Talk:Good Morning, Vietnam

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

Who wrote this shit??[edit]

My friend, a marine sniper who killed 83 people before he stopped counting, told me this was the best Vietnam movie he ever saw. --Uncle Ed 20:06, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are you asking who wrote the movie (Mitch Markowitz) or the article (lots of people). Either of these questions can be answered on the main page with even the most basic of wiki skills. Or do you just like calling things "shit" and boasting about how many people your friend killed? I am sure there are websites dedicated to such things but I don't think Wikipedia is one of them. RogMcDog (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the movie is easily dated as the "leisure years" of the American operations in Vietnam. Soldiers seem to be enjoying themselves at times, coasting along on speeding gunboats, for example. The Viet Cong has yet to bring the hammer down.

There's cute lines here, like Cronauer lifting Wizard of Oz lines, "follow the Ho Chi Minh trail!" GBC 06:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Interview with Richard Nixon[edit]

At some point in the movie, having been assigned to prepare an interview of former vice-president (and future president) Richard M. Nixon for broadcast, Cronauer mixes usable comments of Nixon in with sexually-explicit questions from Cronauer. It hits the air in Cronauer's absence.

When did that happen? Before or after his suspension?

GBC 06:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

he references wizard of oz 4 times, that should be put in the article

Eliminating censorship[edit]

I'm fixing the censored words in the various quotes -- Whittaker never said "at pound dollar sign exclamation point," he said "fuck." R 07:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Plot[edit]

I think the plot "outline" here is way too detailed. Surely a reasonably brief summary of the plot will suffice (which might entice someone to rent the movie if they haven't seen it already!) whereas at the moment it's almost a line by line breakdown. I don't need to rent it now! In presenting it this way, I think some of the "point" of what transpires in the film is lost too. Not to mention all the errors it currently contains. Graham 05:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree and the quotes inside the brackets just looks messy, actually I think it was the messiest looking article I have seen on Wikipedia but I don't know enough about it to make it better.
I also agree; it's waaay too long and quite tiresome to read. At least one of the "quotes" is incorrect (it's just "military issue," not "standard military issue") I'm also pretty sure that "called on the carpet" isn't what I would call encyclopedic language. If no one has any objections I'll be happy to give it a good once-over and remove most of the fluff. Any comments on just how severely we should chop it? intooblv 05:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Would it be better to put the soundtrack on a different page? --Sidewinded 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the plot summary since it is wordy. I tried to shorten it down, but there was really no way since it was too detailed. Anyway, if anyone wants to try again, give it a shot. Laraspal00. 12:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I gave it a shot, essentially revamping the plot - let me know if anyone thinks I'm on the right track, and we can take the warning down. Sledgeh101

I agree with Graham. The plot runs way too long. It could be a lot more concise. We want to give the "flavor" of the movie not the entire ingredient list. GBrady (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Music[edit]

I added the music as it was on the credits of the movie, add/edit as you wish :) --Sidewinded 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what its called when they take a piece like wonderful world and play it over scenes of murder and destruction like they did with this film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.203.32 (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Irony? --Sidewinded 00:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


All Along the Watchtower does not (I believe) play in the movie - but it's listed under the Anachronisms heading... can someone who actually has a copy of the movie verify if it should be there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.2.2 (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Biographical accuracy"[edit]

I just removed this section and bring it here for discussion.

