Talk:Dive Bomber (film)

Untitled

I will give phrases such as "star-studded cast" but "splendid photography" and "unique, vibrant document" have to be referenced or removed as either WP:NPOV or WP:OR. --Triwbe (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the "star-studded cast", as being superfluous: everybody can draw this conclusion on his own. The "splendid photography" and "unique, vibrant document" are an almost inescabaple consequence of this being a propaganda film, made by a premier film studio that went all-out, the larger-than-life Technicolor process and the cooperation of the US Navy. Anyway it was nominated for an Oscar for just this. Also see the documentary, etc. - Yvernal (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

But you still have not shown references to reliable sources to allow me (or anyone) to verify what you have written. Comments on the box of the DVD are not reliable sources, they are secondary at best. I am only doing this to improve the article, and possibly get it up to C or even B class. --Triwbe (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see what purpose is being served by an attempt to "to improve the article, and possibly get it up to C or even B class." However, if that should be your purpose (for whatever reason you like), you should go about it in the diametrically opposite direction. - Yvernal (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest revisions

Having just discovered this film, I thought I would do some additional work on the article. I welcome any comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

Just as an exercise in preliminary research and editing, I have tackled this old article relating to a classic 1941 film. Here is the original version before editing: then and now. If anyone would like to review it, as it has gone beyond the stub form that it was in, I would appreciate you taking a look. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

A few thoughts:

• I previously have gone on record as being opposed to the use of tables for cast lists.
• I question the use of images not actually from the film. I understand they depict aircraft seen in the film, but should they be included simply because they're free images? Does the reader get a better understanding of the film Dive Bomber by knowing what Vought SB2U Vindicators and Northrop BT-1 dive bombers look like? I feel they're more decorative than anything else here.
• I thought quoting taglines was a thing of the past, and referencing cast lists was unnecessary. Am I mistaken?
• The Production section is excellent. I'm one of those people who like to read a lot of background about a film. Good work! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The use of tables for cast lists, as far as I can determine is not recommended for major, or significant films but can be applied to a lesser example such as this film. It is also a graphic device used to move graphic images about such as the photographs used here. The first image is actually a screen shot which was the first aerial sequence of the film. The second one was from another Wiki article and will be replaced. The fact that the production was so dominated by the US Navy was one of the reasons for its inclusion. One wacky incident came about when the formations of aircraft flew over the film set and Michael Curtiz stood up and waved them off when he realized that the camera crews were not in position. The pilots who were setting out on a daily exercise, simply ignored the gesticulating and screaming Curtiz below. The film crews were mightily amused by Curtiz's declarations of "No, no. Go back!" as if the flight crews could actually hear him. The incident was symptomatic of the many outbursts and exchanges on the set when the autocratic Curtiz helmed a film. I will make sure that the captions actually reflect why the images that will ultimately be used, should appear in the article. I agree that "purty pictures" is not constructive. The cast list and its source was included because there is some dispute over character names and I wanted to standardize on one source rather than having individual references for every entry that was misidentified in other sources. As to the tagline, didn't know about whether to use it or not as I checked back through some other articles to see that there was no consistency in whether to use them or not. It certainly is a reflection of the promotion or reception of the film and can be tucked in there. Thank you for your comments, but with some alacrity, I would like to move this section as a copy to the article talk page where it may engender further discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

I am rather sceptical as to the desirability of such an extensive description of the plot, as the plot is not notable (indeed a "necessary evil") and plot descriptions are not very encyclopedic, in any case. Also, I could do without the anecdote of Curtiz, although it is more relevant than the plot description. - Yvernal (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that the anecdote, as here described, does not match the documentary, here given as its source. - Yvernal (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Listen to the interview of the subjects and you will find the incident. time code: 2:11- 2:32. Plots for a major rewrite and expanded film articles are typically 700-1,000 words, and this plot logs in at 485 words, well under the average. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC).

Yes, that was what I listened to (the time frame is slightly different). That rendition of the incident is quite different from what is described here (hardly recognizable).

The appropriate length of a plot would rather depend on the length of the total article, and it looks out of proportion here, especially as the plot is more or less irrelevant to the movie. - Yvernal (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I believe you are wrong on both points, as well as continuing to insert inaccurate information such as the claim that all the aircraft in the film were replaced as the US went to war, which is simply not the case, or that the single Grumman F3F was only seen in flight in the penultimate scenes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC).

Equally respectfully, there is nothing like the anecdote you describe in the documentary. The incident is there, but only barely recognizable as the one you describe, not to mention that both commentators each have their own version of it.

As to plane types, I have never seen any hint that any of the types shown in the movie saw front-line duty beyond the battle of Midway (the action there by Devastators being quite famous, even though in itself disastrous). So that is halfway through 1942, when indeed the US was still gearing up. - Yvernal (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Curtiz was in a stressful confrontation with Flynn throughout the film, spilled over into his duties as director. He did wave and yell at a fleet of aircraft that appeared at the wrong time and that incident has been memorialized as film lore and a characterization of the Curtiz style of directing. If you do a word count on all the main sections of the article, you will note that the plot is not overly long, and matches almost exactly the word count that is used by Orriss in his article. As to the number of aircraft types in use, the US Navy resorted to the use of nearly all types in "back-water" and secondary use, while both the Vindicator and Devastator had to soldier on until the SBD Dauntless and later the Curtiss Helldivers and Grumman Avengers appeared in sufficient numbers. The F3F mock-up used in the film was painstakingly detailed to match the actual aircraft used in the static sequences. Over two months of studio work followed the location shooting as the US Navy only permitted two months of principal photography at active bases. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC).

If you place your cursor over the citations and click, you will note a subtle change in that the ref/cite link will be highlighted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC).