Talk:Pearl Harbor (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unrelated Link Removed

The link for the double dip angle of the 4 DVD set vs. the 2 DVD set was removed. I felt this was pure satire, and not to be included as a serious matter, as it doesn't not relate to the movie other than reffering to the movies 2 disc and 4 disc formats.--Ben414 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Trailer Music

Months before its US release, theatres showed trailers/teasers for the film. The musical score heard in these early trailers was not in the film nor in the trailers just prior to its release. Does anyone know any details about this score?

Having never seen the trailer, I can't but it's common practice to use music from previous films. Examples I can think of are music from Crimson Tide being used in an Independence Day trailer, Conan music in Gladiator and so on.

It's from the Thin Red Line released in 1998. The musical score is by Hans Zimmer. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

A huge portion of the page has been removed, isn't this vandalism? Pearl Harbor was criticised for it's inaccuries, and while most war films have them (lets face it, how many real Tiger Tanks for instance exist today), this was more telling than most. It's not just that that's been removed. I call for it to be reverted. Douglasnicol 13:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Baseball playing boys

Removed the part about it being false, from what I read that actually happened. -unsigned

Need sources. 66.109.99.18 22:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Taylor and Welch

I decided to add a blurb about George Welch and Kenneth Taylor, the real pilots who took to the skies during the Pearl Harbor attack. I think it was important that it be mentioned, that there were indeed pilots that fought the Japanese, but at the same time they were completely different from the two main characters. I also added a new reference for it.

EDIT: Made a second full draft; more clarity, brevity and neutrality.

--Elbrigadier 02:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Japanese reception

I remember reading an article around the time this came out about the studio pushing this movie hard in Japan, and emphasizing as much as possible the romantic aspects to avoid reminding the audience that their people are the villains. Does anyone know if this worked? (I believe the article implied that it was working.) Brutannica 04:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Date at Mitchel Field and the Queen Mary

I'm the poster who first mentioned that the year at Mitchel Field must be incorrect to coincide with the Battle of Britain. I've accepted that I may be wrong, but I also contributed the point about the Queen Mary. In my book on famous Clyde built vessels it mentions that by mid 1940 the Queen Mary made a crossing to New York, which would fit in with the film if the Mitchel Field date was an error, especially considering that the Queen Mary set sail shortly afterwards to Sydney to be used as a troopship. Opinions? Douglasnicol 13:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need this blurb?

Mark Carnes, history professor at Barnard College and general editor of Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies (ISBN 0-8050-3759-4), commented on this subject in general terms during a NewsHour interview broadcast three years before Pearl Harbor was released:

The difficulty is this. The truths of the movie tend to be clean and pure and powerful and simple. And history never is; history is complex, muddy, difficult. Movies make good guys too good, bad guys too bad. They adopt narrative lines that are too simple, all in an effort to reach a broad audience. The more expensive the movie, the greater the need to reach a huge audience, an audience that can quickly apprehend its themes. You know, this emphasis on simplicity and power and immediately hitting your audience means that the movies are much too simple compared to the past. I don't think there's any harm in that.[5]

Now seriously, can anyone expressly point out what bearing this has in relation to the film, other than the whole Historical inaccuracy debate?--293.xx.xxx.xx 07:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot?

Need plot info Iamhungey 03:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Reception? Controversy?

There is no mention in the article about the critical or commercial reception of the film, nor the controversy over it. This article is sorely lacking overall. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.119.165.62 (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Reception of movie restored

The reception part that was deleted for some reason has been restored. Elbrigadier 05:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Team America: World Police

Shouldn't there be some mention of the song "Pearl Harbor sucked and I love you"? AnonMoos 07:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

add it 81.110.2.1 17:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

yea someone add this it really should be there ManningMan

Starting to rewrite the summary

I've started to rewrite parts of the summary to make it more neutral and less like a fan review. I've only done minor parts so far, but if anyone else feels like altering it, feel free, the summary really needs work. Douglasnicol 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Great job Doug, but when i watched the movie i felt that there should be another edit, u left out a chunk of the movie for ex: when the japanese planned the attack,japanese sending fake codes to us intel,other shit. can i add some stuff in? CrazyHermit 21:36, 3 January 2008 (PTC)

Wow!!

