Talk:Unbroken (film)

Mistakes in movie
I noticed a few mistakes in the movie, as an example: the aircraft in which the main character returns home in 1945, a Lockheed 12, not only shows incorrect national marking (red dot was removed in 1942) but the current registration (VH-HID, see pic @ airliners.net pic). Are these kind of things worth noting in the article? Regards, DPdH (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Unbroken (film)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Unbroken (film) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * https://www.change.org/p/the-japanese-embassy-in-washington-d-c-stop-the-ban-on-angelina-jolie-s-movie-unbroken-in-japan
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Unbroken (film)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Unbroken (film) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * https://www.change.org/p/the-japanese-embassy-in-washington-d-c-stop-the-ban-on-angelina-jolie-s-movie-unbroken-in-japan
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect description
The lead paragraph states: "Zamperini survived in a raft for 47 days after his bomber was downed in World War II"

Later in the same article and per film content, his plane actually had a mechanical failure and crashed - it was not "downed" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.31.33 (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Spiritual sequel?
The sequel-section states that "Unbroken: Path to Redemtion" is a "spiritual sequel" The WP article "Spiritual sequel" is defined as "[a film that] does not build upon the storyline established by a previous work as do most traditional prequels or sequels, yet features many of the same elements, themes, and styles". This does not seem to be true, quite the opposite, the storyline seems to pick up just where the first Unbroken ended, but the themes, elements and style seems to be rather different.

Perhaps "spiritual sequel" could also be interpreted to mean "faith-themed sequel". However, this is already stated in the same sentence.

Thus, perhaps "spiritual sequel" should be justified, clarified or removed? St.nerol (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This may explain why. Maybe say "unofficial sequel" instead and explain why? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't say "spiritual sequel" not only because that is not how the phrase is usually used as defined in the article Spiritual sequel (as in "Everybody Wants Some!! is a 'spiritual sequel' to Dazed and Confused) but also because it doesn't add anything readily useful to readers.
 * We could say "unofficial sequel", sure, but doesn't the fact that a producer from the previous movie is involved in the new one make it rather an official sequel? Also the official site for the new film says it's based on Hillenbrand's book (also seen in the billing block) so it seems it is at least an official adaptation of the book the 2014 film was also based on.
 * So it appears the most objective way to put it is that it is yet another adaptation of Hillenbrand's book that depicts Zamperini's later life following the events that were depicted in the 2014 film, in which no one from the original cast returns. Nardog (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Grammar check for B class
I've checked out the grammar in the article and everything seems to be in order. I have rated the article as B-class for now. -- NowIsntItTime 22:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't think it's quite there yet. It's very close though. MPS1992 (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, what needs to be done? The referencing was reported to be in order, along with the coverage, structure and supporting materials. Is there something that really needs to be fixed? -- NowIsntItTime 23:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HIST 225 - U.S. History
— Assignment last updated by Kaitlynluczak (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)