Talk:Saving Private Ryan/Archive 1

Plot
I've made some major changes to the PLOT section to try and bring in line with WP policy on Plot Summaries. The former version was almost a script novelization and with that amount of detail was in danger of being a copyright violation. Plot summaries should NOT include every minor detail of the film but merely hit the major plot points - see a well-written film review for an example. Please don't include detail just because you think it's cool, like the scene or want to show off that you know the difference between a Kar98 and an MP40. That isn't what this is about. This is an encyclopedia article and not a fan site.--Lepeu1999 14:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"infamous and iconic"
I don't know how the scene described as such in the article can be called "infamous," and as for "iconic," I think the word is just being used incorrectly. Can anyone justify this phrase? If not, I'm going to delete it.Minaker 23:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Plot section of this article has gotten to be as long as the film itself. I've added a tag. Can we get a discussion going about consolidating it?--Lepeu1999 19:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

reading the plot section, it's really over detailed. Does anyone object to me removing some of the detail? Do we really need a moment-by-moment recap of the film?--Lepeu1999 01:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I have not liked it for some time now and hoped it would be ripped up. Nicht Nein! 04:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lack of mention of Allies
In the UK the film was criticised for its almost total failure to acknowledge or portray the contribution of allied forces in the war, but I wonder if anyone can point me to some references before I add it to the article. Magic Pickle 23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, by 'the war' I meant - the D-Day landings specifically. Magic Pickle 18:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See, I've always had a problem with this criticism. The movie isn't about D-Day, it merely takes place on and around D-Day. D-Day is the setting and provides the McGuffin for the trip to find Ryan. The movie is really about what motivates men in combat - what drives them to be either heroes or cowards etc. The characters in the movie are American. Rangers, 101st Airborne troopers and 29th Infantry Division soldiers - so why is it so horrible they didn't include brits or others? These men would have had no contact with Commonwealth troops during the time period of the movie. That criticism is about as valid as an American audience complaining that a movie about Pegasus Bridge didn't include Americans.--Lepeu1999 18:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not impossible that they would have encountered Commonwealth troops. There is actually a reference to Bernard Montgomery, in the film, but a dismissive one. As for Americans portrayed in war movies - U-571 is a prime example of ignoring Allied contributions - American crew capturing the enigma machine? Nope it was the Royal Navy - thanks for erasing that. Anyway, this is not simply my opinion but that of a film historian I saw on UK TV - if anyone saw it as well and can reference it, please let me know. I think it was a criticism Barry Norman levelled at the film as well, though I could be wrong. I would argue the film certainly 'is' about D-Day - it's a bit like saying that the film Titanic is not actually about the sinking of the ship, but rather a romance story set with the ship as background (which some have indeed argued - but the argument is a fairly tongue-in cheek one). Of course the film is about the characters first and foremost - that's fiction! A film that is 'really' all about D-Day would be called a documentary. There are plenty of examples of media which shoehorn Americans into the plot in an inappropriate way. Secret Weapons Over Normandy for example, features many aerial battles that occurred before the USA joined the war, yet you play an American volunteer pilot! Saving Private Ryan is a film heavy on sentimentalism and a desire to show how courageous the 'greatest generation' were - it has a tone that goes beyond telling the story of a small group of men. Some recognition of the tremendous sacrifice of Commonwealth troops and others would not have been impossible to put into the film, even if it was no more than some captions at the end. Magic Pickle 19:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

While I don't dispute any of your points regarding several Hollywood crap movies - like U-571 and all of the other horrible pieces of crap that suggest the US won the war single handedly, I still take issue with this particular criticism of SPR. The filmmaker DIDN'T take liberties with basic facts this time around. Sure, he took some artistic license with tactics, locations etc and the more glaring of those have been noted in the article. Sure US troops COULD have come into contact with Commonwealth troops - but most of them did not and what would have been the point to include it in the film other then to make a potential overseas audience happier because they see some familiar uniforms. Meeting Commonwealth soldiers would do nothing to advance the story and would stick out like a sore thumb. Further, it would be even MORE unlikely for members of the 101st to encounter Commonwealth troops as they were dropped in the middle of the American sector vs the 82 which were dropped closer to the British zone. As I said earlier, the point of the film was a character study. It additionally was an homage to that particular generation and told a slice of the D-Day story. What does that have to do with anything? You seem to be complaining that the movie didn't have the scope of The Longest Day or A Bridge Too Far - which were very different movies.

Finally, the Monty quote was dismissive, but also was an accurate depiction of the opinion of many American officers of the time. I'm NOT argueing whether or not that was right or not so please don't accuse me of being a Monty detractor. That particular attitude was fostered in part by Monty's own big mouth - and even Monty's supporters have to agree he had a regrettable tendency to speak without thinking - he is the one that dismissivly referred to American troops as 'Our Italians' during the early days of Operation Torch. We did have a criticism section at one point and I'm pretty sure the point you raised was a part of it. Someone (not me) from the Film Task Force removed it. I believe the discussion is here in the notes someplace.--Lepeu1999 20:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Magic Pickle, I've done a bit of searching for your documentation and I have found one British review online taking your perspective. Interestingly enough, I've found one taking my own as wll. I'm putting both citations here, use them as you see fit. I don't think an encyclopedia article needs a criticism section for a film entry, but if you want to put it in please make it balanced.

Channel4 review (supports points I made) http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/e-h/film-saving.html

Total Film review (supports your points) http://www.totalfilm.com/cinema_reviews/saving_private_ryan

--Lepeu1999 13:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points, and undoubtedly the film is about Americans, for Americans. I think what rankles slightly with UK audiences is that Hollywood seems to almost exclusively make these kinds of American-only war movies these days. In the 50s and 60s Hollywood made war films that included many international characters. And our film industry doesn't really have the money to stage our own big war films. Is this the fault of Saving Private Ryan? No - but as it is a big film with a global audience it kind of goes beyond an American movie for Americans, at least in the reaction it gets from foreign critics anyway. Still, whatever either of us think about whether allied forces should have featured in Saving Private Ryan, we need to decide whether or not to include the info that that the film was criticised in the UK for the above reasons (whether the reader agrees that the criticism is valid or not is another matter). You have kindly provided a reference for me - even the Channel 4 reference, while disagreeing with the criticism, acknowledges it is a common complaint in the UK - which is the point - should we acknowledge this complaint in the article? Magic Pickle 02:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with your comments on Hollywood today vs even 20 years ago. Given that we've got citations and given it was a common complaint I'm thinking 'yes'. I still would like to avoid a specific section on Criticism of the film as I think it could easily get out of control with minutia (like some of the other sections) but how about adding it to the intro section of the article? Something along the lines of discussing the impact of the film on popular culture - 'While applauded by critics as a major film achievment that has influenced the war film genre as well as a resurgnce of interest in WWII, the movie did garner criticism abroad for its focus on American soldiers only' or something along those lines with the citations added as footnotes to the end?--Lepeu1999 15:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been nagging at me since our discussion. I've added a paragraph to the opening section mentioning it.--Lepeu1999 18:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That totalfilm.com review is unbelievably biased, and borderline insulting. It refers to the landing at Omaha Beach as " a uniquely American cock-up" (cock-up means botched or screw-up for those of you not familiar with Brit slang). Suggesting that the Americans screwed up and that's why the death toll was so high, when this is hardly the case. The Americans at Omaha went up against some off the better trained Germans in the Area. Arguably the strongest part of the Atlantic wall. They faced horrible terrain (steep cliffs). Most of their armor support wasn't able to land. And to top it off, the Allied (read, ALLIED) air bombardment...completely missed the Atlantic Wall defenses.

Omaha beach was the most heavily defended beach. Not just an "American Cock-Up". Oh, and it's not THAT hard to believe that Americans wouldn't be interacting with Brits that soon after D-Day. The Americans outnumbered the British by 30,000 in the D-Day invasion. People need to stop taking things so personally.-- Abalu 12:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Abalu
 * If you read my debate with Magic Pickle above you'll see that I agree with you - but the fact that I don't agree with the opinion or the review doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. Enough people DO agree with it that it deserves a place in the article.  Also the armor didn't reach the beach as the DD Shermans were release too far out in too heavy a surf - which was an American cock-up & as horrible as Bloody Omaha was, read about what the Canadians faced.  Their casualties were almost as bad as the US at Omaha.--Lepeu1999 22:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE NO TRIVIA!
Please don't add 'fun facts' or 'errors', bloopers or other trivia sections - they don't belong here. Please review WP:TRIVIA indiscriminate information really has no place here. --Lepeu1999 00:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Mellish's Death
Mellish was stabbed with his own bayonet as verified by the SPR online encyclopedia (maintained by the filmmakers) NOT the Hitler Youth Knife Carparso shows him in the opening of the film http://www.sproe.com/m/mellish.html --Lepeu1999 13:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Section on Nihland
There were 2 sections on Nihland that basically provided the same information. One is marked in the middle of the article, the other was just stuck on the end after the section on criticism. I removed that as it's duplicate information and just didn't belong where it was placed--Lepeu1999 16:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was the name Ryan used. Is it just a coincidence that the author of the Longest Day was Cornelius Ryan. Philip Baird Shearer 12:50, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * My guess is that is just a coincidence. --enceladus 04:23, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Cast list
Do we really need this long cast list? It's for this kind of detail we supply links to the IMDB. The JPS 20:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it should be widdled down to the key actors. Cburnett 01:28, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. In the extreme case, why should we have articles about movies at all, since so much info is available on IMDB? The deletion of the cast list is abusive in my eyes, as it was in no way the result of a broad consensus. I am creating a separate page with the cast at Cast of Saving Private Ryan. olivier July 2, 2005 07:47 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to have too much information?
 * It is possible to be redundant. Providing that much information, which contributes nothing more than what imdb could is redundant. We should follow the same form for this movie as other movies on Wikipedia.
 * I suppose your right. Though, if the cast list is removed, the trivia should go as well. Both can be found on imdb. In the "links and references" section, it should be noted that trivia and a full cast list can be found on the imdb link.
 * I like the cast list, but I question if it needs to be more then the actor name/character name. The little character summaries don't 'look' right to me.  They appear 'unprofessional' and a tad 'fannish'.  What do you think?  I'm not doing anything about them as I don't want to undo someone's hard work but you may want to consider modifying it.--Lepeu1999 13:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed some of the character bio from the list. Every time I read it, the level of detail bothered me.  It read more like an RPG player list then a movie character guide.  The additional detail is not needed and takes away from the article itself.--Lepeu1999 17:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Horvath was a Staff Sargent, not a "technical" rank. T4 and T5 were not able to command troops. They were specialists in their training and given higher rank although not higher responsbilities. Horvath is clearly a senior NCO. - Mike 13 May 2006

Sorry Mike, but I have to disagree with you. Army NCO ranks in WWII were different from today. A Staff Sargent had 1 rocker, 2 rockers was called a Technical Sargent and it didn't matter if they were a combat soldier in the chain of command or not, the title was used regardless. Non-chain of command ranks were denoted by the capital T in the space between the chevrons and the rockers as well as the blue vs black background of the patch. Note Uppham's chevrons - 2 with a blue background and the letter T underneath for comparison.

During the war, the NCO sargent ranks went: Sargent (3 chevrons), Staff Sargent (3 chevrons and a rocker), Technical Sargent (three chevrons, 2 rockers), First Sargent (3 & 2 with a diamond between - prior to 1942), Master Sargent (3 & 3) and First Sargent (3&3 with a diamond - after 1942). All were combat ranks. I've interviewed many WWII vets over the years and all are in agreement over this. The tecnichians were NOT referred to as sargents, but were called Tecnichian 3, 5 etc. After the war the Technical Sargent rank was renamed to avoid confusion with the Technician ranks.

So, during the US ground combat phase of WWII, three chevrons with 2 rockers was called Technical Sargent. The slot filled was usually the position of Platoon sargent vice a 2nd or 1st LT. Because of combat losses, it wasn't unusual to see a Technical Sargent filling the slot of Company 1st Sargent nor was it unusual to see a staff sargent functioning as platoon sargent.

You may be a bit confused because prior to 9/22/42 there WAS a differentiation at that level. Technical Sargent (3 up, 2 down) was a Technician rank and First Sargent (3 up, 2 down with a diamond) was the combat rank, but that was changed 9/22/42 and the title of First Sargent was created for a rank equal to Master Sargent - with First sargent SUPPOSED to be for the combat rank (i.e. Co. First Sargent) and the Master Sargent rank for senior NCO staff positions but it should be noted that it rarely worked out that cleanly as you didn't get to Master Sargent rank w/o combat experience in those days and Sr. NCO's were thin on the ground by the end of the war thus were plugged in where ever needed - and that was usually the combat units.

http://www2.powercom.net/~rokats/wwii_era.html is an interesting site for more information. --Lepeu1999 13:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I am non-ironically awed by the above. Notreallydavid 03:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC) >>>I second your non-ironic awe. Excellent work. Thanks.

For clarification; Technicians Third Class were addressed as Staff Sergeant or Sergeant, Technicians Forth Class as Sergeant and Technicians Fifth Class as Corporal. In the restructuring of 1948 the Technical Sergeant was renamed Sergeant First Class, but this same restructuring removed the Technician grades so it was not really needed to avoid confusion. Also "combat" rank was non existent; the Technician grades were created to grant specialists higher pay for their technical skills without granting command authority, for example, radio operators, etcetera. Now the First Sergeant was a single principle NCO assisting the CO at Company and higher echelon, represented by a "lozenge" (not really a diamond) in the center of top grade insignia. The Master Sergeant, drawing the same experience as the First Sergeant would fill other important positions at Battalion and higher echelon, for example the Battalion Operations Sergeant, etcetera.

What was said about combat losses was not confusion; Staff Sergeants post 1942, serving in a combat capacity were officially Squad Leaders with the Sergeant being the assistant, but as losses were the norm, and rank promotions were not handed out so easily, Staff Sergeants did fill the Platoon Sergeant billet, same as other ranks and billets. Though it was my understanding that Horvath was actually a Platoon Sergeant or an Operations Sergeant.


 * OK, not to get into this overly much but yes, the T ranks were called Sargent or Corporal but it was a courtesy, they were technicians and not part of the chain of command of the unit. I used the term combat rank to refer to soliders IN the chain of command even though the US army used no such term.  I was trying to explain without getting hyper-technical - a short-hand I believed to be forgivable on the discussion page - as was calling the lozenge a diamond.  It's diamond shaped and for readers not familiar with US Army terminology - such as the audience I was writing the note for - calling it by its proper name might be confusing.  Finally Horvath WAS a platoon sargeant - hence his rank of Technical Sargeant. Thank you both for the kudos above as well. Finally, to the poster above, you should sign your edits to this discussion page with four ~ It's possible you were trying to be helpful and supply more information but the way I read it was that you were being snarky.  If I took offense improperly please accept my apologies--Lepeu1999 19:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I am a little annoyed, but the above clarification was just that, clarification. I do not believe I can accept your apology, since I am now inclined to this response which I do not believe really even belongs here on this page. I was not being "snarky", I was conveying information that I felt was needed to clear up the jumbled mis-information in this section. I did say that Technicians were not granted command authority and that they were "addressed" as their parallel rank. You also incorrectly stated that the First Sergeant was the "combat" rank of the top grade, when the Master Sergeant "WAS" indeed "IN" the chain of command. So using the term "combat rank" was both mis-informative and incorrectly used, by your definition. Also "lozenge" is a universal term, not a military term; anyone who would not understand it I hope would look it up. I am under the impression that this site adheres to technical information and this talk page is acting as clarification for people looking to keep its pages technically correct. What will four tildes do for me?

4 tildes appends your signature to the entry. It's customary to sign your entries on a discussion page. By combat rank with the First/Master Sargeant discussion I was trying to reference the difference between a 'line' position vs a staff position. Obviously I wasn't clear and I now regret that I reacted emotionally to your post. --Lepeu1999 02:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The First Sergeant is in a staff position...