Jesus Christ, people, it's ONLY a MOVIE!!! It wasn't produced as (or meant to be) a documentary. Lighten up! 65.69.81.2 18:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your point? It's a movie based off a real event which doesn't just take some liberties with the truth, it downright distorts them. Besides, most movies have similiar criticism sections. I'm sure if you look up Braveheart or Gladiator or whatever you will find similiar feelings. Douglasnicol 21:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

While I think that historical accuracy is important, it is also important to realize that much of the attack sequence was filmed on location in Pearl Harbor, HI and in Suisun Bay, CA, both locations featuring actual ships being "attacked." As this is the case, many classes of vessels that did not exist during WWII appeared in the movie, but were felt to portray greater realism than CG ships with CG explosions. Additionally, very few WWII-era ships exist anywhere but as museum ships around the country and using them for the movie woudl have prohibitivly expensive. Also, to address the concern of flight deck inaccuracies during the Mitchell raid, the shots of the B-25 actually taking off from the carrier were taken off of an actual US Navy carrier during filming and the flight deck was probably left as is instead of being CG'd out due to the expense that woudl have been involved and the low liklihood that most movie patrons would recognize the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.133.140 (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Does it occur to anybody, with just some small substitutions, this film could have been a "Star Wars" sequel? Or an Eli Cross comedy? Trekphiler (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Major rewrite required

There is a great deal of detail here that needs to be "pruned". I won't do anything till other editors have a chance to make a comment. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC).

A cast list is normally only a listing of actors and their roles. My recommendation is that in order to have an acceptable table, only those two criteria are necessary. Bzuk (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC).

References to ships

This article could use cleanup of a few issues related to conventions about ships:

• the name of a ship (but not its prefix) should be italicized (USS Texas, Japanese battleship Nagato, etc).
• the name of a class of ships should be italicized (Iowa-class battleship).
• the name of a type of ship should not be capitalized (battleship, destroyer).
• most of the interwiki links to ships need to be disambiguated (don't link to USS Texas but rather to USS Texas (BB-35)).

I'll put this on my todo list, but appreciate if anyone could start working on it, as it will probably take a few passes. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maralia (talk • contribs) 04:23, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Some one can add this bit to the faults of the movie part Under errors for ships, it should be noted that the USS Oklahoma did not turn fully turtle, that should did not roll completely over. In the movie you can clearly see all four of her screws. In reality her masts kept her from turning completely turtle so only two of her propellers would have been showing. Trynn Allen (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

Can anyone shed some light on the movie's historical inaccuracies? --Cammoore 10:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would take up a LOT less space if you focused on the accuracies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No plot summary? Most films on Wikipedia have one, while this article just focuses on the inaccuracies and failures... WHAT is with ALL the annoying inaccuries. there are things that most people can't make ANY sense ofNikihedelyperson (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

P-40s outrunning Zeros

The historical innaccuracies includes this:

At the Airfield where the pilots are composing themselves and trying to take action against the strafing Japanese planes, Ben Affleck's character erroneously says "P-40s can't outrun Zeroes, we'll just have to outfly them." In fact, the standard tactic for American and Allied pilots, from the AVG (Flying Tigers) in late-1940 through 1941 and throught the Pacific War, was basic "hit-and-run." They would dive on Zeroes, get what "hits" they could, and then outrun them.

While bening technicaly correct the P-40 could outrun a Zero in a dive, a P-40 could not outrun the Zero if the zero is flying and the P-40 is just taking off and the P-40 has to climb. For the same reason as their tremedous speed in dives, P-40s were not great climbers (their weight). I also believe (but am not certain) that in straight and level flight the Zero would outrun a P-40. So I could put the statement in a context where it is close. Though I would say more inaccurate is the P-40 outmaneuvering and out turning the Zeros.say1988 03:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Right both times. The Zeke was faster & had better rate of climb @most altitudes it'd encounter the P-40. Would have been more realistic to have Zekes firing on them & having little/no effect, thanks to the chintzy 7.7s against the '40's armor. Trekphiler (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Negatory on the last part... the P-40 could outrun the Zero in level flight, but only at its normal flight level... at full engine speed, it could fly about 20-30 MPH faster than the A6M2 could... and don't forget, the Zeros also had 20 mm cannons... those would shred most airplanes at those close ranges, armor or not... Magus732 (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Jr."

