Talk:MAS*H (film)

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.

* Asterisks

Are asterisks something that won't work in an article title? - Hephaestos 05:23, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No, I just tried. Dysprosia 05:25, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder why asterisks are't listed as illegal charagcters at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)? Kevyn 22:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

MAS*H TV Show

It is deplorable that an article for it has not been created yet. Either that or I'm overlooking something. Lockeownzj00 04:29, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are. Mike H 04:33, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

The Movie has no Asterisks

A fact pointed out several years ago by the Leonard Maltin Guide, a stickler for accurate titles, and which I've since confirmed. So the movie really should be referred to as MASH - at least by pedants.

But the movie poster has asterisks, at least according to the tape picture shown in the article. Go figure. Wahkeenah 10:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- The title in the movie is sans asterisks and that, not the poster or the title of the television serialization, is surely the ultimate reference in a case such as this.

Move to MASH (movie)

See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066026/. —Cantus…☎ 05:37, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this rename. IMDB is not infallible, but a strong indicator. The use of the stars on the posters doesn't mean they are part of the title, and Altman is not the sort of idiot who puts non-letter characters in the name of his movies in the hope of getting attention. DJ Clayworth 05:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rmky87

I have made the related changes in the article. As noted above, I've verified this on a print of the film, and Leonard Maltin's guide lists it as well. Note, however, that the TV show is M*A*S*H, including the on-screen titles.--Cinephobia 00:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found a copy of the screen play and it has asterisks in the title.http://sfy.ru/sfy.html?script=mash 71.109.187.202 21:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only in Hollywood

"Based on the book", but no writer given credit... So who was it?! Trekphiler 10:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ring Lardner, Jr., according to the IMDB site. Wahkeenah 10:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lardner was the credited writer and won the Oscar, although he was offended by the changes Altman made on the set and Altman's encouragement of improvisation among the cast during the shoot. Lardner disowned the movie, and felt that the Oscar was for work he had not done. Having read both Lardner's original and a transcript of the movie, I'm not sure what he was protesting; the two versions are very similar. Canonblack 20:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot?

The article really needs a synopsis of the film's plot. Homey 20:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's stopping you from writing it? :) Wahkeenah 21:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did- hope it's up tp stratch

Cannes award

I edited this once to change "Grand Prix" to "Palme d'Or" (the name of the award was changed to the latter starting with the 1955 festival). According to the Palme d'Or entry, this was the award M*A*S*H won, not the Grand Prix du Festival International du Film. I don't want to get into a revert war, so whoever changed this back to "Grand Prix", please undo your change. Jeff Worthington 22:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O'Houlihan

There seems to be a misconception that Margaret's last name is O'Houlihan in the film. Henry twice calls her O'Houlihan and the General also does this twice. I'm not sure whether it's an oversight or a gag, but these are the only occurrences. In every other instance she's referred to as Houlihan. The screenplay refers to her as Houlihan, and in the film when she signs her and Frank's report to the General, she reads her name as Margaret J. Houlihan. I didn't change the article; I'm afraid everyone will freak out. I would like to change this article and the Margaret Houlihan article, if everyone agrees. Donnie Love 02:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book calls her Houlihan as well. Changed to "Houlihan" here and elsewhere this good-intentioned error has been introduced. Sir Rhosis 01:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korea vs. Viet Nam

"Altman deliberately left out overt references to Korea in the film, in the hopes that the audience would conflate the setting with Vietnam. The studio later forced him to add a caption at the beginning mentioning the Korean setting.[citation needed]"

No citation needed. Altman himself states this in the director's commentary on the DVD.

Well, there is still a way to cite that. I think Wikipedia:Citation_templates has how... and it'd be good to mention at what point in the commentary it mentions it so it's easy to verify. gren グレン 11:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

template for DVD listing; only listings noted as (required) must be used, rest are optional: Usage

Note: Most fields are optional

{{cite DVD-notes

| title = Full name of film and release version (required)

| titlelink= Linkable name of film, if different from title

| titleyear = Year of film release

| director = Film director (required)

| format = Source of citation: Booklet, front cover, liner, etc...

| publisher = DVD publisher

| location = Location of DVD publisher

| publisherid = Catalog number of the DVD

| year = Year of DVD release, do not wikilink it

}}

Release version is not listed. Running time listed is not consistent with the information. (see below, Controversies) To be honest, I wish I had seen this discussion before I edited, but in a way I am glad I didn't, it ignores glaring problems with the text (see below, Controversies) And finally, it seems as though the person dismissing the need for citations somehow managed to edit this anonymously, or even edited both the dismissal and the reply? ie, is Grenavitar, talking to himself?

