Talk:The Dirty Dozen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

This page is wrong. Lee Marvin and one more actor survive. Watch the movie and see. (144.74.164.107)

The comment you are referring to is: Of the twelve, only Wladislaw (Number 11) (Bronson) survives.

You're correct - there were three survivors: Reisman (Lee Marvin), Wadislaw (Charles Bronson), and Reisman's assistant, Sgt Bowren (Richard Jaeckel). However, of those three, only Wadislaw was one of the twelve. The article is correct as-is. --Raul654 01:23, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The movie is also based on a true story, so it is not entirely fictional.

Based on a true story? According to this review the movie was not based on a true story. --68.76.219.110 06:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The movie is extremely fictional, twelve unidentifiable soilders did not raid a German officer's manor before D-Day, not to mention the ridiculous props. The M3 grease gun was no the standard sub MG for the army in 1944, the Tommy was, and most units had Garands or Carbines anyway.

The M3 SMG was a standard issue in 1944, mainly to AFV crews - it would make more sense for a commando unit to jump with M3s rather than Thompsons, though one has to remember it is just a movie. What "most units" did is rather irrelevant. Besides which, Marvin trained on the M3 while in the USMC and was already familiar with its use - as the propmaster found out on the set when he tried to "instruct" Marvin in its use.Michael Dorosh 18:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Plot addition

This part was added by 64.114.5.2:

The movie focuses on Lee Marvin's character training the "Dirty dozen" to fight like good soldiers. His unorthodox methods of training prevail, and they all become very competent combatants. their skill is demonstrated during the "war games" scene, in which the Dirty Dozen use sneakiness and cunning to prevail; proving to Marvin that they are ready to attempt the big mission, the attack on the a Nazi Party party.

And I don't know how to integrate it in, but I know it doesn't belong at the bottom of the article. Someone, please merge this in and delete my comment here. Cburnett 20:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] saw it last night on TV

Am I the only one who noticed that they violated the Geneva conventions multiple times? --Carl 07:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The Geneva convention applies to prisoners of war - it does not apply to someone being held by his own military. →Raul654 07:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
No, I mean the Dozen themselves broke the rules of war: they had no dog tags, they misused uniforms, they targetted officers, they killed German civilians (yes, it would have been hard to let the wives escape without it backfiring, but the way they did it was still really slack), and during the war game they faked out the medical personnel. All of that is really, really sketch. If you saw a movie about Germans sneaking into England and throwing hand grenades and gasoline onto a group of Majors cowering in the basement, would you really be completely comfortable with it? Nevermind that the Nazis are bad guys; the Dozen are no saints either. --Carl 09:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

How about The Eagle has Landed where German troops sneak into the UK dressed as Polish troops!

Ahhh, the wonders of patriotism. The movie is obviously a pro-american movie, just like the majority of movies made about WW2. But of course "the Dozen are no saints either." That's why they are "dirty". I mean, they were pulled out of prison! Bornyesterday 12:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I understand that being "bad" is part of their appeal, since they're rebels who don't follow the rules. But I think the rules in question which they aren't following are kind of important ones. So important that it's obscene that they're the protagonists of the movie. Of course, the 60's also brought us Bonnie and Clyde along with everything else. It's just funny to celebrate these guys just because they're on our side. Anyhow, wikipedia isn't a forum, so I guess I'll let it go with that. I just think it might be interesting if someone who knows more about the rules of war could make a definitive list of all the ones being broken. --Carl 12:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The "rules of war" specifically ALLOW the use of enemy uniforms as a legitimate ruse de guerre - see the article on Brandenburg Commandos or read Spaeter's history of same. You're not allowed to fight in enemy uniform, but you are permitted to wear them to fool the enemy up to the point of contact.Michael Dorosh 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that the point of the film? (Interestingly, as far as I recall, no German character does anything particularly "evil" during the entire movie, although they're supposed to be the bad guys.) Remember it was made in 1967, when USA, particularly the younger generation, was growing weary of the ongoing Vietnam war. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

So,the germans broke the geneva convention all the time and if they obayed the rules they wouldnt be there in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.24.105 (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TV Show

I seem to recall their being a short lived TV Series based on the movie back in the late 80's on Fox TV. I think it only lasted two seasons. Don't know if that's worth mentioning.

[edit] The True Story???

In the book EM Nathanson states that he heard of such units in existance.

While the story may be based on the "Filthy Thirteen": a small group of airborn demolision experts whose story was documented by this book (see http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1932033122/103-1119820-6772601?v=glance&n=283155), I did hear from a war veteran who served in the Marine Corps that there really were units of convict soldiers who were sent on dangerous missions. These missions tended to be so secret that even after the war they were not talked about. Furthermore, since most of those involved were killed few lived to talk about it.

Can someone verify this? I looked for reliable sources but came up with nothing.

Piercetp

Can't add anything to your question, but Nathanson put the "he heard of" statement in the novel as a prelude to the story...not to indicate that it had any truth.--Buckboard 10:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And it says "I have heard a legend that there might have been men like them, but nowhere in the archives of the United States Government, or in its military history did I find it recorded." —Centrx→talk • 00:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remake?!?

Today was the first I'd heard about it, but apparently the movie's being remade:

IMDb
Dark Horizons
Hollywood.com

-- MyrddinEmrys 05:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And the US has yet again managed to enter a never-ending war on unclear grounds. Doesn't seem coincidental. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sinatra responsible for trini's abrupt demise?

Can anyone verify this story I heard years ago: Sammy Davis was on tour with Frank Sinatra, injured himself, and Sinatra had Lopez' charater killed off so that Lopez could replace Sammy right away on the tour? It's a great story if it's true, but I can't find a citation for it. Anyone else? 24.15.68.10 07:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The latest DVD release has an interview with Lopez where he does mention being talked into leaving the film to further his singing career. 139.48.25.61 (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:200755.1020.A.jpg

Image:200755.1020.A.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)