Once again I've had to remove well-meaning editors' inserts of "Jr." into the plot summary. These inserts are not only unnecessary, they are unencyclopedic, for the following reasons:

• There is no need to spell out the parentage of the child; it is clear to anyone who has watched the rest of the film (or, for that matter, read the rest of the summary). At the same time, there are good narrative reasons for not having the dialogue explicitly spell out the obvious.
• Similarly, there is no need to explain who the child is named after. (In fact, it'd be surprising if the boy's parents did not name the child after the dead man who was not only the natural father of the child but Rafe McCawley's best friend.)
• That said, there is no evidence for the boy being a "Jr." in the first place. Generally speaking, a son is a Jr. only if he shares the father's exact name. For all we know, the child was given the birth father's first name but McCawley's first name as his middle name. (Yes, I feel stupid for being forced to speculate in this manner in order to stamp out speculation.)

Bottom line: "Jr." doesn't belong in the summary. Please stop putting it back in. YLee (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Doris Miller

Under Historical Innacuracies, it is claimed that the movie exagerated Doris Miller's heroism. How so? He shot down at least 1 attacking Japanese Aircraft before running out of ammo and being ordered to abandon ship. He was the first African American to be awarded the Navy's second highest honor, the Navy Cross. I think that the line should be removed unless someone wants to show how the movie exagerated what was observably true heroism.

In addition to the Navy Cross, Miller received the Purple Heart, American Defense Service Medal - Fleet Clasp, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, and the World War II Victory Medal. Not bad for a cook.

Agreed, saying that his 'heroism is exaggerated' is maybe not the best way to put it, since that is a subjective judgement. If there were historical goofs in his scenes, perhaps 'his actions were exaggerated' is better. It has been too long since I last saw the movie, so I can't recall if there was anything wrong. Identity0 04:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

His heroism is exaggerated. (See the debate at Attack on Pearl Harbor.) It's getting attention for doing something a bunch of white sailors were doing, too. Aboard Tautog, for instance, who shot down the first Japanese aircraft of the attack. And Miller got a Navy Cross, & lived; other sailors got the Medal, & were killed doing their duty. Valiant? Yes. Admirable? Yes. Worth this much attention? Not a chance. And if he was white, would it have gotten so much? I doubt it. ::That troubles me, because it suggests we don't expect blacks to be as heroic, or as capable, or whatever, that it's somehow a surprise. It shouldn't be.

Or maybe it's we're so poorly educated about minority contributions. Did you learn about the 442 RCT in school? The 99h FG? The 761t Tank Bn? The 555h Para Bn? A destroyer (Evans?) with a black crew? (Just to name ones I can recall.) Did you learn there was an all-black bomb group? An all black cavalry outfit, which got converted to a labor formation in North Africa? I didn't. And I'd say I should have. We (U.S., Canada) all should have. And should. Not as Dorie Miller, not overblown as a rare heroism, but as the usual. How do I phrase it? For the 99h et al. it was "Will you let us fight?" not "Are we able?" or "Are we willing?" Able shouldn't be an issue for us, today. Overemphasis on Miller, to me, calls the ability, or willingness, of other blacks into question, because it "puffs him up" as special.

Am I reading this wrong? 'cause, when I see a white guy doing the heroic (except the melodramatic Hollywood bullshit nobody takes seriously), I don't think twice about it; that's what you should do. Maybe it's just so few blacks (black characters) being given the chance to be heroic in film/TV. Windtalkers, who's the hero? Nick Cage, not Adam Beach. Amistad, it's about the courtroom, instead of taking over the slave ship. What was the last film you saw with a black hero that didn't have an all-black cast? Doesn't that make Miller just another token?

Is this all way OT? Trekphiler (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

He got the medal because he was a cook, and he fought anyways. Not because he was african american. He recieved recognition because it wasn't very common for an african american to recieve the navy cross. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.136.163 (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidently, while Doris "Dorie" Miller was a mess attendant, his battlestation on the USS West Virginia was the midship magazine for the antiaircraft battery (so it was not uncommon on ship to have a mundane daily job and a more important battle station). He manned a machinegun and fired back at the enemy until he ran out of ammo and had to be ordered to abandon ship. Admiral Nimitz pinned the Navy Cross on his chest because he deserved it. The movies Tora! Tora! Tora! and Pearl harbor may go out of their way to Hollywoodize the events, but that should be left to criticism of the movies, not criticism of "Dorie" Miller. Naaman Brown (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Surnames

I really don't agree that surnames are necessary here, as Bovineboy2008 11 April 2009 insists. This is a movie, not a documentary, as all the inaccuracies point out. It's a movie and the love triangle's characters refer to each other by first name, and that's how it should be in this MOVIE's entry. Can someone second and can we change it back, please?? 71.132.140.56 (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No. This is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedia articles should be written in the proper tone. That the subject is a movie and not a documentary is irrelevant. YLee (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Historical Inaccuracies"

Is the "inaccuracies" section really necessary? It sounds like a bunch of trivia:

• The observation car seen in the train station was made for the California Zephyr, which did not appear until after World War II.

