Talk:Black Hawk Down

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black Hawk Down 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

	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.
B This article has been rated as B-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.

Contents 1 Image 2 West Point Claim 3 Criticisms POV 4 Copyright violation 5 Unneded repetitions 6 Cast 7 Controversies and inaccuracies section 8 Information that needs to be added. 9 Controversies 10 Somalis in the film 11 Khat 12 "Absence of Somalis" and other Controversies 13 Eversmann's 14 Ioan Gruffudd Cameo 15 Pakistani Involvement 16 Box office

[edit] Image

I changed the image to one relating to the film. Saopaulo1 18:38, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] West Point Claim

As I said before, my brother is a Lieutenant with the 3rd ID and graduated from West Point last May. He assures me that this book IS NOT required reading by cadets at the academy, regardless of whether they choose infantry or not. If is an assigned book, he said, in one or two courses but not a required book of reading by the whole or even a substantial portion of the cadet corps. Students who elect to take a certain course are asked to read the book and provide a synopsis of the situations overall influence on modern day urban warfare. Stating that the book is "required reading at West Point" is misleading and incorrect. If you can find a source somewhere that disputes the above...then repost the trivia item with the source. Until it can be reputably sourced, it shouldn't be included here. 4.224.162.170 20:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's your source:[1] It's considered required reading for infantry branched firsties. It doesn't really matter what your brother says, when it can be sourced. Just saying it's not so because your brother says so is not verifiable as per WP:V.

No no no, you see...that's not a source that says its required reading. Follow these steps and you'll see how this is NOT a source that says it's required reading. http://gradstore.west-point.org/ click that link.

Next you'll see on the left a link that says "Books reccomended by Graduates to New Officers" click on that.

Next you'll see a letter from the Amazon.com staff stating that the following lists are compliations of books that THEY feel will make a good library collection for graduating cadets.

Click list "9" and you'll be linked to the page that you sent me.

This is not a West Point reading list...this is an Amazon.com reading list that was compiled as "books that will form a great library for officers." Additionally, a quick google search for "West Point+Required Reading List" brings the very same list that says "The various titles on the list also complement each other and the required reading found in the formal study of the officer and enlisted schools" Not that these books are the required reading, but that they compliment the required reading at the varios schools.Batman2005 06:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine, delete the edit, must have misread it. I still say it's required reading, based off first hand reports from multiple infantry officers who graduated the point that I'm close with, but since that's original research, it can't be used here. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms POV

"The film neglects the wider political context in which the battle took place thereby reducing it to a simple story of good vs evil.The truth is more complex."

This seems fairly POV. I haven't seen the film, but I'm pretty sure it was meant to be from the soldier's perspective, where political context wasn't a huge deal. We shouldn't have that in here at all unless a reviewer has said it somewhere. -LtNOWIS 03:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation

The following text in the article also appears on the imdb page for this movie:

The massive shoot of the "target building insert" sequence was intended to be among the first sequences shot in principal photography, due to its complex nature. However, negotiations to borrow four Black Hawk helicopters from the United States military were so arduous that an agreement was not reached until a month after shooting had commenced. Director Ridley Scott had prepared a rental of four Hueys from Germany that were ready to be painted black and work as substitutes in the event an agreement with the US Department of Defense could not be reached. Fortunately, the US Government was eventually satisfied that the film would portray the incident in a positive light, and shipped the helicopters to the location in two C-5 Galaxy transports. Ridley Scott says this was very fortunate for the film, since the title is "Black Hawk Down" and Hueys have no resemblance to Black Hawks.

[edit] Unneded repetitions

The Making of the film section unnecessarily repeats many of the points from the Trivia section. Should the "making of" be deleted and merged with trivia? --Mikael Grizzly

No. It should be the other way around. Ideally, wikipedia articles should not contain Trivia sections. ~ Flooch 12:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cast

• Tom Hardy - SPC. Lance Twombly (as Thomas Hardy)
• Tom Guiry - SSG. Ed Yurek (as Thomas Guiry)

why leave this ("as Thomas...") on the page ?Rob1bureau

[edit] Controversies and inaccuracies section

Some of the paragraphs seem to be either misinterpritations, or need fact sources. Some we're either creative liberties I'm sure, or someone's own belife of X matter. Despite factual problems it's also very POV oriented.

