Talk:Catch-22 (film)

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

I was looking for the movie page[edit]

Saw no reference to the book. Considering the size of the book, the movie would have been three hours long. Unlike MASH's episodic comedy, "Catch 22" had a theme and moral running through it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic) for "The prototypical Catch-22, as formulated by Heller, considers the case of a U.S. Army Air Forces bombardier who wishes to be excused from combat flight duty. 'In order to be excused from such duty, he must submit an official medical diagnosis from his squadron's flight surgeon, demonstrating that he is unfit because he is insane. According to Army regulations, any sane person would naturally not want to fly combat missions because they are so dangerous. By requesting permission not to fly combat missions, on the grounds of insanity, the bombardier demonstrates that he is in fact sane and therefore is fit to fly. Conversely, any flyer who wished to fly on combat runs implicitly demonstrated that he was insane and was unfit to fly and ought to be excused, and to be excused this person would only need to submit a request. Naturally, such flyers never submitted such requests. Of course, if they did, the "Catch" would assert itself, short-circuiting any such attempt to escape from combat duty.'"it is restated simply as "anything can be done to you that you can not prevent" the logical conclusion being eventual destruction or assimilation. This "Catch 22" reccurs throughout the story, and was implied to the US Government in general and in particular to the Vietnam War (if you volunteered you went to Germany, if didn't want to go was drafted to Vietnam). Shjacks45 (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. But the jump f4om German page led to the book. This was difficult to find! However the movie is trash from the contents although video quality on Cableeinsclassics was excellent. Torbenlicht2015 (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Layout of the page[edit]

I was expecting to find more info about the movie in itself. It could be warned as "spoiler" (though for me it is no spoiler as i saw the movie already)

However right now when i look at the page, there is a big listing about aircrafts used in the movie. I think having this information is nice, but its a bit too long compared to "Summary" of the movie. I thus propose to extend the summary for this movie. (If noone else does this or objects to my proposal here, I will do so at some time in the future. I really think the summary should be longer, compared to the listing of aircrafts in the movie ;) I am not a native english speaker though.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions required[edit]

The article as such is a closer to a stub than a full article. A recent edit eliminated all references to the aircraft which are more than just stage dressing for the film. Catch 22 is regarded as a pivotal film in the preservation of B-25 aircraft worldwide. Many of the surviving airframes owe their existence to the film. However, it may be more appropriate to create an establishing statement as to the importance of the aircraft and then re-locate the list to a sub-article such as "B-25 Mitchell aircraft used in Catch 22 (film)". FWiW a great deal of further work is needed throughout the article. Bzuk (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I would suggest dropping in a fresh Template:Infobox Film to make the infobox more readable. Also, the poster is actually a DVD cover as you can tell from the "Widescreen Collection" label at the bottom. This should be the original poster, which I suggest uploading over the existing file. Also, you may want to use {{filmrationale}} like it has been used at Blindness poster.jpg. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't notice that was the DVD cover, but I will replace it with the poster. As the article may be developed further, the DVD cover can also be used later. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I think there's waaaay too much info on the bomber. Also, as Mike Nichols' followup to two big hits ("Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf"?, and the super blockbuster "The Graduate"), Nichols was given carte blanche and a big budget to do whatever he wanted to do next, and this proved to be an early example of a New Hollywood auteur given authority and then delivering a commercial (and critical) bomb (although I personally loved the film), oft repeated in the decade or so to follow. Someone must have some references to this so that it's not presented as original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.3.195 (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


"Catch-22" is said to be convoluted - but so is: "who keeps increasing the number of missions required to be sent home before anyone can reach it". What does that even mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What it means is that the goal kept moving – as soon as any of the pilots neared the required quota of missions, it was again increased so that none of them were near it. 2600:1004:B115:46C4:6C43:D8F2:74EB:BFD5 (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Harwick & Schneff may feel that the film is poorly structured, but perhaps that is in the vacuum of looking at it as an original screenplay without regard to the source material. It is hard to imagine how to make a truly linear plot out of Heller's novel and Henry probably did the best that he could -- would love to find a published critic saying this so that it could be legitmately included in the article. 2600:1004:B115:46C4:6C43:D8F2:74EB:BFD5 (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article maintenance tags placed to invite help[edit]