No, the First Sergeant was usually the sr NCO of a company vs a Master Sgt who was usually on Btn staff. Sign your entries fliegerfaustme262.--Lepeu1999 22:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes as I have said and First Sergeant is a staff position.
 * First sergeant is an adminstrative position. "Staff" and "line" are duty functions, not positions. A first sergeant would kick your tail if you insisted to him he was "staff".--Buckboard 00:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Template
Hi folks, Max Terry has reverted the Spielberg template back to the vertical format, which I think gives too much white space on either side of the box. Could we please reach a consnsus at Template talk:Steven Spielberg's films. Cheers, The JPS 21:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Video games
Video games are mentioned in the introduction to this article, and yet they have nothing substantial to do with the movie. In other words, the video games are being given too much prominence.

There is nothing wrong with mentioning the inspirational effects of SPR but, introduction should be limited to synopsis, themes, major actors/directors.

First 20 minutes of violence
The TV controversy identified in this source needs to make a turn for the good. The first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan showed nothing more than the battles you, I, and our sons/daughters have faced- or will face- in the future. If the horrors or war are edited, then our future shock-traumatized soldier children will march into battle uncapable of defending themselves and their peers. Media- either raise us as warriors and prepare us for the horrors of war, or make our culture peaceful and quit letting the government use you as a tool to send us there!!! Too bad you cannot censor the actual combat real-world troops are coping with; many of whom are ordered there against their wishes.

Your point is...? --70.72.50.20 04:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize this is a Talk Page, but I do not understand the original post above "20 Min of Violence". The purpose of this talk page is to remark upon the Wiki article (in this case, a movie), not expound philosophy...unless of course the article is about philiosophy:)... User from 22 Dec 06 (above) seems to wonder what this is about also...Can Talk Page topics be edited out???  Engr105th 13:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's generally considered bad form to delete things from talk pages. We could do with a good archive though.  Wish I knew how to do it.--Lepeu1999 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis
This section has become quite detailed - possibly too much so - or maybe I'm just sensitive to the 'fanboy' comment someone leveled at me. In any event, I made a few minor edits to it. Mostly grammatical, but I did delete some conjecture and the stuff about the German soldier not being the same. That confusion in the Themes section has been fixed so there's no longer any reason to have that in.--Lepeu1999 18:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. An unregestered user changed "Earn this" to "Earn it". "Earn this" is the correct line so I reverted. --Lepeu1999 17:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Looks like user User talk:66.184.215.162 vandalized the article by deleting the synopsis section en toto. I've put it back. --Lepeu1999 13:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a little analysis re the 'teacher' thing & the reason for it's inclusion in the movie. Feel free to keep/edit/delete if you don't like it. --Lepeu1999 13:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Miller's last words were "Earn this" not "You earned this". I corrected the error --Lepeu1999 17:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In the synposis there is this line: "Many critics commented that the film seemed marred somewhat by Spielberg's propensity for sentimentalism". This is a misrepresentation of the overwhelmly positive responses to the film. On Rottentomatoes, the film currently has a 97% rating.

This line should be removed and replaced with a more representative line; one stating its popular and critical success. A new section could be created entitle "Critical response", with a more thorough discussion of what critics liked and did not like about the film.

Trivia
Does anyone know why the big point on the Phillipines is included? I don't really find that interesting or relevant. You could say the same thing about any other number of countries that banned the movie and/or talked about banning it but didn't. Covert- 17:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracies
After reviewing the article again, with the exception of the 2nd SS Panzer comment (which remains unsourced) the rest of this section is merely trivia. None of the items listed are true 'Historical Innacuracies'. A historical innacuracy is something that's either anachronistic (like having helocopters in WWII) or didn't happen the way it was portrayed in the movie (Like the entire plot of U-571). I'm removing the entire section. If someone can come up with a verified source for the 2nd Panzer issue it should be added in either as a footnote to the Plot section or in the production notes or intro.--Lepeu1999 14:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for the definition of "an" historical inaccuracy? Nicht Nein! 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fligerfaust262, Historical: Of or pertaining to history. Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary.  Inaccuracy: Containing errors (ibid).  Trivia - WP:Trivia. If you think anything I've deleted needs to be in the article then re-add it.  The only thing I miss is the 2nd SS piece and that's been unsourced since it was added some months ago.  I've tried to source it but have been unable.--Lepeu1999 16:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So, "of or pertaining to history"? That whole section needs to be put back if this is the case. Nicht Nein! 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not if you couple that with the WP:Trivia policy. The section as it was invited trivial entries of the basest sort.  thank you for sourcing the 2nd SS statement - I've been trying myself and was hoping someone would.  To avoid the willy-nilly inclusion of trivia I've merged the section with Historical Background.  I also removed the the haircut and Flash/thunder as while they're 'interesting' they don't rise above the wiki definition of trivia.--Lepeu1999 19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What I have read on the "WP:Trivia" page does not lead me to believe that those two subjects are not important to the SPR article. The "haircut" issue is of less importance at least to me, but I myself added the flash/thunder issue and would not have done so if I did not think it was relevant to SPR. This mistake is made throughout the movie at multiple times. I will wait for you to re-add it, assuming you will be able to agree with me. Nicht Nein! 21:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't agree with you on the importance to the subject of the film of the Flash/Thunder issue. I quote from the WP:Trivia guideline "...an ideal Wikipedia article would present its subject in a straightforward but well-organized way, without spending much time on unnecessary details, yet while referring the reader to other articles or outside resources where more details can be found. The overinclusion of unimportant detail detracts from this goal. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so some degree of selectivity should always be used." While the Flash/Thunder bit is a really cool piece of information it's not really germaine to the article.  I'm sorry if you feel slighted by my removing it, I've also removed a lot of what I've contributed as well.  My goal is to try and bring this in line with the WP:Film's Projects guidelines for an A rated article.--Lepeu1999 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Then the 2nd SS inaccuracy which is less relevant as less people will notice and the divisional objectives with are irrelevant to the movie should be moved as well. Nicht Nein! 02:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Again I disagree. People are always commenting here that the movie wasn't 100% accurate.  Personally, I think it's silly to expect a work of fiction to be 100% accurate but that's neither here nor there. I do think we need to acknowladge both the fact that there were inaccuracies in the film and that the director deviated from reality for dramatic effect as a way of acknowladging those comments.  For examples I used what I consider the 2 biggest inacurracies of the film - the first being that US forces didn't confront the SS in the first week of combat and the second that the 101st wasn't anywhere near the Merderet river (the location of the film's final battle).  If you believe that the fact they got the challenge and response backwards or they cut the hair of the SS men too short to be a bigger goof then the two I've used feel free to make a case for it and we can submit it to peer arbitration.--Lepeu1999 12:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, then you best submit it since where the 101st's main combat operations were taking place has no relevance to where a small group of randomly picked men are gonna be. The challenge and response issue is a definite inaccuracy, they are saying the wrong things and they are saying the wrong things backwards. I would like to keep the SS issue in there but it is of less relevance because I think most people won't be paying attention or not even care. This issue does not beat out Flash/Thunder. The hair issue is good because again it is definite, the troops are being portrayed inaccurately. With these four issues it was nice and compact, wasn't tacky and was organized nicely. I'm proposing we leave in three: SS, F/T and Hair; this will be even more compact.


 * The WP:Trivia page does not say anything that would debunk my stance; it does not say no trivia, no historically incorrect sub plots. It says nothing irrelevant. For example, the moon in SPR is featured at incorrect angles throughout the movie because it had just crashed into Jupiter; as this would be better suited under the "crash of 1944" and little less under the "moon" and "Jupiter" articles. Nicht Nein! 17:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems we're at an impass. In an effort to avoid some kind of edit war, I would be happy to submit this to and abide by the decisions of a 3rd party using Third opinion.  If you'll agree, I'd be happy to start the listing and we can lay out both sides of the arguement.  It does require that both parties be willing to accept the neutral's decision. I've no problem with that.--Lepeu1999 17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just had a thought - what about removing all examples, keeping the narrative statement that some errors were made for the sake of dramatic impact and creating a new, linked article called something like Movie Errors in Saving Private Ryan. It could include examples of Continuity Errors, Filming Goofs, Historical Inaccuracies etc.  That way we can satisfy the people who like to read about that kind of stuff while keeping it seperate and satisfying those who don't.  What do you think?--Lepeu1999 18:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I was thinking the same thing for awhile, but I was to lazy to implement it myself. Nicht Nein! 23:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yah, I hear you. Give me a couple of days to think about it and I'll take a stab at it.  The biggest issue will be creating something meaningful that won't get deleted.  I'm open to any suggestions.--Lepeu1999 12:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it has been a week, how is your progress? I want Wikipedia educating people on these issues! Nicht Nein! 00:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to start the article any time you wish--Lepeu1999 00:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

NOTE TO POTENTIAL EDITORS Please read the full discussion here before posting to the Historical Innacuracies section. It's not a movie goof section so please leave out stuff like Jackson firing 6 rounds from his Springfield w/o reloading or the sights being in the folded position on the MG-42 in the scene when Wade gets killed. Those are filming goofs, not Historical Innacuracies.--Lepeu1999 15:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed the 'telephone in Ryan farmhouse not existing until the 50's. The wall phone was period for 1944 - see the website cited below. http://www.actw.nl/English/Old%20telephones.htm --Lepeu1999 13:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed disintegrating link comment as this was available in WWII - just not often seen used by infantrymen. It was usually reserved for the Air Corps and Armor but it's use in this context isn't a historical inaccuracy. It MAY be a consistency error in the filming as most of the scenes leading up to that show the .30 cal MG ammo as being of the cloth belted type but that's not a historical innacuracy. Ditto the DD tank comment. That's a film consistency error, not a historical error.--Lepeu1999 14:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Re-edited this section again. removed some questionable additions. 1) removed the comment re the 20mm would be firing HE. It was, not the pieces of soldiers flying all over the place when the gun opens up on them.  That's from the HE. 2) Halftracks WERE used for recon by PG units - the Germans' had a specifically designed halftrack just for that purpose 3) removed the 'blank MG round' comment as that isn't a historical innacurracy more then a movie blooper. 4) finally, cleaned up the language and grammer on some of the others.--Lepeu1999 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Went back in and removed the weapon and tactics comment as it's sufficiently covered in the 4th bullet point of the section. This is an article about a movie, not the composition of a German PG squad nor proper assault tactics.--Lepeu1999 12:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed the addition to this section about 'historical video's showing soldiers walking up the beach due to the weight of their gear'.

There are no historical videos of the landing at Omaha Beach. There are 5 surviving still photos taken by Robert Capra of the first wave landings. He was the only comabt photographer to land at Omaha and the vast majority of his film was ruined in a darkroom accident during developing. Any historical movie footage would have been shot after the initial landings or at another invasion beach.--Lepeu1999 12:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

M.Lepeu - was it you that removed the note about the fact that in the date the bridge action ends, the 101st Airborne was organized and attacking Carentan? --Fernando K 01:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope. Not I.--Lepeu1999 01:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the unsigned edit stating that American Jews were unaware of 'Hitler's policies'. That is an inaccurate statement. The Nazi philosophy towards the jews was more then clear by 1944. The majority of American's didn't know about the camps in 6/44 but they were well aware that the Nazi's considered the Jews to be untermenchen and therefore Melish's mocking the captured German soldiers is both in character and timely. --Lepeu1999 17:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the recent addition about the Rangers only attacking Pont du Hoc. While it is true that PART of the Ranger Bttn attacked the guns at Pont du Hoc, the rest were landed with the 29th Infantry Division at Omaha Beach. The 29th was a green reserve division and it was thought that the Rangers would provide some veteran leadership. The Ranger motto Rangers Lead The Way comes from a quote from this landing. Interestingly, the 29th has never agreed they needed stiffining, claims a history dating back to the Civil War and their own motto 29 Let's Go also arises out of a D-Day quote.--Lepeu1999 12:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

M. Lepeu - I am quite positive that the bulk of 2nd Ranger Battalion attacked Pointe du Hoc (take a look on this article). It was their only designated target, and they had practiced climbing up the steep banks with ladders, grappling hooks etc. I have been to Pointe du Hoc myself and I was able to see the place, it is quite different than the place shown in the movie. Since it was a difficult assault the Rangers were selected. I believe that the 5th Ranger Btn landed on Omaha Beach, and it is possible that members of the 2nd Btn drifted eastwards (as many landings units did, due to the streams) and landed in Omaha; but they would NOT say that they were on the right spot, and that the other guys landed in the wrong place. About your comment on 29th Division, remember that they had 1st Division's 116th Regiment attached to them, and they were experienced veterans, having fought in Tunisia, Sicily and Italy. -- Fernando, 03:03 UTC May 18th, 2006


 * You are absolutely correct that the bulk of the 2nd Bn attacked Pont du Hoc, but the 5th landed at Dog White on Omaha Beach. http://darbysrangers.tripod.com/id115.htm is one of many sites dedicated to the 5th's actions on 6/6. as does this one http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/BACK/D_Day_inv_sites.php

and this one http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/omaha_beach.htm and finally, the official US Army report. Scroll half way down the page http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/100-11/ch3.htm#initial


 * The 116th RCTyou cite was part of the 29th ID, not the 1st. The first supplied the 16th RCT - the similar numbers are a bit confusing. Yes, the 1st ID was a veteran, regualar army Division as was the 4th at Utah, but the 29th was a federalized National Guard division and the brass were worried about how they would do in the hell that was anticipated at Omaha. As it turns out, the 29th more then lived up to their proud heritage that day, but the decision was made to land the 5th Rangers and the 1st 3 companies of the 2nd Rangers with the 116 RCT of the 29th Division at Charlie, Dog and Easy Green.  The 16 RCT of the 1st went in at Easy Red and Fox Green further down the beach.  Here's a map of the first wave

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/100-11/map05.jpg

see this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_rangers here at Wiki for the actions of the 5th Ranger Bn and the 3 companies of the 2nd Rangers on Omaha.

Finally, please note the blue diamond ranger patch on Tom Hank's left sleeve in this photo http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/andrei_martin/blog3/saving.jpg This is the patch of the 5th Ranger Bn indicating Miller and his men were members of the 5th Ranger Bn, not the 2nd.

Just a suggestion, but you should register if you're going to edit. Your changes are showing up as an IP address only. The mods may give you some grief over that at some point.--Lepeu1999 14:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

M. Lepeu - Sorry about the 116th, it was a typo. Low numbered ID had low-numbered Rgt numbers as well. However, I believe Hanks's (or Capt. Miller) company belonged to the 2nd Bn; all rangers would wear blue diamond shoulder patches, and the Bn number would appear on the back of their helmets. It has been sometime since I last seen the movie, but I think they had a red diamond with the number "2" in the back of the helmet. I believe Ranger Bn men also wore a "scroll"-type shoulder patch above the diamond, but I could not see any in the movie. I did not know about 2nd Bn Companies being :planned: to land in Omaha, I thought that if any got there it was by accident. Fernando


 * Fernando, not a problem with me my friend! At the time, the scroll type patch was for 2nd Rangers and the Blue Diamond was 5th.  Sometime after the war the scroll morphed into the Ranger Tab that came to mean you were Ranger qualified.  You raise a good point about the helmet numbering.  I'll have to watch the movie again myself - if they've got the blue patch with the 2 on the helmet marking then we may have a seperate inaccuracy issue! :)--Lepeu1999 12:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Under historical innacuracies, someone added a line about rank not being worn in combat. That is an innacurate statement for WWII in general and the Normandy Landings in particular. The US Army was adamant about rank being worn and displayed - to the point vertical and horizontal white bars were painted on the backs of the helmets of officers and non-coms respectivly. As the war progressed, this did change and the helmet markings (at the least) became less common due to the problem of snipers - but they never entirely dissapeared.--Lepeu1999 13:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Cpt Miller also shoots into the open viewing port of a Panzercampfwagen 6 towards the end of the movie, but at the time most of the front view ports had been outfitted with bullet resistant glass.

