Talk:The Thin Red Line (1998 film)

Adaption
While the story often differs from James Jones' novel, there are a lot of things in common with Norman Mailer's novel 'The Naked and the Dead' from 1948, which takes place in the 2nd World War Pacific and is about the conquest of a Japanese-hold island by American forces. I cannot work out the details, but after having read both books, I had more the impression that the film is actually a mix of both books. --Dspalthoff 11:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would find a link to the author of the novel, and to the novel, an important addition. 128.97.39.100 (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving this info here until it can be properly sourced. --J.D. (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are numerous differences between Malick's film and Jones's novel. The novel makes no mention of the native inhabitants of Guadalcanal, whereas Malick depicts them throughout. In the film, Captain Staros is a Greek-American, in the novel this character was a Jewish Captain called Stein (a continuation using a different name of a similar character in From Here to Eternity). In the novel, the last rank of Private Gordon Bell is Lieutenant Gordon Bell. He received a commission during the campaign. Most of the other main characters are also promoted into NCO positions or higher. There are entire segments of dialogue and character interaction, such as Witt's interrogation by Sergeant Welsh, that are taken directly from the James Jones novel From Here to Eternity. In the film, a character called Queen carries a shotgun; in the novel, this character is called Cash, and Queen is a different character.

Lost scenes and narration
I don't know where the original contributor of the info regarding edited scenes and Billy Bob's narration got his facts from, but if this stuff is going to stay in, we should have a reference for it. Buck 20:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, and to be honest points about the editing of the film and the removal of Billy Bob belong in the trivia section at the end, not in the general section about the film. JRJW 7 February 2006
 * I've moved those references to a different section, but left the citation flag up. Also, I switched talk of a "hard bitten NCO"--which would appear to refer to Penn's character--to "hard bitten Colonel", since the reference to promotion and a disregard for the lives of his soldiers obviously refers to Nolte's character, Colonel Tall.


 * On another subject: I could have sworn I'd made the section much longer than it now is, on my last edit, but that's not showing up in the history of the page. Am I just losing my mind, or is it possible to erase that kind of thing without a trace? Buck 15:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This quote in the article doesn't make sense to me: The unfinished film was screened for the New York press on December 1998 and Adrien Brody attended a screening to find that his originally significant role, "to carry the movie" as he put it, had been reduced to two lines and approximately five minutes of screen time.[10] Malick was upset that the studio screened his unfinished version for critics and Penn ended up helping him in the editing room, shaping the final version.[3] Malick spent three more months and cut 45 additional minutes from the film. The director refused to subject his film to test screenings before delivering his final cut" . . . This says to me that the unfinished version was released in 1998 and that the finished version was not done until 3 months after that, which would be March 1999. I first saw the film (in Canada) in late February of 1999 (almost 2 months to the day after the 25 December 1998) limited release and it was the same version released on CD (there is no way that I could forget 45 minutes of this film simply vanishing).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.242.2 (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Factual error
In the first paragraph about the narrative of the film it states that Guadalcanal was the first allied victory. The first allied victory against the Japanese was the repulse of the Japanese landing at Milne Bay in Papua New Guinea.

Are we really comfortable that there is no "central protagonist" ? Witt/Caviezal(sp)is clearly the central protagonist and also a christ-figure.--Win7ermute 03:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

To say that Guadalcanal was the first decisive Allied victory against the Japanese as it did in the previous version seems inaccurate as the Battle of Midway had occurred in June. However this battle is generally held to mark the end of Japanese expansion and I changed the wording to reflect that.

