Talk:Full Metal Jacket/Archive 1

Theme
I just added the very poorly written section "Theme". Could someone please tidy it up? I am in a hurry and it will be several days later that I will be able to come back to the page. Thanks. --coolmallu 14:14, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Hi, the material in the section "Theme" is my own thoughts about the movie which I think is what the director intended. --coolmallu 14:16, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Hello there. Did you still want some help tidying up the Theme section? If so, I would be glad to elaborate further and perhaps create some sub-sections under the Theme one detailing the major themes of the movie, etc. --Nadsat 04:43, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

It would be really nice. Thank You. I am editing the Theme section again to add the links to relevant pages. --coolmallu 19:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reversion
Hey, I made the changes as reflected by the ip:128.173.160.86. I was not vandalising. Please mention why it was reverted to the earlier state. I welcome suggestions. I thought I made sensible changes - more formal for the article and fixed some points to actually reflect the idea. --coolmallu 15:26, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Vietnamese Characters
From memory, there were a numbers of relevant Vietnamese characters in the movie, although none of them are listed in the synopsis of characters. Can someone with the info correct this omission? ~ trialsanderrors 06:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason for "blanket party" of Leonard
The guy was trying, the guy was taking it seriously. If anything he was trying too hard and was too nervous, and that was causing him problems.

The guy was a fuck up. I will be 100% clear about that. I will concede that. He didn't seem to be able to do anything right. He was clearing washing out. And it was a failure of leadership by Sgt. Hartmam not to go ahead and make the obvious decision and kick him out.

Instead, while Leonard was sleeping, the guys all gather around (only the recruits, not the sergeant), use a blanket to hold him to the bed, and beat him with bars of soap folded in towels. This is also called a "code red." yeah, just great. Including his friend Joker who acquiesced to this. First you're trying to teach the guy and then, what, you decide he's not learning fast enough? Now, if Leonard had not been trying, I don't think that would have carried the case in favor of this, but at least there would have been a case to have been made. As it stands, I don't see that there was any case in favor of this beating.

Now, the interesting point psychologically, no one suggested it to the guys. It's as if they were doing what was expected of them, and there was no more to it, nor less to it than that. As soon as Hartman started the group punishments, it's as if they took the next step in the script that everyone seemed to know. And it wasn't as if it was a branch-point and or a skill set with multiple actions, some of them appropriate in some circumstances, others appropriate in other circumstances. No, they somehow intuited the one and only thing that was expected of them. And they did it--without thinking it through at all, and without seriously considering even one alternative.

(I don't feel I'm explaining this real well, but don't you think something like this was going on? I certainly do.  And if you can add a better explanation, please, I can use your help.  I have not been in the service myself, I wish to lay that on the table.  And I especially invite the comments of those who have.)  FriendlyRiverOtter 07:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All military training is preparation for combat. So there is MUCH less tolerance for mistakes and weakness than in most civilian jobs. The fact that "he was trying" is nice but not good enough. In combat everyone's life, and the success of the mission, depends on the whole team doing their jobs and not letting anyone down. So in the military there is a much harsher attitude towards those who can't cut it. The stress of training is a deliberate attempt to see who can do their job while under that stress and who can't. We all have a breaking point but it is different in different people. Ask yourself if you'd want Gomer covering you. Do you want your life depending on him? The other thing is, the group cohesion in a military unit is far, far stronger than in any civilian job. It is more like a family. It is very hard to go against the group. DMorpheus 16:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely the reason for the scene is that they were all showing their frustration at being punished for his mistakes. Maybe it was a failure of the sarge not to kick him out, but this scene shows the result of his decision. The film doesn't show them arranging to beat him, but you can assume they did plan it. I don't think it was some bizarre coincidence that they all had a desire to beat him at exactly the same time. As a viewer I think this adds to the surprise of this shocking scene. I think the reason Joker joined in is that he didn't want the same treatment. If he didn't go along with it he might have ended up getting a similar beating.

Lucasmaximus 16:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Music
I've added information about the music, regarding the period the music is from. --Allseeingi 21:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Free Bird was not actually recorded until the mid 1970s, not before 1968 as noted in the article. Is it possible to have that changed? -- budcrew08

