Talk:Full Metal Jacket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Full Metal Jacket:
  1. List references to use
  2. Discuss current article structure and future structure
  3. Delegate sections to editors

Pop culture references - Training scene[edit]

The page is protected right now, but I feel as though someone should add to the pop culture section, stating how the "boot camp" act of the film has been parodied or been made homage to in more other films and TV series than can really be counted; even without much thought, Starship Troopers and Men of Honour spring to mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.160.103 (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Former Marine Sergeant[edit]

The phrase "former Marine Sergeant" Should either be replaced with "former Marine Staff Sergeant", or "former Marine Gunnery Sergeant", because he retired as a Staff Sergeant, and was meritoriously promoted to Gunnery Sergeant some time after filming the movie. To refer to any Marine above the rank E-5 (the actual pay grade of Sergeant) as a Sergeant is incompatible with the customs and courtesies established and enforced within the Corps. I leave it to the wider editing community to determine the appropriate title, be it Staff or Gunny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.81.190 (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Candidate for anniversary collaboration[edit]

Hello, the film Full Metal Jacket is one of the candidates for WikiProject Film's anniversary collaboration. Please see the discussion about the collaboration here. Feel free to support this candidate, the other candidates, or even nominate other films as candidates for the anniversary collaboration. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Cast[edit]

There is entirely too much "in-universe" detail in this section, as well as trivial facts (like 2-Live Crew's use of some dialogue in a song), which should be trimmed. Some of those characters could probably go altogether. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. If we clean up, let's provide a diff here for future reference. There may be some keywords worth searching for in a real expansion. Also, we may not need to remove all the current actors and roles. We could have the basic cast list followed by several paragraphs about the main actors and their roles. The "Cast" approach can depend on the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I have only taken a cursory glance at it, so I cannot make any definite suggestions at this point, but there is a lot of filler there that could be removed or put elsewhere. I like your suggestion. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
If I had more information I'd create a legacy & impact section where something like that prostitute quote being sampled would be more appropriate. At the moment though that's all I can see that would go in a legacy and the mention of it being in two top film lists at the bottom of the critical reception section, which isn't really much information either. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration[edit]

Hello, all! This film will be one of the two on which WikiProject Film will collaborate for milestone anniversaries in 2012, the other film being Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) (for its 75th anniversary). Full Metal Jacket will have its 25th anniversary on June 26, 2012. The goal is to get this article to featured status in the first half of 2012 and to request its appearance on the main page on that date. This article has some worthwhile sources being used, but since it is a Kubrick film, there are many sources to be identified and vetted. I listed links to indexes of some sources at the top of this talk page. My impression based on the sources out there is that we will need to create a sub-article for analysis of this film. Otherwise, an "Analysis" section will overwhelm the rest of the article. Instead, there can be a summary section for the sub-article, which does not have to be featured, but we should ensure its quality.

I think we should have books about Kubrick (and discussing this film in part) as the heart of the article. It would simplify the number of references used for verifiability, not to mention that such books are considered more authoritative than information from a web-only reference. If you have any such books, please help out! I would also recommend holding off on including non-free images until after a substantial expansion. We should be able to see then what images are the best visual aids. Lastly, when we collaborate, let's all focus on adding content. We can discuss whittling the article body after the initial expansion. There's more I'd like to say, but I wanted to keep the kickoff short and hear from other editors about high-level approaches to take in terms of research and article structure. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I have John Baxter's Kubrick biography (ISBN 9-78006-384458). Chapter 16 (pages 326 to 353) deals with Full Metal Jacket. Lugnuts (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Kubrick's surviving family have stated they regard Baxter as unreliable. They endorse the bio by LoBrutto (which has the exact same title).--WickerGuy (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Good critical works on SK's films include Thomas Nelson "Inside a Film Artist's Maze", Michel Ciment "Kubrick", and Alex Walker "Stanley Kubrick Directs". Only the 2nd edition of the last two covers FMJ, and AW's coverage of that is considered a tag weak.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing, all. I'll add these to Talk:Full Metal Jacket/references. WickerGuy, can you explain about the Baxter biography? Are there others beside the family who consider the biography unreliable? We should use sources that are considered reliable, which may not be the same thing as the family's preferred portrayal of Kubrick. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the family's reservations about the Baxter bio have been backed up by others who worked with Kubrick, though I would need to double check on this. Of course, they are far far more bothered by the smear bio/memoir by Frederic Raphael (co-screenwriter of Eyes Wide Shut with SK) which very overtly slams SK throughout.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
More specifics. Gordon Stainforth, chief cinematographer on The Shining regards the Baxter bio as pretty much worthless. An exact quote from the Kubrick Page ""John Baxter's book fell into the trap of so many, I think, of seeming to have decided what Stanley was like before he had even started to write the book, based on the myth of the 'difficult tyrant', and I think the picture he thus paints is about 95% wrong!" On the other hand, the LoBrutto bio (with the same title) has been criticized for being overly reverent of SK.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Finally, Kubrick's co-author of the FMJ screenplay, Michael Herr, has written a booklength memoir/bio of Kubrick, so that should be certainly consulted. It does not praise him as effusively as LoBrutto, but like LoBrutto is liked by the family. If memory serves, Kubrick' co-screenwriter on The Shining, Diane Johnston, has also panned the Baxter book.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to blame the entire book for a single slip-up... ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Weight-Gain Record[edit]