Additionally, it was during Guadalcanal that American troops learned that the Japanese fought to the death. Despite a self-admitted fictional account of the campaign, you cannot extend the fiction to the point of portrayal of one of Americas most fiercely, fanatical enemies to a mass of quivering, whimpering cowards that surrendered in masses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.178.207 (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"Battle on Hill 210"
The screenshot labeled "Battle on Hill 210" actually takes place after C-Company had secured the hill, advanced past it and launched an attack on a Japanese bivouac (which in the novel they discovered purely by accident, but in the film it appears as a planned attack). Perhaps the image should be relabeled in the article. D Boland 23:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments:
 * 1) Per WP:MOSLINK, each rank in the "Cast" section should only be linked once.
 * 2) The cast section needs to comply with WP:MOSFILM, In particular, using the style that you have chosen, characters that were not introduced in the "Plot" section need to have a description after their names (Fife and Keck)
 * What happened to this section? No need to re-add it (at the moment), but I'm wondering why you removed it. Cheers, CP 23:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I decided to take it out as most of the characters mentioned in it were included in the detailed Synopsis and most of the actors listed were mentioned in the Casting section.--J.D. (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) When Sean Penn met Malick he famously told him, "Give me a dollar and tell me where to show up." (Casting) "famously told him" is not a very neutral way of describing what happened, unless it is directly backed up by a source. Since I don't own a copy of the source used at the end of the sentence, I can't tell if it describes the statement as "famous," but it needs a citation as it is challengeable (specifically, I've never heard of it, so I challenge that he was "famously" told that without a citation). It's hard to describe in words, but saying that something was "famously told" can be a very subjective analysis without a proper citation.
 * 2) All one-two sentence paragraphs must be either expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs as they cannot stand alone; they chop up the prose to a distracting level. The "Awards" section is exempt from this (but see below).
 * 3) Some statements require citations:
 * "Malick finished on time and on budget." (Principal photography) If it can't be cited, as sometimes these "absence of evidence otherwise" statements are, then just take it out, as it doesn't really add much.
 * The direct quote in the fourth paragraph of "Principal photography" &mdash; even if it is cited with the citation at the end of the sentence, it is still a direct quote and thus requires a citation immediately following the punctuation
 * "Geisler and Roberdeau told their story to Vanity Fair magazine and Medavoy's attornies declared them in breach of contract and threatened to remove their names from the film unless they agreed to do no future interviews until after the Academy Awards." (Principal photography)
 * The "Awards" section
 * 1) The "Soundtrack" section is incomplete. It lacks any information on the individual tracks, background to the production of the score (if any), a picture of the album cover, with an appropriate infobox (if possible) or even a general description of what is on the two CDs, not to mention a lack of references as well, since the section is currently too small to consider it inherent to the material
 * What happened to this section? No need to re-add it (at the moment), but I'm wondering why you removed it. Cheers, CP 23:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not enough info on the Soundtrack to really warrant its own section so I decided to remove it.--J.D. (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Under the "Awards" section, it mentions that it was nominated for all those Academy Awards, but does not note whether or not it won them.
 * 2) All references require access dates. As a side note, and one that won't be held against a GA pass, but it is helpful to editors if the citation templates are rendered horizontally, rather than vertically.
 * 3) Reference #19 does not work for me.
 * Fixed it.--J.D. (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead touches on every major point/heading made in the article, per WP:LEAD, except what the plot of the film is! All it says about the "Synopsis" section is "tells a fictional story of United States forces during the Battle of Guadalcanal in World War II." The summary of the plot summary needs to be a bit more detailed than this - the lead should leave the reader with a basic understanding of the premise if they were to read only the lead.

To allow for these changes to be made, I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Also, if all the above concerns are addressed, I will return and check the references. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 08:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these comments. I think I have addressed all of them in my recent revisions. --J.D. (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have updated the review above. Cheers, CP 23:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have updated the review once more. Once the lead has been dealt with, it should be good to go. Cheers, CP 04:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have improved on the lead paragraph. Let me know if it is okay. Thanks! --J.D. (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I will now be passing the article as a Good Article. Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dont use the featured article for help
I believe that in another language this is a featured article, but I don't think it should be used to help because it seems overly long, and mislead. For example there is a picture of the British painting "The Thin Red Line", but that refers to a completely different war. Another example is a picture taken during the battle of Guadalcanal, but not from the movie. Overall, I dont think it's a help. Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph break added
In the opening synopsis, I added a paragraph break where the production aspects listed actors interested in working on the film, and those that did and were cut. The structure of these two sentances is unfortunatly gabled into one long list without quite careful notice of the lone period in a mist of commas. Please feel free to restructure the sentances and remove the paragraph break as well if anyone cares to revert.

