Talk:The Longest Day (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The Longest Day (film) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
August 23, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted

	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: 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: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no 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.
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.
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 Related task forces (general): War films task force

Contents 1 POV Check 2 Film cost comparison 3 Goofs 4 Genre

[edit] POV Check

I was reading this article when I came across the section about "Controversy in Canada". Not only does it not contain a single cited source, but it strongly felt like it was from the POV of a Canadian. It felt more like a persuasive essay, as opposed to an encyclopedia article. It rattled on about how important Canada was on D-Day and how they were "unjustly ignored". Even more, it stated that the Canadian forces were more important that the "rump Free French forces of General de Gaulle". And continuing on what I said before about not citing it sources, it talks about how a Canadian story was "Americanized"; ok, where is the proof? (I don't doubt it, I just find hard to believe with no credible source to back it up). Was there really that much controversy in Canada? Or is the user who typed this up just fuming because they felt that Canada didn't receive enough of the spotlight in this film? I don't know because I am not an expert on the subject, but what I do know is that this is definitely a case of POV. With Regards, Renegade Replicant|^{leave me a message} 17:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noted that it seemed to have a very biased pov: I changed a few parts, and erased the mentionings of French forces. Someone else should check it over. It well may be that the entire Canadian Controversy section has to be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.152.81 (talk • contribs)

I do agree that would be a possible way to fix this. It appears that the paragraph has already been whittled down and yet it still doesn't cite it sources. If someone doesn't found anyway to back all of this up, I plan on removing the paragraph all together. Any objections? (please, let me know, so I don't make a change someone strongly opposes, though please provide reason why it should not be removed). If someone does find a way to back this I up, I personally would suggest that this should be integrated into another section (such as trivia) because its too short at the moment to stand as its own paragraph.

By the way, when you add a comment on a talk page, be sure to sign your comment with four tildes: ~. That way, we know who said it. I already fixed it for you this time, but be sure to do it from know on.--Renegade Replicant|^{leave me a message} 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone already took care of it for me. Since the paragraph has been deleted nobody took the effort to check it for POV, I'll just remove the tag. Its hard to contribute when action is rarely taken.--Renegade Replicant|^{leave me a message} 03:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film cost comparison

The article compares the cost of this film with Schindlers List, but surely the value of The Longest Day (film) should be adjusted to show what £10,000,000 would be worth in 1993 G0ggy 18:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goofs

• In One scene Priller and his wingman are shown firing on British beaches they are shown as flying from west to east; actually they flew east to west.
• When the members of the French resistance are shown killing two German soldiers so a train can be derailed-this never happened in the book.
• In one scene a German soldier is shown putting his boots on the wrong feet and in a later scene he is killed by a downed RAF Officer-this later part of him being killed never happened in the book.
• In two scenes of the Rangers after scaling Point Du Hoc-in one scene the Rangers are shown killing Germans who shout "Bitte" and in another the Rangers are shown finding no large gun enplacements and asking if it was worth it; the shooting scene never happened at Point Du hoc and the movie doesn't show that the Rangers did indeed disable the guns-which were about half a mile inland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.198 (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• The Priller scene has a couple extra goofs: First off, the aircraft featured are un-armed reconnaisance variants of the Me109. This isn't that important, because Priller and his wingman flew Fw190's in the actual raid. The most obvious error, though, is that they let the shot run a little too long and the elaborate set up of troops, vehicles, and obstacles abruptly ends a few hundred yards down the beach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.223.93 (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genre

In my opinion the genre(s) of a film is(/are) not only informative but very important for us to make our fist impression so it(/they) should be mentioned in the overview part. And I would not agree that these are (only) Action/Drama/History/War as IMDB states it. At least I would add that it containes humorous scenes and characters whom I never associated with war before. But for the first time I watched the film I was quite sure that it is a comedy about a not so comic subject. Anyway, it won't be me who adds this to the article so that my act will not be mistaken as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.236.49.87 (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)