Talk:Gods and Generals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): American Civil War task force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gods and Generals article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

ive heard it critiscised a lot before but never for being neo confederate, can we have some sort of reference here please

Contents 1 Boring 2 The movie section needs to be rewritten. 3 Realism? 4 Separate Page for Book?

[edit] Boring

Could somebody include a note about how it is just a really boring film? I, like the person who wrote in above, have never heard it discribed as neo-confederate, and I didn't see it as such when I saw the first half of it. I didn't see the 2nd half of it beacuse it's 4 hours long and doesn't go more than 10 minutes without a major character breaking out into a soliloquy that doesn't sound so much like a heartfelt outpouring of inner termoil, so much as men reading thier civil war era corrispondance back and forth to each other's faces.

Sorry man but thats ^ to POV

[edit] The movie section needs to be rewritten.

This article is not only POV, but monotonous. Sentences such as "After the box office failure of Gettysburg, Maxwell was unable to get the prequel greenlit until media mogul Ted Turner provided the entire $60 million budget" are phrased in the sort of cynical, semi-fact way that you would expect to see in NNDB. And the paragraph dealing with departures from the book, although interesting, is far too long. Now I'm not a big fan of the movie, but it seems seriously imbalanced to me. I think this article needs a serious rewrite.

Which bits of the first sentence are incorrect? If there is something wrong, you can change it, keeping only the bits that are true.

Saying something is 'too long' is not really fair if it's providing information. If you think the article is too negative, you should try writing extra stuff about it rather than simply deleting things you don't like. The Singing Badger 01:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What bothered me about that quote is that 1)It seems to imply that Ted Turner himself payed for it, which is not true. His studio payed for it just as a studio would with any other movie, and 2)Although Gettysburg didn't gross all that well, it wasn't a box office failure. You have to remember it was a made-for-TV film, and they didn't really expect it to gross much anyway. But I guess I'll stop complaining and try to make the article better myself.

Ted Turner funded the money out of his own pocket, in much the same way that Mel Gibson funded The Passion. Of course the money was paid through a production company, but the $60m came from his own pocket. And I agree, in the modern world, unless a movie makes 10 times it's cost, people seem to want to write it off as a failure. The old logo Ars Gratia Artis seems to not apply to movies anymore; it is all about money. Mushrom 01:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Realism?

Should it be pointed out also, in any rewrite of this article that some kind soul might choose to complete, that some of the battle sequences in this film are actually better than Gettysburg? Gods and Generals really does cut down on some of the openly fake obvious reenactments of Gettysburg...

'Better' is subjective. If you can be more specific, stating why and how the director improves on his work in this film, it might be possible to add this in a non-POV way. The Singing Badger 01:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Page for Book?

Should there be a seperate page for the book? It doesn't seem right that Jeff Shaara's page, which links to the novels, has a link to a page that is mostly about the movie. Ridan 22:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have split the original "Gods and Generals" page. From now on the film info will be at Gods and Generals (film) while the novel info will stay at the original address. This is now a novel discussion page only.-- Grandpafootsoldier 08:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)