Talk:Gods and Generals (film)

Boring

Could somebody include a note about how it is just a really boring film? I, like the person who wrote in above, have never heard it discribed as neo-confederate, and I didn't see it as such when I saw the first half of it. I didn't see the 2nd half of it beacuse it's 4 hours long and doesn't go more than 10 minutes without a major character breaking out into a soliloquy that doesn't sound so much like a heartfelt outpouring of inner termoil, so much as men reading thier civil war era corrispondance back and forth to each other's faces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.63.198 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 25 November 2005

Sorry man but thats ^ to POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.179.172 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 24 December 2005

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with neutral information. The only note that could be added is a bad rating by well-known critics. We, simple Wikipedians, cannot "just" change articles if we feel different about a subject. --Soetermans 19:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though--this and its first were horribly mediocre movies, reflected in both critical pummeling and nonexistent box office grossings. That, if not the fact that the first movie alone perhaps catalyzed my dislike of the Civil War, and the second's preview (I didn't dare watch the movie) galvanized it, should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.233.23 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 25 January 2007
WOW! That is an amazing criticism you have... you want to include an OPINION on a pseudo-encyclopedia site! Not only that, you didn't even watch the second half of the movie! It IS a point of view, because I happen to think it is anything but boring. AndarielHalo (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As just a general musing; I, (and to contextualize my further statements, white, American-born, American-raised) found the film to be one of the best "Screen Plays" every produced in the West. I could equally say 'insert my opinions because I'm right' too. I won't. The film did poorly in the West but was widely distributed and well-accepted in eastern countries. Probably, as Film Asia put it so well, "A fact that Asian cinema is more accustomed to both longer films and spoken film" as opposed to acting film. Beyond that, this film is short in comparison to many Central-Asian films. It failed to even crack the 4-hour mark. How much more interesting it would have been if the remaining two hours were added back in is debatable. Though with WB now backing a high-resolution format, we could some day see the film in it's proper form for ourselves.Point is that not everyone thought it was a bad film, and it received far better reviews and ratings in countries more accustomed to this type and style of film. Lostinlodos (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The movie section needs to be rewritten

This article is not only POV, but monotonous. Sentences such as "After the box office failure of Gettysburg, Maxwell was unable to get the prequel greenlit until media mogul Ted Turner provided the entire $60 million budget" are phrased in the sort of cynical, semi-fact way that you would expect to see in NNDB. And the paragraph dealing with departures from the book, although interesting, is far too long. Now I'm not a big fan of the movie, but it seems seriously imbalanced to me. I think this article needs a serious rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.158.148 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 December 2005

Which bits of the first sentence are incorrect? If there is something wrong, you can change it, keeping only the bits that are true.

Saying something is 'too long' is not really fair if it's providing information. If you think the article is too negative, you should try writing extra stuff about it rather than simply deleting things you don't like. The Singing Badger 01:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What bothered me about that quote is that 1)It seems to imply that Ted Turner himself payed for it, which is not true. His studio payed for it just as a studio would with any other movie, and 2)Although Gettysburg didn't gross all that well, it wasn't a box office failure. You have to remember it was a made-for-TV film, and they didn't really expect it to gross much anyway. But I guess I'll stop complaining and try to make the article better myself.

Ted Turner funded the money out of his own pocket, in much the same way that Mel Gibson funded The Passion. Of course the money was paid through a production company, but the $60m came from his own pocket. And I agree, in the modern world, unless a movie makes 10 times it's cost, people seem to want to write it off as a failure. The old logo Ars Gratia Artis seems to not apply to movies anymore; it is all about money. Mushrom 01:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Realism?

Should it be pointed out also, in any rewrite of this article that some kind soul might choose to complete, that some of the battle sequences in this film are actually better than Gettysburg? Gods and Generals really does cut down on some of the openly fake obvious reenactments of Gettysburg... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.230.38 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 1 March 2006

'Better' is subjective. If you can be more specific, stating why and how the director improves on his work in this film, it might be possible to add this in a non-POV way. The Singing Badger 01:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Separate page for book?

Should there be a seperate page for the book? It doesn't seem right that Jeff Shaara's page, which links to the novels, has a link to a page that is mostly about the movie. Ridan 22:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have split the original "Gods and Generals" page. From now on the film info will be at Gods and Generals (film) while the novel info will stay at the original address. This is now a film discussion page only. -- Grandpafootsoldier 08:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee quote

Im pretty sure that Robert E. Lee said "it is well that war is so terrible..." not "horrible" thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.167.87 (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

25% of the 5.5 million Southern Whites owned slaves. Not 10%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.197.8.183 (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends on who you count as the slave holder. The way I understand it officially (as in the owner on paper) less than 10% of people in the Old South owned slaves. If you count their families who benefited from slavery but were not the on-paper owners that number swells to 25 %. Emperor001 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gods&Generals2.jpg

Image:Gods&Generals2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Robert Duvall as Robert E. Lee in Gods and Generals.png