Although Adrian Cronauer wrote the original treatment of the film script, it was heavily altered once it was picked up by Williams and the production team, and is not a biographical account of Cronauer's real story. Commenting on the accuracy of the film the real-life Cronauer said "I'm very happy with it. Of course, it was never intended to be an accurate point-by-point biography. It was intended as a piece of entertainment, and (Williams) was playing a character named Adrian Cronauer who shared a lot of my experiences. But actually, he was playing Robin Williams."[1]
While the film appears generally critical of the US policy in Vietnam and shows the failings of the American side,[2] Cronauer has always maintained his full support for the USA's involvement in Vietnam, and has no doubt that their actions were necessary, saying "When I left, we were winning. The thing that very few people realize is that we never lost a single significant military battle in all the time that we were there in Vietnam, including the Tet Offensive."[3]
William's character is never critical of the Vietnam campaign, (although he mocks Richard Nixon in one scene) and at the end of the movie says "We're here to help this country!", a viewpoint that is consistent with the real Cronauer's.[4] Levinson's direction leaves the film's view more morally ambiguous.
Levinson deliberately kept Cronauer and Williams from meeting as he did not want Williams to adapt his performance to impersonate Cronauer. The pair finally met at the film's New York premiere.[1]
Commenting on his portrayal in the film, Cronauer said "Anybody who has been in the military will tell you that if I did half the things in that movie, I’d still be in Leavenworth right now. A lot of Hollywood imagination went into the movie. I was a disk jockey in Vietnam and I did teach English in my spare time. I was not thrown out of Vietnam; I stayed for my full one-year tour and I was honorably discharged." None of the people in the film are based on actual people Cronauer met, although he described them as stereotypes of military personnel who existed at the time.[3]
Cronauer also did not receive bags of fan mail or telephone requests as shown in the film. "Naah, never happened. That was Hollywood. You think about it: There aren't any phone booths out in the rice paddies. Where are they going to call from?" He also was not often recognised by name by G.I.s, although they did recognise his voice when he said "Good Morning Vietnam".[1]

The scenes where Cronauer teaches his class to swear and use "street slang", his pursuit of a pretty Vietnamese girl, and his Jeep being blown up in the jungle are constructs for the plot and never happened to Cronauer.[4]

What is the relevance of all this? This movie is not a bio-pic or an historical film about the Vietnam War, it's a comedy, and, yes, great liberties are taken in the telling. Do we really need this very long section to tell us that the Adrian Cronauer in the film is different than the real person? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 02:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Mullen, Rodger. "Heroes Homecoming: For 'Good Morning' guy Adrian Cronauer, Vietnam feels like yesterday". Fay Observer, Nov 10, 2011. The Fayetteville Observer, Fayetteville, N.C. Retrieved 26 December 2011. 
  2. ^ Kunz, Don. [wlajournal.com/14_1-2/230-238kunz.pdf "Barry Levinson’s Good Morning, Vietnam"] Check |url= value (help) (PDF). War, Literature and the Arts. WLA. Retrieved 27 December 2011. 
  3. ^ a b Roberts, James C. "Good Morning Vietnam!: An Interview with Adrian Cronauer". American Veterans Center Archives Spring 2006. Retrieved 25 December 2011. 
  4. ^ a b "The real life of Adrian Cronauer". Urgent Communications. 2005-03-01. Retrieved 2011-09-10. 

Salutes[edit]

Lt. Hauk constantly complains to the men under him that he never gets saluted. According to military courtesy guidelines, salutes should only be given outdoors

Is not possible that this is a mistake by the character, not the writers? --93.152.14.46 (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Good Morning, Vietnam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Good Morning, Vietnam. 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) 01:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Plot section still too detailed, still unreferenced[edit]

The comments above, from 10 years ago, indicate that the "plot" section back then was too long and detailed. It was trimmed a little bit, but not very much, and even today it has no references at all. Shouldn't this at least be cited to some reviews, and maybe trimmed to a couple paragraphs? -Dianaunay (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Dianaunay, we have guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT for this. The plot summary is currently 656 words, so it is within the preferred range, though it could be shortened further if needed. Also, inline citations are not needed because it is self-evident that such summaries are basic descriptions of the works of fiction. You could add such citations mentioning the film, but it is rather obvious. If passages are being interpretative, then they would need to be rewritten to avoid that, per WP:PSTS. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that link Erik, very helpful. This seems more detailed than a "basic description" to me, but it does fall in the word count recommended. I appreciate the Wikipedia lesson. -Dianaunay (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Good Morning, Chicago[edit]

According to these two articles from 1992 (here and here), Mark Frost of Hill Street Blues and Twin Peaks fame penned a sequel to this film entitled Good Morning, Chicago. Even though it clearly didn't go far, should there be any mention of it on this article? MrBelpitsLegs (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that should be mentioned. Williams commented on it here also. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll try adding myself, please fix or change what I add if needed. Dianaunay (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)