Talk:Good Morning, Vietnam

message: My friend, a marine sniper who killed 83 people before he stopped counting, told me this was the best Vietnam movie he ever saw. --Uncle Ed 20:06, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asking who wrote the movie (Mitch Markowitz) or the article (lots of people). Either of these questions can be answered on the main page with even the most basic of wiki skills. Or do you just like calling things "shit" and boasting about how many people your friend killed? I am sure there are websites dedicated to such things but I don't think Wikipedia is one of them. RogMcDog (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, the header was added in 2007 by an IP editor, long after the original comment was made. Graham87 15:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Who wrote this shit??

message: At some point in the movie, having been assigned to prepare an interview of former vice-president (and future president) Richard M. Nixon for broadcast, Cronauer mixes usable comments of Nixon in with sexually-explicit questions from Cronauer. It hits the air in Cronauer's absence.
When did that happen? Before or after his suspension?
GBC 06:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Interview with Richard Nixon

message: I'm fixing the censored words in the various quotes -- Whittaker never said "at pound dollar sign exclamation point," he said "fuck." R 07:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eliminating censorship 

message: I added the music as it was on the credits of the movie, add/edit as you wish :) --Sidewinded 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Irony? --Sidewinded 00:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Counterpoint?143.167.141.36 (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: I just removed this section and bring it here for discussion.
Although Adrian Cronauer wrote the original treatment of the film script, it was heavily altered once it was picked up by Williams and the production team, and is not a biographical account of Cronauer's real story.  Commenting on the accuracy of the film the real-life Cronauer said "I'm very happy with it. Of course, it was never intended to be an accurate point-by-point biography. It was intended as a piece of entertainment, and (Williams) was playing a character named Adrian Cronauer who shared a lot of my experiences. But actually, he was playing Robin Williams." 
While the film appears generally critical of the US policy in Vietnam and shows the failings of the American side, Cronauer has always maintained his full support for the USA's involvement in Vietnam, and has no doubt that their actions were necessary, saying "When I left, we were winning. The thing that very few people realize is that we never lost a single significant military battle in all the time that we were there in Vietnam, including the Tet Offensive."
William's character is never critical of the Vietnam campaign, (although he mocks Richard Nixon in one scene) and at the end of the movie says "We're here to help this country!", a viewpoint that is consistent with the real Cronauer's.  Levinson's direction leaves the film's view more morally ambiguous. 
Levinson deliberately kept Cronauer and Williams from meeting as he did not want Williams to adapt his performance to impersonate Cronauer.  The pair finally met at the film's New York premiere.
Commenting on his portrayal in the film, Cronauer said "Anybody who has been in the military will tell you that if I did half the things in that movie, I’d still be in Leavenworth right now.  A lot of Hollywood imagination went into the movie. I was a disk jockey in Vietnam and I did teach English in my spare time.  I was not thrown out of Vietnam; I stayed for my full one-year tour and I was honorably discharged."  None of the people in the film are based on actual people Cronauer met, although he described them as stereotypes of military personnel who existed at the time.  
Cronauer also did not receive bags of fan mail or telephone requests as shown in the film. "Naah, never happened. That was Hollywood. You think about it: There aren't any phone booths out in the rice paddies. Where are they going to call from?"  He also was not often recognised by name by G.I.s, although they did recognise his voice when he said "Good Morning Vietnam".
The scenes where Cronauer teaches his class to swear and use "street slang", his pursuit of a pretty Vietnamese girl, and his Jeep being blown up in the jungle are constructs for the plot and never happened to Cronauer.
What is the relevance of all this?  This movie is not a bio-pic or an historical film about the Vietnam War, it's  a comedy, and, yes, great liberties are taken in the telling.  Do we really need this very long section to tell us that the Adrian Cronauer in the film is different than the real person? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 02:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Biographical accuracy" 

message: Lt. Hauk constantly complains to the men under him that he never gets saluted. According to military courtesy guidelines, salutes should only be given outdoors
Is not possible that this is a mistake by the character, not the writers? --93.152.14.46 (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salutes 

message: The comments above, from 10 years ago, indicate that the "plot" section back then was too long and detailed. It was trimmed a little bit, but not very much, and even today it has no references at all. Shouldn't this at least be cited to some reviews, and maybe trimmed to a couple paragraphs? -Dianaunay (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , we have guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT for this. The plot summary is currently 656 words, so it is within the preferred range, though it could be shortened further if needed. Also, inline citations are not needed because it is self-evident that such summaries are basic descriptions of the works of fiction. You could add such citations mentioning the film, but it is rather obvious. If passages are being interpretative, then they would need to be rewritten to avoid that, per WP:PSTS. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that link , very helpful. This seems more detailed than a "basic description" to me, but it does fall in the word count recommended. I appreciate the Wikipedia lesson. -Dianaunay (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot section still too detailed, still unreferenced 

message: According to these two articles from 1992 (here and here), Mark Frost of Hill Street Blues and Twin Peaks fame penned a sequel to this film entitled Good Morning, Chicago. Even though it clearly didn't go far, should there be any mention of it on this article? MrBelpitsLegs (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that should be mentioned. Williams commented on it here also. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I'll try adding myself, please fix or change what I add if needed. Dianaunay (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Morning, Chicago 

message: I found 
: Most of Williams' performances that portrayed Cronauer's radio broadcasts were improvisations. 
But they were improvisations, intended to loosely evoke the tone of the broadcasts. And there is every reason to believe that williams did not  "perform" anyone's broadcast(s), and that he sat in a set representing a radio studio, and suggested for the camera both how he and the writers thot Cronauer felt and behaved, and some important aspects of what the primary enlisted audience and the brass must have respectively felt about hearing it. --Jerzy•t 21:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Williams' performances"  DID NOT "portray Cronauer's radio broadcasts", fer crying out loud!