Image:Robert Duvall as Robert E. Lee in Gods and Generals.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote section

Quote section has been removed. Wikipedia isn't for quotes. That's an IMDB thing. Goyston talk, contribs, play 13:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I think that the criticism section needs to be reworked. I don't believe that criticism of any work should be the bulk of the article. The plot section needs to be longer, the criticism section needs to be shorter, and there needs to be more sections dealing with specific topics about the movie. Perhaps some of the arguments in the criticism section can open new headers.Mrathel (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem

In the article it is stated that, "the 'Director's Cut' version of Gods and Generals has an alleged running time of six hours, and has never been released to the public in any format, despite pleas from fans." First of all, what fans? And second of all, where did that information come from? Completely baseless! MagicBullet5 (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Written as a movie review

The majority of the article has been written in the fashion of a movie reviewer. Too much POV, and very little about teh movie itself. Nathraq (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Organization

I gawk at the fact that the plot/synopsis section is but three lines, whereas the criticsm section constitutes the bulk of the article's text. I think there needs to be a greater explanation of the plot in order to appreciate what is being criticized exactly. Criticism can follow from that point, or be embedded into the snyopsis. However, as it stands it seems horribly infected with POV to be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.71.198 (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

---

SLAVEHOLDING POPULATION AND THE RACE OF CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS:

The stats listed above are wrong. The 1860 United States Federal Census showed 383,637 slaveholders out of a total white population of 8 million. That's 4.79 percent of the population who owned slaves, not 25 percent. Also not all slave holders were white.

Just because you happen to live in a northern state now also does not mean that your ancestors fought for the Union. The south was so devistated by the war that many of the rich plantaion owners left for the north. Slavery was an international problem, not a "southern" problem. The stain of slavery taints all Americans and Europeans without exception. Northern ships carried them from Africa and were manned by Yankee sailors. Yankee merchants sold them to plantation owners and Yankee merchants bought the cotton and raw materials wrought by slave hands. And don't forget the United States Supreme Court ruled slavery as legal on several occasions.

Also, not everyone that fought for the Confederacy were white. The Union army pillaged and plundered their way across the South. Just as the British Colonel Tarleton's brutality drove loyal colonists to join the revolutionaries in the American Revoluionary War, the Union army's actions drove many people who were loyal to the Union into the ranks of the Confederate army. The Northern States were praised for its African-American Regiment in the movie Glory. However, the Confederates also had mulatto soldiers from Tennessee. Mulatto is a person who is half white and half black. Also, a regiment of Cherokee warriors fought with the Confederates at Wilson's Creek, Missouri. Three Choctaw-Chickasaw regimetns, a Creek regiment, a Creek-Seminole regiment and two Cherokee regiments fought for the Confederacy in Arkanas. And a Cherokee Confederate General was one of the last officers to surrender his forces, two months after Lee's surrender.

As I write this I'm referring to my College History Book in case your wondering where this information originates. The Civil War was a complex issue which most Americans don't take the time to understand. And that's why they don't understand this movie. As a famous history professor once said, "F" students in history become movie critics.

Thank you for reading this. I hope that you will please read a history book tonight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.36.233 (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC) |}

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gods and Generals (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RAP (talk · contribs) 23:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Oh god, quick fail. Not enough sourcing is the main issue. RAP (talk) 23:42 17 April 2012 (UTC)

8 years later and this post is even more necessary than it was then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8389:4120:2028:4BFE:4AFA:E07C (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Director's Cut section confusing.

The Director's Cut was released for Blu-ray Disc on May 24, 2011. It runs 280 minutes. For the theatrical release, almost two and a half hours of footage were removed to get the length down to approximately 3 hours, 39 minutes.

I found this confusing in that the director's cut is only 61 minutes longer than the theatrical version. I understand the meaning - 2.5 hours were cut for the theatrical release and roughly 1.5 hours were still left cut (only 1 hour was added back in) for the director's cut, but you have to read the article several times to understand that. Tiger-Heli (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Nits and Gnats re: Gods and Generals (film) page -- "contracting" a friendship and funny hours and minutes...

Don't feel like trying to edit, but two things jump out:

First, I don't believe it is good English usage to state that a person (Jackson) "contracted" a relationship with a young person. One contracts a disease, but one forms a relationship. Can I get a witness?

Second, the article states that a version was 280 minutes long. I compute that to be four hours and forty minutes. Then it states that about two hours of material was removed to end up with a length of 3 hours and 39 minutes. I fail to see how one can start with 280 minutes, subtract about 120 minutes and end up with 60*3+39 or 219 minutes. Does not compute. I do not know which number(s) is/are incorrect, but taken together, they are inconsistent and need research and correction.

Sorry I don't have the time or inclination to take this further, but I do feel these are valid points and I didn't just want to ignore them, so this comment is what it is.

141.150.251.169 (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Dan Goodman (the Unix one, not the Mac one)

PS I will not spend a lot of time trying to follow up on this, but if you have something to add or discuss I can be reached at my name (without the parenthetical description) prepended to the number 123 at Yahoo -- you can figure out the correct syntax if you are not a machine and have at least a three digit IQ or close to it.

