Talk:Platoon (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pfcs?

I don't think any of the soldiers in the movie were Pfcs. How could we even tell that they were Privates in the first place? The only ones who had rank insignia the Sergeants and Specialists.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. The screenplay calls the sergeants and officers as such, but the other characters seem to be called by their names, with ranks not mentioned. Imdb's credits seem right (except for Sgt. Warren, who is called such in the screenplay, and is at least mentioned as such in the film. Unless some evidence can be found, the ranks for a lot of these characters could be original research based on speculation. Anyone know anything about a source for these listed ranks? Doc9871 (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The specialists have rank insignia. All the other soldiers don't, however. Also, who is "Monkey"?--Ace Oliveira (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Good question. If "Monkey" can't be verified as a character by official credits, remove it. I also don't remember Taylor getting promoted from Private to PFC...

I can see why someone did all this; because some characters have ranks listed and "the privates" (hehe) don't. It seems lacking not to have the others have ranks, but it's not necessarily accurate, especially with "PFC's". I think it's implied in the film possibly (because of "seniority") that some of the characters like "King" and "Big Harold" could be PFC's - but it's not able to be referenced from what I've seen. I know I wouldn't be against removing it if it can't be proven... Doc9871 (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed "Monkey", and noticed that this cast list deviates from the official credits significantly by listing the actors in order of their character's rank pretty much from Tony Todd as Sgt. Warren downwards. Dale Dye listed above Francesco Quinn and Keith David because his character was a Captain? That's not how the official credits are, and this list is showing signs of clear original research. I think this list should mirror the official credits more closely (if fact, the official credits are preferable)... Doc9871 (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The best official credits (in terms of reliability) I've found so far is also shown on Yahoo!, but not Imdb (which isn't a reliable source anyway). One question is clear: should this article go by official cast listing and character names - or inclusion of ranks and names that aren't in the official credits? I should point out that Charlie Sheen's character name is simply "Chris", not even "Chris Taylor", let alone "Pvt/Pfc Chris Taylor". Any response would be appreciated... Doc9871 (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should include ranks and names that aren't in the official credits. However, the ranks and names should be able to be referenced. For example, Sheen's character is credited as a only "Chris". However, in the movie, many of the soldiers call him by his surname, Taylor. The same thing happens with Barnes and Junior. Barnes keeps being called Bob by O'Neil and Barnes calls Junior "Martin" once. We should cite the ranks by the insignia.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem if we do this is that it's still original research, and it opens the door to what amounts to a trivia list. We normally don't add, for instance, the middle names of characters if they're not credited that way, even though by "observing" the film we know what that name is. I'm also not convinced it's critical to list the ranks and names when the filmmakers didn't. The film isn't meant to delineate the characters by rank; they were all in it together (this sentence, by the way, is my own original research). Credits are credits, and to alter them... we shouldn't do that. I mean, why is Richard Edson (Sal) listed so far above other actors that had far more screen time? It doesn't seem right, does it? But that's how the official credits go. I would have to go against adding ranks or any other information to the cast list; maybe those things should go in the article's body (with proper citations). Just my opinion! Cheers,,, Doc9871 (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, then we should put the ranks on the plot section. Like you said, the Cast List is just a cast list. I really wished we could get some guys from the Wiki Movies project, though.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Cast List

I feel like I've been talking to myself a bit recently :> The more I looked at the cast list, the more original research I saw, so I obviously changed the list. Fans of the film know that O'Neill was called "Red" and that Chris' last name is "Taylor" - but "Doc Gomez"? We can't arbitrarily add ranks and surnames to characters in films when they can't be supported. I think we have to have a) the official cast list (with order and characters), b) an abridged version (but not changing cast order or character names) or c) no cast list at all. We simply can't have a list where Pfc's ranks are listed with no verification (or specialists, for that matter; despite what is observable in the film, we can't add it without a reliable source). We also can't have the cast listed in order of their character's rank in the film; e.g. Dale Dye has far less screen-time than other characters listed below him as it was. This is a "Start" class article, and it's one of my favorite films of all time. I hope we can get this article in better shape, especially for a movie as great as this one... Doc9871 (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Doc. But wouldn't the movie itself be a reliable source? Maybe if we could get some men from the War Film Task Force or the Military History project. I also think the soundtrack section should be a little expanded.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Ace! I'm not sure what you mean about using the movie as a reliable source; a source for what? By all means feel free to edit the soundtrack section if you can improve it - it's your article (and all of ours) too! :> Be bold with constructive edits. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see your comment in the above section before typing my question - I've answered it above... Doc9871 (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Cast List (Revisited)

