Talk:Red Dawn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red Dawn 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.
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.

The page needs an update on the plot summary and can possibly have a character list.

Thank you (someone) for making this a proper entry.

Wasn't this movie banned in West Germany for its glorification of violence? Andries 08:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unofficially, there were other problems with the film in West Germany. The big one being that some groups would like the film because it parallels certain events in post 1945 germany. Nobody would want to create any wave of nostalgia for the postwar diehards who fought against the occupation. Its not that far (unforunately) word-wise from "Wolverine" to "Werewolf" either. The futile death of almost everyone at the end also sent the wrong message.

we are talking about pro west, west germany rigth? as i can see why in whould be Banned in east germanyJoeyjojo 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

While west germany was pro-west, the country was very sensitive to doing things that would deliberaly upset their communist neighbors. There was also lots of sensitivity in West Germany over anything that looked too militaristic and too right-wing because of the kind of people that stuff appeals to in the country.

Contents 1 Edits 2 Background 3 Soviet propaganda film? 4 Operation Red Dawn (film) 5 Expense 6 Iron Ego? 7 partisan vs. insurgent 8 Major Inaccuracies 9 Perceived Inaccuracies 10 Ludicrous in the extreme 11 Trivia 12 I always make fun of people who ask this 13 Map 14 Flag 15 Calumet 16 Fighter plane 17 Swedish Red Dawn 18 Did it make money? 19 Tomorrow, when the war began

[edit] Edits

New to Wikipedia, so forgive me for stepping where I shouldn't.

Was watching this movie on SpikeTV this evening and figured I would fix a few errors in this write-up. (Just changed Kansas City to Omaha and The Missouri River to the Mississippi River)

Wiki is phenominal by the way.

[edit] Background

Greetings. I edited the Background info. Someone had stated that the paratroopers at the beginning of the movie were "Elite Soviet Spetsnaz" & "Cuban Special Forces", however this is never implicitly stated in the movie. They were Soviet VDV (Soviet Airborne). A very good job was done of replicating the uniforms, weapons and headgear! Also, you see the VDV marking on most of the replicate VDV (BMD's, etc) vehicles throughout the film. Also the VDV in the opening were speaking Russian, and were not Cubans.

Spetsnaz are what were used to track down the Wolverines after they were betrayed from within. Spetsnaz are very specialized units that would not participate in large scale airborne assaults as the one depicted. Also, the Cubans have never had a viable Airborne element, they lack the training, and most importantly, the means. Hence if there were Cuban paras involved in the backstory, they would have had to create this branch of the Cuban Army from scratch, train, and then equip them with transport.

Cuban and Nicaraguan ground units, yes, elite Airborne forces, definitely would be left to the Soviets.

These are good points. In the context of this story, the Cubans could have infiltrated across the border with Mexico, instead of arriving by air. I realize the movie says that the Cuban Army's push north to link up with the Soviets was halted, but there is the possibility that the Cuban Colonel was sent ahead of the main force to take the passes in the town.

Most likely, it is a movie goof, but I suppose you could make it work. :-P

- grey ghost 22:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet propaganda film?

I remember reading somewhere that the plotline was inspired by a Soviet propaganda film depicting Soviet partisan resistance against the Nazis. Does anyone know more about this? GCarty 08:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. I can't prove it, but it does seem to be very similar to a Soviet partisan film. However, Milius has publicly stated he was inspired by the Mujahideen and that one of his goals was to show an American audience what it was like to be an Afghan under the Soviet occupation. Palm_Dogg 05:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• i can prove it im russian i actually remember that there was a film right after the Great Patriotic War where some teenagers in a Ukrainian town of Krasnodon fought the german army under largely the same circumstances and there are even plot similarities such as when one of the high school students in Red Dawn betrays all of them and is shot by one of the characters near the end, similar thing happens in the russian movie. the movie was called Molodaya gvardiya (young guards)(in russia elite armies are granted the title of guards)

[edit] Operation Red Dawn (film)

I was bold and merged the top couple of paragraphs of an article called Operation Red Dawn (film) with this one, then redirected. No sense in having two articles on the film, and the other one had the wrong name and doesn't add any detail. I added a couple of paragraphs at top, about gun control and about Operation Red Dawn, to this article; do with them what ye will. bikeable (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expense

This movie sounds very expensive, with all the fake vehicles and paradrops. Captain Jackson 18:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iron Ego?

