Talk:The Hurt Locker/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Title of the Film

Can anybody explain what the film's title means or refers too? SolarMcPanel (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

See for example, Urban Dictionary: hurt locker . --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism check

I've looked through the changes up to about 6 hours ago for any vandalism that slipped through, but can't keep going right now. Any takers? —AySz88 \^-^ 05:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete vandalism

Deleted vandalism.--Parkwells (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This was just vandalism that wasn't noticed at the time; it's been fixed now. —AySz88 \^-^ 05:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Headlines

to use with this article--J.D. (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sgt. Sarver Legal Controversy and THE OSCAR

Here's something that occurred to me--if Sgt. Sarver wins his legal case should he also get the OSCAR for Best Original Screenplay? I did some research on the matter (as per Wiki guidelines) and came up with this case from "Inside Oscar", Mason Wiley and Damien Bona, Ballantine Books, 1996: "The Bridge On The River Kwai" won the Oscar for Pierre Boulle, a Frenchman. However, it turns out that Boulle had never written anything in English in his life. The screenplay was actually written by Carl Foreman and Michael Wilson. However, it took 27 YEARS for Foreman and Wilson to be awarded their Oscars. In fact they had died by that time, so the Oscars were awarded to their widows at a special ceremony. Does anybody have any info on how the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences would handle a case like Sgt. Sarver's? Do they have a special committee to handle such matters? Considering that men like Sgt. Sarver are putting their lives on the line for us I would be dismayed to think that it might be 27 years before he gets his Oscar, and from what I've read in the news reports it seems like he has a pretty good case. Anybody from the Academy or Writers Guild out there got any pertinent input? Thanks. It's an intriguing subject.63.198.19.168 (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock

Sgt. Sarver did not write the story, he's just making claims on some ideas in the film. That said, the films producers make claims that are just as ridiculous against online file sharers, so they're all a bunch of wankers.

Past tense vs. Present

Recent edits use the phrase, "At the end of its theatrical run..." even though the theatrical run isn't over. For example, there are six theaters within 25 miles of me currently showing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelyw (talk • contribs) 13:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Connection to The Inside

In the Writing section, one sentence reads: "Director Kathryn Bigelow was familiar with Boal's work before his experiences, having turned one of his Playboy articles into the short-lived television series The Inside." I am not sure what this refers to. As far as I am aware, neither Bigelow nor Boal were in any way involved in the production of The Inside. It's generally a poorly phrased sentence already, and it should be cleaned up. alpha5099 (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, one of the articles linked in the Headlines section above does mention their work together on The Inside: She said, "Well, actually, I became familiar with [screenwriter Mark Boal’s] journalism and turned one of his articles into a television series [Fox’s The Inside]. That took a fair amount of time. And then it was a short-lived series, so it’s not one to dwell on."--J.D. (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Even seeing that AV Club interview (http://www.avclub.com/articles/kathryn-bigelow,29544/), I am still skeptical of the claim she was involved in the production of The Inside. Aside from that interview, I can only find a couple unsourced references to her having directed an episode, but nowhere is it stated which episode she directed. I do not remember seeing her listed in the credits to any episodes, and I can find no solid references to her having directed anything for the show. 24.61.45.79 (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ending "Back in Iraq"?

I thought the movie was ambiguous on the ending. I actually thought he had gone to Afghanistan. The movie does not specifically say what country. In any event the "back in Iraq" is not substantiated by the movie.Americasroof (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I just edited this to read as such, that the final scene is in Afghanistan, not an arabic country. Walterego (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Confusion about the location of the shooting of the film.

In the beginning of the article, it's mentioned that for 'authenticity', the film was shot near the Iraqi border, but in Jordan.

Subsequently its mentioned that the shooting began in Amman, Jordan's capital. But Amman is not near the Iraqi border.

Could somebody please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilthemacho (talk • contribs) 20:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a "war epic"

It's a chamber drama with a tiny handful of characters and modest situations.
There is no "epic" quality. None whatsoever.
This film is misclassified.
Varlaam (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, clearly not epic. — sligocki (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

plot summary

I can't see the problem with the plot summary - I was going to remove the tag when I saw somebody else had already done so, only to have it put back. Why should a plot summary not simply summarize the plot? What am I missing? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to antagonize, but this movie mixes reality and fiction and I didn't think that the plot summary did a good enough job of distinguishing the two. The characters were spoken of as real people and the events as real events. Your edit clarifies this greatly. Thanks, — sligocki (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad to have helped. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Film Leak February 2009

Can anyone verify/write about the leak of the film?[1] [2]--Anthonzi (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Iceberg Theory

The movie presents almost perfectly in Hemingway's "Iceberg" style. Hemingway was a journalist during the Spanish Civil War, and developed the style to leave the larger details in the background. The parallels should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.43.54 (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

