Jump to content

Talk:Inglourious Basterds/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

The nationality of critics

All the cited positive critics write for American media. All the cited negative critics write for European media. The single exception is Daniel Mendelsohn, who writes from the Jewish perspective. Is this typical? Unless sources can be found to demonstrate the opposite, I would question the opening sentence of the Reception section, that "Critical reviews have, on the whole, been very positive," since as the current citations stand, positive or negative reception seems to be entirely based on nationality. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.170 (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't talk for other countries, but in mine most critics give it close to 100%. I'm working on the Bulgarian version of the article now [1] and I thought about the same thing too. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 16:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The New York Times was hardly 100% positive. And Manohla Dargis doesn't write from "the Jewish perspective." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.198.234 (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Cameo

Bela B., drummer of the famous German punk rock band Die Ärzte, has a cameo as the cinema usher in the final segment. -- Imladros (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Revenge film?

I do not get the point of the "revenge film" in the first sentence. Can anyone explain and justify? Sounds weird to me. It's just a film. That's it.

I don't get the necessity to write a dozen time the expression "spaghetti western" over this page. This is pure fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.171.138 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


Fates of the other Basterds?

I changed it on the article, but did it say for sure in the film if the other three members were actually killed or not? I took it as he just took the members to Paris that were around him...maybe I missed it... 

Astrozac  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrozac (talk • contribs) 04:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Misspelled Title

Basterds is misspelled, anyone know why? It should be in the article, most people will be wondering, and this is where they expect to find out that kind of thing. Habanero-tan (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it was altered for copyright or censorship issues. StevePrutz (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Here it's partly explained by Tarantino: http://www.empireonline.com/features/tarantino-talks-inglourious-basterds-trailer/default.asp
You can add it to the article. --84.88.162.167 (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I have added a subsection on Spelling, currently at Inglourious Basterds#Spelling, referencing the link above. — Epastore (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

On the Walton & Johnson Radio show on August 19 or 20, guest Quentin Tarantino explained that the principal reason the title was misspelled was because a film had already been released with the title properly spelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.60.9 (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC) So why is the lemma spelled wrong (i.e. bastards instead of basterds?) --WiseWoman (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Reads like the studio wrote it

Sorry, but this article reads like a piece of p.r. Couldn't fix it without a complete rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.198.234 (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me guess: you don't like the film, and find that the article paints to positive a picture of it, right...? -- Imladros (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with you, Mr Unsigned. Unlike sooo many articles on Wikipedia, this article is "actually" written in correct English.--Rmhs15 (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Bold formatting in "Cast" section

Per MOS:BOLD, bold formatting has a few special uses: table headers, definition lists, and volume numbers of journal articles. The formatting should not be used for the "Cast" section. I have had to remove the formatting several times already, and I encourage other editors to abide by the MOS and keep the section unbolded. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hans Landa article

I've begun work on a Hans Landa article. If any of you would like to contribute, go here. It's very rough, but I haven't gotten to the copyediting process yet (I always wait until I know whether or not the article will even work). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Landa's patch on his uniform's lower left sleeve in the middle of the film, you can see he was in the SD. Oh, who am I kiddin', SD is a division of the SS.

NAZI propaganda film?

If you look at imdb. com they think that QT made a Pro Nazi propaganda film as it portrays Germans as honorable normal people and Jews as sadistic backstabbing terrorist psychopaths that even kills defenseless German soldiers with baseball bats before they scalp their victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a nazi propaganda film. Maybe it shows some nazis in a friendly light, but the whole thing is still nazis bad. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Meh, doesn't matter. The events are fictional. There should have been a group of Jews murdering Nazis in this manner but the whole film is fiction. Also, almost none of the Germans in this film are honorable or normal. Blue Danube (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Excactly. And by the way, what does it matter what some blokes writing imdb reviews think...? -- Imladros (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Richard Sammel's character is portrayed pretty favourably, I'd say. Opera hat (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree you can't call it Nazi propaganda (otherwise Landa's brutality would not be shown), but the film has been criticized for seeming to bring the Allies or Jews down to the Nazis' level. This is covered somewhat in the criticism section. But as Blue Danube says, it is just fiction. However, if fiction can affect the audience, it is real to some extent. Does it degrade the audience, or is it ok to enjoy seeing our government do awful things to bad people? That is actually a topical question, given that the USA has resorted to torture lately. So in that light I can't decide if the film is stupid, or brilliant. Fletcher (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the film shows Allies and Jews doing to Nazis what most of us would like to do if we had been there to do it.

