Talk:The Hurt Locker

The Title of the Film

Can anybody explain what the film's title means or refers too? SolarMcPanel (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

See for example, Urban Dictionary: hurt locker . --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency in labeling British characters

In the Plot section the British characters are described as a British SAS team, but in the Casting section they are described as a British contractor team. My impression from the film is that they were intended to be contractors, but I can't say for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.250.118 (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

to follow up, the credits list Ralph Fiennes as the "contractor team leader" so presumably they are contractors. Since I'm new to Wikipedia I'm not going to correct the article text, I'll leave that to someone who knows what they are doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.250.118 (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Response Among Veterans section

The newly added "Response Among Veterans" sections has a number of problems: original research (in the sense of "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position"), reliable sources (Twitter feeds? Really?) and NPOV problems (no mention of the vets and military publications that have reviewed the movie favorably). Viciouslies (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I just took out the quotes that came from Twitter feeds (!) and also cut down one overly long quote from a guy's blog. I'm still a bit wary that the majority of this section comes from self-published sources (blog posts) but I'm willing to err on the side of inclusion, since there are two reliable sources that make the same point.Viciouslies (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We should also quote this New York Times piece, especially some of the good reactions, to balance this. --Harac (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The criticism of the tactics and realism are completely fair, but the VetVoice.com quotes are out of line. Claiming that inaccuracies "alienated most service members from enjoying this movie" is unfounded. Some servicemembers? Apparently. Most? Please. This is like saying intelligence professionals can't enjoy Enemy of the State because of technical inaccuracies. "If you know anything about the Army, or about operations or life in Iraq, you'll be so distracted by the nonsensical sequences and plot twists that it will ruin the movie for you." Again, please. Insulting viewers who enjoyed the movie (especially veterans, claiming they don't know any better) is far from the ideals of Wikipedia neutrality. 65.214.169.254 (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I re-added the quote from Kate Hoit at The Huffington Post and the VetVoice quote from Brandon Friedman, author of The War I Always Wanted. There's nothing out of line about the quotes. Neither author is neutral, but by adding the quotes themselves, it balances out the entire article. Many veterans didn't like the movie. These quotes--from mainstream online publications, by mainstream writers--demonstrate that. That's the definition of neutral for a Wikipedia article. Just because the sentiment is critical and you don't agree, doesn't mean it's not relevant and appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmd1978 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"Many veterans didn't like the movie. These quotes ... demonstrate that." Where is their evidence? Can Kate Hoit or Brandon Friedman point to an Army Times or Stars and Stripes poll? Or did they just talk to friends and decide to make sweeping statements about how an entire category of people feel? If there are poll results, then cite the poll! As it is, the Hoit and Friedman quotes are just unsubstantiated claims. (If their quotes only expressed the authors' personal feelings, I'd have no problem with them. It's only because they claim to speak for the entire population of veterans.) 65.214.169.254 (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The removed reference about "most servicemembers" make claims that are completely unverifiable. Directly below this editing screen, Wikipedia reminds me "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." As 65.214.169.254 pointed out, this isn't a personal opinion that's being stated. It's an unverifiable claim. The Friedman quote isn't quite as egregious, but it also goes way beyond stating a personal opinion. Michaelyw (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, the IP (and any accounts that exist only to address this matter) need to avoid simply reverting out the material. It is properly referenced, and as such the solution is to discuss it here first. That aside, I have reworked Hoit's comments to address the concerns expressed above. Note that the comments do add relevant context to the reception section, and reflect the different expectations for this particular film as compared to war films that use the battlefield simply as a backdrop to an "action-hero" storyline. Also note that the criticisms do not simply slam the film as a whole, and in fact the critics involved do compliment aspects of the film. What the section adds is to illustrate how members of the armed forces - who will likely take a greater interest in this film than in run-of-the-mill action flicks - will react differently than the general public, who are largely unconcerned with such inaccuracies. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Response Among Veterans section is a sub-section of Critical Reception. I don't think the recently added lawsuit information belongs here. Or on this page, frankly. It would make more sense if it were on Mark Boals' page rather than the movie's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelyw (talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe how many personal blogs are still listed as cites for this section. Needs serious cleanup. 12.40.5.69 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete vandalism