• The sequence where Josh Hartnett's and Ben Affleck's characters "play chicken" with their P-40s at the U.S. airbase is cited in the film as taking place in late 1941. This occurs prior to Affleck's departure to the UK to join Eagle Squadron in time for the Battle of Britain. Although the "Battle of Britain" (proper) took place from July through October 1940, a lesser air battle continued thereafter. The first Eagle Squadron was formed in September 1940. Eventually, there were three Eagle Squadrons, right up until the U.S. entered the war (virtually the same timing as the Flying Tigers in China). A news sequence that precedes scenes of Ben Affleck's character participating in the Battle of Britain indicates that the Soviet Union has already entered the war, placing this scene in mid- to late 1941. This is unlikely as the crucial part of the Battle of Britain was long over then.

• In a shot of the American bombers flying over Japan during the Doolittle Raid, the Byodo-in Temple is depicted with Japanese women walking in front of it. This replica is in Hawaii. The real temple is a much duller shade of brown.

i mean...seriously. The second point is incomprehensible. also, does it really matter what shade of brown a temple in the background is? many of the other points are equally inane.

• Several of the points are also wrong, and refer to Randall Wallace's original screenplay, not the finished version of the film. For example, the notes about Doolittle being a dunce and Yamamoto leading the attack imply that these errors occur in the film itself - they don't, they were present in Wallace's screenplay but were altered during production. In the finished film, Doolittle is no dunce, and Yamamoto clearly doesn't lead the attack. Whoever wrote these inaccuracies needs to ensure their own material is accurate first. Bertaut (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

On a different note regarding inaccuracies-it was stated that US Airmen weren't allowed to join the RAF Eagle Squadron--However, I have seen it mentioned somewhere that there were instances of Airmen being "released" from duty to be allowed to assist the British by joining the RAF--it escapes me just where I saw this, but it's etched in my memory as an important point--anyone else recall hearing something of this?

I am in agreement that some of the inaccuracies listed should be removed considering they are in reference to the ships and planes that were used in the film as inaccurate-CGI wasn't used as much as other films, & our erstwhile critic is more than likely a fan of computerized film portrayals, rather than the "real" thing being used(and could even think Anime is *ahem* 'seksy')--many of these "goofs" should be removed and referred to the IMDB 'goofs' section where they belong.

Much of what's been written regarding these "inaccuracies" do not appear to follow Wiki's NPOV--and would be better placed on the IMDB trivia section, or on someone's film critic blog.

(Bertaut--I cleaned up your above "block" section, hope you don't mind, as it was causing this never ending line instead of a paragraph) Brattysoul (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of the historical inaccuracies matter at all, but I certainly don't think it should represent half of the article. 69.123.129.140 (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)sean

I agree. Most of this "historical inaccuracy" section is also full of weasel words--the debunking of Affleck's character's quote of "P-40s will have to outmaneuver the Zeros" almost makes it sound like that, in reality, the two characters they are pseudo-representing didn't shoot down six Zeros that day. Who gives a hoot if they can or cannot? Can anyone even actually bring up any of these "historical inaccuracies" being mentioned even once in a legitimate critic review? Keep things like total blunders, but anything short of, "wrong ship colors for that time period" or anything as obviously nit-picking as that, remove it. 98.244.243.96 (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also remove points such as "Ben Affleck's is flying a Spitfire with "RF" side marks- only No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron had these marks. No American pilots served in this squadron." This is clearly not an inaccuracy, just artistic license. Basically any point that can be justified with "because this is a movie, not a documentary" should go. Emika22 (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Intro

Says it won an Oscar. For what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.206.209 (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sound Editing, 2001. The Red Queen (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Citing inaccuracies

