This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This archive includes threads from Talk:Red Dawn from the page's creation until December 31st, 2009.
Page Needs
The page needs an update on the plot summary and can possibly have a character list.
Thank you (someone) for making this a proper entry.
West Germany
Wasn't this movie banned in West Germany for its glorification of violence? Andries 08:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unofficially, there were other problems with the film in West Germany. The big one being that some groups would like the film because it parallels certain events in post 1945 germany. Nobody would want to create any wave of nostalgia for the postwar diehards who fought against the occupation. Its not that far (unforunately) word-wise from "Wolverine" to "Werewolf" either. The futile death of almost everyone at the end also sent the wrong message.
we are talking about pro west, west germany rigth? as i can see why in whould be Banned in east germanyJoeyjojo 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
While west germany was pro-west, the country was very sensitive to doing things that would deliberaly upset their communist neighbors. There was also lots of sensitivity in West Germany over anything that looked too militaristic and too right-wing because of the kind of people that stuff appeals to in the country.
Oklahoma or Colorado?
This information is taken from the Wikipedia article on Calumet:
Calumet is a town in Canadian County, Oklahoma and is part of the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area. As of 2005, the city is estimated to have a total population of 534.
Note that I have actually been to Calumet before, and know it is in Oklahoma. However, I sincerely doubt they remained in the vicinity of the town - that's a tactically unsound thing to do when you have a large enemy force looking for you. This would explain how they were in the Colorado Rockies later in the movie. There are mountain ranges in eastern Oklahoma, but Calumet is closer to Colorado than it is to the Ouachita Mountains, and because the Ouachitas have no strategic value whatsoever, it would make no sense for there to be a major tank battle underway there (not to mention the fact that Arapaho National Forest is in Colorado)). 63.215.29.111 03:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Calumet is not a real city. The license plates on the cars are clearly Colorado tags, and the group flees to the Arapaho National Forest which is in north central Colorado. Also, just because an area "has no strategic value" doesn't mean their wouldn't be fighting on it. A battle could take place anywhere two enemy armies meet.
-- There are a lot of Calumets in the USA, one of which is in southern Colorado and used to be a mining town. It's near the intersection of multiple major roads/highways which expains why the Soviets would want to take it. It's also about 150 miles from the Arapaho National Forest. It's within range of Jed's pickup, but Red Dawn itself seems to imply the Wolverines operate in the mountains around Calumet. My best guess at reconciling this with the movie:
They took off down route 69 and camped out in the mountains south of Arapaho. From there, they'd be in walking range of Calumet and Google Maps even shows a ranch at the foothills which could be Mr. Mason's. Mr. Mason told them to stay the heck away from town, so they went north into Arapaho National Battlefield. After killing the 3 Soviet sightseers, they moved back south and began attacking the occupiers. 24.20.202.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC).
Edits
New to Wikipedia, so forgive me for stepping where I shouldn't.
Was watching this movie on SpikeTV this evening and figured I would fix a few errors in this write-up. (Just changed Kansas City to Omaha and The Missouri River to the Mississippi River)
Wiki is phenominal by the way.
Background
Greetings. I edited the Background info. Someone had stated that the paratroopers at the beginning of the movie were "Elite Soviet Spetsnaz" & "Cuban Special Forces", however this is never implicitly stated in the movie. They were Soviet VDV (Soviet Airborne). A very good job was done of replicating the uniforms, weapons and headgear! Also, you see the VDV marking on most of the replicate VDV (BMD's, etc) vehicles throughout the film. Also the VDV in the opening were speaking Russian, and were not Cubans.
Spetsnaz are what were used to track down the Wolverines after they were betrayed from within. Spetsnaz are very specialized units that would not participate in large scale airborne assaults as the one depicted. Also, the Cubans have never had a viable Airborne element, they lack the training, and most importantly, the means. Hence if there were Cuban paras involved in the backstory, they would have had to create this branch of the Cuban Army from scratch, train, and then equip them with transport.
Cuban and Nicaraguan ground units, yes, elite Airborne forces, definitely would be left to the Soviets.
These are good points. In the context of this story, the Cubans could have infiltrated across the border with Mexico, instead of arriving by air. I realize the movie says that the Cuban Army's push north to link up with the Soviets was halted, but there is the possibility that the Cuban Colonel was sent ahead of the main force to take the passes in the town.
Most likely, it is a movie goof, but I suppose you could make it work. :-P
Cubans and/or Nicarguans are definitely involved in the intitial paradrop. That's why one of the teens states that "I heard some of them speaking Spanish." Yes, the Soviet VDV would have made up the bulk of the force, but the Cubans did, in fact, have a viable airborne unit. In fact, they were used extensively in their war in Angola in the early '80's. It is also entirely possible that part of the massive troop build up included an expansion of this airborne force.
The background has been completed deleted. The backstory behind the war at hand is now gone. I strongly insist that this be restored. This is a war movie, so I can't imagine why somebody did that.71.192.134.75 (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Soviet propaganda film?
I remember reading somewhere that the plotline was inspired by a Soviet propaganda film depicting Soviet partisan resistance against the Nazis. Does anyone know more about this? GCarty 08:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I can't prove it, but it does seem to be very similar to a Soviet partisan film. However, Milius has publicly stated he was inspired by the Mujahideen and that one of his goals was to show an American audience what it was like to be an Afghan under the Soviet occupation. Palm_Dogg 05:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
i can prove it im russian i actually remember that there was a film right after the Great Patriotic War where some teenagers in a Ukrainian town of Krasnodon fought the german army under largely the same circumstances and there are even plot similarities such as when one of the high school students in Red Dawn betrays all of them and is shot by one of the characters near the end, similar thing happens in the russian movie. the movie was called Molodaya gvardiya (young guards)(in russia elite armies are granted the title of guards)
I grew up in the Soviet Union, but have been living in Denver, Colorado for many years now. So I am kind of close to the set-up of the "Red Dawn" from both sides:-). I had the same thoughts as the author of the comment above, when I first saw the movie. For those who grew up in Soviet Union the similarities to the novel by well-known Soviet author are obvious. There was a famous (in the USSR) novel by Alexander Fadeyev called "Molodaya Gvardiya" ("Young Guard"), which was later used as a basis for 1949 film with the same name. The story is based on true events that took place during WWII. See Wikipedia article about real "Young Guard" (Young Guard (Soviet resistance)). I am wondering if the authors of "Red Dawn" ever heard of "Young Guard"? The comment above that started this discussion speaks in favor of this possibility... Now, few words regarding the likelihood of the events depicted in "Red Dawn". My father (long since retired) served with the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR (a like of the "Pentagon" in US) during Cold War in the rank of General Major. He and my mother visited us in Denver on numerous occasions. During one of their visits I showed him the "Red Dawn". He enjoyed the movie, but said that during his time in the service the idea of direct invasion of USA was consistently dismissed from all possible scenarios of WWIII that were considered. Belov-usa-net (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You may be referring to the movie Armored Attack, which had nothing to do with either armor or an attack (it was later re-named The North Star, which makes more sense), but it portrays a German rear-echelon unit (primarily a hospital, which sucks all the blood out of Russian children for their blood supply) and how it is defeated by a communal-based guerrilla force, thus showing (IIRC) the glory of democracy (not sure how communists vs nazis does that). It's definately a propaganda film. 138.162.128.54 (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Operation Red Dawn (film)
I was bold and merged the top couple of paragraphs of an article called Operation Red Dawn (film) with this one, then redirected. No sense in having two articles on the film, and the other one had the wrong name and doesn't add any detail. I added a couple of paragraphs at top, about gun control and about Operation Red Dawn, to this article; do with them what ye will. bikeable(talk) 05:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Expense
This movie sounds very expensive, with all the fake vehicles and paradrops. Captain Jackson 18:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The key word is "fake". So how expensive would something that is fake, be?
