Talk:Lone Survivor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Death of Chad Oulson[edit]

Should the news about the death of Chad Oulson be included in this article? He was texting while sitting in the theater when a disgruntled man shot him.

NYT article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/22/us/a-movie-date-a-text-message-and-a-fatal-shot.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.94.175.128 (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. The article The Dark Knight Rises mentions the related shooting, so I believe something about the Chad Oulson shooting should be included here too. There's an interesting comparison between the former police officer of 20 years who was defending himself in Florida and these brave soldiers who were defending America abroad. The latter are held up as heroes, but when the former followed their example he is made into a pariah.

If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad. If it is wrong to be violent defending black women and black children and black babies and black men, then it is wrong for America to draft us, and make us violent abroad in defense of her. And if it is right for America to draft us, and teach us how to be violent in defense of her, then it is right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country.

— Malcolm X
--96.48.13.234 (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

US Navy SEALs are longer required to maintain their original ratings, ie: Hospitalman (HM) or Gummer's mate (GM) (if they went to an 'A' achool before joining NSW). They are now identified by their Special Warfare Operator (SO) rating. See: United_States_Navy_SEALs#Special_Warfare_Ratings - theWOLFchild 04:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is true however these men died in 2005 before SO was established so wouldn't it be more accurate to list their ratings at the time of the action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.161.75 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point, as (SO) replacing other ratings didn't became standard until 2006. However, the navy is applying this retro-actively, to everyone, so it is appropriate to do so here as well. - theWOLFchild 19:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is Gunner's_mate not "Gummer's Mate". SunSw0rd (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW[edit]

Ref #5 is a dead link. - theWOLFchild 21:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Response[edit]

This section is too long. It needs to be cut back, a paragraph for positive reviews and one for negative reviews is sufficient. You don't need to list every single positive/negative review. 98.209.42.117 (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reviews calling it outright what it is, an American propaganda movie with purpose of recruitment. --165.165.69.80 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References to use[edit]

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot?[edit]

It's baffling to me that this article has an abundance (too much?) detail about production aspects of this film and almost no information about the plot. The move has been out for 7 days and clearly is a top movie-going choice, some editors must have seen the film and can sum it up in a paragraph or two. It's just odd that this is 10X the level of detail on the making of this movie and little on the finished project. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As I have in the past, I've taken much of my time in expanding the article, mostly focusing on the production aspects. For anyone who is interested in making a plot synopsis for the article, maybe this site may help: http://www.themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/LoneSurvivor.html SuperSonic2000 (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acclaim[edit]

The film didn't receive critical acclaim. 74 on Rotten Tomatoes and a mixed 60 on Metacritic is quite lukewarm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.26.109 (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. "Critical acclaim" is something for Gravity or 12 Years a Slave. I've revised the passage accordingly. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lone Survivor (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 03:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Overall, one of the 6 criteria for a GA status is that it have strong illustrations, which this article does not. Now, that could be due to no pics available which aren't copyrighted, if so, then okay. Strong lead section. Since the Oscars have passed, I would update the results of the film's two nominations.
  • The first two sentences of the plot are very awkward and need to be reworked. The paragraph regarding the helicopters is a bit confusing. 1 helicopter, 2? How many men were on board the helicopter that got shot down? Were they also SEALs? Or were the SEALs in a different helicopter. In the next to last paragraph, there is a little bit of confusion here as well. How does Gulag intervene? By force, subterfuge? And when you say the Taliban are led away, do you mean captured and led away? Or chased away?
  • The cast list. The four main members are done extremely well. I'm not a fan of that format, but it works here. The first paragraph after the 4 cast members, however should be moved to the Production section. Other than that, very solid section.
  • The first line in the Development section is very awkward. "Berg's producing partner of their production company Film 44" is a bit redundant and awkward. The last sentence of the second paragraph is a bit redundant as well.
  • The Writing and Filming sections were very well done. I especially liked the way the very technical language of the cinematography section is handled I a way making it interesting to a non-film person. The Post Production is also well done.
  • The first sentence in Historical accuracy is incredibly awkward.
  • In the Strategy section, why did he choose to preview it to NFL players (that's a really strange thing, and I think it needs to be explained).
  • The critical section is very well balanced. I've been pretty picky, overall I think the quality is very good. If the few issues I mentioned are addressed, I would have no issue supporting this for GA.Onel5969 (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Thank you for reviewing the Lone Survivor article, Onel5969. I have made some changes to the article, based on your review of the article.SuperSonic2000 (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've made edits to the plot summary, as per your requests.
  • The opening sentence in Historical accuracy has been rewritten: "While based on true events, a number of historical inaccuracies in the film have been noted."
  • I've made various edits in the Development section.
  • I do agree that the strategy to screen the film to football teams was a strange idea. I've edited the opening paragraphs to provide further explanation: "Berg first screened Lone Survivor to a number of professional American football teams to generate a strong word-of-mouth for the film. He expressed that the screenings were not a marketing ploy, explaining, 'It's as much just a cool thing to do.'"SuperSonic2000 (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. Okay. Still think you need to update the Oscar nomination info, since Gravity won both those Oscars. Perhaps not in the lead section, but at someplace in the article. I know when you get down to the table, it becomes apparent that the film didn't win, but since you mention it, you should also mention the results.

