Talk:Red Dawn (2012 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the War films task force.
WikiProject United States / American Cinema / Washington (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.
WikiProject Michigan (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Can we get a lock on this page please? Some radical Chinese person essentially bombed this page with Nazi items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metfan722 (talkcontribs) 07:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you know for sure it was a Chinese person who bombed this page ? IP address maps to Shaw Cable in Canada. IWIztuFN (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably the radical and possibly also jealous Chinese lives in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EEBAN (talkcontribs) 07:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Call it a violation of assuming good faith, but I think this particular case should see an exception of some higher scrutiny. The chinese government has taken a certain interest in this film. So far as to pressure the film makers to change the antagonists of the film. As has been expressed, the wiki-rules are not carved in stone.

When a large nation government has a strong interest in altering public perception, it is more dangerous to npov objectivity, not to take that into consideration.

That said I'm reluctant of locking. Victor Grey (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


I'm not opposed to that section being added personally, but the text that keeps being used is plagued with POV problems. Millahnna (mouse)talk 22:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This movie does not represent the generally peace loving Chinese people. Regardless of the regime currently in place I highly doubt the Chinese Government would be so reckless to have in mind an invasion of the USA. This movie should be marked as sinophobic, racist and is a throw back to yellow peril and the Red Scare. Frankly it shows you how backwards the US has become after 9-11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That didn't sound at all unbalanced. I don't think somebody's opinion of a movie about the largest, most rapidly growing Communist country on the planet seeing fit to collect on the debts it is owed by the US carries much weight in an encyclopedic article. Also, I don't see the jump from "war movie about China" to "sinophobia" or "racism". These conclusions are unproven and unprovable. --Hkobb7 (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

China is communist in name only. If you do not see the propaganda element in this movie then you are blind to history. By choosing to rehash the communist boggey man of the cold war you falling for a tried and true propaganda tool of the establishment. China is a growingly agressive autocratic authoritarian state with an oppressed gen. population and minorities. Does it have designs on the USA and the world. I doubt it. Its the USA at war all over the world. Stop drinking the right wing cool aide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The probability of the PRC invading the continental U.S. is little or none. That said, the PRC is on a very short list of countries on Earth that could successfully pull this off. There is another list of countries that would like to invade the U.S., but completley lack the capability. North Korea may be on that second list. To my knowledge, there is absolutley no commonality between between these two list. China would never invade the U.S., it might resort to sabatage our infrastrastructure in some way in order to gain an advantage economicly, but invade? No! This presents Hollywood with a delimma. The solution they have chosen is about plausible as me taking on Mayweather in the boxing ring. Hollywood should stay with the only party that could be found on both list, Aliens from Outer Space. Also, Kool-Ade is the preferred beverage of the left, not the right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

To the guy who said its "Sinophobic", what do you think the russians thought of the original red dawn? Thye didnt invade, in fact today there one of our allies. -- (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

>A US ally
Ahahahahaha, nice one there. That's like saying that Afghanistan is a democracy. Oh, wait... -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 00:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Russia is not a US Ally, more of a rival and not a friendly one. But NATO (of which the US is a part of) does have a "Partnership for Peace" deal with Russia. (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The opinion that any discussion of a country or axis of countries moving against another country/ies for some motivation as "Sinophobic" or even Xenophobic is a foreign one to me (pun intended), Human history is made up of these very events and to think that humanity has somehow evolved since our last war or world war that there should never be a consideration of such possibilities is a bit childish. as childish as to think leaders in the US could not be the protagonist in such a situation or leaders of any other country, the "Story" told by a movie or book only needs to find the proper motivation for this to take place. all but the most simplistic of people think that the boots on the ground are the enemy and not the leaders that put them there.

The situation described in the Movie has occurred throughout history and the world (to one degree or another) including the US, the motivation to pretend it hasn't or could never happen again is either childish disbelief or overt thought that if an enemy is to succeed in this happening they must not allow the natives to believe it could happen, by ridiculing it or decrying it as a xenophobic thought that only a racist could think of.