Now, I have never heard the song in question, nor seen the lyrics, but that line, especially coupled with the mention of this movie, makes me wonder if the words aren't actually Iron Eagle. - SAMAS 23 March, 2006

• I have the album with the reference song, and the line is, indeed, "Iron Eagle." I changed them.

[edit] partisan vs. insurgent

I noticed in the history of edits that the references to the band of teenagers were changed to "insurgents." In a few cases, the former term was partisan. I'm not trying to dive in too deep here, but based on the definition of the two words, wouldn't partisan better describe the band?

For example:

• Partisan - n. - A member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; a guerrilla.

• Insurgent - n. - A person who rises in revolt against an established authority, especially a government.

taken from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

I guess it all depends on if you could classify the communist government in the movie as an "established authority" or if you consider the band as "members of an organized body of fighters."

- grey ghost 02:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If they were Iraqi, they'd be called terrorists...  :) "Fighters" would be a better term, as it doesn't describe a motive, just an action. Dave420 12:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Iraqis are only labeled as "terrorists" if they seek to kill a mass number of innocent bystanders and non-combatants where as if they strike military targets in a manner consistent with normal warfare, they are called "insurgents." The partisan rangers in this story do not target civilians in such a manner, so they are not terrorists. I agree with what you say about "fighters." -GreyGh0st 07:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Inaccuracies

This whole section is POV--somebody was offended by a besmirching of the Red Army, I guess--and is opinion. I deleted the most egregious comment but in my opinion the whole thing is offensively POV as it stands now. Rewrite or delete.--Buckboard 08:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It also has a strong whiff of original research about it. I think entirely remove it. As an aside, I find it incredible that such a minor film (and that's putting it gently) has such a long article - suspiciously fancrufty. --Plumbago 08:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. This film was hardly minor. It was a popular box office hit, possibly influential, and a good example of a pop culture tie-in with politics in the mid-1980s. Now if we had separate articles on every character in the film no matter how minor, and maybe an article on homoerotic overtones in Red Dawn and one on Red Dawn Democrats, now that would be fancrufty. 70.108.86.207 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll stop reading Wikipedia for the rest of the day. Nothing else is going to top this great comment by 70.108.86.207 and I might as well end on a high note. Brilliant comment! Johntex\^talk 20:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Entirely agree. You got me 70.108.86.207. Kudos dude. --Plumbago 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be difficult for a small band of teenagers, with very little training in military tactics, to be capable of subduing whole companies of professional Soviet soldiers, especially considering the Soviet Army had already overpowered the professional American military, unless of course they were wearing Viet Cong.

I'd like to comment on this, so that it might be edited. They don't defeat entire companies of Soviet Troops (e.g. 100-200 men groups). In the movie, they ambush supply convoys and take on platoon strength units. This is entirely possible for guerilla forces to do. Also, the Soviet troops being used to occupy Colorado are going to be the lower quality conscripts. The best soldiers, their elites, are either actively engaging the US military or are being kept in the Soviet Union. The Soviets were widely known for having large, low quality conscript armies.

[edit] Perceived Inaccuracies

This whole section should be taken out as it is POV Mirlin 04:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally. Clean it up or chuck it altogether. - grey ghost 22:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Though Red Dawn is a work of fiction, there are many aspects of the movie that are just not believable given the premise that the film takes on:

• There are many inaccuracies in translation from Russian to English. For instance, in one scene a Russian soldier yells "Help me, God!" in Russian, but the subtitles read "help me," but when the Russian soldier actually does yell "Help me!" the subtitles read "help me God!" It should also be noted that it is very unlikely that a conscript or officer in the Soviet Army would call for God since the USSR was officially an atheist state, and soldiers in the Red Army were indoctrinated as such.
• It would be difficult for a small band of teenagers, with very little training in military tactics, to be capable of subduing whole companies of professional Soviet soldiers.
• The idea that the Central American states could muster a force to invade the United States, much less form an alliance with the Soviet Union, is preposterous, considering that that region was embroiled in civil war and instability at the time and was under heavy influence by the United States.
• The conscript ensign on the hats of the Russian regulars is inaccurate.
• The Soviet Paratroopers' camouflage pattern is inaccurate.
• The Soviet Hinds were in fact French-made Puma transport helicopters.
• One of the American tanks (supposedly an M-1 Abrams) is in fact a British Centurion.
• In the movie, Soviet soldiers were seen using the AKM automatic rifle (the modernised version of the famous AK-47 rifle), although the Soviet army had officially switched over to the AK-74 (an AKM rechambered in 5.45x39mm rather than 7.62x39mm) in 1974, roughly 10 years before the movie takes place. This is somewhat expected, as most movies show "enemies" using the AK-47 or any Kalashnikov-type rifle.
• In the scene downtown shortly after the Soviets had gained a foothold, Russians are seen massacring the populace, and when one US attack helicopter comes, it causes massive casualties while remaining unscathed from large amounts of anti-air fire.