In the movie there is a few parts where a soldier will say "thunder" and the other soldier will respond with "flash". But in ww2 they actually said "flash" first and then responded with "thunder" 11 March 2007

Criticism
OK. User :88.134.149.161 keeps adding in POV statements relating to that German Language review. I'm assuming that english is not his first language and that he doesn't realize how what he's doing reads & have been editing his comment to make it NPOV but he keeps reverting. I've reverted and left a note on his user page, but as he isn't a logged in user I'm guessing he won't get it nor will he be reading this. If he does again, I'm reporting it as vandalism. I also removed his statement about the 'weapon ss' (what looks like a machine translation of Waffen SS) as being portrayed as 'incompetent' as the movie does no such thing. It shows them making bad tactical decisions, but so do the American's. that comes from the director not knowing tactics and really doesn't belong in that section. it's covered under historical innacuracies well enough.--Lepeu1999 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone started a section on criticism of the film. I fleshed out some of the arguements and added some counterpoints to balance it. --Lepeu1999 14:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but the criticism of the criticism of the film is not really accurate even with strictly refering to the scenes of the film itself. Specifically these comments:
 * During the heat of battle the essential humanity of the enemy is not evident to the soldiers involved, thus the portrayal of German soldiers as 'yelling killing machines'. Were the movie shot from a German perspective, the Americans would likely be portrayed in the same fashion.
 * This is plain rubbish.
 * At first it is untrue that the Germans get only shown in the heat of the battle as killing machines. There is one specific scene long time after the landing ot Omaha beach where a previously released German soldier killed again an American in in a quite cruel scene which is particularly not heated but a very slow and cruel killing. Furthermore there is a subtle detail. Throughout the whole film faces of Germans are mostly in grey cooler colors whilst American soliders faces get shown in warmer colors (brown - orange, like sunlight reflecting in faces at sunset). So the "heat of the battle" argument simply doesn't count as counter criticism in order to defend the to the existing bias.
 * The next point is the believe that from a German perspective that film would probably have a bias the other way round. Sorry but this can only be claimed by someone who has absolutely no clue about post-WW-2 Germany. Im am not aware of any German war movie (after WW 2) that has such a bias. The film would have been prohibited quite quickly and would have been strictly rejected by the large majority of the German population as well. Any German war movie shows a multi-layered story of different types of persons that are either frightening fanatical but yet clearly shown as humans and thus even more frightening (for example Hitler in Der Untergang), or strictly anti-war (for example the films about Die Weiße Rose), or which break up at the at the conflict between loyality to the Führer and the Reich and their conciousness (this is an element in almost all German war movies about that time). As well heroism and patriotism for example is a very very rare element in German movies in general (yes not only WW-2 movies). The film Das Boot has AFAIK the most heroic elements of all post war German movies and everyone who has seen it knows how many many non-heroic elements are in there compared to let's say American productions. This is due to the fact that todays Germans in general are very very less patriotic (you can see this for example quite good at the rare usage of flags in ordinary public life).
 * Please don't get me wrong I don't want to downplay history and replace it with a more "pleasant" replacement for Germans. D-Day was right. But please don't make wild assumptions about Germans and please don't downplay the existing problematic aspects of "Saving Private Ryan". As I am a German myself I am reserved in changing this myself in order to avoid an "edit war of nationalities". Take my comments and make your own image and maybe improve the "criticism" section of that article. Arnomane 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You may have taken my short comment slightly out of context. I did not mean to imply that a German film would portray Americans as mindless killing machines.  What I did mean was that since the film was about American soldiers, it was understandable w/in the context of the film for there to be no character development for the German soldiers.  Also, the soldier who kills Melish in the hand-to-hand fight (I'm assuming that's the one you're referencing above) is not the same character as the one released previously (Steamboat Willie) as evidenced by the Waffen SS uniform he was wearing.  The previously released soldier is Heer, not SS.  He does show up at the end again, in his army uniform, and does shoot Miller but the scene is neither drawn out nor rancorous.  The hand-to-hand scene is very disturbing in its graphic detail but I beleive the filmmaker was attempting to portray the 'horror of war' rather then any comment on the German soldier as being cruel etc.  Melish is the one that escalates the fight by drawing his bayonet, the German takes it away from him and uses it to kill Melish.

I'm not saying that the film is balanced. There are plenty of flaws but I didn't see anything in the film that would make me go out and hate Germans as a people.

Interesting comment on the color saturation. You should include it in the article as its a very valid observation.--Lepeu1999 15:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As I noted, I like your observation on the coloring and added it. Someone had changed your edit, I made some changes to that to try and bring it in line with the point I think you were trying to make while attempting to keep it balanced.--Lepeu1999 15:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * After reading the page and then reading this, i must say that Lepeu is one horrible wikipedian, "balancing" a criticism section with vague arguments and assumptions does not make the page better. As the page currently is, i must say it looks likea pretty regular amateurish starwars-kind of page. Filled with fanboy idolization for the movie.


 * Please feel free to improve the article. By the way, I didn't write it, I've just been trying to keep the 'fanboy' stuff to a minimum.  Finally, personal attacks are counter to policy and can cause you to lose editing privliges.  You should get a registered account.  It's free.--Lepeu1999 13:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Think whoever called the scene in which the German soldier stabs Private Mellish "particularly gruesome and possibly gratuitous" missed a major point. Has always seemed clear to me that that scene is intended to be a potently symbolic representation of what the Nazis did to the Jews. Yes, it is gruesome (uh, this is a war movie) but it is anything but "gratuitous" given the context in which Spielberg made the film. As a newbie I did not want to leap in and totally remove it, so just providing a bit of food for thought. 208.59.163.165 03:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

When Mellish is killed, the fact that he is Jewish is irrelevant. I feel that interpreting this scene to be somehow symbolic of the Holocaust is misguided. While the Nazis, at times, met armed and organized resistance to the Holocaust, the Holocaust was largely perpetrated by an armed and organized force, ostensibly under the direct authority of the Nazi Government, against civilians. While its clear that the perpetrators of the Holocaust are guilty of crimes against humanity, it is clear from the scene that Mellish' death would not subject the German soldier to a criminal sanction; Mellish was armed and uniformed. The power of the scene lies in its gruesome qualities because the viewer should empathize with Mellish.


 * Excellent observation. Instead of removing the point, why not add this as a counter-point.  The majority of this section was added (I believe) by a German Wikipedian to provide some sort of a balanced viewpoint on the movie.  While I don't agree with all of the criticism he's added, I think it has value at least to provoke some thought and shouldn't be removed.  Adding a counter-point is more effective in showcasing both sides.--Lepeu1999 13:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

To a certain extent the success of the film, coupled with a sense of patriotism, makes it unfashionable to criticize the film in any way. I believe that a section of this article should be devoted to criticism. After viewing the film, my points of criticism lie in the basic premise of the movie which doesn't seem to be the way that an army would locate a recently deployed (and scattered) paratrooper, ie. it would seem that an army would just go down its chain of command. Also Miller's (Hanks) decision to eliminate a machine gun nest waiting to ambush US soldiers seems tactically sound (they seem to be behind the Germans attacking from a direction the Germans aren't expecting); so how this triggers a loss of unit cohesion seems to be a stretch. Furthermore, the release of 'Steamboat Willie' when juxtaposed with the shooting of Germans coming out with their hands up at the beginning of the movie really doesn't make much sense.

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your comments. You should sign your posts with 4~'s so we know who's making them. You're coming late into an on-going discussion on a lot of your points. Wikipedia has a policy on origional research - it isn't allowed so your criticism of the film wouldn't be appropriate to include in the article. If you wanted to quote and source a legitimate film review that would be a different matter. The WikiFilm project has asked that a criticism section NOT be included as it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article so we don't have one here. Finally, we've discussed the matter of tactical mistakes etc made in the film and the director himself has said in interviews they were done under the guise of 'artistic license' to make the movie more visually interesting. The article notes this in passing under Historical Innacuracies. Included each and every instanc would come under the guise of Trivia - which per WP:Trivia doesn't have a place in an encyclopedia--Lepeu1999 15:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bloopers
Its not really bloopers, but theres sum errors in the film (like u can see the cameraman's shadow once) and stuff that maybe it wuold be kool to have, like a list of stuff that happens. Is it a good diea? paat 02:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The bloopers section contains repeated information, is copied verbatim from another website, and doesn't really do much for the article. Needs some major editing.--Banana! 04:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer outright deletion rather than heavy editing. --293.xx.xxx.xx 12:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The set where Mellish was killed - definitely some bloopers there, e.g. blood spatters on the wall in scenes before either Mellish or his buddy are killed there. Also, the Waffen SSér who killed Mellish walks out onto an obstacle-free landing above the cowering, scared-out-his-wits Upham - yet before that brutal hand-to-hand fight between him and Mellish, 2 of his buddies had been shot by the defenders. A least their bodies should have been there for the SSér to step over!! --PGes 00:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Another possible blooper: I'm not certain about this (will have to go thru the film again) but near the end - the bridge battle scene - Captain Miller and his pickup defender team are shown taking mortar or arty rounds and hitting the 'pins' (or whatever it's called) and throwing them as bombs. I believe they are shown having hand grenades on their web belts & webbing.... If so, this is a theatrical error, as any 11B Infantryman knows the grenades are anti-personnel and would be used first in that type battle, before resorting to field-expedient methods... Engr105th 14:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the peer review discussion and the Good Article/Film guidelines. We've removed the 'bloopers' section as WP:Film Project consensus is that it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.--Lepeu1999 14:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

difficult passage
some editing may be required here - I had trouble folowing this section, it just doesn't seem to flow like the rest of the entry

Because of his inspired leadership, the bridge over the Merderet River in the (fictional) village of Ramelle is saved, but only two of Miller's men survive the ferocious German assault. Ryan also survives. Miller is fatally wounded. His last words to Ryan are "earn this"; earlier on in the action, Miller had quipped to Sergeant Horvath that Ryan better be worth all the trouble they were going through to find him. Before the attack Ryan had asked rhetorically "Why me? What have I done to deserve this?", hence Miller's last words to Ryan.

Move section 'Historical background'?
The section Historical background contains no spoilers, AFAICT. Does anyone disagree with moving it below the cast, past the end-of-spoiler mark? Oliphaunt 21:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Steamboat Willie
Why is the German soldier called "Steamboat Willie" (at least he is called that way in the credits)? --Abe Lincoln 11:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

From the scene when he's digging the grave and talking to Upham, telling him how much he loves American culture. He says "Steamboat Willie, toot toot," while making the motion of pulling the lanyard to a steam-whistle. It's a reference to the Disney cartoon Steamboat Willie - the first Mickey Mouse movie. A huge hit in Germany during the 30's. --Lepeu1999 21:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yea but wouldn't that just explain his attempts to show the Americans that he has seen and liked american movies and that he will cooperate. Its not like he's telling them that he's steamboat willie paat 23:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the character's actual NAME is Steamboat Willie, it's how he's designated in the credits - like Man at the Beach, 3rd Police Officer etc. Sometimes minor characters don't have actual names and are referred to in the credits/script by a descriptor vs an actual name. Which triggers a thought in support of the people who claim the Anti-German bias in the film - isn't it interesting that the only slightly sympathetic German character in the movie doesn't even have a name.--Lepeu1999 13:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course the movie is anti-German in the sense that the enemy, in fact, ARE the Germans, who are in OCCUPIED FRANCE, but it ISN'T anti-German in the sense that the movie doesn't stereotype Germans of the era, ie. the stereotypical militaristic German.

Not the same German?
My understanding is that the German soldier who killed Private Mellish is NOT the same soldier that was released earlier by the Americans. This has been debated elsewhere (complete with photos) and this seems to be the general consensus. The soldier that Upham later shoots however is the same released prisoner. Laggard 03:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I'll remove it from the article. --Phoenix Hacker 03:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm not sure how do do that without defeating the entire point of that segment. I'll set someone else do it. --Phoenix Hacker 03:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I took a shot at it. let me know what  you think--Lepeu1999 12:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely right Laggard, the German soldier shot by Upham at the end of the action is the same guy Miller blindfolded and released ('Steamboat Willie') at the machine gun post - he was, as Reiben surmised, "picked up by his own Wehrmacht and put back in circulation". It is one of the ironic twists in the story. Upham -so passionate to begin with about execution being "against the rules"- has been brutalised (hardened?) by his combat experience (not to mention probably being galvanised to commit his own 'little atrocity' by his own shame/guilt about his inability to help Mellish) Combat has changed Upham to such an extent that he quite readily shoots the very guy he so ardently defended only the day before! To avenge Miller, whom he saw shot by 'Steamboat'. It strikes me that after this Upham really had something meaty to write about, from his own experience, concerning the bonds of brotherhood that develop between soldiers in combat! It wasn't just some academic exercise anymore, like his pretentious posturing about his book at the beginning of his adventures with Miller's squad.

Without getting the movie out again on DVD and reviewing the relevant scenes, I'm 100% certain the soldier who killed Mellish was not the same guy shot by Upham! However, the latest editor of the article (Lepeu?) seems to think otherwise though! Needless to say, I think he's wrong, possibly confused by the similarity between 'S.W' and Mellish's nemesis ! - --PGes 23:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Lepeu has it right- some anon users have been changing the article to say that Mellish's killer and Steamboat Willie are the same guy (or something like that), when they clearly aren't. Lepeu has been fixing those revisions.  Also, further down in the talk I provided a link that shows side-by-side pics of the two different actors- look in the section about the German who stabs Mellish.  --DarthBinky 00:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason people think this is because the German who kills Mellish walks past Upham and doesn't kill him. Watching the movie I thought it was 'Steamboat Willie' because the only reason most would see for not killing Upham would be some sense that the German 'owed' Upham his life.


 * Thank you. Based on his user history, that anon's edits were likely a subtle vandalism - which was the reason for my strongly worded comment with the last edit.--Lepeu1999 00:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sure the German they release at the radar station is the same that kills Miller and is killed by Upham in the end, because he recognises Upham (first he sais ‘I know this soldier’ and than he even speaks Upham’s name). Also he is definitely not the same as the one that kills Mellish as can be seen from their coats: the former has a II on it while the latter has SS insignia only; and it would be very stange that he would change coat (probably also changing rank) during the battle. --StenSoft (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cast list for deletion
A discussion which might impact other films is going on at Articles for deletion/Cast of Saving Private Ryan. Basically, the question is whether an extended cast list belongs to Wikipedia or not. Follow the link to express your opinion. Thanks. olivier 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Themes" section
I added the unreferenced tag there because, well, it's unreferenced. It seems to me to be original research, which is a no-no. I noticed it because I read it and didn't agree with some of it- so a reference should be given. Also, it seems the criticism section could use references as well, but I didn't tag that. Cheers --DarthBinky 16:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There were references in the criticism section including a link to the German language review of the movie that caused the 'uproar' on the discussion page - but somewhere along the way someone deleted it.--Lepeu1999 12:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed the tags as the section has been deleted.--Lepeu1999 20:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism - tone warning
Points and counter points do not belong in an encyclopedia. Neither do phrases such as "some consider" and "some critics" are vague and if they are to be used, they require citations. THis reads like a high school student's film class essay. Desertsky85451 01:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I never heard almost all of these "criticisms" in any real review of the movie. This section either needs to be completely rewritten, or just junked entirely. -- Grandpafootsoldier

Bullets and Mythbusters
Keep in mind that the Mythbusters test referenced in the main article took place at only a few feet from the surface of a pool. To my knowledge no test has been done from the 200 or 300 meter distances involved between the surf and the bluff positions where the machine guns where. At that distance the bullets from the 8x57JS would have slowed down considerably--perhaps enough to avoid explosive disintigration. More tests would need to be done to come to any firm conclusions on this matter.
 * Agreed. IMO, Mythbusters is often completely unscientific when it comes to their tests. They more often than not forego thoroughness in favor of just quickly "disproving" whatever "myth" they are charged with "busting". This addition should either be removed, or have a additional statement about its dubious nature. -- Grandpafootsoldier 05:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The German Who Stabs Through the Heart
The German who stabbed the soldier through the heart was in fact the same soldier who Upham shoots at the end - the one they set free. --81.129.3.54 23:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, he isn't. The one Upham shoots at the end is the one nicknamed "Steamboat Willie", and is, in fact, the same one who Miller and co. eventually set free after Wade's death.


 * The one who stabs Mellish is clearly a different person- not only do the actors look different, but Steamboat Willie was in the Wehrmacht (German regular army) and the Mellish-killer was an SS soldier- you can tell by the uniforms they wear.