I know there are some auto-phobics (throughout history and all over the world) who group together and want nothing more than a change to some visioned utopia and the only way would be through a successful invasion by those who they believe could bring that change, or maybe through internal revolution, or through some kind of foreign colonization (since we are out of unclaimed land this would be difficult). Obviously every country in the world has gone through this, some many times over, old cultures are either wiped clean or swallowed by the new. I liked the original, and never hated any of peoples portrayed as invaders as I met them in real life, just as I've never held any animosities to Arabic, Islams or Muslim peoples (I work at a very culturally diverse company)due to 9-11.

So finally to the idea that some people may become a bigot, racist, or whatever simply by watching a movie, reading a book, listening to a loud mouth on talk radio, all I can say is stupid is as stupid does and you can't stop stupid all you can do is lock them up when they break the law, someone who takes a scene from a horror movie as a right to commit a heinous act is not a reason to ban all people from seeing horror movies, if you disagree with an idea or how it is presented then turn the channel, don't buy the book, don't go see the movie, and above all don't try to sound like some kind of enlightened priest of your faith saving the rest of us from the complexities of thought over an idea, regardless how it is presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

A nation that can't successfully invade a country right next to it is going to attempt to cross 10,000 km of open ocean with a green water navy??? (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Poor strategy? In MY work of fiction?! It's more likely than you might think!
... and does NOT equate to a phobia. Hell, writing about a fictional war does not equate to a phobia. The presumption that this film is Sinophobic (or Koreophobic or just xenophobic) simply by having them as the invading force begs the question: Is the presence of an antagonist predicated on the presence of a phobia of all that antagonist's aspects?
I of course believe the answer is no, and the question is idiotic. But to counter the insipid question directly: We see the invading troops portrayed in rather human manners. The orderly and the REMF officer (I think he was an officer) were flirting in the police station, just trying to find some personal pleasure in a war waged on dubious grounds with dubious payoff. This was an obvious attempt to show us these guys are people too, albeit serving a different cause. Does everything need to be lampshaded for you people?
I think the real ignorant xenophobes are the ones who had any trouble reading Will Yun Lee's fantastic acting. Look at his bearing, listen to his voice, study his face--especially his face, he acts with his face in this film to make up for the language barrier like Kurt Russel did in Soldier to make up for the lack of lines. Captain Cho is a man doubting his superiors, his mission, his methods, and the goal of the entire war. Yes, you can see this in his face. Learn to appreciate acting.
-Sctn2labor (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Drop the FORUM discussion, everyone. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


Should the stuff about Red Dawn being delayed be added? I think so. (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes.Crboyer (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Red Dawn "Fan Site" link[edit]

I understand fan sites are normally linked to, but many of the referencing sites used this "fan site" as the source of their news and photos. This site is the original source of most of these photos that are referred to on their sites. If this site is more than just a typical "fan site" and an actual news source I believe it should be included. Site link: --Geekincognito (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Move[edit]

I was wondering if the article should be re-named Red Dawn (remake) because of the MGM crisis, as the film is now highly unlikely to be released in 2010 and no new release date will be set for many months. We can always change the name again if a new date is set. --Klltr (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A move might be warranted considereing the circumstances, lately for unproduced films we have using "film project" as in the cases of The Avengers film project and The Hobbit film project but this is different as the production has been completed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, I suppose we should change it to 2011 at least, since a 2010 release seems to be out of the picture. -LtNOWIS (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I find it very unlikely that the film will be released in 2010. I would support a move to Red Dawn (2011 film). We can be bold and make the move and update the links accordingly. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Although I think a move is needed, I am not sure how we can move it to Red Dawn (2011 film) without a new release date. Any other suggestions?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we have to consider likelihoods and number of moves here. For example, we're pretty definite it won't come out this year. It's more likely that it will come out in 2011. Could it be until 2012? It's possible, but with production complete, it probably won't be that long. We could move the article to Red Dawn (upcoming film), but that means we'll definitely have to move it again when a release date is determined. I think it's easier to use "2011 film" as the new disambiguation since the release will most likely be in that year. With this being the case, we are likely to avoid moving it twice. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I think Red Dawn (2011 film) would be best. Considering the film is completed and is most likely not to end up in awaiting film hell (hopefully), it would seem like it would be released sometime next year. If the film does get pushed back to 2012, we can just move it again, the beauty of a dynamic encyclopedia. BOVINEBOY2008 20:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
If the general feeling is that Red Dawn (2011 film) does not violate WP:CRYSTAL then I also support the move there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
On the second thought, looking at this, there are not that many articles that link here. While we'd have to make two moves, Red Dawn (upcoming film) would be the most accurate title based on present information. With not many links, it would be easy to handle the two moves. (I still find 2011 to be pretty likely, but you're right that speculation should be verifiable.) Would that be an okay option for now? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Red Dawn (upcoming film) does not have a nice ring to it but as of right now it is the most accurate.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
While not the best name, it is the most accurate. BOVINEBOY2008 15:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Article was moved to placeholder name, and all redirects are fixed since article will be moved once more in the near future. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