File Sharing Lawsuits

It seems the producers are suing 5000 file sharers [3], that's definitely worth discussing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.131.193 (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Everyone who paid to see this piece of crap should file a class action to demand their money back. It sucked! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.136.13 (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thriller film

An editor changed the lead from saying this is a war film to saying this is a war-thriller film, supported by blogger Jason Buchanan of Allmovie who called it a thriller. If editors here agree that the film should be called a thriller, a better, more authoritative source should be found. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Plot incomplete

How can this be a Good Article if a part of the plot is missing? The fragging subplot and the desert shootout were missing completely. I added them, but my English is not good enough. --DuckobertDag (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Rank

I don't believe he was a sergeant first class. I thought James was a staff sergeant? Anyone know for sure? Cambridge I thought was a full bird not lt. colonel.

Eldridge was a specialist, Sanborn was a Sgt., and James was a Sgt. First Class. In one clip you can clearly see Sanborn with three stripes, James with three on top of two, and Eldrdige can be seen with a SPC rank, which is an upside down but filled in version of the PFC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucashammonds (talk • contribs) 08:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Response Among Veterans section

The newly added "Response Among Veterans" sections has a number of problems: original research (in the sense of "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position"), reliable sources (Twitter feeds? Really?) and NPOV problems (no mention of the vets and military publications that have reviewed the movie favorably). Viciouslies (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I just took out the quotes that came from Twitter feeds (!) and also cut down one overly long quote from a guy's blog. I'm still a bit wary that the majority of this section comes from self-published sources (blog posts) but I'm willing to err on the side of inclusion, since there are two reliable sources that make the same point.Viciouslies (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We should also quote this New York Times piece, especially some of the good reactions, to balance this. --Harac (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The criticism of the tactics and realism are completely fair, but the VetVoice.com quotes are out of line. Claiming that inaccuracies "alienated most service members from enjoying this movie" is unfounded. Some servicemembers? Apparently. Most? Please. This is like saying intelligence professionals can't enjoy Enemy of the State because of technical inaccuracies. "If you know anything about the Army, or about operations or life in Iraq, you'll be so distracted by the nonsensical sequences and plot twists that it will ruin the movie for you." Again, please. Insulting viewers who enjoyed the movie (especially veterans, claiming they don't know any better) is far from the ideals of Wikipedia neutrality. 65.214.169.254 (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I re-added the quote from Kate Hoit at The Huffington Post and the VetVoice quote from Brandon Friedman, author of The War I Always Wanted. There's nothing out of line about the quotes. Neither author is neutral, but by adding the quotes themselves, it balances out the entire article. Many veterans didn't like the movie. These quotes--from mainstream online publications, by mainstream writers--demonstrate that. That's the definition of neutral for a Wikipedia article. Just because the sentiment is critical and you don't agree, doesn't mean it's not relevant and appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmd1978 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing neutral about using numerous long quotes to create the appearance that there was an overwhelming rejection of the movie by veterans. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. I'm going to work on cutting this section down while retaining the underlying citations. If people want to read the underlying sources, they can do so at those websites. Viciouslies (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"Many veterans didn't like the movie. These quotes ... demonstrate that." Where is their evidence? Can Kate Hoit or Brandon Friedman point to an Army Times or Stars and Stripes poll? Or did they just talk to friends and decide to make sweeping statements about how an entire category of people feel? If there are poll results, then cite the poll! As it is, the Hoit and Friedman quotes are just unsubstantiated claims. (If their quotes only expressed the authors' personal feelings, I'd have no problem with them. It's only because they claim to speak for the entire population of veterans.) 65.214.169.254 (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The removed reference about "most servicemembers" make claims that are completely unverifiable. Directly below this editing screen, Wikipedia reminds me "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." As 65.214.169.254 pointed out, this isn't a personal opinion that's being stated. It's an unverifiable claim. The Friedman quote isn't quite as egregious, but it also goes way beyond stating a personal opinion. Michaelyw (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, the IP (and any accounts that exist only to address this matter) need to avoid simply reverting out the material. It is properly referenced, and as such the solution is to discuss it here first. That aside, I have reworked Hoit's comments to address the concerns expressed above. Note that the comments do add relevant context to the reception section, and reflect the different expectations for this particular film as compared to war films that use the battlefield simply as a backdrop to an "action-hero" storyline. Also note that the criticisms do not simply slam the film as a whole, and in fact the critics involved do compliment aspects of the film. What the section adds is to illustrate how members of the armed forces - who will likely take a greater interest in this film than in run-of-the-mill action flicks - will react differently than the general public, who are largely unconcerned with such inaccuracies. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Response Among Veterans section is a sub-section of Critical Reception. I don't think the recently added lawsuit information belongs here. Or on this page, frankly. It would make more sense if it were on Mark Boals' page rather than the movie's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelyw (talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe how many personal blogs are still listed as cites for this section. Needs serious cleanup. 12.40.5.69 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really have time to go through months of edit logs, but at some point, several editors (myself included) got this section to the point where it was more balanced and reflected the fact that there was both criticism and praise for the movie from vets. It's gone back to its prior state where it's almost exclusively the view that vets did not like the movie, backed up by overly-long quotes cherry-picked from blog posts. Someone is clearly trying to use this section to push their opinion that the movie was overwhelmingly rejected by veterans as unrealistic, which is neither backed up by the media coverage nor an appropriate use of Wikipedia. On top of all that, seven paragraphs - six of which are repetitive - is just way too long for this section. Viciouslies (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A female veteran in Kate Hoit judging combat scenarios? Naturally, this is a movie and should be taken as a separate category in comparison to actual combat, Kate. Secondly, aside from convoys or simply being in a combat zone, it was my understanding that females were not involved in combat roles. Therefore, how would a female know whether EODs were portrayed authentically? Where this film goes wrong with veterans is that it locks on to Army EOD, when in fact it should be Navy EOD, which is a discredit to Sailors serving on the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucashammonds (talk • contribs) 08:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why should the film be ultra-realistic? No films are made to be totally realistic. No-one ever trips over or drops cups without there being a point in films. Perhaps the makers don't care that much about 100% realism Cls14 (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

