Talk:The Longest Day (film)

POV Check

I was reading this article when I came across the section about "Controversy in Canada". Not only does it not contain a single cited source, but it strongly felt like it was from the POV of a Canadian. It felt more like a persuasive essay, as opposed to an encyclopedia article. It rattled on about how important Canada was on D-Day and how they were "unjustly ignored". Even more, it stated that the Canadian forces were more important that the "rump Free French forces of General de Gaulle". And continuing on what I said before about not citing it sources, it talks about how a Canadian story was "Americanized"; ok, where is the proof? (I don't doubt it, I just find hard to believe with no credible source to back it up). Was there really that much controversy in Canada? Or is the user who typed this up just fuming because they felt that Canada didn't receive enough of the spotlight in this film? I don't know because I am not an expert on the subject, but what I do know is that this is definitely a case of POV. With Regards, Renegade Replicant|^{leave me a message} 17:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noted that it seemed to have a very biased pov: I changed a few parts, andBold text erased the mentionings of French forces. Someone else should check it over. It well may be that the entire Canadian Controversy section has to be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.152.81 (talk • contribs)

I do agree that would be a possible way to fix this. It appears that the paragraph has already been whittled down and yet it still doesn't cite it sources. If someone doesn't found anyway to back all of this up, I plan on removing the paragraph all together. Any objections? (please, let me know, so I don't make a change someone strongly opposes, though please provide reason why it should not be removed). If someone does find a way to back this I up, I personally would suggest that this should be integrated into another section (such as trivia) because its too short at the moment to stand as its own paragraph.

By the way, when you add a comment on a talk page, be sure to sign your comment with four tildes: ~. That way, we know who said it. I already fixed it for you this time, but be sure to do it from know on.--Renegade Replicant|^{leave me a message} 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone already took care of it for me. Since the paragraph has been deleted nobody took the effort to check it for POV, I'll just remove the tag. Its hard to contribute when action is rarely taken.--Renegade Replicant|^{leave me a message} 03:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My website - chotank.com - has logo that includes bust image of girl reading book that appears on bookshelf in "The Longest Day". Avon Edward Foote, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1970. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7C0:8103:5CBF:BD8C:9F68:12A5:EA03 (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Film cost comparison

The article compares the cost of this film with Schindlers List, but surely the value of The Longest Day (film) should be adjusted to show what £10,000,000 would be worth in 1993 G0ggy 18:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Raging Bull is said to have had a budget of $18M, which would seemingly contradict the assertion that Schindler's List was the next B&W film to exceed $10M. 118.92.161.55 (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Goofs

• In One scene Priller and his wingman are shown firing on British beaches they are shown as flying from west to east; actually they flew east to west.
• When the members of the French resistance are shown killing two German soldiers so a train can be derailed-this never happened in the book.
• In one scene a German soldier is shown putting his boots on the wrong feet and in a later scene he is killed by a downed RAF Officer-this later part of him being killed never happened in the book.(But is an example of the type of objectives carried out by the French Resistance, the French Commando's capture of Ouistreham also didn't occur in the book but the makers wanted to show that more than just the Americans and British participated on D-Day.)--The Mercenary 73 (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The 'wrong boots' thing is a running gag through the movie; it's quite deliberate, and not a goof. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• In two scenes of the Rangers after scaling Point Du Hoc-in one scene the Rangers are shown killing Germans who shout "Bitte" and in another the Rangers are shown finding no large gun enplacements and asking if it was worth it; the shooting scene never happened at Point Du hoc and the movie doesn't show that the Rangers did indeed disable the guns-which were about half a mile inland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.198 (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC) (The scene accurately showed what happened when they reached the bunkers on the top of Point du Hoc,it was impossible for the makers to show every incident that happened on June 6th 1944.)--The Mercenary 73 (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• The Priller scene has a couple extra goofs: First off, the aircraft featured are un-armed reconnaisance variants of the Me109. This isn't that important, because Priller and his wingman flew Fw190's in the actual raid. The most obvious error, though, is that they let the shot run a little too long and the elaborate set up of troops, vehicles, and obstacles abruptly ends a few hundred yards down the beach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.223.93 (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Are these goofs, or are the compromises made by the production crew, including Cornelius Ryan himself, in translating his book into a movie? For example, a German officer did put his boots on the wrong feet, but true, he was not shot by a downed British pilot. He survived the battle. Ryan describes this in the book. Same goes for the scene of the Rangers shooting the Germans who were surrendering. An incident is described in the book, but yes, it took place on Omaha, not Utah, and it was regular infantry, not paratroopers. General Cota didn't say, "There are two kinds of men who'll be left on this beach...", either, it was another officer. In the movie, Priller's planes aren't Fw-190s, either, they look like Me-108 Taifuns. So, I wouldn't say these are goofs, but rather differences between the movie and the book, reflecting compromises made in producing the film. Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Genre