North Korea[edit]

Los Angeles Times reports that the villains will be portrayed as North Korean. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, I'll add it to the article. One would think that this would have been obvious from the beginning.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Nice work. Talk about money-grubbing, huh? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Similarity to Homefront[edit]

Now that the North Koreans are the antagonists. the overall base of the story (North Korean invasion of the USA) is quite similar to the story of Homefront, Another work by John Milius. Should this be noted on the page? (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

:Only if the comparison is made elsewhere by a third-party reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it depends on the context. Merely mentioning the information is unacceptable per WP:TRIVIA.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that the story for this remake wasn't written by John Milius :P (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Cast reference[edit] is a fan site and cannot be used as a reference, and is not a reliable source. Can Yahoo! Movies ( be used to cite the cast? Bullmoosebell (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yahoo! Movies is a database and I am not sure how they compile their information, IMDB is user submitted so that's why we cannot us it. We normally reference each cast member individually through independent sources like trade publications. You might want to bring this up at WT:FILM or WP:RSN.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Review and public opinion[edit]

I'm wondering how much truth there is in the statement that "Many people are not happy about the change of the invading country and this review points out why[16]"? The citation and "this review" both link to something from a news blog called Libertas. I don't object to the article being linked there, but I do find the wording and the way it was presented to be a bit of a problem. How do we know how much a review from a web site with a clear political bent really reflect public opinion, and how much is "many people"?

Is this movie really, going to be released?[edit]

The calender is about to hit Labor Day (September) and pretty much all the movies that are coming out this fall are showing previews or adverts. Or at least press releases.

I haven't seen anything about Red Dawn.

Anyone have valid info? thanks.

wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing but speculation and not even speculation in reliable sources that we could use on the article. According to a thread on IMDB, there is a link available for Pro users that claims the release date has been pushed back to "about this time next year". Since the poster who reported on it there made it sound like even that was a little up in the air (as another poster said, it's more a window than a date), I haven't bothered to go looking for the press release in other sources to try to add it to the article. Honeslty, this films release has been jerked around so much that I keep forgetting to check the sites I'm prowling for info. Millahnna (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have tried in vain to find a reliable source beyond the article on the IGN website from a year ago stating that they were shooting for a November release in 2010. It would be nice if they could pull off a release this November, but no one has said anything yet. I'm not sure what the deal is with this studio. Either they think this movie is going to make them money, or they don't. I would love to see this movie released, and let moviegoers decide for themselves. Stryteler —Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

Libertas review[edit]

Regarding the Libertas review of the original cut, we cannot argue about its so-called notability because notability as defined on Wikipedia is for whether or not a topic is notable enough for an article about it to exist. We need to discuss its inclusion in terms of its usefulness to the article. My perspective is that it does not have a good place in the article body because the film that will be seen by critics and audiences will not be this cut. We've already discussed in the article body that the film has been edited for its release, so the artistic merit of this outdated cut does not seem useful to review. Perhaps we could include the review as an external link? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Erik, thanks for your thoughts. There is currently a major political controversy over the film that concerns the changing the film's villains from the Chinese to the North Koreans; indeed, this issue is apparently what has delayed the release of the film in the first place. The review - which includes a detailed account of the film - goes into this matter in great detail, and as things stand the review is the only account (outside of the studio's own account) of what was in the original film. As such, it seems that it deserves mention in the article - at a minimum as an external link. As things currently stand, we only have the studio's own account of what was in the original film. Thorpe79 15:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I do not see how a mere mention of a review's existence is notable. Saying that Roger Ebert reviewed a film without actually describing what he stated is similarly not notable. Furthermore as the editor pointed out the review was of the unfinished work and is unrepresentative of the final product. In order to be fair to the film makers, we should only consider reviews of the finished film or at the most be very careful with the context of this review. Besides more reviews will come, we can afford to wait. Either way, Erik is correct the review does not belong in the production section as it has nothing to do with the production of the film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Also (and I mean this in the most respectful way possible) judging from Thorpe79's user history, I question if he/she might be a WP:SPA.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Triiple Threat, with all due respect you're completely evading the issue. A major controversy currently exists with respect to MGM's re-editing of the film. You're obviously aware of this and have no problem including the LA Times piece regarding this controversy, yet you're arbitrarily deleting the Libertas piece - a piece that deals extensively with the controversy, and contains a wealth of detail about the original cut of the film that does not appear in the LA Times article. The purpose of a Wikipedia page is not to "be fair to the film makers," but to provide an accurate and comprehensive account of information pertaining to a given subject, particularly when controversies arise. Outside of the Libertas piece, currently no account of the original cut of the film (prior to the elimination of the Chinese as villains) exists outside of what MGM itself says was in the film. So we currently have no one but MGM to trust on the matter, which hardly makes for an objective presentation of the facts regarding the film. Bottom line: you have no case for including the LA Times piece, but not the Libertas piece. Thorpe79 16:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Again this edit provides nothing except to say that the review exists. The change of the films villains is sufficiently covered in the article by reliable sources. I do not understand this advocacy of Libertas. I admit to not being aware of the website but at a glance it appears to be a self published blog or a very weak RS at best. More notable reviews will come, why not wait? --TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The difference is that it is a review of an outdated cut. It cannot comment on what has specifically been excised in the final cut. It would be better for the film to come out so there can be an adequate comparison between cuts. Otherwise, the Los Angeles Times coverage is sufficient for highlighting what edits have been made. That's why I suggest the review as an external link; it is too tangential for the article body. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Would such a link violate WP:ELPOV?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so; we would include it to show what the original cut was like. It does not matter whether it is positive or negative since the relevant viewpoints in this article will be the critics' responses to the cut that is released. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Erik, I think that's an adequate solution here. The issue is that there is news value in the piece regarding the re-edit controversy, sufficient that Variety, the LA Times, IndieWire and other reliable sources saw fit to reference it. As it is, I would add that the "Red Dawn" entry currently contains references to blogs like The Daily Blam and /Film, which surely complicates Triiiple Threat's argument regarding Libertas being merely a "self published blog or a very weak RS at best"; i.e., what else are those sites? --Thorpe79 16:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't negate the argument about Libertas, just shows that those sources should be improved as well. In the interest of comprise, I'll agree to is use as a EL, but am still wary by this advocacy of this one particular source, Libertas.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Triiiple Threat, you've now eliminated the EL on the basis of the wording not being 'neutral.' Here is the wording I used: "Detailed account of the original, unaltered version of the film." How can the wording possibly be any more neutral? [User:Thorpe79|Thorpe79]] 18:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorpe79 (talkcontribs)
I did not eliminate it, I just reworded it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
As a third party coming in with no horse in this race, I think the neutrally worded EL is a good compromise. Other, mainstream sources give background on the newsworthy switch from Chinese to North Korean antagonists, and including a link to what Libertas' says — and in the absence of competing claims I would take as true — is the sole review of the Chinese-antagonists cut.
If I may, since the Libertas piece is a backgrounder as well as review, suggest even more neutral fine tuning? I would siply restore the headline, byline, date and publisher ("Libertas Sees the 'Uncensored' Version of MGM's New Red Dawn", Jason Apuzzo, March 17, 2011, My opinion is the headline describes the content best, and indicates to me that this is a background article and not simply a review. It would also avoid any neutral-wording controversy. What do we think? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


High school students?[edit]

Are the characters in this movie high school students like the original movie? (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Military Rank[edit]

The article states that Tanner is a Lt. Col (which was the rank held by the same character in the original movie). However I just got back from seeing the new film (got tix to an advance screening :)) and I'm pretty sure he called himself a Sgt. Major. Can anyone else confirm?

