Talk:A Few Good Men

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.

The term "Code Red" may be fictional, but the practice of using physical means to correct the actions/attitude of a fellow soldier is still in use. In the Army we called it a "Blanket party"- when the individual in question is in his bunk, a group of guys will rush in and throw a blanket over him. Two to four guys will hold the blanket tight, effectively pinning the "Correctee" down, while others will pummel him with pillowcases full of soap (or other objects) or simply beat him with their fists. Head and face shots are avoided, and the correctee usually just gets a few bruises. This is a barbaric and (obviously) illegal practice, but I have seen it straighten out a couple of soldiers in Basic Training who were not team players.

Wow, that's a scene straight out of Full Metal Jacket. Head and face shots are avoided? What about shots to the genitals? Also, do women in the service get the same barbaric treatment? If so, what about shots to the boobs?

Just finished editing to replace the severely muddied and Orwellian definition of "code-red" with something more brief, appropriate, and factual. Any objections, please post them here. --68.100.2.20 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I just want to say that this is a very good article. -Amit

Where was this movie filmed? I can't place the city... Annapolis? Functionform 07:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Jess[eou]p?

I've changed what was Jessop to Jessup, since that is the name used in Amazon, Barnes and Noble and on the NY Times movie review. Also, Google search results:

  • Jessup - 8,240 [1]
  • Jessop - 803 [2]
  • Jessep - 799 [3]

It seems even IMDB has it wrong [4]. That's one reason why Reuters has specifically NOT approved Wikipedia or IMDB to be citable sources. Fuzheado | Talk 22:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, it is not as simple as a Google search and count the numbers. The end credits of my DVD clearly show the character credit as "Col. Nathan R. Jessep". The DVD scene selection and liner notes also use that spelling, so the DVD is consistent. Two on-line scripts show the name as Jessep. [5] [6] Finally, the Awards Database of the Academy Awards Site list the nomination as "ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE -- A Few Good Men {"Col. Nathan R. Jessep"}" [7]. I think the Academy Awards site is the final authority here, since I cannot find a Aaron Sorkin site. Wendell 14:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Nicholson's SAG and on-screen credit is definitely for portraying "Col. Nathan R. Jessep". Given the lack of an actual on-screen "canonical" proof (Jessep never wears a uniform with a nametag, alas) I think that has to be the best authority. I note that it was also spelled "Jessep" in the Broadway play. Shadoks 13:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

  • While I agree that Jessep is the best spelling given all current information, is there an on-line reference to a SAG credit? I could not find one. However the above Academy Awards Site seems most clear and authoritative. Wendell 00:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsupported Assertion: anti-American movie?

Someone recently added a "Progression" section were he/she claims this is an anti-American/anti-military movie, something which is a) unclear (and false in my opinion) and b) unsupported original research, something frowned upon by Wikipedia's rules. I'm eliminating this section and reverting to the previous version. This is what gets eliminated:

Progression.
This movie seems to be a progression of anti-military movies generated by Hollywood (like From Here to Eternity). It seems the insipiration for the battle between lawyers on behalf of junior officers vs. senior officers or commanders was the depiction in the movie The Caine Mutiny. In the Caine Mutiny the initial drafts were anti-Navy written by a writer with Communist sympathies in the beginning of the cold war. Towards the conclusion of the movie the lawyer who convicts the General chances upon a group of celebrating and mutinous sailors who are then informed that they have done a disservice to their country by pressing charges against their Captain. Apparently a Few Good Men was written as a rebuttal to make amends for that last shred of vaguely pro military view.

201.235.51.167 01:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent cut. It's so wrong on so many levels it boggles the mind.--Buckboard 09:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Change

There was a line in the article that read, "... his history of quickly settling cases, which would remove the cloud of suspicion that could bring the Marine Corps embarrassment". This detail wasn't 100% accurate, probably closer to 90%. I added/changed the line to "... his history of quickly settling cases by plea bargains, which would have prevented the case from ever going to trial, bringing the Marine Corps embarrassment". Quickly settling cases implies still having gone to trial, i added the lines "by plea bargains" and "prevented the case from ever going to trial" to emphasize the facts that A, Kaffee reguarly settles cases by plea bargains to avoid trials, and B, explicitly show that keeping the case out of trial was exactly what was desired because it involves investigations and questionings. I just felt this was a bit more accurate.
Watemon 10:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "You can't handle the truth" denouement

