# Talk:War Horse (film)

Like 'Wonder Woman', this film gives a false impression of the German army in WWI. In fact, a total of only 18 German soldiers were shot for desertion, a very low number compared to other armies (French Army: 600, British Army: 300, Italian Army > 1000)
https://greatwar.nl/frames/default-shotatdawn.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by XeniaBW (talk • contribs) 12:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC) 

As described here, the charity tends to centenarian horses. A better description is needed. Also, the unsourced "controversy" section refers to an unusual edit of the film, apparently seen by only a few; is this really controversy?  Regardless, it needs a source, especially since its assertion that the full running tiime of the film after the outbreak of war is devoted to gore is pretty absurd. 
All I could find on the web to support this is at Andrew Breitbart's bullshit site:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/12/23/daily-call-sheet-war-horse-warning-extremely-loud-savaging-and-merry-christmas/

Bustter (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This has really confused me - does anyone know the reason why?  Spielberg was its guest editor a little while ago and clearly has a close relationship with the magazine as he regularly gives it exclusives (such as the first showing of the Tintin photographs). Yet there has been only a very few mentiosn of War Horse in its online version and absolutely nada, diddly squat, nothing, zero, zilch in the print version. The February 2011 print issue with the 'Essential 2011 Preview' didn't even mention it - and it covered the '108 biggest cine-treats of the next 12 months'. Considering Spielberg was filming in the UK for 3 months last year they would have had plenty of chances for access to him and the film set - so why nothing?  Does anyone know? 81.156.126.181 (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably to do with the studio's publicity campaign, withholding information until near to the release date, to build anticipation.  It finally gets an article in Empire including an interview with Spielberg and an account of an on-set visit, in the December 2011 issue (published 26 October 2011): Ian Freer "Spielberg Special Part Two: War Horse", Empire: 100-106. There's a couple of new photos in there too. Stronach (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've done some work on the chronology of the development of the film.  Accounts seem to differ about when the film rights were bought, before or after Spielberg saw the play etc; how soon after being told about the film by Kathleen Marshall Spielberg went to see the play in London and so on. From the wording of the press release when DreamWorks bought the film rights in Dec 2009, it seems Spielberg hadn't seen the play at that point, just read the book.
I'd like to include the following but can't find good sources: apparently when Spielberg visited USC on 4 November 2009 to talk to a class of film studies students ref here, the professor, Drew Casper told him about War Horse, which Spielberg at that point hadn't heard of.  So is the DreamWorks account that Marshall introduced Spielberg to the work slightly off?
Three blog comments on the matter:

"In regards to War Horse– this potentially epic adaptation comes from one source… Dr. Drew Casper at USC cinema. About five months ago Spielberg came to USC to speak at Dr. Casper’s very own and highly anticipated Spielberg class which was entirely devoted to the study of his body of work. The last class of the semester, Spielberg actually came in and I was invited as a guest for the event. I can still remember sitting in the back of the room and watching Casper beg and plead for Spielberg to see War Horse the next time he was in London saying, “The whole time I was watching it I kept thinking to myself, ‘Spielberg, Spielberg, Spielberg! He has to do this!’”After the speech, Spielberg did say he was going to look into it…pretty incredible that nearly five months later its already been acquired by DreamWorks and in development. kind of amazing…" Posted March 2010
and

"I'm a student at USC, and every time one of our professors, Drew Casper, teaches the class on Spielberg, SS comes down for a Q&A with the class. I was in attendance the last time this happened, back in November. During the course of the Q&A, Professor Casper asked SS if he'd ever heard of a novel called War Horse; he hadn't. Professor Casper then mentioned that he felt it would be good material for SS to adapt, and that was all that was really said about it." Posted May 2010
and 