Doesn't Christian Bale now hold it after he gained 45 kg (100 lbs) for BATMAN BEGINS? 92.25.157.147 (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, who records the record? Guiness? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This from 2009 still says D'onofrio which is after Batman Begins I believe. It's possible Bale'#s didn't count because he dropped a tonne of weight to be anorexic and so some of the weight he put on was just returning to normal. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Took the words right about of my mouth. Prior to Batman, Bale became as thin as a pencil for The Machinist and returned to normal for Batman. There's also DeNiro for that one final scene in Raging Bull, but I wouldn't be surprised if D'Onofrio holds the record.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Did wonder if that might've been the case. Which is why I mentioned it instead of just making an edit! 92.25.209.216 (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
D'Onofrio also seemed to be quite heavy when he portrayed (in a relatively short cameo) Orson Welles in the film Ed Wood, but as he was seated throughout that might have just been a fat suit.--WickerGuy (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Infelicities in Recent IP edits[edit]

Among recent infelicities in the recent IP edits is changing the date of the Lee Ermey photo from 2006 to 2007. Wikimedia discloses its source as Flickr. In fact, the picture was uploaded to Flickr in 2007, but the Flickr page states the photo was taken in 2006!!!!

Perhaps a sourced statement that specific critics say FMJ is one of the best war movies ever would be in order, and would immunize us against further intrusion of this kind.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed the article already says "British television channel Channel 4 voted it number 5 on its list of the greatest war films ever made". No need for further change, IMO, unless one really wants to also put this in lede.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any need for it in the lede. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 18:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I would think that we would need multiple sources claiming it as one of the best before considering inclusion in the lede. Until then those that have mentioned it are better listed in the body of the article. MarnetteD | Talk 18:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I might this weekend see if anyone else has so mentioned, but until then the article should stay as is.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
If you do wind up with time to take a look it might be interesting to see what has been said by those who aren't film critics (if any thing like that exists.) I know that the Vietnam vets that I saw it with said that, while it was an interesting film, it had little to do with what they had experienced. Of course, we also have the "Kubrick through the years effect" where the films get mixed reviews when they come out but come to be considered unique as the years pass. MarnetteD | Talk 21:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Wow. I recall reading in the 1980s that Viet vets really liked this film, at least a lot more than "Apocalypse Now". (This film is based on a novel by a vet (though heavily altered) and "Platoon" was written and directed by a vet. Good Morning Vietnam is adapted from the memoirs of a Vet[though even more heavily altered]. "Apocalypse Now" by contrast is co-written by someone [John Milius] who wanted to enlist but was rejected due to his chronic asthma. [Milius also wrote and directed the first Conan the Barbarian and some other fairly jingoist movies like Red Dawn])--WickerGuy (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ad banned in Canada[edit]

Advertisements for FMJ were banned in Canada due to the use of the term "it sucks". This should probably be included. I believe you can find verification of you search the Google newspaper archive for the period. 70.72.215.252 (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Pop culture[edit]