In the last sentence, of the first paragraph, of the Critical Response area, of the "Reception" section, there is a sentence about a Metacritic rating. The sentence don't really make any kind of sense, and is missing a verb (sort of) as the latter half of the sentence is apparently supposed to be the actual sentence. I would gladly fix it, but I myself have no idea how the Metacritic system works, and so I don't really understand what the sentence was trying to say. Ijmitchell (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Appalled

209.132.173.112 (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Tammi Bell209.132.173.112 (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)March 8, 2010

I am shocked at the blatant use of derogatory and discriminate language used on this article immediately following the 2010 Academy Awards to describe how the female director of this film won her award. I hope that the writer of such has been let go of their position within the business that provides us with this information. I viewed and copied immediately the first paragraph describing the film and was completely offended as well was my husband. I was pleased to see how quickly the article was changed but sincerely hope that this behavior will not be allowed in any aspect of this informational program. I am a huge wiki fan and if I ever read such ridiculous content again I will boycott Wiki and will be sure to spread the word. Below is the information I read when inquiring about the film immediately after the win.

No one cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.12.67 (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete inappropriate comments - no need to repeat them here.--Parkwells (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, now, calm down, some people are just greatly shocked that this even happened. Of course vandals are dealt with swiftly and not tolerated here on Wikipedia. However, to boycott and badmouth the Wiki over such an event is just childish and undermines the goal of this website. Kev098 March 8, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 05:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC).

Copyright infringement lawsuit

Clearly a lawsuit against the film is relevant as it is specific to the film. I do not see how a lawsuit against copyright violations of the film is relevant as there exist tens of thousands of such lawsuits that really having nothing specifically to do with the film from an encyclopedic view. All popular films suffer from copy violations.Objective3000 (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Many people in the world have never heard of "The Hurt Locker" before those lawsuits against file sharers have become public. In fact, this particular movie owes a greater part of its notoriety than other movies to this action, so IMHO it very well belongs in the article. -- Cghost (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that right ?

About Renner : "He was taught ... how to wear a bomb suit." Sorry, but while it's obviously taken from somewhere else that statement sounds silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.186.144.197 (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Set in 2004?

Is this film really set in 2004. When I watched this there was no reference to the year when it is set. However I noticed a reference to You Tube so it must be set in 2005 or later, as You Tube was started in 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakthea computer (talk • contribs) 11:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A slight goof in the film. See the discussion archives. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the words "Iraq 2004" were printed onscreen near the beginning 67.162.9.135 (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a title card that says "Iraq 2004" at the start of the film, however everything in the film points to a later setting. YouTube (started in 2005, didn't really become popular until 2006), XBOX 360 (released in 2005, wasn't widespread until 2006-2007), Army Combat Uniform (in 2004, was in prototype stage, wasn't fully fielded until 2006). This could just be a discrepancy amongst the production crew. Movies that are set in the recent past tend to have plenty of anachronisms abound. My guess is that it was set in 2004, but for some reason, the production crew made a lot of mistakes and didn't reflect that in filming. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Military advisor

Was the military advisor censored ? Cut to sniper scene in open desert area. The Barrett 50cal anti materiel rifle used by American unit (as a sniper rifle) would have emulsified the human targets. Yet no horrific scene to be seen. Stallone's last Rambo clarifies the destructive power of a 50cal weapon. 70.51.24.8 (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the film. Just the article. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Release year

is 2008, but the first line in the page suggests it's a 2009 film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0de2 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It debuted in 2008, but wasn't released in theaters until 2009. Wikipedia uses theater release dates rather than film festival debuts for the film year. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Starring Ron Jeremy is wrong.