 * There's no way they're the same guy. Cheers --DarthBinky 03:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry people, they are obviously the same guy (a.k.a. "Steamboat WIllie"). Why else would he walk right by Upham without doing a thing? Also he lost his helmet in the scuffle with Mellish, and when Upham threatens the group of German soldiers with a rifle at the end, he is the only one who does not have a helmet - AND is the only one Upham shoots. This is all besides the fact that his facial features are obviously the same.
 * It also doesn't matter that he was Wehrmacht, as not only is the film clearly not always accurate when it comes to uniforms, it is entirely possible that the group he was in was mixed {"thrown back into the mix" as someone said earlier in the film). -- Grandpafootsoldier 04:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, they are not the same guy. Here's a link that even has comparative photos; I've also seen reference to an interview with Spielberg in which Spielberg states in no uncertain terms that they are different; I am still looking for a transcript (of any kind) to this interview.  If/when I find that, I will post a link here to that as well.  Cheers --DarthBinky 05:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm, thanks for the info DarthBinky. I never knew that before, and no one I have talked to who has seen the movie does either (as far as I know). It is obviously quite easy to get the two mixed up (I still don't get why the SS guy would just walk by Upham without doing anything - oh, well). Given that, it might be worth puting something about this issue in the main article, just to clarify. Thanks again. -- Grandpafootsoldier 06:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a solid answer to why SS man would walk past Upham. Most theories I've seen (during my ongoing search for that interview) involve the idea that SS man is a soldier and Upham is not really one; SS is doing his duty as a soldier, fighting and so forth, but Upham is not a part of that, and SS man knows (easy to tell since Upham takes his hand off the trigger), and doesn't bother with him.  Upham falls outside the realm of 'real soldiers'- this idea is supported by his unwarranted killing of Steamboat Willie at the end.  Cheers --DarthBinky 06:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That kind of makes sense I guess. I also just realized the guy being different and an SS soldier also opens up the possibility that Speilberg was going for some sort of symbolism with him being the one to kill the Jewish-American Mellish.
 * If you are able to find that interview, I would appreciate if you could put a link to it and the other page somewhere in the main article, as I am sure I am not the only one who has gotten this wrong. Thanks. -- Grandpafootsoldier 06:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This was discussed extensively, like, back when the movie first came out. The Stabber was still in shock about the hand to hand combat with Mellish and no longer had the heart to kill anyone else close up. Upham was obviously not a threat so he just kept walking out. That is unsourced and doesn't belong in the article at any rate - stuff like that is up to individual viewers to decide for themselves, not read about in an encyclopedia. Michael Dorosh Talk  05:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm still unable to find that interview- just a lot of people referencing one (sans URL, of course). So for now I'll retract my statement that an interview exists. However, that SPROE site does show that they clearly aren't the same person; whether or not Spielberg intended that is an issue for another day (at least for me it is, since it's 3am now!). Also, I did find a messageboard where someone claimed to have worked on the set (helping with costumes apparently- the other posters at the messageboard seemed to accept that he truly had done so) and he said that A: they were different actors (but we already know that) and B: another scene was filmed showing SS-man clearly dead but that this scene was cut because it showed Sergeant Harvath wearing a helmet, but in a previous scene he had thrown it at a German. Cheers --DarthBinky 07:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there, the closest thing I found to an interview concerning the subject was this http://www.dga.org/news/features/saving_private_ryan.php3 ; It's an interview of Spielberg with someone from the DGA (Director's Guild of America), however the identity mishap is only hinted at in a question by the guy who interviewed him and as he asks another question right away Spielberg seems to "forget" the one about the german soldier, but I think the fact that he doesn't debunk the notion either (that they are different soldiers) can be seen as "No, they're not the same guy." Combined with the visual evidence above I think it's time for someone to fix this. Please :) 84.191.223.249 07:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's been fixed and we've been trying to keep on top of it when someone tries to change it back.  Feel free to join in the efforts!--Lepeu1999 18:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So if steam boat willie aint SS guy, then did the SS guy pity Upham? Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know? Yojimbo501 (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the discussion.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Banned???
Someone added the "Banned Films" category to this article. Any reason why? According to IMDB, it was almost banned in India... but I saw no reference of it actually being banned. I thought I'd ask here before removing it, just in case I missed something. Cheers --DarthBinky 01:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a Sniper!
Jackson is a "sharpshooter", not a sniper... Nicht Nein! 14:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jackson states that he has a "Sniper rifle" in the film. I never heard him say he was a sharpshooter, or a dedicated Sniper either.   Troubleshooter    23:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's also no such thing as a "sharpshooter rifle". If an ordinary soldier happens to pick up a sniper rifle on the battlefield and use it, that doesn't automatically make him a sniper either.


 * What makes him a sharpshooter rather than a sniper is how he does his job, not his weapon- a sharpshooter operates as specialized member of a normal infantry squad, while a sniper operates independently (or with another sniper), and rely heavily on camouflage and fieldcraft. Compare how Jackson operates versus how Vasily Zaitzev operates in Enemy at the Gates; Jackson is a sharpshooter, and Zaitzev is a sniper.  Cheers --DarthBinky 00:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with DarthBinky...Jackson was a sharpshooter. Therefore he was given the Springfield rifle in his unit. Don't want to open a "can of worms" but I don't think the US Army ever had an official "sniper" designation in WW2....Engr105th 13:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also known as a designated marksman. Robbskey 00:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not in WW2; can't fill the DM role very well with a bolt action. And the role had not existed at

this time. Nicht Nein! 14:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Jackson was a sniper. The US did have an official role for snipers in WW2, though it was a different one than the current, more fieldcraft based version that you are thinking of. Note the scene where Caparzo gets shot. Jackson points out the church and says "That's where I would be", and sets up for a sniper kill on the target. Because he DOES have a knowledge of sniper tactics, Jackson is clearly a sniper rather than a "dedicated marksman", a role that did not exist in WW2. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  17:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The US Army did not have a sniper course during WW2, it was the advanced marksman course; the Marine Corps had snipers. In that scene he is just stating that if he wanted to control that area, that is where he would be. Jackson is not credited as a "designated marksman" or even your version of "dedicated marksman"; I'll change it to advanced marksman for a compromise. Nicht Nein! (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One does not need a sniper course to become a sniper. The fact is, the Army DID have snipers, by name and trade in WW2, and while they filled a role that today would be called "marksman", that was what the term was in the Army in 1945. Furthermore, by his own discussion in the Caparzo death scene ("that's where I'd be if I were him",) Jackson does have some training in sniper tactics and fieldcraft. There is no evidence whatsoever that he is any sort of sharpshooter, and until such sourceable evidence is provided, it must remain as sniper, which is the by far more accurate result, in terms of both google search, and reality. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  00:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Snipers work alone or in teams while sharpshooters are sent in with infantry units. BTW does anyone know what the tactical errors are that the article mentions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.82.197 (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No you are incorrect. Google search? You mean you are citing other original research? That scene is insufficient as I can compare it to calling a man talking about how the earth revolves around the sun an astronomer. I will change it back to Sharpshooter, you are in the wrong. If you want a source I guess "http://www.sproe.com/j/jackson.html", should work since I've seen it cited on here a few times. Nicht Nein! (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not actually correct. For instance, when I was in the army, snipers from my recon platoon were quite often sent out with infantry units. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  16:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a fansite, and not a reliable source. I've cited hollywood.com, rotten tomatoes, IMDB, and Barry Pepper himself all saying he's a sniper. It's staying in as it is. Stop changing it. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  16:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems like you are just citing anything that shares your opinion when you know that they are just using a common general term. I won't dispute that the current US Army uses "snipers" and attaches them to other units.

I disagree about its usage on the WW2 era SPR page and think it should be Sharpshooter. I think a few others agree with me. I would like a neutral third party to come in and alleviate this problem. Nicht Nein! (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Want one all you want, and think what you like, but you can't argue with my sources. Do not remove them again in order to push the term that you "think it should be". Wikipedia does not work based on what you think "it should be", Wikipedia works on what things actually are. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  06:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Marksmen fits the role pretty well, as a Marksman is someone who works with a squad. I can see others have pointed out that there was no Sniper program back in WWII for the US, so I believe calling him a Marksmen is neutral as well as more truthfull. Swatjester, your sources were unreliable and the interview with Barry Peppers only uses the word "sniper". Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracies
Please review WP:TRIVIA before adding any more to this section; encyclopedias don't have "trivia" or "fun facts" and indiscriminate information really has no place here. The article is supposed to be about the movie, not how much arcane flyshit can be picked out of pepper. Michael Dorosh Talk  15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The shaved head/pomade citation
The reference given for the shaved head Historical Inaccuracy goes to a "deutschesoldaten.com". That's fine. But the problem is that I can't find anything on that site that supports that statement- it just seems to discuss uniforms, helmets, equipment, etc. I'm not saying it's not true, but can whoever put that citation give a more precise reference than just a link to the website? Maybe I'm just missing it- there's a lot of links to go through. Cheers! --DarthBinky 04:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Darth makes a good point. As with another section I'm removing in a week if no one responds.--Lepeu1999 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You guys need eyes :D http://www.deutschesoldaten.com/customs/customs.htm It also has original photos from WW2 soldiers. 84.191.223.249 07:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but all I was able to see is that it was uncommon - the part I had issue with was about it being specifically against regulations. I didn't see any reference to it being forbidden on that site.  The entry said it was an innacuracy because shaved heads were prohibited by regulation.--Lepeu1999 18:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Caparzo's letter
Other production notes: "...At the end of the movie, Reiben takes the letter from Miller and presumably killed later in the war". Hey, we don't know anything about Reiben after Battle of Ramelle. Editor, please give us a proof! --Pan Wikipedia 19:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a Fact to that section as it appears to be orig. research. I'm giving it a week and if no cite appears I'm removing it.--Lepeu1999 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Channel 5 screw-up
For people in the UK...what the hell?!?!?! saving private ryan should be on but instead its got shitty Hart's War on!!!! Stswil 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

feature Article Example
Please take a look at Gremlins 2 - today's feature article. This is what we should be aiming at. Note there is no triva section, no minutia, no line-by-line plot summary, no RPG type character summaries.--Lepeu1999 19:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle Scenes Extras
I've never heard of a movie giving credit to extras nor does it appear to be adding to the article here. The entry is a direct quote from the IMDB trivia section. If there is a feeling that this information MUST be here, can we work it in someplace else so that it does't stick out like something tacked on? Possibly the filming location section? Is it even necessary?--Lepeu1999 11:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nicely Done SF!--Lepeu1999 12:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

why was saving private rhayn made
why was this film made???17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just, wow.... 24.13.34.230 01:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ignoring that former answer, the movie was made because of steven spielbergs near obsesion with WW2 and because of the absentism of epic WW2 movies in decades before the movie was made (hollywood reprises old formulas from time to time). From 1950 to 1970, the WW2 movie genre was one of the most common in hollywood, usually starring John Wayne and featuring the action from the american side in the most shamelessly patriotic way possible. As the WW2 movie genre began to die off (either by weariness on the subject, or the viet nam war kinda screwing the whole manifest destiny-esque american patriotism, or because john wayne died or james mason was getting a little old to play general rommel), hollywood studios simply gaved up on the topic, war movies continued with topics such as the viet nam war, but now there was no room for John Wayne standing on the battlefield unscratched (specially if its about "the green berets", Wayne's optimistic take on the viet nam war), most viet nam war movies are either authored or have a pesimistic take on the issue. The movie was made because it was a good time for it, much like when gladiator was released, it sparked a new interest (of studios, that is) in WW2 and the old war movie genre.
 * Not to be a dick, but this, as the article talk page, is really for discussion regarding the article, not the subject of the article.--Lepeu1999 19:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * John Wayne "stood on the battlefield" in exactly one WWII pic between 1950-1970--The Longest Day. His only other wwII roles were as a sub commander (51), a Marine aviator (51), and an admiral in film adaptation of a popular novel (65). Poor example makes poor argument.
 * John Wayne is referred to by Spielburg in the Special Features of the Saving Private Ryan box set.


 * John Wayne certainly 'stood on the battlefield' as a Marine infantryman in Sands of Iwo Jima (50).Solicitr (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Request
IMO I think this article is closer to A class then B. Requested a peer review for a disinterested opinion and some feedback as to what's needed to get there.--Lepeu1999 03:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Useful citations
The following citations are from American Cinematographer, which are absolutely attributable: Hope you can make use of them! Just click on the page numbers on the left to start reading. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Blood on the Beach
 * The Last Great War
 * Five Star General

Formatted cites: Alientraveller 07:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

rating infobox
Do we really need this? It makes the article look way to busy. Can it be delete or if not reformatted so it doesn't cause that huge blank space?--Lepeu1999 15:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

?!?!?!?!?
Bullshit! this movie is propaganda, that's a fact. OK?--24.66.196.246 05:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC) I wrote that this movie is propaganda and someone keeps deleting it. What the hell?!--24.64.126.27 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a "fact." OK? --Chr.K. 22:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It keeps getting reverted because it violates Neutral point of view--Lepeu1999 19:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a fiction and does not purport to be anything else. It is no more propaganda than, say, Richard III.--Buckboard 22:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"a fiction" LOL there is definitely something wrong with that! :)--Dominik92 02:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the film is propaganda. The people who say it isn't don't understand who Spielberg is. Spielberg hates the Nazis, period. His family barely survived the Holocaust. If Arnold Schwarzenegger had made the film, people could claim neutrality. (Arnold's father was an SS officer) Spielberg is not going to come out directly insulting Germans, as Mel Gibson did with Jews, but his body of work speaks for itself. Every German in every Spielberg film is pure evil. If anyone made a movie today portraying all Jews as evil, there would be an outcry. This is common knowledge, observable fact, sure as the sun rises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.30.13 (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Every German in every Spielberg film is evil" - Really? Perhaps you've heard of a movie called Schindler's List? --Nuttycoconut (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is definitely not a propaganda. Both sides are bad, equally, none is better. Shooting the unarmed Czechs that were surrending definitely is not a propaganda. The SS soldier that does not kill Upham is not a propaganda. Mellish is a Jew that does not hesitate killing surrending Germans so it is not a propaganda either. It is just a fiction created on top of real history depicting the cruelty of war. --StenSoft (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

request for semi-protection
Due to the recent upsurge in valdalism from unregistered users I've requested the page be semi-protected--Lepeu1999 18:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, enven though I too am unregistered.