First things first: Words like: Its just fiction, its a film and it takes place in an alternative universe have not really helped film directors like Oliver Stone or book authors like Salman Rushdie. Who is a nazi soldier and who is a wehrmacht soldier? That wehrmacht man that the Bear Jew (Eli Roth) brutally killed by smashing him to death with the baseball bat over 10 times didnt have any nazi symbols on his uniform and the Bear Jew didnt even give soldier 2 a chance when he worked himself up in a lethal frenzy as he just shouted: You! And then bang. And then we naturally have that second sadistic psychopath Hugo Stiglitz who also killed people in very cowardly ways. Are we supposed to root for psychotic cowards like that? Except for SS Nazi Hans Landa and the soldiers shooting through the floor, we didnt see a single German/Nazi do a crime in the film. All Germans are happy looking while the bastards look insane for the most parts. That German war hero was imo portrayed very favorable (Zoller) before he was shot in the back by Shosannna. Was Adolf Hitler a comedian that only shouted nein nein nein nein? Its a film about WW2 and that is nothing to joke about as that war costed 50 million lives or is it just Americans that think its funny? I have links to whay i just wrote and i can post them and its not just some guys at imdb that says this either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, then go on, post them. I honestly cannot believe that any person can be so dumb as to seriously interpret this flick as Tarantino glorifying Nazis (people who would have needed this film to show the Nazis' atrocities one more time obviously didn't pay attention in school or in one of the 400 films on the subject that have been made earlier...), but if there are serious discussions on the matter, post the links. Just hope these are serious discussions, and not more of this typical throwing forth and back of insults by hypersensitive guys who need to voice their opinion on gay marriage in the comment section of a Mr. Bean sketch on Youtube... -- Imladros (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you're forgetting the fact that Zoller killed hundreds people in cold blood, and then acted in a movie about killing hundreds people in cold blood, which everyone clapped and cheered for. Everyone in the movie was bad, you aren't supposed to cheer for the basterds, the basterds are the savage natives, to borrow a phrase, you're not supposed to cheer for the germans either, the germans are the invading land stealing assholes, who are attempting, en masse, to murder all the so they can get more land. If you were paying attention to the concept of this movie, it's a spaghetti western with nazi iconography, basically, it's equating the nazi's with the people americans normally consider heroic figures, that is to say, their ancestors, the assholes who came to america and attempted to kill all the natives they could. Except Quentin took the scalping guerilla tactics of the native americans, of the time, and applied it to the WWII scenario. It's not a fucking popcorn flick, it's quite serious, so stop trying to look for humour. Hell, even think about what Zoller did, in WWII thoughts, that's fucking insane to kill 300 people in 3 days with only a rifle, I would dare to say it would be impossible to kill 300 american soldiers in 3 days with only a rifle, while they all had machine guns and rifles of their own. It would be easy to say actually that they would have killed Zoller a couple hours into day one. But it is reasonable to say that a man could have killed three hundred native americans in 3 days with only a rifle, it would be a lot still, but it isn't as hard to imagine, mainly because the natives wouldn't have any weapons more advanced than bows and tomahawks, and americans sort of did that, a lot. The film that he acted in, the film within a film, that's looking at normal westerns, where the cowboy, Zoller, is the hero of the story, the great amazing hero, who's only accomplishment is killing an excess amount of people.

It seems many people don't get that this is a revenge fantasy and it's cruel,ruthless and excessive because that's the nature of revenge fantasies. I think this movie is very much a projection of what not only many Jews,but many Poles, French and people all across Europe were dreaming about during WWII. Maybe these dreams were cruel and hateful but they were perfectly natural and damn well justified. As to idea that 'IB' are pro-nazi, it's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long,long time. Do they really need to show gas chambers, infant's heads crashed on walls, bombed cities, gestapo tortures and 30 accidental, innocent people shoot on the street in retaliation for killing of one gestapo torturer by the resistance to make the viewer remember that nazis really were bad guys? To understand that Zoller wasn't that innocent being Goebbels' protege and Fuhrer's loyal follower? Do people really need to see more of Landa's huntings to understand why everybody are so afraid of him? Please, the viewers can't be that stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.150.48.89 (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


You find all links you need under section 6: "The “avenging Jew” is a kind of stock character of the German political imagination" and the links posted by him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Plot gives the entire story

Shouldn't the plot be written better? Right now it gives away the whole story of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.15.16.20 (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the idea of a plot section - to tell you what happens. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

I feel that the word "censorship" is used inflationary on the internet. Why not call it "legal issues" etc. Or is a law prohibiting you from stealing newspapers "censorship" because you're denied "freedom of information"? At some point it just get's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.40.149 (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What is "used inflationary"? Is that your blow-up doll? ;-) Do you mean "inflammatory"? But there's nothing wrong with the word censorship; it is what it is. A law against stealing newspapers is a bad analogy -- the government is not stopping you from buying a paper, and if you are somehow too poor to buy a newspaper, you can still go to the library. So the fact that you're not allowed to steal in no way means you are being denied freedom of information. But the government stopping you from displaying certain symbols it disapproves of is censorship. Whether it's justified or not, it is censorship. Remember that Wikipedia, itself, is not censored, and you can't block a word just because you don't like it. "Legal issues" is vague and indirect, much less precise than "censorship". Fletcher (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Different Languages in the Movie

What percent of the movie is in each language? How many lines are in German/ English / French / Italian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.116.50 (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoping someone else will do your research for you? ;-)
There are very few lines in Italian. Otherwise, the languages used are mostly what's expected from the characters and context involved, Germans speak German, French speak French, etc. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Inglourious"

I removed this from the section title. 

