Talk:Judgment at Nuremberg

message: Why is each defendant character identified in the cast list as "defendant judge"? Is this a proper term, or a mistake that needs to be fixed? Ted Watson 20:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is so they are not confused with the trials' Tribunal Judges.~  PHDrillSergeant...§ 06:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Defendant judge"? 

message: I'm not disputing Rolfe's mention of Churchill's praise of Hitler in the film, but is there an actual quote from Churchill which supports this? I'm fairly familiar with his writings and while he may have been lukewarm towards Mussolini in the beginning, he seemed to understand Hitler's menace very early on. I'm concerned that audiences might interpret Rolfe's words in the film as word-for-word history when this assertion, at least, may be apocryphal. Miniapolis (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[#Synopsis|Synopsis]] 

message: At the end of the movie text said that none of the 99 men found guilty at Nuremberg were still in prison
at the time the movie was made.
Albert Speer was in prison for more than 20 years.
Rudolf Hess was in prison until he committed suicide in 1987.
There were probably others.
 Perhaps they used some weasel words to distinguish some of the convicted Nazi's from others,
but that was dissembling.
:: yes I knew someone who was in the employ of the reichsbahn. because they had to have been laid track across the territory he had before naziism ie before becoming deported to soviet union for reparations and before being hated by everyone when still returning to federal republic of germany (blazing saddles? made me remember it)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD7:ED84:0:DDEC:4513:7D5C:125A (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words ? 

message: Firstly, that first paragraph is a beast. Really the third paragraph would make a better introduction. I'll merely make the suggestion and leave others to decide.
Secondly, Playbill has a fair bit of detail about the history of Judgement at Nuremberg and in particular this gem about the Playhouse 90 version: . In fact, as Mann remembers it, "the most discussed thing about the TV show was when Claude Rains said, ‘How can you ask me to predict the deaths of millions of people in ––– –––––?’ ‘Gas ovens’ got bleeped out because the show had a sponsor that was a gas company. This was the headline in The New York Times, not that we were the first to talk about German guilt.”
It also covers the casting of Burt Lancaster as Janning: The part went to Laurence Olivier, who right before shooting began married Joan Plowright and bowed out of the project, leaving the film with a Carlsbad Cavern kind of hole to fill. Burt Lancaster, fresh from his Elmer Gantry triumph, brought size and stature to the vacancy but little else. "Burt was a wonderful guy, and he wanted to be part of this," says Mann, "but he really wasn’t right for it. Max is bringing a new dimension to it."
http://www.playbill.com/features/article/65056-Final-Judgment-Maximilian-Schell-Returns-to-Nuremberg-on-Broadway
The side-bar says budget $3M and BO $10; whereas the text says "The film grossed USD$6 million and recorded a loss of $1.5 million.[1] "  Am I missing something, or is this a contradiction?211.225.33.104 (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two items 

message: I feel that the intro section of this article has way too much background info. Perhaps we could put it into a separate section entitled "production"?Kubrick379 (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro cleanup 

message: As a movie based on real life events, it's normal to expect a comparison with them. Maybe we should create a new section for it. There's already a mention of the Katzenberger Trial (in which the Feldenstein case was based on), but for example there's no mention to Franz Schlegelberger (in which Ernst Janning is based on).
DiegodE (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing comparison to real life events 

message: This film has a lot of innovative camera work: 360 degree close-up pans in the middle of a crowded courtroom set (in an era of very large cameras) and dramatic zoom-ins and reveling zoom-outs.  How was it done and who was responsible for it?  None of this is currently discussed in this article.  It would be very interesting to have more info. on this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KS on Wikipedia (talk • contribs) 18:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camera Work and Cinematic Innovation 

message: The article mentions the execution as occurring in 1935. I don't know if that is supposed to refer to the real-life case or the fictionalized case. The actual execution occurred during the war, not in 1935. I don't know if the movie has the execution taking place in 1935 but that sounds like a big deviation and I wonder if that is what is stated in the film.--Jrm2007 (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katzenberger vs Feldenstein