Surfing Bird
Althou IMDb says that "Surfing Bird" was performed by the Trashmen (they are the authors of the song) I am pretty sure that the versioon played in the movie is the Ramones famous cover to this song. Anyone who has the DVD can confirm that? --Daniduc 23:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have the soundtrack and it was certainly the Trashmen version. Using the Ramones version would be anachronistic. Of course, you don't need to take my word for it, since he said it himself in his 1986 interview with Rolling Stone: "It was the music of the period. The Tet offensive was in '68. Unless we were careless, none of the music is post-'68.". Kubrick paid attention to details like that. --BluePlatypus 23:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's right, it was the original Trashmen version. DMorpheus 16:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotes
I think the quotes section does nothing for the article and is largely consuming space on the page. I don't see any real reason why they should need to be there at all.
 * They do serve to give a flavour of the black humour running through the film. But I agree that they are largely superfluous and there certainly doesn't need to be so many of them.  I suspect the person who posted them rather enjoys quoting them, like many of us, and put them up for that reason JRJW (13 December 2005)
 * I say we cut down most of these quotes and leave only a couple of (short) quotes. Any ideas on which ones we should keep? --Deathphoenix 14:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've cut down the quotes, leaving three. If someone wants quotes from the film they can easily click the wikiquote link on the page. --Allseeingi 16:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * nicely done. Kingturtle 20:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The quotes section has risen from the ashes - I've turfed it altogether. Imdb.com has a selection of quotes if anyone really wants to see them. They had nothing to the article for anyone who hasn't seen the movie.Michael Dorosh 02:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If we're gonna have quotes, why put them on the article and not at Wikiquote?

--65.94.4.40 20:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't have quotes. That's what wikiquotes is for. Kingturtle 03:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Michael Dorosh has removed the quotes. Oh goody -- Now we can begin the whole cycle (of growing the quotes one-by-one, and eventually discussing and arbitrarily nuking them) over again! (Can you tell that I, and apparently the many other editors who keep re-adding quotes) think that a limited number of quotes should stay?) Atlant 13:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They need to serve a purpose if they are going to stay. This isn't a fan site, and the quotes have to do something to illustrate or explain the movie to those that haven't seen it. It can't just be an indiscriminate collection of "favourites". The quotes were taking up a quarter of the article or something - sorry, but I just don't see what purpose it serves. There are plenty of fan sites out there, and even imdb had an extensive collection of them. The ones selected weren't even that poignant - a good quote will capture an important idea or concept in one or two sentences. The ones quoted here was just a rehash of Hartman's abuse of Pyle. What's the point? Hartman and Pyle's character were already summed up in the character sections.Michael Dorosh 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem, of course, is that other editors will come along and re-include quotes, as you saw happen from the last time you wiped all the quotes. I think you're trying to fight human nature here, and you'll either need to spend a lot of time maintaining the article or, as I suggested above, the cycle of accretion/deletion will simply repeat ad infinitum.


 * Atlant 14:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Leave her to the mother loving rats" is the correct quote.

Theme
The theme part here should be rewritten. It's not NPOV and smacks of original research. Things like: "Although often said to contain two distinct parts, the film can be categorized into three." don't belong here. If someone says the film has two distinct parts, then summarize that opinion and provide a reference. If someone else says it has three parts, summarize and reference that too. But I can't see how it's within the guidelines to advocate one interpretation of a movie over another. --BluePlatypus 00:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, a lot of the article seems like conjecture and analysis. I'd like to see more facts, historical revelance, etc. For example, the DVD was in 4:3 rather than widescreen. Was this the original size or pan-and-scanned? If it was originally shot like this, was there a reason? Background like this make more of a useful article in an encyclopedic article. Pipedreambomb 08:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Changing my comment - While I think the analysis is apt, and the movie does divide nicely into three parts, and agree with this interpretation of the movie, the majority of the theme section does seem to be original research and should be either verified or deleted.Michael Dorosh 20:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Format
Pipedreambomb asks:


 * For example, the DVD was in 4:3 rather than widescreen. Was this the original size or pan-and-scanned? If it was originally shot like this, was there a reason?

Kubrisk shot a lot of his films in full-frame (4:3) and they were then matted-down to make a wide-screen theatrical presentation. So the DVD is actually providing the entire image that Kubrick photographed. (And I'm pretty sure I read that on Wiki somewhere. ;-) But if not here, then IMDB. )

Atlant 00:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
"To which Marines when they capture the sniper, mercy kills her with a point blank shot." I have no idea what this means. I know the part of the movie, but I'm not sure what the writer wanted to say here. Rahulchandra 02:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The sniper is the mortally wounded by a rifle blast and barely alive. She is then executed - or "mercy killed" if you will - by Private Joker from close range with a pistol. (I've left it as is though. Got no real idea about the intentions for that particular paragraph.) --Netizen 00:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis and Trivia
The plot outline for the first half of the film is pretty light. It needs filled out. Also, most of the trivia (if memory serves), comes from the movie's IMDB page. It needs sources. Levid37 15:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the racial bigotry trivia point because it doesnt make sense and selectively quotes the movie, the rest of the quote points out that there is no bigotry because the drill instructor hates all races equally. --Cptbuck 02:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Joker
It interests me that Joker spends most of the film feeling smugly superior to his fellow Marines, but caves in to peer pressure at two climactic points (the murder of Sergeant Hartman and the killing of the sniper), with fatal results. -- Cranston Lamont 22:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

How does he cave in to peer pressure? Pyle kills Hartman (Joker is screaming "NO!" while he does so) and Raptor-Man kills the sniper, sure Joker finishes her as it were but its a mercy killing, one that he wants and that his squad mates dont.


 * That's part of the point isn't it? The 'dualism of man', the conflict between individual and group, the huge need in the military to conform to the group because that's how missions are accomplished and people survive. I thought that was part of what the movie was saying - that it doesn't matter how superior you think you are or even if you really are a more sensitive, thoughtful, articulate person - if you want to survive in combat you need to "get with the program" in the words of that MF colonel at the mass grave site. DMorpheus 18:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-War Film?
In the Category section, the film is categorized as an anti-war film. However, according to Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures, Stanley Kubrick is said to had made this film without any moral judgements making this neither an anti nor a pro-war film. If it is correct, then can somebody edit this? Thanks. --71.83.182.91 20:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC) I defy anyone to watch it and feel that it supports war in general.--MartinUK 21:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC) It doesn't support war in general, that's not what the user was saying, Martin. "Neither anti nor pro-war" usually means just that. Neither anti nor pro-war.

United Artists vandalizer
Karl eichholtz 13 has continually modified info on this article to state that United Artists distributed this film. All his edits have given no reasoning or proof. Three minutes of research n imdb.com showed that Warner Brothers had distibuted every single release of the film and had no mention of United Artists. If this user modifies this info again, please revert it and give the user a proper warning; he has vandalized before.Gdo01 03:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 74.130.202.31 may also be "Karl eichholtz 13." This IP user has added misinformation in the same manner as "Karl eichholtz 13" and should also have their edits on this article scrutinized.Gdo01 19:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Joker kills the sniper?
I'm not going to edit this but when I watched the movie I got the feeling that Joker killed the sniper out of mercy. As I recall Animal Mother wanted to leave the Gook to die on the floor for shooting their leader and the two other guys. Joker was the only person who wanted to shoot the girl because he felt he couldn't have left her their to suffer and die for long. Thats the impression I got based on what was said, but maybe someone might want tol look into this more
 * That's what I had assumed he had done. And for future reference, you might want to put "gook" in quotes, as it is a racial slur. Don't forget to sign your comments as well. Cheers. --MasterA113 13:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Themes
I'm going to delete this section. I haven't gone through the history, but it appears to have been needing work for some time. This appears to be one person's opinion of the themes, and I highly doubt it was from a notable source. I'm a bit weary about deleting this much text about themes (since it's subjective), but the arguments/examples used to point out the themes are just so weak, I don't see how it adds to the article.

Some of the irony is questionable. Pyle killing Hartman is somewhat ironic, but pulling a trigger doesn't require a lot of training. The mention of Oswald and Whitman isn't ironic; they were taught how to kill people from a distance and they succeeded. The fact that it wasn't an enemy per se isn't ironic, it's just tragic. Irony would be if they (as sharpshooters) died while cleaning their gun. I don't see any irony in the "you don't lead them as much" statement. It's not even a joke, but that's besides the point. It's been a while since I seen the movie, but wasn't the sniper the prostitute we see earlier in the movie? I dont' remember her being a school girl. Besides, what's ironic? That the sniper was a small asian female? Because women can't shoot? This seems to stem from some gender or cultural bias.

As for the religion, it's hardly a theme. Hartman could have just as easily asked Joker about the president instead of the Virgin Mary. Religion, or the Virgin Mary wasn't the point of this scene.

The examples for the transformation theme aren't the best. I never got the impression that Pyle was gentle or sweet, but that he was simple-minded. He doesn't transform into some sophiscated, calculating killer; just desperate, vindictive and suicidal. As for Joker killing the sniper, it could easily be argued if it was in "cold-blood". The same section mentions it was a mercy shot. If anything, that shows that Joker hasn't transformed into some jaded, heartless animal like some of the others in the squad. The rest of the paragraph is just opinion. jag123 12:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent points, I Support the deletion of that section. Michael Dorosh Talk  13:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Images
Only one shot of the movie? It's not a particularly good one either, in my opinion. Gohst 12:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * WP policy is clear that only one screenshot per movie is permitted. Michael Dorosh Talk  13:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh right. Well, still could have a better one. Like perhaps one of Mathew Modine's character. Seeing as though he's the main character and all. Gohst 07:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There are 2 now, but I'll see if I can replace them with one of Pvt. Joker later today. --MasterA113 13:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant
I've removed the following:

"Roger Ebert gave the film a Thumbs Down in the same show he gave Benji the Hunted a Thumbs Up."

This information adds nothing to the article. RichMac 10:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was going to come back to this unless someone else had a source and expanded on its relevance. Jayvdb 11:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
You have a quote here by Roger Ebert, but it is not representative of the critical reaction to Full Metal Jacket. It is the opinion of one critic and one critic only. If this section is to be maintained, I would encourage it to be expanded and add reactions by other critics, maybe with different views. And possibly add some bibliography, as Full Metal Jacket has been focus of a great number of academic essays. These three come to mind as particularly significant:

Moore, Janet C. "For Fighting and for Fun: Kubrick's Complicitous Critique in Full Metal Jacket". Velvet Light Trap, 31:39-47. Spring 1993. White, Susan. "Male Bonding, Hollywood Orientalism, and the Repression of the Feminine in Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket". Arizona Quarterly, 44(3): 120-144. Autumn 1988

Williams, Tony. “Floating ‘in a World of Shit’ – Full Metal Jacket’s Excremental Vision”. Film and Philosophy, v.1. 121-135. 1994.