"(although thats the way it is spelled in countries outside the US)"

I removed it because it's simply not true, anyone who's accustomed to UK/Canadian spelling will tell you that "inglourious" is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.11.74 (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

MOSFILM

I see some editors are revamping the article. May I suggest use WP:MOSFILM as a guide for the sections. I'm about to try and separate Development/Production into one section (Production) with min-sections, such as Development, Writing, Casting, Filming, etc, or whatever fits. —Mike Allen 23:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Eli Roth "The Bear Jew"

Did Terrentino base "The Bear Jew" off of boxer Max Baer? According to his wikipedia page he was banned from appearing in films in Nazi Germany because he defeated a German boxer. I figure its either a semi-historically accurate pun or a complete coincidence but I didn't know who to ask. I did google it but I found no information either way. I suppose the boxer and the character/actions of "The Bear Jew" are quite different, but I personally see a connection. 69.221.7.70 (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It makes more sense if the nickname is a baseball reference. Was the character a Chicago Cubs fan? 70.246.237.100 (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Not explicitly stated in the movie, IIRC. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Since the character was from Boston, Red Sox or Braves would be more likelySolicitr (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


Is this film not German hostile ? I am German and I don´t like it to see that everybody of us is a stupid Nazi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.167.245 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC) We want to have the scalp from Tarantino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.167.245 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the movie is not German hostile, just hostile to history and Nazis. I didn't really like the movie though, so I assure you I'm not acting as a fanboy here. Everett3 (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
To answer your question, no, not in my opinion (I'm German, by the way), and everyone I know either likes the movie or dislikes it because it doesn't take the WWII crimes seriously enough (as it's "nothing to make jokes about" and the movie is a bit of a comedy, as is Tarantino's style).
Having just seen the movie, not every German in it is "a stupid Nazi", in fact, it becomes quite clear that some of them are collaborating to assassinate Hitler. And while the leading Nazis (i.e. the historic persons) are certainly ridiculed, Landa, the SS guy in the tavern, and others certainly aren't dumb at all (though evil). Daniel Brühl's character was, well... almost likeable, for a while anyway: I thought he had regrets about his crimes -- but then he shot Shosanna.
I rather disliked the ending, though. Is there a reason why Rayne didn't simply shoot Landa? With his take-no-prisoners attitude, why spare him? If Rayne knew that Landa would be tried and "brought to justice" or whatever, sure. But let him get away? -- Seemed out of character. Or am I missing a detail of the plot here?87.78.3.205 (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering what our people did, a little rib poking is pretty lenient. It's not like it's an anti-German film. Only ignorant racist fucks think we're all Nazis. My father used to say "The only good German is a dead one.", even after he met mom, and I was born. -_-*

Maybe I'm the only one to notice. Or I only fantasize to notice - but doesn't Hans Landa resemble Horst Köhler, the current German President? The face of the latter is rounder, but the dialect he uses in some scenes is about identical with Köhler's diction. Also, his body language pretty much resembles the current head of state of the FRG. Does anybody here have a clue where to research, whether Tarantino had anything in mind casting him - or was he only just a (IMO, actually, an excellent!) substitute for diCaprio? Would be glad to know more on this, if anybody knows... PS: I'm strongly d'accord with the previous speaker - a little rib poking won't do any harm and is a gesture only suitable among friends! Chew the Nazi toxins out of Germany using culture and let the German people become a normal people again; Don't get me wrong here: War, militarism, genocide and dictatorship are the worst to happen in any country! But a return to normality when it's long over could be a relief for everyone. Regards, --Klingon83 (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


Talk:Inglourious Basterds/Archive 2/GA1

come on.

"The film was successful at the box office and killed several nazis, making it awesome. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.19.221 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism was reverted. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 00:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

More vandalism removed 4 Feb 2010, including some irrelevant text after the names of the chapters, and also where Tarantino was changed to 'Cornholio.' Surprising someone of this caliber of immaturity can even spell 'wikipedia.' mercator79 20:33 04 Feb 2010 (UTC)

It's Tarantino; like responds to like. 68Kustom (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Shosanna?

