Talk:The Great Escape (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Great Escape (film) 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

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.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	War films task force

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.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.

Editing Guidelines

Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article:

If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film)
- For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)
When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references.
Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

Additional Information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
	This article has been identified as a core article. Large improvements may make editors eligible for awards.
Related task forces (general):
	War films task force

[edit] Rowing to Sweden

I corrected:

*Ivan (Charles Bronson) and his friend Willie (John Leyton), after some trouble getting Danny out in the tunnel due to him being claustrophobic, manage to get on a boat and row to Sweden.

They board a neutral Swedish ship in port, presumably to stow away or seek help. If they had already reached Sweden, why would they be boarding the ship from their rowing boat?. Dainamo 08:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they were on their way back to England? I cant remember, its been a while since I saw it. ---- Astrokey44|talk 12:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody "rows" to Sweden through the Baltic Sea. Swden was a neutral who had Germany as a commercial trading partner during the war. The port was one controlled by the Germans, as it was in the real event--Buckboard 09:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Story

The story of The Great Escape is in too much detail. I am gonna edit it to readable limits later (if others agree).Sbohra 12:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It was just expanded by another editor. I notice this sort of thing happens all the time with movie summaries - one editor expands it, another cuts it down, it gets expanded again etc. -- Astrokey44|talk 14:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a three-hour film with many sub-plots and many stars. I think the full detail of the plot is appropriate. Besides, Wikipedia is not paper. It's just the right length. Raggaga 16:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper, but we have to make allowances for readers' attention spans- at least break it up into subsections. Borisblue 23:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, even though I desire film pages to be more than just commercial plot blurbs, this is basically far too much detail, and needs to have some things removed to save space. Cybertooth85 04:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As other pages have done [1], I have added a short synopsis for people who want a brief overview. I propose that if the absurdly long "Film plot" section is to be left intact that it be moved to another page. I'm not sure who would want to read a play by play of a movie rather than just watch it; the length of the section make the article unwieldy.--Bantosh 21:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Except for the dialogue, we have a full script. I love the film but it's length is annoying overkill. Like somebody in a bar telling you about a movie who won't shut up.--Buckboard 09:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; cut. Dan100 (Talk) 23:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a full blow-by-blow description of the movie seems unnecessary. If you've seen the film, you know all this, if you haven't, it's too much of a spoiler. I would suggest it would be better cut down to a quarter to a third of its current length. Until then though I have divided the section into what (to me) seem reasonably sized and logical sub-sections. dawkeye 13:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded the synopsis a bit. That should be enough; it's consistent with the length and detail of the many other movies I've seen and edited. The overly detailed film plot should either be deleted or helped to "escape" to its own page. Clarityfiend 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Escapees Not Explained

In the film, it is stated that 76 men escaped the prison camp.

Later in the film, Col. von Luger tells RAF Group Captain Rupert Ramsey, the Senior British Officer, that 50 men where shot (dead) and 11 would be returning to the prison camp. (Whether or not the 11 returning men included the American, Captain Virgil Hilts, played by Steve McQueen, who was returned to the camp in a separate car may be an open question.)

We know that 3 men escaped (Danny and Wille by row boat to a ship), Sedgwick through France to Spain.

So here is my question: What happened to the other 11 or 12 men?

76	escaped from the camp
-50	shot dead
-11	returned to camp
-3	made it out of Germany
12	unaccounted for*

* 11 if you considered Hiltz return not to be one of the 11 men Col. von Luger was speaking a about.

A little too literal aren't we? Presume. They were re-captured, since only three made it back to Allied control and "only" fifty were shot. There were never any mess hall shots but one presumes they ate something during all those months of captivity.

In the real Great Escape, most of the others who were recaptured (and not murdered) were sent to other POW camps. Four ("Jimmy" James, "Wings" Day, John Dodge [cousin of Winston Churchill], and Sydney Dowse) were sent to the infamous Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp, near Berlin. After a short stay there, they managed to escape once again! The whole story may be found in James' book, "Moonless Night". Mhstevens 21:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video games