Before adding any more "Me make you happy long time" style mentions to this section please realize a couple things. First, read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources section of the MoS. We need interviews with the creators of any shows mentioned that they were specifically referencing this film. Other fan websites or wikis cannot be used as they are just speculating and/or doing their own WP:OR as to any connection to this film. When I heard Cartman in that ep of South Park I too thought of this film but I also thought of Platoon and a couple other films about the Vietnam war that these lines could have come from. There is also the fact that this kind of language went on in the country itself so these references don't have to have come from any film or book. Entries like this should also establish some kind of cultural relevance per WP:TRIVIA. MarnetteD | Talk 18:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So, you went ahead and allowed for YouTube to be used, even though a lot of people have issue with it being a reliable source. In terms of South Park, Family Guy, and American Dad, every episode is full of cultural references, to the point where it is so commonplace, sources to back up the cultural references may not even be needed, only because everyone will get it. In terms of the wikis, sometimes there is no other place where this material can be found, so they might be the best reference that we'll have for many years on a particular subject. Furthermore, this sentence is something I really have issue with, "There is also the fact that this kind of language went on in the country itself so these references don't have to have come from any film or book." We are talking about one of the most powerful anti-war movies in American film (along with Platoon, and a sleu of other ones). I highly doubt that the average American will ever know that this language was commonplace during the war, or even has the knowledge that prostitution was common then. Heck, the movie inadvertently cements a stereotype of of Southeast Asian women as being hypersexual, so in a way, the mentions in popular culture are important, because they acknowledge the cultural relevance of the movie. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I hope that you are kidding. Americans won't know about the language used and prostitution that occurred during the Vietnam war. In fact it would be interesting to know which war that prostitution and the language about their work wasn't a part of. I suspect that more Americans will know about that then have ever seen this film (I have seen each of SK's films numerous times - I know dozens of people who have never even seen one - that is something to be aware of in our admiration for his work) but that is as much speculation on my part as your post is. Also we don't WP:ASSUME anything about our readers as we edit here (and yes I assumed earlier in this post). Have you actually read the policy regarding IRS that I linked to. Wikis can't be used as a source for anything. Nor can a self published website like the fan one that you used. The fact that this language was used in these cartoons is not in doubt. What you have to find a WP:RS for is that the makers of those episodes were specifically referring to this film otherwise it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to say that they were. On another note POV is difficult to avoid I know - especially when it comes to SK's films -for instance I never saw the scene as stereotyping SE Asian women as "hypersexual" - for me the it was about a prostitute making as much money as possible. Per WP:BURDEN sources are needed for things like this and as this is an encyclopedia and not a compendium of pop culture significance should be established. The work done on this kind of section for the 2001... film article is a good example. MarnetteD | Talk 22:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, it appears as though I dropped a word from that sentence by accident. I meant to imply that most Americans would not know that the language used in the film could have been commonplace during the war. I know what is and what is not a reliable source, but I also am of the idea that if it is something valuable (say, your father's testimony about whether or not something existed, helping send you on a quest to research the truth behind it), it should be included. Being more of a historian, I believe in using verbal histories if possible, but that is another argument for another day. Regardless, a lot of what we have here has been left here in the assumption that it will eventually be sourced (for example, why people add trivia templates, instead of blanking the entire section). Unless you are planning on nominating the article for Good Article status in the immediate future, I see no reason that it cannot be kept, with the assumption that someone will have an article that we don't yet know about, and could help improve it. I know what you are getting at in the whole stereotype thing, and I totally agree. I just think it is interesting how film and media can help to make or break views of people in the world, as we there are really no major American films that I can think of that portray the war from the Vietnamese perspective. Oh well, that's Hollywood! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
We're also neglecting to discuss the guidelines in WP:In popular culture which require a secondary source to establish broad cultural significance. When this is complied with, you can quote a culture critic to say something about the reference. This was strictly complied with in the article on 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) and somewhat more loosely on The Shining (film). Verbal histories are often valuable to historians, but not necessarily to encyclopediasts, and are not allowed as sources on Wikipedia.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Choosing images Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. {apologies for the bolding I am not shouting - I do not know how to make this lettering green so if anyone does please feel free to change it.) I do not see how a picture of d'Onfiro from 2011 or Ermey (I did not see that one when I made my earlier edit) from 2007 have significance to this film released in 1987. They do not provide any information about the film thus they certainly don't relate to the topic of this article. They only way that I can see their inclusion is this article is to apply WP:IGNORE. Thus, I am opening this to gain comments from other editors and WP:CONSENSUS as to their inclusion. thanks ahead of time for your input. MarnetteD | Talk 19:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops I forgot to say that if WP:IGNORE is applied I do not have a problem with that as it is useful at times. MarnetteD | Talk 19:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Casting sections often include photos of the actors, but obviously photos of them from around the time the film was made would be much more suitable. The problem though is that there may be no free photos from this period available, and we can't comply with the FUR on a non-free photo if there are free photos of the actor available. It's a catch-22. I have no strong views on this: if you want to pull them that's ok with me, but at the same time, if the actor is still more or less recognisable as they appeared in the film then similarly it's ok by me if they stay. Betty Logan (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The images are relevant to the article, they illustrate the actors of note from it, Ermey and D'onforio. You're not going to find free images of many people from that period, but I'm not sure why the timescale matters, both are still the same people. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I'll take your point. Cheers and happy editing to you both. MarnetteD | Talk 19:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
a vote for these images being deleted. they are not relevant to fmj. if you want them included in wp, put them in the articles on ermey and d'onofrio.Toyokuni3 (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
If they're free images and are germane to the topic there's no reason to ditch them, really. It can be useful to have some pictures of the cast to aid identification of their characters—admittedly pictures from several years later aren't perfect for this but they're better than nothing. A picture of D'Onofrio is relevant regardless of when it was taken, as it still helps a reader go "ah, yes, that fella was Pyle", and would be preferable to a non-free file directly from the film or its time. GRAPPLE X 19:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Me so horny[edit]