"Fun story: Last semester, I took the course on Steven Spielberg here at USC. Prof. Drew Casper, excitedly told us after returning from a week long trip to Europe, that “War Horse” just HAD to be Spielberg’s next project; it had so many of his favorite themes. When Spielberg came to class Dr. Casper proceeded to explain the story to him, and Spielberg said in front of the entire class that he would look into it. Lo and behold…" Posted May 2010 by Nick Kostopolous
Stronach (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A blog entry by a student present at the Q&A with Spielberg, which describes Casper mentioning War Horse to Spielberg:
"One other very cool moment is a tip of the cap to Casper who told Spielberg about a play he'd seen in London called "War Horse." S.S. said he's been meaning to see it. Casper said "I expect 'War Horse' will be your next big live-action feature." The crowd laughed and cheered - we'd heard this before. Spielberg said he'd have to check it out. This was fall of 2009. WAR HORSE, directed by Steven Spielberg, opens everywhere this Christmas." Posted 9 September 2011 by Mark J Kiosin.
Stronach (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

In this article in Vanity Fair (September 2011), Spielberg says 'I heard about it from several people.' Stronach (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If this play screamed "Spielberg!" in the prof's ear, why should it surprise anyone that other, closer associates of the man may have perceived it similarly? The Prof may have been the first to urge him to see it, but it seems much more likely that he would see it on the recommendation of his close associates, not due to the prof's endorsement. Bustter (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Holy smoke, some War Horse fans have info-dumped everything they can gather on an unreleased film.  I submit, say, 90% of this content for deletion.  Anyone with me?
- Darkhawk  —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC). 

No. Full, detailed articles for big name films are not unusual (War Horse is being tipped by critics to be this year's Best Picture Oscar winner - see the very detailed page for last year's winner).  It's a paperless encyclopaedia, so why not have lots of information? Stronach (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Then again, in the case of Information Overload, does not more often mean less and less mean more (understanding)? 2A00:23CC:E914:E801:8148:DF7B:4A45:ACBE (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

In case they won't allow the link in the article because it's on facebook, here's the link to the interview in which Spielberg talks about his ambivalnce about cutting digitally on Avid - his first time of digital editing [1]. Stronach (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Another house used for filming, though not sure which one yet (possibly Grandfather and Emilie's house interiors?) [2] [3]
Also am trying to track down the post windmill used in some scenes. Will add to the article when have good refs. Stronach (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Fun blog entry on a publicity weekend for reviewers of War Horse in the UK here. Stronach (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's been taken down.  Interesting.  I wonder if Mr Ultraculture got leaned on by DreamWorks/Disney?  It wasn't an embargo-busting review - basically the blog entry was a photo diary about the weekend trip paid for by Disney taking a coachload of journos to Castle Combe to see the location, learn about horses, have lunch with Michael Morpurgo and stay in a swanky hotel. An interesting insight into the freebies offered to reviewers ... Stronach (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hoho, he says on Twitter it was his first ever press trip.  Something tells me it might well be his last too ... Stronach (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

For example, the word "charger" on this page links to this article, which obviously isn't correct.  Not sure if this is an issue for that article or this one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.136.118 (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC) 

I'll go fix it.  There is a "war horse" dab out there too, feel free to put a heads up on my user page of any other improper "war horse" links, or go to the dab where it can be sorted.  Montanabw(talk) 07:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The soundtrack by John Williams is still missing ;-) --Sofffie7 (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The DVD and Blu-ray release has been announced, and I was thinking of updating the article to include a more detailed explanation:

The film will be released on Blu-ray, DVD, and digital download on April 3, 2012. The release will be produced in three different physical packages: a 4-disc combo pack (2-disc Blu-ray, DVD, and Digital Copy); a 2-disc combo pack (Blu-ray and DVD); and a 1-disc DVD. The film will also be released digitally in high definition and standard definition. The 1-disc DVD comes with the bonus feature "'War Horse': The Look" and the digital versions come with "An Extra's Point of View." The 2-disc combo pack includes "'War Horse': The Look" and "An Extra's Point of View" bonus features. The 4-disc combo pack comes with the same extras as the 2-disc combo pack, as well as "A Filmmaking Journey," "Editing & Scoring," "The Sounds of 'War Horse,'" and "Through the Producer's Lens" bonus features.
Source:
http://www.movieweb.com/news/war-horse-blu-ray-and-dvd-arrive-april-3rd
Does this sound good? I did some work on this film, and given Wikipedia's policy of COI, I want to see if anyone has suggestions before I make the changes. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be a bit of an ambiguity in the lead. The lead claims its an American film but the info box says United Kingdom. Which is it or is it both? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've seen the movie more than once, and I was under the impression that the French girl died, off-screen during the war. It been put forth by a contributor that she is in fact alive. As plot summaries are a consensually agreed-upon reality, I guess we should discuss it. Cited proof always carries more weight in these discussions, so keep that in mind when posting  your comments. I'm not at home, and so am unable to cue up my copy to the relevant bit at the end during the exchange between her grandfather and the kid. I will later, if it should become necessary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

