Talk:Lions for Lambs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lions for Lambs article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Headlines

[edit] 1

[edit] 2

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enlistment?

The article said the two students in the movie enlisted, but they were wearing 1LT ranks, meaning they got commissioned into the Army as officers instead. I changed it yesterday, but some half-wit took it upon himself to mess it up again.

[edit] Source of title?

During the movie, one of the characters states that the British infantry in World War 1 were lions led by generals who were like lambs, and attributed it to a "German general". Yet the phrase that is often used in the UK is "lions led by donkeys", which is attributed to a discussion between two German generals. I don't understand why such an obvious mistake was made. Jmorrison230582 20:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • If you can find a WP:RS source for this info, by all means. Cirt 22:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC).
The Times article citation I added What's the significance of the title 'Lions for Lambs'? refers to lions led by lambs as "one such composition" of the phrase used by the germans to refer to the british, and attributes the phrase as a modification of a famous line by Alexander the Great, but sadly it refers only to unnamed "experts" and "archivists" for its source. Apparently, the phrase "lions led by donkeys" appears to suffer from its own lack of a reliable original source. Btw, I agree that my current version includes too much of the quotation from the Times and am hoping to fix this, but would welcome anyone else who is willing to reword this, given the difficulty that the Times article is unsourced. Abby Kelleyite 18:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
In the current blockquote format, it looks okay. Cirt 18:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Production

At some point soon I will try to add some Production info, using the sources that Erik (talk · contribs) has kindly provided, from above. Cirt 22:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC).

Ironically I believe the production section contrasts with the very ideals the movie is against at , well my opinion stands at we should shorten it to avoid mislead direction as the reader can see headlining for the facts if they so wish to know, I mean afteir seeing the movie twice now I believe its irrelevant for there are many who do pay attention to this sort of information and well the movie itself is based on the solid critics of the media and the american way current beliefs , that would be justice of some sorts . Gaizk 06:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

  • I am sorry, could you rephrase that? It is difficult to understand the point you are trying to get across. Cirt 07:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Oh im sorry about it , im not a native english speaker so it costs me some effort to express myself my point is the movie itself is a very controversial one and it would discourage people to see it by showing of numbers, yes it is affected by stadistics but I dont think it should overshadow itself plotwise, I sincerely hope you can understand my point Gaizk 07:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The movie itself as a source?

I recently added some information about some pictures displayed in the movie. This information was tagged for not citing references or sources. Is the movie itself not a reliable source of what was in the movie?

--Brianbarney 07:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The movie itself is only a reliable source for the plot section. When we begin to draw our own conclusions and inferences in other sections like production, just from the primary source, then that becomes Original Research. Cirt 08:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC).
    • If it's alright with you, I'm going to remove that section, unless you know of secondary sources that discuss that information? Cirt 09:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC).
      • Your implying that I'm drawing a conclusion of my own. I'm supplying verifiable facts.--Brianbarney 09:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The film alludes to past roles for both Redford and Cruise. While panning through a collection of photographs in Professor Malley's office, the film shows a picture of Redford similar to his character in Downhill Racer. Likewise, while panning through a collection of photographs in Senator Irving's office, the film shows a picture of Cruise almost identical to his character in Taps.

Unfortunately, the only facts stated here that are verifiable, are that the film shows pictures of Redford and Cruise. Saying anything about these pictures being similar to any other film, is an inference you made up on your own. Cirt 09:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC).

  • I'm starting to understand your point of view, I guess. But what about to people who have seen all the referenced films? It's extremely evident. Go ahead and delete it if you wish. If no one else brings it up then I stand corrected.--Brianbarney 09:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, it's not really my point of view really. It's just that we as Wikipedia editors can't say that this thing in this film looks like that thing in that film - but if someone else said that in a secondary source - then we can say, this person said that: "this thing in this film looks like that thing in that film" - and now we're just repeating what they said, backed up with a citation to their source, and not drawing the conclusions ourselves. Cirt 09:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Critical reception

I think the current Critical reception section is too negative — it's all negative. I count 11 reviews. Surely someone said something positive about the film. Rotten Tomatoes says that 26% of critics gave the film positive reviews[1] 3 positive reviews and 9 negative reviews is 25% positive. 3 positive reviews and 8 negative reviews is 27% positive. I suggest that 3 of the citations that point to negative reviews be replaced with citations that point to positive reviews to better reflect the ratio at Rotten Tomatoes. --Pixelface 10:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • How about we leave in what's already there from WP:RS sources, and just add some other positive reviews as well? Cirt 10:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC).
    • We could do that. I just thought we shouldn't give undue weight to all the negative reviews and make it seem like the film was universally panned. 4 positive reviews and 11 negative reviews is 26%. I could add 4 positive reviews later if you'd like. --Pixelface 10:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I just removed one negative, and added two positive, where does that put us so far? Cirt 10:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC).
        • Y Done - Removed The Washington Post and replaced it with The Hollywood Reporter. We are now up to the count of your original above suggestion. Cirt 10:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC).
          • I think the section is more balanced now. Thank you. I appreciate your edits. --Pixelface 10:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Me too. You're welcome, and thanks for the suggestion! Cirt 11:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Bomb?

I removed the links to Box office bomb, Flop and List of U.S. box office bombs. The links are clearly a POV attempt to portray the film as a "bomb"; they are uncited (who said it was a flop/bomb?), there is no strict definition of a bomb to apply - so saying so would be original research, and this film isn't even on the list at List of U.S. box office bombs. Chris Bainbridge 13:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Um, the See also section is not actually a characterization or anything like that. It's just saying to the reader: "If you were interested in the subject matter of this article, here are some other related articles." But I will try to find sources that state something along the lines of the film being a "bomb" and a "flop" - if those sources are out there. Cheers, Cirt 15:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC).
It implies characterisation. Consider the hypothetical situation: a 'See also' section on the George W. Bush article linking to Idiot, Stupid etc. Can you say that would be NPOV? The same logic applies here. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
An understandable argument. I will instead over time work the sources cited below into the actual text of the article in paragraph format. Cirt (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Arkin

Didn't Alan Arkin play in this? Basketball110 03:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Do you have a source? Cirt (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Possible explaination about "Lions for Lambs" terminology

It seems that "Lions led by donkeys" and "Lions led by lambs" would take on a much different meaning and maybe this would explain the use of "Lions for Lambs". Donkeys seems to refer to a different level of incompetence of leaders than lambs. "Lions for Lambs" is stressing the lack of military service and toughness by leaders who are so willing to send the "Lions" into harms way. This stresses their(leaders) personal meekness. "Donkeys" would put more stress of the lack of intelligence or their sheer stupidity. Hence the phrase "You Jack$$$" when someone has done something idiotic.The reporter in the movie drives this point home on many occasions when she jabs the Congressman with "So says the man in the Air-Conditioned office" and points out that he wasn't in the front line units(infantry).

It's probably worth mentioning also that the title could also be a play on words of a major biblical theme. Much is made of Jesus being a lamb on the first coming, but he'll come as a Lion in the second coming. And many other references to Jesus being a Lamb/Lion? I haven't found any specific references, but it seems that these words were chosen with purpose in mind.

Eagle70ss (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Any WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources for these ideas? Cirt (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I removed..

I removed "Roth has her doubts and does not want to become an instrument of propaganda, so she quits. When she leaves her office she drives by a military cemetery and breaks into tears. However, her commercial-minded boss is happy to publish the story." and elaborated on the message of the film a bit. I didn't think this was a sufficient description or a necessarily accurate understanding of the message. 76.171.185.174 (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)premium310