Recently a couple if IP's added "Taylor" after "Chris", and "Staff Sergeant" instead of "Sergeant Barnes". While both these changes seem innocuous and even correct, they actually are not the way the characters were credited at all. It is not up to WP editors to incorrectly alter official film credits; it is wrong and irresponsible. As a bold editor, I would have no problem wiping out the cast list entirely if it will not stop being altered from the official credits. This is the official cast list. We're not going to speculate who was a PFC. or who was a Specialist, or if "Doc" was "Doc Sanchez" or "Doc Gomez" or whatever. It's a slippery slope; adding "Taylor" encourages further false changes to the correct credits. This article is not required to have a cast list, and an incorrect cast list is simply not acceptable. There was no character named "Monkey" in the film, and there never will be. Any one out there care to comment one way or the other, please? Thank you... Doc9871 (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In the scene at basecamp, when Chris takes a toke off a marijuana pipe, he is referred to as Taylor. So its not incorrect to list his character as Chris Taylor. Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the cast list is waaaay too long. If this article is going to pass on to a higher level I'm sure one of the criticism will be to shorten the cast list. After all, that's what the Internet Movie Database is for.--J.D. (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur with J.D. about the length of the cast list. At the very least, entries that lack blue links should be removed. I'd have to review the film and related references to see if the blue-linked minor actors still qualify. Erik (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! I think this film's article deserves far better than "Start" class, and anything to get it higher is good... Doc9871 (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Film's 25th anniversary is December 19, 2011. Don't know how much you're willing to work on this article, but you could get it promoted to Featured Article status with enough hard work and display it on the front page on that date. (I did that with Fight Club (film) for its 10th anniversary.) It will definitely require research, though. Just let me know, and we can work together on this. (You can help, too, J.D.) Erik (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest with you, this is and always has been one of my favorite films, and I'd do whatever it takes. "Yo! Saddle up! Lock and load!" Doc9871 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think the cast list should be shortened (sp?). As I've said, the ranks and stuff should go into the plot section.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Platoon will likely be covered in books and periodicals about film and military. Since the film precedes the Internet, there will not be much real information online about it. WP:FILMRES is a good read to understand what approach to take and what is available. I've found a few lists of references that we can use, listed below. I can help acquire these from the library, but I am wondering if anyone has access to a university library or a major library? It would help if more than one editor can work with dense publications.

• Film Literature Index (you can filter out non-English references)
• FilmReference.com (no page for Platoon, but it is likely covered in references about Stone)
• UC Berkeley Media Resource Center
• WorldCat.org (picks up results used in titles and chapters)

What kind of schedule do we want to work with? Erik (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I'm excited to have a professional here - this is new territory for me. I'm limited as far as library access (in "downeast" Maine, where I am, there's pretty much nothing). I'll do what I can for research on the web (send me a grid!). I hope the silent watchers out there will "pipe up" and volunteer, because we need a few more "live bodies" to get this rolling... Doc9871 (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hah, I'm no professional. I just have too much time on my hands that I spend working on film articles. :) We should identify books that you could get from the library system, likely ones about Oliver Stone. Academic publications may be harder for you to get. If you have a library card, you can visit your library and find about interlibrary loan, where you can request a book from another library system. You can also ask about what databases your library system subscribes to; you could find coverage in newspapers and magazines about the film. As a last resort, I may be able to share some references with you (once I get them), but I try to keep that practice limited. Let's try to start this ourselves and show some results and maybe pull silent watchers in. We can also see if anyone at WT:FILM would be interested. (Also, if you have not yet, I recommend reading MOS:FILM.) Erik (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we could use the two commentary tracks in the special edition DVD. There's plenty of stuff in there about the Boot Camp the actors went through. So does mini-documentary about the movie in the DVD.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Cast list (again)