The historical inaccuracies section contains a lengthy list of things that are "wrong" with this film, but few of them carry citations. I'm thinking a lot of this content needs to be fact-checked; possibly a template needs to be applied to the page itself for insufficient citations. Thoughts?¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The film itself acts as a cite for historical inaccuracies. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This whole section needs to be pruned way down or removed completely. Johnm4 (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Plot section is a big spoiler

I don't think the Plot section should contain the plot for the entire movie from beginning to end credits. Just a synopsis talking about the general plot and maybe the first scenes would be ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OMA2k (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite in order

Although I personally loathe this film from a number of different perspectives, it has been a popular subject (mainly for derision) and its notoriety or infamy alone justifies a more balanced and subjective tone, as well as providing an authoritative account. FWiW, I have tagged the article and will begin the process of revision, but I am welcoming other editor's contributions, comments or suggestions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC).

Recent challenge over historical accuracy of the film

The major criticism of Pearl Harbor was that it was being sold as a accurate portrayal of real life events but it was grossly inaccurate and purposely so. The sections that were recently removed address the major concerns that historians and others saw as the major failings of the film. One major concern is that it is not adequately cited and that has to be addressed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC).

I am not opposed to criticism on the page but currently it is at 49.1 Kilobyte, my removal shift it down to just under 25 kilobytes, having literally half the article as criticism is unacceptable undue weight in an artilce not to mention unsourced original research. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Weaning and pruning should take place, but removing entire sections starts to get into the issue of WP:BRD which is now what we are endeavouring to pursue. This film is probably an exception to the rule of standard sizing in that it has garnered an extreme reaction from its critics, however, I am all in favour of doing a daughter article to address the many concerns of historical inaccuracies prevalent in the film. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

the issue is covered in Reactions, we don't list every inaccuracy we find in film on here, Like i said its unsourced original research given undue weight in an artilce You cannot make a daughter article out of unsourced original research. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have sought a Third opinion on this discussion Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As you say, the issue is in creating verifiable and sourced information. The film itself is a cauldron of controversy over its suspect use of equipment, aircraft and sites intended to depict the actual events surrounding the attack on Pearl Harbor. The sections in question represent genuine concerns over the scenes that tie directly back to the approach eventually adopted by Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer, despite their admonitions of these two principals that the final film would be a faithful interpretation of actual historical incidents. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC).

Just a cursory look at sources turned up nine authoritative articles on the film's historical errors. Adding these sources should not be a major issue. A rewrite or a split article is likely the best alternative but at this juncture, there is not enough involvement from editors interested in the article to warrant an immediate rewrite. FWiW, I will put this article on my alert list and begin a gradual revision. Bzuk (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC).

Good, I removed the text pending sourcing Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok i have been Reverted So i will Twiddle thumbs and wait for the WP:3O Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not good, that is not the original state of the article, and the typical pattern is to act- Bold, find reaction - Reversal to original text- Discuss. You have to reach a consensus before acting unilaterally. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC).

Hi there. I have two points to make reviewing the section of the article in question. First, it is almost entirely unsourced. As unsourced negative original research, it really should be removed now and only restored when sources are found. Secondly, it is in my view undue weight to have such an exhaustive list of errors. A section explaining the criticisms of the movie - with some examples of those criticisms - would suffice. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but also note the section below as well, the article is undergoing a major rewrite. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

I'd suggest re-writing it in your userspace - at the least you'll avoid getting interrupted by edit conflicts. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was doing, but the reverts were so massive that they have taken out sections I was editing. I'm done; another wiki article to do some other time. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

"I think World War II just started"

Hartnett's line is not mentioned in the inaccuracy section. WWI was still called the Great War back then, so this war was not considered "II" until the Great War was renamed the World War after the end of second World War. Also, Pearl Harbor was in '41, but the actual war started in '39 with the invasion of Poland.

This was probably repeated endlessly on other sites, but I think it's still worth mentioning.

Just a note that it's simply not accurate that the First World War wasn't known as the World War until after the Second had ended. During the interwar period "the World War" was a common name for it, albeit less common than Great War. Witness the 1927 Baron von Richthofen biography, Red Knight of Germany. Binabik80 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say that it started in '37 with the start of the Sino-Japan war

It depends how you define "World." The war which commenced in 1939 was only between European states, while the two most industrially powerful countries on the globe (USA and Soviet Union) were not at war. It only becomes an actual world war in 1941. It could be rationally argued that if the war had ended before 1941, before the USA and SU got involved, then it would just have been called the European War, or the Great Nazi War, or the Anglo-Franco-German War or something similar. It is difficult to see why a war which leaves out the two most powerful countries on Earth could in any real sense be called a "world" war. (And I am writing this as a European.) Still, the war has to be called something, and once it became a world war in 1941 then the name could retrospectively be applied to the fighting which preceded it.