Now, I have never heard the song in question, nor seen the lyrics, but that line, especially coupled with the mention of this movie, makes me wonder if the words aren't actually Iron Eagle. - SAMAS 23 March, 2006
I have the album with the reference song, and the line is, indeed, "Iron Eagle." I changed them.
partisan vs. insurgent
I noticed in the history of edits that the references to the band of teenagers were changed to "insurgents." In a few cases, the former term was partisan. I'm not trying to dive in too deep here, but based on the definition of the two words, wouldn't partisan better describe the band?
For example:
Partisan - n. - A member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; a guerrilla.
Insurgent - n. - A person who rises in revolt against an established authority, especially a government.
taken from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
I guess it all depends on if you could classify the communist government in the movie as an "established authority" or if you consider the band as "members of an organized body of fighters."
If they were Iraqi, they'd be called terrorists... :) "Fighters" would be a better term, as it doesn't describe a motive, just an action. Dave420 12:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Iraqis are only labeled as "terrorists" if they seek to kill a mass number of innocent bystanders and non-combatants where as if they strike military targets in a manner consistent with normal warfare, they are called "insurgents." The partisan rangers in this story do not target civilians in such a manner, so they are not terrorists. I agree with what you say about "fighters." -GreyGh0st 07:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I vote partisan. Seems that the Soviets in the story were not actually an established government at any point in the story. They were at war with America during the whole movie occupying land that was not surrendered by the US. Ryratt 03:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed this quote from the Plot Summary:
"The group calls themselves the Wolverines after their school’s team/mascot and proceed to attack the occupying forces using ambushes, sniper attacks, booby traps, terrorist-style bombings in the town itself on Soviet positions, and raids on the occupiers' supply depots and convoys."
I'm pretty sure it is hard to argue that the Wolverines are "terrorists" in the confines of this plot. Of the actions that are involved in, none can be expressed as "terrorism."
Take into account that the definition of terrorism according to the American Heritage Dictionary is:
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
Where "against people or property" in this case is ment to mean non-military civilians and related targets. Again, none of the Wolverines' actions in the plot are specifically directed at a civilian population, hostile or otherwise.
The only part of the movie that I can remember that could be riding the line of terrorism was the bombing of the so-called "Soviet-American Friendship Center". The problem with calling this event out-right terrorism is that the center seemed to be legitimate support for the occupying army. Its propaganda purpose aside, it seemed from the movie that this center was in the business of housing troops and their collabarators.
In the end, I can agree that with the mentioned bombing scene of the center, the Wolverines were riding a fine line with terrorism, but definately not crossing the line. There purpose was never to target un-armed civilians in an attempt to coerce the Communist forces to leave or other demands. Therefore they are not terrorists.
In the movie the Cuban commander calls them Partisans Bhcompy (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yea they were called partisans in the film, even if the group didn't fit the description of what a partisan really is. What matters is that the film called them partisans, if we called them insurgents it'd be WP:OR:OR. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Major Inaccuracies
This whole section is POV--somebody was offended by a besmirching of the Red Army, I guess--and is opinion. I deleted the most egregious comment but in my opinion the whole thing is offensively POV as it stands now. Rewrite or delete.--Buckboard 08:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It also has a strong whiff of original research about it. I think entirely remove it. As an aside, I find it incredible that such a minor film (and that's putting it gently) has such a long article - suspiciously fancrufty. --Plumbago 08:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know. This film was hardly minor. It was a popular box office hit, possibly influential, and a good example of a pop culture tie-in with politics in the mid-1980s. Now if we had separate articles on every character in the film no matter howminor, and maybe an article on homoerotic overtones in Red Dawn and one on Red Dawn Democrats, now that would be fancrufty. 70.108.86.207 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I'll stop reading Wikipedia for the rest of the day. Nothing else is going to top this great comment by 70.108.86.207 and I might as well end on a high note. Brilliant comment! Johntex\talk 20:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Entirely agree. You got me 70.108.86.207. Kudos dude. --Plumbago 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It would be difficult for a small band of teenagers, with very little training in military tactics, to be capable of subduing whole companies of professional Soviet soldiers, especially considering the Soviet Army had already overpowered the professional American military, unless of course they were wearing Viet Cong.
I'd like to comment on this, so that it might be edited. They don't defeat entire companies of Soviet Troops (e.g. 100-200 men groups). In the movie, they ambush supply convoys and take on platoon strength units. This is entirely possible for guerilla forces to do. Also, the Soviet troops being used to occupy Colorado are going to be the lower quality conscripts. The best soldiers, their elites, are either actively engaging the US military or are being kept in the Soviet Union. The Soviets were widely known for having large, low quality conscript armies.
Absolutely right, un-named person who replied to another un-named person. These are rear-echelon security troops. In any case, a study of the TTPs used by one Colonel John S Mosby will help understand how such things can be done. 138.162.128.55 (talk) 06:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Perceived Inaccuracies
This whole section should be taken out as it is POV
Mirlin 04:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree totally. Clean it up or chuck it altogether. - grey ghost 22:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Though Red Dawn is a work of fiction, there are many aspects of the movie that are just not believable given the premise that the film takes on:
There are many inaccuracies in translation from Russian to English. For instance, in one scene a Russian soldier yells "Help me, God!" in Russian, but the subtitles read "help me," but when the Russian soldier actually does yell "Help me!" the subtitles read "help me God!" It should also be noted that it is very unlikely that a conscript or officer in the Soviet Army would call for God since the USSR was officially an atheist state, and soldiers in the Red Army were indoctrinated as such.
It would be difficult for a small band of teenagers, with very little training in military tactics, to be capable of subduing whole companies of professional Soviet soldiers.
The idea that the Central American states could muster a force to invade the United States, much less form an alliance with the Soviet Union, is preposterous, considering that that region was embroiled in civil war and instability at the time and was under heavy influence by the United States.
The conscript ensign on the hats of the Russian regulars is inaccurate.
The Soviet Paratroopers' camouflage pattern is inaccurate.
The Soviet Hinds were in fact French-made Puma transport helicopters.
One of the American tanks (supposedly an M-1 Abrams) is in fact a British Centurion.
In the movie, Soviet soldiers were seen using the AKM automatic rifle (the modernised version of the famous AK-47 rifle), although the Soviet army had officially switched over to the AK-74 (an AKM rechambered in 5.45x39mm rather than 7.62x39mm) in 1974, roughly 10 years before the movie takes place. This is somewhat expected, as most movies show "enemies" using the AK-47 or any Kalashnikov-type rifle.
In the scene downtown shortly after the Soviets had gained a foothold, Russians are seen massacring the populace, and when one US attack helicopter comes, it causes massive casualties while remaining unscathed from large amounts of anti-air fire.