  • The opening of the plot reads much better now. Just a picky suggestion, but in the listing of the four men, you might use a colon after "are", and then semi-colons (or the commas would still work) between the four men. It's just that as you begin the list, you start off with hyphenated "on-ground", which creates some awkwardness. The rest of the plot reads much better, and is less confusing.
  • The clean-up of the cast list works.
  • Historical accuracy now works.
  • Development opening works better. (although I think you can still tweak it a bit)
  • The football player thing is now handled much better. I think my wanting to understand it better is not due to your handling of the situation as much as Berg not really having a good reason for having done it.
  • Overall, very good job.Onel5969 (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, I have made various edits to the article to address the abovementioned issues.

  • I've expanded on production details in the Development section.
  • In "Accolades", I have mentioned that the film was nominated for two Oscars, but lost to Gravity
  • For "Plot", I've rewritten the listing of the four men.

SuperSonic2000 (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done.Onel5969 (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I take issue with the movement of the non-central cast to the "production" section. I think that the cast section should reflect something like The Avengers' cast list, in that central characters have expanded information and minor characters are listed underneath. Many readers wouldn't think to check the production section for the rest of the cast list. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. I've divided the casting details in various sections of the article. FrankRizzo (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why hasn't this been passed/failed/put on hold yet? Pinging original reviewer Onel5969. Corvoe (speak to me) 00:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Corvoe ... because I was unaware I was allowed to move it to GA status (still a bit new to this). Have rectified it. Congratulations, good work!Onel5969 (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! FrankRizzo (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtunwali[edit]

I think that from this article one can get the wrong impression that Pashtuns are against Talibans. This is not true, Talibans are Pashtuns and abide by the Pashtunwali! (see Wikipedia article on Taliban: "The majority of the Taliban are made up of Afghan Pashtun tribesmen.[13][14] The Taliban's leaders were influenced by Deobandi fundamentalism,[15] and many also strictly follow the social and cultural norm called Pashtunwali.[16]" ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:DE12:1780:C448:A931:402B:DB6 (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism: Casting[edit]

Generally good story. My criticism is in the casting. The US military and elite forces are not just a bunch of green & blue eyed white guys. The enemy is not all just a bunch of brown guys. The credits show that the all white guy navy seals is not how it really was. They should have paid more attention to keeping to reality instead putting this undertone on it in casting.

Gfutia (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 02 October 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. QEDK (T ☕ C) 14:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– I get a lot of the views for the film. I get less views for the book. 31.53.108.231 (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. The film gets significantly more page views than any other use. [1] PC78 (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review[edit]

This article needs to be reviewed for GA status. There are sections that are not referenced and B1 must = no. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lone Survivor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lone Survivor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lone Survivor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lone Survivor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chinooks[edit]

The article states that the US Army provided MH-47 Chinooks to the production, however the Chinooks in the actual film are CH-47F Chinooks. F model Chinooks were never used by the 160th SOAR. MH-47s are easily distinguishable by a long refueling boom in the front and painted a darkish black green. CH-47Fs, as shown in the film, do not have this boom and are painted the correct lighter green as fielded by the non-SpecOps US Army aviation units. This is the equivalent of using NASCAR vehicles to portray race cars in a Formula One movie. 24.207.164.46 (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lone_Survivor&oldid=1208570092"