It's spelled "Shoshanna".

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3199/shoshanna.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yzalzy (talk • contribs) 15:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the official website her name is spelt 'Shosanna'. The spelling in the movie could be a deliberate mistake on the German's part. Like the title, Tarantino could have had them spell it wrong for a reason. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Enough

  • The hype of "Inglorious Basterd" is overdone to me. The page shows advertisement, POV missing and the sentimental story works on porn and violence. Tension line "Bolero", ejaculating Nazis.

Acting on history as a fancy seems new, if Begnignis does the whole world cries for lacking moralty. This way? Any ethic and asthetic questions? The new born star profiles a slaughter in policy and no pschychologic character. The measure of quality seems somhow long shadowed dwarfs. Winnig a bag!--94.220.247.71 (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I don't know about all that. I just thought it was an anti-nazi's wet dream. Tarantino is one example of how crack kills brain cells. 75.1.48.21 (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Bękarty Wojny

Can someone please tell me what the fact that the Polish title of the film is not a literal translation (in order to have an "O" in the title to place the artwork) has to do with censorship? --92.226.87.135 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps should be moved to Release? 132.68.248.137 (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit notice please

Would someone with the appropriate user rights (I don't) please create an edit notice for this article specifically directing editors to read WP:FILMPLOT before making edits to the plot section? Maybe that will have more impact than the hidden text messages in the article. Thanks in advance. – ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

firstname/lastname inconsistency

I found this article very difficult to read because of the naming inconsistency in describing characters. Characters are referred to by firstname or lastname with no pattern. For instance, we learn about "leader, 1st Lieutenant Aldo Raine also known as "Aldo the Apache"" who is later referred to as Aldo in that section, but then further down he is suddenly Raine. Raine - who is Raine? I had to search the page to find out that he's the character previously called Aldo. There is Shosanna Dryfus who is always referred to by firstname, and Bridget von Hammersmark who is always referred to by lastname.

I also found it quite confusing to have the plot placed above the cast listing. I don't think there's much point in having a cast listing at all if it isn't above the plot (to provide enough of an overview of each character that one can follow the brief plot outline).

Is there a wikipedia standard?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.147.100 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about Aldo, but Shosanna is consistently referred to by her first name in the film, while von Hammersmark is referred to by her last name. Maybe it's an attempt to keep in line with the film?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.67.187 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"Tarantino spent just over a decade writing the script for the film...". That's about right. It takes a decade for the actores to speak all the dialog! Yo Quinty....ever try EDITING? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"Deliberate anachronism"

Hi,

I'm not sure how to edit the page, but I think that the sentence describing Hitler's death as a "deliberate anachronism" needs to be revised? I don't think anachronism is the correct term. Yes, Hitler did eventually die (so his death is being placed in a previous historical context), but the circumstances portrayed in the film are vastly different than in reality. Yes, it is an error in chronology, but "anachronism" usually refers to an object or verbiage used outside of the correct historical context. "Deliberate historical revisionism" might be a more appropriate term. Thanks. Brosenbe (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Ben April 8, 2010

Yes this was just added yesterday by an IP. It's been reverted. Thanks. :) —Mike Allen 04:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Why is this? It's a pretty important factor in the plot (which originally went completely unmentioned), and American Heritage Dictionary defines "anachronism" thus: The representation of someone as existing or something as happening in other than chronological, proper, or historical order. 159.153.4.51 (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

War adventure

This category has been removed by a anonymous IP. I believe with the definition of the genre it is acceptable here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Allmovie is not reliable, Inglourious Basterds is a war drama film. as said, allmovie is not reliable, as they list Heat as a thriller when it is not one, yet they list Cohen & Tate as Drama AND Action when it is actually a thriller. 201.68.179.181 (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
All Movie is more reliable than IMDb. Mike Allen 00:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm removing the war adventure film because [personal attack removed] andrzejbanas may as well think Schindler's List was a War Adventure films because Schindler was a man on a mission to save the jews. Note that Allmovie is not reliable, as they list this film as adventure and not as a drama, and list heat as thriller. 201.43.207.2 (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted this edit above for a user going against WP:RS and WP:OR. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I love the definitions of Andrzejbanas why Matrix and Little Miss Sunshine aren't adventure films, andrzejbanas is just a regurgitator of allmovie, if allmovie says Godfather is a comedy, he is going to belive them. Little Miss Sunshine is an adventure film because it is a road film, road films are adventure films. Inglourious Basterds is not a war adventure film, because there is no quest for any treasure or a journey into an exotic locale. 201.95.48.234 (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.135.71 (talk)

I agree, Inglourious Basterds is not an adventure film, there are few sources that claim it as an adventure film, and these are not reliable. 201.43.207.228 (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Smells like socks in here! In case others are still doubting this, I've provided these sources elsehwere, but here we go: DVDTalk: DVDtalk, The Independant, Boxoffice.com, Metro.co.uk, Macleans, and [The Guardian. Woo Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The similarity to Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, LOTR and Rambo is apparent lol. Chigurgh (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
That's not what the definition of the genre is, so I don't even know why you are bringing them up.. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Andrzejanas has provided more that enough reliable sources backing this up. Please keep in mind WP:V which states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." So it's not our judgment call to make whether a genre applies or not for this film. It's up to the reliable sources and it's already been established. Thank you. Mike Allen 01:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Mike. Andrzejanas has provided us with enough reliable refs, so can we stop all this now? I don't like looking in the history of an article, that Mike and I worked very hard on improving, and seeing wars breaking out over a category. Surely there are more important issues on Wiki to get worked up over? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 15:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Oops "war adventure films" cat has disappeared. 201.68.136.226 (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
It was removed just before the article was semi-protected and no one noticed. But don't worry, I've added it back again. - JuneGloom Talk 23:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Void of Historical Accuracy Should be Discussed

As subject.120.18.61.156 (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he was going for accuracy in this film.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Unmentioned Music Cue

The article mentions several different source music used in the movie. One piece that was left out came from the 1970's movie, 'Kelly's Heroes'. The particular piece came from the 'Hero's' scene where Clint Eastwood and his men are waiting the last few minutes before they ambush the Tiger tanks in the town square. This ominous, throbbing music was applied to 'Basterds' during a scene where the Nazi film is running and the the two theater plotters finalize their plan by preparing the last film reels and locking the doors.98.95.108.209 (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for this, then it can be added. - JuneGloom Talk 15:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved from EL

—Mike Allen 09:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, they've been there since we took this to GA. I did wonder if they should be in the article, but no one brought them up and I forgot all about them. - JuneGloom Talk 13:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Simpsons Episode?

I don't know if anybody can edit this still, but in the 2010 simpsons christmas special they parody this film (featuring Marge destroying the theater during WWII). Just thought you'd like to know. Fantastic movie also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.181.10 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It needs a reliable source, but I'm not sure where it would go. - JuneGloom Talk 23:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It's taken a couple of months, but I found a source and added the info. - JuneGloom Talk 14:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Starring order

Since no one else is going to start a discussion, I might as well do it (I don't want to see another edit war to break out). How should the cast be listed in the infobox? Do we go by the end credits, the film's poster or another method? Take it away. - JuneGloom Talk 00:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

fact or fiction

There are lots of WWII movies. Some of them are "true" stories (as true as movies can be, anyway), following actual persons or events. Others are fictional, telling stories set in WWII, perhaps even including historical persons. I was shocked that I was able to read the entire introduciton section and not be able to tell which this was. I have corrected this oversight, and am only explaining here in case someone thinks my edit is unnecessary and is considefring reverting it. Please do not. This is a very important matter. 98.82.0.102 (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC

Perhaps the lead should reference that the movie is (something like) "fictional account of actual events"? There is (at least one) documentary on the historical 'Inglourios Basterds' [sic]. http://www.hulu.com/watch/322875/national-geographic-specials-hunting-hitlers-generals#s-p2-sr-i0 Perhaps there should be a WP page for the "real" IB's? I am finding difficulty tracking down the actual story (which is why I came to this WP page) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Shosanna?

I could have sworn it was the common Hebrew Jewish name "Shoshana" meaning rose. Is it really Shosanna? I have never heard that variation before. I don't have the disc with me so I can't view the credits. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It really is Shosanna. The film credits, offcial website and DVD (which is right in front of me) have her name spelt that way. Quentin spelt the film's title how he wanted, so he probably did the same with her name. :) - JuneGloom Talk 17:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Poorly sourced sentence

I removed this line from the 'critical reception' section; it surprised me so I checked the source: a long personal rant spammed to a few indymedia sites (see its own comments section). No indication that "others argue" this. – SJ + 12:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Others have argued the film is Neoconservative propaganda which promotes terrorism while reflecting the reality of war crimes the American establishment has evaded prosecution for over the decades.
<ref>[http://www.phillyimc.org/en/inglorious-bastards-film-promotes-terrorism-and-torture "Inglorious Bastards Film Promotes Terrorism and Torture"], Dan Dillon. Philadelphia Independent Media Center. 7 oct 2009. Accessed 10 september 2011</ref>
Thanks. It was added a little while ago and I never got round to checking it. - JuneGloom Talk 14:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

References

In the German version of the article on this film, there is a section on pop-culture references e.g. to other films. Since Tarantino is known to have an encyclopedic knowledge on all kinds on films and makes his films often as genre-mashups that are filled with references to other films, this might be a good idea for the article in the English Wikipedia as well.

One reference I came upon (so far missing on the IMDB trivia list for this film) was that he actually referenced a 1968 episode (Patterns of Force) from the original Star Trek series, where the characters Kirk and Spock try to infiltrate a Nazi event by posing as a film crew. The same of course happens in Inglorious Basterds.

--RedNil (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Cast Sub Section

It seems that most other film articles have a cast section listing the actors and who they are playing for easy reference. I'm not sure why this one doesn't. May I add one or was it taken away for reason? DSQ (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking through the edit history, it seems that all of the information normally found in a cast list was folded into the "Casting" section during a Good Article review in 2010. I agree that a list of the sort found in most film articles would be much more convenient as a reference for readers. —Flax5 18:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Cool I'll add it now. DSQ (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't quite know how to write this without it sounding like I'm having a go, but may I ask why you did not wait a bit longer for more replies? I've only just seen this and I'm one of the editors that helped bring the page to good article status. Personally I disagree with the removal of the actors names from the plot, but I guess it's too late now. I don't mind having a cast list (the Django Unchained layout isn't too bad), but I'm not particularly keen on the idea of the casting section getting split up as mentioned on the WikiProject Film talk page. Is that how casting sections are being laid out these days? - JuneGloom Talk 23:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Well my thoughts went like this. Hm I wonder who is the actor playing Zoller? Oh it's not immediately obvious on IB wiki page I wonder why? I'll just have a quick check to see that by adding one I'm not reverting some serious decision. I'm not? Okay I'll add it. I didn't wait longer because I got the information I needed. If you wish to make further changes go ahead I just added the list in the first format I thought of. DSQ (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I've actually started a revamp of the casting section on my personal sandbox, which I'd love to have some help and criticism on. Any links involving Brühl, Schweiger or Laurent would be greatly appreciated. Corvoe (speak to me) 01:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Spelling

Just wondering if there should be an explanation of the spelling vs. the other film (and perhaps how the actual team was historically spelled?). I understand the 'u' in inglourious is Brit, is the 'e' in basterds also Brit? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There is an explanation for the different spellings in the Development and writing section. - JuneGloom Talk 14:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks (sorry, I must have skimmed over that section) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
That's alright, I've done it before. :) - JuneGloom Talk 14:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The most plausible explanation of the misspellings is that Mr. Tarentino thought it was the correct way to spell each of the words and, subsequently, didn't want to lose face and was supported by some of the media in the invention and propagation of mythical explanations: a similar phenomenon to that which led to a certain adoption of George W. Bush's 'nucular'. At such elevated levels ignorance can be particularly embarrassing and bluster sometimes overrules admission of ignorance.
'I understand the 'u' in inglourious is Brit[sic], is the 'e' in basterds also Brit[sic]?' I don't know from whence this 'understanding' arises. The correct spellings of the words, as used in Britain, are 'inglorious' and 'bastards'. The first use people have encountered of Tarentino's peculiar spellings is in Tarentino's film title.
Thank you for pointing that out to enlighten those who might suspect differently. The British spelling of some words is too often used as a mistaken scapegoat, as indeed it is here. One of the great things about language is that, even when words are spelled incorrectly, more people understand the meaning without public comment than those who either don't understand or insist on making their concerns public. 74.226.103.17 (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
If Tarentino followed his own retrospective justification consistently he would spell his name Kwentin. Fame does not preclude ignorance.

"Most plausible explanation", hahahahahafreakingha. Yours is a completely implausible explanation. Even assuming that Mr. Tarantino (note correct spelling of name Mr. Smug) was incapable of spelling common words like "bastards", it is impossible to imagine that nobody from production assistants to studio heads was able to successfully correct his error. I realize his explanation for the misspelled title may be unsatisfactory, but that is consistent with his explanations for almost everything he does. He probably means to say "because I felt like it", but it's not at all in his nature to be succinct when talking about himself. PS:Arrogance does not preclude ignorance, either.173.180.40.120 (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It may have had to do with copyright concerns regarding the two other films with correctly spelled titles

Landa's Rank and Organization

In the plot section, at the very beginning of the section someone keeps explaining Landa as an "SD" Colonel. He is an SS Standartenfuehrer (SS equivalent of the rank of Colonel) who is assigned to the SD wing of the SS. The SD was not its own organization, it was the intelligence wing of the SS. For this reason Landa is not an "SD colonel", and should be explained as "SS-Standartenfuehrer, and SD detective Hans Landa". — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegionXXI (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This all sounds like original research on your part, and not something explicitly stated in the film, thus, not appropriate. -

Actually, it is explained in the film. Landa's German comrades call him "Standartenführer", which means he does, in fact, officially hold the rank of Standartenführer. He translates it to colonel when speaking to French, and American people, because the rank of Standartenführer is the SS equivalent of a military colonel. The only German character who does not call him by his correct rank is Bridget von Hammersmark, and she incorrectly addresses him as "Oberst". However, all other German characters, including other SS men, address him as Standartenführer. She also incorrectly addresses Sturmbannführer Dieter Hellstrom as Hauptmann, while everybody else clearly addresses him as Sturmbannführer. So, I believe the text should display "colonel", but link to the Standartenführer page, which I have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.70.110 (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox cast list

There has recently been disagreement over who should be included in the cast list, with editors such as Niteshift36 and 178.167.246.183 changing it to just the cast members listed above the title (that being Pitt, Waltz, Fassbender, Roth, Kruger, Bruhl, Schwieger, and Laurent). I actually agree with this change; I think it will help the infobox be concise. However, this long infobox listing has been on this article for several months now (possibly added by me, but with only one instance of changing in a long while), and I don't believe it should just be changed without any discussion. Thoughts, everyone? Corvoe (speak to me) 20:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I support this shortening as well. Seems like a reasonable cutoff point. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The template instructions say "billing block". I don't consider all the small print at the bottom to be what they're talking about. There are many things in that section, not just who starred. Thus, it's not the "billing block". Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest looking at the actual billing block area: "Inclusion in the credits and the billing block is generally a matter of detailed contracts between Hollywood labor unions representing creative talent and the producer or film distributor. The labor union contracts specify minimum requirements for presenting actors, writers and directors." The little text is the billing block, or at least the modern version of one (this is a very widely considered phrase). That said, it's irrelevant to the discussion. We're just trying to build consensus as to where to cut off the cast list. I think I can safely say you're in agreement that it should just be those I listed? Corvoe (speak to me) 20:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If you want to dig out some technical definition in a contract, knock yourself out. I'm talking about exercising a little common sense. The stars are listed in the big print. The people in the tiny print are there because of legal requirements. The purpose of the infobox is to provide a snapshot of information, not an exhaustive list of information, especially information that's really there to fulfill some contract. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm extremely confused as to why you're arguing with me at this point. What is this benefitting? I'm agreeing with the listing you think it should be. Just those in big print, like you said. Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Michael Fassbender, Eli Roth, Diane Kruger, Daniel Bruhl, Til Schwieger, and Melanie Laurent. They are the stars of the film, I completely agree. I was simply informing you that the initial, longer listing was due to the recommendation at Template:Infobox film, where it says to list the actors as they appear in the billing block. That's all. I reverted you not out of disagreement, but since the edit was against what had been there for a long time, and what is included in the infobox documentation (read: not a guideline). Corvoe (speak to me) 20:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Then you shouldn't have reverted it. reverting simply because 'it's been that way for a long time' was pointless. You reverted it twice, using the same non-reason. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Niteshift36, Corvoe reverted to the status quo. WP:EDITCONSENSUS says, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." If the lengthy list of names has persisted for a while, then it is worth discussing a change. Neither approach is outright detrimental. This discussion helps make consensus for a change explicit. If it was limited to edit summaries, the consensus would be more overlooked. We're in agreement here, so we can point to this discussion in case a future passerby editor tries to add more names. EDIT: Also, it is worth noting that there has been plenty of edit warring over the "Starring" field, so having a discussion adds clarity to the matter. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The fact that nobody bothered to clean up that mess is not a de facto consensus. We prove this on a daily basis at AfD when articles that have existed for years are deleted. And I haven't opposed the discussion. Of course the info could have been left out when it was removed the second time, left out and then discussed. In any case, nobody if making the case for leaving that mess in there, so the rest of this is pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Niteshift36: I feel like you're very angry about the inclusion of this information, when it really isn't. That information staying in a Good Article for that long kind of implies that it's not bothering anyone, and where Erik linked WP:EDITCONSENSUS, it clearly states that my "non-reason" was in fact me sourcing policy. You're going into other stuff at this point, and you're being unnecessarily coy with us when we're in agreement with you, and building consensus. The only thing I wanted to discuss is if we should remove the info. That's what you've agreed with, so we're good. I don't want this to get personal, I have no vendetta against you. You're clearly acting in good faith and you made an excellent suggestion, I just disagreed with your method of making that suggestion. Let's just shake hands, end this argument, and get rid of the long cast list. Sound good? Corvoe (speak to me) 00:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Non-linear?

I see this was added to a category for non-linear films. I don't know, it's been a few years since I saw it last, but I don't recall much happening out of sequence? Am I forgetting something? --SubSeven (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There are flashbacks, but I don't think it's told out of sequence (certainly not like Pulp Fiction). - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Sequel?