Remember this is a hypothetical reality; maybe they never made the AK74... Also Central America probably wasn't in the same state it really was. Nicht Nein! 18:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ludicrous in the extreme

If ever evidence was needed of the delusional paranoia of the Right-wing in the USA this film is surely it. The USA has not been invaded since 1812 and has the strongest armed forces in the world. The idea of the Soviet Union invading the USA was laughable when this film was made. Now of course the concept of anyone invading the USA has become an idea that even lunatics would scoff at. Those 12 million Cubans and 5 million Nicaraguans, yeah really frightening to a nation of some 280 million.SmokeyTheFatCat 22:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Check your facts again - US territory was invaded during World War II. Johntex\^talk 08:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I suggest you don't watch Star Wars. I've been told there are some pretty unscientific and unrealistic things shown in those movies. Some argue it's just a movie, but I think we can all agree that doesn't hold water. AS 20:30, 13 Aug 2006 (CET)

Star Wars is set in an obvious fictional world. As a fantasy story, at best only metaphors can possibly be drawn from it. Red Dawn on the other hand, there has been some speculation, however wild it may sound, that it was made to get American youth excited to join the army for a possible invasion of Nicaragua if Reagan's terrorist war didn't work and congress didn't cut off the funding. 12:23, 10, Nov 2006 (CET)

Don't forget we didn't land on the moon and aliens landed at Roswell... -GreyGh0st 06:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the 4.1 million Japanese troops that invaded China (population of approx 1 billion in 1935) and held its entire coast from 1937 to 1945 was frightening. If you think the overall point of this movie is "delusional paranoia of the right-wing in the USA" then you have missed the point. The point is war sucks. Avoid it. As for the idea of a Communist invasion, that happened to be the most likely scenario at the time, and the writer and director pulled the setting from real events that were happening in Afghanistan and past events in almost every war. To fully appreciate this movie, you have to put aside politics and try and see through the cheezy 1980's action film making. -grey ghost 00:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's most definitely not a right-wing circle-jerk movie. It shows why people fight against invaders, something the US has been quite regularly since the end of WWII, and it shows it in a light that right-wingers and left-wingers can understand. As Greygh0st says, it's an anti-war film. Even the invaders realise it's bullshit, and the kids get creamed.

Given this movie's alleged right-wing overtones, perhaps some mention should be made of the fact that John Milius considers himself an anarchist.

1. Population of China in 1935 was 500 million (not a billion) population of japan was 80 million. Not to mention that China was in the middle of civil war at the time. comapre to Nicaragua/Cuba 14 million, USA 270 million or so. Japan vs China is 1:6 ration. Nicaragua/CUba vs USA is a 1:19 ratio.

2. It is impossible for Nicaragua 4 million in the 80's to field an army of 500,000. It is nearly impossible for Cuba pop less than 10 million in the 80's to field an army of 500,000.16:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My point was the size of the Japanese force, not the overall population of the two countries. The Chinese population in 1935 was hard for me to nail down, but the contrast from 500 million being held at bay by 4.1 million is still valid. -GreyGh0st 18:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember this is a hypothetical reality... And saying that it is imposable to raise an army that large is ludicrous and extreme. Nicht Nein! 18:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoken like someone who has no idea on what it takes to raise an army. From the CIA factbook of 1989 on Nicaragua

http://www.theodora.com/wfb1989/nicaragua/nicaragua_military.html

a maximum of 472,452 males age 15-49 fit for military service. But if you take every fit male you are going to wreck your economy (communist or capitalist)