Should be Jeremy Renner -see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887912/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Geraghty. 131.107.0.81 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Len.

Probably just a vandal. Don't sweat it. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Specialist

What is a specialist in the army? Is it a rank? Graemec2 (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes! I added Specialist (rank) to the article as a pipe link. Binksternet (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Same rank (E-4) as a CPL, just not an NCO. SPC is what it means, a specialist. Specialist are on the cusp of NCOs and is why if you enlist with a degree you can advance rank to SPC upon enlistment. In short, if a CPL is an NCO and SPC is the same rank, just not an NCO, SPC are those who are efficient in their MOS and possess leadership abilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucashammonds (talk • contribs) 08:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Specialist is a rank, like corporal or private. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency in labeling British characters

In the Plot section the British characters are described as a British SAS team, but in the Casting section they are described as a British contractor team. My impression from the film is that they were intended to be contractors, but I can't say for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.250.118 (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

to follow up, the credits list Ralph Fiennes as the "contractor team leader" so presumably they are contractors. Since I'm new to Wikipedia I'm not going to correct the article text, I'll leave that to someone who knows what they are doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.250.118 (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, they are not described in the movie as SAS, my impression was that they were British contractors. Perhaps people jumped to the assumption that they were SAS because the characters aren't dressed in regular British military uniforms, and the wiki editors weren't aware that not only Americans are contractors in Iraq. Walterego (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt from a copy of a script that was posted on the internet.[4]

"Until we see that he's not at all Arabic but just a darkly tanned, bearded Anglo-Saxon: a former member of the British SAS turned MERCENARY TEAM LEADER ..."

Unfortunately, there may be a problem about using this copy of the script as a reliable source because there's no info about who posted it or the website, but I thought it might be helpful for this discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And as per usual the Brits are portayed as vaguely incompetent, disposable, and in need of assistance; and rescued ofcourse by the US cavalry in the form of a bomb disposal unit who just happen to be expert snipers. LoL!1812ahill (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

They are indeed private contractors/mercenaries. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No Iraqui Reviews?

War films generally lack the other perspective but wikipedia articles need not. Please would someone who speaks arabic add an Iraqi review, or would that be against some wikipedia rule?--Timtak (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Temperature Quarrel

Under the filming heading, someone has stated the temperature averaged 120F while filming. meanwhile, a presumably different user states that this is impossible. The fact should either be verified or removed for consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.174.18 (talk) 16:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Legal Controversy

I have been reading with interest that a lawsuit has been filed against Boal, Bigelow, Playboy and more by Sargeant Sarver, who it appears was the subject of the film and has been possibly defamed and denied fair financial benefit from the film (if the allegations are true - though from the similarities between the film and the Sargeant, it certainly seems they are true, even down to things such as the guy's callsign, his ex-wife and son situation, drinking, attitude, appearance etc.)

Links to relevant material:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27777754/Sarver-Complaint-NJ-Version-Final-03-02-2010-w-Case The document filed to the court.

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/36526 One article on p2pnet featuring photo of Sarver.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6220HO20100304?type=entertainmentNews Article on Reuters.

This is definately worth including, as is the follow-up, what the outcome of this case might be. I mean, this film won a heck of a load of Oscars, it's definately in the public interest that if it was stolen people should know.

Matt (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I too think this is very relevent. Please include.--65.182.246.182 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it should only be included if Sarver wins. Specifically, it would debunk many of the criticisms in the Response Among Veterans section. Several argue the film is ridiculous, an insult, and has nothing to do with real life. Sarver argues the film is a representation of his life and he deserves payment because of it. If Sarver is right, this lawsuit will provide an interesting addition to the “truth” vs. “fiction” debate. (Personally I think it’s nothing but a frivolous lawsuit. Sarver's claim of coining the phrase “hurt locker” is easily proved false and shows Sarver has a loose relationship with reality.) Michaelyw (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Include it, the lawsuit is clearly relevant and notable. We'd only remove it if the case gets thrown out. 77.2.131.193 (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact and details of the law suit of Sgt. Sarver give very interesting and very valuable information about the film, and the makers of it, and should be included in any case, whether the plaintif (Sgt. Sarver) wins or loses.
Steue (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The article states that Sgt. Sarver has claimed that he said "war is a drug", and this sentence also is displayed in the film. And I can imagine that many high military people, as well as politicians, did not like this sentence about war to be published. I can also imagine that this judge might not have liked this sentence to be published either, and that these people found a way to kind of punish this (I suppose) war experienced soldier for publicly saying this. So this is another very good reason for leaving this chapter about the Sarver suit IN.
Steue (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)