I wonder if there'll be a sequel where those involved in this episode are disciplined by their superiors in the Army and OSS and subjected to anti-semitic abuse in the process, and the successful careers and prosperous lives the surviving German prisoners have after the war, some in the employ of DOD. The premise of Tarantino's movie is laudable, but sadly not at all historically plausible given what American culture, and the culture of the Army, was at the time, which was rife with racism and anti-semitism. Patton embodied this with his contempt for Nazi concentration camp victims whom he described as vermin and his having Goering over for a champagne breakfast after he was captured. A more realistic documentary came out about 20 years ago about anti-Nazi partisans in Eastern Europe and how the Jews among them had, in addition to fighting the Germans, always watch their backs around their goyim co-fighters, who were only slightly less rabidly anti-semitic than the the Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.244.71 (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • First, talk pages are used for discussions on articles and how they may be improved. They are not places for commentary on the article subjects or relevent issues such as anti-semetism. Secondly, since you did go there, the accusation of the American forces in WW2 as being anti-semites is bizarre and groundless. Americans stood in line to volunteer, often lying about their age, to go fight Nazis in Europe, primarily because of their persecution of Europeans of Jewish descent.

Patton having breakfast with Goering is quite insignificant and speaks of the respect high ranking officers on opposing sides have for each other. Surely the discussion would have involved Patton wanting to get inside Goerings mind on military tactics, etc, or just make his victories more conclusive by meeting his opponent, not plot how they could collaborate on how to kill more Jews. The implausible part of the film is the way it depicts Jewish American soldiers acting the way we might portray Nazis or worse. Executing prisoners as bloodsport, etc. After 30 minutes I just stopped the film, of course there is no historical value and it fell short of even Tarantino film making value- it isn't even fun. Which leaves one puzzled about the great reviews. Has Jewish Hollywood gone so far over the top they would forget the tone of the film reeks of the same kind of hatred for a people- Germans-that the Nazi party incited against Jews? Finally, "Goyim"? That is evolving as viewed as the N-word for gentiles. Its not just me saying that, if you google goyim offensive you will see lots of Jews explaining why. I doubt you meant it as a perjorative but gentile will raise fewer eyebrows. If you use it in a sense of "not of God's chosen race" in public you just might get assaulted. Batvette (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Too little on the double mis-spelling

There is a world outside Hollywood where spelling and related components of language matter. Why two mis-spellings in the title and so little explanation?

Not that long ago that a whole Wikipedia entry was created to try to rationalise Bush's trouble with nuclear (Bushism: newculer). The result was US being a laughing-stock.

Can this article do better?

There are some quotations from Taratino near the end of the "Development" section. He's never really said much about it except that he likes it that way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, too much information about it could be lending it undue weight. I don't remember there being too much about it during research for the GA review. - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 36 external links on Inglourious Basterds. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Inglourious Basterds. 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:

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) 23:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 40 external links on Inglourious Basterds. 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:

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) 06:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Inglourious Basterds. 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:

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) 02:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

"revisionist" war film?

What makes this film a "revisionist" war film? --178.10.67.207 (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The actual outcome of World War II and the death of Adolf Hitler and his inner circle, as opposed to the events in the fifth chapter in the movie. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
It's a poor way to describe the film - perhaps 'alternate reality' would be more appropriate.

Frederick Zoller's Iron Cross

In the film we see Frederick Zoller's array of decorations, yet he is not wearing the Iron Cross First Class on either his normal or dress uniforms. He has the Iron Cross Second Class, and the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, with what looks to be Oak Leaves, but no First Class medal. To qualify for the Knight's Cross, a soldier had to already hold the 1939 Iron Cross First Class. DocYako Talk 21:25 pm 19 September 2015 (EST)

Maybe Tarantino is not that expert about WWII =) Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You meant, perhaps he is not as knowledgable about Nazi regalia as he/his staff should have been. It matters not one wit to the story, though.104.169.21.238 (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Biased reception section

In the lead section, it is stated that the film received "widespread acclaim". However, the contents of the Critical reception section are dominated by negative receptions about how the film offended some critics. Please fix it. enjoyer -- talk 15:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, a Metacritic 69 isn't exactly "widespread acclaim." I'll change it.--Somarain (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Critic section of the lede

The mention of the critical reception in the lede doesn't match the critical reception section in the body. The lede says "The film received widespread acclaim, with praise for Tarantino's screenplay, direction and performances." The body mentions a 69 Metacritic score ("generally favorable reviews") and quite a bit of criticism, mostly over the historical fiction elements. I changed the lede to "The film received a mostly positive response. Critics praised the performances and Tarantino's screenplay and direction, but some criticized the historical liberties taken." to better summarize the body. I'm sure that could be phrased better but it's a start. --Somarain (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inglourious_Basterds/Archive_2&oldid=1232954839"