Also, Captain "Lo" (as named in this article) is actually Captain "Cho", which makes sense given that Lo is a Chinese surname and Cho is a Korean surname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


Is there any reason why the plot has not been updated yet? The movie has been out for two days and the only thing showing is the premise. I'll change it if there are no problems. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead, just remember to keep it under 700 words per WP:FILMPLOT.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Mention Protests Against It In Critical Reception Section[edit]

We should mention the fact that Workers World Party held a protest against the film in Times Square. See above link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there any coverage by reliable sources, like a major newspaper?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Racial element[edit]

There's an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal, "How 'Red Dawn' Could Have Been Remade Without the Xenophobia", which explores some racial issues around the film's casting and themes that need to be included in the article for complete coverage of the topic. I'll quote some of it here:

[T]he change [from Chinese to North Korean enemies] actually lends some ironic verisimilitude to the casting: Many of the actors playing the film’s primary enemy roles — most notably Will Yun Lee, who plays still-Chinese-named enemy commander Captain Lo — are in fact Korean American.

[T]his simple solution the producers arrived at is one that plays readily into classical stereotypes: Those that depict Asia as a Mordor-like alien netherland where every hand wields a weapon and every weapon points at the throat of the civilized West — and those that treat Asians as an interchangeable, all-same mass.... We've seen the extreme results of this phenomenon: Chinese Americans wearing "I'M NO JAP" badges during World War II to avoid by-blow hostility directed at Japanese; the murder of Vincent Chin in 1982 at the hands of Detroit autoworkers looking to get revenge on Toyota and Honda.... Blurry xenophobia is, arguably, worse [than ordinary xenophobia] — at a minimum, because it enlarges the potential target pool.

The problem is when those [creative] shorthand roles [like the dumb sidekick or dastardly villain] end up getting cast with the same kinds of real-world people, making members of those groups — fat people, blonde people, Asian people, black people — into shorthands for the shorthands.

Shrigley (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That was a lot worse in the 1984 version with Cubans because the US was actively supporting Central American death squads at the time, in Nicaragua and El Salvador in particular. And the Cuban missile crisis was still the most risky aspect of the existential threat of nuclear war, which back then was palpable. I think it's safe to say that the general US public's attitude towards North Koreans and Chinese militants isn't anywhere near as negative as the 1984 era stereotypes against communist Cubans. (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


Three times, I've had a small addition of well sourced information from a mainstream source (The Wall Street Journal) deleted from this article without any clear reason given, other than I guess, I lack seniority on Wikipedia or something. The information concerned popular response to Red Dawn by its viewers, as opposed to critics. This is notable information for Wikipedia- only rarely do we get to see reputable mainstream media sources writing about online fan responses to films, but when a mainstream journalist does take on that topic, especially when "positive" audience response so blatantly contradicts the negative critical opinions, it becomes relevant to the article on that film to give a broader perspective on the response. Otherwise one might think that because a movie opened to modest box office and very poor reviews, it did not make any cultural impact. This film in fact made quite significant impact on those who saw it, as evidenced by the information that is being suppressed from the article.

In order to differentiate this information from critical responses and box office, I put this information in a heading called "Social influence" right under the critics. It might also have been called "Social media influence," but its impact seemed broader than that, given that it involved real-world threats against real people. The information I added concerns an article from the Journal that examines the post-screening tweets of passionate Red Dawn fans- providing a glimpse into the views of those who disagree with the negative mainstream critical consensus on the movie. Notable in these "positive" responses is the surprising way Red Dawn has seemed to inspire anti-Asian, openly racist feelings on the part of large numbers of its fans, as a direct response to the movie. These are not just people who have personally racist views and also happen to be Red Dawn fans- these tweets are tied to their response to the movie- some of them explicitly saying the movie opened their eyes, and that before seeing the movie, they did not have these feelings at all.