From the film:
(2:11:31) Colin: "Where is your granddaughter?"
(2:11:33) Grandfather: "The war has taken everything, everyone from me. He is all I have left of her."
and
(2:14:26): Grandfather: "No no no, not necessary. He belongs to you. It is of course what my little girl would have wanted…Her name was Emilie."
Of course, Emilie could have run off to be a groupie with the Rolling Stones or something (they seem to be that old, anyway), but the old man speaks of her in the past tense and with sadness. To me, that seems eminently convincing that she has shaken off the mortal coil. It is worth noting that one of the titles in the soundtrack is entitled, "Remembering Emilie." She hasn't gone on holiday, she has left. Period.
In the book, Emilie has died (1), and it has been noted in several reviews how faithfully Spielberg was to the source material.
More importantly for us, at least one reviewer said as much, explicitly (2). I could go on, but why do I need to? The matter seems quite clear. I would ask that the contributor self-revert the material they added, and remove the ambiguity. Or we can revert it out for them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
So, two days have gone by without a peep from the opposing editor, either here or when I left a message on their user talk page. So I consider due diligence and patience to have been served. I'll be reverting it back to the way it was before the issue was raised. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I know this is only a small part in the film but it is a lovley moment & he is a respected actor who apeard on DE Wiki.  As I am not as gifted an editor as most, can somone please link to his page ?
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinnerk_Sch%C3%B6nemann
hey 3hats up normally I find plays boring but this play was wow factor! girl age 9  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.128.239 (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC) 

Not one of the production companies are British. Most are American and one appears to be Indian. The screen writers are British but that's about it from what I can tell. JOJ Hutton 23:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a good question, and I've posed it to the peeps at Wikiproject Film, here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Per the BFI database, it's a USA/India production.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Someone re-added British and I removed it, since UK is not mentioned here. I wonder why the film is not listed as Indian, even though the country and Reliance Entertainment are mentioned in the source. Kailash29792 (talk)  07:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

In the section about the book it says that out of 1 million UK horses sent to the continent, only 62,000 returned. It seems relatively few died a "hero's death" and that most were slaughtered in France and Belgium for meat. Since horse eating in these countries is nothing exceptional, why should it be mentioned here as if humans were slaughtered. Then we should also talk about the millions of cows that are sent from South America to the US every month to be slaughtered. Here, NONE return. Are they all hero cows? I think yes, and they deserve a wikipedia article. Tavernsenses (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you are capable of writing your own WP on whatever subject you like.   Where you get the idea that most were slaughtered for meat could use a reference.  I will say that Glenn Garlock, WW1 Lt.Col of the 128th Regiment of the 32nd Division AEF, in his book "Tales of the Thirty-Second" makes it clear that horses often suffered more than the men.   The reason being that men could shelter in the trenches against bullets, bombs and artillery, and had gas masks and other defenses.  Horses were mostly out in the open and vulnerable, and big targets too.   Neither men nor horses were well fed at the front lines.    I don't recall any dialogue in the film about eating horses (although one of the buyers at the last auction was referred to as a "butcher" who bid a very high price if just for horse meat, nor any words calling them "heroes" - and that word never appears in the film.  But they showed more courage than some guy who wants to write about cows.   The movie does justice to the conditions of the time. --71.82.64.203 (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on War Horse (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101226070622/http://surrey.greatbritishlife.co.uk/article/surrey-film-locations-2505/ to http://surrey.greatbritishlife.co.uk/article/surrey-film-locations-2505/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:War Horse (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: BarryHero (talk · contribs) 14:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
This is a well-written article and it has all the necessary categories for a motion picture.