I placed three clean-up maintenance tags to alert editors to the need for assistance in improving the article. There are sources listed in a Bibliography section, but with no inline cites, so it is difficult to tell what copy is supported by references and what isn't. Inline citations are needed. Also, the Plot description contains what is probably original research that could be rectified by removal, rewrite, or cites to reliable sources. Help in rewriting and citing is welcome. The concerns about OR are not limited to just the Plot section (Adaptation and Production appear questionable), but proper sourcing may take care of the other areas. Finally, the Lead is not supported by the body of the article. A rewrite limiting the Lead to what is verifiable in the rest of the article will resolve the issue, or augmenting the body with appropriate material will work even better. Thanks for any help.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

If someone with access to the source for the cited production information in the Lead could add it to the Production section, it would be appreciated. I haven't been able to locate the hardcopy sources, nor find parallel online sources, or I'd do it myself. This will help us meet WP:LEAD guidelines. Thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

Reviews to use. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: the Canby review in the Times is especially helpful.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; I have a feeling we're not going to find too many reviews of this film online, considering it's from 1970 and not too famous. If you need help retrieving print reviews, let me know. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to start checking the professional research databases and see what can be turned up.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography question[edit]

There are references to two Farmer sources, "Farmer 1972" and "Farmer 1989". I see the full cite for 1972, but what is the 1989 one?
Jim Dunning | talk 03:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, corrected. On another issue, the template in use for periodicals has a "bug" and has to be rewritten in text because it will not take a m-d-y format. The other template used for the NASM reference was slightly altered, see code. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. As for the accessed date format, not sure what you're referring to. Both formats rendered the same, even when I changed my user date format preferences. How does your computer/browser render the date when it's entered as "2008-04-16" in the template and preference is set to "month dd, year" (standard US format)? Mine comes out as "April 16, 2008". I haven't heard of other users with issues and the template is used extensively. Even when I put the article date as "[[2008-02-29]]", it renders as expected. Mmmmm. Curious. I use Firefox, btw.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for commonality in reading dates is for ease of use of the general user who may not have date preferences set. It is easiest to use one system throughout since the majority of visitors to the site may not be Wikipedia editors who have the date preferences in place. FWiW, if your preferences are not set to your preference, then you get what you write (WYSIWYG) and two dates appear, one in ISO standard and the other in the more common "popular" format of m-d-y. Bzuk (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

First Sergeant vs Master Sergeant[edit]

Master Sergeant is a rank or rating and First Sergeant is a position, usually the head administrative enlisted man of a unit. Any NCO can be a First Sergeant, therefore calling the character alternately Master Sergeant or First Sergeant is not necessarily incorrect. Most First Sergeants of that era were Master Sergeants. Bill Pyper, 7/27/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.122.217 (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, there may not be a contradiction. Master Sergeant is a rank. In the US military First Sergeant, or "First Shirt", is primarily a position, a focal point for administrative issues, somewhat akin to a shop steward.
The Wiki article on First Sergeant does describe it as a separate rank from Master Sergeant in the US Army and Marines, but not in the USAF. Further confusion may be wrought by Master Sergeant referring to different pay grades (USAF: E-7, US Army: E-8, US Marines: E-8), and the official abbreviations for both Master Sergeant and First Sergeant vary between the services.
At the time portrayed in the movie, there was no independent USAF; Yossarian was in the US Army Air Corps. The rank structure would be similar to current US Army practice; the USAF has diverged from that tradition. Madkaugh (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

The following sentence in the lead doesn't sound like WP:NPOV to me: Considered a black comedy revolving around the "lunatic characters" of Heller's satirical anti-war novel, it was the work of a talented production team which included director Mike Nichols and screenwriter Buck Henry (who also acted in the film). I think the word talented should be omitted. Robvanvee (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've removed the word. Thanks! Erik (talk | contribs) 15:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catch-22 (film). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catch-22_(film)&oldid=1206576706"