on it. --Moebius 19:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, get a life. Kids in combat do all sorts of stupid things. If it fits in your world view of Americans, be happy.

Themes

This article also needs added commentary about themes within the movie. For example, Elias and Barnes representing duality within man, the battle of good and evil. MarlonG 02:25, 24 May 2006

I concur. This article seems to be missing a lot of important information, and is essentially a long character list. Perhaps I'll do some research into articles on Platoon. Zepheus 20:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhah

Does Rhah really take narcotics from the corpse at the end of the movie? Looks like he takes cigarettes to me. Lochdale 18:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the directors commentary on the Special Edition version of the film either Stone or Dale Dye (can't remember) confirms that Rhah takes Heroin from the dead NVA soldier. This info is also in the Triva section about the film. Apparently they (the NVA) would use the drug to work themselves up before entering battle.

Characters

Is the characters section really needed? I think it isn't interesting for anyone who has not seen the movie, and hardly contains any new information for those who have seen it. I think all salvagable material should be integrated into the plot section, and then it should be removed. Thoughts? --Zoz (t) 22:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I first printed a break down of the characters on the Platoon imdb page and since doing it have had loads of response from people saying it is really helpful. I've cleaned up the character section on here as there were a few inaccuracies. I think its just helpful for people if their not sure who someone is, its a pity I can't post pictures of each character but I guess that'd bring all sorts of copyright issues into play.

User feedback: the characters section is useful for someone who has seen the movie. I just saw it last night for the first time, then watched it again with the commentary on. Even after these two viewings, I still had trouble keeping track of who was who, a significant weakness of the film. When I read the list here, I was filled with "Oh, that was *him*?" and "Oh, that was the same guy?" (and in a few cases "I *still* don't know who that is.") Since the characters in the movie are confusing, and there are so damn many of them, I found it most useful to have this list.

Under the Character section Reggie Johnson is linked to the wrong person. The hyperlink leads to a professional boxer instead of the actor. Can anyone link the actor to his correct page?

There is no entry in Wiki for the actor Reggie Johnson and I don't know how to add one. So I've removed the hyperlink on his name, so you won't be directed to the boxer Reggie Johnson.

Trivialities

I remember a character said about Dafoe's Character: "That guy's been here for three years and he thinks he's Jesus F****** Christ!". Well, he did become Christ two years later! Anyone up for putting this on the article?

Sergeant Elias is repeatedly compared to Jesus in the film, from his first scene to his last. This is just one more way of doing it. DMorpheus 14:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Importance tag

Please note the tag is not intended as a way to elevate your personal favourite films. "Top" should be used exceedingly sparingly e.g for Charlie Chaplin or Western film. Individual film articles almost never qualify. Individual critical-acclaim, award-wins, box-office can at most amount to High importance. See also Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:OWN.

I am reverting because you are re-categorizing based on your personal merit, not on mine. I don't care to see you re-categorizing a whole line of films based on your perspective of where they should rank -- the Halloween sequels for mid-importance? Where's the NPOV merit in that? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah, so only your personal merit is acceptable? please see WP:OWN. I would love to see objective criteria for the tag, but as its pure POV it would be somewhat difficult. Hence my motion to remove the tag altogether.

Stop charging me with OWN. I reverted it to the status quo -- it doesn't matter whether I agree with it or not. I'm more concerned with your own POV re-categorization of these film articles without any kind of consensus. I'm not a particularly big fan of the importance scale, but you were advocating your own idea of the level of importance before you began to suggest, "Let's remove it entirely." Let's take this to WikiProject Films' talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does that explain this edit? Certainly does not appear to be the status quo! While I can understand fans like yourself over-inflating the importance of certain favourites, its important to remember that individual recent films cannot be placed on a par with articles about grand all-encompassing articles like Cinema, Western film, Bollywood etc etc. BY setting these articles to "top" you are creating inflation that will lead to almost every single film article on wikipedia that has a fan being set to High or above.

You were updating the importance scale with your own POV decision. I was returning it to the status quo, charging you with POV as you have done with others. I don't profess to be certain of a film's importance scale, since I don't pretend to be my own reliable source. Please understand that I am not either in support or opposition of the scales that existed before your changes or even if they were valid, but your changes did not seem any mor valid than the ones previously made. And I reverted the T2 importance scale because I thought EVula was you. I already apologized on the editor's talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have misunderstood. The rating in November was the status quo. (see Evula's edit summary). Your edit changed it to "TOP". I am attempting to assume good faith, but your edit comments about "bad faith" and your (wilful?) misunderstanding of the facts of the case make it difficult. Why apologize to Evula when you have personally attacked me?

I only charged you with what you had changed those who reverted you. Please visit the talk page at WikiProject Films. I'm going to see if we can do anything to rid of the importance scale. I don't think it particularly helps film articles on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and would like to see the importance scale gone. but the "Importance=disputed" tag seems a good compromise for these disputes, where it is one pov opinon versus another, dont you think?

"Dispute" sounds strong for a single word. Do whatever you wish; I'm going to see what it would take to get the importance scale removed, as it lacks criteria like the quality scale possesses, especially for such a broad range of approaches for films. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes at the end (~). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well yeah its a single word but nevertheless a dispute. at least nobody will feel insulted that "their" article has been downgraded. or shocked that its been upgraded. 82.2.139.211 18:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I'm not going to touch the importance scales at the moment, as I'd like to take the approach that would potentially address all of them (the complete removal of the scale). I don't want to waste my energy on potentially irrelevant edits if something can be done on a larger scale (no pun intended). Keep your eye on the WikiProject Films talk page -- while I didn't agree with your initial edits, your input on trying to establish the objective nature of these film articles would be appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thigh Wound

This is from Shakespeare Henry IV, where Falstaff has stabbed himself in the thigh to feign death. When he is resurrected in front of the prince he says "Come friend John, Let us to the highest ground, to see what friends are living, who are dead." I think this is a scene very appropriate to the 1960s where so many rumors of death and not death, such as the rumors about McCartney.

Also, when the commander calls in "all remaining ordnance" on his own position, remember that many of those planes were equipped to carry battlefield or "tactical" nuclear weapons. Use of nuclear weapons for defensive purposes was not outlawed by President Trumans executive order. Frizb 03:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Johnson

The actor who plays Junior Martin has his named linked to the Wiki listing for a boxer named Reggie Johnson. Is this the same person? On the boxer's Wiki page, there's no mention of an acting career. Anthony71 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the hyper link to Reggie Johnson the boxer, who is someone else. If anyone knows how to create a new entry for Reggie Johnson the actor please do and re-instate the hyper link.