Anyone who has studied film, art, politics or society will find these kinds of responses notable, because often someone will make a claim that a given movie or artwork expresses a particular idea, but there won't be actual evidence that's how the audience read it. Twitter allows us to cite and quantify such evidence, which should call into question the monopoly critics (and publicists) currently exert on determining the way art is received. Red Dawn was not supposed to inspire racism on the part of its audience- according to what the producers said, it wasn't even supposed to inspire political feelings or patriotism, it was just a piece of escapist fun to pay tribute to an '80s movie- and most critics agreed with that assessment, trashing the movie for its aesthetics rather than finding it ideologically threatening- yet these comments seem to suggest it has already had an unintended effect, of inspiring militant anti-Asian feelings among some- not ALL- viewers.

If this issue was referred to a less biased group of people than those currently reverting any edits to this page, they would see the relevance of the information, despite the fact it reflects poorly on these vocal segments of the film's audience- one reason those editing the page have been deleting it, is possibly that they are also among the fans of the movie, and don't want to be associated with those responses- an understandable defensive reaction, but not justifiable in the context of their job as editors of an encyclopedia. As a fan of something, it is much easier to read professional critics dismiss what some may view as just silly escapism, than to read the responses of fellow fans who actually do take it seriously and then twist it into a very real racist threat. That said, an encyclopedic approach to the subject of Red Dawn must include both responses, if both have been judged notable and covered by the mainstream media.

The Wall Street Journal, by the way, is not noted as a left wing publication, and even the articles by the journalist who found these tweets appear to have mixed feelings, wanting to appreciate the film itself and give its makers the benefit of the doubt, but being troubled by its potential to cause hate attacks against Asians in general, regardless of their degree of patriotism or their own potentially anti-Communist, certainly anti-North Korean ideology (the writer is Chinese American). Nevertheless, the article is not any kind of attack on the movie itself- it is just an investigation into its popular response, interesting and disturbing information that most readers of Wikipedia would judge as notable for this article, if it was not suppressed by those few whose pet point of view it offends. The democratization of the Internet has meant that mainstream media are now writing about social media, which may be uncomfortable for those who are used to these things going unreported, but the truth is that if we want to present an encyclopedic picture of what Red Dawn is, it must include notable articles from the mainstream media on such topics.

By the way, when I say these tweets are openly racist, I think no fan of the movie would disagree with me. I mean that unlike the film itself, which envisions a foreign military invasion, the fans of the film are responding with generalized hatred toward Asian Americans, regardless of their degree of patriotism or indeed, potentially anti-Communist ideals. The fact that a Wall Street Journal writer is responsible for outing these fans makes clear that it is not some kind of liberal media conspiracy. The writer seems genuinely perplexed and upset by the fact that people have responded this way to the movie, which was supposed to work as an anti-Communist, patriotic action propaganda film, not an incitement to open racism against fellow Americans of Korean and Chinese origin.

The phenomenon of mainstream media writing about Twitter trends can no longer be ignored, and is sometimes highly relevant as a cross section of response, if we are getting the information through a reputable source and it is not original research of any kind. I urge you to check out the article on the tweets, and reinstate the information, rewording it if necessary for NPOV. As it stands, the intentional suppression of this information destroys this article's claim to being neutral. A lot of people use Wikipedia as their personal way of making a point- they are into this remake of Red Dawn, so they will make sure Red Dawn's page reflects only information that either reflects well on the film, or doesn't reflect particularly badly on it (in the context of an action movie geared toward right wingers, bad reviews from critics are almost like a badge of honor- besides, Wikipedia's own precedent allows for little opportunity to banish the critics from a page entirely, there is too much precedent for including them).

