Talk:Battleground (film)

Untitled
The most notable part of this movie for me is the final scene, where SGT Kinnie encounters replacements marching toward the front. Despite being battered and disheveled, the unit squares its shoulders, gets itself in step, and proudly marches away from Bastogne. THe effect on the replacements had to have been incalcuable. RangerJ (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Cadence
IMO, this section is trivial. If somebody has a burning desire to preserve it for posterity, it should go in Wikiquote. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assessment of it as "trivial". I find it interesting, and worthy of inclusion. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it have any special significance in the plot? No. Is it considered one of the greatest cadences in history? Not on your Bill Murray. Has anybody praised it in the media? No. So all you have is WP:ILIKEIT. (Oh, and I see that you took out the "reference" you used as a reason to restore it in the first place.) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did remove the reference, because it did not seem to have anything to do with the material, but I didn't know that until after I had restored it - please WP:AGF. But no, there are reasons other than "I like it" to keep the cadence in. It's an integral part of the movie, not trivial at all, and something that, at least in my opinion, people would look to a reference work such as Wikipedia to find the words of after they had seen the film.  We're not only here to present cold hard facts, but also as a resource to help quench people's curiosity. There's already precedent for including a limited number of quotes from films in their Wikipedia articles, and this is in that nature.  I see no harm in it being included, and some small, but definite, benefit to having it in. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Quotes yes, but a whole section on a cadence, when we're supposed to keep even plot details within limits? As I said before, that's what Wikiquote is for. Wikipedia can point people to that as a resource. As for WP:NOHARM, well that's not a good reason either. Can you produce a source attesting even slightly to its notability, e.g. a review or plot summary that mentions it even in passing? If it's as integral as you claim, you should be able to find something, but I rather doubt it.


 * And why are you waving WP:AGF at me? All I did was point out that one of your justifications was no longer valid. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know you don't give a rat's ass about my opinion. So ask some other film editor whose judgment you do value. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's see... In the NY Times review by Bosley Crowther, he says the cadence is "Mighty snappy!", so it was significant enough to merit his mention of it. The book The World War II Combat Film by Jeanine Basinger and Jeremy Arnold (Wesleyan University press, 2003) says "With the sound of a cadence rhyme and the sight of marching men, the viewer first meets the characters of the film, as the camera moves into camp. There's a real exhiliration seeing them, march and sing out their chant." The reviewer at This site says: "[T]his film has some great cadence calls ... showing how the troops sung along to boast morale." This person says "The final scene of the movie, with fresh troops moving to the front and "our guys", their ranks depleted and their bodies broken, proudly marching back to Sgt. Kinnie's cadence count is iconic among war pictures, and chokes me up every time."  This reviewer points out "The opening of the film establishes the men as crack troops doing close order drill like a guard of honor with a time honored call and response cadence punctuated by the tramp of their boots"  This fellow says "I am sure I am not the other kid from my generation who learned to do the cadence call of Sound off, not knowing that it came from older kids who had seen this movie," and this person says "The Jody Cadence is probably the only reason I remember the film."  And then there's this reviewer, who wrote "'With the battle finally over, as they line up to march out, we finally notice how much smaller the platoon is. Over half the men are gone. And as they start to shuffle off, haphazardly, until Kinnie snaps them back together. They form up in cadence, despite all they've been through and endured, and march off into the sunset, tall and proud, and I tell ya, it brings a tear to my eye and a rush of endorphins down my spine every time I see it.'" Now, you presumably will object that the last batch of quotes came from bloggers and other amateur reviewers, and therefore are not "relable sources", and you may be right, however the fact is that for those people, those viewers, who presumably are ordinary folks just like the people who turn to Wikipedia for information, the cadence count is a very significant part of the film. And that's my point: it's not at all "trivial" as you suggest. I think it should stay in. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask two or three other established editors of your choosing - if any of them agree with you that the section should stay (rather than go to Wikiquote), I'll say no more. That's more than fair. But I'm not moved by WP:THEYLIKEIT. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I've answered your objections with great specificity, and you seem pretty much stuck on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, which is hardly sufficient justification. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have solicited other opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Groovy. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends, we're so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely a drive-by observer checking in. I find the section on "Cadence" to be overlong and a bit "jarring" given that the film is not a particularly good film nor is the use of the device particularly memorable. However (a BIG however here...), might I suggest an alternative, in which a sub-section under production is established, the note is given that clearly explains the reason for its entry, an excerpt is provided as an example and the lengthy quote is then placed in WikiQuotes with a suitable reference/cite. Only my opinion now, invoking "don't shoot the messenger" defence. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC).
 * (edit conflict) Keep the section, but explain why the cadence is noteworthy, so nobody can accuse you of being the only one aware of it. For example, add a statement like In his review of the film for the New York Times, Bosley Crowther described the military cadence heard in the film as "mighty snappy," and several contemporary bloggers and amateur critics have made note of it in their online postings, and cite the appropriate references. That bloogers and amateur critics might not be considered reliable sources is not the issue here; the fact enough of them have commented about the cadence is. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ed, but I'm on Clarityfiend's side here. There is no need to include the actual lyrics to the cadence. Production information (such as who wrote it, etc) can be added to the Production information. If the cadence was well-received it can be mentioned in the Reception section. The article should focus on real-world aspects rather than including in-universe details such as this. There may also be copyright issues regarding the lyrics and including the full text of lengthy primary sources should be avoided. - kollision (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with LiteraryMaven about backing the significance of the cadence with real-world context, more specifically commentary in secondary sources about the lyrics. (I disagree with the application of WP:NPS since it seems to be a small part of a feature-length film.)  Without commentary, the presence of these lyrics appears indiscriminate since there is no importance attached to it other than personal opinion.  It is best to use secondary sources to gauge how much of the primary source to describe, such as outlining a particular scene for analysis by various commentators.  Here, the lyrics don't seem to be an outline for any such in-depth analysis. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 14:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, the primary source I was referring to was the song not the film. - kollision (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) Thanks to everyone for the opinions and advice – I'll be instituting some version of the suggestions soon. May I request that the section not be deleted until I have the opportunity to do so? Thanks again. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any progress here, and it's been a month. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonexistent American small units in Battleground
It is worth adding to this Wikipedia page the fact that the producers of this film were damned clever in their scripting. There was a need to preserve verisimilitude without violating the sensibilities of surviving veterans of the 101st Airborne Division who would naturally come to view the movie in 1949. Would there be someone who could say "I was in Item Company during the fighting around Bastogne, and no such thing ever happened"?