This has been discussed at length above, but I thought I would raise the issue again. The cast list is too long, with a great many minor roles. Furthermore, as the list was just recently altered again, with original research added by an anonymous user, I think it is time we put this issue to rest. The hidden comments, claiming to divine "correct" answers without sources, should be removed. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Stars of film

Clearly Berenger, Dafoe and Sheen are the stars of this movie. I doubt that you could find anywhere else in the world a serious reference to the film which lists Johnny Depp (and ONLY Johnny Depp) as a star, together with these three. Detracts from the professionalism of the article I believe. Mesmer1944 (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Doc talk 04:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Cast List (Revisited Yet Again)

This issue will never die, and I know it. All we can do is seek consensus for what is appropriate to include when it comes to a cast list (a list which is not required for this or any other article). In an attempt to quell often outrageous original research being submitted into the cast list, I suggested that we only use the official cast list. The reasoning behind using only the original cast list includes:

• 1. Every film has an official cast/character list, and it is improper for an article on this film or any other to have anything added to those lists. No middle names if the filmmaker didn't list it that way, no military ranks if the character wasn't listed as having a rank in their name, etc. Allowing alterations to this cast list based on original research is not allowed by standard.
• 2. The nature of many (if not all) WP film articles is such that the "plot" section is almost entirely original research. You want to call him "Chris Taylor" throughout the plot? Call Warren "Sergeant Warren" to clarify that he was a leader? Absolutely fine: we all know his last name was Taylor in the film and that Warren was a sergeant. But we also all know that Charlie Sheen was credited as playing "Chris", and "Warren" was not credited as "Sergeant Warren". Who are we to second-guess why he wasn't credited as "Chris Taylor"? It's not our job, and it shouldn't happen for these credits or any others on any article on WP.

There are more reasons, but I won't bore you with them. Consensus needs to be sought again for whether or not we're even going to have a cast list at all if it isn't the official one. Because I will never come to this article and see "Monkey" listed in the credits again. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Doc talk 02:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

His reasons for not being credited as Chris Taylor are artistic, this has nothing to do with the aim here, to be encyclopedic. Using someone's inclusion of "Monkey" as any basis for your argument is, in actuality, baseless. Furthermore your "consensus" consists of you and one other person who is going along with what you are saying. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It is far more encyclopedic to publish a cast list that can be verified by outside sources that it is to create one that cannot be verified. All films have cast/character lists and we do not alter them with original research. Doc talk 03:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The section in question is called "Cast", not "Official cast list". Is there a specific WP:FILM policy which states that only the official cast list may be used as a source for this section? What if, due to a typographical error, the official cast list misspells a character's name. Must the WP article do likewise in the "Cast" section even if the correct spelling is available via other reliable sources. Much has been written about this particular film, and there is not shortage of reliable sources which give "Chris"'s last name and "Sergeant Barnes"'s proper rank. I suggest that they both be corrected, with " ^[nb1] " style links to a "Notes" section (via {{ref label}}) which mentions their form in the official cast list. The current situation, where "Taylor" is mentioned seventeen times in the "Plot" section but not once in the "Cast" section is most bizarre. -- ToE 16:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll get back to that in a second. I have in my hands a very interesting book that I am lucky enough to own. Platoon and Salvador - The Screenplays. Ebury Press, London, 1987. ISBN 0-85223-648-4. It's really a fascinating book, and while many lines made it directly into the film as originally written, many other lines, scenes and characters differ quite dramatically from what eventually made it. Of course, it does have the official cast list, so that's easy to add as a reference - it's on pages 14-15. In it, Stone introduces each character in the story, and the physical descriptions are often not what the casting directors followed. Junior is described as having "huge goggle eyes and a face of pimples and pockmarks, his teeth yellowed and decayed, some of them missing." Barnes is introduced as the "platoon sergeant" and Elias as the "squad sergeant". I believe there is only one point in the film that "staff sergeant" is even mentioned, and that's when Captain Harris threatens a court-martial after the murder of the village chief's wife. Dale Dye must have ad-libbed it as well, because it's not in the original dialogue for that scene. Lieutenant Wolfe, in contrast, is consistently referred to as such.