My 2 cents for Wikipedia, a great resource.

Complete Contradiction?

The "Reception" section is one of the oddest sections I have seen in a Wikipedia article. The first sentence states that the film was poorly reviewed (in fact most reviews of the film were terrible - it had only 8% approval on Rotten Tomatoes). Yet the section then goes on to list one positive review after another - nearly two dozen positive reviews in all, and almost none of the negative reviews are even mentioned. I get the impression that a fan of this movie just packed the section with as many positive reviews as they could find. Given that 92% of the critics listed on Rotten Tomatoes panned the movie (and 70% on Metacritic), I would suggest an editor may want to delete most of the positive reviews and include more details of all the negative reviews. It just strikes me as odd, and almost humorous, to write at the beginning of the section that the film was generally panned and did not do well at the box office, and to then spend the rest of the section quoting from reviewers praising (virtually gushing) over the movie. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gods and Generals (film). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120420091510/http://www.wvcommerce.org:80/travel/wvtravel4kids/funfacts/movies-made-in-wv.aspx to http://www.wvcommerce.org/travel/wvtravel4kids/funfacts/movies-made-in-wv.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101204052346/http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=57 to http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=57

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Baldwin's opinion

TheOldJacobite, I have never understood how a person's opinion can be automatically excluded from an article because they aren't defined as "notable." Of course, we give preferential treatment to the views of, in this case, historians and film critics. But we also must take into account WP:NPOV. In this case, the film critics and historians mentioned criticize the movie for various reasons. However, there is still a minority of people who like the movie. We can't pretend that these don't exist. They're mostly Civil War enthusiasts, along with lots of devout Christians and neo-Confederates. What better way to understand who these people are and why they like the film than through the quote previously given in the article?

Of course, Baldwin is neither a professional historian nor a film critic. But he's a notable figure, a prominent member of the Christian right, and a man who says that the Confederacy was "in the right." Sure, he's not a film critic or a historian, but who he is and how he sees history helps show who likes this movie and who doesn't. We can't just explain the reasons for people disliking the movie, but we also have to touch on the reasons people may have for liking it. That's what's important, and it's why it should be in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean that we need to be a forum for the opinion of a politician who wants to promote the film's reactionary message. His opinion is not notable except in regards to his politics. For that reason, it does not belong in the article. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for anything. But we do need to represent different perspectives fairly, accurately, and in due proportion. This article just spent a whole lot of space discussing the views of people who disliked the movie. Considering that, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for one quote from a guy on the opposite end. There is absolutely no harm being done by including his opinion in the article. None whatsoever. So why bother? What's you're point? What are you trying to accomplish? Your first sentence comes close to suggesting that your personal biases influence how you see this issue. That's obviously not good. In large part, it's people like Chuck Baldwin who support this movie, and the quote explains why. There shouldn't be anything more to it than that. Display name 99 (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

But, in the end, who cares if Chuck Baldwin likes the movie? Of what possible relevance is that? You seem to think that, if any negative opinion is expressed about the film, it has to be balanced by a positive opinion, no matter where or from whom that positive opinion comes. That is absurd. What we have in that section are the opinions of notable historians, writing in notable and reliable journals, talking about the ideas and the twisted presentation of facts of the movie, and doing so from a historical perspective. If that is to be balanced, it has to be by an opinion of equal weight, not merely the opinion of a minor politician who likes the film because it meshes with his own political views. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The point is not who Baldwin is, but that his opinions are largely representative of the people who like the movie. The issue is not why Baldwin himself likes the film, but why a certain group of individuals do. If it works for you, you could support inclusion of the quote in order to show that the only support that it gets comes not from major historians or film reviewers but from far-right politicians. For some people, that can make a point. But most importantly, it's important to define the film's audience. The quote does that perfectly: devout Christians, Southerners, supports of state sovereignty, and neo-Confederates. Display name 99 (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Unless Baldwin has been quoted outside his own website by a mainstream source, there is no reason to allot any weight to him in this Wikipedia article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• NPOV is not about making sure every view is represented, it's about accurately conveying the view/s of reliable sources. If Baldwin can't get his opinion published by a reliable source, and if reliable sources don't consider the film's audience of right-wingers a noteworthy or interesting fact, Wikipedia doesn't either. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Referencing youtube people?

Why is it relevant to reference a youtube video maker Atun Shei in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.52.159.95 (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Civil war films gods and generals and Gettysburg

These 2movies were completely accurate despite what the far left lunatic fringe may think I am 54 years old and have spent my entire life studying all history good and bad and to slander the great generals soldiers and what they were fighting for is just bwrong Lee was offered command of all Union armies and turned them down because they were going to invade his home of Virginia and was quoted as saying I" I never thought I'd live to see the day when a president of the u.s. would raise an army to invade his own country " 2601:5C5:200:6E10:35BF:77DF:998D:F76D (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)