--201.78.71.98 02:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I always disagree with Roger Ebert. I was way more in agreement with Siskel. I liked this movie so it doesn't surprise me that Roger Ebert didn't. And I don't really know why the Robert Ebert quote is in here. He isn't the last word on film reviews. -- 66.171.76.140 05:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the inclusion and focus on Ebert's review is odd when it is so out of step with the critical consensus of the movie.--193.203.82.194 12:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural References Officer and a Gentleman?
I never saw this movie- but 2 times in the Cultural references here they reference the "Steers and Queers" line (From An Officer and a Gentleman: "only 2 things come out of oklahoma boy, Steers and queers... now I don't see no horns on you- so you must be a queer.") Did they do this line in FMJ too?? Trcrev 20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, but it was texas. IIRC, the line was "holy jesus, texas! only two things come from texas, steers and queers. and you don't look like a steer so that kinda narrows it down now, huh?" or something like that. 124.106.193.225 05:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There were two assistant DIs.
"Technically, each training Platoon would have been run by three Drill Instructors, Hartman is an amalgamation of all three."

They showed the other two assistant DIs on several occasions. Unless I see a rebuttal I'll delete this line. John DiFool2 00:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

R. Lee Ermey and TV show of Starship Troopers?
Eh? There was an animated cartoon show, but what did RLE have to do with that?

Removed Cultural References
Removed cultural references as almost none of it is references, none of it is notable, it increases the article size without any encyclopedic content, and because it violates NOT. --Wasted Sapience 18:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Cultural References

 * In The Simpsons episode, "Homer Alone", Mayor Quimby and Chief Wiggum are having an argument, Quimby threatens Wiggum, and he answers back: "you talk the talk Quimby, but do you walk the walk?", in reference to when Adam Baldwin argues with Matthew Modine. Also in the episode "Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming", Col. Leslie "Hap" Hapablap (voiced by R. Lee Ermey) says, "What is your major malfunction?" to Sideshow Bob, which is a line delivered by Ermey's character in Full Metal Jacket. Also, in the second season, when Bart and Todd Flanders compete in a mini-golf tournament, Homer demands that Bart name his putter. When Bart sheepishly calls it "Mister Putter", Homer retorts "Charlene! Your putter's name is Charlene.", the same name Private Pyle gives to his M-14.


 * Electronic Gaming Monthly magazine wrote sub-par scores for Full Spectrum Warrior: Ten Hammers. At one point in the review, Crispin Boyer compares the bad artificial intelligence for the controllable squads to Gomer Pyle in this sentence: "It's like the developers took the promising tactical-shooter premise of the original and dialed back its fun, replacing it with unwieldy controls, Gomer Pyle-caliber A.I., and just plain glitchy moments."


 * In the video game Conker's Bad Fur Day, Birdy the Scarecrow says to Conker the Squirrel "Long time. You love manual, long time" as he is introducing Conker to the manual. This is a reference to a line uttered by a Vietnamese prostitute in the film.


 * In Crash Tag Team Racing, Gunnery Sergeant Hartman's "What is your major malfunction" line is quoted by a Park Drone when the latter is attacked by Crash.


 * In the cartoon show South Park in the Episode "Cow Days", Cartman gets hit on the head and thinks he's a Vietnamese prostitute, continuously using phrases borrowed from the prostitute of Kubrick's film. In the episode "Lice Capades", Kenny is threatened to be assaulted with soap bars inside socks for lying about having head lice.


 * In an outtake from the animated series Drawn Together (which appears on the Season 1 DVD), the housemates mimic the scene in which Pvt. Pyle is beaten with soap cakes rolled up in socks, attacking Toot Braunstein in the same fashion.


 * In the show Family Guy, Stewie re-enacts the "This is my rifle, this is my gun" scene from the barracks in the episode A Picture Is Worth a 1,000 Bucks. Also, the line "only queers and steers" is used when Stewie and Brian are in the army, in the episode Saving Private Brian. This line was also used in an episode of "Will and Grace", where Jack talks about the only things that come from Vermont during his show "Just Jack".


 * In the show Scrubs Lee Ermey plays the Janitor's father, and uses the line "Sound off like you've got a pair", while forcing his son to do Push ups, parodying a scene in the movie.


 * In the "Love Mummy" episode of the adult swim show, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Meatwad tells the mummy to, "Sound off like you've got a pair."


 * In the song 'Sgt. Baker' by the band Primus the lyrics involve military training and use the line "steers and queers, steers and queers, where you come from there's just steers and queers, you ain't got no horns boy".


 * Popular Hip Hop tunes Me So Horny by 2 Live Crew and Baby Got Back by Sir Mix-A-Lot feature an audio sample of the Vietnamese prostitute saying "Me so horny."


 * The videogame Opposing Force, an expansion of the 1998 videogame hit Half-Life, features a boot camp where much of the dialogue from the intructors is taken from the movie, often quoting Lee Ermey. At one point, an instructor asks a recruit "Where are you from? Texas!? Holy mother, you know what comes from Texas, right?". In the movie, Lee Ermey says that only "steers and queers" come from Texas. Besides that, the medic/MP character from the game heavily resembles Pvt. Cowboy from the movie. The phrase "Sound off like you've got a pair" can be heard from the drill sergeant in the training mode of Opposing Force, when the main character is asked his name.


 * In the videogame Starcraft, upon choosing the siege tank repeatedly, the siege tank driver asks "What is your major malfunction?" which is a line delivered by Ermey's character in Full Metal Jacket.


 * In the videogame Warcraft 3, when the player clicks on the Tauren Chieftain repeatedly, the Chietain says "Only two things come from Texas, and I've got horns," a parody of Lee Ermey's line in which he says only "steers and queers" come from Texas. Also, the Orc Grunt says "Me so horned. Me hurt you long time," and the Night Elf huntress says "This is my owl, there are many like it, but this one's mine," parodying the chant the marine recruits say in training.


 * In the videogame Crackdown, when the player kills civilians the voice that follows you throughout the game will ask "what is your major malfunction, agent?"


 * Full Metal Jacket is one of the most popular films to be sampled by industrial bands, with bands such as Grendel, Combichrist, Ministry, Scandy, killwhitneydead, Fear Factory and Front Line Assembly using samples from the film in their music.


 * Sri-Lankan singer/rapper M.I.A. has a song entitled "10 Dollar." Lines similar to the exchange with the Vietnamese prostitute are in the song--"What can I get for ten dollar?" "Every-ting you want."


 * Kenny Blankenship of the show MXC discusses his idea of creating a "macho chick flick" called Full Metal Jacket with Matching Shoes. Apparently, the film would have ended with "a cute wedding, then everything explodes".


 * At the United States Air Force Trainee Reception Center at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, Hartman's "Here you are all equally worthless!" quote is prominently displayed and expounded upon.

what does P.T. stand for?

P.T. stands for Physical Training, or "exercise" for your civilian types.

Lock Nomination
I would like to nominate this article to be locked. This is a high-interest article by many, many people, most of whom stumble across this page on Google and start making mindless changes, impregnating the page with typos, misspellings, and errors-in-fact. I suggest locking this page to only registered users indefinitely.Robotempire 11:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Old People Fuck
Should the following line be added to the quotes section: "Private Pyle, you climb obstacles like old people fuck!" I know there were many quotes but this is one of my favorites.--Dominik92 18:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it really necessary to add every line of script from Full Metal Jacket to this article? Robotempire 18:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No of course not, I limited the quotes section down to three.--Dominik92 02:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Full Metal Jacket
Does anybody else think that "Full Metal Jacket" should redirect to the movie rather than to the type of ammunition? I think it's a more frequent search.--Dominik92 02:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

semi protect
Can someone request this article for semi-protection. People keep adding unnecessary quotes and fill it with spelling mistakes and terrible grammar.--Dominik92 17:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Platoon/Squad Leader
I'm confused, when the 'Platoon leader' was killed, didn't 'squad leader' Crazy Earl- become Platoon leader & Cowboy simultaneously become squad leader? GoodDay 18:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Cast list
The list of cast and characters is waaay too long. That is what the Internet Movie Database is for. I've removed some of the less important ones and dumped 'em here:

-- J.D. 15:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirk Taylor as "Payback": A veteran correspondent with the Marine PIO unit, Payback brags of having been out in the shit (combat), telling Joker and Rafterman he has the thousand-yard stare of the burnt-out combat infantryman.
 * Bruce Boa as The Pogue Colonel: The Marine colonel who berates Joker at the edge of the mass grave of civilians, reprimanding him for wearing a peace symbol. He suggests Joker be more enthusiastic about winning the war or he will court martial him. Notably, "pogue" is a military slang insult for poseur non-infantry soldiers and marines.
 * Sal López as T.H.E. Rock: The Mexican Marine.
 * Marcus D'Amico as Hand Job: so nicknamed for masturbating in the psychiatrist's office while pursuing a Section Eight discharge. He is killed by machine gun fire shortly after Lt. Mr Touchdown is killed.
 * Peter Edmund as Private "Snowball" Brown: A Black recruit so nicknamed by D.I. Hartman, and briefly Joker's squad leader.
 * Gary Landon Mills as Private Donlon: A Black RTO (radiotelephone operator).
 * Stanley Kubrick as Murphy: the unseen fire support REMF of Cowboy's platoon.
 * Ngoc Le as the Female VC Sniper

Long Distance Views in Full Metal Jacket
This link which I have just restored has been here for over a YEAR without anyone having a single issue with it. I am simple restoring the status quo. Two independent arbitrators have demonstrated (see Wikiquette alerts) that my Kubrick links are neither spam nor self-promotion. Indeed, this "Long Distance Views in Full Metal Jacket" document doesn't even have my name on it. It is purely scholarly, and for the benefit of all Kubrick fans, newcomers, students, and scholars. If any editor new to this page has an issue with the restoration of this link, then it will have to be demonstrated that my article lacks scholarly merit. I welcome any discussion.Scrooby 20:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I note that MarnetteD has again removed my link to the scholarly article (which doesn't even have my name on it) without a single comment on this talk page. I am taking it up with the independent arbitrators. Scrooby 21:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * More than one editor has found that this external link does not meet the WP:EL requirements. Please see the discussion at the Talk:Eyes Wide Shut page for confirmation. MarnetteD | Talk 22:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Roger Ebert cite removed
The movie disintegrates into a series of self-contained set pieces, none of them quite satisfying. The scene in the press room, for example, with the lecture on propaganda, seems to reflect some of the same spirit as Dr. Strangelove. But, how does it connect with the curious scene of the Vietnamese prostitute — a scene with a riveting beginning, but no middle or end? And, how do either lead to the final shoot-out with a sniper?

Roger Ebert cite removed because : ---200.73.30.108 19:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Their comments is far to be near to a average consensus about this movie (clearly biased), is more a personal viewpoint hence not allowed in WP.
 * He is not part of the pre or post production of the movie, neither a producer, so their opinion share a limited value,in specific, limited only for the reader of SunTimes newspaper.
 * Don't add any value for this wiki (about this specific quote).
 * If was allowed then we will allowed to put more critics (good and bad ones).

R. Lee Ermey's occupation
the article states that Ermey was a Drill Instructor in real life, infact he was an aircraft mechanic at Da Nang, according to his bio on Historychannel.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.169.43 (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

he was a DI at paris island —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.165.19 (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In 11 years of service it is very possibly for a member of the services to take on more than one assignment. In fact in that length of time, it is possible for several assignments. In the case of Ermey, he indeed had several assignments including DI stateside, assigned to a maintenance wing in Da Nang, and an assignment to Okinawa. Theshowmecanuck (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Psychopathic" Private Pyle
There's a box that describes him as such - this is inaccurate, a psychopath is usually defined as highly intelligent - i think psychotic is more appropriate, but then i'd DO MY RESEARCH BEFORE CHANGING IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.50.225 (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

rafter man?
vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.180.122 (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly not - check the script or the subtitle track. 24.57.145.150 (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is Rafterman. In the novel he gets the nickname by falling out of the rafters onto the table of an officer during a show at a club. Wolfhound668 (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's Rafter Man (I've put the space in, definitely not "Raptor"). Here's a link to the story online http://www.gustavhasford.com/ST2.htm.  I'm not sure how to use it as a reference.  The part of the story is in Body Count.  Second line of the section.Wolfhound668 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

Omission of 'duality of man' encounter in synopsis.
The duality of man should be included in the synopsis. It deals directly with a central theme of the entire film, and deserves at least a nod, elaborating on the theme itself would costitute OR I believe unless I can find a good source for it. It is on the poster after all. I know the synopsis is quite long already, but if someone gets a chance please add it.

Also, pretty sure its Raptor-man, not Rafterman. (I was wrong, it's rafterman in the script, go fig. -grey 13Aug2008)

-grey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.167.102 (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Critical Reception
I'm not sure why Rotten Tomatoes review information is being removed when its compliant with WikiProject Films guidelines. I have added the RT freshness rating back to the page and also included some quotes from critics as this section is embarrassingly lacking in content. Tomdobb (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis Inaccurate?
The synopsis says that the movie "follows a squad of U.S. Marines from their United States Marine Corps Recruit Training through their experiences in the Tet Offensive (1968) during the Vietnam War.".

I don't think that's accurate. There are only two marines shown in both parts of the movie, Joker & Cowboy. By the time of the second part of the movie both Joker & Cowboy are obviously experienced Marines, both having been promoted and assuming roles of teaching less experienced Marines the ropes in Vietnam.

I think it would be more accurate to say it "follows a squad of U.S. Marines through their United States Marine Corps Recruit Training and the experiences of two of them in the Tet Offensive (1968) during the Vietnam War.".

Any comments?

Gorillatheape (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I noticed this a long time ago but I didn't have an account at the time so didn't edit it and it kind of slipped my mind. Rather then a squad at boot camp I think it would be more of a platoon, although most are simply background characters.  Other then that I would be comfortable with your change.Wolfhound668 (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think squad is accurate. While there is obviously a whole platoon under training, all the characters are in the same squad - Snowball was the squad leader, who was replaced with Joker, who trained Pyle. The other squads in the platoon are all extras.

