Talk:Stop-Loss (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the War films task force.

Potential Effects of Movie[edit]

Sounds like a a great movie to lift the morale of our troops and families —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

The troops and their families already know about the stop-loss policy. Who do you think suffers because of it? This movie might let the rest of the country know about this practice. Ariadne55 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Given that the synopsis of the film seems far-fetched, and probably a gross mis-interpretation of stop-loss, I don't see how the film would give anyone an informed opinion. Stop-loss doesn't happen to soldiers that have been separated. A soldier called back to active duty from the IRR is not being impacted by stop-loss, but by the fact that he's still in the Army. I was effected by stop-loss. It's really annoying. But not nearly as annoying as people being lied to about how it works. Once the film's out and we have a better idea of the plot, I'm fairly certain that there's going to be a section contrasting it with reality. EvilCouch (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Stop loss is a pretty well-known thing. Also, it is to be noted that there is no such thing as a three or four year military contract. Technically, any initial military obligation of active duty has another ATTACHED three to four years of INACTIVE READY RESERVE that you sign onto. During that 3-4 years after initial obligation you can be called back at any time. So the whole 'this is against my contract gripe' is pretty defunct when it is actually in your contract in the first place. But anything to make a buck, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

True story?[edit]

Is this movie really based on a true story? If so, what's the real soldier's name? It doesn't appear to be "Brandon King". Korny O'Near 20:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not a true story, i went to the pre-screening of the movie last night and talked to the director, she started the film as a documentary and it gradually changed into a story, but it was in no way a story about one person but instead about a group of people she knows who had been "stop lossed".--Joebengo 13:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
So how much money has this movie made? Equinox137 (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
None. It hasn't been released yet. It won't make that much, because Americans refuse to acknowledge that there's a fucking war going on in Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It won't make that much, because Americans refuse to acknowledge that there's a fucking war going on in Iraq I'm sure Americans acknowledge there's a war going on in Iraq. They just don't agree with the left's line of thinking on the issue, which is why you guys get so angry when the subject comes up. BTW, you just contradicted a huge argument of the left - they don't call it a "war". (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
"Americans refuse to acknowledge that there's a fucking war going on in Iraq" The most foolish comment, bred out of ignorance that I have heard in a long time. The stupidity of some liberals never stops amazing me. (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the reason might be, if you look at the box office for Iraq war related movies (regardless of left or right perspective) over the past few years, almost all of them have done very poorly in the US market. --Jackdavinci (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There has't been any Iraq movies with a "right" respective at all. Equinox137 (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


When you copy something word for word from one source to another, isn't that plagarism, because this article's current Plot Summary is word for word what is said at the source. On a different note, there seems to be some original research.

What's your point? Where's the OR? Equinox137 (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
If the article has merely been copied and pasted from elsewhere, it should be set off differently than other articles with OR -- and I see no evidence of OR. Short of taking it down (or making it shorter, for the sake of all that is good in the world), I would recommend introducing the article as from its source and then lengthening the margins to set it off. (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary[edit]

Haha, the plot summary is ridiculously long and has obviously been copied and pasted. I don't think I've ever read one on wikipedia that's longer. Feudonym (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This was rectified.[1]--Patrick (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I believe that this summary is incorrect...the names vacillate between the main characters and are not correct in several places. (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Be more specific, please.--Patrick (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This article makes it sound as if Steve went to go get Steve, not King, and it is really just poorly written overall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Final Scene[edit]

The final scene of the film shows soldiers getting on a bus to go to Iraq with people waving them off. The synopsis was written as if King was returning for a 2nd tour, having accepted his stop-loss and somehow avoided a court-marshall off screen. I don't believe this is correct. PfC Tommy Burgess appears in the final scene. Since he is dead by the end of the movie this suggests the scene depicts the first time that King, Burgess, etc, went to Iraq. It is a flashback. Thus King's final fate is left open although it seemed to me that the most likely outcome was that he was going to go to Mexico to avoid apprehension. Robert Brockway (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the information on the final scene and added some additional information. Robert Brockway (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Every review I've just read suggests the final scene really was depicting King going back for a 2nd tour. So either I only thought I saw Burgess in the scene or everyone else missed a subtle point. Time permitting I'll go and watch it again. In the mean time I'll edit the article to make the statement of the final scene more neutral. Robert Brockway (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I read your comments about the movie Stop-Loss. You said that in the end, it was a flashback of what happened earlier on; however, if you read this revision a year ago [2], it seems as if the person who added this huge "synopsis"--or rather what would seem to be the entire script...--copied and pasted it from a website that has the entire summary. He states that they do go onto a second tour and I would agree. Even though you can't see King's scar, you can see King tapping on the soldiers from his former unit. This signifies their past relationship and logically, if you just met somone for the first time, you would not be patting them on the head. In addition, Michelle was staring at King and not Shriver which tells us that this occured after michelle and shriver broke up.
There is one part that did confuse me though and that part was when I saw Ricardo (if that is how you spell his name) on the bus with his family waving at him. So perhaps you are right, but the majority of the evidence points toward the theory of the second tour. Regards--Edu killer (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
EDIT! Yes I looked at the scene again and there IS a scar. This is their second tour, NOT a flashback.--Edu killer (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)