Remember this is a hypothetical reality; maybe they never made the AK74... Also Central America probably wasn't in the same state it really was. Nicht Nein! 18:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Trivia
A lot of the trivia was more just pop culture references so I moved it. It does seem like the trivia section is too big, and some of it is repetitive, but a lot of it was interesting was well. What is not interesting is noting every time some lame sitcom/band mentions Red Dawn in passing. While those entries should probably just be removed, it seemed like a lot to delete.
SIGN YOUR POSTS USING ~~~~ thanks Travb (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
But out of desperation, here I go. I can't find an article that talks about Patrick Swayze being the worst actor and being responsible for the worst movies of all time, including Red Dawn, anyone read this article, if so were did you read it at? Please message me on my talk page if you have, because I am not going to watch this page. I will then track down this article and post it offline for all to read. Sounds good? Travb (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Map
The map doesn't seem to accurately portray the Soviet invasion on US soil. Please compare the red-colored areas on the map with the textual description. Hugo Dufort 21:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you plese be a bit more specific? I looked at the map and the text and they seem similar to me. I was thrown of by the little red dots at first, but if you click all the way to the image page, there is a key which explains these are approximate sites of nuclear strikes. Perhaps we need to actually include the key in the article alongside the pciture. Is there something specific that does not seem to match up for you between the map and the text? Johntex\talk 22:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention that there is a mistake on the map regarding Mongolia. In the map it is red and depicted as either part of the U.S.S.R or one of its allies, yet in both real life or in the film Mongolia has never been part of the Soviet Union, or been in an alliance with them. The Architect 01 19:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, Mongolia was part of Comecon and so was at least somewhat associated with the Soviet Union. Secondly, someone needs to take a serious look at the map and watch the film, and decide which areas of the USA should be coloured red (I think many more than there currently are). Clearly the map is inaccurate because if Denver is under siege and the Soviets have almost complete control of Colorado, then I believe they must have had control of the surrounding states also or at least New Mexico and Oklahoma (if they don't have control of Oklahoma then they must have magically jumped over part of it and attacked Colorado instead). Cuba probably also took Florida but there's no way to prove it. Maybe states of unknown status should be striped blue and red to show that they could have been either under American or Soviet control, or the best possible estimate could be used to colour the correct places. Either way someone needs to watch the film and re-evaluate which states should be red. -- Anonymous, December 1 2006
Alright, you're correct man, I checked and Mongolia was part of the Comecon, my bad. But since Mongolia was put on the map, all of the Comecon Countries should be included. The Architect 01 17:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yup, that map is wrong. According to the movie, as stated by Col. Tanner, "the whole Cuban and Nicarguan armies rolled right up through Texas, up through the Great Plains." And later, when asked how far they got, he states, "Cheyenne. Across to Kansas. We stopped them at the Rockies and at the Mississippi." Keep in mind that the implied reason for the invasion was the seizure of American grain supplies. With that said, I think it is plausible to assume that New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and parts of Kanas are under Soviet occupation.
It would seem logical to overlay the map with geographic information as the Mississippi and the Rockies are battle lines. This is as close as I can get to a consistent description:
Col. Bella near the start says there are tanks coming in from the plains and to dig in. This seems to suggest that the invasion originally didn't get much farther than central Kansas or southeast Colorado wouldn't be endangered by American armor.
Mr. Mason tells the boys they're "40 miles behind enemy lines" which mean that somewhere near south-central CO is unoccupied. On Google Maps, the logical place for the line is along route 160 halfway between Fort Garland and Calumet. Extrapolating north, this allows the Soviets to be touring Arapaho National Battlefield and besieging Denver while they were stopped at the Rockies.
When Tanner attempts to return to America, they are in a mountainous battlefield which suggests this is the western front further into the Rockies
But at the end, Matt tells Danny and Erica to "head out for the plains," even though the Soviet occupation at the Rockies extends up to the Kansas-Nebraska border.
This seems to suggest that the occupation holds Arkansas, extends across southern Kansas, then slopes up into a "bubble" covering Denver up to Cheyenne before ending at the Rockies, turning south and down the middle of New Mexico back to to the border. It may have originally extended farther north, but if freedom is towards the plains then they must have been pushed back. 24.20.202.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC).
Mongolia was closest ally of Soviet Union since 1920s, in fact soviet influence in internal affairs was very strong, and the country was often dubbed as "sixteenth republic" even by common folk in USSR. 195.98.64.69 03:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That map is too much original research, not really encylopediac (Forgive my spelling)24.45.214.174 (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I really like that you are contributing to the page, but I don't remember seeing this flag anywhere in the movie... if I'm wrong, just tell me where it was in the movie, and I'll move it back to the page. GreyGh0st 23:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
This flag was first introduced in a parade in the main town in Red Dawn. It was the flag of the occupied zone (in the usa), which was controled by the Soviet and Cuban armies. This flag was fixed on a staff, shown at a parade, and given to citizens with the Cuban and Soviet flags. This is the only time this flag was shown. www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/fic_redd.html (13:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC))
Calumet
It mentions in the trivia that Calumet was an actual town in Colorado. However I can find nothing on Google about it. Was there really a town there or is this a rumor? -WarthogDemon 01:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a ghost town.
Calumet is a town in Upper Michigan. One of the producers grew up there.
Fighter plane
Hello, at various times, this article has claimed that Lt. Col. Andrew Tanner was either an F-15 pilot or a F-111 pilot. We don't seem to have a reference that would support one being correct over the other. Therefore, I am going to change the references to read simply "fighter plane" or "fighter pilot". That way we are safe. Johntex\talk 18:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
No man, in the movie right after Erica finds Tanner and brings him to the camp one of the boys asks what kind of plane he flew and he says, "Well I did fly an F-15. (Tears off patch from shoulder) Here, I'm an Eagle driver." An Eagle is code for the F-15. Change it back man! The Architect 01 17:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide a reliable source that verifies this? A link to a full movie transcript, perhaps? Johntex\talk 18:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Not at the moment, I'll look for one, but I've watched the movie a thousand times and I can GUARANTEE that Tanner flew an F-15. The Architect 01 16:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll post-pone making the change for now, to allow others to comment and/or find a source (which would be ideal). Johntex\talk 17:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to find a script of the movie later, but he definitely says he's an F-15 pilot... I think he tells Jed "I'm an Eagle driver." There is an F-111 in the film, on a bombing run in the scene where Tanner was killed, but Tanner never says that he piloted one. ZakuTalk 00:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have this movie on DVD, seen it many times on TV as well; he does say he is an "Eagle driver", and the F15 is this Eagle. Nicht Nein! 07:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Swedish Red Dawn
I guess this theme of foreign invasion ain't just for countries that like invading other countries. Apparently there’s a Swedish novel that involves a Soviet invasion of that country sometime during the Cold War (ostensibly as part of a wider NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation). The only details I know about it is mention of Russian aircraft bombing the highways as the military and civilians attempt to withdraw from Stockholm. Anyone know about this book?74.36.192.6 03:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Could be Operation Garbo you're thinking about. I think there's an article on it on the Swedish Wikipedia, if you can read it. Otherwise, you could try Google. (Note: I don't think there's any English translation of it, so if you don't read Swedish it might not help you.) Custodes 08:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Did it make money?