Gorillatheape (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename proposal

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Full Metal Jacket → — "Full metal jacket" covers both the film and the type of bullet. I would say that both of them are pretty notable, so it would make more sense to have "Full metal jacket" direct to the film or the bullet page (in my opinion it should be directed to the bullet page), rather than having one page get to "keep" the name. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Wikipedia article traffic statistics (number of views) for April, 2010:
 * 101,188 for Full Metal Jacket
 * 26,811 for Full metal jacket bullet
 * Full Metal Jacket (film) already redirects here; all current article names are appropriate and should be retained. Your addition of a hatnote pointing to the bullet article was a good idea.  --CliffC (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * At least two of those hits for the film were me looking for the bullet. And yeah, I was pretty amazed there wasn't already a note at the top.Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per CliffC. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 00:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The hatnote seems unnecessary, as the term is linked in the 2nd line of the lede. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 00:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A hatnote is absolutely required. This needing people to read the intro paragraph to something they are NOT looking for is stupid. People will just get frustrated and think Wikipedia is idiotic. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha!! Yeah, expecting people to read sure is idiotic!  Wow, let's leave that comment there as proof positive. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the note at the top because it's a pretty damn important thing.Faceless Enemy (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is why it is explained in the second line of the lede, so that people will understand where the title came from. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 13:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When I search for "full metal jacket" there's a 50/50 chance that I want the bullet over the film. I don't want to dick around with reading through the article to get to the real full metal jacket rather than some movie.  As mentioned above, the bullet gets a lot of traffic despite having the disadvantage of not having its rightful page title.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AHatnotes#Two_articles_with_similar_titles.  And you shouldn't have marked it as a minor edit.  "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."  Obviously there's some dispute over it and you knew about it since you've been participating in it.Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * God forbid that you should have to read one whole line of the lede before seeing the explanation that the title of the film is based on the ammunition. All that "dicking around" must have been quite a strain on you, considering how you just keep going on and on about it.
 * And there was nothing "misleading" about my marking my edit as minor. Removing a redundant hatnote is not a major edit to the article.  And your comment about the bullet coming first is irrelevant.  More people will be searching for the movie, because it is more notable, than for the ammunition.  Which "came first" is beside the point. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  01:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, see the hatnotes policy. These are two articles with obviously similar titles.  And again, it's not a minor edit if it's at all disputable.  Two editors here have expressed support for keeping it.  It's mentioned in the first sentence as a relevant bit to the main article, not as a disambiguation piece.Faceless Enemy (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per CliffC; the traffic stats would seem to support keeping as is, by application of WP:COMMONNAME. Rodhull  andemu  19:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per CliffC and WP:COMMONNAME. MarnetteD | Talk 20:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The common name is "full metal jacket" for both of them. And the traffic stats are partially skewed because of the fact that the film is sitting on the prime spot.  I wouldn't be terribly upset if it was renamed to "Full Metal Jacket (film)" and then "full metal jacket" redirected to it, but it seems stupid to have the film take precedence over the thing it was named after.Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per CliffC and WP:COMMONNAME. The greater relevance of the film is obvious. Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. I would support a change in the target of Full metal jacket though, from the film to the bullet. The hatnotes on each article would suffice to direct those who are on the wrong page, and the change in case would allow wikilinks (like the ones at Beretta 3032 Tomcat, 10.15x61mmR, and .38-200) to go to the page most likely sought. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That change would be the most appropriate thing to do, since the capitalization 'does' make it unique. Is there a way to say that I change my mind?Faceless Enemy (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You can !vote to withdraw the request. Normally I would go ahead and close it now, but since I have already !voted, I should let another admin (someone who hasn't !voted) do so. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea how to do that. I'm going to go ahead and change the target of full metal jacket now, if that's okay?Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, maybe I missed something during the great hatnote debate, but I believe the WP Principle of least astonishment suggests we should keep full metal jacket redirected to Full Metal Jacket, because the view stats suggest that's what most people view. Thus only about 25% of readers (those seeking the bullet) end up at the 'wrong' article for them.  Yes, someone would ideally have to change some links in the gun articles to pipe to the bullet article, but that's why we're here, to keep on fixing this thing up.  --CliffC (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the thing you linked, "Chernobyl" is directed to the town, rather than the power plant disaster, even though the power plant disaster gets 6 times as many hits. What's up with that?  The disaster is far more notable than the town, isn't it?  And as for users looking for things, look at the "what links here" page for "full metal jacket".  It's all gun-related stuff, rather than film-related, since film-related links will be capitalized anyway.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an artefact of notability policy per WP:GEOG in that inhabited settlements are presumed to be inherently notable, whereas events that happen in those places aren't. The "disaster is far more notable than the town" only within the last 20 or so years, and it was not always so, and that is why we have hatnotes and inline links and "See also"s to direct readers to the appropriate article. We cannot assume that relative notability in the short-term will persist as we perceive it, and for that reason, we dare not take a short-term view, because doing so is not neutral. Rodhull  andemu  01:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So a 1987 film is more notable in the long term than a type of bullet that has been around for ~100 years? Sounds like it's taking the long view.