No mention this has become one of the biggest movie quotes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.174.87 (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A) there is no evidence that this has become a "big movie quote" and B) the term has been around long before the film was made so any notability comes from that fact. MarnetteD | Talk 22:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in Movie[edit]

There are several glaring inaccuracies in the movie that jumped right out at me, being a Vietnam veteran. First off, the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry Unit Citation on Lee Ermey's uniform is misplaced: it should be next to the Vietnam Campaign ribbon (all foreign service awards are placed last on the ribbon rack). Also, in the Marine Corps, people with mental problems are not referred to as "Section 8" (that's in the Army); in the USMC they are referred to as "snapping in for a survey". And when Joker is being read the riot act by a full bird colonel at the mass gravesite for wearing a Peace Button, the colonel concludes the interview by saluting first--the enlisted man always salutes first (the only exception is when the enlisted man has been awarded the Medal of Honor, then it's an informal courtesy for the other person to salute first). Also, the Marines in the movie would have their chin straps on their helmets fastened in combat--this is a big no-no, for if the helmet gets hit by bullets, shrapnel, etc. the fastened chin strap will break your neck. I met Vincent D'Onofrio by the way, he's Cuban and he said working with Kubrick was a great experience. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ermey's Oranges[edit]

Ermey made a videotape of himself improvising insulting dialogue towards a group of Royal Marines while people off-camera pelted him with oranges and tennis balls. Ermey, in spite of the distractions, rattled off an unbroken string of insults for 15 minutes, and he did not flinch, duck, or repeat himself while the projectiles rained on him.
I heard a radio interview recently with Ermey, where a listener called in to ask about this; Ermey said the story was untrue. So I checked (read:bought) the source for this and the text in the article misrepresents what the source said.
Ermey did go full-DI on a group of Royal Marines who were being considered for roles as the rest of the boot camp platoon. Kubrick saw this, and he was the one who decided to videotape it for further review, which then led to him hiring Ermey, as the article states.
The bit about the oranges was heavily inflated from what the book says. Ermey would practice his lines in the empty barracks set while ONE production assistant would randomly toss him ONE tennis ball or orange. Ermey would catch it and toss it back while continuing to speak his lines. If he missed the ball, or stuttered or otherwise showed any distraction from it, he would stop and start over. Still a nice point of information, if not as colorful as the current text.
Anyone here mind if I edit that paragraph to more accurately reflect the source material? Also, anyone mind if I slightly modify the citations to include the page numbers (via the "rp" template), rather than citing the entire book for one page's worth of material? Electric Wombat (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say be bold more than applies here, Electric Wombat — you're updating material to more accurately reflect the information in the cited work; it's unlikely that anyone would have a problem with that, and if they do they can always object / revert. No need to ask permission.
Also, FWIW, the other cited work regarding that story – the Washington Post article that supplied that "genius for this part" quote found a sentence or two farther on – agrees with your information: it specifically notes that Kubrick videotaped Ermey "insulting prospective actor-recruits". --FeRD_NYC (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Material[edit]