I google box office and got 38 million but no production cost. Did it make money, is the studio get money when its on Spike monthly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.44 (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
Tomorrow, when the war began
There should be some mention of the Australian series of novels, Tomorrow when the war began which took its premise directly from the film: a foreign enemy lands in a small town and a group of teen rebels fight for their lives (and the lives of their families). I seem to recall it being on this page, I don't know why it was removed. McDanger 09:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you cite the source you have for the book series being inspired by the film? --Safe-Keeper 15:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
category: post-apocalyptic fiction
I don't think a Soviet invasion of the US would have been The Apocalypse or even an apocalypse. This article doesn't belong in that category. Dithadder 20:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
"In an episode of Scrubs the main characters call their scooter gang the Wolverines, in homage to Red Dawn. In another episode, Turk and Elliot watch Red Dawn. Turk says "You know what's the cool thing about this movie? That this could really happen." to which Elliot replies "Which part? The Russians invading Michigan or C. Thomas Howell being a tough guy?" Turk instantly replies, "Both."[episode needed]" I am kind of new to wikipedia, so if someone could add that it was Season 1 episode 16, thanks
Most Violent Film
Re: Trivia
I don't think the item is online, but it's definitely noted as such in the Guinness Book of World Records 1987 version.
Some movies released since then may have outdone it (e.g. Rambo III), but at its time, it was considered the most violent film yet released (by Guinness and the National Coalition on Television Violence anyway, in terms of number of killings directly depicted on screen).
However, technically, many other earlier films could could be considered more violent and containing more killings. At least "implied" killings. (e.g. From Here to Eternity, considering how many people were killed in the attack on Pearl Harbor or other war movies showing bombings of populated cites)
I would concur that it's questionable to declare Red Dawn as the most violent film, even up until its time; however, that such a claim appeared in the Guinness Book of Records is indeed true.
Soviet tanks,apcs, and plane(s) props or the real thing??
from what i what i can remember, i saw a su-25 frogfoot, a couple t-64s, some BRDMs. So were these props or the real things? IF they were real, how did hollywood get them??
Who knows? Probably a deal with the local Army base. "Hey, let us rent some of your stuff, you can be an extra in the movie." Lots42 10:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
IIRC, there's a film prop company that deals in this kind of stuff...and they were not acquired from actual military contacts. Look up Veluzat Motion Picture Rentals. It's a safe bet that some of the 'Russian armor' used in the movie were later fielded in Rambo III. To the anon: that 'Frogfoot' you saw is a YAK-36 Forger replica. Eaglestorm (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Some of the stuff is neither. As the train passes through town during the last shoot-out, there were one each of an early WW2 German and US 37mm anti-tank gun on a flag car. Heck, that stuff was obsolete in 1942! 138.162.128.54 (talk) 06:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Themes
I say the entire 'Themes' section should go. Not only is it all unoriginal research, it's confusing, unsupported, slightly illogical unoriginal research. Who's with me? Lots42 10:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean original reasearch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannysjgdf (talk • contribs) 13:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
"Although most of the high school partisans are killed, a voice-over appears at the end of the movie by Erica, one of the two survivors, showing a World War III memorial. The American flag flying above it implies the United States had - eventually — won the war.
The exact quote framing 'Partisan Rock' is:
'I never saw the brothers again. In time, this war, like every other war, ended. But I never forgot, and I come to this place often, when no one else does.'
'In the early days of World War 3, guerrillas, mostly children, placed the names of their lost upon this rock. They fought here alone; and gave up their lives, so that this nation shall not perish from the earth.'"
I don't see how this explains a theme in the movie, it sounds more like an explanation of what happens at the end. Either this needs to be omitted or put into the plot summary section. Demoman87 (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
In light of the recent de-tagging, it's worth noting that this section is a mixture of detail about actual events in the film, along with uncited interpretations. The collaboration of the mayor, etc., would be better placed in the plot summary. Observations about Milius's motivations for including certain scenes/details should be properly cited to reputable sources that discuss such issues and draw those conclusions. I am therefore reverting the de-tagging. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
You wish is my command, Nick. I've made that change. The themes section is gone, and what was in it, well, most of it, is in the plot section. If people still don't believe that what's there is in the film, you're invited to come to my house and watch my copy. Openskye (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Good call. The section is actually completely unreferenced, so I've used a stronger tag. I'm of the opinion that it consists entirely of personal interpretation in its present form anyway, but I dare say that someone must have written an interpretation of the film's themes in a reliable source over the years. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is one: Greenberg, Harvey R. (1987). "Dangerous Recuperations: Red Dawn, Rambo, and the New Decaturism". Journal of Popular Film and Television. 15 (2): 60–70. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Wolverines!!! Yet Again
I certainly hope this article doesn't end up having a list of every time a character somewhere in some other show screams the catch phrase. Lots42 (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Trim down the Cast list
Who here thinks we should trim down the cast list? It's full of red links and has characters such as "Man #3 at Drive In"! I know the idea of including information is good and that's what this encyclopedia is about. But this list actually harms the article, it looks amateurish as it's just been lifted straight off IMDB, and the links weren't even checked properly! (although I have fixed that by the time of writing this). Thoughts please Ryan4314 (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead, leave the main characters back in. I got a feeling that some of the extra character entries were actually put in by vanity spammers. Eaglestorm (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Who shall we keep in, everyone who has a wiki article yea? Ryan4314 (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow it still looks long even with all the red links removed, tell you what I'll shorten the list down to the 10 most most important characters, and if you think it's needs expanding it just add to it yea :) Ryan4314 (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok trimmed it again, I tried to do it by who was more famous vs who had biggest role in the film. Technically it's 11 people on the list, I think maybe taking the guy who plays general brachenko off if we wanna get it down to 10. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Danny makes it to the end and is 7th listed on IMDB, so he should belong on the cast list. jsum (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Removing the "Trivia sections are discouraged" tag
The trivial trivia section was actually removed here, this tag now hangs above a decent Production Notes section. I'm going to remove the tag, and also admittedly some trivial information that's currently lurking in the production notes bit. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Nazi connection?
The supposed teen rebels call themselves Wolverines, which I heard was the name of nazi paramilitary groups who continued to resist even after the german Third Reich fell on 9th May 1945. They allegedly assassinated the soviet military governor of Berlin in autumn 1945. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
R u sure they were called "wolverines" and not "wolves", nazis had a thing about wolves i.e. Wolf pack, wolf's den (Hitler's house) Ryan4314 (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the anon meant by this. But to compare Red Dawn's Wolverines to the German version seems like OR, IMO. Besides it is stated that the movie's rebels were named after the school mascot. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As Noted in The History
Sure, trivia is -discouraged-, not forbidden but I think the re-inserted trivia is just too, well, trivial to bother integrating at all. Just an opinion. Lots42 (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been incorporating some of the trivia into the main article, but the current (as of 2 June 2008) three bits of trivia I can't neatly integrate. The items about the plot being based on a study of US weaknesses (if a citation can be found) and the bit about the McDonald's massacre are worthy of note, I think. But the world can live without knowing about Colonel Strelnikov's origins and Smith's personal history. Lighthope (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Remake.