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the view stats given distinguish between those looking for full metal jacket and Full Metal Jacket. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, searches are only case-sensitive on the first character of the article title, and thereafter, you'll get the closest matches in the [ARTICLE TITLE] table of the database. Rodhull  andemu  01:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think searches are completely case-sensitive except for the first character. If there's no match found for the exact case used, then it will roll back to find the closest match. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever the workings of our search mechanism, and I admit to not fully understanding it, I don't believe it matters here because when the user types in full metal jacket in lower case, that short article redirects him straight on through to Full Metal Jacket. --CliffC (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the redirect currently at full metal jacket is changed from Full Metal Jacket to Full metal jacket bullet (as proposed above and at Talk:Full metal jacket), then that behavior will also change. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is why I opposed the suggested renaming of it above. --CliffC (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That brings us full circle. I don't think the reason you gave in the objection, "the view stats suggest that's what most people view", is defensible, because "I don't think the view stats given distinguish between those looking for full metal jacket and Full Metal Jacket". Incoming wikilinks suggest that the capitalization differences are useful for distinguishing the two topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Current title is unique via capitalization. --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing the other page's redirect would probably be the best solution then. Faceless Enemy (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose this move. Support changing target of lower case full metal jacket to the bullet, with hatnotes cross-referencing. older ≠ wiser 01:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Pyle" in quotes
Why is Pyle's name in quotes throughout the article? Yes it is his nickname, but all the privates are called by nicknames: Joker, Cowboy, Rafterman, Touchdown, Crazy Earl, etc., and none of them are quotated. It makes sense for the first occurrence to be in quotes, as it mentions that Hartman calls him that, but thereafter, that's the character's name for all intents. What's everyone think on this? Rails (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this change. The plot can be edited so that the name is not repeated so often, but nicknames should be in quotes. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  23:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So the article should then include "Joker", "Rafterman", "Eightball", "Touchdown", "Animal Mother", "Cowboy", and so on? I'll await that change then. Rails (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok so that last part was a bit sarcastic, apologies. However, there is a huge inconsistency in having one character's nickname in quotes but not any of the others. And looking around Wikipedia, there's no precedent that I can see to quotate nicknames, other than the first occurrence of it. You said there was no consensus for my change, so lets discuss it and form a consensus. I put up this message a week ago an nobody said anything, so rather than just undoing, lets discuss.
 * I checked 4 of the first articles I could think of for films where characters are primarily called by their nicknames. Here's how those articles handle it:
 * Smokey and the Bandit The characters are Bandit, Frog, and Snowman. Their names are quoted on the first appearance, and not after.
 * Silence of the Lambs "Buffalo Bill" is quoted onthe first appearance, and not after.
 * Animal House The frat members nicknames are quoted on the first appearance, and not after.
 * Reservoir Dogs The color-nicknames of the gang are not quoted.
 * So it seems that "Pyle" being in quotes in this article is a glaring inconsistency, both in this article as it relates to the other Marines, as well as what appears to be the standard form for nicknames in movies in other Wikipedia articles. Please lets have a discussion and actually form a consensus here. Regards! Rails (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the quotation marks are bad style. RepublicanJacobite, why should nicknames in running text be in quotation marks? -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a parallel between quoting character names and wikilinking words that have their own articles – one time is good; more is clutter. --CliffC (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
A request was made to look over the article to determine what work needs to be done for the article to become a GA. The following should be addressed before nominating:
 * The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. For an article of this length it should be two or three paragraphs. Try and touch on each section and expansion shouldn't be too difficult. For additional guidance, see WP:LEAD.
 * The plot should be reduced in length. Per WP:FILMPLOT, the summary should be no longer than 700 words (it's currently at about 840). Go through the plot several times to remove the extraneous details.
 * In the cast section, the roles don't need to bolded as they're already divided up by bullets. It may be beneficial to include a free image of one or more of the cast members here. The details here could also be trimmed back, quotes from the film and details about individual scenes aren't really necessary.
 * There's a few single sentences throughout the article. Either expand on these or incorporate them into another paragraph to improve the flow of the article.
 * The reception section should be significantly expanded to include more details on reviews (both good and bad). The details about the Blu-ray release should be in a separate "home media" section (to also touch on VHS, DVD, etc.).
 * If possible, the interpretation section should be expanded. Maybe look for some more sources in Google Scholar or Books.
 * IMDB should not be used to source the accolades section. Details should be available in archived news articles or books.
 * The citations should have consistent formatting. Make sure they include all available parameters including author, title, work, date, etc.
 * The article could use further expansion and additional sources, this film is widely recognized and there should be plenty of sources available in both print and on the web. To reach just GA, a few book sources would be beneficial, but to go further, additional sourcing will be needed. If you need help finding citations please let me know.

It would be great to see this article reach GA, and hopefully the above comments are helpful. Once these are resolved, let me know, and I'll take another look to see if anything else should be addressed. If any assistance is needed for the above suggestions, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

January 1988 Keyboard Magazine - FMJ interview
It would be great if someone had a copy of this online seeing as it's mentioned, and has been cited all over the web (presumably from here). --118.209.228.200 (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)