I'm pretty certain that I heard Jessup say to the judge in the movie "Colonel, what's going on?" after the court members are cleared from the courtroom, not just "What's going on?". Is that accurate? If it is, it'd be notable in that it's the only time when Jessup looks like he has no idea, and no control, over what's happening. Ironic given Downey's on-the-stand confusion when questioned by Ross. Wl219 21:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Trivia

There is a line in the trivia section that seems to be missing a word or have accidentally replaced a word such that it doesn't make any sense. "The play was sent being performed on stage and being sent to producers as a sample of Aaron Sorkin's writing ability. It was never intended to be used as screenplay material." In particular, the first "sent" makes the sentence very confusing. Could someone else take a look at this?

Is the trivia section necessary for this article? Having viewed it briefly I can think some of these points could be included in the article. For discussion..... Lukeyboyuk (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Code Red

In the article, it says that the "Code Red" is not real and that it was created for the movie. However, in a documentary included on the DVD version of the film, Aaron Sorkin says that it is a real term. The page on the various "Code Reds" states that the term is a slang term for roughing up an uncooperative soldier. I'm not sure which is right-the documentary and the "Code Red" page, or the article on the film. Anyone know for sure? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CJS102793 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] On which real person is Caffey based?

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but this article, near the top, states the character of Lt. Caffey is based on "the exploits of" Don Macari, while farther down it states the character is based on David Inglesias, now famous as one of the eight U.S. attorneys dismissed by the Bush Administration. Is there a conflict of facts here, or is the Caffey character constructed from bits of both men? Of the two statements, I tend to believe the character is based on Inglesias, since this has been reported widely on the web. But that is not conclusive proof. Gladmax 14:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you that Don Marcari certainly believes the film is based on his exploits as he uses that for advertisements for his current law firm. I was also taken aback when I heard that David Iglesias was the inspiration for Cruise's character... I assumed that both of the men were probably involved in the case in some way... This is the only link I have seen that references them both... However there seem to be a lot of news sources referencing either one or the other as inspiration for Tom Cruise's character... This link references a 1994 article in which Maracari says that the character is a composite of him and 2 other guys, and Iglesias is named as one of the others...[8]

I also find it odd that the info about Marcari is included in the Plot Summary section. that doesn't seem like the appropriate place for it. --SportyJames 16:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the 2 edits made that changed the Don Marcari reference to David Iglesias. Iglesias is already mentioned in the Trivia section. There are citations in various news sources that Marcari was the inspiration for the lead in the movie. I'm guessing that there are that many more available citations for David Iglesias because he is of course in the limelight due to his recent controversial dismissal from his post as federal prosecutor for New Mexico. It appears that Sorkin probably took inspirtaion from both attorneys and perhaps more than just those 2. At this point it would make more sense to take the Marcari reference out of the plot synopsis section, and the Iglesias reference out of the trivia section and make a new reference citing the fact that there are claims that both men are the inspiration for the films lead. I think that would be the best route until perhaps a quote from Sorkin himself is found that sheds some light on the issue.--SportyJames 06:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Granted, this update is almost a year overdue, but in the DVD special features, Sorkin states that the case is based on a case his sister, a JAG attorney, had. Minaker (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cast differentiation

Does any one else think there should be some differentiation made between the cast of the play and the cast of the movie, also the plot lists the characters portrayed by their on-screen counterparts?

[edit] Plot description

is far too long, and would profit from hitting the high points and cutting the play-by-play. I have done a little basic copy-editing, but see this as requiring more time than I am willing to spend. JNW 20:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who hasn't seen the movie, I find the description is difficult to follow. For example, "When Markinson unexpectedly shows up in the back seat of Danny's car after a bad trial day, Kaffee sees a ray of hope and plans to put him on the stand as a witness to the true course of events." Are they talking about three people here, or two? 76.19.66.118 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the 2300-word summary from an older revision of the article [9]. At 800 words, this isn't as short as it could be, but I think it's more readable and it's more in keeping with Wikipedia's style. --Tony Sidaway 06:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)