There is no way a nation of 3.5 million can raise and support an army of 500,000. You have to eliminate population above 50 and below 16.Minus the disabled.Taking cultural consideration you'd also have relatively few women. and you have to retain enough young men to keep the economy (industry and agriculture) going. Xerex 16:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical-Reality... Nicht Nein! 18:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So u admit that your previous statement about "ludicrous and extreme" was wrong? Hypothetical does not equal fantasy. If Red Dawn is a hypothesis it is a false hypothesis. Xerex 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No; just that it encompasses the whole world. The Central American countries portrayed might have had a lot of births in the years before, or imported their Army from other countries. Maybe even imported a workforce; there are many possibilities and not recognizing that is "ludicrous and extreme". Nicht Nein! 01:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe we could just point out, as a work of fiction, this story's time frame is uncertain. All I remember to date the events in the movie is something about "late 20th century" at the end. Perhaps the countries had greater populations at the time of the movie like "Nicht Nein!" points out. -GreyGh0st 18:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I could just jump right in and point out that the overall plausibility of this invading force is somewhat realistic because up to this point, everyone has been whining about the Central American component and they have totally disregarded the Soviet forces that pushed into the country as well... certainly they would have been the larger force. However, since someone will obviously nit-pick at that notion as well, I'll just point out you are all throwing around numbers and getting worked up over a movie.... and on top of that, a movie from the 1980s. I have to admit though, arguing is fun. -GreyGh0st 18:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I like you GreyGh0st... Nicht Nein! 19:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This may just be a movie, but it's a movie set in the real world, demonstrating what might sound like a realistic scenario to an uninformed person, during the hottest point of the Cold War since the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Reagan-Era buildup was one of extremely high tensions, and there was also a lot of controversy over US support for right-wing dictatorships in Latin America. Those regimes, while anti-communist, were also often responsible for horrific crimes against their own people (the Dirty War for example, or look at Pinochet's rule). There was often direct CIA involvment involving proxy armies and US-sponsored coups based soley on the precept that communism creeping into South America was a threat to America. Of course, this was all a fantasy--the USSR gave little more than moral support to most of the marxist or communist-style guerilla movements in Latin America. It doesn't take much of an understanding of Latin American history to know that these Latin American groups were more nationalist than communist, and they rarely if ever wanted to copy the Soviet model. They wanted their own brand of communism, and they didn't want to trade one hegemon for another. But Cold War paranoia meant that there was no such thing as "pink". Thus, while yes this is just a movie, there is also a legitimate line of criticism for the plot as both being ludacris in realistic geopolitical-historical terms as well as serving to justify US L.A. policies of the day (the Contra War for example). It would follow that there should be a criticism section in the article which would express this popular criticism of a percieved implausible plot. Most other "political" or "controversial" movies have considerable space given to "controversy", so why should this be different? It's only fair to let a legitimate critical argument be made. After all, sometimes movies can have explicit political agendas (for example: Rambo III was made during the Reagan years during US Support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan while the administration was preaching the morality of 'helping' the Afghan people, we all know how that eventually turned out). So it's important to consider the effect of a cinematic experience in context of the political background on the public consciousness. To criticize a plot for being alarmist in nature, or for being implausible while also carrying an emotionally-based political message is not off the table, is it? Thelastemperor 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's all just theoretical until someone brings sources. Find some reliable sources that talk about this angle and then it is worth discussing. Until then, let's not turn this Talk page into a discussion forum. Johntex\^talk 05:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

A lot of the trivia was more just pop culture references so I moved it. It does seem like the trivia section is too big, and some of it is repetitive, but a lot of it was interesting was well. What is not interesting is noting every time some lame sitcom/band mentions Red Dawn in passing. While those entries should probably just be removed, it seemed like a lot to delete.

SIGN YOUR POSTS USING ~~~~ thanks Travb (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I always make fun of people who ask this

I always make fun of people who ask questions on wikipages, User:Travb/If I had a nickel

But out of desperation, here I go. I can't find an article that talks about Patrick Swayze being the worst actor and being responsible for the worst movies of all time, including Red Dawn, anyone read this article, if so were did you read it at? Please message me on my talk page if you have, because I am not going to watch this page. I will then track down this article and post it offline for all to read. Sounds good? Travb (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