-grey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.167.102 (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Witt's capture
I've read claims, that the Japanese soldier speaking when Witt is surrounded says something like this:

"Surrender, It's you who killed my friends, but I have no desire to kill you. You are surrounded, please surrender".

which would be quite the opposite of what it says in the article:

....Prohibited from taking prisoners but unwilling to kill without honor, a Japanese soldier challenges Witt to fight. He raises his rifle and is instantly shot......

Maybe someone who can understand Japanese can clear that up (I know I can't) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.249.45.148 (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I just so happen to have a transcript for the spoken Japanese with English translations. I found this a long time ago on the IMDB forums for the film so the English translation is obviously not a concrete source, but rewatching the film, I can at least attest that the Japanese is in fact what is spoken by the actor. (He repeats himself a lot so bear with me.)


 * "Koufuku shiro! Koufuku shiro." - "Surrender! Surrender."
 * "Omaeka, oreno senyu koroshitanoha?" - "Is that you who killed my friend?"
 * "Wakaruka?" - "Understand?"
 * "Oreha omaewo koroshitakunai." - "I don't want to kill you."
 * "Wakaruka?" - "Understand?"
 * "Oreha... omaewo koroshitakunai." - "I... don't want to kill you."
 * "Mou kakomareterunda, sunaoni koufuku shiro." - "You're completely surrounded, you better give up."
 * "Omaeka... oreno senyu koroshitanoha?" - "You... it was who killed him?"
 * "Oreha... Ugokuna!" - "I... Stay where you are!"
 * "Tomare! Koufuku shiro!" - "Hold it! Surrender!"
 * D Boland (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. 124.157.247.221 (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The synopsis for this scene states "Witt knows what will happen to him if he surrenders; he saw the remains of two tortured soldiers earlier in the campaign." This sentence seems unnecessarily speculative. There is no clear indication from the scene itself as to why Witt raised his weapon rather than surrender. While it is true that prisoners in the Pacific often suffered at the hands of their captors, this historical fact seems irrelevant for the purposes of the synopsis. It is enough to know that Witt raises his weapon despite an offer to surrender. The audience is left to speculate upon his motivation.

A polyurethane surfboard in WWII??
In the beginning of the movie, particularly in the scene where Pvt. Witt's AWOL-buddy found their patrol boat closing in, there was a modern surfboard sitting by the beach. Foam/Fiberglass boards have not yet revolutionized the concept of modern surfing up until their introduction in the mid-1950's. Anyway, it made that part of the movie look like you're watching The Endless Summer. ≈ Commit  charge


 * Is that what it is, or might it possibly be a shallow canoe such as Witt was paddling earlier? 124.157.247.221 (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cast in infobox
I think the cast listing in the infobox should be reserved for the most notable roles in the film. In other words, Travolta should go, since his part is merely a cameo. Any thoughts? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 03:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Direction
So there's something this article mentions quite a bit but remains unclear to me. It seems like getting this film made was basically a nightmare and that the director bungled huge aspects of it (e.g., casting actors he never, in the end, needed). Yet people seemed absolutely desperate to work with him. Besides Adrian Brody, the article makes no mention of any of the actors who were partially or completely cut from the film being dissatisfied. Was he the only one? Because from the behavior of the director, I'm baffled he didn't piss more people off. And, given all this, why were so many people so eager to work with him? The article may way to include these things. RobertM525 (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to cast list
I just reverted an anonymous editor's changes to several character names in the cast listing. Comparing the cast list to that found on IMDB, though, I noticed there are some discrepancies, mostly character's whose first names are not given on IMDB. Since the latter's listing is said to match the final credits, what is the source for our list here? Furthermore, why is our list not also in the same order as the final credits? Is this not usually the case? I would like to hear some other editor's opinions on this, but if I do not receive a response in the next week or so, I am going to change the order of our list to match IMDB's. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 16:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Close Up of a Tawny Frogmouth
Towards the end of the movie there is a close up shot of a Tawny Frogmouth sitting in a tree. The Tawny Frogmouth is a bird native to Australia and would not be found in the Pacific region as portrayed in this movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerwrite555 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