In my opinion the genre(s) of a film is(/are) not only informative but very important for us to make our fist impression so it(/they) should be mentioned in the overview part. And I would not agree that these are (only) Action/Drama/History/War as IMDB states it. At least I would add that it containes humorous scenes and characters whom I never associated with war before. But for the first time I watched the film I was quite sure that it is a comedy about a not so comic subject. Anyway, it won't be me who adds this to the article so that my act will not be mistaken as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.236.49.87 (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot

The plot of this film should be written down.Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? After all, it's just one damn thing after another! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In Color (US Spelling)/Colour (Commonwealth Spelling)

I saw this film in Colour twice in the UK has anyone seen it in Colour>

A colourised version was released for tv during the 1980's, it is one of several films that were coloured during that time, another i remember is Back to Bataan also staring John Wayne. In the colourised version of The Longest Day there are some major errors, Leo Genn's character is shown wearing a RAF blue battledress when it should have been Army khaki, also if you look carefully at the actors teeth - they remain grey.--The Mercenary 73 (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't explain why this relatively big budget epic was shot in B&W in the first place. It seems an odd decision for an early 60s movie. It's not clear why colour would have cost significantly more, apart from the film stock. --Ef80 (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Plot

You need the plot of this film in the article. This is a requirement it is not an option. If you do not have a plot for this film this article will be deleted. Thank you. -James Pandora Adams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.169.69 (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs a plot summary. I looked at old versions of the article, and strangely enough, it does not appear that there was ever a plot summary. James, we cannot delete the article just because it is lacking a summary. There are a lot of incomplete articles, and what matters is adding new content to existing content. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is totally inadequate without at least some mention of plot (as most film articles contain). It reveals the inadequacies of Wikipedia that there are so many such articles, unlike a normal encyclopedia. Electronic media still do not serve their purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Profanity on your discussion page

Also there is clearly profanity on your discussion. The word damn is clearly used by one of your offline editors. You need to have this word deleted. Its okay to use any word in Wikipedia of course but it has to be used in context. Beside using the word "damn," in this sentence clearly shows your putting your emotions into the arguement and that is not allowded. You are also being very rude to one of your users who is simply trying to express his own oppinion. Please try using some other words like "Why the same repetitive thing occurs over and over again in this movie." Or some other word like that. If this word is not removed or is not put into some sort of context I'll be forced to remove it myself. I apologize I am simply following Wikipedia procedure. Thank you. -James Pandora Adams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.169.69 (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and the comment using the word "damn" was written in November of 2008. We are not supposed to edit other editors' comments either; see WP:TPO. If you want, though, I can archive old discussions (as they need to be archived anyway). Erik (talk | contribs) 18:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"Saving Private Ryan" Ripped Off from "The Longest Day"

"Saving Private Ryan" seems to have been ripped off from "The Longest Day" and "The Five Sullivans". Even the scene where the Germans surrender at the blockhouse on the beach with their hands up and are shot is replicated exactly in "Saving Private Ryan". Since Steven Spielberg has a notorious reputation as a script thief (see "Wild Realm Film Reviews--Steven Spielberg Plagiarism"), should it be noted that "Saving Private Ryan" was based on "The Longest Day"? By the way, I should mention that I consider "The Longest Day" to be the superior film--"Saving Private Ryan" is just a bunch of melodramatic schlock. But there's a lot of SPR fans who would go ballistic at such a statement. 69.104.55.200 (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It covers the same historical events. That's doesn't make it a ripoff. Also, Spielberg did not actually write the script of "Saving Private Ryan".--Pooneil (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