 * Administrators usually don't see requests on talk pages. You can make a request at WP:RFPP in the future. Cheers.--Chaser - T 18:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Footnote formatting convention - a question
While I'm very happy with respect to the amount of sourced material that's been added to the article, I'm finding the footnotes that appear in mid sentence distracting. Should they be moved to the end of the sentence or to the end of the paragraph? Just looking for opinions and input--Lepeu1999 14:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ideally, at the end of a sentence because, as you say, it can be distracting. But if a sentence contains two or more refs, then best put them at the appropriate point. e.g. One source might say "this" and another might say "that." The JPS talk to me  10:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Supporting cast
I agree that extras aren't normally notable, unless there is somthing unusual abot them. In this case German troops were played by members of an organization, infiltrated by the far-right, for a film that was produced/directed by someone who is reknowned for promoting holocaust-awareness. Unknown Unknowns 07:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, now THAT is interesting. The trick would be to find a reputable source who has already commented on the disparity otherwise it's OR. The fact that a re-enactment group's members were hired as extras isn't 'notable'.  On the other hand, if the filmmakers knowingly hired extras with neo-nazi leanings that would be notable - as above though, the trick would be coming up with supporting documentation. I would suggest that (if you can support the full contention - Speilburg knowingly hired a far-right org. to work in the movie) the material belongs in the development section rather then the cast list though.--Lepeu1999 12:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't state that Speilburg knowingly hired nazis, only that it's notable that he did. Unknown Unknowns 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know a lot about the SBG - but from a quick google-fu they appear to be officially apolitical. I saw the bit about the BBC interview with some members allegedly espousing neo-nazi ideology but I haven't seen anything tying the group itself to an ideology. While I personally don't know why anyone would want to re-enact an SS unit - especially LAH, I suspect they were approaced as private citizens who own one of the few working WWII German Halftracks. If the filmmakers hired an extra who happened to hold neo-nazi political views & they didn't know about it when they hired him then that doesn't meet the criteria of Notability.--Lepeu1999 13:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that might depend on who the filmmakers were. Unknown Unknowns 07:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare in Love Controversy
The article notes that Saving Private Ryan "controversially lost the Best Picture award to Shakespeare in Love, being one of a few that have won the Best Director award without also winning Best Picture." Could somebody please expand on this and explain how and why it was a controversy? Was it just because Spielberg won the Best Director and not Best Picture? Or was it because of something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.97.212 (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Mellish/"Steamboat Willie" controversy
I made some changes this evening before I read the talk page (I gotta stop doing that!). I thought it was VERY clear that the German soldier that killed Mellish (a Jew, giving rise to obvious overtones) was the same soldier that they released earlier in the film, and was later killed by Upham. Apparently others haven't been as certain about that, and I apologize for foisting my view on them. As always, feel free to revise/change/update my changes. Middlenamefrank 06:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That issues has been discussed in great detail. The consensus is that the available documentation supports that it wasn't Willie that killed Melish - for a quick and dirty, focus on the collar tabs when you rewatch the scene.  Willie has the contental army flash (looks like a Roman numeral II on it's side) while the guy who kills Melish has a blank black patch (signifying he's an SS private)  Different uniform, different service arm, different guy.  Cheers! --Lepeu1999 16:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I still fail to understand how they can be confused; they look nothing like each other. Nicht Nein! 22:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's the shaved head and desaturated colors - it makes facial identification harder--Lepeu1999 23:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is such a common misconception, maybe it's time to put something in specifically refuting it and citing this? Nick Cooper 07:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there was something in the article at one point but it got cut. If I remember, it really didn't fit all that well - it was kind of awkwardly done.--Lepeu1999 13:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is absurd Lepeu; and now that I have read "this", I find it even more hilarious that they went as far as to write a comparison chart. In my opinion it should just say "Face | Different | Different". LoL Nicht Nein! 11:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * shrugs* Hey, I'm just searching for a logical explanation LOL. I think they look totally different too.--Lepeu1999 13:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For me, it was the shaved head, the three days' stubble, general size and build, and the same hyper-aggressive demeanor that did it. Granted, that describes a lot of Nazi soldiers, especially in the popular media. I guess I never looked closely enough at their faces...and as Lepeu points out, the lighting in that scene isn't great and the colors are all washed out. Middlenamefrank 02:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the real issue is that the last sentence of the section doesn't make any sense on its own: "The German exits the room, with both Upham and him knowing what has happened, and Upham still does not act." It's a proper sentence--but that whole paragraph doesn't at all fit with how the rest of the section is constructed. Corsulian (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Second Battle Group
I've removed the reference to the Second Battle Group for a few reasons 1) Notariety - it has little and doesn't contribute to the article 2) documentation - the cite with it merely mentions some members participated in the filming as extras. It says nothing about the filmakers seeking the group out speficically to participate in the film - which is what the entry implies

The inclusion appears to be a vanity edit and I've removed it. Find a citation that supports that the film-makers sought out the group for inclusion and it can go in, otherwise it isn't notable.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article explicity states the group was involved in the making of the film.
 * It contributes to the article in the same way that the reference to the Irish Army Reserve does.
 * Vanity edits can only be made by the group or individual concerned, or their supporters.
 * Why do you keep removing this reference? Do you work for Touchstone Pictures?
 * Unknown Unknowns (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep adding it? Are you a member of the group? I've removed this once before so I don't think that qualifies as 'keep removing'.  Why did I remove it? It's irrelevant.  It's a small group of hobbyists that few have ever heard of.  A portion of them were extras in the movie.  That's about as relevant as my adding 'My Uncle Fred was an extra'. Why does the Irish Army get to stay in?  They're notable pure and simple. If a soverign entity like the Republic of Ireland lends troops to participate in the filming of a movie that's notable. If members of a small hobby group get jobs as extras in a film that isn't.  If you're affiliated with this group then you're making vanity edits.  If you're not then you're POV pushing.  Either way, considering at least 3 seperate editors (including myself) have removed this edit at various times you're bucking editorial consensus. As opposed to a revert war, shall we poll the group?--Lepeu1999 (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Th point I'm trying to make is given the lack of mainstream notoriety of this group it appears your inclusion of the group's name in a fairly high-visability article is an attempt to gain free publicity for this group - and that's Wikispam. I have no problem with adding something like 'Many local WWII reenactors were used as extras'. Naming one group implies that they were speficically sought out by Touchstone for use in the film - and that would need sourcing. Further, it implies they were the only reenactors on the film.

Alternativly, after reviewing the article you're using as your citation and your questioning whether or not I have any affiliation with Touchstone, you might be trying to imply that Touchstone hired neo-nazi's in some kind of advisory capacity in the film. That's a pretty serious assertion - if you've got some real support for it put it in! That should guarantee GA status. In the absence of any such support there is no reason to include the fact that members of this group were extras in the film simply because this group is not notable.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article makes it clear that there was nothing to suggest that Touchstone knowingly hired neo-nazis.
 * RE: "Naming one group implies that they were speficically sought out by Touchstone for use in the film." That's your opinion and not a statement of fact.
 * Including a reference to the Second Battle Group is no more an attempt to promote them than including a reference to the Irish Army Reserve is an attempt to promote that organisation.
 * If you have any objection to this edit then post it on the Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard - they can check out your IP address at the same time.

Unknown Unknowns (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. I've done so.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The number of the subject determines the number of the verb
"One of the men who survive the initial landing,..." is correct according to Strunk and White, pp 9,10. "A common blunder is the use of a singular verb form in a relative clause following "one of....".

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool Beans?
I've read that "cool beans" originated in the 60s, yet Steamboat Willie dropped it while trying to prove he had some sense of American culture. I have faith that Mr. Spielberg wouldn't let something like this by, but really, I'm not so sure any more as I see more and more sources claiming it's from the 60s. Anyone have some more dirt on this?--Surfaced (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't relevant to the article. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  07:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * and I believe the correct quote was 'hill of beans' which WAS a period expression.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tigers and Panzers
Tigers were Panzers-- Tiger I and King Tiger were Panzer VI, nicht wahr? Dloh  cierekim'  16:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the Tiger I was the Panzer VI and the Tiger II was the Panzer VII. I've no issue with the edit.  I think the odd phrasing was a paraphrase from the movie scene where Jackson reports out on the enemy strength from his position in the bell tower.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the Tiger 1 was the Panzer VI, while the Tiger 2 was the Panzer VIB. The Panzer VII was an entirely new design called the Löwe, no prototype of this design was ever built. Since most german tanks were known as "panzers" until the Tiger and Panther showed up, I'm not surprised that the soldiers would make that distinction 83.109.85.160 (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Other languages
This movie is an English language movie but a lot of French and some German is spoken too. Doesn't that make it a French and German language film
 * Read your own statement. It's an English Language movie.  The fact that there is occasional incidental dialogue in French or German doesn't make it a French or German language film.  If you only spoke French or German and were watching the movie with no subtitles, could you follow the plot? I think not, ergo it isn't a French or German language movie.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Marder tanks
Hmm, a little difficult to explain, the 38(t) was the basis of the Marder III. The Germans used the chassis to built a different version. So the 38(t) isn't similar to the Marder it is the basis of Marder. As I understand the source the film crew made just the same as the Germans, they used the chassis to make a Marder out of it. The old version implies that the 38(t) was only used because it has similar look, but historically incorrect. No, it is absolutely correct to use a 38(t) chassis for a Marder.HerkusMonte (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Different Summary
The current summary in the article is too long. the summary could also be: After leading a company of Rangers in the battle for Omaha beach on D-Day, battle-hardened veteran Captain John Miller (Tom Hanks) is sent on a risky WWII rescue mission. Leading a squad of elite soldiers, he is tasked with finding paratrooper Private James Ryan (Matt Damon) and bring him home safely. Ryan's three brothers have all been killed in action and the Army want him returned to his family. The paratroops of the 82nd Airborne are scattered far and wide though, and finding Ryan proves far from easy.

The hard-bitten Rangers (Hanks, Tom Sizemore, Edward Burns, Barry Pepper, Adam Goldberg, Vin Diesel, Giovanni Ribisi) are joined by an interpreter, Corporal Upham (Jeremy Davies). Upham has no combat experience, and is held in contempt by the veteran soldiers on the mission. Several of Miller's men are killed in various incidents, but they do eventually locate Ryan -- who refuses to leave his unit! His squad of paratroops is tasked to hold a key bridge, and Ryan insists on doing just that. Capt. Miller and the surviving Rangers (plus the untested & shaky Upham) agree to help, and in a climactic battle scene, manage to hold off a German counter-attack.

Ryan, now seen as an old man revisiting the military cemetery at Normandy, visits the grave of Capt. Miller and tells his rescuer that he has tried to live a good life in exchange for the sacrifice of Miller and the rest.Math Champion (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The current sumamry was good enough to earn the article Good Article status. I vote that it stays as is.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Particularly since Ryan's unit is an element of the 101st, not the 82nd ;) DMorpheus (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Television
The second paragraph in the Home video and television section is a very hard read with the parenthesis and coma's in it. This would need a re-write to make it clearer. I would prefer to delete the whole section as it is not relevant to the movie as a whole and only seems to be covering a single occurrence in the US alone. If no objections are received I will delete it. Bigar (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Verisimilitude"
I switched this word for the plainly understandable "realism", but was reverted. If you read an article about a WWII movie, you don't expect to suddenly see a word that has to be defined by a link to an article on postmodern philosophy. A simpler choice of wording satisfies WP:ASTONISH much better. It seems to me more like a kind of WP:PEACOCK term. --78.69.120.181 (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of the policies you cite apply here. Versimilitude is a perfectly acceptable term to use when discussing art and literature. Obviously a large consensus of editors agree as the term has been in this article since very early in its inception AND the article earned GA status with its inclusion. This is an encyclopedia and designed to educate.  Mirrim-Webster defines the term as: 'Depicting realism (as in art and literature)' - thus versimilitude is a more precise and accurate term for this application then is realism. --Lepeu1999 (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mark Twain had an opinion on this that is perhaps useful: "Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do just as well". I agree 'realism' gets the job done just as well. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The word "realism" has numerous philosophical connotations. "Verisimilitude" is better in this context. WHPratt (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, GA status and lack of previous objections doesn't grant articles immunity from change, especially not when it comes to choice of individual words. Our objective as an encyclopedia is to be relevant to the topic. Secondly, an article about a war film that expects the reader to look up words this rare is distracting its readers. "Realism" is the choice that the average reader would instantly recognize. It's not colloquial, reasonably formal and it certainly doesn't qualify as more philosophically ambiguous than the more complicated alternative.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that Mark Twain also said that the difference between the right word and almost-the-right word was the difference betewwn the lightning and the lightning bug. WHPratt (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Has nobody else noticed that that was a tongue-in-cheek quote by Mark Twain? "Diminutive"?  Really?  If he took his own advice he would have said "small" or something similar.  Mark Twain was a fantastic author but I wouldn't take this bit of advice. :>  --74.197.254.17 (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Diminutive" does not compare to Verisimilitude. Diminutive is and small are two different words there. In Mark Twain's time, diminutive would not have been seen as a large word. Cds56 10:02, 25 May 2010
 * Wikipedia: Now with debates on what vocabulary to use in an article, with sources to Wikipolicy (as always) and obscure quotations from long-dead authors! To the "realism" defenders: It's just vocabulary in the article. Don't get so worked up. Really, it isn't THAT big of a deal. To the thesaurus thumpers: Realistically, most of the population doesn't have a clue what the hell "verisimilitude" means. Whether it's used to describe art or not doesn't really matter - most of the population aren't art aficionados. If this was wikiart, I'd tell you to go crazy. But, it ain't. 66.153.199.240 (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

DVD release
Of course, a good bit of the dialogue in this film is in German, and when said language is being spoken, the DVD captions it. . . "[Speaking German]"! Now, for a film of this importance, couldn't they have sprung for a translation? Disgraceful. WHPratt (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC) (I accidentally put this on the article rather than the talk page. I hastily deleted my own addition.  Sorry.)
 * This seems to be pretty common. For example, in The 13th Warrior, there are sections of dialog spoken in Greek and Latin, with the respective "[Speaking Greek]" and "[Speaking Latin]" subtitles.  I think the point is that if those who made the movie wanted it subtitled they would have done it themselves.  The point of view of the movie is from the American soldiers who mostly in part would not have understood German.  This is then conveyed to the viewing audience, who mostly in part probably do not understand German.  --204.56.253.98 (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can accept that argument. Still, a good many Americans can understand some German, so it's not as if it would be gibberish to all; translation, perhaps as an option, could have been considered.WHPratt (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys, good points, but the talk page is for a discussion of the article, not the movie.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but my suggestion was that DVD release was a letdown on this point and it could have been noted in the article.WHPratt (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment on aircraft (and other historical inaccuracies?
Is there room for a section on this, or a linked article, as is done with other historical films?

The "P-51 tank busters" was a forced error (ie no flying examples of more appropriate aircraft exist). The Mustang was used primarily above 5000 ft in the bomber-escort and air-superiority roles. Even though Mustangs were occasionally tasked to ground attack, in June 1944 no Mustangs had yet been equipped with HVAR rockets as depicted in the movie. Less inaccurate would have been the use of P-47 Thunderbolts- the Jug was the real USAAF tankbuster; but it has been observed that even they weren't employed in the CAS role, but rather against the German rear. The correct aircraft would have been the Hawker Typhoon (which would also have mollified British critics)- but there is only one Typhoon left in the world, and it's not flyable.Solicitr (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a work of fiction. The "error" is immaterial. DMorpheus (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Although Saving Private Ryan is a great film, the ending is too much like Jaws. In Jaws; Roy Scheider shoots a compressed air tank in the shark's mouth, and the fish blows up. In S.P.R., Tom Hanks shoots a tank and it blows up, thanks to the unbeliveable scene of a P-51 Mustang dropping a free-fall bomb and hitting the tank dead center. The Hawker Typhoon Did carry unguided air-to-surface rockets, but, they were Very innaccurate, and a great many would have to be fired to knock out a single tank.  The WWII air-to-surface rocket was more of an area weapon than one with precise accuracy.  The only type of WWII aircraft weapon that could achieve the end result as shown in S.P.R., was a great big auto-loading gun, for example, the 40mm Vickers S gun carried by the Hawker Hurricane MK. IID and IV. Not too many, (if Any), Hawker Hurricanes with 40mm guns flew in Normandy in June 1944. The DeHavilland Mosquito FB Mk XVIII carried a 57mm gun, but, it was used against ships and submarines on the surface, not as a tank-killer. There just weren't any Real Allied aircraft in the Western theater capable of doing what Mr. Spielberg showed in the movie; an airplane knocking out a tank and not destroying the area around it, i.e. Tom Hanks and/or the bridge.  To give an example that proves that statement, look at Arnhem, Market-Garden September 1944, A Bridge Too Far (film).  How many German tanks were taken out with pinpoint accuracy during that battle by Allied aircraft? Probably none.204.80.61.110 (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Bennett Turk
 * You're right. With respect, so what.  It's not a documentary and the article as it stands comments that strict accuracy was sacrificed for the sake of drama.  Yes, it's a totall deus ex machina ending with the cavalry coming over the hill bugles blowing and flags flying.  We don't need more examples of inacuracies. --Lepeu1999 (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason why the end scene of Saving Private Ryan bothers me, (an American Army veteran), is that in WWII the US did not have a tank that could fight on equal terms with the German Panther tank, Tiger I and King Tiger tanks, (until February 1945!, when the M26 Pershing entered service). Also, the USA did not have any aircraft equipped with anti-tank guns until 1976, when the A-10 Thunderbolt II aka Warthog entered service.  In WWII; the British, the Russians, and especially the Germans had aircraft with large caliber guns that could destroy most of the tanks used during the war.  It matters, because it gives the impression that the USA did have a WWII aircraft that could knock out a tank with precise accuracy.  The USA would not get such an aircraft until 31 years after WWII ended. And after the end of the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. It bothers me that Steven Spielberg went for a "Jaws" like ending, instead of one that was more like the type of the situation the Americans frequently faced fighting the Germans.  The ending is far more like the WWII movies Hollywood cranked out by the hundreds in the 1930's, 40's, and 50's, where a German tank could almost be taken out by any type of weapon that the film companies had on hand. Saving Private Ryan is a great film, except for the ending.204.80.61.110 (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Bennett Turk


 * I mean no disrespect, but this is neither a discussion group about the movie nor a place where our personal opinions matter. This is an encyclopedia, and it reports what published sources have said about each topic. Your personal opinion that the ending 'stinks of hollywood' is one I happen to agree with, but I would never try to put that into the article. It doesn't belong. This 'inaccuracy' (and all the others) is completely irrelevant because this is a fictional story, not a documentary. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's relevant that historical inaccuracies in historical fiction are pointed out in the same way films based on books have a section pointing out the differences betweent the two works. Other articles on historical films have such a section (Braveheart, etc.)

65.30.180.228 (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, then perhaps we need a separate article, on the model of Historical inaccuracies in the film Zulu (BTW, Mr Turk, I *think* the movie supposes a rocket, rather than a gravity bomb- but of course those rockets were fired in volleys. And I just looked it up and realized the AP variant HVAR wasn't issued until July. To my knowledge, the only US Army weapon in June '44 which could reliably knock out a Tiger I was the 90mm AA/AT gun)Solicitr (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * IIRC there was such an article but it was deleted for relevence. It was pretty much a 'list' article though which may be why it got cut.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "To my knowledge, the only US Army weapon in June '44 which could reliably knock out a Tiger I was the 90mm AA/AT gun)". If you assume a weapon firing against the frontal armor that's correct. The US 57mm towed AT gun, which was the standard towed weapon in Infantry regiments, could kill a Tiger if it engaged the sides. So could the 75mm gun mounted on all US Shermans in June 1944. Tiger I side armor is only 82mm. US and British WW2 aircraft actually destroyed very, very few tanks regardless of what armament they carried. But, again, none of this matters. We could pick apart this movie all day for 'inaccuracies' but its irrelevant; its a hollywood, fictional movie. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "The US 57mm towed AT gun, which was the standard towed weapon in Infantry regiments, could kill a Tiger if it engaged the sides. So could the 75mm gun mounted on all US Shermans in June 1944." At ranges under 500 yards- good luck with that! (The AP performance of the 75mm M3 and the higher velocity 6pdr/57mm was about the same). Of course we should mention the 3in/76.2, which could score a side penetration out to about 1200- assuming your tinfoil M10 GMC wasn't blown away first. Solicitr (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, I don't know how I forgot about the numerous M10s and towed 3" AT guns, my bad. In the enclosed spaces of the pays-bocage, getting a short-range shot was not an issue. Getting the german tanks to attack so you could hit them in the flank was....   Anyway we've strayed far from the topic. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Portraying History
I want to recommend this section be reread and rewritten. Second paragraph reads .[15] The two vehicles described in the film as 'Panzers' were meant to portray Marder III self-propelled guns.

In effect, all German tanks and armored vehicles were "panzers" since the word means "armored combat vehicles." I may be wrong but I think using the word "panzer" to refer to self-propelled guns like the Marder was correct. It may be used to mean "armor." Unless the writer meant to comment on a possible confusion with Panther tank.

Flyer333555 (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's not correct. The Panzertruppen did not include assault guns and self-propelled antitank guns: they belonged to the artillery, and their crews wore the red Waffenfarbe. They even had a special tunic, patterned on the double-breasted 'Panzer-wrap' but in feldgrau, not black. Officially the Marder was an artillery piece, 7.5 cm PaK 40/3 auf Panzerkampfwagen 38(t)- "75mm antitank gun Model 1940 on a Panzer 38(t) chassis." Some were 7.62 cm PaK 36(r)- 76.2mm (Russian) antitank gun Model 1936."

Solicitr (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Solicitr is correct. SP guns were not Panzers.  It's not surprising that American GIs would CALL them Panzers but there is no reason to remove the wording of the article.  The characters describe the vehicles as 'panzers' and they're replicas of Marder III's.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested change to lead section
After the word "paratrooper", following "(Matt Damon)", add "who is the last survivor of four brothers". I made a change reflecting this fact but was reverted because it disrupts the flow. However, I feel the reason for the rescue of this one man is so important it should be part of the lead of the article. Furthermore, I don't think this detail is sufficiently described in the plot section. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 14:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi and welcome to the article. Take a look at the style guidelines at Wiki Film Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Lead_section

The 4 brothers thing is a plot point – and not really a major one at that – and thus belongs in the ‘plot’ section and not in the brief plot recap in the article lead. I say it’s not really a major plot point as the whole 4 brother’s thing is a MacGuffin – the movie’s really about the bonds of brotherhood formed by combat. --Lepeu1999 (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that without the four brothers angle, you have no reason to rescue the man in the first place. It's a major war and other things are more important--except in this case. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll concede, but with this statement: from a military strategy standpoint, the lead section fails to assert the notability of the mission. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Was the change I made to the article unsatisfactory to you? --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I trust your judgment. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. I just kept hoping someone would see my point. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 13:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a no then? --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the arguments made here, I have to defer to those who made them. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 22:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are saying the change to the lead doesn't satisfy you? You are speaking in tongues... --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, you realize this is an article about a movie that happens to take place during a historical event and NOT a documentary of a real event? This never happened. This was inspired by a true incident, but there was no search etc. There's plenty going on in this film that isn't militarily sound - like the entire climatic battle scene. Sorry if you're not satisfied, but I think the current set of revisions more then satisfies your concerns.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. FlieGerFaUstMe262 DID put the information in the article. When he said he made a change, I thought it was reverting me. Sorry. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 16:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
Interestingly, this site doesn't reflect any of the criticism directed at the film for its perceived anti-British agenda. Is it worth adding a small paragragh with footnotes to references? Kentish 21 Jun 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.240.225 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 June 2009


 * read the archived talk section. It's been discussed to death.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgive the noob question, but how does one access the Talk archive? Solicitr (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Click the Archives link in the discussion page header.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

RE criticism. The article does address the common critique of the movie's avoiding mention of the contribution of other nations to the landing in question in the Release section
 * "Critical reception was also positive, with much praise for the realistic battle scenes[25] and the actors' performances,[26] but earning some criticism for the script and for ignoring the contributions of several other countries to the D-Day landings in general and at Omaha Beach specifically.[27]"

I don't see the need for something more specitic nor have I read any reliable sourced accounts of the movie having an 'anti-British' agenda.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. While a mention of the existence of this line of criticism a suppose must be made, it's a minority and rather crank line of criticism. SPR never purported to be a depiction of the entire Overlord operation like The Longest Day, but of the experiences of one Ranger captain at Pointe du Hoc and in the Cotentin hinterland, nowhere close to the Anglo-Canadian zone.  A squad of Tommies would have made as much sense there as a troop of Cossacks.Solicitr (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not near Pointe du Hoc. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct ;) The opening sequence depicts the Ranger compay(ies?) that attacked Omaha Beach proper, not Pointe de Hoc. Although, if I'm not mistaken, there really were a few cossacks in Normandy in Ost battalions, even though I know it was meant as a humorous example. DMorpheus (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There probably were some Cossacks (on the other side)- but I doubt they had their horses and sabres! :)  Solicitr (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Solicitr, no, something as gratuitous as you suggest would be ridiculous, but the page as it stands now does acknowledge that all the landing craft crews taking the Rangers into the location depicted were British. Someone in the production process not only decided to make the crews US Coastguard, but it went as far as painting serial numbers on the landing craft that tied them to a specific American ship, rather than the real British one. That's pretty calculated, whichever way you look at it, especially when the film visually "name-checks" the many different American units on the beach, while omitting the Royal Navy naval artillery and Royal Air Force fire controllers that were there as well. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The landing-craft crew are on screen for what? Two seconds? Speaking one line?  And while there were individual RN and RAF spotters on the beach, their numbers relative to the whole was so minuscule that not having them in-frame is hardly a distortion of anything.
 * However, the aircraft at the end should have been RAF Typhoons (or just maybe Hurrie IV's)Solicitr (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's addressed in the article as well. They used P-51's because few flyable Typhoons, P-47's, etc are left.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Solicitr, by the same token you could ask why the various individual American units were depicted accuractely on the beach, or in fact, why someone went to the trouble of giving the landing craft serial numbers that tied them to a specific American ship that would have been correct for US Coastguardmen crewing the same landing craft. The issue the juxtaposition of accuracy and attention to detail on the one hand, but what can only be deliberate counter-factual changes on the other. It's like if someone made a film about the Dieppe raid, but failed to include the 50 or so US rangers that were involved in a specific action in which they were in real life. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To anyone's knowledge, has Spielberg or anybody else ever addressed the specific landing-craft criticism? It is, after all, pretty much the only peg the "Anglophobic conspiracy" advocates have upon which to hang their hats. Was it deliberate, or a failure of research? There are, after all, many holes in the 'accuracy' of the film.Solicitr (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article does point out the landing craft issue. Are you suggesting that's not enough? If so, I disagree rather strongly.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I acknowledged in the first line of my post that the landing craft angle is covered, and it is sufficient, since it is robustly referenced. It is, however, demonstrably a fallacy for people to suggest - as Solicitr did - that including British or Commonwealth characters within the location chosen for the narrative of the film would have somehow been counter-factual or unrealistic. A "squad of Tommies" would indeed have been inappropriate, but there were British personnel on the American beeches and in the landing craft depicted - fact. Considering the attention to detail as regards American units - now matter how small numerically - it is hardly surprising if some people regard the absence of the British that were there as well as deliberate "snub," especially since the only mention of the British at all in the film is a negative one. On the one hand, the script has Miller encountering someone from one unit's headquarter company (the guy with the typewriter) caught up in the early waves, which is an incredibly obscure but accurate detail. Odd, then, the conscious decision to change history regarding the landing craft crew. It's not rocket science. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but this is a work of fiction. The omission of Royal Navy personnel, while inaccurate, is immaterial to the story. DMorpheus (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet given the scrupulous attention to such detail elsewhere, it is hardly surprising that it was a subject of criticism. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are huge historical errors in this movie; I can't even begin to list even the most egregious. But it doesn't matter - this is fiction. If one is determined to find some anti-British bias in a few of the smaller errors, OK, have at it. DMorpheus (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing I'd like to add to the above is that if 'have at it' means to create an 'anti-British bias' commentary to the article beyond what's in there I will oppose it. Having said that, there's a Speilberg quote out there someplace addressing why he ommitted the Brits as wanting to make 'An American movie' or some such. If you wanted to find that quote and work it into the existing section on the omission of RN sailors from the landing craft, I think that would be MORE the sufficient to show (w.o. being blatant) that Speilberg intentionally left the Brits out of the movie.  Commentary as to motive beyond his quote would be opposed however as OR--Lepeu1999 (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a direct quote from Spielberg in the cited reference : "Saving Private Ryan is the story of Omaha beach at 6:30 in the morning - there were no Brits there, and no Brits on Utah beach" This is unequivicocal and may well have been his honest belief at the time, but it is also factually incorrect. Somebody somewhere along the line made a conscious decision to "reimagine" the landing craft, and did it in a manner that it seem highly unlikely that they were not aware of what the boats should have been. Unfortunately we'll probably never know who made that decision, so we'll never know whether it was a deliberate slight, or simply a well-meaning wish to "namecheck" the USCG, or some other innocuous reason. Unless some more direct evidence emerges, the text on the issue is OK as it is. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nick, I think I've got it. The RN landing craft which carried the 2d and 5th Rangers were LCA's.  But Spielberg only had two operable landing craft to hand- US LCVP's.  The internal arrangements, especially, are very dissimilar, and if you look carefully the machine gun very briefly visible is a Browning, not a Bren.  It strikes me that the producers, given the unavoidability of distinctively American landing craft, were reluctant to paint British numbers on them or give them British crews.Solicitr (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that idea holds much water (if you'll pardon the pun). It's my recollection that the LCVPs were in a very poor state when they were located, long disued in some boat yard, so they needed a lot of work to get them into a usuable condition, on top of which it wouldn't have taken much more effort to make them cosmetically pass for LCAs. Remember this is the film for which they dummied up a couple of Tiger tanks on T-34 chassis! Nick Cooper (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Those "Tigers" weren't built for SPR; they had been kicking around Hollywood for years. You've seen them before if you saw Kelly's Heroes.


 * As for 'mocking up' LCA's from LCVPs- well, on an LCVP and thus in the movie the crew positions are all aft; but on an LCA the helm and the gun-tub were well forward, in front of the troop/cargo area and abreast of the vertically hinged double doors. In theory a very, very heavy rebuild might have been possible (hell, they could in theory have built new ones from scratch)- but in this case,  Spielberg went with the real thing:


 * The ten LCVPs used in Saving Private Ryan were found stored in the desert at Palm Springs, California and were then transported to St. Austell, Cornwall, England were they were overhauled by Robin Davies of Square Sail. In order to give the appearance of more landing craft, each LCVP had different hull numbers painted on each side.


 * The boat in which the 'interiors' were shot with Hanks and C Co was actually the LCVP's big brother, the LCM-3, which allowed space for the cameras and crews.


 * At any event, it would seem to me that the decision to use genuine (US) landing craft rather than fake ones wasa rational decision which one need not agree with, but which certainly doesn't support the notion of a deliberate anti-British bias. SPR is not that piece of Bruckheimer crap U-571 (although the US Navy *did* board and capture a U-boat in 1944. U-505 now sits in Chicago).Solicitr (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the Kelly's Heroes page, those particular Tigers were actually made for an earlier Yugoslav film, but I don't see any proof that they are the same conversions used in SPR. It seems that some people may have put two and two together and got eleven on that score.
 * Looking at the respective plans/photos of the LCVP vs. the LCA, I don't think that it would be as big a job as you suggest to 'cosmetically adapt the former to look like the latter. Doing the reverse would be a very different story.
 * I think you're giving too much credit to whoever was responsible for the change in your suggestion of what may have happened, not least because it would suggests a conscious effort to find an alternative. To be looking for an alternative, you have to be aware of what it's an alternative to, and that contradicts Speilberg's statements, which seem to suggest that he wasn't aware that they should have been LCAs/Royal Navy. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, a bit more digging. It seems that somebody did sum 2 + 2 = 11; The KH Tigers can be seen on closer inspection not to be the same as the SPR tanks. Spielberg had two mobile and two static "Tigers" mocked up at Plus Film Services in England, based on the original Tiger I at the Bovington Tank Museum (that Tiger has since been restored to running condition, but was not operable at the time). Two of the mockups were just stationary shells, used for the "knockout" shots. The other two were T-34/85s with plywood cladding: they were not "rebuilt on T-34 chassis" or anything of the sort, but complete Ivans under heavy wooden makeup. There's a diagram here: http://www.rzm.com/pvt.ryan/book/atb.html. The turrets, besides being too far forward, were also scaled down to fit, being only about 7/8 the correct size.

Of course, Spielberg was operating under both real-world constraints and the demands of Hollywood ballyhoo- there were no real Tigers to be had; but at the same time there were no Tigers in the vicinity of the Mederet either! But then again, the number of genuine WWII German tanks of any sort in running condition is vanishingly small, and those are owned by museums. So, unlike the landing craft situation, using authentic hardware was simply not an option; a similar situation to not using Typhoons.

(FWIW, of the two "Marders", one had a mockup Marder IIIM superstructure built on a genuine 38(t) chassis. The other was actually a Swedish Sav m/43, a Marder-like SPA also built on a 38(t) chassis.) Solicitr (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Slight correction: the first Marder was a genuine Marder IIIM, recovered from Eastern Europe; however, the gun was missing and the original superstructure was so badly deteriorated that it had to be replaced, so the vehicle can be said to have been "rebuilt." Nonetheless, the chassis was specifically a Marder IIIM chassis because the engine was mounted in the middle, rather than at the rear like the 38(t) tank and tank-conversions like the Marder IIIH. Solicitr (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * By 'have at it' I meant, "Feel free to adopt whatever opinion you like. If you look hard enough for bias you are bound to find it. But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". Sorry for my unclear choice of words. I am not advocating a 'historical errors' section nor an 'anti-British bias' section. If this were a documentary, I might. But it's not. It is a work of fiction that went to great effort to get many historical details right, but in some places they just completely made shit up. That's OK, it's fiction, they get to do that. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti-British agenda? One comment about 'Monty' by one soldier in the film doesn't rate such an insecure comment.

It was a story about one little squad of men, not all of D-Day.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ray Carney????
I don't see how it's remotely informative regarding the film's reception to quote Ray Carney, of all people: an irreducible snob who despises all non-arthouse pictures, who singles out Spielberg in particular for his contempt, who even panned Schindler's List (and The Godfather). In short, "Carney trashes Hollywood film" is about as significant as "Dog chases cat."Solicitr (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor that made that addition has added Carney quotes to about a dozen film articles. He appears to be shilling or spamming for this guy Carney in an attempt to generate some notability for him.  I've deleted the addition and have placed a spam warning on the author's talk page.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Addition to the plot section
I would add this to the plot section, near the end, just before "While attempting": The first Marder III SPG is disabled by Molotov cocktails. The first Tiger I tank is disabled by "Sticky bombs" on its left track, then small arms fire through the hatches and grenades thrown inside. The second Marder III SPG is destroyed by a bazooka. --ThePro (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? It's unnecessary detail.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an online encyclopedia. Isn't it the more details the better ? ThePro (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually no, it isn't. Take a look at the film project MOS.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot

Derivation of "Saving Private Ryan"
"Saving Private Ryan" seems to be a composite of "The Longest Day" and "The Sullivans", with scenes from other war movies thrown in. It's a typical Spielberg melodrama, as usual done exceptionally well. There was supposedly a group of 8 brothers killed in the American Civil War, along with another 4 brothers lost to an Agnes Allison. Then there were the 4 Niland brothers of WWII (which seems to be the primary "brother story" source for the film), and of course the famous 5 Sullivan brothers who died when their ship, the Juneau (a light cruiser) was torpedoed and sunk at Guadalcanal (2 of them could have been rescued but the navy did not want to send in rescue ships for fear that those ships would be sunk also). Spielberg is an expert at lighting, cinematography and editing but his work seems to be always derivational rather than original. There were even lawsuits about "Amistad" and "E.T." being stolen from other writers. "Saving Private Ryan" is not a real war movie--it falls under the dramatic term Realism as opposed to Naturalism. It is highly constructed for melodramatic emotional impact, whereas a "real" war movie would be Existential and Expressionistic. Spielberg makes melodramas. One of the assumed KIA Niland brothers, by the way, was later discovered alive in a POW camp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.224.182 (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "whereas a "real" war movie would be Existential and Expressionistic" You mean like Apocalypse Now???? I think that the closest thing to a "real" war movie I have seen would be Letters From Iwo Jima, or perhaps Black Hawk Down, neither of which is waht I would call existential or expressionistic. Solicitr (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The case of the Bixby brothers (five) allegedly killed in the Civil War inspired the letter written by Lincoln to their mother, quoted by Harve Presnell playing Marshall at the beginning and near the end of the film. It's a minor classic of 19th century American prose, often used as an example in rhetoric classes. The fact is that prior to the deaths of the Sullivans, the military had no policy in force to prevent an entire generation of one family from being wiped out. SPR dramatizes that policy change. I agree with 67's general assessment of what Spielberg does - he has yet to equal what David Leans has done with the big battle epic genre - but it's really irrelevant to this article, which attempts a balanced overview of this film. Sourced critiques of Spielberg's tendencies as a filmmaker belong in an article about him. Sensei48 (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And if any of that went into the article it would need to be sourced and cited - OR is a no-no.Lepeu1999 (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course WP:OR is a no-no. However - 1) the letter itself is sourced as above (with qualifications as noted below), and 2) the formulation of the sole surviving son policy (for which the film uses the Bixby letter as an emotional touchstone) is sourcable as well. The relevance of both of these to this article is clear. If you look at the second paragraph under "Plot," the implication in this article is that the decision to assign a squad to save Pvt. Ryan emanates solely from the compassion of the Marshal character rather than from a policy in force at the time. Sensei48 (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It reads like a summary of what the movie displayed to me. Neither the survivor policy nor the Sullivan brothers were mentioned.Lepeu1999 (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the sole survivor policy was not construed to mean that more men should be risked for the life of one man. As in the case of the Niland brothers, where the survivor stayed in combat until his unit was withdrawn to England, when he was then pulled out. 121.45.200.187 (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Famous Bixby Letter
Mrs. Lydia Bixby was reportedly a Southern sympathizer who angrily destroyed President Lincoln's letter upon receiving it (nobody has ever found the original). There is also speculation that the letter was written by Lincoln's private secretary John Hay. Of the five sons, only two died in the Civil War, the others survived. Of the survivors it is reported that two were deserters and one may have actually switched sides and joined the Confederacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.68.219 (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion page on the article, not on history. Please keep it on topic. Lepeu1999 (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The German division in the final battle
When the Americans met the German recon element they mentioned the 2nd SS, although this is unlikely , the German division in the final battle was mostly the 17th SS , which was the first SS division the Americans met at about the same time of the events of the movie , and since the tanks in the final battle were barring the marking of the I SS Panzer corps which the 17th SS was part of while the 2nd SS was not at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.8.246.12 (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct. Das Reich was in Southern France, and when it arrived (later than SPR) in Normandy it was committed against the Brits and Canadians around Caen. However, even 17 SS didn't arrive until 11 June, arguably later than SPR- and then near Carentan.Solicitr (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All of which is noted in the article under the 'Portraying History' heading.Lepeu1999 (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Upham executes a German [...] having witnessed him shoot Miller
Upham was playing dead on a shallow slope of dirt and rocks near the Germans when Miller was shot, and only rose to capture them once the battle was won. How could he possibly have seen any of the Germans, let alone know that "Steamboat Willie" was the one who shot Miller? If there's any reason beyond sheer malevolence behind the killing, it's the fact that "Willie" had re-joined a German unit after being released with directions to surrender to an Allied patrol. 98.182.33.64 (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Steamboat Willie" is NOT the same man who appears at the end of the movie and is shot by Upham. The men are portrayed by two seperate actors, and are two distinct characters. "Steamboat Willie" is regualr german infantryman, played by Joerg Stadler, the man who kills Mellish is Waffen SS and is portrayed by Mac Steinmeier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.243.202.109 (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * so Explain to me why "Steamboat Willie Knew his name at the part before he executes him(71.84.245.191 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC))
 * The long-running problem is that people assume that the man Upham kills is the SS soldier who kills Mellish, which he isn't. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, firstly, in the film you see that Upham did see 'Steamboat Willie' shoot Miller, secondly 'Steamboat Willie' isn't the same man who kills Mellish, but he is the man who they let go earlier in the film, thirdly, 'Steamboat Willie' knows Upham's name because he spent a long time talking to him earlier in the film when they capured him. I hope that clears that up. VenomousConcept (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If audiences truly couldn't sort out these characters, then perhaps the "criticism" section in the article should note this blunder in casting, characterization and/or makeup.WHPratt (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is the inspiring monument?
In the second paragraph, it is said to be in Pennsylvania:

"Rodat first came up with the film's story in 1994 when he saw a monument dedicated to four brothers born to Agnes Allison of Port Carbon, PA, who died during the American Civil War."

But in the Development section, the monument is said to be in New Hampshire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.135.227.164 (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

First Infantry Division?
In the first paragraph of the Plot section, I read this: "Captain John H. Miller, commanding officer of Charlie Company, 2nd Ranger Battalion,1st Infantry Division,..."

This is patently incorrect. The Ranger were not an integral part of any division.

The 2nd Ranger Battalion landed to the extreme right of Omaha Beach. To their left was A Coy, 116th Infantry Regiment, 29th Infantry Division. If anything, they were temporarily attached to the 116th IR/29th ID, as the 1st ID was a good 3000 yds to the East, beyond the 29th?

Could the sentence quoted be changed to drop the reference to the 1st ID? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.11.2 (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It all depends upon whether this is actually what was said in the film. If he said this in the film, even if incorrect, it has to remain.  If he said it, and it is incorrect, it could be noted in the historical inaccuracies, provided there are references. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  14:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

On the beach, following the shore assault, when Capt Miller returns to give a report of the most recent combat actions (where he talks about the minefields being one big one), he reports to a 29th Infantry division unit, as evidenced by the Ying/Yang patches on the shoulders of the HQ staff standing around him. He is given Upham to accompany him to Ramelle and Upham is wearing a 29th Infantry Division patch. At best, the portrayed Ranger unit was attached to the 29th ID for command and control purposes, even in this work of fiction.

Historically, no Ranger battalion was ever an organic part of any infantry division, although they were temporarily attached to some, specificially the 2nd Rangers to the 29th ID at Normandy. They were never actually part of any higher infantry formation and were never listed on an infantry division's Table of Organization and Elements. Even when attached to a larger formation, it was incorrect to include the larger formation in the battalion's nomenclature, as done in this article. e.g. "2nd Ranger Battalion, attached to the 29th ID," not "2nd Ranger Battalion, 29th ID."

I feel the nomenclature of the Ranger unit in this aricle pays a great disservice to both the 2nd Rangers and the 29th ID and is historically incorrect, in a movie that tries to portray a fictional account in an historical setting. JW (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Second Battle Group 2
I have no desire to get into an edit war with Unknown Unknown's over the bit about 'German soldiers were portrayed by the Second Battle Group' in the Portraying History section. The cite he includes is a local newpaper - the pert. portion stating: "Most of the German re-enactors who took part appeared in the Hollywood blockbuster Saving Private Ryan." The entry as written suggest ALL German soldiers in the movie were played by this reenactment group and I seriously doubt that's the case nor does the citatation support this. If another editor agrees with me, please take a stab at a revision of the section as I doubt anything I attempt will be acceptable to the editor in question.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Being from the area of Ireland where this was shot no local re-enactment group was used in this seqeunce, this group may have been used in later scenes but ONLY the RDF were used for both sides in this part. Logically why would paper from the far coast of England be used for support to this ? Also no number of amputees is mentioned in the referred artical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.29.161 (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The number of amputees is mentioned in the referred article:

""We had somewhere between 20 and 30 amputees and paraplegics who worked with us, creating very realistic scenes where we could use effects to make it look like soldiers were losing limbs. Some might say it was an insensitive approach, but they all did it with great enthusiasm," says Huffam."


 * And your point about the previous sentence is original research. Please see the Wikipedia policy of verifiability, not truth. I am going to restore the content again. Please do not remove it without discussing here first. Thanks. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 19:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Providing references for actors
It is my understanding that it is not necessairy to provide a reference when citing the appearance of a performer in the film (you don't have to cite a reference source to indicate Tom Hanks is in the film). Does this not also apply when listing a company that is cited in the film's credits? Ken keisel (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My question is what purpose would be served by mentioning this company? How relevant or encyclopedic is the information? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To aviation fans it's very important. Pick up any aviation magazine (Air Classics, Wings, Smithsonian Air & Space) and you will find article after article about what aircraft was used in the filming of which movie, and who the pilot was. Many people keep close track of the few flying examples of WWII aircraft, and when one appears in a motion picture it is of particluar note, the same as an actor in many ways. Ken keisel (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * please review the style sheet for WP Film Project. The operator of the various vehicles used in a film - whether an 'interesting vehicles' or not is not notable. You don't see the names of the pilot's appearing in Dawn Patrol, The Battle of Britain or any of the other aviation heavy movies here named in the credits.Lepeu1999 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll agree the aircraft are notable. I've moved your section to the Poratraying History portion of the article along with the information on how the other vehicles were made sourced etc. I've left the info in that section as to who the pilots were. I have removed the pilots name from the cast as he was NOT part of the cast - his image never appearing in the film nor speaking any lines. At best he was an extra.Lepeu1999 (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Further, you will need to come up with a credible 3rd party source that those were the particular aircraft used in the film with those pilots if you want it in. Please see how the entries about the other notable vehicles (the tanks etc) have been sourced. I hope you do source them as it is cool information for the article and I would be happy if it can stay in.Lepeu1999 (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pilots and aircraft are notable--I checked the "Blue Max" movie site and they go into some detail about planes and pilots--the aviator Derek Piggot was prominently named for instance. In the original "Flight of the Phoenix" movie the flyer Paul Mantz is  mentioned and is probably the most notable aspect of that film (he died in an airplane crash while filming it).  Aviation enthusiasts always want to know about this stuff (what kinds of airplanes were used, where are they now, etc.)  If you visit Wiki sites on aircraft you will find all kinds of data--the various models, how many were made, how many are still flying, etc.  70.130.69.204 (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the Wiki entries on both movies. In NEITHER of them do the names of the pilots appear in the CAST section.  Find a 3rd party source for your info and it can go into the Portraying History section with the other interesting vehicles.Lepeu1999 (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Pennsylvania or New Hampshire?
The second paragraph of the lede says:


 * "Rodat first came up with the film's story in 1994 when he saw a monument dedicated to four brothers born to Agnes Allison of Port Carbon, PA, who died during the American Civil War."

Go down to the Development section, though, and it says:


 * "In 1994, Robert Rodat saw a monument in Putney Corners, New Hampshire, dedicated to four brothers who died during the American Civil War."

This is a glaring contradiction, folks. Which is it? Does anyone know? Is there a reliable source for this? ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 19:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The NH claim is sourced, the PA claim isn't. Removed the reference to PA.Lepeu1999 (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Social Psycology?
What's the deal with this section? It's pretty badly written and smells like bullshit. I tried to just delete it, but I can't seem to find it in the edit section. 68.202.112.66 (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Portraying history
Since there is already detailed information about the landing craft, and the inconsistencies between the historical reality and what is portrayed in the film, what reason is there to repeat this discrepancy in the critical reception section? This is just unnecessary repetition. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 17:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sole Survivor Policy under PLOT
The second para ends with the sentence: "After reading to his staff Abraham Lincoln's letter to Mrs. Bixby, Marshall orders that Ryan be found and sent home immediately because of the Sole Survivor Policy." should be changed to: ""After reading to his staff Abraham Lincoln's letter to Mrs. Bixby, Marshall orders that Ryan be found and sent home immediately."

The sole survivor policy was instituted only in 1948 after the war and even though this may sound nice its not really representative of the movie. In fact it misrepresents that particular scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.118.97 (talk • contribs) 05:20, August 10, 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have edited the article in accordance. Validusername  「 Talk 」 01:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"Steamboat Willie" and Mellish's killer
Regarding the recent edits to the plot, the German soldier who killed Mellish is not the same person as "Steamboat Willie". This has been discussed in the past, and the consensus was not to make that claim in the article. Hence, I am removing that assertion. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  02:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. Shaneymike (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I still do not understand the debate on this issue. It is the same man. Perhaps the director erred and used a different actor (I don't think so), but it is clear by the knife scene where 'Wille' tells Mellish to give up and die (summary translation), the same Mellish who would have killed him earlier; then going down the stairs, he does NOT kill Upham as he thoroughly despises him and knows he is weak. In no way would a soldier who just lost a buddy or 2 (Shot through the wall), got done killing 2 enemy, one by hand-2-hand, in the heat of battle, let another armed enemy soldier live unless he knew more about him than that encounter, 'Willie' did; he saw him at the radar tower. Raubhautz ( talk ) 00:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That is simply your opinion, which, to be frank, is of no significance. There is no evidence that they are the same character, or that the director intended them to be seen as the same. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  00:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Richard Todd's opinion
The opinion of Richard Todd, an actor who appeared in the Normandy invasion film The Longest Day, and who was a soldier at Normandy himself, is still not particularly important or notable. Why do we need his opinion in that section? --- The Old Jacobite The '45  18:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Why Upham shoots Steamboat Willie
Regarding when Cpl Upham confronts the German soldiers at gun point. This much German I understood: Steamboat Willie is saying, "... I know this man. ... He's no soldier. ..." in an apparent attempt to rally his men to overpower him. At that point Upham shoots him to stop him and also to let the other Germans see that he means business.

If he is actually the Steamboat Willie from the radar staion, then revenge might also be a secondary motive.