By the time of Pearl Harbor, the war had spread outside the European continent into Africa. The Atlantic (North and South) Ocean was a battlefield. The Commonwealth nations were involved. The USSR had invaded Poland. There were American volunteers in Europe. American products were being bought for use in the war. Hardly limited to Europe. GraemeLeggett 10:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I may be just splitting hairs, but where does the Second Italo–Abyssinian War, the Mukden Incident of 1931, and the Battle of Shanghai in 1932 fit into all of this? In my humble opinion, it's difficult to pinpoint a start to what is now considered the "Second World War."--XRedcomet 02:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

'two most industrially powerful countries on the globe' Do some research, and you find, that the Soviet Union in 1940/41 was far from being one of the industrially most powerful countries, more likely being on rank 5 or worse. Also, most people at that time wouldnt have regarded it as industrially powerful.

The events starting from September 1 1939 up to mid-1941 started a war including fighting in Europe, Africa and Asia (Syria between British and Vichy-French) as well as on all oceans, including fighting soldiers from India, Australia, Canada, South Africa, thus including all populated continets except South America. So its fair to say WWII started in 1939. You wouldnt count WWI from 1917 - 1918 just because the US joined only in 1917. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.42.203.67 (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Presumably there is a 'tipping point' at which a merely very very large war becomes a world war? If the UK and France had defeated Germany on their own in 1940, so that neither the USA nor USSR were ever formally involved, then would it still have been called a "world war"? Anyway it is all slightly pointless I suppose, a bit like arguing at what precise minute of the day twilight starts. --Spring rain 16:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a great deal of interesting discussion about the point at which the 1937-1945 period fighting became a "world" war (ie at 1937, at 1939 or at 1941) on the World War II talk pages.

Does anyone have access to contemprary (1939-1942) magazine or newspaper archives to see when the conflict became known as World War II? The line in the movie does sound like an anachronism. My public library used to have bound magazines from the 1920s thru the 1960s in the open racks, but they have been moved due to space constraints, else I would have done it myself. Naaman Brown (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's an interesting item about the start of WWII: Hitler decided to hold off his invasion of Poland by about a week, however one of his units didn't get the message and that unit invaded a week early. When the German soldiers found out they invaded too early, they simply told the local populace that it was just a "war exercise" and then they left. Here's the incredible part: the Poles believed them! 63.207.238.150 (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Pearl Harbor" is a rip-off of "Wings" (1927)

I'm a silent film buff and I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that "Pearl Harbor" is just a re-write of "Wings". Hollywood always likes to use "already proven material". I think this accounts for a lot of criticism of "Pearl Harbor", in that the filmmakers were trying not so much to re-create the attack on Pearl Harbor as much as they were trying to re-create "Wings", which by now had become a dated melodrama in it's storyline, while still retaining top flying sequences. By the way, the character Ben Affleck plays, George Welch, supposedly was nominated for the Medal of Honor but was denied it because the upper echelon brass couldn't see handing out the nation's highest medal in connection with a disaster of the enormity of Pearl Harbor. (Anybody know if any Medals of Honor were awarded for Pearl Harbor?) George Welch, as a side note, was the first pilot to break the sound barrier, not Chuck Yeager. Welch was test pilot for the F-86 Sabrejet, and unbeknownst to the design staff, the Sabrejet could fly faster than the speed of sound in a shallow dive. This discovery had to be kept secret, however, since the F-86 was a combat aircraft undergoing testing. Also, tons of money had been spent on Yeager's effort and the higher-ups had to justify the expenditure, so they gave credit to Yeager. Both men, of course, were top notch pilots and either is worthy of the honor.63.207.238.150 (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

...says who? both the Wings reference and the information on Welch's feat is rife with supposition and straight-out errors, i.e. secret performance capability of the F-86?! Remember that verifiable sources are required. As to Pearl Harbor Medals of Honor, 15 citations were made as a result of the action: see list. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC).