One element in the post-assault sequence that Spielerg, or his writers, lifted from 'The Longest Day' is the shooting of enemy soldiers who are trying to surrender. In 'TLD' they emerge with their hands up, shouting 'Bitte, bitte!' The Ranger who guns them down on a reflex, asks his companion quizzically but with little concern, "I wonder what Bitte, bitte' means." In 'SPR' there is no hint of confusion. The enemy soldiers approach Rangers telling them not to shoot, protesting in Polish (unbeknownst to the Americans and most of the audience) that they are not Germans. Ignoring the obvious attempt to surrender, the Rangers shoot them and cynically joke that the dead enemy were probably protesting that they had washed their hands (and so were 'good Germans').

JF42 (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Cast Listing

Do the sub-headings refer to the nationality of the actors, or to the nationality of the characters they portray? In most cases they would be one and the same, however the first sub-heading reads "Americans & Canadian". On D-Day, the Canadians fought alongside the British in Operation Tonga and on Juno Beach. -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Richard Todd quote

I removed this part discussing Richard Todd's role in the film since he never actually utters the phrase in quotes

• In the film, shortly after the British have captured the Orne bridge (later renamed Horsa Bridge), one of the soldiers tells Todd, playing Howard, that all they have to do now is sit tight and await the arrival of the 7th Parachute Battalion, to which Todd's character replies dismissively: "the Paras are always late". This was a private joke, as Todd had been the adjutant of the 7th Parachute Battalion on D-Day.

Todd does say "7th Para might not get here for hours" but whether that was an in-joke or not is not immediately obvious. Yojimbo1941 (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ryan's book a novel?

In the section, "Production-Development," we open with this sentence:

"French producer Raoul Lévy signed a deal with Simon & Schuster to purchase the filming rights to Cornelius Ryan's novel The Longest Day: June 6, 1944 D-Day."

A novel is a work of fiction. Ryan's book is an account of the events leading up to and taking place on June 6th, 1944, compiled from interviews with participants. I am not aware that any part of his book is fiction. Can anyone else support using the work "novel", or should we edit that simply to "book". Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)theBaron0530

Gert Fröbe- Sergeant Kaeffekanne

You might want to check: my memory is, supported by superficial search online, that Gert Fröbe's character was credited as 'Sergeant Kaffeeklatsch,' rather than 'Kaffeekanne.'

Perhaps the name was adapted for U.S. prints.

JF42 (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Participation of Military Personnel

I have deleted the following bullet point from the "Filming" section:

Zanuck hired several former military personnel to aid in direction. The director of American exteriors was Andrew Marton, director of British exteriors was Ken Annakin, director of German exteriors was Bernhard Wicki. This was to ensure the most authentic military procedures.

Only one of the three directors mentioned—Annakin—served in the military during WWII, and he was in the film unit of the RAF. While military personnel were involved with the film, these three directors are not good examples. Matuko (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Missing word

Someone please add "book" to the phrase "non-fiction of the same name" in the first sentence. (I can't be bothered to make an account and I'm caught up in an IP block.)

Done. --Blurryman (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Col. Lloyd Thompson

I'm not sure who he's supposed to represent, but BGs don't raid COLs as Aides de camp. My guess is he's some sort of composite character. Sometimes it seems like he's a commander and sometimes he seems like a staff officer. I'm not allowed to fix the page and I'm not sure what to put if I could, but what we have now is incorrect. 71.220.132.228 (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Casting section

While there is much interesting and valuable content in this section here, there seems to be quite a bit of unsourced material. I also can't help thinking that some of the points come across as bordering on trivia - eg "The film marked the last film appearance of Sean Connery before he was cast in the role of James Bond. Gert Fröbe (Sgt. Kaffeekanne) and Curd Jürgens (Gen. Günther Blumentritt) later played Bond villains Auric Goldfinger (Goldfinger) and Karl Stromberg (The Spy Who Loved Me), respectively". I also wonder if this would be better written in paragraphs rather than the current bullet point format that is employed here? Dunarc (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)