--ShortShadow 02:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Have previous editors seem the same film that I did? Some critics view the film as blatant propaganda on behalf of the US, or favoring military intervention in general (although the film and book clearly depict the intervention as basically humanitarian and military intervention without sufficient force as a disaster in the making). - oh boy, that's so POV that it hurts. I saw the movie; it is propaganda of the US Armed Forces and has no evidence at all of "basically humanitarian" acts or intents. It does show us things (quite literally) through the POV of the American soldiers and therefore does indeed make an appeal for more military force in said interventions. However, it does fail entirely in even attempting to show us that a "disaster" would follow from the alternatives; if anything it is evidence that military intervention may very well be by definition a disaster in and of itself. Luis Dantas 14:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the section could use some clearing up. I am happy to work with anyone on it. As far as your comments go... The whole plot is that US forces are in the area to help distribute aid and Aidid's militia wants to stop US forces so Aidid can have all the power and food. How is that not evidence of "basically humanitarian" intent? It's not a rhetorical question, I just think I don't fully understand your issue with the article.Monkeyman334 17:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My issues have much more with the movie plot itself, actually. It works under the assumption that superior firepower is a need for overcoming such militias, which I find rather naive and misleading. To the best of my understanding such displays of firepower only manage to make the other side all the more ruthless and desperate in its attempts to acquire comparable advantages. It is very hard indeed to see such juggernaut forces as "humanitarian aid"; their first and foremost effect is to intimidate and create panic. And that panic hinders any moral brakes that people may have. Luis Dantas 06:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. That the problem wasn't necessarily lack of force. That there were other ways to solve the problem then blowing stuff up (and when that fails, blowing more stuff up). However, I think the plot and the article don't contradict that. The problem claimed in the movie and the article is the US decided to use force, but didn't use enough to handle situations when they got bad. The problem could have been solved without force, but if we commit forces, we need to commit enough to really get the job done.Monkeyman334 18:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information that needs to be added.

I am not so good at the whole editing thing, but I have some information that needs to be added to this article. The helicopters (and soldiers flying them) were from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne). I looked all over the place, but this didn't seem to be included anywhere. In fact, the only divisions mentioned were the ones that were involved in the rescue. I would appreciate it someone a little more technologically savvy would add this to the article!

It's in there already.

The Directors enlisted the help of the US Army, and all Black Hawks and Little Birds used during the filming were from the 160th SOAR, (Special Operations Aviation Regiment) and most of the pilots were involved in the actual battle on 3/4 October 1993.

--Habap 20:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw that it was already in the article, but more attention should be paid this fact than to mention it in the production notes.

Why should it be emphasized more? How could it be emphasized more? Where would you put it? Keep in mind that you can also edit the article as you see fit. --Habap 18:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Aaah, valid point. I am in the infancy of my WikiEditing, and am not sure exactly how it should be changed. My point in posting this here was only a suggestion, to be followed through by someone a little more knowledgeable in both the correct format for the appriate edit, and in the actual subject itself. Lawilkin 17:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, welcome aboard. Always good to have a new editor. If you have an interest in military history, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. The folks on the project try to work together to improve military history articles (and create new ones!) Feel free to ask questions of anyone on the team. I'm also willing to provide personal assistance as needed. I've only been on for a year, so am vaguely new myself.

In regards to where it could go.... I can't see including that in the opening paragraph, or the section on Plot or Controversies and inaccuracies, which puts us at... Background and production, where it is. So, I'm stuck as to how we would emphasize it more.

The bigger question for me is why emphasize it more? It doesn't determine whether one can understand the movie or the real story behind the movie. This is not to deny their valor or importance in that operation or others, but in reference to the movie, it's not a major piece of information. --Habap 18:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about its relevance to the movie. After a little research and a little "epiphany" of common sense, I realized that there is an actual article devoted to the Battle of Mogadishu. Which leads me to another concern: is it necessary to include an entire history on this movie page of the events in the battle when there is already a page of the actual events? Should these things be included in the movie article? Because it is possible that information relavent to the movie may be added to the page for the battle but not the movie page, thereby leaving the movie page not as accurate. I guess this might just be food for thought, or it is an issue that should be addressed if it hasn't been already! Lawilkin 20:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies

The film also portrays the delays in the rescue mobilization of UN forces as stemming at least in part from spite on the part of those forces at not being informed about the mission, suggesting they were willing to let US soldiers die for petty politics. Bowden's book can be interpreted as arguing that the delay was more due to inadequate contingency planning on the part of all parties involved.

My understanding (don't have references, sorry) is the film conveys the idea that it was petty politics quite strongly. But the reality of the situation was it was largely because the Americans decided to heard of on a mission without properly telling anyone. You can't blame the Pakistanis and Malaysias for not doing proper contigency planning when they weren't properly informed of the plans. How would the Pakistanis and Malaysians (and perhaps US 10 Mountain divison?) be expected to do contigency planning when they weren't informed of what the plans were? It would seem to me that it's common sense if you people to be able to quickly respond when the shit hits the fan, you need to tell them what your planning and hopefully work through a contingency plan beforehand not suddenly given them a call later and tell them your in deep shit and need their help and expect them to come up with a plan in 1 minute. Given the lack of this consultation and planning, my understanding is the Malaysian, Pakistanis and others had to spend time coming up with the rescue mission rather then implementing a pre-existing contigency plan as would occur in an ideal situation. Presemuably, heading off like cowboys (like the earlier US mission perhaps did) was more likely to result in another blood bath so they spent the time to come up with a well planed rescue mission which they apparently implemented with a resonable degree of success Nil Einne 19:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that simply wasn't the case, and that is extremly POV, and very factually questionable. For starters the it's highly unlikely the 10th Mt. Devision was alreday on standby, it's very costly and expensive to contiously be in that state. The idea of that scene was to convey because they weren't informed about the raid, they weren't ready to go out that quickly, and that they needed time to assemble and get ready. It never was about conveying polotics, both Bowden and Nolan stated that in the DVD commentary. Secondly, everything you are saying you are saying in hindsight. Obviously now they would have some sort of back-up plan, but you have no proof with you that there was a back up plan. The raid was expected to last only 30 minutes they would get in and get out. Not to mention these are some of the most well trained soldiers in the United States. It was unlikely they would anticipate disaster because it never happend before. --ShortShadow 17:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somalis in the film