So what's the point, you ask? Once again, to ensure that original research does not find its way into the cast list[1], the only logical thing to do would be to stick to the official cast list. We don't know the ranks of most of the characters because Stone doesn't mention them in the screenplay or the film. We don't know, for instance, if Lerner was a private, a pfc or a corporal, and doing the original research of watching the film for shoulder insignia is not how we reference things. We do know that Sanderson was a Spec 4 because that is mentioned a couple of times in his description in the screenplay (and never directly in the film). If we credit him as "Spec 4 'Sandy' Sanderson" in the cast list it invites what was going on before: people wanting to fill in all the ranks, first and last names, and nicknames to make it "nice and neat". It goes far beyond adding "Taylor" or "Staff Sergeant". Doc talk 18:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Note - Some more interesting stuff from the original screenplay:

• In the scene where Lt. Wolfe tells Rhah he's got Elias' squad, apparently Rhah's last name was originally "Jackson". "I don't want to hear your problems, Jackson. You'll get new men any day. Time being you make due like everybody else." He calls him "Jackson" two other times in this scene, which is otherwise filmed almost exactly as written. Perhaps Francesco Quinn looked more like a "Ramucci" than a "Jackson", so they changed the name.
• At the end, the scene with the APC with the Nazi flag differs. The guy with the dog who asks Chris if he can walk is called "Monster Man", and in the original version, Chris nods and "...walks out of the jungle, head bowed, nauseated, mixed feelings roiling him."
• In the village shooting scene, the chief's daughter is described as being 19, and when Barnes puts the gun to her head she begs for her life, "cradling his knees".
• In the scene where Sandy and Sal die, it is originally Sal who comes out with his arms blown off, and Barnes grabs his face and says, "Goddamit! Are you fucking kids ever gonna learn! Don't you understand how easy it is to die!" In the screenplay, Sanderson is described more than once as a "big blonde kid".
• When Barnes realizes that Chris was about to kill him, originally he was scripted to say simply, "Fuck you in hell..." right before Chris shoots him.

There are a ton more interesting things in this book, and there are used copies available on Amazon. I highly recommend it. Doc talk 20:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Cast list (yeah, that again)

The cast list is entirely too long, with lots of minor roles played by nonnotable actors. It should be trimmed down to only include those who are notable enough to actually have a WP article. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 22:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

So, keep Dale Dye because he is notable, but omit actors who had more screen time than him? There is no need to have any cast list at all; and there is no way we are allowing the same type of original research that was rife here before. It is not going to happen. This article has 15 freaking references, and you are going to go on about this? Re-think your focus on improving this article, is my advice to you. Doc talk 04:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Art Greenspon photo

Is there any reliable source to indicate that Stone had Art Greenspon's photo in mind when he created the iconic shot of Willem Dafoe kneeling with hands raised? There is this analysis that is used as the reference in the caption, but the analysis is third hand -- the author does not appear to have actually spoken to Stone or had any reliable source to base his claim that Stone had Greenspon's photo in mind. The two photos bear a surface similarity, but that is all. The Greenspon photo depicts a ground trooper guiding in a med-evac helicopter, whereas the Stone image portrays a soldier fallen to his knees in despair. Any correlation of the two images without direct confirmation from Stone is pure speculation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I can find after a quick look is this from the New York Daily News, which states that it is said to be a re-creation of the Greenspon photo. I'm not sure if direct confirmation from Stone is required (reliable sources are fine), but everything else I'm seeing is mirrors of the WP article. Doc talk 12:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I think this is a case of a lazy editor sourcing his facts from Wikipedia. I can't solidly refute the claim that Stone had this image in mind, but given the differences in the meaning of the two images, I can't give it any credit either. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Cast list Final

