Talk:Johnny Got His Gun (film)

Military history: War films / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	War films task force
	World War I task force

Film: War / American Start‑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
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Fair use rationale for Image:269625.1010.A.jpg

Image:269625.1010.A.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) 04:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Fields

Is the Kathy Fields listed here really the same as the Dr. Kathy Fields of Proactiv fame? If not, then that confusing situation with the redirect page should be rectified.--24.6.198.12 (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little checking and couldn't find anything to confirm that it's the same person; seems most likely that the doctor and the actress are different people. Since the actress has only one other credit besides Johnny..., I suspect that she won't get a Wikipedia page soon. Hence no need to disambiguate or change the redirect; best simply not to link from here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rights to film

In the One (Metallica song) article, it states "Metallica bought the rights to Johnny Got His Gun so they would be able to use it exclusively for the video for 'One'." But this article says, "Presently, World Entertainment owns rights to the film. It has released the film in Europe, but has no intention of releasing it in the United States for the foreseeable future." Anyone have a reference to help figure out which one is right? 71.59.34.157 (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-war

This article said this is an anti-war film, then it says it's not an anti-war film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.162.173 (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say that line about Trumbo claiming this is not an anti-war film should be cut. There is no cite for it, and this is very clearly an anti-war film. The title card at the end gives figures for how many have been killed or injured in war since 1914 (when the film is set), and then has a phrase which I think is in Latin, asking for peace. This is most definitely an anti-war film. Leamanc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Done. You can be bold and remove uncited material yourself in such cases. I agree with you; it is definitely an anti-war film.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 10:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Release is chopped?

I'm reading various places that the original VHS/theatrical release was rated R. The 2009 DVD release is rated PG and is reportedly 5 minutes shorter. Should this info be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sazma (talk • contribs) 22:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read reports that the original release of the film included, at the very least, a 10 second clip of full frontal female nudity near the beginning, in a flashback involving Joe's girlfriend. This was apparently not included in the DVD release because Shout Factory was unable to find an original print of the film with acceptable quality to use as source material. Instead, the best quality print they could find was from an edited European release. Indeed, the original running length is reported to be 111 minutes, and this DVD release is reported to be 106 minutes.

According to the MPAA database [1], the film was originally granted an R rating, and then it was re-edited to receive a GP rating (that was 1971's equivalent of a modern PG). If the DVD is being released as PG, then I'm certain they must be selling the re-edited version instead of the original (uncut) version.24.222.2.222 (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can something "missing" be covered?

QUOTE: "his missing limbs are covered by hospital sheets." How can something "missing" be covered? Do you mean his stumps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.60.230 (talk) 17:56, July 18, 2009

I think they mean Joe's stumps and the hole where his face should be. Dagoth (takl | contibs | sbemail me) 06:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it means the actor's real limbs covered by sheets to make it look like the character is missing them. Maybe it could be worded a little better though. Carlwev (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been eight years, thought I'd reword it better now. Carlwev 18:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the following, as I think it's vandalism.

I'm removing the following from the article since it's probably vandalism and has no source.

While it is well known that Jimmy Carter required all his new State cabinet members to view the film shortly after his election as Georgia governor in 1971, the film became far better known when it was incorporated in the video of Metallica's song "One", whose popularity subsequently turned Johnny Got His Gun into a cult film.

I removed the Jimmy Carter bit from the paragraph.

Paige Matheson (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about it was largely forgotten soon after by mass audiences? I don't believe that's true; whereas, I've never even heard of the Metallica song mentioned.

Nuttyskin (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DVD release edited?

"However, it contains some brief edits, because a European print was used for the video source." This needs to be clear whether it means the actual film or otherwise. Someone apparently just stuck that sentence on the end of the paragraph, and needs to be reworded and/or incorporated into the paragraph properly. PLUS, if the info is correct, it needs a cited source. ◦◦derekbd◦◦my talk◦◦ 09:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]