Talk:Gettysburg (1993 film)

message: How does one cite personal experience for a claim?  I had noted that this film had an overture, as I worked as a theatre projectionist at the time of its release.JudgePat 18:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal experience

message: The main section of this article and the trivia section contradict each other.  The former says that the Park Service did allow filming on the actual battleground.  The trivia section says that they did not.
JBFrenchhorn 12:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I've placed a citation request for the Trivia paragraph and will remove the paragraph in a couple of weeks unless someone fixes this. Based on conversations I've had at Gettysburg, I believe some scenes, such as Pickett's Charge, were filmed on site. The anecdote about power lines may actually be true, but I don't know. Hal Jespersen 16:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Doesn't that go a bit too far?  I mean they're historically accurate in so far as they don't directly contradict history, but everything from Early and Ewell's performance in the first days of the battle to the flanking troops on Little Round Top are missing from the movie.  I'm not criticizing the film, which I loved, but I'm saying it's a selective retelling at best. Ryanluck (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I relocated the Trivia section into the main body of text, eliminating duplications. I also removed the sentence to which you object. I think the original writer of that sentence meant from a tactical standpoint -- troop deployments, use of weapons, etc. -- but it was rather ambiguous and could be argued against, which you have done. If someone would like to restore this sentence, they should do so with a secondary source citation. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Recently I viewed this on DVD as part of an ongoing study of the subject of the battle and how it is portrayed.  Ryanluck's point is well taken - for a big-budget movie over four hours in length, it skips a lot of very important material. (As just one example, for the film not to mention Henry Jackson Hunt is, in my view, a serious flaw.) Someone with the time may be able to come up with a notable review that meets the requirements of WP:RS to add material to this article that documents that fact.  Jusdafax   06:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historically accurate? 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: This article states: "'Gettysburg' grossed nearly $11 million, but was still considered a box-office flop." Is there a citation for this? As the movie was shot as a mini-series, one would think that any proceeds from a theatric release would be considered a bonus. In any case, it was definitely worth seeing on the big screen - TV just doesn't do it justice.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flop? 

message: Just a reminder to editors that red links are sometimes a good thing, are sometimes appropriate and desirable in an article, and should not just be blindly removed.  (see Red link "It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow." and "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished.") Marteau (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Links 

message: The plot is ridiculously long, retelling nearly every detail of the film.  This is not an article about the actual battle, and should only give the highlights of the film, within the 700 word limit called for my WP:MOSFILM. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot length 

message: It's stated that George Lazenby role in the movie is a cameo. I'm not sure that fits since he is (and was during the time the movie was made) a working actor. Likewise with actor Buck Taylor. As for Ken Burns and Ted Turner that are credited as cameo roles I agree with since they aren't professional actors and they were involved with the movie. If noone objects I'll remove Lazenby and Taylor.81.227.190.9 (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You clearly don't understand what a cameo is in relation to acting.  12.32.71.154 (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:   George Lazenby cameo?