To end the debate and provide factual data, I have edited the cast list to reflect the OFFICIAL cast list as defined by the original 'Platoon' call sheets/cast list. I have all 53 days of call sheets in addition to most production notes, online schedules, memos, production/cast/crew lists and daily production reports. The list contains the official cast numbers assigned by production prior to actual casting. You can contact me via this account for verification and documentation. The official paperwork involved in the making of this motion picture has been archived in a collection I have kept since we filmed this.Miltechadv (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Have the original call sheets/cast list that you are using as a source ever been published? Anywhere? The cast list previously in place was referenced with a reliable source complete with an ISBN. Part of something being a reliable source is that it is published for others to see, so they can verify the information. I'm not saying that you are lying about what you have: but just how are the rest of us supposed to check that information? Take your word for it? I like the addition of the LA Times article, but this does not back many of the additions you have made. Doc talk 05:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The original call sheets, cast lists online schedules etc were created in 1986. They are not something that would normally be published or archived.. I also possess the original issue #30 working script. Give me a place where this can be archived, published etc.. I'll supply it! The entire film. I AM one of the cast/crew.Miltechadv (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure you would be able to publish these things if you were not the copyright owner. Without proper citation from a published, reliable source, we are in the realm of original research. The addition of the LA Times article (again, an excellent find that could really be used to expand the article) confirms Ebenhoch et. al's roles in the film, but nothing published out there backs up, for instance, "Tony Hoyt" instead of "Tony". "Character name changed on shooting day 26 by Stone because of his fascination with this unusual name", without any sort of published confirmation out there anywhere, has absolutely no way to be proven a correct statement. Doc talk 07:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Understood, however this information does exist and should be shared with anyone with an interest. How to present it is the challenge without the day to day original working copies being published somewhere. Im all ears. Miltechadv (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The chief's wife and daughter are both numbered at 42 - is this a typo? We are also missing numbers 43-46 and 49-56, then pick up again at #57. Who were these additional (uncredited) actors? #'s 57-59 are credited in the book as cast members, as is Li Mai Thao, who strangely has no cast number at all. How would we resolve these things without a reliable source? Doc talk 08:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thats a typo. the wife is number 42. the daughter is 43. The remainder of the numbers (ending in 61 on that list dated 03 Mar 86) are characters yet to be cast as of that date. The issue with Li Mai Thao is a delicate one, and wasnt original to the cast list. I am only providing what my originals are in print. Oliver is well known to add characters during shooting and that character(Li Mai Thao's)was one of several, as some of the original characters were also deleted during filming.Miltechadv (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's what's always been my view on this cast list. Anyone who sees the film (doing their own original research) simply to watch the end credits clearly sees that Sheen is credited as "Chris" (and not "Chris Taylor") and Berenger is credited as "Sergeant Barnes" (not "Sergeant Bob Barnes") Now, the screenplay book, which is a published and reliable source using Stone's own material, confirms these credits 100%. We know that the character's last name is Taylor, and that Barnes' first name is Bob: but they simply were not credited officially as such. The credits in the film are not inaccurate as a source, and they are indisputably official credits. We must use reliable sources for our information here. Any uncredited roles that can be backed up by reliable sources (like Stone's, Ebenhoch's, etc.) are includable, but otherwise I feel very strongly that we should stick with the official cast list and not use earlier unpublished copies of a working script. I do believe you, and I don't think you're making up your involvement in the film. You are very lucky - it's one of the best films I know of, and you should be understandably proud of your work. But we have to back up our claims with something tangible, or someone (and not necessarily me) will have every right to delete it from policy-based rationale. Doc talk 08:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A source that was used randomly, but otherwise great if someone wants to make a 'real' article

--Niemti (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Unverified

" O'Neill, who desperately wants to go home, was given a battlefield promotion to second lieutenant and was told he will remain in duty and replace Barnes" to the best of my knowledge, Captain Harris does not offer any sort of promotion or commission to Lieutenant, he simply says "you've got second platoon", likely meaning he would be the acting commander until a suitable officer could be sourced. It's likely O'Neill did replace Barnes as Platoon Sergeant; however this is not stated either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.49.178 (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I came here to mention the same thing, except the article now says Lt. Wolfe instead of Barnes. I interpreted it as O'Neill replacing Barnes as platoon sergeant, but that isn't explicitly stated either. I'm altering the article to reflect this. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)