# Talk:The Hurt Locker

Obviously some confusion over whether Beckham returns. If he returned, where did he go, and why wouldn't James be at all surprised or tell Beckham why he should leave? 
Re: credits, it doesn't matter if they used the same actor for Beckham and another seller, they can be different characters.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.17.73 (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC) 

Beckham is NOT the boy who was turned into a body bomb. If you read the original script (unfortunately I don't know to to link it as a reference via footnote because it's downloadable only; [1]), in which "Beckham" is nicknamed "Pele" instead, you will see it is indeed him who runs up to James before the scene in which Eldridge is taken away on the helicopter. A credible source would be needed if the article is to say that somewhere along the line the filmmakers changed their minds and made this into a character who was not Beckham. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Point made. The script is definite, the film is unclear. 74.196.17.73 (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My friends and I understood the film showed that James had made a mistake - when he saw Beckham at the end, he realized that he had been mistaken in thinking the body he'd seen earlier and been so disturbed by was Beckham. We didn't think it was unclear.--Parkwells (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
To say that it was "unclear" is a personal interpretation of the film (primary source of the summary), which is not recommended for inclusion in the summary. And, as you can see, there are other interpretations that differ. If there is secondary coverage in reliable secondary sources about this ongoing debate, which would indicate that perhaps the film was intentionally leaving this scene to be "unclear", then the summary should indeed be tweaked to reflect this, and another portion of the article can go into more detail. As of now, I don't see much around the web to indicate that this is the case. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
In my personal opinion, the second kid was not Beckham because he talked differently, and his rapport with the Sgt. was much different. I believe it was showing that the man who was Beckhams boss was spying on the soldiers and he was trying to get a cookie-cutter kid, one who can speak english and become pals with the G.I.'s (like the Sgt. was). Phaeton23 (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly what I came away with upon seeing the film, but your impression and mine do not trump the script. I happen to like this shared version better. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
My impression of this issue was as Parkwells has described it. But what indicated that the boss was a spy was: that he packed up so quickly, because he very well understood the English sentences of James and thus understood that he was "burned" (discoverd). -- Steue (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not totally familiar with the guidelines wikipedia has on adding anecdotal evidence, but clearly there should be some kind of heuristic for deciding what anecdotal evidence should be presented and what should not.  In the section titled "Response Among Veterans" several individual's blogs are mentioned.  If I start listing every veteran who has analyzed this film in a blog, we are going to have a very long list.  If there are no objections, I would suggest that information concerning veteran's responses to the film be limited to articles written by reputable journalists or others who have done some kind of research on the matter.
76.120.195.191 (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a great idea. There are many journalists who have written about the veteran-blogger responses (good and bad) and I think those articles are much more appropriate than a few hand-picked blogger responses. Michaelyw (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I think: Truth and probable truth is more important than whether one can cite a reference. If a veteran says so and so about the accuracy I would trust him. -- Steue (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)