Is there a particular reason why there needs to be two separate articles about Great Escape video games (see The Great Escape (video game) and The Great Escape (2003 video game))? The articles are merely stubs and both seem quite inconsequential. Why not just collapse them into this article? -- Padjet1 13:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Because they are completely different games. Sorry, but this is like demanding that two films of the same name from different decades be merged under the same article. Different games with wildly different gameplay require different articles -- Zagrebo 23:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether they are different games is not the issue. Why are the games sufficiently important to warrant their own separate articles? Not every video game in existence requires its own article in Wikipedia, particularly those which are minor derivatives of a much more well-known subject. Without more evidence of notability, their existence can more than adequately documented in the main article. -- Padjet1 23:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just becuase theirs stubs dosn't mean they shouln't have their own articles. In time both articles will be greater in length. Then what, still keep them in the same page? No. Their two different games and they should have to different articles. Anyways every video game could have its own article.--Coasttocoast 04:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for the PS2/Xbox title, but the old 8-bit game needs its own article because a)It is related to the film only by theme, and b)It was (at the time) critically acclaimed.Marasmusine 07:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure both games are capable of having good, detailed and informative articles. Lumping them together would be confusing, suggests a real link between them (there isn't one really) and probably limit the detail that can be gone into. As I've said, these two games share a name and an influence and very little else. Ocean's Great Escape is an isometric arcade-adventure with a great deal of innovations and originality for its time. The console game I can't speak for but it's probably a first-person game with the emphasis on stealth. They simply don't have anything in common. -- Zagrebo 20:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

They need their own seperate articles. If just one name was different we wouldn't be talking about merging them together--Coasttocoast 04:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kommandant

Shouldn't Commandant be Kommandant? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Microchip08 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Did MacQueen also play...?

Did MacQueen also play the ambushed German motorcylist ambushed by "Hilts" {MacQueen}?

He does play one of the Germans on motorcycle chasing Hilts, but I'm not sure if it is the one ambushed by Hilts. GCD1 19:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I saw a docu on the telly in which they reported that McQueen had one of the rare opportunities in movie history (this side of Python) to play both characters in a scene - the escaped prisoner, and the motorcyclist he downs...

Mark Sublette 01:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 01:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Didnt he play more than one??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnycash316 (talk • contribs) 05:57, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romualdas Marcinkus Citation Request

Recent edits include a request for citation on a statement about Romualdas Marcinkus and his absence from the film (with the character of Virgil Hilts being included). What specific part of these statements needs a citation? I'm not trying to 'dispute' the citation request, but simply wondering what part needs cited: that Marcinkus was in the camp at all, whether he was involved in the escape, whether his character was excluded from the film, whether Hilts' character was added to replace him, etc.? If the person who initiated the request for citaton, and/or those supporting it, could provide some clarification, I'm sure it would make the process easier. Thanks! GCD1 14:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book

Shouldn't there be an atricle for The Great Escape book by Paul Brickhill? Emperor001 (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There could be, if someone would like to write it. Would you like to volunteer? — Val42 (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just created the article. Emperor001 (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename article

This article has been renamed from The Great Escape to The Great Escape (film) as the result of a move request.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was - Move as no objections. Keith D (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There are several other things called The Great Escape. Shouldn't this article be The Great Escape (film)? — Val42 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to create an article for the book, and since the book came before the movie, I would say yes. Emperor001 (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I just tried moving the article, but for some reason, I can't. It tried the name suggested, but it says that an article with that name already exists or that it's an invalid name. A little help here? Emperor001 (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried too, which is why I proposed the rename here. We should wait a week for discussion here before we bring in an administrator, just in case someone objects. — Val42 (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Steve McQueen and Wally Floody 001.jpg

Image:Steve McQueen and Wally Floody 001.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) 06:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Attenborough and McQueen in The Great Escape 002.jpg

Image:Attenborough and McQueen in The Great Escape 002.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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Great escape.jpg

Image:Great escape.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 ensure 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The silliness of Blythe's blindness.

If he was really blind, Blythe would have been sent home because he would have been no use to anyone. It doesn't say that he is a political prisoner, or that he would have known any intelligence that would have been up-to-date. He concealed his blindness initially, but he was found out by his fellow airmen. And there is then drama derived from this should he go, and does he have a right to go, and should Hendley lengthen his own odds of escape by escorting him? But are we really to assume that even if Blythe is in denial about his own blindness, that Germans don't realise, and that the other Allied airmen who do realise are so stupid as to not realise that they could just have him escorted to the Swiss border, necrosp? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.16.229 (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless we can find an independent source that brings up this point, we can't bring up this problem; it would be original research. — Val42 (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The movie makes it quite clear that Blythe's blindness is a progressive disorder. He's the forger, he couldn't possibly do his work unless he could see to do it, so there's no way that he was actually blind the whole time and concealing it from everyone, or from himself. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 12:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

I was correcting another minor problem and noticed that there is a lot of British spelling. I know that in the real prisoner of war camp portrayed, the prisoners were mostly British and Canadians, so the British spelling would be appropriate. However, this is an American movie (so the sacrificed accuracy to get the American audience) and there are a lot of Americans in the movie. I'm not declaring that American spelling should be used, but since I don't see a prior discussion on this page, we should discuss this issue. — Val42 (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hidden categories: Start-Class war films articles | War films articles needing attention to referencing and citation | War films task force articles | B-Class war films articles