@BarryHero: Thanks for picking this up for review, just ping when you start adding things needing improving. Rusted AutoParts 19:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@BarryHero: hope I'm not pestering, just seeing if any points will be raised about potential improvements to the page. Rusted AutoParts 22:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Rusted AutoParts: Points:
Add at the top: 
Lead
• References are generally unnecessary in the lead if the information is sourced in the body, so references 2, 3, 4, and 5 do not really need to be there.
• The lead can also be written more in the style of prose.

@BarryHero: I believe I tackled these Lead points. Rusted AutoParts 22:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Cast
• Cast perhaps doesn't need its own section. The cast list could be inserted under Production -> Casting in the format below:

Hmm, I'm not certain that's feasible. It works on a page like The Thing as there's more to that section, as well as a much shorter cast list. Rusted AutoParts 00:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@BarryHero: Rusted AutoParts 02:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@BarryHero: I would really like to know if the edits I've made addressed your points and see if there's other points to hit. Rusted AutoParts 02:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: @BlueMoonset: It appears the reviewer doesn't have the time anymore to review this. I've pinged them several times with no response. Rusted AutoParts 19:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts, based on the review of the reviewer's own GA nomination, Talk:Markus Rosenberg/GA1, I'd say that they need more experience and a better understanding of what a GA-level article is before they do any more GA reviewing. I am putting this review under "second opinion" in the hopes that someone else will show up and take over the review, since a new reviewer is needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Rusted AutoParts:: Hi there. I've conducted a review of the article in the hopes that we can get this dealt with quickly for you. I've made a few changes to the article's lead to smooth things along, given how long this has taken. For reference, there is no need to detail everything which exists in the info template. There were also a few issues with informal language, but they did not manifest anywhere else in the article. I am satisfied with the article as it regards WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:N WP:NOR.
My main suggestion for improvement is to add more regular citations. Try not to let more than a sentence go by without a citation, even if it’s the same reference as the next sentence. Similarly, don't leave them until the end of the paragraph. Every statement has to be easily traceable to its citation. The main offender for this is Background and Development. Once you've dealt with these, please ping me to get my attention. Thanks! And sorry for how long this has taken. Imaginestigers (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Rusted AutoParts:: I also want to briefly address some issues with tone I've found elsewhere in the article. For example, in Filming, there's no need to dramatise: "Spielberg films are renowned for the levels of secrecy and security during filming, and this was no exception: filming took place under the codename Dartmoor." 'Renown' has an unusual, positive connotation, which doesn't fit there.
Try to maintain a neutral, invisible form of writing which prioritises the information above flair. I would correct this to: "Spielberg films are well-known [renown is a positive connotation] for their high levels of secrecy during production.[ref] War Horse filmed under the name Dartmoor." Imaginestigers (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Imaginestigers, while I appreciate your enthusiasm, someone who has been effectively editing Wikipedia just for the current week is not the best person to be reviewing a GA nomination, nor someone who has adequate experience to do so. Your suggestion Try not to let more than a sentence go by without a citation, even if it’s the same reference as the next sentence. goes against the general Wikipedia advice for sourcing; while you shouldn't pile up refs at the end of a long paragraph, there's typically no need to put a citation after every sentence if a single ref covers a series of sentences (though quotes should always be sourced without waiting a few sentences). I'd like to suggest that you wait until you've been around for a few months and have more experience with Wikipedia in general and higher quality articles in particular before you start doing GA reviews. Thanks. At this point, I hope the next reviewer to show up is someone with a reasonable amount of experience reviewing GAs. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset:: Are you able to do it? I really feel for the user — he's been waiting for months. Sorry for jumping the gun; you are right. A bit rude, but right. I was passing on advice given to me by an admin, but I should probably familiarise myself more closely with WP policy instead. Pinging Rusted AutoParts so they see this. I'll undo the edits I made the article, too. Imaginestigers (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
If I can add some comments from a skim read?
Plot on the long side
Subsection 'The horses' would be better just as 'Horses', right?
Missing a ref for In late September 2011, Disney moved the release date again, to Christmas Day 2011. - on the obvious side, there may be more, I haven't source checked
I like a quote box, but the article seems a bit overloaded with them? It gets a bit messy lower down
Is there a reason the awards table is all in small?