According to Empire Magazine, October 2008, filming of a remake is currently underway. Anyone have any info that we can post here? (Bobbo9000 (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC))
No controversy/Reception issues?
Shouldnt a fanatic right wing propaganda crap film like this one have one of those topics on the main page? Afterall it was white American Christian terrorist Timothy Mcveighs favourite film according to crimelibrary.com! And Russia attacking USA in a film that was made during the cold war! If no militia dudes objects ill make some dramatic changes here.
Please try to make NPOV edits, not the "dramatic" kind you want to do...and take your cause-oriented diatribes somewhere else. Thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Naturally the edits will be fair and balanced nothing dramatic as in the film intro when the Russians land in the middle of nowhere and for no reason whatsoever starts to machine gun all school children before they blow up the school with rocket launchers. Probably because they thought we are too stupid to understand that an invading force is evil unless they did something dramatic.
You seem unaware of the invasions that the Soviet Union carried out. You know, rolling tanks into cities and sending political opponents to the gulag? Do you have any friends in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia (former), Poland, Chechnya, Czechoslovakia (former), or Ukraine? Maybe you should check with them before spouting nonsense. As far as the article is concerned, I think coverage of any controversies it stirred would be fabulous to add, just make sure it's well sourced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The young are the members of the community most able to survive hard conditions and the most likely to be reactionary and run off into the hills. Stop resistors before they start or you'll get what the Soviets got all throughout the movie. 128.223.32.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC).
@ COM, I agree, I hope sources are still online about reviews for the film.--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
This article sucks. Normally, the main use of Wiki is for someone who doesn't know anything about a subject and just heard of it, and they can go type it in Wiki and get a very brief outline of what it is, and read into more detail if they had further interest. This discussion page tells you 50x more about how Red Dawn fits into the world and into history. Red Dawn was the most idiotic, laughable piece of garbage of the year it came out, but it has gone on to become somewhat of a cult classic, and revered in many ways by many people for different reasons, and this article doesn't even touch on any of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.100.147 (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Changes to opening
While interesting, the info about the city is not germane enough to film to be in opening, which a little long. It should be in the body somewhere (although it needs a source), so I pasted it below for others to work it into the production section.
The film is set in a fictionalized Calumet, Colorado, in reality a former mining town and now an abandoned ghost town. Calumet was chosen as a ambiguous American township and a deliberately vague setting, so as that it could be related to almost anywhere in the US. Red Dawn was actually filmed in the town of Las Vegas, New Mexico, which stood in for this fictionalized Calumet.
This part was patently false in addition to being more an interpretation than a statment of fact based on a source (such as a reviewer's take on it). Several times the film follows the character played by Ron O'Neal and give the viewer information the principle characters do not have.
However the onset of World War III is merely in the background of the plot and not fully elaborated on, and events are seen solely through the eyes of a group of American high school students...
Hence the changes. Also, shortened up because there is the (over)long section detailing the backstory, which is amusingly as long as the section on the actual plot. RoyBatty42 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Why the Plausibility Section?
This is a movie. The Plausibility section is as big as the entire article. Movies don't have to make sense. Is Star Wars plausible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlbarton (talk • contribs) 12:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone has just done it. It looks like original research, so should be removed on this basis unless the author references it. On the other hand, Star Wars do not pretend to be plausible while this movie does... So plausibility section may be justifies, especially in criticism. DR2006kl (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It's been removed, don't worry...and you're right: section's full of OR. It's better off in some blog or a research paper, not here. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I added the section on plausibility because, as stated, the movie works hard at establishing itself as plausible and as this is a very well studied problem the relevant research exists. I'm confident that all of this can be referenced from open sources, but that takes time. In the meantime, I have put up the basic (and easily verifiable) facts of the logistics.
99.234.x (author of the above unsigned comment), you don't seem to have seen my reply on my talk page, where you asked about why I removed the plausibility section, so I'm going to copy it here:
I actually removed the section because it was both uncited and very peripheral to the article. Even if the section was completely cited, such a long section on plausibility gives undue weight to analysis of the movie rather than encyclopedic facts about it. The fact that it was also completely without citations didn't help, but it wasn't my only motivation (although looking at my edit summary now, I notice I didn't make that clear - sorry!). Citations for analytic sections like you wrote are necessary not just for individual facts, like runway lengths, but for the analysis itself, things like "an invasion over the southern border is not credible". We have a policy called "synthesis" which disallows sections like yours appeared to be, where the author takes facts and writes something that reads between the lines of the actual facts. If someone else in a reliable source had published a plausibility analysis of Red Dawn, then we could summarize that analysis for the article. But for an editor of the Wikipedia to create that section based on their own knowledge, is pretty much not allowed. We actually tend to be quite strict about this, so even for an analysis that seems obvious to the writer, we want to see reliable sources.
I would be very uncomfortable letting the section back in the article at its current length (a paragraph might be appropriate, a section the length of an essay is not) and without citations to a reliable source for the analysis itself, not just for individual facts. If you'd like to work on improving the section in the hopes of making it appropriate for the article, the text you added and I removed is still available in the article history (click on the "history" tab at the top of the article to get there), so you can access it there and copy it to your user page, where you can work on it at your leisure.
I'm going to ask that you please not re-add the section to the article without working on the things I've mentioned and then proposing the addition on the article talk page, so other editors can decide if any changes you make to the section render it appropriate for addition.
In short, unless and until you have a version of the section that is much shorter and has references for the ANALYSIS, not just the facts themselves, then the plausibility section is not appropriate for Wikipedia. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Chaotic, he didn't see your reply but took the time to PM me because I slapped him with NOR warnings? That guy never even sought consensus. Jeez, and I suppose this warrants another lengthy response from him. To the anon: if you can't even listen to us as to how unfeasible the section you're trying to add is, well, Wikipedia's not the place for you not matter how scholarly your research is. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Vandenberg
Just ran across the 1971 novel Vandenberg in a used book shop, and the premise seemed quite similar to that of Red Dawn, including a Soviet attack and occupation of the USA by Latin American forces. From the disamb page Vandenberg: "Vandenberg (novel) is a 1971 fictional book by Oliver Lange taking place in a United States under a Soviet occupation." I don't know anything else about this work. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Quote: "The fall of the Berlin Wall was only 5 years away, and the total economic and political collapse of the Soviet Union was only 7 years away."
These facts are totally irrelevant for the movie's production and its reception by critics. At the time of the movies release nobody had any idea that these events were even likely to happend within a few years! Trying to construct any connection ex post is absolut ridiculous POV. Even my most conservative friends were laughing their b*tts off on this totaly crappy peace of political propaganda.
This is one of the campiest nonsense productions ever made without the slightest regards to political facts and millitary reallities. --Nemissimo (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Partisan Rock real?
Is Partisan Rock a real rock formation, or was it a prop made for the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.226.203 (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Indians
I recall a scene in which a Russian soldier reads an English sign to his mates: the real text is about a natural park, but he tells something like "In this point, x Indians were killed by the US Army...".
Was the scene so?
Should it be mentioned?
