Talk:A Bridge Too Far (1977 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2006 press source article for details. The citation is in: Tim Blair. "But can he bridge the gaps.", The Daily Telegraph (Australia), December 2, 2006.

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A Bridge Too Far (1977 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Old talk 2 Cultural pharase 3 The guy with the umbrella 4 Caine-Hackman Thesis 5 Mediation 6 Colin Farrell 7 If you want to contribute ...

[edit] Old talk

although the movie is now considered a failure,probably because no one except world war 2 enthusiasts could sustain interest for so long,it is historically one of the more accurate of Hollywoods offerings on the war. Anon.

That is wrong. Though the movie is long and meandering, the screenwriter and director have said that any sort of non-minor cuts would have obscured the plot, making it even more confusing. From what I've seen (critical and popular opinion), it's in fact considered one of the best WW2 movies ever made.--67.161.115.23 00:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how the movie is a failure in any sense of the word - probably simply because you have too short an attention span.

[edit] Cultural pharase

I think that there needs to be a mention that the phrase 'A bridge too far' has spread into popular culture. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The guy with the umbrella

In Ryan's novel, the umbrella guy seems to be a British officer called Tatham-Warter, but in the film hasn't that name. Is it also true that the very same Tatham-Warter at a later stage submerged into the Dutch underground, helping their efforts? --Keimzelle 30 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)

[edit] Caine-Hackman Thesis

Leithp, I don't know if you have an attitude, but my contribution to this page is valid as this film holds a special cult status for fans of PCU. Rather than write the cult status on this page, which I would agree would be clutter, I placed a low-key link to the cult status in the "See Also" section. It's a minor element to this movie's page but properly links this film into the cult status it holds. Please don't remove it again. It's a valid contribution. --Bark 03 April 2006 14:50 (UTC)

I agree that it's important in the context of PCU, but I didn't really think it was important to this page and that's why I removed it (I have a dislike of the kind of cruft that builds up on Wikipedia pages so I tend to revert stuff that looks like it on sight). I've never heard of PCU, so can't really judge it's importance, but do you think that people looking at this page will be interested in a sub-plot of that film? Leithp 15:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do think the link is relevent and garners interest. I wouldn't have added it if I thought otherwise. It may not be up your alley, but we're talking about movies here. One movie references another. It's a quirky, interesting tidbit that has a cult following. I'm going to ask for some lattitude on this. --Bark 03 April 2006 17:25 (UTC)

This has been removed from the main article as of this date, but for those of you who want an "unneccessary reference to minor trivia point in another film (as some call it)," click here. Bark 15:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I'm reluctant to agree to this, since Bark hasn't taken the steps needed to justify mediation and this has come right out of the blue after just a few edits to this article -- and I don't want to be seen wasting a mediator's time. The issue appears to be his determination to keep a link to a very minor trivia point from another film on this article. It's one thing to have a trivia entry here saying that A Bridge Too Far is the only film that Michael Caine and Gene Hackman appeared in together. It's quite another to include trivia from another film... in this case PCU, in which (apparently) one of the characters formulates a hypothesis to do with Caine and Hackman. Still, if required, I suppose I will go through with mediation. - Motor (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the steps of mediation ask all parties involved to not say anything about one another and only stick to the issues, I will try my best. I will say this though. I only ask that a third party look at the situation and history of the edits. Some Wikipedia members try their best to work with others and develop compromises where disagreements exist. Others do not. This article is about a movie. My questions are two. Are trivia sections relevant to movie pages here at Wikipedia? Is it permissible to cross-link a trivia item concerning one movie to another? Bark 02:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

1. "Permissable" is not the issue. 2. Trivia sections are not the problem -- they aren't particularly desireable (this is an encyclopadia aricle), but they are allowed. The problem is that you are/were insisting on including trivia from another film. A very minor comedy film like PCU has nothing at all to do with A Bridge too Far. You might also like to note that this is actually an article about the book A Bridge Too Far by Cornelius Ryan, it has a section about the film.

