Talk:Letters from Iwo Jima

message: As far as I can tell from the trailer, the film is entirely in Japanese. The article should mention that, and in that context the sentence "Warner Bros. Japan has released a Japanese trailer" is confusing - it's just the same film, but with Japanese titles and without the English captions. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: Does anyone know anything about what kind of response this movie has generated in Japan? aubrey 08:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just add four tildas ("~") to the end of your comment. UnfriendlyFire 19:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese Reception

message: From the spoiler section in the article I get the impression that this film is more about the flag raising and the lives of the soldiers afterwards. I don't know the movie so a simple question: Is this a film about the battle or is this a film about the five soldiers raising the flag and their lives afterwards? 82.119.7.224 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whats this movie about 

message: While its good to see that someone finally provided a detailed synopsis of the film, it needs alot of editing. The last part in particular feels less like an encyclopedia article and more like a review of the film.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.154.163.243 (talk • contribs).
I tried to clean it up as best I could, there were numerous errors in spelling and grammar. The worst was the fact that the original writer seemed to call everyone "the" and their name.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.51.203.98 (talk • contribs).
It's very detailed but I cringed a few times reading it due to its poor writing. Needs work for sure.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.195.27.127 (talk • contribs).
It's pointlessly detailed, in my opinion. --Calton | Talk 10:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AGREE - synopsis needs a major trim. It is too detailed and violates wikipedia policy as such. RoyBatty42 00:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: STRONG AGREE - The plot summary is ridiculously and overly long. Some anonymous editor keeps removing the too long plot summary tag. ResurgamII 19:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree completely. I have extensively rewritten it and cleaned it up (it was poorly written and inaccurate in many places), but as a film version of a real event I think a detailed summary is completely justified. This is a fictionalised version of events, but it is not really fiction. -- Necrothesp 16:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the difference between fictionalized and fiction. It's historical fiction and as such, subject to creative license. Nobody can say for sure what really happened to Kuribayashi and so they told a story about what might've happened to him. That aside, it's still a movie and overly long summaries are both a readability and copyright issue. I tried to do some clean-up of my own, but everytime I come back, the plot just gets longer and longer. UnfriendlyFire 05:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that "readability" is merely your POV. The difference between fictionalised and fiction is that this is based on real events and therefore comparing reality and the fictionalised version is of interest. It is more than historical fiction since it is based firmly around real events. -- Necrothesp 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, you're right that a well-written plot summary is readable, but I still can't see that since it's based on the Battle of Iwo Jima, it justifies this summary. I'm not the only editor who thinks it's too long. The tag that was placed clearly states why long summaries shouldn't be in articles. Please see the article on 300 (film). That movie is a fictionalized version of real events, but the plot is written so that it doesn't go into excessive detail, which leaves the article to discuss other important aspects such as critical reception and controversies. Perhaps this point is what I meant by "readability": if one section is overly long, then it would detract from other sections of the articles as well as raise issues with article size. UnfriendlyFire 00:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, 300 is a fantasy version of real events. It is not intended to reflect reality in any way. It's based on a comic book, which is itself only loosely based on real events. The same cannot be said of Letters from Iwo Jima. However, the simple fact is that I disagree with you and cannot see any reason, other than some sort of strange dogma, as to why plot summaries should not be fully detailed. Re issues about article size, this is nowhere near as long as many articles we have, so that's a bit of a non-argument. Re saying the length of the plot summary would detract from other sections of the article: so, you're saying that the plot is less important than other aspects of the film such as critical reception and controversies? Sorry, but I don't understand that point of view. I, as an historian, am far more interested in how the plot compares with reality than whether somebody thinks it's anti- or pro-Japanese or what the critics thought of it. You may not be, but that's just your POV, not everybody's. And our articles are designed to cover everybody's interests. -- Necrothesp 02:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I guess my example about 300 was moot then since it was a fantasized version of real events instead of fictionalized. To be honest, stuff like long plot summaries is the least of Wikipedia's legal worries. This article will probably be left with the thousands of other articles that need cleanup. As to my strange dogma, I was referring to WP:NOT#IINFO. While it does say to write about real-world and historical context, this article basically rehashes what happened from start to finish. So if there's anything to get out of this discussion, no matter how much relevence this article has to historical and real life events, it is a plot summary. Period. UnfriendlyFire 03:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." (Italics mine) I really don't see anything there that says a detailed plot summary can't be provided as long as that's not all the article is. It isn't. -- Necrothesp 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless of wether it is more a history lesson than a revision of the battle, it should still be molded to fit Wikiproject Film's requirements. MwNNrules (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis needs work. 