For Abrams, the essential structure of the film lies with the duality of human nature and the problem of morality, with each half ending with a killing, which come as "mad, absurd, completely unexpected, and senseless deaths".[1] Music for the film was provided by Kubrick's daughter Vivian, under the pseudonym of Abigail Mead, which Paul Duncan refers to as "discordant" and "very effective" in creating the "unsettled, contemplative atmosphere".[2]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Full Metal Jacket. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Gender & Racial bias in Cast section[edit]

The notable female asian roles to the cast list have caused strange resistance & edit waring:

* Papillon Soo Soo as the Da Nang prostitute who uttered the infamous lines: "Hey baby, you got girlfriend Vietnam? Me so horny. Me love you long time," and "Me sucky sucky".[3][4]
* Leanne Hong as the Motorbike Hooker[5] who initially refuses to "boom-boom with soul brother" because she thinks African-American Eightball will be  "too beaucoup".[6][7]
* Ngoc Le as a female Vietcong sniper.
  1. ^ Abrams 2007, pp. 44, 54.
  2. ^ Duncan 2003, p. 179.
  3. ^ Jaeckle, Jeff. Film Dialogue. Columbia University Press. p. 177. ISBN 9780231850421. 
  4. ^ Heberle, Mark. Thirty Years After: New Essays on Vietnam War Literature, Film and Art. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 48. ISBN 9781443803670. Retrieved 20 January 2017. 
  5. ^ McDougal, Stuart Y. Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. Cambridge University Press. p. 160. ISBN 9780521574884. Retrieved 20 January 2017. 
  6. ^ Mudede, Charles (7 September 2007). "Kubrick's Ignoble Alabama Blacksnake". The Stranger (newspaper). Retrieved 20 January 2017. 
  7. ^ Warhol, Robyn R.; Herndl, Diane Price. Feminisms: An Anthology of Literary Theory and Criticism. Rutgers University Press. p. 1066. ISBN 9780813523897. Retrieved 20 January 2017. 

Reason stated to remove: "minor roles", "horrendous bloating" of section etc.

I processeded to remove the male roles in accordance to this "rule of thumb":

* John Terry as Lieutenant Lockhart
* Kieron Jecchinis as Sergeant "Crazy Earl"
* John Stafford as Doc Jay
* Tim Colceri as a helicopter door gunner; he was initially cast to play Hartman, which role ultimately went to Ermey.
* Peter Edmund as Private "Snowball" Brown

The above have as much or less screen time as the female actresses, and some less notable roles.

The insiststance of readding the minor male roles makes this whole edit war a Gender & Racial BiasBigbaby23 (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • No, that is casting a political slant on something where none exists. However, I do think that the only cast members we can comfortably call notable are those that have their own article (rather in the spirit of WP:LISTN). In any case, Bigbaby23, even if this so-called 'gender bias' existed, it is not an excuse to edit war. Cheers, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 11:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Home video releases[edit]

Is there a reason other release formats aside from Blu-Ray are not mentioned? Is there a difference between the "Stanley Kubrick Collection" labeled releases and other format releases? Should this info be included? Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Date of the beginning of the movie[edit]

I had edited the date of Basic to 1966 and it was reverted to 1967. The reason for the edit was that 1967 is impossible, to wit:

1) Joker was at Parris Island for Christmas. 2) Joker was either a Corporal or a Sergeant when they show him in Vietnam. 3) Cowboy was a Sergeant. 4) The Tet Offensive, which Joker was in Da Nang for the start of, began on 30 January 1968.

Therefore, it is patently impossible that the movie started in 1967. It had to have started in 1966, at the latest. Joker would have had to go through the journalism school and Cowboy would have had to go through infantry training.

I think the case is ironclad. Since the only concrete date in the movie is the start of the Tet Offensive (unless someone remembers something I don't), I'm going to edit it again. If it's reverted again I won't bother with it anymore, but I think this is sufficient justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:980:8301:6FE4:782E:507C:DBD0:77D (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is all just your speculation. We need reliable sources to back these claims. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. In fact, attributing any historical date to a work of fiction requires reliable sourcing. Theoretically, they could have been 'in country' since 1964; there's no necessity for immediacy. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 13:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Not that it makes any difference, but they could not have been in country prior to 1967 as Hartman references Charles Whitman, the UT Tower shooter, and that event happened on 1 August 1966. And again, they spent Christmas in Basic. Weird that using actual historical events and significant holidays to pinpoint a date would be a matter of speculation. But hey, it's your sandbox, and I see it was edited to make no mention of the date so it no longer matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.160.216 (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)