Nope. Because at the time of the battle of Bastogne, the 327th Glider Infantry Regiment didn't have an Item Company. It didn't have an official Third Battalion.

When the airborne divisions were conceived early in World War II, the Army brass decided that the glider regiments should consist of only two battalions each. The first battalion would be made up of Able, Baker, Charlie, and Dog Companies. The second contained Easy, Fox, George, and How Companies. No Item, Love, King, or Mike Companies.

When by 1944 it became evident that these two-battalion regiments were not suited to combat operations, certain Glider Infantry Regiments were broken up and their battalions attached to other glider regiments. The 327th was assigned the First Battalion of the 401st Glider Infantry Regiment, getting "doubles" on Able, Baker, Charlie, and Dog Companies.

It was not until 1945 that the 1st/401st was disestablished and its personnel formally assigned to the "new" 3rd/327th.

Thus "the 2nd Squad, 3rd Platoon of Item Company, 327th Glider Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division," did not exist at the time of the 1944 Ardennes campaign, and no "I wuz there!" problem could possibly happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tucci78 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like 2/401's companies (E, F and G) were redesignated as I, K and L companies prior to D-Day ( http://www.6juin1944.com/assaut/aeropus/en_page.php?page=82 ) but that 1/401's were not. Regardless, my understanding is that members of the 401st thought of themselves at that regardless of what the Army wanted to call them. --76.100.129.126 (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

-- I saw Battleground as a ten year old in about 1950. I have a vivid recollection of one scene where a U.S. foot soldier, under fire, opted to let one of our tanks pass over him (treads on either side of him). After the tank passed, he got to his feet and fell in behind the tank using it as a shield from enemy fire. In early January 2015 I watched Battleground (for the first time in 65 years) but that scene wasn't in the film. I presume the scene was eliminated to shorten the film. Anybody else recall that scene? Other options? RobertFritzius (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)