The map doesn't seem to accurately portray the Soviet invasion on US soil. Please compare the red-colored areas on the map with the textual description. Hugo Dufort 21:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you plese be a bit more specific? I looked at the map and the text and they seem similar to me. I was thrown of by the little red dots at first, but if you click all the way to the image page, there is a key which explains these are approximate sites of nuclear strikes. Perhaps we need to actually include the key in the article alongside the pciture. Is there something specific that does not seem to match up for you between the map and the text? Johntex\^talk 22:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that there is a mistake on the map regarding Mongolia. In the map it is red and depicted as either part of the U.S.S.R or one of its allies, yet in both real life or in the film Mongolia has never been part of the Soviet Union, or been in an alliance with them. The Architect 01 19:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Mongolia was part of Comecon and so was at least somewhat associated with the Soviet Union. Secondly, someone needs to take a serious look at the map and watch the film, and decide which areas of the USA should be coloured red (I think many more than there currently are). Clearly the map is inaccurate because if Denver is under siege and the Soviets have almost complete control of Colorado, then I believe they must have had control of the surrounding states also or at least New Mexico and Oklahoma (if they don't have control of Oklahoma then they must have magically jumped over part of it and attacked Colorado instead). Cuba probably also took Florida but there's no way to prove it. Maybe states of unknown status should be striped blue and red to show that they could have been either under American or Soviet control, or the best possible estimate could be used to colour the correct places. Either way someone needs to watch the film and re-evaluate which states should be red. -- Anonymous, December 1 2006

Alright, you're correct man, I checked and Mongolia was part of the Comecon, my bad. But since Mongolia was put on the map, all of the Comecon Countries should be included. The Architect 01 17:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag

I really like that you are contributing to the page, but I don't remember seeing this flag anywhere in the movie... if I'm wrong, just tell me where it was in the movie, and I'll move it back to the page. GreyGh0st 23:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• This flag was first introduced in a parade in the main town in Red Dawn. It was the flag of the occupied zone (in the usa), which was controled by the Soviet and Cuban armies. This flag was fixed on a staff, shown at a parade, and given to citizens with the Cuban and Soviet flags. This is the only time this flag was shown. www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/fic_redd.html (13:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Calumet

It mentions in the trivia that Calumet was an actual town in Colorado. However I can find nothing on Google about it. Was there really a town there or is this a rumor? -WarthogDemon 01:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a ghost town.

[edit] Fighter plane

Hello, at various times, this article has claimed that Lt. Col. Andrew Tanner was either an F-15 pilot or a F-111 pilot. We don't seem to have a reference that would support one being correct over the other. Therefore, I am going to change the references to read simply "fighter plane" or "fighter pilot". That way we are safe. Johntex\^talk 18:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No man, in the movie right after Erica finds Tanner and brings him to the camp one of the boys asks what kind of plane he flew and he says, "Well I did fly an F-15. (Tears off patch from shoulder) Here, I'm an Eagle driver." An Eagle is code for the F-15. Change it back man! The Architect 01 17:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that verifies this? A link to a full movie transcript, perhaps? Johntex\^talk 18:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at the moment, I'll look for one, but I've watched the movie a thousand times and I can GUARANTEE that Tanner flew an F-15. The Architect 01 16:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll post-pone making the change for now, to allow others to comment and/or find a source (which would be ideal). Johntex\^talk 17:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to find a script of the movie later, but he definitely says he's an F-15 pilot... I think he tells Jed "I'm an Eagle driver." There is an F-111 in the film, on a bombing run in the scene where Tanner was killed, but Tanner never says that he piloted one. Zaku^Talk 00:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have this movie on DVD, seen it many times on TV as well; he does say he is an "Eagle driver", and the F15 is this Eagle. Nicht Nein! 07:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish Red Dawn

I guess this theme of foreign invasion ain't just for countries that like invading other countries. Apparently there’s a Swedish novel that involves a Soviet invasion of that country sometime during the Cold War (ostensibly as part of a wider NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation). The only details I know about it is mention of Russian aircraft bombing the highways as the military and civilians attempt to withdraw from Stockholm. Anyone know about this book?74.36.192.6 03:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did it make money?

I google box office and got 38 million but no production cost. Did it make money, is the studio get money when its on Spike monthly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.44 (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Tomorrow, when the war began

There should be some mention of the Australian series of novels, Tomorrow when the war began which took its premise directly from the film: a foreign enemy lands in a small town and a group of teen rebels fight for their lives (and the lives of their families). I seem to recall it being on this page, I don't know why it was removed. McDanger 09:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)