Talk:Behind Enemy Lines (2001 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Criticism

Who idea? There's nothing wrong with being patriotic, and I don't see the film being Serbophobic in any way. Just because a movie is made about Nazis, does that mean it's an attack against all Germans? I'm removing that section.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with being patriotic. There is wrong to make idiotic movies like Behind Enemy Lines. They'd better make film about O'Graidy eating insects. At least, they would shown TRUE events. Sea diver 08:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, but I still think it is Serbophobic and on the top it is not true. They had O'Graidy available and if they wanted to make it true they could do it but since they didn't want to base movie on truth - it is obvious they made it on purpose against Serbs. So, we should look at the financing side and see who had such interests. However, what is the most cynical part is that at the end of the movie they present comments like it is pure truth !!??? Even mentioning admiral retirement and other notorious lies. Instead, they should have put at least well-known text that the story is completely fictional and no such events took place anytime in history. Is it so hard to tell the truth? Selt (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it somehow makes the French admiral the enemy in certain areas, like when he assumes command. I also noticed that the British journalist dude had really bad teeth, playing on the stereotype on how all British people have bad teeth. Seriphyn 22:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stereotype about bad teeth amuses me no end! Where the hell did it come from? I've noticed absolutely no difference in dental hygiene between the UK and US. Very odd. And as for the French.. it seems the US has a real thing for French. Always portrayed as either the bad guy or stupid.

Um, who is Sasha and who plays him. Whoever wrote this summary left that out. Timmyfitz161 (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Scenes details

I recall from the commentary of this film and Zoolander that;

a. Gene Hackman picked to cast Owen Wilson for this movie after watching Wilson's performance in Shanghai Noon which is part of the commentary in this film.

b. That Owen Wilson was also filming Zoolander with Ben Stiller around this time frame and that he that he had to wear a wig for his Zoolander role.

Can anyone verify these details? -71.59.237.110 (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can watch the film and find a respected link online and can truly verify that such is the case, then consider it verified. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA-13

The article mentions SA-13 , any source ? Taking in mind that SA-13 is very short range missile up to 500 meters only ! The most appropriate SAM would be SA-12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.8.246.12 (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Good point" in cleaning up the plot, that was one of the details removed to lighten the heavily detailed version. Tectaal (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were SA-13s based on the vehicle that launched the missiles. If you are going to remove this then you will need to remove the BMP-1 reference since the APC is even more ambiguous (there is no way to tell whether it was a BMP-1, 2 or 3!). Also SA-13s have a flight range of 5km (not 500m!) and are very resilient against countermeasures with their onboard triple channel guidance system, adding to the authenticity of an F-18F unable to evade a pair at the same time. In addition to the plot cleanup, the political subplot between Reigart and Almeida has been omitted, even though it is important for the overall interpretation of the plot itself. Cowbert (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

Now that the plot is cleaned up how do i remove the cleanup notice? Tectaal (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article still needs cleanup. The entire production section should be removed as it's all original research and/or speculation. No need to remove the notice yet. Spigot Who? 20:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural reference

At the beginning of the film, Wilson (Burnett) muses about piloting celebrities after his service ends, and mentions several musicians who'd still be alive with better pilots than they actually had. Could somebody please name them here? Thank you, --Hodsha (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He mentions specifically Richie Valens; so the others would presumably be Buddy Holly and The Big Bopper. -- MrDemeanour (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-American Propaganda Removal

I'm only going to say this once. I've put a watch on this page and whatever non-english speaking person thinks they're going insert Anti-American propaganda into this article know I'm going to revert as many times as you put it in. Iwalters (talk)

Unit of currency

Why are the budget and grossed amounts given in Lebanese Pounds, instead of US Dollars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.83.231 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina

I did not expect this to be an issue but here we are. Since this is an encyclopedia rather than a fansite, I believe we should use the correct name. We use United Kingdom instead of England when talking about the sovereign state rather than the constituent country, United States instead of America when talking about the country rather than the continent, the Netherlands instead of Holland when talking about the country rather than the region, etc. In this case we refer to the country by the name of one of its regions, which is not accurate despite what a substandard American film might suggest. If this were in the Plot section or part of a quote, I would understand, but it's not. The usage in the film strikes me as most irrelevant in the Historical inspiration section.

Why should we perpetuate misconceptions? Doing so is obviously not common practice. We do not do it in Princess Diana Memorial or Princess Diana's Revenge, for example, where we correctly refer to the historical person as Diana, Princess of Wales rather than as Princess Diana. Surtsicna (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When we are referring to what is actually said in the film, we use that name. This is not complicated. As long as we use the piped link, we are not "perpetuating misconceptions". ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But here we are not referring to what is actually said in the film. Those are our words, especially in Behind Enemy Lines (2001 film)#Historical inspiration. If the film refers to the actual former Yugoslav republic, then we should use the correct name in all instances except, perhaps, in Behind Enemy Lines (2001 film)#Plot. If the film refers to a fictional country called Bosnia, then by all means we should use Bosnia. Piped links such as [[Bosnia and Herzegovina|Bosnia]], [[The Netherlands|Holland]], [[United States of America|America]] or [[United Kingdom|England]] certainly do perpetuate misconceptions, and I see no reason to dumb down the readers. Surtsicna (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. Bosnia was the name used in 90% of the coverage of the war as well as in the critical coverage of this film. And I say again that using the piped link is not creating or perpetuating a misconception, it is in keeping with the common name used in US media. As the film used Bosnia, so did the reviews of the film. If you can find a reputable source that deals with what you call a misconception, feel free to add it. Otherwise, leave the article as it is. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And England is the name used in 90% of the coverage of anything related to the United Kingdom. England is the common name for the United Kingdom in both the US and the world media. Why is accuracy important when it comes to the United Kingdom but not when it comes to Bosnia and Herzegovina? Surtsicna (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If other articles are inaccurate, they should be fixed. It's not a valid argument for altering this article. Once again, the article should say what the film says, nothing more. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]