Talk:Lord of War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines

Contents

[edit] Lord of wars effect

Hi, what is lord of wars effect?

So, what's the bet Lieutenant Colonel Southern is more than a slight nod to Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North? --CannedLizard 04:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, his first name is even "Oliver" in the end credits. J21 04:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actual events

Any information on what "actual events" they are referring to at the end of the movie ? sikander 21:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes - I suggest you take a look at this page I am helping to edit: Arms industry which will inform you of various facts on the global arms trade. I also made a link to this Movie. --Ludvig 12:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

At the end he is in Fare East and not in North Africa. This would also be the connection to the recently placed war there. The signs were in arabic as well. -- 19:08, 11 January 2006

What I think good about the movie is.

What does Arabic have to do with Far East? I assure you that the end of the movie is in North Africa, where they also speak Arabic. PS. I live half of a year in the Middle East and the other half in the Far East.--Kenbei 18:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The toller also asks why Yuri is taking umbrellas into the Sahara - last I checked, Sahara was in North Africa :-) -Norway_Boy 24 October 2006

"The characters and incidents portrayed and the names herein are fictitious, and similarity to the name, character or history of any person is entirely coincidental and unintentional." Yeah, I know, those damn lawyers.

[edit] Really needed?

"His family owns a restaurant, which is useful, because it is necessary for people to eat." Do we really need 'because it is necessary for people to eat'? I mean, it's basic knowledge.

It is kind of taken from the film, Yuri has an epiphany and he mentions it in a way similar to that. It could be cleaned up. 24.160.136.10 18:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the IP person, its a quip from the film, and should be kept. But, one might oppose that it's not very encyclopedic to keep the line, however, this is an entertainment film, and the film's plot should come across the way it was in the film. Hence, I will put it in quotation marks for both accuracy and fun. Jackpot Den 01:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The naval ship

What was that ship? It looked so damn generic, I couldn't recognize it. It was definitely not a coast guard ship. I'm leaning towards an Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate - anyone got suggestions? Or even better, a screenshot from the movie? I don't have it myself. This is relevant to the article since all the tanks and airplanes are listed, but not the warship. Joffeloff 17:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Got four of them for you. First is a standard shot, second is almost the same as the first except with slightly more rear detail, third is a low-angle shot, fourth is a bird's-eye-view shot. CABAL 18:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thankee. It's definitely not the Perry class; It looks like a Lupo class frigate. Do you agree?
Since the interdiction is taking place off the coast of South America, I drew some conclusions. The ship in the movie does not look like a Colombian ship. It does look like this Italian ship, which has been exported to Venezuela and Peru. Though, of course, since this is a movie these shots could've been made anywhere. But if it indeed is this ship, I guess some credit for accuracy should go the moviemakers. Joffeloff 21:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, that ship is way too small for a frigate. Compare it to boat in the pictures, then look at size of that gun turret compared to rest of superstructure. Since the website of the movie says that some of it was shot in South Africa, I went to the South African Navy homepage to check their equipment. I believe that the vessel in question is a South African Warrior class fast attack craft. Picture and other data about it can be found at [1] (click on the image on that page to enlarge). Note the distinctive top of mast (it has two "spikes" or "horns" or something), other features of the mast, and the shape of structures (missile launchers?) on the aft which can be partially seen on the screenshots. SGJ 23:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not up on the class, but a similiar size craft is the German Gepards, which sometimes fall under the classification of Fast Attack Craft, or Missile Corvettes. They're mainly coastal craft, but maintain some blue water functions. Douglasnicol 14:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

the commentary states that it is a south african destroyer. i don't know what type, but i know that is what it said.

I think you should be worrying about how poorly this article reads, rather than what type of ship it is... Dan 02:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amnesty International Ad

I was the one who put the Amnesty International Ad entry in the Trivia section. I've just mentioned that it is included in the UK Region 2 release, if it is in any of the other regions feel free to correct the article. Douglasnicol 15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character based on real arms dealers

According to l'Humanité, the character of Youri Orlov is based on the following five arms dealers:

The character is most definitely not based on Marc Rich, who is not an arms dealer.

— Fuzzy 22:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cia financing of the film?

That's what I read somewhere, it was one of their various film projects, of course these highly sympathetic guys are very hush hush about all that but I remember reading it in a few places on the internet, if anyone can help me find the source, it will be a welcome addition to the main body, to see where some films are coming from, and who they serve ultimately...

