Talk:Act of Valor

Synopsis
I have deleted this section as an obvious copyright violation. Parrot of Doom 12:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I put back the original synopsis, as there was nothing wrong with that one as far as I could tell. 77.248.191.124 (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Synopsis
I deleted the "synopsis" as it was not at all a synopsis but some sort of short, poorly written description of the film as having explosions in it. It also had a "frowny face" and a number of grammatical errors. Uriah is Boss (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC), 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The plot could use some condensation instead of every detail mentioned per WP Policy.2605:E000:9152:8F00:BCCF:CA70:DEFE:9AC0 (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Biased Reception
Right now, it seems the Reception-section is very biased. Because some critics on Rotten Tomatoes gave the movie a bad rating, this section opens with the statement that the reception was negative. However, in the reviews that are quoted, the reception seems mixed, not negative, and to top it all off, viewer reception (as proven on Rotten Tomatoes and according to a poll by CinemaScore) is a lot more positive, which is further backed up by the amount of money it grossed. Why is it that somehow the "critics" on Rotten Tomatoes are a more reliable source than all other critics and not to mention people who watched the movie and enjoyed it? Why would the opinion (because from what I see on Rotten Tomatoes, those "critics" do nothing more than stating their opinion) of these so-called "critics" have more weight? I vote that this section is changed to state that the reception is mixed, with positive receptions when it comes to action scenes and negative reception when it comes to acting and story. The RT-critics should be moved further down this block, as they are clearly not a reliable source in this case. Rudiculous (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, the way that the "Reception" section comes out in this article, and other movie articles, is slanted toward the critics and not the mainstream audience. The problem is that reporting on critics' reviews is so much more extensive, and provides lots of quotes for inclusion in articles like this.  How much can be said abou the mainstream reaction, other than the box office and the CinemaScore?  Polls and website votes (like the people who voted on Rotten Tomatoes) should be dug up.  It's just harder.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.157.227 (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be general practice to explicitly state what the critics thought and what the audience thought, if such information is applicable to the movie. For example: "The film was panned by critics, with aggregates like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scoring 24% and 19/100 for the film, respectively. However, audience reception was mixed, as [website name] reported that 67% of viewers held positive opinions of the film." Bias seems to always be an issue for these film wikis, especially because both those who liked and disliked the film will accordingly bias their contribution. It's a matter of using neutral language and being objective as possible (these are article-writing guidelines, after all). The only reason I'm writing this is because I'm tired of fixing biased language in sections of various articles about films (both ones I disliked and liked). I ended up removing "[...] gave a very strong 'A' grade [...]" in the sentence regarding audience feedback. --142.161.160.227 (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy
I bought the Act of Valor book yesterday, and began reading it last night.

On page 63 -I don't know how important this is for everyone else- there are these wrong facts:

1. PEMEX is a Mexican oil company, and it does not operate in Costa Rica, as the text states. 2. Costa Rica does not, by law, have an army. Their constitution prohibits this. 3. There are no "federales" in Costa Rica, since their country is not a federation, nor is a "united states of..." as is the case of the U.S.A., Mexico and a few other countries.

I have yet to see the movie.

I think the book got some of the details wrong because in the book it says Chief Dave is 5'8" but in one of the featurettes on youtube the director says he is 6'6".

24.241.105.123 (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Rene

Extraction of Agent Morales
I copy-edited the plot summary and replaced a reference to "successful" extraction of Morales with: "She does not survive the retreat, but the mission was not in vain".... Anon corrects me on 2 April, with the change summary: "She does survive. In the exfiltration scene, they show her the cell phone and tell her she wasn't tortured for nothing, and a SWCC is clearly treating her wounds when they escape." She didn't look alive and the "not for nothing" line struck me as not said to her. Is it clear from the movie that I get it wrong? Is additional vagueness in order? Spike-from-NH (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Cast of Seals
I see only actors in the cast by now. But the credits on the DVD mention 12 actual members of the military as first persons of the CAST chapter. From Admiral Callaghan playing himself to LT Lyons played by "Katelyn", which is obviously her RL-military short name. --Manorainjan (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Act of Valor Official Site
The link to what was the official site now leads to a marketing and management agency's website. MonoTrouble (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)