I have no particular bone to pick with Red Dawn itself as a movie- this movie doesn't interest me either way- but I happened to read this article on the response to the film, and I was shocked by the responses and the way they have been catalogued, and surprised it wasn't already included here, so I added it, carefully following the guidelines of what kind of sources are considered notable. I have now become disillusioned about editing Wikipedia and after making this comment I probably will leave it to the Red Dawn fans, racists or not, to colonize this page (as they colonize the world) with their personal point of view, since I've learned that's the purpose of this page, to help promote the movie, not to serve as a neutral source that reflects on the topic honestly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE, "Avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." There is no indication that tweets as discribed in the article is anything other than viewpoints of small minority of the general audience.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Obviously, many of the people who see the movie are not going to share the critics' take on the movie, which is overwhelmingly negative. What is the take on the movie by the actual audience who liked the film? Well, this article provides an example. If you don't think it reflects the whole audience, find another article from a reputable publication that deals with other responses to the movie. For now, this appears to be the best idea we have of the response to the film by its actual audience. Unless you show another article with proof that these people who tweeted are only a tiny minority view, this information cannot be suppressed from Wikipedia. Frankly the type of people I know who would go and see a movie like this, are the same ones who would make comments like those tweets. That's not a verifiable assertion I would put in the article- just some food for thought, which causes me to question your claim that those tweets don't reflect a much larger section of the audience for the movie- though of course, not ALL of it. But I would guess that the number of viewers who actually went to see this movie and who dislike it as the critics do, is smaller than the number who sympathize with those Twitter quotes. What I would guess doesn't matter though- we have a source that details the audience response to the film. Maybe it isn't the best source possible- which would make clear what exact percentage of the Red Dawn related tweets included racist views- but it's better than nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:SNOWBALL. The only viewer comments allowed in movie articles is the Cinemascore score. Feel free to add a neutral sentence with that information; find another film article with that and follow that format. And, please, read WP:FILM guidelines before editing a Wikipedia movie article and save us all a lot of time and effort. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

China Release?[edit]

OK, so they changed the villians to maintain access to "Chinese box office", where's the follow-up?! WAS it released in the PRC, and if so, how'd it do?

If not in the PRC proper, was it at least released in Hong Kong? What about Taiwan?

For that matter, did it open in SOUTH KOREA? Although virulently anti-North, sometimes they shy away from these things to avoid provoking same. (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

They didn't censor the film because they planned on releasing it in China. They did it because they didn't want their film studio banned and put on a 10 year blacklist. If this happened, every single other film they make will miss out on the China market for 10 years, or however long they decide on blacklisting the film studio. All Brad Pitt films were banned from theatres for a certain number of years because of a Tibet film, until the blacklisting was lifted. Hence, film studios and distributors subject to such bans were unable to make money from theatrical releases in China, and everybody there bought their films on pirated DVDs for 5 yuan each.
For those who are interested, any film with Sharon Stone in it is banned from theatrical screening in China for life - instead of film companies getting millions of dollars from theatre ticket sales and retail DVD sales, they get nothing, whilst nobody in China is missing out on anything, thanks to bittorrent and street-side pirate DVD vendors. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 08:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

any particular reason the female characters are ignored in the plot summary?[edit]

All of the male characters are named and explained but the females are ignored despite one of them driving a major plotpoint. (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, I haven't seen the film. But if it is a major point, be bold and add it yourself. However remember to follow guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT, especially the word count.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The plot has never been particularly great, all of my edits to it --- I can't speak for TriiipleThreat --- have been geared toward keeping the word count down. I don't doubt that important points have been missed, so, yes, add it! But, be concise. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
As I said, I haven't seen the film so I haven't edited the plot summary. Most of my edits have been geared towards the film's production and release.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary[edit]

Per WP:FILMPLOT, the plot summary should be between 400-700 words. The recent expansions of the plot have violated this and need to stop. The edit war over the plot needs to end and involved editors need to discuss the subject here. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Fully Protected[edit]

I have fully protected this page for three days, Zmaher (talk · contribs) and TheOldJacobite (talk · contribs) I highly suggest some discussion and agreement regarding the length of the plot before mass reverting each other, note that you have both crossed the 3RR line today. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that my reversions violated 3RR, as he was clearly violating MOSFILM, refusing to use edit summaries or discuss his edits. And he had already been reverted by other editors, but simply refused to stop his edits. At any rate, the article is protected, and I already posted a message here on talk suggesting the matter be discussed. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
As the article is now fully protected, please revert the most recent expansion of the plot. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I concur with TheOldJacobite that the plot summary needs to be between 400 and 700 words. WP:PLOT says, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." 700 words is more than enough to summarize this particular film for readers to have context for this article. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Category[edit]

I see the category Films set in North Korea is on the article page. This film is not set in North Korea. All of the film takes place in Washington, US. --Mjrmtg (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Red Dawn (2012 film). 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 07:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)