[edit] Critique

The new section is POV, unsourced and written in an unencyclopedic style. I'll delete it unless these concerns can be addressed. Cheers, --Plumbago 14:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Already done. No sources - it's WP:NOR. Hbdragon88 07:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The point made is that the connection the finale draws between the murder in the movie and the five UN veto nations being the "largest arms exporter" may be disingenious because "largest" is not quantified. If the USA is the largest arms exporter *in dollar terms*, and achieves that position by selling F-16s at 20m USD a pop, then the film is disengenious, for it has shown a story of small arms being used to murder civilians and then informed the audiance that the USA "is the largest arms exporter". The film is clearly drawing a connection between the two, and that connection is questionable. It seems to me reasonable to comment on the assumptions in this connection; akin, for example, to the critiqie of JFK for being a biased view of the assassination. When a film presents a view of events which may be incorrect, it seems right to comment upon the possible flaws in the narrative presented by the film. Toby Douglass 12:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, you know what to do. Source your claims, and write in an encyclopedic style. Regarding your critique, it's not indisputable anyway. In which sense are the UN veto nations not the largest exporters? Sure, a number may not have been cited in the film, but are you disputing this general observation? Are, for instance, most weapons manufactured outside of the veto nations? (Even if they are, given out-sourcing, are the manufacturing companies based in the veto nations?) Secondly, a trivial point, the film is not drawing a parallel between murder and the arms industry, but between killing and the industry - whether it's murder depends entirely on context (of which there are several contexts during the course of the film). Thirdly, given that arms exports from the UN veto nations wind up fuelling conflicts in other parts of the world (or am I wrong on this point?), which part of the film's drawing of this connection is incorrect? Your original addition to the article did not address these issues, and appeared to be a simple POV attempt to discredit a film critical of the arms industry. Your addition may well be entirely accurate, but you need to make this clearer with sources. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Edit conflict. Ah-ha. I take your point about the sorts of arms exported and how this adds up to the UN veto powers being the largest exporters. While that's a point worth making, it still may be possible that the veto powers export the most arms. Who, for instance, is making the small arms? I suspect that UN veto powers are, but if you can provide sources otherwise, that'd be great, and perfect for improving your section. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
In the film I understand the small arms exported came mainly from ex-Soviet Union countries. This is realistic to history; between I think 1989 and 1991, the Russian Army almost disintegrated and *vast* amounts of weaponry was sold to all comers. However, this flood of weaponry from the USSR is absolutely NOT what the film states at its end, where it draws the connection between "the UN veto holders" and the killing in the film. That connection entirely obscures the historical reality and covertly presents it as something quite different - a critique of Western arms manufacture. I have no objection to the story in the film, which (IMO) rightly shows the consequences of automatic weapons and unregulated arms sales, only to the implication drawn by the film in its closing sequence, which simply seems incorrect. When I have a bit of time, I will get the appropriate quotes from Odom's book, "The Collapse Of The Soviet Military" and highlight my point. Toby Douglass 15:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. But "simply seems incorrect" isn't enough. The question of the identity of the ultimate manufacturer of arms is still up in the air. Given the strength of the arms industry as a lobbying force within the UK alone, I'd be surprised if the UN veto powers weren't responsible, directly or indirectly, for the manufacture of the bulk of the world's annual weaponry production. As I understand your point, the identity of this "supplier" is incorrect in the film, which implies the UN veto powers are responsible. However, the arms industry article tends to support the film on this point, although the statistics it presents are rather abstracted and somewhat opaque. Cheers, --Plumbago 16:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thunder City

The scene where the ladies are astride the tank (T55?) has two ex-RAF combat planes, the Buccaneer and Hunter - given that the Hunter is an all-black trainer version I wonder if this was shot in Thunder City in South Africa where such aircraft are operated and flown? See: http://www.thundercity.com/

[edit] Password goof

"Yuri had his storage container since before his son was born. Later when his wife, Eva, is trying to guess the combination to the lock she discovers that its combination is Nicolai's birthday." Is this really right? I mean,couldn't he have changed the lock password or something? Christian Witka 23:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That was what I assumed too - in that he said "If it was the last four digits of my social security number, or my birthday, or even hers, she might have forgiven me, but as it was Nicolai's"
Basically think of it like a date stamp - the last time he changed his lock was after Nicolai was born - if it was before, she might have thought it was a vestige of his old profession (as remember he only 'gave it up' recently)
So I'd push for removing it as a Goof.
Smerity 10:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/r/Talk%7ELord_of_War_dce5.html"