I concur with Bzuk. A quick search engine test does not reveal any kind of relationship. This kind of claim needs to be verifiable through reliable sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on Medal of Honor awardees at Pearl, I had wondered about it. General Hap Arnold nominated both George Welch and Ken Taylor for the Medal of Honor but they received the DSC instead, anybody know why since this seems to be the crux of the issue? The Wiki site on George Welch discusses the sound barrier issue, mentioning that Secretary of the Air Force Stuart Symington specifically told Welch not to break the sound barrier but Welch did it anyway, twice. A further rationalization for awarding it to Yeager was that he broke the barrier in level flight, whereas Welch did it in a dive, which seems to presuppose that Welch broke the barrier first. (There are also claims that German jets in WWII broke the sound barrier but evidence is scant.) Also, test flights of new military aircraft are classified. Chuck Yeager is still alive, maybe somebody should ask him. As for the similarity between the two films, to me it's quite obvious, having watched "Wings" numerous times and then when I saw "Pearl Harbor" I realized it was just a rip-off of "Wings" and sure enough I was able to predict what was going to happen in the film; and Hollywood is well known for script theft. I'd have to find a published film critic who mentioned the rip-off for RS, though. 63.207.238.150 (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Welch's dive tests were unofficial, not recorded or timed and cannot be considered a certified record. FWiW, it falls into the category of urban legend, but it is generally acknowledged that Welch did break the "sound barrier", just that it didn't count! As to the Wings claim, it is not readily apparent that there is a retelling of the original story concept in the later production, and even a cursory search confirmed that there was a lack of fidelity to any previous work by the Pearl Harbor screenwriting/production team.Bzuk (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC).

I think I should point out that the similarity between the two films is mainly in the love triangle, so if one concentrates on this the similarity is quite evident. Two guys in love with the same girl, one dies in the arms of the other after the plane crash, etc. The scene where Clara Bow drives her ambulance into town, she gets bombed, and the two pilots take off to shoot down some planes is replicated in the Pearl Harbor movie attack exactly, it's used for the template. But why didn't critics mention this when the movie came out? I assume the copyright on "Wings" had expired so there wouldn't have been any copyright infringement case. American copyright law is so weak that if you simply make cosmetic changes you escape copyright infringement. (By analogy, if somebody stole my car and painted it a different color it would legally become their car!) The film has a lot of stolen scenes--the camerman dying during the attack while his camera still rolls is from the movie "84C Mopic" (1989); the two stars doing a stunt fly-by and being reamed by their commander is from the tower fly-by scene from "Top Gun", the two boys playing make-believe in the wrecked hulk of an airplane is from "Empire of the Sun" (1987), etc. **The F-86 was transonic, which means some parts of the plane were going faster than the speed of sound while other parts weren't, depending on the airflow, but this would depend on the model, type of engine, etc. And since this site seems to have aviation enthusiasts, I'm sure we all know that there were a dozen men who flew powered, heavier than air machines before the Wright Bros. but the Wrights were officially given the honor. So in muddied areas, someone has to get the official title, and Yeager did break the sound barrier in level flight. 63.207.238.150 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have read somewhere that the reason that Welch and Taylor didn't get the Medal of Honor was because they were flying without orders (hard as that may be to believe, given the mayhem of 7 December) and the brass didn't want to set a precedent by awarding the highest honor to fliers who took off on their own initiative. Mark Sublette (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

First Japanese We Shot At Pearl Harbor

We actually know the names of the first two Japanese we killed at Pearl Harbor, Hiroo Akira and Katayama Yoshio. They were in one of the five miniature Japanese subs that were launched from their mother subs approximately 5 to 10 miles out from Pearl (the mini subs had a 20 mile range so they expected to return and indeed had a rendezvous at Lanai Island planned). Hiroo and Yoshio were in the 2-man sub I-20 and their conning tower was spotted at 6:30 AM and fired upon by the deck guns of the destroyer Ward, then depth charged. So the war actually began around 6:30 AM when the Ward fired its deck guns. We got in the first shot. When the sub was brought up from the deep later, it was discovered that our gunners had hit the conning tower, so they were real good shots. The Navy must have been on some kind of alert if it fired on a sub that was in a restricted area. Why the sea battle was not reported up the chain of command remains a mystery. Only one of the 10 Japanese crewmen aboard the five mini subs survived. One of the mini subs is on display at the National Museum of the Pacific War in Fredericksburg, Texas. My dad was a Marine during all of WWII and he said we couldn't use a lot of our guns during the attack at Pearl because the guns were stored and packed in cosmoline, a heavy packing grease, which would take an hour or two to clean from the guns. 66.122.182.34 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Pearl Harbor (soundtrack) be merged into Pearl Harbor (film). I think the content on the soundtrack page is not extensive enough to be an independent article. Jhunt47 (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC).