Give the awards table a separate column for refs
Incorrectly formatted notes
Some of the external links don't seem relevant? Photos of towns where it was set? Am I missing something?
Kingsif (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Addressed everything. As for the plot, I had previously trimmed it down to fall under WP:FILMPLOT. Rusted AutoParts 01:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Rusted AutoParts: I've given some parts a deeper read, so more comments Kingsif (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
First paragraph of Background and development has a lot of short, simple sentences: technically fine but more variety would be better for readability (less 'boring'). There may also be some excessive detail both about the war and the book.
in the end they had to admit defeat - flowery
 Done Rusted AutoParts 06:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
From 2006–2009, should be prose (i.e. 2006 to 2009) in this instance
 Done Rusted AutoParts 06:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
While it is mentioned in the source, I think it's strange to say Richard Curtis only knew about World War I because he worked on Blackadder - perhaps some rephrasing to say he'd looked more closely at the period (you know, more than the average British history class gave him in high school. It's mentioned later that WWI is generally forgotten in the U.S., but Curtis is British, so the source may also be erroneously linking his involvement with Blackadder to his knowledge of WWI, though that's my OR)
Took the sentence out. Didn't add anything in my opinion. Rusted AutoParts 06:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Spielberg was a fan of Blackadder but had never met Curtis. Curtis was initially... - avoid starting a sentence with the word that ended the previous sentence
 Done Rusted AutoParts 06:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
they got on so well - too informal
that 'the existence of the play itself helped him "be brave" about his own adaptation.' - need to fix quotation marks here
the 'beautiful script, really nice script' - and here
The paragraph beginning According to an account of the book... includes both repetition and some extra details that, chronologically, should come much earlier - also, another unconventional use of quotation marks, I can't really even make out where they're supposed to be
Please don't list every other war film related to Spielberg. He does a lot of them and is famous for it, a paragraph of film titles is irrelevant and excessive.
Dr. David Kenyon - don't need 'Dr.'. There's something in the MOS about TITLES.
I find that there's similar problems with strange quotation marks and their placement throughout the article, but haven't looked deeply past the Casting section. There's probably enough prose issues to warrant copyediting, though, and the list above to work on. I'll probably take this review on, though. Kingsif (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll begin seeing to these issues in the next few days. Rusted AutoParts 05:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I believe I've tackled these points. I might've misunderstood some however. Rusted AutoParts 06:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Is there any other issues to be addressed here? Rusted AutoParts 19:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Rusted AutoParts: Well the quotation marks are still inconsistent, right from the second sentence of the Filming section. Something should be done to prose-ify On 13–14 October 2010 - an "and"? I'm pretty sure in the U.K. is wrong since I've never seen periods in "UK" before. The Williams quotation in the Music section is too long to be included in a paragraph - indent it. There's more than one wikilink to Janusz Kamiński. The biggest issue is the massive quote relating to a horse portrait that is never mentioned before and has no contextualizing, and in the release section for some reason. Plus an external link embedded in prose is a no, and the quote is frankly completely unnecessary. It seems almost childish to be using scare quotes in the "iTunes Store". The refs in the accolades table are still wrong. Critical response section satisfactory but I would have imagined it to be longer with the amount of detail in sections above. Kingsif (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Alrighty, I've tackled these. As for the Critical Response, I was looking for some specific tidbits about some of the covered aspects of the film, like Music, but I just wasn't finding anything either written or of worth including (they would just say they thought the music was good for example). Rusted AutoParts 20:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, looks good enough to go now. Kingsif (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Am curious how this film is called a "box-office success" when it barely made over twice its budget.  Most other films here at Wikipedia are labeled "box-office success" when they make three (four?) or more times their budget.  Most movies here, when they just double their budget, are labeled "box office bombs."
Or is it because of all the accolades ? 2600:8800:204:C400:14FB:E14C:E9EE:7BDE (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Castle combe river.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Could there be a short section concerning the way that the British officer led his men and horses into mass machine guns? For did not his mindless action, along with the shaming put down by the German, contain shades of Lions Led By Donkeys? 2A00:23CC:E914:E801:D98F:F2F6:529A:DABF (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)