Deleted vandalism.--Parkwells (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This was just vandalism that wasn't noticed at the time; it's been fixed now. —AySz88\^-^ 05:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Appalled

209.132.173.112 (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Tammi Bell209.132.173.112 (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)March 8, 2010

I am shocked at the blatant use of derogatory and discriminate language used on this article immediately following the 2010 Academy Awards to describe how the female director of this film won her award. I hope that the writer of such has been let go of their position within the business that provides us with this information. I viewed and copied immediately the first paragraph describing the film and was completely offended as well was my husband. I was pleased to see how quickly the article was changed but sincerely hope that this behavior will not be allowed in any aspect of this informational program. I am a huge wiki fan and if I ever read such ridiculous content again I will boycott Wiki and will be sure to spread the word. Below is the information I read when inquiring about the film immediately after the win.

Delete inappropriate comments - no need to repeat them here.--Parkwells (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, now, calm down, some people are just greatly shocked that this even happened. Of course vandals are dealt with swiftly and not tolerated here on Wikipedia. However, to boycott and badmouth the Wiki over such an event is just childish and undermines the goal of this website. Kev098 March 8, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 05:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC).

Vandalism check

I've looked through the changes up to about 6 hours ago for any vandalism that slipped through, but can't keep going right now. Any takers? —AySz88\^-^ 05:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal Controversy

I have been reading with interest that a lawsuit has been filed against Boal, Bigelow, Playboy and more by Sargeant Sarver, who it appears was the subject of the film and has been possibly defamed and denied fair financial benefit from the film (if the allegations are true - though from the similarities between the film and the Sargeant, it certainly seems they are true, even down to things such as the guy's callsign, his ex-wife and son situation, drinking, attitude, appearance etc.)

Links to relevant material:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27777754/Sarver-Complaint-NJ-Version-Final-03-02-2010-w-Case The document filed to the court.

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/36526 One article on p2pnet featuring photo of Sarver.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6220HO20100304?type=entertainmentNews Article on Reuters.

This is definately worth including, as is the follow-up, what the outcome of this case might be. I mean, this film won a heck of a load of Oscars, it's definately in the public interest that if it was stolen people should know.

Matt (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I too think this is very relevent. Please include.--65.182.246.182 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it should only be included if Sarver wins. Specifically, it would debunk many of the criticisms in the Response Among Veterans section. Several argue the film is ridiculous, an insult, and has nothing to do with real life. Sarver argues the film is a representation of his life and he deserves payment because of it. If Sarver is right, this lawsuit will provide an interesting addition to the “truth” vs. “fiction” debate. (Personally I think it’s nothing but a frivolous lawsuit. Sarver's claim of coining the phrase “hurt locker” is easily proved false and shows Sarver has a loose relationship with reality.) Michaelyw (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Headlines

• The Hurt Locker’s Jeremy Renner on his long road to the Oscars
• TIME’S UP: KATHRYN BIGELOW’S THE HURT LOCKER
• Kathryn Bigelow is back with The Hurt Locker
• Kathryn Bigelow: Road Warrior
• Kathryn Bigelow
• Q&A: Kathryn Bigelow
• INTERVIEW: Kathryn Bigelow

to use with this article--J.D. (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Connection to The Inside

In the Writing section, one sentence reads: "Director Kathryn Bigelow was familiar with Boal's work before his experiences, having turned one of his Playboy articles into the short-lived television series The Inside." I am not sure what this refers to. As far as I am aware, neither Bigelow nor Boal were in any way involved in the production of The Inside. It's generally a poorly phrased sentence already, and it should be cleaned up. alpha5099 (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, one of the articles linked in the Headlines section above does mention their work together on The Inside: She said, "Well, actually, I became familiar with [screenwriter Mark Boal’s] journalism and turned one of his articles into a television series [Fox’s The Inside]. That took a fair amount of time. And then it was a short-lived series, so it’s not one to dwell on."--J.D. (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sgt. Sarver Legal Controversy and THE OSCAR

