Talk:Biloxi Blues (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.

What is the rating? PG, PG-13? What?--Alisyn^talk 23:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to my cable's set top box, it is PG-13. --71.172.37.93 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eccentric?

More like looney-tunes basket case crazy-pants. Lots42 (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Article needs a plot section.

A long plot section was added[1] but a shorter version is needed. -- 109.79.81.27 (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plot edits

BuffyCostanza, Billmckern, use this thread to hash out edits to the plot summary. What are you disagreeing about? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His summary is completely inaccurate. It’s like he has not even watched the movie. I just watched it a third time on Amazon Prime to be sure. Why continue to post stuff from the movie that did not happen?? BuffyCostanza (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking for specific details? Nowhere in the film does Jerome say his goal is to survive the war. It is never said that he is drafted. The guys never indicate they admire Epstein. Jerome does not pick Epstein as the winner of the contest (Roy Selridge does). No one is trying to “break” Epstein. Jerome never declares his love for Daisy & he never mentions having her waiting for him while he’s off at war is a good incentive to go home. The platoon never goes off anywhere else to perform duty because Jerome says the war ended, so they go home. The field (Keets?) is never mentioned at all. All this may very well be in the original script, but it is not in the movie. BuffyCostanza (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You both want to describe the film correctly, and you both have disagreements about that. Is it about specific details or about the importance of certain details or both? I know you said you saw the film recently. I know that Bill shared some sources, but they could differ from the film itself. Any chance we are dealing with different versions of the film? I suggest perhaps focusing on the most obviously incorrect detail and hash that out and move on to other details. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably both. I watched the version of the film currently airing on Amazon Prime. He previously said he consulted the script for the film. I said scripts are not always accurate because they change constantly. Rewrites are done way on up to shooting. The final movie cut is accurate. I only saw him post one reference article that only supported his comment about the name of the field, which is never mentioned in the film. I listed all the inaccuracies that he posted up above. Some he didn’t correct me on but some he did. Seems like a person would’ve watched the film, not referred to an obsolete script, before posting. The most obvious detail is that Jerome never says he has three goals including surviving the war. This film is based on a play. It’s possible Billmckern is thinking of the play instead of the movie. BuffyCostanza (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To start with a disclaimer, it's been a long time since I've seen either a production of the play or watched the movie, but I will note that the links Bill left in his edit summary are all for the pay, not the film. As I said, haven't seen either in many years, so I don't know how much the film differs from the play (adaptations always do) but the plot summary needs to draw solely on the film, not the play, as that's a separate work. oknazevad (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Thank you!! Apparently, the movie differs quite a lot from the play. I was trying to correct the page for the film, but someone else kept changing it, based on the play. BuffyCostanza (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not arguing. Attempting to correct. First, editing for conciseness after recent additions exceeded the 700 word limit.

Second, Edits to this passage: "Jerome sets three goals—lose his virginity, survive the war, and become a writer—and is sent to basic training at Keesler Field near Biloxi, Mississippi." Recent edits changed this passage to "Jerome sets three goals—lose his virginity, fall in love and become a writer."

I thought that the edit "fall in love" was incorrect based on references I checked, like this one, which says "survive the war." But I see that there's some ambiguity, because other sources I checked like this one and this one say "fall in love."

I think there's enough of a question there, based on the conflicting sources, that the passage in question isn't worth arguing about. Something that eliminates that sentence entirely or combines the details from the conflicting sources will probably work, just as long as additions to the summary to exceed 700. Billmckern (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not exceed 700 words because I deleted the incorrect stuff you had posted, which you kept adding back in. You claimed the film’s script supported your edits, and I said the film itself should support your posts. It did not. You continued to remove my content (four times) and then put your own false narratives in there. You told me to watch the movie, which I told you I did. It seems you’re the one who has not watched the movie because most of what you put on the page was inaccurate to begin with and continued to be after I corrected it. BuffyCostanza (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As this edit shows, the plot summary went to 728 words before I cut it back. I'm not a mathematician, but I'm pretty sure that 728 is more than 700.

I think this discussion has gone as far as it can.Billmckern (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn’t see that. (Not sure why it would let me post it if it violated some limit?) Anyway, you were gaslighting me and I overreacted, so I apologize. I was just trying to edit the page for accuracy. I hope you do get to see the movie because it is funny. Only on Amazon Prime another few days… BuffyCostanza (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]