Talk:Hacksaw Ridge

A Link
The link (no 23) regarding where the 'graveyard  scene' is filmed is called Centennial Park Cemetery, with a link with takes you to the place, which actually is  in Adelaide South Australia. Yet it states the film was made in NSW. Is this right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHADWICK (talk • contribs) 04:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, it is not right. You are right to question it. The ref says "...in an eerie graveyard in Sydney's Centennial Park" and "A quaint graveyard had been created in the middle of the park". I have changed the wording and removed the link to Adelaide. JennyOz (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy Question
I saw this film in a theater on opening weekend. I really enjoyed it. It seems to be very accurate too. There's one point I'm particularly interested in knowing if it's true: at the end the soldier's won't advance up the ridge again until Doss is done praying and they're already 10 minutes late. Does any one know if this scene is true and is there a good source for this? 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello. This event happened and is mentioned in the documentary made on Doss's life, The Conscientious Objector. Regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Terrible choice of location to pass off as Lynchburg, Virginia as when they were in the cemetery large tropical ficus trees' were all over the land! With fluted trunks and large leaves I could not believe in the film. The around town shots? Large tropical Araucaria and Eucalyptus trees were in plain view. It was as authentic as Gilligan's Island. -S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.118.233 (talk) 05:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

add location
a single world Okinawa is mentioned and since that battle is the worst in global history with 350,000 dying in ab 30 days (50-60x more than Normandy e.g.) there should be added like a line or two to show the location of the movie events in that larger battle of Okinawa... gyrene joans sempa fi 24.44.215.132 (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The film compresses action over a number of days into a single day/night and location. The main event, lowering 75 or more men over the cliff, occurred in a single night. It is unfortinate that for presentation reasons they compressed Doss's heroics into a shorter time frame and omitted actions for which he received heroism awards in the Philippines and Guam. Legacypac (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Christian film?
Should this article be categorized as a Christian film? It says in "Theme" section that It also incorporates recurring religious imagery, such as baptism and ascension. which is technically in the body of Christianity.  Blue sphere  07:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a hollywood blockbuster still being shown on planes - just saw it on Hong Kong Airlines! Legacypac (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Doss's
Whatever your supposed source is that apostrophe only is more common, it is incorrect and against the MOS at WP:POSS. Because it is pronounced with two s sounds it should be spelled with two. Reywas92Talk 21:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The Conversation review
At some point an editor included this summary of a review: "Guy Westwell, writing for The Conversation, criticized the depiction of Doss' pacifism as contributing to the jingoism of the film." The statement accurately represents the review and it has a correct citation. Another reviewer has several times removed this review, claiming that The Conversation is a fringe publication and that the review gives undue weight to the view of the reviewer. This seems to me to be entirely baseless. The review is legitimate and the inclusion of it among many other reviews hardly gives it undue weight. I'd respecfully like to know what other editors think, please. Many thanks, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That review is jumbled and not from a major publication. I don't think it adds anything useful to the article. Legacypac (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry did not see this before reverting, apologies. I read the article, struggling to work out who he is, why his opinion is important, and actually didn't even make a coherent argument at all in the review. The film was highly praised in most regards by lots of notable people, I think this guy just wanted to play devils advocate for the sake of it? Just to add, this was a block buster by Mel Gibson. If it had been an indie film then the weight of the lesser know movie critics, if you can call this guy one, goes up. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Themes
"an anti-war film, with pacifist themes" This is a bad joke. This movie is continously heroizing soldiership, and is aiming to cover the moral gap between pacifist beliefs and going to war. Hey, all you Christians out there! Join the forces and become a war hero, Jesus is fine with it. --AllIC (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You do know Doss never used a weapon and is a hero for saving men's lives under great personal risk, doing a job he asked for? Yes, Jesus also healed and saved at great personal risk, one of the reasons the Jews wanted him dead. Legacypac (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. So what? Totally off-topic. He (Doss) did. And there is no doubt it takes guts. But there is also no doubt this movie is no anti-war movie, because it is glorifying american soldiers, espacially one of them, fails to depict the suffering or bravery of 'the enemy' to the same extent, and tries to suggest: 'yes, Jesus would be fine with this way of supporting war', which is 100% made up out of thin air. Any part in the bible reporting about that? 'Defending the home country'? Ridiculous, just as your final sub-clause is. --AllIC (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bible includes many stories glorifying solders fighting for their country. Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to refer to the bible in general, but Jesus 'citations' in particular. Real hardcore right-cheek-left-cheek new testament stuff, ya know? Doesn't matter anyway. My point is: this movie is not even close to be an anti-war film, and is not pacifistic at all. This should be corrected in the article.--AllIC (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So if no one opposes, I am going to correct this. --AllIC (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Marking a departure?
I was told removing content requires consensus. I would like to remove the statement containing "and marks a departure from his previous films" located at the end of the Development section. The issue is that this statement claims a marked departure from Gibson's previous films in the making of Hacksaw Ridge. This claim is neither true no expressed in the cited article. The claim is based on a conversation between an interviewer (Mike Fleming Jr.) and Mel Gibson where the interviewer observes a contrast between Desmond Doss (Hacksaw Ridge) and the protagonists of some of Gibson's earlier directed films in so much as the protagonists had violent tendencies in those other films. However, this does not indicate an objective marked departure within Gibson's film-making. The interviewer was simply making a personal observation regarding the contrast between Desmond Doss and the protagonists in two of Gibson's previous films. The statement in the Wikipedia article is factually misleading and creates a point of view beyond the article's original intent. Aside from being false and unsupported, in order to regard this statement as true, one would have to dismiss the existence of The Passion Of The Christ, which is arguably Gibson's most influential film, having grossed more worldwide than all his other films combined (not adjusted for inflation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.8.246 (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. The interviewer was asking Gibson what interested him about Doss's story in contrast to two other of Gibson's protagonists. To extrapolate from that that this film "marks a departure" for Gibson's directing is more than giving undue weight to the interviewer's question, it is misunderstanding what was said, and further, is simply wrong. Captainllama (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)