Talk:Gettysburg (1993 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Kupfer, Joseph (2008). "Practical wisdom and the good ground in Gettysburg". In Livingston, Paisley; Plantings, Carl. The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Film. Routledge Philosophy Companions. Routledge. pp. 620–630. ISBN 0415771668. 

Personal experience[edit]

How does one cite personal experience for a claim? I had noted that this film had an overture, as I worked as a theatre projectionist at the time of its release.JudgePat 18:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


The main section of this article and the trivia section contradict each other. The former says that the Park Service did allow filming on the actual battleground. The trivia section says that they did not.

JBFrenchhorn 12:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've placed a citation request for the Trivia paragraph and will remove the paragraph in a couple of weeks unless someone fixes this. Based on conversations I've had at Gettysburg, I believe some scenes, such as Pickett's Charge, were filmed on site. The anecdote about power lines may actually be true, but I don't know. Hal Jespersen 16:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Historically accurate?[edit]

Doesn't that go a bit too far? I mean they're historically accurate in so far as they don't directly contradict history, but everything from Early and Ewell's performance in the first days of the battle to the flanking troops on Little Round Top are missing from the movie. I'm not criticizing the film, which I loved, but I'm saying it's a selective retelling at best. Ryanluck (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I relocated the Trivia section into the main body of text, eliminating duplications. I also removed the sentence to which you object. I think the original writer of that sentence meant from a tactical standpoint -- troop deployments, use of weapons, etc. -- but it was rather ambiguous and could be argued against, which you have done. If someone would like to restore this sentence, they should do so with a secondary source citation. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Recently I viewed this on DVD as part of an ongoing study of the subject of the battle and how it is portrayed. Ryanluck's point is well taken - for a big-budget movie over four hours in length, it skips a lot of very important material. (As just one example, for the film not to mention Henry Jackson Hunt is, in my view, a serious flaw.) Someone with the time may be able to come up with a notable review that meets the requirements of WP:RS to add material to this article that documents that fact. Jusdafax 06:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


This article states: "'Gettysburg' grossed nearly $11 million, but was still considered a box-office flop." Is there a citation for this? As the movie was shot as a mini-series, one would think that any proceeds from a theatric release would be considered a bonus. In any case, it was definitely worth seeing on the big screen - TV just doesn't do it justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Red Links[edit]

Just a reminder to editors that red links are sometimes a good thing, are sometimes appropriate and desirable in an article, and should not just be blindly removed. (see Red link "It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow." and "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished.") Marteau (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ten names or three names?[edit]

Should the starring section here feature only the three names at the top of the poster or the ten at the bottom?

The guidelines on the infobox state this: Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release.[1] If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits.

Ten is too many names for the infobox, in my opinion. The three at the top of the poster are clearly the stars, and the infobox should be limited to the stars, the others are listed in the cast section. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I concur with The Old Jacobite here. We should limit the list to the three stars at the top of the poster. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand how ten names can be too much. But according to the Infobox guidelines, the starring parameter is supposed to use the actors as they're listed in the billing block, and Gettysburg's billing block contains ten.
With most films, yes, ten is too many. This is a four hour film with a huge cast, so I don't think ten is unreasonable here.
Another thing is some posters include Sam Elliot with three at the top of the poster. Would that be a justification to at least include Elliot with Berenger, Daniels, and Sheen? Bluerules (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • According to the MOS then technically ten names should be included, but I think we can all agree that is too many in this case. The poster has a natural cut-off between the first three (Berenger, Daniels and Sheen) and the rest, so it seems sensible to follow that. Editors shouldn't arbitrarily select cast members; there are two objective choices: list the three names above the title or all ten. Betty Logan (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • One more possibility is to have an anchor link in that field for the reader to "jump" to the cast list. David Fuchs has done this with some Featured Articles on Star Trek films. It's a decent but not common approach, but I wouldn't mind seeing that here. Failing that, a cut-off at three is fine. Hmm, maybe we could do a combination—the three names plus a "more" anchor link that would apply to ensemble/large cast films? Thinking out loud here. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, Erik. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Plot length[edit]

The plot is ridiculously long, retelling nearly every detail of the film. This is not an article about the actual battle, and should only give the highlights of the film, within the 700 word limit called for my WP:MOSFILM. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

George Lazenby cameo?[edit]

It's stated that George Lazenby role in the movie is a cameo. I'm not sure that fits since he is (and was during the time the movie was made) a working actor. Likewise with actor Buck Taylor. As for Ken Burns and Ted Turner that are credited as cameo roles I agree with since they aren't professional actors and they were involved with the movie. If noone objects I'll remove Lazenby and Taylor. (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)