Talk:Lord of War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
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.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] MP5 Goof

I removed: "Agent Jack Valentine and his Interpol team are armed with the MP5 in 1989 on board the Vessel, Kristol (later renamed Kono), however upon the second rendezvous in 1991, Yuri makes the comment about the MP5 being a new weapon, further suggesting if "they'd like a silencer with it."

The MP5 has often gone through different changes in model. Yuri could have been referring to a more recent configuration than the one prior.

[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)

Nail. Head. —Viriditas | Talk 11:49, 24 May 2007 (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...


I think it is kind of unlikely that CIA financed this movie, because Simon Weisz is described by Orlov as 'selling for the CIA' which probably refers to, for example, the Taliban. - --172.173.9.244 23:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[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/

The tank with the two hot girls standing on top is not a T-55 but a T-72A Gon4z 00:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[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)

[edit] Unsourced Statements and Statements of no value

There is a statement that says the tanks portrayed in the movie were sold to Libya weeks later, source please? AZRobbo (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC) - This is from the directors commentary during payback (2nd English Audio source), I will try to get the exact chapter/time.

Also, "The four West European suppliers, as a group (France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy) registered a significant increase in their collective share of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations between 2003 and 2004. This group’s share rose dramatically from 5.5% in 2003 to 22% in 2004. The collective value of this group’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2004 was $4.8 billion compared with a total of $830 million in 2003"

What is the point of this statement? Who the hell put it here? That belongs on the Arms Trade page, this is just a movie about it.

"The plane Yuri flies in to ship arms to Africa was rented from an actual weapons courier that apparently was gun running into the Congo a week before it was hired. " again, source? AZRobbo (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC) - Again, this is from the directors commentary during payback (2nd English Audio source), I will try to get the exact chapter/time.

There is so much unsourced stuff in the trivia that I have to start deleting it. Whenever a source can be provided, you can put them back in, but so far I do not see a reason for all this stuff to be put here. Of course, as always, I can see that some people may of had some political reasons, but that is not what wikipedia is for.

People, this article is about a movie, hence all information displayed on this page must pertain to the movie directly. We can add a "See Also" section to link to the Arms Trade and what not, there is no reason for the trivia section to be loaded with so much stuff not about the movie. Scryer_360 05:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd also question the need for the article to list weapons and vehicles. At this point it reads more like an article on a first-person shooter videogame! While it is a film about the weapons trade, detailing all of the weapons used in the film (let alone the vehicles) seems like uber-trivia to me. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The trivia about Yuri's plane being used for actual gunrunning before filming is taken from the DVD commentary by director Andrew Niccol. --- Trench 21:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up suggestion

Are the lists of weapons and vehicles helpful? This film is about the dramatic effect of (illegal) arms trade, the weapons pictured aren't really necessary, the vehicle list is pointless, in my opinion.

And this sentence is rather strange:

  • In a scene where a bunker is shown with thousands of AK-47's, real AK-47's are used to fill the bunker. The director stated that it was cheaper to buy 3000 real AK-47's than have the crew fabricate 3000 fake ones and used Sa 58's, a similar Czechoslovakian rifle.

So it was cheaper to actually buy 3000 AK-47's, so why did the director went for the Sa 58's then?

--Soetermans 21:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edited mention of Vz. 58 rifle.

Edited section in trivia which stated that the Czech Vz. 58 was a "copy of the AK-47". Though externally somewhat similar, the Czech rifle uses a different operating system which has, among other things tilting rather than rotary bolt locking.

It now states, "a similar Czech rifle". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.148.206.19 (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] VZ.58

If you pause the film and look at the stacked AK-47 in the bunker you can clearly see that they are Vz.58 by their handle barrel and shoulder rest. i have a photo of it but I dont know how to put it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gon4z (talk • contribs).

Fine, but this is uber-trivia. Please consult WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA. The article already contains a large quantity of unencyclopedic trivia. It does not need more. Cheers, --Plumbago 19:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that it's not, in fact, uber-trivia but a blatant oversight or deliberate use of a stand in. If there was a movie about a man selling a shipment of Lamborghinis and the cars shown were Mclarens it would be entirely appropriate to mention that. Of course, this point is currently moot now that there is no mention of the VZ.58 or any appropriate section to put it in. Oh well, so much for pathos. Nailedtooth (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest Heist of 20th century

Around the middle of the film when Yuri’s Uncle is killed he mentions a heist that takes place after his uncle’s death that occurred in Ukraine in the early 90’s where $32 billion worth of arms were stolen and re soled from Ukraine alone what I would like to know is was this a real event and if any one can tell me where I can read more bout it … Thanks in advance

Yuri’s words:

'The pillaging did not die with my uncle, after the wall came down $32 billion dollars worth of weapons were stolen and re-soled from Ukraine alone, one of the greatest heists of the 20th century.' Gon4z 00:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Price Change

"It cost me twenty grand to book her for a fake photo shoot, another twelve to buy out the hotel." - Nicholas Cage (Yuri Orlov)

Changed the incorrect total cost in the previous entry of $12,000 for the fake photo shoot and hotel booking to $32,000, the correct total number when adding both costs together. (Bluesoulsearcher 23:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Weapons and Vehicles

Soetermans already pointed this out ages ago, but the article does not need (IMHO) long lists of weapons and vehicles. Yes, the subject of the film is the arms industry/sellers, but it seems to be missing the point of the film to include a long and detailed list of every weapon seen. Unless someone can articulate a good reason here for retaining this information (and the vehicle list - which is surely even more pointless), I'm going to hack it out. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above, I've removed the following irrelevant (my POV) sections from the article. --Plumbago 08:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You missed one. There is an Armalite AR-7 on the wall of his container, custom silver plated, with a red dot sight and wireframe stock. Looks VERY similar to the assassination weapon in The Interpreter... doesn't it?

Weaponry in Lord of War
Firearms
  • Type 56 Chinese-made version of the AK-47
Vehicles

[edit] Goofs

It seems to me that this entire section is non-notable and redundant (much of it is available over at the IMDB). Any reason to retain it here? --Plumbago 17:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've removed it to here. --Plumbago 21:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Goofs
  • Yuri's son Nicolai was born in 1991 but as the movie progresses to the year 2001 he seems to be around 4 years old.
  • When Yuri's wife is looking through his storage container, Nicolai is seen standing by the door. The shot cuts to Ava, and when it cuts back, Nicolai is not there. The shot cuts again, and this time Nicolai is seen standing at the door again.
  • Little Odessa, or Brighton Beach, is not the end of the line for the Q-Train, which ends in Coney Island, rather it is the last stop for the B-Train.
  • There is no such thing as an Interpol agent with worldwide jurisdiction (this is a common error in many films).
  • The two gunmen who spark Yuri's ambition to become a gunrunner are played by four different actors, two of which are entering the restaurant and another pair actually doing the shooting. This was forced to occur as the restaurant scene was filmed in South Africa rather than Little Odessa.
  • Yuri’s limousine prior to going to Colombia in 1989 was a 5th generation Cadillac Fleetwood model only produced from 1993-1996. Additionally, you can briefly see a 1st generation Ford Expedition driving past on the elevated highway above the limousine as Yuri opens his shipping container; Expeditions were not introduced until 1997.
  • Early in the film Yuri says he has multiple passports, including an Ukrainian one. The next scene takes place in 1989. An independent Ukranian state emerged only in 1991 after the break-up of the Soviet Union.
  • The closing caption states that the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China and France (also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council) are the world's top five arms exporters. This statement has been disputed. While the United States is indeed the largest weapons exporter in the world by far, the validity of this claim as applied to some of the other nations, has been actively debated (see Top Arms Exporters).
  • In the DVD one of the special feaures it says that the M-16 fires 7.62mm rounds, but it really fires 5.56mm.
  • The first deal takes place in 1984. Vitaly dies in 2001, yet through the course of the movie, Yuri and Vitaly do not seem to age a day.

[edit] Overly-Long Plot Summary?

I'm not sure that there's a bright-line test for this, but the plot summary is, um, not very summarized. I don't think that detail of every scene is needed. --JD79 03:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You're correct; long plot summaries are inappropriate - see WP:NOT#PLOT for details. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest Heist of 20th century

Around the middle of the film when Yuri’s Uncle is killed he mentions a heist that takes place after his uncle’s death that occurred in Ukraine in the early 90’s where $32 billion worth of arms were stolen and re soled from Ukraine alone what I would like to know is was this a real event and if any one can tell me where I can read more bout it … Thanks in advance

Yuri’s words:

'The pillaging did not die with my uncle, after the wall came down $32 billion dollars worth of weapons were stolen and re-soled from Ukraine alone, one of the greatest heists of the 20th century.' Gon4z 00:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A user posted this erlier and got no reply so I'm reposting it because I also would like to know this, any once can help. 01:32, 18 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.33.72 (talk • contribs)
I'm pretty sure that's meant as a figure of speech, as in "the collective theft of $32 billion of weapons (over an extended period of time)". I'm not aware of any single incident that would come anywhere close to this (for one thing, Ukraine's entire annual defense budget for 2001 was only $550 million). There's no reliable figure for the monetary value of all Soviet hardware which was lost/stolen/sold with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it would reasonable to estimate it in the tens of billions. Rpine75 (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You might try at the reference desk. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)