message: In this entry, mention is made of Japanese soldiers commiting seppuku by detonating grenades against their bodies.  However, the wiki entry on seppuku makes it very clear that a ritual blade is used. So would the soldiers indeed be committing "seppuku" with explosives? --72.202.150.92 00:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No! Seppuku is an elaborate ritual, and grenades figure nowhere in it. Cop 633 00:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seppuku vs. suicide 

message: This film is to show the people the other side of the war, from the Japanese side. And they do it by showing their fear and how their chance of survival was thin. I would say it shows some pity for the Japanese, but what about the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Chinese, Korean, and others that they have brutally murdered, torchered, abused, etc. with no pity at all? Isn't this film letting them off on little or no fine at all? The victims of mass massacres of Japan on the Asian countries need to be remembered just as the victims of the Holocaust are. This film seems like one that might bring out some big debates and anger the countries that have been broken during the forced Japanese rule.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.131.193.34 (talk • contribs).
:Since, as far as I know, no Koreans or Chinese soldiers were at the Battle of Iwo Jima, I'm not sure how you expect a movie about the Battle of Iwo Jima to deal with the concerns you raise. If you have some information about this film's reception in China, Korea or elsewhere, that may be relevant, if added in compliance with Wiki standards. Otherwise, you're using this as a forum for discussing outside issues, which might be better dealt with in other Wiki articles. You may want to take a look at the Anti-Japanese sentiment article, since that seems to be what you're trying to express here. 218.166.202.143 19:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, I wouldn't say the film shows pity for all Japanese. It shows they were human beings in a desperate situation: some showing empathy (Saigo, and the commander of Iwo Jima), others being merciless and cruel (several low-ranking officers). Same with the Marines: some are shown as killers, some as respectful of the enemy. Japanese and American war crimes are outside the scope of this film; it just shows a desperate battle to the last man, and it does it well. 201.235.249.18 (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pity? 

message: Were there any actual letters that were found for real on Iwo Jima, or is that part just fictional? I think that's rather relevant to the article. --Ojan 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there were.  Vic Voegelin of Gardiner, NY found some letter during the battle.  After hearing about the movie he decided to find the owner or a relative of him.  The full story can be found here Red1530 (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual letters? 

message: In reading through the section on critical reception, it seems there is a lot of work to be done to bring this up to Wikipedia standards. Only about half of the awards won and commendations given have proper citations. 
I'm not altogether sure that some of these references are appropriate sources for encyclopedic purposes. The section that discusses the critical reception is especially troubling. The entire part wherein historical nomenclature and facts were called into question by Japanese moviegoers references a blog with several unsupported entries (Reference #12). No independent references are given.
The part regarding Shintaro Ishihara's opinion of the film vs. his own is first a reference to a personal point of view, given in the context of promoting his own film, not relevant to the concept of critical reception. Further, the sentences pertaining to that are fairly lifted verbatim from the referenced page, a decided no-no, which is essentially a promotion for Ishihara's film. Wildhartlivie 12:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical reception and References 

message: FYI someone just changed the name of a horse from Jupiter to Uranus. Google results don't seem to help on this one. I'll leave it to those who watch the page to determine if correct. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horse name  

message: As of 14/10/2010 the page says, "The film was originally entitled Red Sun, Black Sand. The film was the first American film to show a war issue completely from the view of an enemy which was fighting Americans.[5] (This is not correct, for example, see All Quiet on the Western Front (1930))."  Sic.
I don't remember any Americans in All Quiet on the Western Front, but the film or book runs from from just after the start till close to the end of the First World War, and the U.S. did join in in April 1917 (I read here).  Although the hero gets home leave only once, so how long was it?
Are there any alternatives to name?  The film Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003), which I haven't seen in full, has British forces fighting the French, but its source material (a series of popular books, and Britain's real-history war against Napoleon) has Brits versus the U.S.  
If the criterion is not U.S. on screen, but presumably out there somewhere on the opposite side, that film is a better candidate.  There is also the "Pirates of the Caribbean" series, which is certainly mostly shown from the pirates' side.
-- Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.173.135 (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priority 

message: In the plot, "They also witness a captured Marine being bayoneted to death." links to to the Japanese War Crimes article, but "One of the Marines, because he does not want to continue guarding them, summarily executes Shimizu and the other POW." doesn't link to the Allied War Crimes article, United States in Asia section.  That seemed strange to me, so I have put in the link.61.214.238.202 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evened our "war crimes" 

message: What does that mean?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.36.99.235 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese-American film? 

message: I don't believe there is any single incident from the entire war of Japanese soldiers administering first aid to an American they had just shot.  That is too far-fetched to be passed over in a film about a real battle like this.Starhistory22 (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: The redirect Red Sun, Black Sand(film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 05:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Red Sun, Black Sand(film)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]