Here's something that occurred to me--if Sgt. Sarver wins his legal case should he also get the OSCAR for Best Original Screenplay? I did some research on the matter (as per Wiki guidelines) and came up with this case from "Inside Oscar", Mason Wiley and Damien Bona, Ballantine Books, 1996: "The Bridge On The River Kwai" won the Oscar for Pierre Boulle, a Frenchman. However, it turns out that Boulle had never written anything in English in his life. The screenplay was actually written by Carl Foreman and Michael Wilson. However, it took 27 YEARS for Foreman and Wilson to be awarded their Oscars. In fact they had died by that time, so the Oscars were awarded to their widows at a special ceremony. Does anybody have any info on how the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences would handle a case like Sgt. Sarver's? Do they have a special committee to handle such matters? Considering that men like Sgt. Sarver are putting their lives on the line for us I would be dismayed to think that it might be 27 years before he gets his Oscar, and from what I've read in the news reports it seems like he has a pretty good case. Anybody from the Academy or Writers Guild out there got any pertinent input? Thanks. It's an intriguing subject.63.198.19.168 (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock

Beckham

Obviously some confusion over whether Beckham returns. If he returned, where did he go, and why wouldn't James be at all surprised or tell Beckham why he should leave?

Re: credits, it doesn't matter if they used the same actor for Beckham and another seller, they can be different characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.17.73 (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Beckham is NOT the boy who was turned into a body bomb. If you read the original script (unfortunately I don't know to to link it as a reference via footnote because it's downloadable only; [1]), in which "Beckham" is nicknamed "Pele" instead, you will see it is indeed him who runs up to James before the scene in which Eldridge is taken away on the helicopter. A credible source would be needed if the article is to say that somewhere along the line the filmmakers changed their minds and made this into a character who was not Beckham. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Point made. The script is definite, the film is unclear. 74.196.17.73 (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My friends and I understood the film showed that James had made a mistake - when he saw Beckham at the end, he realized that he had been mistaken in thinking the body he'd seen earlier and been so disturbed by was Beckham. We didn't think it was unclear.--Parkwells (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

To say that it was "unclear" is a personal interpretation of the film (primary source of the summary), which is not recommended for inclusion in the summary. And, as you can see, there are other interpretations that differ. If there is secondary coverage in reliable secondary sources about this ongoing debate, which would indicate that perhaps the film was intentionally leaving this scene to be "unclear", then the summary should indeed be tweaked to reflect this, and another portion of the article can go into more detail. As of now, I don't see much around the web to indicate that this is the case. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Past tense vs. Present

Recent edits use the phrase, "At the end of its theatrical run..." even though the theatrical run isn't over. For example, there are six theaters within 25 miles of me currently showing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelyw (talk • contribs) 13:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ending "Back in Iraq"?

I thought the movie was ambiguous on the ending. I actually thought he had gone to Afghanistan. The movie does not specifically say what country. In any event the "back in Iraq" is not substantiated by the movie.Americasroof (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Set in 2004?

Is this film really set in 2004. When I watched this there was no reference to the year when it is set. However I noticed a reference to You Tube so it must be set in 2005 or later, as You Tube was started in 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakthea computer (talk • contribs) 11:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A slight goof in the film. See the discussion archives. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Rank

I don't believe he was a sergeant first class. I thought James was a staff sergeant? Anyone know for sure? Cambridge I thought was a full bird not lt. colonel.

Anecdotal Entries in Response Among Veterans

I am not totally familiar with the guidelines wikipedia has on adding anecdotal evidence, but clearly there should be some kind of heuristic for deciding what anecdotal evidence should be presented and what should not. In the section titled "Response Among Veterans" several individual's blogs are mentioned. If I start listing every veteran who has analyzed this film in a blog, we are going to have a very long list. If there are no objections, I would suggest that information concerning veteran's responses to the film be limited to articles written by reputable journalists or others who have done some kind of research on the matter.