Controversies Consecutive sentences, albeit in different paragraphs, from the page:
"Altman deliberately left out overt references to Korea in the film, in the hopes that the audience would conflate the setting with Vietnam. The studio later forced him to add a caption at the beginning mentioning the Korean setting. <reference>

In addition, there is mention of the Korean war during a radio announcement that plays while Hawkeye and Trapper are putting in Col. Merrill's office."

History
The author of the first two sentences, Cop 663, added his own Fact Needed tag after them in his edit on 6 Dec 06 at 17:21.
The reference was subsequently added after the second sentence.
The 3rd sentence was written after the first, as a rebuttal to it.

Deliberately, overt, claims of censorship abetting deception with a political agenda. Pretty strong accusation for a sentence with no citations following it when written, nor at any time since.
There is the possibility, but no proof whatsoever, that the source cited has bearing on the claim of the first sentence, and proof against, as noted below. Confirmation requested.
The 1st sentence has stood uncited since the original edit on 06 Dec '06.
The 1st sentence is an extravagant claim; it can only be proven by extraordinary evidence, not supplied when the article was written, nor in the year following.
The 1st has stood unchallenged for a year, and had as much opportunity to be cited as it had to receive a citation needed tag.
The 3rd sentence contradicts 1st; even if the 1st was not such an extravagant claim, should the 3rd become cited, the 1st would require a rewrite, whether 1st was cited or not.
Extraordinary evidence would be more likely to be common knowledge, yet the claim is uncited after a year.
It can be inferred that the source cited after the 2nd sentence has bearing on the existence of such a caption; there is evidence to suggest that it is, see below. Confirmation would be nice.
Furthermore, The reference mentions a running time on the DVD of 00:03:19. I question whether an interview with the director would have begun, let alone gotten to the matter of studio intervention, within the first four minutes of the DVD; this is more likely the time of the caption. Confirmation is requested.
The titling of the reference as being an interview with the director is therefore suspect, in its capacity as evidence that the DVD is evidence that the studio forced Altman to add a caption; for this and other reasons above, the word 'forced' has been replaced by 'requested'. There is a citation needed symbol conveniently located, should it become necessary to modify the word 'requested' or the It does not necessarily follow that the source cited has bearing on the claim that Altman was forced to add the caption by the studio.

The 3rd sentence was written as a rebuttal to the first. Unfortunately the writer did not add citations; assuming good faith, it can further be assumed that they wrote from personal experience. Citation tag placed on it nevertheless, request confirmation and affirmation that it requires such.

Action: The sentences have been modified to: [links, other page code disabled]
--Controversies-- A caption was added to the beginning of the film that mentions the Korean setting,[ref> </ref] at the request of 20th Century Fox studios.[Citation needed|date=December 2007}} The Korean War is explicitly referenced once[Fact|date=December 2007] during a radio announcement that plays while Hawkeye and Trapper are practicing putting in Col. Merrill's office.[Citation needed|date=December 2007]

Not directly related to the edits: There is a certain irony in Cop 663's having made an edit concerning conflation, the second sentence of which subsequently was conflated with the first, vis a vis citation needed tags.

The whole pair of sentences seems pretty weak in the end, not really in favor of deleting the whole thing though. Discuss if you want.

Production Due to the above problems associated with the DVD reference, reference number 1, in the Production section, also becomes suspect. Request confirmation.
Am not in favor of putting citation needed tag on first sentence, as its veracity follows from the second's reference, but if it is necessary to get attention for the reference itself...Discussion please. Anarchangel (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC) -After editing and seeing the discussion- Obvious problems with this with Discussion evidence that it is on the DVD; however that evidence is suspect as noted above, and I stand by my position that the claims require extraordinary evidence, and most importantly, must be considered and cited one at a time. Since the source is ostensibly Altman, according to the anonymous person above, a quote from Altman would seem to be appropriate.[reply]

Looked all over, couldn't find anything about Altman leaving out references to Korea, only quotes about him adding them. See References in the article for the citations I added. That site tells the whole story. Anarchangel (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MASH1.jpg

Image:MASH1.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) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion vs Fact

"The film has a disjointed, episodic feel; much of the dialogue was improvised during shooting."

This should either be a quote with a citation, or it should be removed for being unencyclopedic (opininon and stuff)