--Error (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The scene you refer to is early in the film when the three Soviet soldiers (well, at least they're speaking Russian) come up the mountain and take a sight-seeing trip. One of the soldiers (the short one supposedly well versed in American History and whom has studied English) does an amazing first rate mis-translation of the sign for Arapaho National Forest. In fact, there was no battle there and President Theodore Roosevelt was certainly not an Indian fighter ala George Armstrong Custer. Markvs88 (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
One Missing Video Game Reference
-I would put this in myself, but I wouldn't know how to reference it or where to find it. The 2002 first-person shooter known as Command and Conquer Renegade has a level in which there's a fenced off area with a movie projector in one tower and a bunch of pens in there housing POWs and a Nod propaganda film playing. It openly references the same scene in this movie where Patrick Swayze's character finds his father. Would that even count or no? Vgamer101 (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
-Another game that references it is the Fallout: New Vegas add-on campaign, Old World Blues. In the X-8 Research Center, if you have the Wild Wasteland starting perk, there is a wall with WOLVERINES spelled out on it.[1]D'tJM 03:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not a frequent contributor, and so I didn't want to just change the wiki unless people higher on the totem pole agree with me, but there was a line in the "plot" section that I don't think belongs in there. It is a POV synthesis (or whatever) issue relating to whoever authored at least part of the plot section. It seems biased and more related to how said author percieved a particular scene scene than perhaps what was actually MEANT to be percieved by the filmmakers. After pointing out that a Cuban soldier looks for a particular form, one relating to BATF regulations and firearm registration, the author felt it was necessary to add this gem of a line, "suggesting the inherent danger in laws that require firearm registration." Ok, I am not a fan of gun control, but to me the point of that scene was not to demonstrate the "inherent danger" (as said author so eloquently puts it), of gun registration laws. I believe it was just a plot tool to help explain why there wasn't MORE armed resistance, and not some warning about gun control. Since this is my personal opinion it shouldn't be included in a wiki, correct? So it should be with this entry, perhaps deleting that line and finding another way to segway into the last line of that paragraph. Coincidentally, one might be able to make the argument that the gun itself posesses more "inherent danger" than the piece of paper that ties it to it's owner... And this is coming from a registered gun owner who owns assault weapons, so I am not some bleeding-heart on here with an agenda. However, I do think that the person who authored the section or phrase I am talking about typed it with an eye towards their own political beliefs and not towards accurately stating what the writers/director were actually trying to do or say. Since this is supposed to be some form of encyclopedia, lets keep the bias off the pages as much as possible and stick to what is known and proveable. Does it say IN THE MOVIE that it was a warning about gun control laws? Is there audio or video of one of the filmmakers/writers stating that a warning of the "inherent dangers" of registering firearms was their intent here? If so, then leave it in, but if not then it needs to go. I'll correct it myself and make it un-biased if I have to, but as it stands it is definitey slanted towards a certain author's POV.
- Also, because of the nature of this film (a fictional communist invasion on American soil) and the current political climate (where dems are called commies and socialists by their right-wing counterparts), this article should be watched closely for bias slipping in, particularly right-wing bias. It's fine for right-wingers to love this movie, I just don't want them polluting wikipedia with any of their political dogma. I would ask the same of anyone with any political view who decides to post here. Leave your politics at the door when you make an entry, regardless of your POV. It's a damned encyclopedia, I want encyclopedic information... not how some random dumb-ass interpreted something. I mean, that's what the discussion session is for, right? Maybe these biased observations would fit in better here than in the actual article.
- Addendum; I was going to come and change the line myself, but someone already did a wonderful job of removing that POV issue, or Synthesis issue, or whatever it is, from the plot section for me! Thanks, whoever took care of that.
- Oh, I was playing Modern Warfare 2 today and because I had this on my mind recently I finally made a cartain logical connection. The level when the Russians paratroop onto American soil is called "Wolverines!" Seems to me like this movie gets a LOT of pop-culture references, so I don't feel that is a necessary addition to the wiki or anything, just an interesting factoid I was too dumb to realize the implication of until now. Anyway, thanks to all for keeping Wikipedia going as smoothly as it does, this place is great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJ-Joe1982 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for letting us know of this issue! This is not one of Wikipedia's well-tended articles. There may be similar problems elsewhere, so if you see them, be bold and make the change. happy editing! Erik (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
"This is not one of Wikipedia's well-tended articles"? Not any more. David F (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Russian poster title clarification
The poster uses the Russian word КРАСНЫЙ (RED), the same word which appears in Red Square and Red Army.
However, this is actually written КРАСНЫИ, without the "wiggle", if you will, on the Й. Why?
In Russian orthography, it is common to drop that from the uppercase letter, in much the same way that in French, an uppercase É is commonly written as E, without the accent.
It is not a spelling mistake; it is an orthographic convention. Varlaam (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Reception section
Markvs88 (talk·contribs) has been repeatedly re-adding a link to some DVD review site. Would it be possible to get some explanation as to why this opinion by an unspecified person or persons is notable? Kellyhi! 18:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
How is it not? The site is not a wiki redirect, it is most certainly third party. It passes every aspect of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please bear in mind that *barring this one* I've added every citation to this article. The site has rated thousands of DVDs, ergo it isn't a self published source with an agenda on a specific topic. The article without this has no negative review, which in itself is a failing. Is the National Review a movie rating magazine? No, yet when I posted that it rated it #X conservative movie, that didn't raise any objections. Markvs88 (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly who is the person whose opinion you were quoting in the citation? Kellyhi! 21:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not. I'm defeding the only OTHER reference added to this article by someone else. However, the cited opinion is by one Adam Arseneau. A quick look in Wikipedia shows his opinion from the same site has been used in other articles such as Live at the Fillmore, Access (The West Wing), The Best of The Colbert Report and half a dozen others. His bio on the rating site (and all of his reviews) are here [[1]]. Markvs88 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Anyone got another review that makes the same kind of comment for back up, though? I think the statement itself has merit since it's something that I've seen said about the film multiple times over the years. But I'm guessing that someone else will eventually come along and have the same idea that Kelly and I apparently had; "who the hell is that guy?" I know I've seen his links get pulled from film articles for being non-notable. So I'm thinking if we could find another review or source expressing the same sentiment, that would probably be good. Millahnna (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't you think that's a little excessive? No one has yet stated why this link it not notable, so I'm reverting it until someone does. The burden is on the author, and he provided a link that no one has yet definitively challenged. Markvs88 (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know. It's just something I've suggested a few times when the notability of a review has been questioned; "well let's find another one to back it up." It can't hurt. We could ask the WP:FILMS people for some more eyeballs on the issue. There may be a history with that site that I'm unaware of (in regards to why I've seen others revert it I mean) or someone may know of a source for the statement that's less likely to be challenged. At the very least I do think we should probably rephrase the sentence itself. I can totally see why Kelly put the who tag on it, in spite of it being, as you said, kind of obvious in conjunction with the source. I'm off wiki/light wiki (not sure which) for a couple of weeks so I won't be able to get back to you guys if this conversation keeps going for a bit. Cheers. Millahnna (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Which is all fair enough. I'll tell you what: I'll look for a backing source (I'm sure the Newsweek review wasn't very pro-movie), but it's not right for folks to just revert a negative cited point. Wikipedia is not a fan site. :-) Thanks, I appreciate your perspective. Markvs88 (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I corrected the quote (the review said nothing about "reactionaries") and attributed it. However, I don't think it belongs in here - DVD Verdict doesn't seem to be a notable site per WP:WEB, I think I'll probably nom that article for deletion. If you're looking for guidelines on citing sources for film criticism, there is a style guide here. Kellyhi! 14:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine. What specific part of WP:WEB? Also... um, article?? Markvs88 (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but that's just been started today... thus I can't see removing a cited point based on something you'd just begun to question notability on. Markvs88 (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, no rush - there is no deadline. We can see what the community says about the notability of the review site. Have you tried any of the other review sites mentioned by the Films Wikiproject? Kellyhi! 16:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
