Talk:The Bunker (1981 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

HBO

HBO only sells HBO films, not CBS films: [1]

First off you need to sign your edits. Second you are wrong about this please see IMDb's page for this film where CBS is listed and where it was first aired. In 1981 HBO did not even have a film making unit and was producing no films. HBO has purchased the rights many other companies productions over the years and it only takes a brief look at the link you provided to find many products that they did not produce including Mrs. Harris [2] and here is its IMDb page [3] where you won't find HBO listed. Also see Fortress [4] and its IMDB page [5] again it was not produced by HBO. Yet they are selling both of these film. If you have purchased this DVD please look at the box and you will see CBS and/of Time-Life listed as the original copyright holder to this film. Using a catalog as your main source has its pitfalls and this page needs to have the correct info on it. MarnetteD | Talk 02:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup if you go to wikipedias page for HBO and scroll down you will find that the first film that they produced was The Terry Fox Story in 1983. Two full years after The Bunker aired on CBS. MarnetteD | Talk 02:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more followup for when you get back to this page. I am glad that you started this article. This film is one of the hallmarks of Anthony Hopkin's early career. As others work on the page, that you have begun, be aware that they will be bringing knowledge that you may not have been privy to. In my case I watched this the night that it first aired on CBS which was Jan 27, 1981. I was interested in Hopkins as an actor and had studied Hitler and Nazi Germany in college. I was not disappointed as his portrayal was fascinating and detailed, especially in the gutteral way that he spoke. Happy editing and keep up the good work. MarnetteD | Talk 03:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The movie "Fortress" being sold by HBO is NOT the one with Christopher Lambert. It was an HBO movie that aired in 1986 starring Rachel Ward. [6] And Mrs. Harris is indeed an HBO film. They may not have produced it but it did premiere on HBO and was advertised as an "HBO Original Film". In the first case, you should have used imdb and in the second case you shouldn't have. But since I did not see this film when it originally aired, I admit I can't say for certain that it premiered on HBO. But I do find it unusual for HBO to sell the DVD. I can understand licensing, but why license a TV movie from 1981? But CBS it is. MrBlondNYC 03:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops you are right about the Fortress error that I made. I know that you are probably well aware of this, but, a film 'premiering' on HBO may only mean that they paid the rights to show it on cable it doesn't always mean that they made it (though nowadays with the huge corporation that they have become they probably invested some money in it) and even the "HBO Original Film" tag can sometimes be misleading as to who made the film. I suspect that the key to them having access to The Bunker may lay in Time-Life being a part of the original production. Time-Life had connections to both British progamming and HBO going back into the 70's. For instance a 26 part series that I enjoyed in the late 70's called The Pallisers aired here in the US on HBO first and the later on PBS and the T-L logo was a part of its credits both times. T-L eventually sold the rights to this progamming and I'll bet HBO acquired the distributing rights to some, or much, of it. Thanks for working through this and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The Bunker 1981.jpg

Image:The Bunker 1981.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The Bunker 1981.jpg

Image:The Bunker 1981.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Needs Improvement

I saw the film and Hitler said that Goebbels agreed with Speer. He also did not expel Speer from the party like he did with Himmler and Goering.98.240.254.121 (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says:

The interpretations of the events by the actors differ in ways with the traditional accounts. For example, during the final meeting between Hitler and Albert Speer, Hopkins adopts a sarcastic tone and gestures (including mock applause) that suggest that Hitler was already aware of Speer's betrayal, even though he uses the exact words recounted by the witnesses. This became a fairly controversial scene due to a perception in some circles that the resemblance to Jesus Christ's legendary foreseeing of Judas's betrayal was intentional. These accusations were consistently denied, as were reports regarding a rumored on-set romance between Piper Laurie (Magda Goebbels) and Cliff Gorman (Joseph Goebbels).
Also, the movie constantly shifts the point-of-view character, but sometimes in an impossible manner. For example, Dr. Werner Haase is used in this manner, even though he was never interviewed (having died later in 1950). Likewise, two scenes are written from the viewpoint of Hitler's cook, Constanze Manziarly, and in one scene, Manziarly actually has a flashback. However, Manziarly disappeared while escaping the bunker, so neither O'Donnell nor any other person was able to interview her or get her viewpoint.

There are a number of non sequiturs here. The fact that Haase was not intereviewed does not mean his point of view is "impossible". It's a dramatic reconstruction. Anyway, there may have been witnesses who were present when the events depicted happened, or he may have told relatives of his memories. The scene with Manziarly is set in a kitchen full of other staff. The fact that she disappeared is irrelevant. Her words could easily have been remembered by other staff. The flashback is just a dramatic way of referring back to 'happier' times. As for the Speer stuff, how do you define "a sarcastic tone and gestures"? I can't say I noticed them. And who says it was a "controversial scene"? Is there a source for this? As IP 98.240.254.121 above says, the so-called "mock applause" comes when Speer says that Hitler should stay in Berlin, a view the utterly loyal Goebbels has also expressed. Hitler seems to be applauding Speer's sense of theatre not somehow showing he is "aware of Speer's betrayal": whatever that means. Paul B (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bunker re-created

Outside at least, is a reproduction from photo (still from start of film) http://i.imgur.com/tN7qXFO.jpg 1947 photo of bunker exterior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerbunker#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-V04744,_Berlin,_Garten_der_zerst%C3%B6rte_Reichskanzlei.jpg 86.139.151.221 (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

badly needs inline citations and to have the various tags answered!

There are all sorts of unsourced claims in this article. Some of the statements were tagged quite some time ago. 98.67.15.158 (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]