Talk:Taps (film)

Unclear

Some of the contents of this article are either questionable, or somewhat unclear.

2. The school's armoury had weapons which are resisted fantasy. In addition to fully automatic M-16s, the school also had M-2 .50 calibre machine guns, M-60 machine guns, M1911 Colt .45 pistols, grenades, et al.

Is this saying that the "pure fantasy" is that these weapons would be in the school's armoury? As the weapons themselves are legit.

--Lucanos 06:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents but the school is middle and high school level, and I've never seen one yet with functioning weapons. Normally ROTC units do not keep "armories" of weapons at any level except at the US military academies, but in any case, legal or not, it is highly unlikely crew-served weapons would be at a high school and grenades not at all.

Regardless of how realistic you feel the story is, the film is fiction. Clearly the writers of the film can place whatever weapons they want in the armory.The Goat 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the film, but it was always a little funny watching these kids with automatic weapons and heavy ordinance. Now there's a military school for ya!

It wouldn't be at all unusual for a military academy to have semi-automatic versions of the M16 rifles along with semi-automatic versions of M14 rifles and perhaps marksmanship rifles too. It is pure fantasy to imagine that a doomsday arsenal of fully automatic M16's, M60's, M2's and 81mm mortars would be stored at the school - unless it had a second use as a National Guard arsenal. --Apolloin (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The weapons are referred to as "government property;" I'm pretty sure the feds don't involve itself with operating or assisting private military schools.

Whether or not the federal would be involved in supplying a place like Bunker Hill Academy, there is no way in hell it would furnish it with full-functioning automatic weapons (M16A1 rifles, M2 HMGs, M60 MG), M26 frag grenades, and (talk about suspension of disbelief) 81mm mortars. About 20 years ago when I was a tank crewman in the Marines, those of us who owned their own privately-purchased firearms were forbidden to store them in our barracks rooms; we were required to register them with the battalion armorer and store them in the armory itself. That, despite the fact we were all members of one of the most highly-trained and well-disciplined military organizations on Earth, bar none.

Besides the obvious issues of legal liability that this arrangement proposes, the government would then find itself obligated-- probably by federal law, simple common sense, or both-- to see to it that the weapons were not only kept in a secure building, but guarded 24/7/365 by a crew of qualified (and armed) professional security officers, likely from a 3rd-party civilian contractor charging the feds a hefty fee for their services.

The amount of available real estate maintained by the academy for weapons training-- which presumably would involve firing them, thus requiring a generous "buffer zone" to prevent errant ordinance from going high and wide and hitting the outlying town-- would likely dwarf the campus itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.47.105 (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really, as a "range" does not have to be all that big. Even for an M16, they only need to be around 25 meters deep. Larger is always better, but that is in no way required. You can actually set up quite an elaborate range in about the area of a football field. You simply have to set up really high berms around it, something that is done all the time in ranges for civilians and law enforcement. Mushrom (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and the "Government" would not be obligated to have it guarded like that. That is not even required today for armories for the National Guard and Reserves. And it sure as heck was not required over 4 decades ago. Our rifles were all kept in a safe, nothing special about it. Not unlike a safe you could use for your rifles at home.

JROTC units still have rifles to this day, but generally things like that are determined by the school district. Some districts allow them to have fully functional weapons, some require demilitarized weapons, and some require replicas only. I know for all the Army JROTC units in LA 40-some years ago, they had I want to say a dozen or so functioning M1903 rifles that could be requested for ceremonies. My unit there requested and got them once, for a 21 gun salute at a Memorial Day ceremony. All others were demilitarized and kept locked up in the class at all times when not in use. Unlike in Idaho where we could take the demilitarized drill rifles home with us to practice. Different school districts, so different rules. Mushrom (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

For a group of young guys who were apparently well-drilled and well-versed in conducting a military operation, the manner in which they set up defensive positions was awful to a degree that probably would have been the cadets' greatest risk factor. For starters: the gate was guarded by two sandbagged positions close to each other with armed troops packed into them like sardines, as if part of some attempt to assure maximum casualties once shooting commenced. In front of them: an barred opening built into the walls on either side of the gate, manned by a single cadet who-- as a result-- positioned directly in front the of sandbagged positions and in their direct line of fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.47.105 (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed the movie, but I agree it was quite lacking in military accuracy. I doubt very seriously that any school would allow teenagers to train with M-16s, let alone larger weapons. I was a JROTC cadet at the time I saw this movie, and our instructors never allowed us to handle anything larger than a .22, and then only under careful supervision.76.6.218.158 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I was a JROTC cadet at that time also, in a program at a public high school in Idaho. We had .22 rifles for use on the rifle range in our basement, as well as fully functional M1903 and M1 rifles used for salutes at ceremonies. And a few years prior we also has a fully functional 60mm mortar that had been modified to work on canned air for training (like most such weapons it was a real mortar with the air power added). That was not removed from the school because it was a functional mortar, but because it was an M2 which the Army recalled as they were by then obsolete and replaced with the M224.

And every year we would go out for training with the National Guard, where firing real M16 and M60s was something we did. That kind of thing is more than likely based on where you were located than anything else. I know when I moved to LA, we handled nothing more than air rifles. But students a hundred miles away were handing fully functional equipment. However, we would also do training with the US Army at Fort Ord each year, where once again firing real weapons like the M16 and M1911 was just something we did. Mushrom (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ebert liked it, but Siskel hated it.

At the time this movie was released, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert were still hosting "Sneak Previews" on PBS. Ebert lavished the film with praise, but Siskel panned it. That surprised me, because I always considered Ebert the tougher of the two critics. I don't remember all Siskel said about the movie, but I remember him using the word "laughable", and not in a complimentary sense.76.6.218.158 (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Siskel thought the movie was totally unrealistic: End of Discussion.

Ebert acknowledged that it was and even named several such aspects of the film in his written review of the movie. However, he dismissed this criticism as he thought the movie should be viewed as allegorical along the lines of Lord of the Flies and liked its psychological profiles of various characters.

As for Ebert being the tougher reviewer, I’m not in a position to say. However, if his review of I Am David is any indication, I’d have to agree. He panned the film as being a saccharine tearjerker and very contrived (which I agree it was as did most reviewers and as was Taps) but went further in his written review by at least implying that the juvenile lead actor’s (Ben Tibber, around age twelve) performance was poor whereas I thought he was terrific and the boy did win a promising actor award at a film festival for the part, such as it was. The kid didn’t write the script, for Pete’s sake! Perhaps Ebert had been in a bad mood when he wrote the review and decided that instead of kicking his dog he’d kick a kid! The poor kid didn’t have much of a further career in acting after that and I hope it wasn’t because of Ebert! I don’t know if Siskel reviewed the film as I can’t find one by him.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)