Yamamoto's "famous quote"

I don't think anyone knows what Yamamoto said when he heard about the successful attack, but the makers of "Tora! Tora! Tora!" admitted that they had made up the line about awaking a sleeping giant because they couldn't figure out how else to end a movie like that aimed at American audiences.

Hollywood's Famous Paraphrase

Isoroku Yamamoto's sleeping giant quote:

"A military man can scarcely pride himself on having 'smitten a sleeping enemy'; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten. I would rather you made your appraisal after seeing what the enemy does, since it is certain that, angered and outraged, he will soon launch a determined counterattack."--Yamamoto 9 Jan 1942 in Agawa, Hiroyuki, The Reluctant Admiral: Yamamoto and the Imperial Navy 1979

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."--Yamamoto 7 Dec 1941 in Hollywood, Tora! Tora! Tora! 1970.

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant."--Yamamoto 7 Dec 1941 in Hollywood, Pearl Harbor 2001.

Naaman Brown (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This article lacks images

This article really lacks images. There is no images in the movie besides the zero one. We have three photo's in this page, two of them are zero's and one is the cover. Ruler of Coasters  Talk  16:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yamamoto Isoroku

Theres a scene, about 30min in, where someone in an authority position claims that war is inevitable and proposes a massive attack that will wipe out the American Pacific Fleet, presumable hes supposed to Yamamoto Isoroku, except Yamamoto-san was against the war. The scene also seems to suggest he gets his inspiration for using aircraft from kites, when the Japanese already had a very powerful fleet and more specifically, the Kido Butai designed specifically around aircraft carriers. These are important inaccuracies that discredit a great man and should be mentioned. 108.175.230.14 (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Kimmel and Short

"subsequent investigations showed that both commanders were not informed by US intelligence"

So, a telegram received on December 2, headed "THIS IS A WAR WARNING", warning of possible Japanese attacks on U.S. interests in the Pacific, was not informative enough? Rsduhamel 00:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, read the article. Or read the test of the message! "attacks in Russia, Philippines, Kra Isthmus, possibly Borneo". No mention of Pearl Harbor. (No inkling of it in DC, either). Unfortunately for history, Kimmel & Short (unlike in the movie) didn't have Capt. Kreskin on their staff, doing intel analysis (not done in fact) & saying, "They'll attack here." & pointing to Pearl. Trekphiler (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The deployment of the U.S. aircraft carriers Langley, Lexington and Enterprise before 7 Dec 1941 demonstrates that the Japanese attacks were anticipated in the Phillipines, Wake or Guam, where the aircraft carriers had been sent to shore up the defense of those islands; not in the Hawaiian Islands. Pearl Harbor was not a logical target. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The wings worn by the movie's stars weren't worn until after WW-II, when the Army Air Corps became the US Air Force. AAC wings had the eagle in a circle whereas the USAF wings have a stars & stripes shield in the center.

214.3.118.2 (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC) vj galante

Young Rafe McCawley and Danny Walker

Just for the record, young Rafe McCawley was played by Jesse James and young Danny Walker was played by Reiley McClendon, according to the 1923 opening scene. So if I were you, I'd leave the two young actors in the plot section as they are. AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

where in the film does it show HMS Torrens footage?

From what I have seen of the film I do not remember seeing footage of a torpedo hitting a ship edited for the film. can anyone provide with me with details on when this happens in the film? RiseDarthVader

It's not a shot of a torpedo hitting a ship, it's the shot of the Arizona exploding. The Torrens footage was basically painted over with CGI to make that shot. Bones Jones (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

box office statements aren't supported by references

Pearl_Harbor_(film)#Box_office The film was ranked the sixth highest-earning picture of 2001. It is also the third highest-grossing romantic drama film of all time, as of January 2013, behind Titanic and Ghost.

These sentences aren't supported by the references. I have to admit I'm not adept at using boxofficemojo, but I've played around with it a fair bit and the info sure doesn't seem to be there. Can anyone help me? I've tried to find the info elsewhere, but haven't had success. Char1iestarr (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)