In the plot outline of the article, the Soviet tanks are IDed as T-64, but later in the article, the tank props are called T-72. I'm not an expert on Soviet tanks, so I'm not sure which is correct. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
In a word, neither. I've reverted the "tank battle" models in the Plot section. At no time in the movie are the tanks ever ID'd and this is just spitballing by people that missed getting reverted. BTW, for those whom do not know: the T-64 was the least common Soviet main battle tank (aside from it's successor the T-80), with a mere 13,000 built, as opposed to the 22,000 T-62s, the 80-100,000 T-54s or 25,000+ T-72s. Not only do the tanks in the film look NOTHING LIKE T-64s, but the tank itself was basically relegated to "elite" use by the Red Army -- there would be almost zero liklihood of two of them being on some random mountain in Colorado as opposed to fighting en masse in open terrain at the front(s). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok.. Thanks for diving into that. The other reference still says "T-72," however, would it make sense to simply change that reference to "tank," as well? Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll have to confess - I remember reading that annecdote (I *think* in TIME magazine, but it's been like 25 years now...) so I didn't change that point. I'll see if I can't find a reference for it sometime. However, there are several scenes with various Soviet tanks in the film and there's no way to prove or disprove that the particular anecdote ties with any particular one. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
References in the movie
This is a page to add factual information about the film. The film directly references two other movies as cited. Removing cited points is in and of itself opinion. Likewise, removing Red Dawn's effect on culture is also opinion -- it's a *real world* aspect of the film in society. Markvs88 (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Your source for the references in the movie is a trivia page on IMDB, which is not a reliable source. Check with any editor in good standing with Wikiproject Film and they will say the same thing. The effect on culture section was nothing but items that were already in the see also section, so I fail to see why that is helpful. And, removing these things, which are inappropriate according to policy, is not the expression of an opinion. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikiproject Film is a part of Wikipedia and is therefore an unreliable source as well. Zero sum game. :-) But apart from that, I refer you to [[2]] Resources section, point 1. Or for that matter [[3]] Templates, Details. AND Cleap-Up, Trivia: "Trivia may be a useful section in a film article, as it can serve as a "Miscellaneous" area for important facts (not just fan facts) that may not yet fit easily elsewhere." I maintain that the fact that the writers of Red Dawn chose to reference prior films deliberatly that it is an important aspect of the film.
Further, the same Style Guideline page *has* a subsection for Popular Culture... and it's undefined. Thus there is no policy. But I'll tell you what: I'll provide non-IMDB sources if it makes you happy. By the same token, I think you should consider using [citation needed] tags and giving at least non-IP users a crazy amount of time (like a day? maybe *two* whole days?) to fix/ammend any additions you consider questionable. Does that sound fair? Markvs88 (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The burden is on the editor to verify this kind of information. In addition, "Trivia" sections should be avoided. If you want to re-add information, it should be part of a section and not a stand-alone bullet. Erik (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes. And the burden was met as my addition was cited! As for trivia, I agree. But this is not a Trivia section. I'm not counting times someone says "shut up" or something. These sections are aspects of the film (popular culture it draws on, and its own effect on popular culture), which are relevant and notable. Note that the information provided is neutral, is verifiable, and is not original research. If it is okay for Star Wars to describe its effect on culture, why not Red Dawn? Markvs88 (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
IMDb's trivia page is not unreliable. It is user-submitted and has very little oversight. Red Dawn can certainly have a section about its cultural impact, but it needs much more compelling sources. This is a good start, for example. Erik (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I assume you mean "not reliable"? :-) Thank you. Note I offered to use non-IMDB citations above and will do so soon. I will revert the section back and put a tag on it for [citation needed]. If I don't get back to it with reliable sources by 00:01 GMT 18 March 2010, it can be reverted. Fair? Markvs88 (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
RepublicanJacobite - While it's great that you take care of page vandalism, not every edit IS vandalism. You must assume [[4]] good faith for new points and allow TIME for people to cite sources. Markvs88 (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't patronize me. I never claimed that this was vandalism, and I did not revert is as such. Nor has this anything to do with assuming, or not assuming, good faith. This is absolutely trivial information. A video game about a war in which a couple of catch phrases from this film are used. The relevance is borderline at best. Why not leave it out until such time that a good reference is found indicating its relevance? The other items in that section are, without question, relevant to this film. This one is vague to say the least. That's why I removed it. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid it has *everything* in assuming good faith. I've already refuted you're claims of "trivialism" above, to which you've never responded. Your revert-edits for "too much detail" when someone goes crazy on minutae is one thing, but this is quite another. The relevance is that it is a popular cultural reference to the film[[5]]. As I pointed out above, other films have had an effect on popular culture, so does Red Dawn. This is a wholly valid point to expand upon. Since pages like [[6]] exist, *and is rated by* WikiProject Films IMO you're being a bit overzealous. All I'm asking for is that you use a "citation needed" tag and let the thing stay up for a reasonable amount of time (say week or so) if its not obvious vandalism. Otherwise, you're just stopping work on the page. Markvs88 (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
All you've done is add more trivia and you could not even be bothered to properly format titles and references. Yes, you are definitely doing good work to improve the article. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
"Correct formatting"?!? LOL! *What* is the "proper way"? Why don't you do something crazy and actually contribute something to this thing then? I am hard pressed to think of a single thing you've added to it. Heck, this article would be wholly unsourced without me, RJ! Again, it's not trivia it is CULTURE. So far you've put up exactly zero to refute any of my points, so I consider this debate closed until you do so. Markvs88 (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed Grand Theft Auto from the video games subsection because the cite given did not support the claim. That source gave one reference to the showing of a documentary titled Red Dawn. That is hardly relevant. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, this has come up before, but, as far as I know, no consistent guideline has been established to deal with this. Part of the problem is wording, figuring out how to express the information without giving the wrong impression that the website and the film were contemporaneous. It is even worse, in my opinion, when dealing with very old films. The only reviews that are truly relevant are those written at the time a film was in theatres, so we should only use the top critics score, ignoring web-based reviewers who have watched and reviewed the film in the last few years. Regardless, the number is probably going to be skewed. In this case, most of the reviews are from the last 5-6 years, which would seem to make them irrelevant. There are only two reviews from top critics. The fact is, the who reception section needs to be rewritten, as there are almost no actual film critics cited in the section at all. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Map (again)
The map that has been repeatedly readded to the plot section is an example of inappropriate original research. It should not be reinserted. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It's annoying, but i removed it for now. Meanwhile someone probaldly should block the guy who keeps posting it, for we have'nt agreed on it's verifiability.24.45.214.174 (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Sort of. It's been added by several different IPs/people. IMO, the map itself isn't wp:OR since it is entitled "Approximate map of the events described in the movie". It is attributable to Tanner's monologue about the war, and it therefore verifiable. The map is NPOV, it does not make claims about any part of the world not discussed in the monologue EXCEPT for the inclusion of the Warsaw Pact nations. OTOH, I do believe that the beligerents section (& prior "losses" section,etc) were OR since neither the beligerency of Canada nor the Warsaw Pact are discussed in the film, nor are actual troop loses. If the map was redrawn to show the rest of Europe in green, I would be inclined to allow it. Markvs88 (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Why not post that one up now that you made it?24.45.214.174 (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The map is not only not needed, but completely inaccurate every time I've seen someone try to add one, and people should really stop the abuse putting them in especially if they want to keep being able to edit, because I WILL start reporting it as the vandalism it is. (FYI to the maker of the one map, the flights would more like gone north over the poles as the shortest route, not east into Alaska from the Soviet Union). 96.31.181.147 (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
If you listen to the monologue, Tanner talks about the Russians sending troops across the Bering Strait. That's what the arrow refers to. Jrkarp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC).