The recent addition on the lack of Somalis in the film is interesting, but I'm not sure what should go into the article about it. I can imagine it would have been rather difficult to get enough actual Somalis to serve as extras without going to Somalia. I'm not sure that would have been possible, even if the Somalis aren't the faceless bad guys of the film. Some things might have been done to humanize them, but it was based on the book, which I imagine didn't draw on extensive interviews of Somalis who participated in the battle. --Habap 04:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The film has a very American point-of-view, depicting Somalis as anonymous enemies or "zombies". This was clearly evident in the original "spoiler", that was de-POVed a year ago. This was a serious mistake. We should restore the original tone of the spoiler, with its description of "American heroism". -- Petri Krohn 00:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Khat

I removed some info regarding the "omission" of khat involvement from the film. Actually, Tom Sizemore's character briefly mentions khat being used and at the time when it is already afternoon. He says this soon after the mission briefing and when he is asked 'what's the matter'.ResurgamII 01:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.Monkeyman334 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Absence of Somalis" and other Controversies

• There was only one actor in the movie that was actually Somali, the other actors were not nor did they resemble Somalis and the basic Somali linguistics were missing

^ Whoever added that gave a misleading IMDB.com source which was only a list of the cast/crew of the film. Identifying who's actually Somali from that source is beyond me, unless you're relying on the sounds of the names (to find out the nationality).

I've watched the "On the Set" special features of the Black Hawk Down DVD, and the extras who play Somalis are only labeled as extras, nothing more. Unless this very short section of claims, especially the 'linguistics part' which is original research, can be verified it should be removed immediately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ResurgamII (talk • contribs) 04:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC).ResurgamII 04:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't why someone would expect extras to actually be the people they are playing. I heard the Ben-Hur extras weren't actually Romans...Monkeyman334 18:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Monkeyman334. I'll remove it as it is a totally pointless section without verification. Anyone who disagrees discuss it here please. ResurgamII 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Some critics view the film as blatant propaganda on behalf of the US, or favoring military intervention in general (although the film and book clearly depict the intervention as basically humanitarian and military intervention without sufficient force as a disaster in the making). Unlike Scott's earlier film G.I. Jane, Black Hawk Down received the full cooperation of the US military and he allowed the military a veto over every aspect of the film in order to receive this level of military involvement. Some argue that this resulted in a biased finished product, although it is not clear whether the U.S. military asked Scott to modify or censor the film in any way and the military hierarchy and political decision-making process are not portrayed in a positive light.

^ Not a big deal, but weasel words([2]) should be cleaned up. ResurgamII 18:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eversmann's

The paragraph that starts "The film also takes creative license when it comes to Sgt. Eversmann's role in the battle" is more of a typical change made in order to make the movie better, and wasn't a part of "propaganda" nor was it a controversial change (the paragraph doesn't claim it is either) could the paragraph be moved to the production notes or some more appropriate place? Monkeyman334 16:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes please. More weasel wording there. ResurgamII 01:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ioan Gruffudd Cameo

I watched this film at least five times (including extended version), still have no idea where he appears.--Mato Rei 17:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

He plays Lt. Beales, the guy who has the epileptic seizure. ResurgamII 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, now you remind me of the character. A little bit hard to recognize him without moustache, huh? Thank you. --Mato Rei 05:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistani Involvement

Pakistanis may have been accurately represented for their role as US-soldier rescurers, but Pakistan was leading military involvement there before the US even showed up. So I think the comment there is appropriate, no movie was every made about them. Monkeyman334 14:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Box office

Article stated that the movie ranked 154th on its opening day (possibly true, the dollar amount is correct, it was only on four screen on opening day.) For its first weekend of wide release it made $28M USD, but this only places it at 24th in box office for the weekend? What were the other 23 films being screen in theatres that weekend (for a minimum US box office total of $644 million in that weekend) Or is that for the year? Or is that a comparision of opening weekends? I'm not up to tracking down the info, so I trimmed it down to just dollar amounts and if someone else wants to get the right citations, please do. Zotdragon 19:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)