One of your posts here on the talk page says this: "It helps to garner interest"... plugging PCU is not the function of this article. Another part: Leithp, I don't know if you have an attitude, but my contribution to this page is valid as this film holds a special cult status for fans of PCU. -- but PCU does not hold special cult status for those watching (or reading) A Bridge Too Far -- in fact, it's completely irrelevant to it. Trivia about the film PCU belongs on the article about PCU. Hence the reason I've just removed the reference again. Please keep trivia about the film PCU on its own article. Your jump to insisting on mediation after just a few edits was surprising, and as I said, I am reluctant to waste a mediator's time with such a minor problem... but if you insist on running through a mediation process... so be it. - Motor (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I like trivia about films, but Motor is 100% correct here. No question. Jooler 10:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I agree with Motor here as well. Though that might be because of my "attitude" ;). This is also the quickest jump to dispute resolution I've seen on Wikipedia. Leithp 12:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You know what guys? I'm not unreasonable. I'm fine with having the item just say "This is the only film to star both Michael Caine and Gene Hackman," without linking. I'll just add a link to the PCU page in the "Caine-Hackman Thesis" portion of the talk page. A few weeks ago, Leithp and I discussed this issue very civilly. Your problem, Motor, is that you never opened the dialogue of communication with me. You just deleted away. I can guarantee if you hadn't been a pain in the butt, I wouldn't have either. Since Jooler agrees with you guys, I'll yield, as long as you leave the trivia item as it currently stands. Is that a reasonable compromise? Bark 15:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to add more trivia to the section without violating copyrights? Bark 15:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the source. If I understand correctly the problem was that copying directly from the IMDB is a violation of their copyright. I imagine that you could some the stuff back in as long as it was re-worded. IANAL etc. Incidentally I just had a look at the IMDB page and was amused by the quote from Horrocks (Edward Fox in the film) about how scruffy Caine looked. Horrocks was pretty famous for always looking disshevelled, it seems unlikely he would chide anyone else for it. That's getting way off topic though.... Leithp 15:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If I get more time, I may add some items back into the trivia section. There are some interesting tidbits in there. Bark 16:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

IF it is acceptable to put the info about Caine and Hackman in a trivia section on this page, it certainly seems reasonable to link to a Caine-Hackman thesis related to that piece of trivia. Dstanfor 17:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

For my money, that piece of trivia is completely pointless. Why on earth would anyone care if any particular film is the only one where any two particular actors have appeared side-by-side? There is no externally verifiable reason why this should be important. A spurious thesis advanced in one comedy film does not qualify. It might qualify for a brief mention in the PCU article as an example of the absurdities in that film. Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It really does seem out of place. I would vote for removal. In fact, the blooper section could go too - seems unneccesary Seaphoto 01:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with Just zis Guy you know?. If this piece of "trivia" (and could anything be more trivial?) is valid, we could just as easily go through the cast list, compare their filmographies on IMDB, and list every other instance in which prominent actors appeared in only one film together. What would be the point? In the context of the PCU article, it is valid---here, it is cruft. ---Charles 18:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, so do I. Motor was right. JzG is right. But I'm beginning to think it's a losing battle and that cruft like this is going to swallow up every film article on WP. -- Slowmover 19:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Only if we allow it. I have no intention of giving up the fight. ---Charles 19:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• The Request for Mediation was closed 05:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC). The reason given for closure was: inactivity. Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request. The Request for Mediation template has been removed from this talk page. -- Jreferee 19:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Farrell

How can Colin Farrell play a Corporal in this movie? At the time of release, he would've been one year old. Bloodfyr 22:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a different Colin Farrell  :) Gnorn 22:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why does it link to the Colin Farrell that it does? 151.204.9.209 01:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you want to contribute ...

If you are looking to contribute to this article, review what links to this article and if any of that material is relevant to this article, add it. -- Jreferee 22:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)