Also correction. The article says Cpl Upham is a cartographer. In the movie he is a French and German translator. Slight Smile  20:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. Upham is both a cartographer and a translator, as is stated more than once.  As for your interpretation of the German, that is original research, and thus inappropriate. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  00:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ich kenn die Mann and Sie ist kein Soldat. But okay say my interpretation of the German is OR. There was dialogue prior to the shooting so something was going on. Who says it was a summary execution as opposed to a battle situation? I did see that movie many times and the interpretation of that scene strikes me as way off.
 * He was picked by Captain Miller for his language skills because his last two interpreters were killed in action, not a cheerful prospect for Upham. His French had a slight accent while his German was clean with a touch of Bavarian. If you saw the movie, you would notice that Captain Miller did the navigating and map reading. Slight  Smile  01:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the translation of the German is actually an interesting point. Upham would have understood it. If he felt his life was in danger because "Steamboat Willie" was attempting to convince his comrades that Upham wasn't prepared to fight back (and therefore could simply rush him and kill him), that provides a more compelling reason for the shooting than the mere fact that "Willie" rejoined a unit. The reason behind the killing would be OR, but I'm not sure that a direct translation would be. What are the rules/precedent on translating dialog that wasn't originally translated in subtitles? 72.200.151.13 (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So what? Upham said "I make maps and I translate maps." --- The Old Jacobite The '45  02:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, it is 'Willie' from the radar tower. Upham finally grows some brass, and after seeing Willie kill the Captain, then accuse him of not being a soldier (who else could have know Upham like that and claim to 'know' him - well,know him well enough for battle); and finally Upham gets a spurt of testosterone and shoots Willie, but his basic pacifistic nature lets him release the remaining German soldiers. Raubhautz  ( talk ) 00:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * He didn't see Willie kill the Captain. He didn't see anything because he was cowering behind the slope. This is a common assumption that just doesn't jive with what is seen in the film. WE see Miller being shot, but there's nothing to suggest Upham did. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. You see Upham looking at Willie and there is a clear change of expression on his face when Wille shoots Miller. Happens at 51 seconds in this clip.
 * There's actually another shot fired between the one that hit Miller (who collapses out of view) and the reaction shot of Upham. It isn't entirely clear he realizes that "Willie" is doing anything other than shooting his comrades in general. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing sentence or part of sentence
I came across this but am not sure how to fix it:

Saving Private Ryan was released in 2,463 theaters on July 24, 1998, and grossed $30.5 million on its opening weekend. The film grossed $216.5 million in North America and $265.3 million in other territories, bringing its worldwide total to $481.8 million and making it the highest grossing domestic film of the year.[31] and the actors' performances,[32] but earning some criticism for ignoring the contributions of several other countries to the D-Day landings in general and at Omaha Beach specifically.[33]

You will see there is something missing after footnote 30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.201.39.60 (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference problem
After a quick glance at the reference's I can see there are some dead ones, like reference 13. We better fix them, so the article can keep it's GA status. Jonas Vinther (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

William Goldman criticism
I think the William Goldman criticism of the film is given too much space and undue weight and should be significantly scaled back. His criticism makes up an entire long paragraph, where other comments from the likes of Oliver Stone, Brian De Palma, etc., are given just a sentence. I may scale back the Goldman section myself, but wanted to bring it to the talk page before doing so. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you - it was not apparent to me previously but after seeing your comments here, I think this section goes beyond the function of providing information and results in nearly sponsoring Goldman's view. I think any encyclopedia should be informative and definitely include the fact that other people may have opinions (i.e. informative) especially when those folks are subject-matter experts. However, the opinions themselves should never be included or at least never included in great detail. If readers wish to further explore those opinions, then they have an excellent resource via the extensive references and footnotes. --Aleding (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Talking of criticism: what about the widespread UK, Canadian and European criticism of the film. The ignoring of British Navy personnel at Omaha, the petty and inaccurate criticism of Montgomery, the lack of reference to the contribution of Canada, France and the UK during D-Day etc etc. plenty of references out there. I don't want to start a flame war but this article appears way too prejudiced. Not everyone thinks this was a Great War film. Kentish 2342 GMT 23 Dec 14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.78.18 (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The criticism of the type you mention is ill-founded because this isn't a film about WW2 nor even about Normandy - both of these are just set pieces. This film is a fictional account of a few dedicated soldiers enduring some incredible hardships to rescue one comrade who's family paid a heavy price in that war to end all wars.  This film was never presented to be anything more so why folks are critical of SPR for somehow falling short just strikes me as plainly irrational.  That said, unless the storyteller felt that the Brits, Canadians, etc. should all be a part of that rescue operation, then there should be zero complaint as to those nationalities not being part of the story.  Again, this is fiction - not a real-life dramatization.  Now, to those who say this isn't a good WW2 film, I chalk that up to being nothing more than purely a subjective opinion as is the case with nearly all film reviews and measurements.  Before even considering the assessment of any film, one must first state what their standards are.  One person may be entertained by spectacle and another feels it is self-indulgent.  One might love melodrama and another might feel it is lacking in nuance.  Some might love voice over and exposition and yet others feel it is too on the nose.  The truth about all of the previous is that they're all true and they're also all false because so much of it is subjective.  So any objective measure should focus squarely on the structure of the content, the camera work, the acting performances, the quality of the sets and costumes, etc...etc...etc.  Those are the only elements, I believe, that can objectively measure (to the extent any such measure is even possible) the quality any film.  Given that, SPR is without exception an incredible film.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleding (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that the article is at pains to laud the film for the effect it had on WWII veterans (presumably in the US), which is to stress the “reality” of the movie. You can’t just have your cake and eat it too - the article falls way short of just treating it as a fiction, a narrative, a story because it stresses the film as a “historic document”; this may be because the film uses a realistic narrative style and beguiles the viewer during the extremely visceral opening landing sequence to accept it as more than the standard pot-boiler that is the rest of the story. Much was made in the publicity at the time to link it to real events, real brothers being rescued, real soldiers in combat. The article should stress more that it is entirely a fiction, and should, I believe reflect the genuine criticism that it received outside the U.S By all means also put up refutations of the critics, but this is an encyclopædia and the criticism was part of the reception. As it stands the article seems skewed.86.156.21.195 (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Jock123 (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Didn't Tom Hanks stop the tank?
It distinctly remember Tom Hanks shooting at the tank, even after he had been mortally wounded. He's in a daze. He can't even walk any more, so he leans against something to rest. Then a tank comes towards him. He shoots at it with his pistol. He keeps shooting. Then he gets a lucky shot and the tank explodes. By the time the tank-killing planes arrive, the tanks are history. I don't know why, but I'm somehow expecting him to get the Medal of Honor, even though it was just a movie. Now when someone gets a real Medal of Honor, I think about that scene. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

No. The Hanks character looks surprised, as if the round he has just fired from his pistol has blown up the Tiger tank (although in reality there were no Tiger tanks on the American front in Normandy until August, near the end of the campaign, because the Germans were more concerned to stop the British), when in fact the tank has been destroyed by a rocket salvo from an American P-51 Mustang fighter. The Matt Damon character 'Ryan' tells Hanks, 'They're P-51s, sir, tankbusters!' The trouble is, the USAAF had no rocket-armed fighters at that time, and when they did get them, some weeks later, they were P-47 Thunderbolts, since P-51s were reserved for air-superiority tasks -- the RAF used Mustangs as fighter-bombers in Normandy, but the USAAF did not, and Mustangs never carried rockets until the Korean War. In addition, if you were that close to a German tank being shot at by an Allied rocket-armed fighter -- which, at that time, could only be an RAF Typhoon -- you would probably be killed or injured, because the rockets were very inaccurate and the pilot simply salvoed the whole area around the tank. It's just a lousy movie. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That's essentially correct.  Hank's character shows great surprise and short-lived disbelief that his pistol shots actually made the tank explode.
 * Having said that, with all the historical inaccuracy that is claimed runs rife through the entire movie, watching anything presented as a movie (which this has always been) will inevitably call for a willing suspension of disbelief.  If your opinion of the movie is so affected by the inaccuracies, you probably shouldn't watch it.  As for commenting upon it, believe me you aren't the first.  None of the claims are new, but old.  And by focusing on them, the entire message of the movie most likely flew right over your head.2602:30A:2C4A:1CB0:F869:31F0:BB19:7F71 (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Splatter Films
I just noticed this is in the splatter movies category, but does it really belong there? It's certainly gory, but I thought splatter movies were a sub-genre of exploitation films, usually horror ones, where the shock value is promoted in advertising to draw audiences. The genre typically includes stuff like Blood Feast or Cannibal Holocaust. Saving Private Ryan seemed to be more of a serious attempt to portray the brutality of war, rather than a film that exploited war for profit. The gore was a consequence of the subject matter, not the selling point of the movie. Furthermore, the violence is sporadic, and most shocking moments are only in the first 27 minutes of a three and a half hour movie. Most of the film plays as a drama. In Dead-Alive for instance, the gore is a consistent element throughout the movie.24.150.193.65 (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree.Lynchenberg (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree as well... this seems a bit out of place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4200:4660:9905:6E38:4DBA:B384 (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Blatant inaccuracy in opening section.
"The film grossed US$481.8 million worldwide, making it the second highest-grossing film of all time."

This line is in the opening section and is way off. SPR is not even in the top 30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.117.238 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Steamboat Willie
The Steamboat Willie mistake has crept back into the synopsis. As noted multiple times before, the 'evil' SS panzergrenadier who kills Mellish and Miller during the climactic battle, only to be murdered by the cowardly Upham after surrender, is not 'Steamboat Willie', the German soldier spared and released by the patrol after the fight at the radar station. It is a different character played by a different actor. And 'Steamboat Willie' is a soldier of the Heer, not the Waffen-SS. Khamba Tendal (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saving Private Ryan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724171548/http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/ryanpress.html to http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/ryanpress.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Ryan is encountered outside Ramelle
The statement made in the plot may give the impression that Ryan was encountered at Ramelle when he was encountered outside of Ramelle.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

"At Ramelle, Miller and the squad find a small group of paratroopers preparing to defend the bridge; one is Ryan. Miller tells Ryan about his brothers and their orders to bring him home and that two men had been lost in finding him. He is distressed at the loss of his brothers, but asks Miller to tell his mother that he intends to stay "with the only brothers [he has] left." " What is wrong with this statement? Ryan is not encountered by Miller at Ramelle but following a skirmish outside the town. "Miller tells Ryan about his brothers and their orders to bring him home...." Those that have seen the film know that the orders are from Command but who exactly is "their" especially as the subject of Ryan's brothers comes immediately before. Was it the orders of the brothers? We know that is not correct. Whatever grammatical explanation may be given to maintain this portion of the statement introduces vagueness and speculation. The purpose of the article is to give, especially those that have not seen the film, an understanding of it.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Average score on Rotten Tomatoes
I really don't want to be in an edit war; Rotten Tomatoes uses a slash to describe average ratings for films, and Wikipedia follows suit, so I think it's only fitting that we describe Saving Private Ryan's average RT score as 8.6/10 rather than 8.6 out of 10. 24.18.128.102 (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * One good way to not be in an edit war is to not edit war. Instead, follow WP:BRD. You boldly made a change. It was reverted. The next step should be to discuss the issue.


 * Instead, you restored your edit -- twice. That is how you start an edit way.


 * I see you and the other editor are now discussing the question. Pending the two of you finding a way through this, I've restored the status quo here. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How RT shows the score is irrelevant. Other than your edits, I have never seen that form used on WP. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 15:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Never"? I find that claim rather hard to believe; slashes are used on a huge majority of Wikipedia's film articles. I will admit it was boneheaded of me to tediously change several articles at once, but I swear I had the best of intentions; I think consistency is in the best interest of Wikipedia. 24.18.128.102 (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I can see weak arguments either way on this. "X out of y" is, IMO, clearer, but "x/y" is how the source presents the data. To me, that's a toss up.
 * Looking for guidance on this, I cannot find anything that specifically calls for one or the other. That said, examples given at Manual_of_Style/Film and Review aggregators both use the "x out of y" version. ("Review_aggregators" is just an essay, but "Film#Critical_response" is part of the MOS). I don't see that as the MOS specifying it, but I think it's a fairly trivial matter and would be more than satisfied to go with the "x out of y" version used in the MOS. Anyone feeling strongly about it can certainly take it to the MOS or village pump to try to have the MOS specify it one way or the other. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * MOS should guide us, in this as in all matters. Just because some articles use that form doesn't mean it's the right way to go.  See other stuff exists. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 18:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Missing music section
This page is missing a subsection and almost any information about the film's score by John Williams. The score was nominated for numerous awards (mentioned in the Accolades section), so the film page should include information about its development, interpretation, and tracks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doron.t.rose (talk • contribs) 17:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

James Francis Ryan and James Frederick Ryan in Cast
In the Cast section, the private Ryan that the story is trying to save is listed as just "James Ryan" and the private Ryan that was confused for the previous Ryan is listed as "James F. Ryan". Perhaps we should list both characters' full names (James Francis Ryan and James Frederick Ryan) in Cast so that they can be correctly differentiated ("fake" Ryan has the same middle initial as "real" Ryan, so middle initial, alone, doesn't differentiate them). — al-Shimoni  (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

P-51 tank busters?
In the scene where a tank is destroyed crossing the bridge, the planes shown are P-51 Mustangs. In 1944 these were more used in air superiority missions, while the P-47 Tunderbolt was more used in ground attack. Is there any source that can be cited pointing to this film inaccuracy? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.




 * Why? Are they quoted in the article?Lepeu1999 (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse the belated response, but the section is intended to list references that could be used for the article. If desired, they can be moved to a sub-page (like this one), but it is preferable to do so when there are numerous ones listed, not just the two. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Battle of Ramelle" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Battle of Ramelle. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jontesta (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

'The film has been widely hailed as one of the best films ever made'
Has it? Or has it 'merely' been lauded as an important war film? Has any critic of the first rank placed it in their personal list of all-time top twenty films of any type or nationality?

Regards to all, Notreallydavid (talk)

-

I also couldn't help take notice of the strong language under the Legacy subsection. As it stands now it reads "Today, Saving Private Ryan is widely considered to be one of the greatest films ever made." This statement is not supported by proper citation. The three sources are: a contemporary review by the New York Times (i.e. written over twenty years ago and not representative of 'today'), a retrospect by the LA Times which states "'Saving Private Ryan' has joined the pantheon of great war movies", lacking the superlative adjective 'greatest' as well as containing the condition of 'war movies'. The final citation is a reader poll by the Telegraph where the film was voted the greatest war movie. I think these three sources fall short of qualifying the film as "widely considered to be one of the greatest films ever made". I don't think anyone would doubt the legacy of such an influential film, I just don't see support for that legacy being "one of the greatest films ever made." Perhaps "widely considered to be one of the greatest war films ever made" would be more appropriate, though I personally don't think any of the sources except the Telegraph poll say anything close to that. Since I'm not a registered member I don't think I should make the change, though I believe that a change is warranted.

172.101.34.177 (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Omaha beach.jpg.webp

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eortiz198. Peer reviewers: Smazurk, Tridley4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Should we note about Paramount having full ownership of the film?
As many of you know, Paramount, who distributed the film internationally, has full ownership of the film due to Viacom's purchase of DreamWorks (the first incarnation that the animation arm spun off of, not the one that was recreated with Touchstone distributing, nor the Amblin Partners version). Should we note about the distribution of Saving Private Ryan being transferred to Paramount?

Speaking of Paramount, I found a New York Times article called 'Ryan' Lands With Impact In Theaters Across U.S.'. The article explains about how Paramount and DreamWorks handle distribution. Interestingly, the project was at Paramount first but it eventually got DreamWorks involved when Spielberg got the script from Robert Rodat. This part is where the two got involved.

"Initially, Saving Private Ryan was developed at Paramount by Mr. Rodat and executives there. Mr. Hanks read the script and was immediately interested. At that point, Mr. Spielberg, who had a longtime interest in World War II, and whose father was a combat veteran, also read the script and said he wanted to do it. Because of Mr. Spielberg's involvement, his company, Dreamworks, shared the producing credit. In jointly producing the film, Paramount and Dreamworks tossed a coin as to which company would release the movie in the United States. Dreamworks took over the film's domestic distribution, with Paramount releasing it abroad.

The coin toss also involved another joint project, Deep Impact, the doomsday film released earlier this year about a deadly meteor hurtling toward the earth. Paramount took over the domestic distribution of that film, which has grossed about $138 million."

I think we should update the production section and include this in it. I also think that we should clean up the article and add more to the production section. Any of you agree with me on this?

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/27/movies/ryan-lands-with-impact-in-theaters-across-us.html