I reverted another map today, at no point in the film are Canada or the Warsaw Pact mentioned as combatants. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
BEWARE, the WIKINAZIS don't like the map!!!! Why are hard core wikipedia editors all retards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.5.25 (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Reception
WP:RTMC Rotten Tomatoes score doesn't mean much if it was based on 1 review. Number of reviews should be mentioned. Also it is misleading to claim Rotten Tomatoes "reports" it creates the score, it doesn't report it. Read WP:RTMC --- 109.77.65.122 (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted scene(s)?
Out of curiosity, why was the material regarding the deleted scenes (e.g., Soviet troops outside of a McDonalds) removed? Stills from that scene appeared in publications from the era, despite being removed from the final film.--Surv1v4l1st(Talk|Contribs) 18:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Ask McDonalds. Also, with a runtime close to two hours, it was probably cut for pace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.59.149 (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Red Dawn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Supporters argued that the page views are roughly equal for both films and thus there is no primary topic, while opposers argued that the older film has higher long-term significance and thus is the primary topic. Both are valid arguments. While the supporters are more numerous, the argument made by opposers more accurately reflects the WP:PTOPIC guideline. (closed by a page mover)SSTflyer 14:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Support: pageview analysis shows that people view both "Red Dawn" and "Red Dawn (2012 film) approximately equal. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The original film has greater long-term significance and influence, so I believe it to be the primary topic of this name. WP:NCF only applies if there is no primary topic, which I believe there is in this case. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Reluctantly support - Stats say what DaltonCastle was saying, though the original may have a little more significance than the other. --George Ho (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Support – Disambiguation is clearly the better choice here. Dicklyon (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The original film has long term significance. Calidum¤ 04:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Support. One film may be older than the other, but the page view stats are enough to suggest that there is no clear primary topic. PC78 (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
No opinion on whether to support or oppose (for now), but the pageview arguments aren't accounting for recentism of a film that was released less than four years ago. Traffic for the newer film could easily cool down in a few years, and the original film may very well have more long-term significance due to the 2012 film being based on it. Chase (talk | contributions) 15:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Pop culture
Per the essay on "in popular culture" sections, such content must not only be verifiable, it must prove notability. None of the pop culture references in this article did so. One example was cited to another wiki, which is not a reliable source. Other sources were dodgy, and none of them said anything beyond the fact that the reference existed. This is not sufficient. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I did not see this before my last revision, I will look into it and get back to you before the 7th. Markvs88 (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I have read both articles, and have redone the section to put it more in line with those positions. Some have been expanded, some more were cut. However, I must point out that the deletion of Grey Dawn and Homefront were in particular disagreeable to me as they have their own articles have de-facto notability. I will also point out that the Chicago Tribune is a paper of record and I'd love to hear how it was "dodgy". Markvs88 (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Most of these examples were still only passing references and allusions, and many were not properly sourced. The video game section is the only part that passes muster. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Please explain why each one fails, and I will explain why you're over-reaching. Not explaining your case isn't helping it. Markvs88 (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I have explained my case. I have also pointed to policies that say passing references and sources that do not prove notability are not allowed. You have yet to say how this content is appropriate. You restored the content three times with no policy support for your edits. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 21:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
No, RJ, you really have not stated your case at all, nor have you answered my questions re: the Chicago Times, nor why you are deleting links wikipedia articles with perfectly valid citations. I want you to state point by point how each one fails in your mind. Why? Because I read through those articles you and Betty Logan posted and I spent a considerable time to find *better* citations, to flesh out what could be done, and deleted content for which I could not, and still... what I'm getting back here is "I don't like it". (Though apparently I did a good enough job on the video games to change your mind there.) I have gone above and beyond to make you happy (even though you had given up on this years ago), but now IMO you're putting excessive demands and are displaying ownership and are rejecting anything at all. The bar is higher here than for A Streetcar Named Marge, a featured article. So... please stop deleting valid content and talk this out. Markvs88 (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, the onus was always on you to prove that these examples are notable and that the sources are adequate. Citing a discussion from several years ago – a discussion that did not support your position, by the way – is not adequate. Sources that say nothing more than that a pop culture reference exists are not adequate, as the cited policies have indicated. The sources for the heavy metal bands are not reliable sources in addition to the fact that the information itself is trivial. The South Park source is a primary source, so it is inadequate. Again, sources have to prove that the pop culture references are notable in and of themselves, not merely that they exist, regardless of whether the source itself, as in the case of the Chicago Tribune, is reliable. Furthermore, two editors have posted here, disagreeing with you, making your burden all the greater to prove the significance of these references. You have not done so. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Alright RJ, I've beefed up the Grey Dawn references, and still consider HTTM to be adequately cited given the NYT, Chicago Tribute & Elle references. However, I cannot find any further Music sources and will raise no objection if you choose to remove that sub-section. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Aircraft specs
I have done some research and am about to specify the aircraft used in the film Red Dawn. Tanner flew the F-15 before being shot down by Cuban MiG-21s. I will also identify the aircraft that transported the Soviet paratroopers, the Antonov An-12. I will make these changes now. I would like to make all fellow editors aware of the changes I am about to make. Please abide. Thank you.
I have made some appropriate changes based upon thorough research. The changes are as follows. Please abide. Thank you.
- Soviet patroopers were transported via An-12 transport aircraft.
- Cuban MiG-21s has enough range to reach the mainland US. These jets also shot down Lt. Col Tanner. Matthew Mangold (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@Matthew Mangold: Accuracy is not the issue. Gaining consensus about the need of that type of detail. There is also a possible "plotbloat" issue. You don't re-add the information until the discussion has run it's course. Please remove your edit until that time. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Can a section be added to list all the languages the movie has been dubbed into? 73.67.130.82 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Map
Why is Mongolia red? Is there anything in the movie to indicate that it either sided with the Soviets or was invaded and conquered by them? Kdammers (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
This idea that foreign troops never landed on US Soil has been oft repeated, but not true.
It is common knowledge during the War of 1812 the British invaded. Also, the Philippines were a US possession and were completely taken over by the Empire of Japan. Technically the Aleutian Islands were part of the Alaska Territory and were thus not part of a State, so it is technically correct to say the United States were not occupied because of that. The same can be said of the Philippines. This probably requires a bit of rhetorical gymnastics but is arguable. Jokem (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