From the Lede
"Although the title may seem to refer to a line from Rudyard Kipling's poem 'Tommy', from Barrack-Room Ballads, in which he calls foot soldiers 'the thin red line of heroes',[2] referring to the stand of the 93rd Regiment in the Battle of Balaclava of the Crimean War, it is in reality a quote from James Jones' book which reads 'they discover the thin red line that divides the sane from the mad... and the living from the dead...'"

That's a horrible section. It sounds as if the article uses Jones' book as a source for the title of Jones' book. WTF?

If Jones invented the phrase himself, it does not need mention in the article, much less in the lede. ("Look, an author of books invented a phrase!!!")

If the phrase comes from Kipling, there is no point in listing any intermediate works, and certainly no point in showing that the phrase was used in the book in more than one place.

It's stupid. Get rid of it.-217.248.32.145 (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Editing and lost performances
Not sure how to cite YouTube or television interviews, in any case, but this conversation with Christopher Plummer gives more details concerning the massive amount of editing that went on and the resentment it caused among Mallick's actors. Brody's mistreatment belongs in the lede along with the fully cut performances, not buried. — Llywelyn II   03:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Thin Red Line (1998 film). 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/20110903101106/http://www.theasc.com/asc_news/News_Articles/News_304.php to http://www.theasc.com/asc_news/News_Articles/News_304.php
 * Added tag to http://www.blockbuster.com/gifts/catalog/movie/details/129917
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204081351/http://www.usc.edu/libraries/scripter/private/docs/finalists/scripter_finalists.pdf to http://www.usc.edu/libraries/scripter/private/docs/finalists/scripter_finalists.pdf

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) 16:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Answers
The film asks questions but does not provide answers.

The war against Japan started because FD Roosevelt wanted to wage war against Germany.

Germany, Italy and Japan made a pact to protect each other. Roosevelt wished to pretend that America was neutral. He decided to provoke Japan into attacking Americans so that he could declare war against Japan, which would lead to automatic commencement of war against Germany and Italy. Pearl Harbour and Guadalcanal etc was the result.

Neither Germany, Italy or Japan wanted war against the USA. Hitler's declaration of war against the USA lists numerous contraventions of International law and acts of war against Germany - but we're not meant to know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.104.53 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Lots of unsourced opinionated assertions here. As presented, it appears to be mere ideological fantasy. Are we supposed to take the word of someone who does not even bother to provide so much as an account name, let alone massive unsourced reinterpretations of major events in 20th century world history? Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Query about style
I edited this article to add the actors names in the plot section. This is a technique I have seen on other film pages and found helpful when mentally connecting the character name to the actor. My edit has been reversed. The comment was the plot section should only focus on plot points rather than bringing up the actors. I question that assumption. Is there a set style guide I need to follow that I've missed? Creedweber (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The current WP:FILMPLOT guidelines recommend against including them: Do not include actors' names in the plot summary, as it is redundant to the "Cast" section. -- 109.78.198.236 (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Cast list
Mel Gibson and Liam Neeson are both in the cast list, but not at all on IMDB or in my brief google searches. Having just watched it I'm certain neither of them appear, even in a brief cameo. 2A02:C7E:3008:600:C9D1:6B00:5E2E:AE09 (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Where is Dancer Mountain?
The article contains this line

Filming also took place on Dancer Mountain, which had such rough terrain that trailers and production trucks could not make it up the hill.

I cannot find a Dancer mountain in neither Australia nor Solomon Islands. There is no citation given, and the citation given for the other filming locations does not mention any mountain. Google searches ultimately lead back to this article, as if this is the origin. Is this all a Mallickian joke? 193.119.80.59 (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)