Talk:John Milius
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia. | ||
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. |
- Please do not delete talk discussions without consensus approval of all parties. See Talk page guidelines.
- Blanking pages in itself may be construed as vandalism.
[edit] Original discussion
attempted to remove the following controversial passages as they seem indicate distinct gun politics of milius and the writer. article draws too heavy on "red dawn" and overlooks other, more popular pieces such as "big wednesday" and "apocalypse now".
- "This film is a favorite of the American right wing, especially gun control opponents and it includes veiled references to the evil of firearms registration in the script. (Milius is a member of the board of directors of the National Rifle Association, an avid gun collector and a strong opponent of gun control laws.)"
Milius is proud about his conservatism in liberal Hollywood; he also found himself very popular during the 1992 LA riots, when some of his liberal friends came calling, asking for access to his firearms collection to defend their homes.
these quotes are not only not neutral, but inaccurate. patrick swayze and charlie sheen's characters are the only ones whom have had prior gun training and may have owned guns prior to the incident, the other kids were shown to be trained by the above.
See revisions. Haven't actually watched the film since it was in the theaters.
- "...composed of local high school students who are all...gun owners."
- "They are all crack shots, having...owned guns as teenagers."
this quote is decidly based on biased opinion.
- "The moral of the film is...own guns and defend America from invasion!"
This is tongue in cheek, just like the movie. If some Wikipedians can't handle that; tough.
- That is absurd. Tongue-in-cheek does not under any circumstances belong in an encyclopaedia article on the basis that it is patently unencyclopaedic. It isn't so much that Wikipedians cannot handle it as that Wikipedians agree it is not appropriate. Furthermore, that entire paragraph is fairly irrelevant; if it is not only irrelevant but also PoV, I suggest it be deleted entirely. The paragraph is in such poor grammatical format as well (we do not use parantheses on entire paragraphs) that I am going to rewrite it now. Falcon June 28, 2005 05:27 (UTC)
[edit] removal of check pov
if there's no further objection to the edit....i'm removing the check pov template. i think a better image could be found but it's something he licenced so i guess unless someone else wants to did up a better one, then that the one that's going to stick. -Seasee 01:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] response to "If some Wikipedians can't handle that; tough"
individual articles are not the place to air personal opinions. whether meant in jest or not, it is official Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias, representing all views fairly. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". [1]
For guidance on making an article conform to the neutral point of view (NPOV), please see the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial.
Seasee 07:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] A third opinion re. PoV
The following statements, in my opinion, are PoV:
- "This film is a favorite of the American right wing, especially gun control opponents and it includes veiled references to the evil of firearms registration in the script. (Milius is a member of the board of directors of the National Rifle Association, an avid gun collector and a strong opponent of gun control laws.)"
- A sourced quote would be nice. These are weasel words in the first sentence unless they are attributed to somebody. The sentence in brackets should not be in brackets (grammar) and should be incorporated as a datum in another paragraph, perhaps about the director's political alignment. Using it to prove that his films are right-wing biased is unquestionably PoV.
- "The moral of the film is...own guns and defend America from invasion!"
- You cannot state that without an attributed quote. Additionally, it is most likely false and irrelevant, and not least of all unencyclopaedic. It should not appear out of attributed quotations in a relevant place.
In short, this article is PoV not necessarily because of an attempt to pust a particular viewpoint but because of some person's (I didn't look to see whose) insistance on filling the article up with unencyclopaedic and largely opinion-based nonsense. Due to that, I would almost consider a cleanup flag. Falcon June 28, 2005 05:59 (UTC)
- The first one still remains. Please fix or dispute it before removing the NPOV flag. Falcon June 29, 2005 00:10 (UTC)
[edit] further thoughts
whether the film is or is not "a favorite of the american right wing...", it's a blanket sterotypical statement. it is just like saying "liberals are child murderers because abortion is murder (hillary clinton voted pro-choice so she's...)" or "some members of al-qaeda are of arabic descent as is john abizaid which makes him....". i'm sure there are "right wingers" out there that hate this movie and "liberals" who have guns and oppose gun control. I happen to know of both.
secondly, it sounds like all john milius does is sit around and talks about guns. how much he loves guns, how every one should have a gun and how you'll have to take his gun from his cold dead hands (which incidentally is how a gun proponent loses his gun in the film...how's that for a veiled reference on why everyone should own a gun?).
as someone who has met john milius and have spoken with him, i know him to be pretty moderate and well versed. this is an article about "john milius" and not "the secret message behind red dawn".
thus, the moral of this story is "sometimes gun control means use both hands" Seasee 29 June 2005 07:48 (UTC)
[edit] revision as of 29 June 2005 19:42
nice job! i'm satisfied with this edit if you are. thanks for your cooperation. Seasee 30 June 2005 21:37 (UTC)
- I like it too. I would also like to state that I am very pleased that Wellreadone has decided to remove the PoV comment. I am, however, highly disappointed in his decision to blank the talkpage again after having been warned about doing so twice. Falcon July 2, 2005 05:22 (UTC)
[edit] Hunt for Red October?
i don't understand the statement that indicates milius had something to do with the writing or directing of Hunt for Red October. imdb doesn't list him has having anything to do with it, leading me to question the sourcing of this.
the article might be served by a reorganization of his film credits... group movies that he had a major involvement with (Red Dawn, Conan the Barbarian) together, and movies that he merely contributed to (Dirty Harry, Jaws, HfRO if he did in fact have a role), especially in an uncredited capacity, together too, noting his lesser involvement. this would do a lot for the clarity and quality of information in the article
Milius rewrote a lot of Sean Connery's dialogue at his request, and probably other elements of the story as well to make it more connerycentric. IMDB is lame anyway. Jedpressgrove 21:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Movies and Guns in the article
The paragraph starting with "Zen Anarchist" seems to be out of place. I'm thinking it could be moved to the end, but if it is, it seems to me it would need to be re-written to some extent. I have no interest in doing so, so anyone who wants to can move that. It just seems odd to me that it suddenly turns from an article about his movies to a one-line paragraph about guns then slips back into the movie talk again. I think seperating the two topics (movies and gun involvement) would make for a better article. Gohst 03:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Mentor" to George Lucas?
They're the same age, were fellow USC students together and Lucas arguably achieved a successful filmmaker career before Milius did. Removing "mentor" term. --Oakshade 18:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Apocalypse Now credit...
Is very misleading, his version was very different in tone to Coppola's version. I wasn't surprised to find a hoard of POV concerns in the discussion page.
I agree. This whole article has a tone that tries to make Milius's accomplishments greater than they are. If they really are that impressive please cite sources and reword sentences that have the form of misleading, e.g. "Milius wrote, co-wrote and/or directed popular and critically acclaimed films such as..." It would be similar to me saying, "I have run a marathon, half marathon, or slept on the couch every Saturday for the past three years." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.207.23 (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ethnicity
Is he or isn't he Jewish? Milius is a Lithuanian surname; shouldn't he be in the Lithuanian American list as well?
