Talk:Kelly's Heroes

message: I'm just guessing that Big Joe is in charge of a squad (could be a platoon, but I don't remember there being that many men), although IMDB lists him as a MSgt. Clarityfiend 00:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it's probably a platoon. Keep in mind that they're supposed to have been in active frontline duty for a while and have an uninterested/incompetent CO, so may be in dire need of replacements. 77.98.223.49 (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Big Joe is a master sergeant and reports to the captain.  That tells me that he is functioning as the first sergeant of a company, which would be commanded by a captain.  Granted, there are nowhere near the number of men that would be found in a full-strength company, but units that served on the front lines for extended periods suffered horrendous attrition rates and would typically have been far under strength.Beetfarm Louie (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In WW2, as today, First Sergeants had a diamond and did not wear Master Sergeant patches.  My guess is Hollywood, as usual, had no idea what it was doing and gave him a cool patch they liked, with no basis in reality. 72.86.47.226 (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Big Joe wears the rank of Master Sergeant (E8) but he isn't assigned to a rifle company, he is the command sergeant of the Reconnaissance Platoon. We know from dialogue that they've suffered a number of casualties, not only from the enemy but also friendly fire. As early as the opening scene in the barn we learn that a number of GIs under an 'Eddie' have "been hit", so this is far from a full strength unit and as there are no other sergeants and only a single corporal it can be assumed Big Joe and Cpl. Job are the sole surviving senior NCOs.--The Mercenary 73 (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, this "genius" The Mercenary 73 again. In that scene, Pachuco tells Big Joe that in addition to a half-track being wiped out a guy named "Eddie" has been hit. That's why Joe orders a couple of his men to take a stretcher out to him. John Simpson54 (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of Big Joe?

message: I have no idea whether they're real or not, so I'm allowing for both possibilities in the comments. Somebody better qualified can decide. I also removed the Saving Private Ryan connection. Clarityfiend 04:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not changing the article as I can't be 100% sure, but all the ones I saw were T-34s, you can tell by the position of the turret- too far forward for a Tiger but just right for a T-34.  MartinMcCann 19:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No production designer ever would use a real tiger in a movie, even if he could get his hands on one. They're pretty crappy when it comes to reliability and mechanical failures (talk about working overtime for cast and crew). About a third of the tigers in WW II were destroyed by their own crews after they had broken down, could not be salvaged, and were about to fall into the hands of the allies.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:21A2:A700:9284:DFF:FEF5:C9F8 (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Bizarre comment given Fury (2014 film) came out two years earlier featuring the very real Tiger 131. Koncorde (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Real Tigers?

message: As a nameless editor noted, Patton was released a mere four months before KH, so it is unlikely that O'Connor was satirizing it. Until somebody finds proof otherwise, I've removed it (screwed up the edit explanation though). Clarityfiend 05:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Patton satire

message: I have added some minor details to make that particular section more accurate.  I felt that since it was the SFRY at that time then it should be mentioned that way in the article, to make it more correct.SAWGunner89 01:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor changes in Production Information 

message: I do not know was it filmed in Croatia, or Bosina-Herzegovina, but I`m sure that some scenes were made in Serbia, In village of Vrdnik, at the entrance of coal mine. So I added Serbia in locations of making scenes.
Regards, The.nikopol 17:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of making  

message: Is there any information about the footage that was cut from this and whether it's being restored or not? --70.178.225.237 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Negatives 

message: The most familiar rocket-firing fighter was the Hawker Typhoon but that was primarily UK and Commonwealth. The one in the film has US markings. So what is it, and what is it supposed to be?
Varlaam (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we were 'supposed to' not notice such details. Dlabtot (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No it was a Soko 522 Yugoslav-designed trainer standing in as a P-47.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.246.72 (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rocket fighter 

message: Are there any DVD variants which have the German dialogue subtitled, either as German, or translated into English? The one I have does not.
A translation might be useful for non-Germanophones.
Varlaam (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have seen the flick ages ago. From what i remember it's just tech talk. The tank commander wants to start up the engines and is opposed by the commanding officer reminding him of the dwindling gas supply. If i remember correctly a couple of minutes earlier Kelly's troop is discussing that the tanks will have to be put in motion every day for maintenance reasons, but i can't confirm whether this was an actual issue within the nazi forces.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:21A2:A700:9284:DFF:FEF5:C9F8 (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  German dialogue 

message: The addition of the plot tag does not appear to be needed. The plot is written like all other film articles' plots, covering the details without the introductory "the film begins...". As the reader can determine from the heading label, the plot can do without the intro and go straight into the details. The inclusion of these self-referential notices are unneeded for establishing what occurs within the film. Is there a particular reason why this article differs from others? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If other articles have problems, I suggest you go to those articles and fix them.  This discussion is about this article. The attempt to describe that plot as if it were real events rather than a film is explicitly what WP:INUNIVERSE  is all about. Your assertions to the contrary are without basis. Dlabtot (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:TENSE (which WP:WAF#Contextual presentation points to) says to write about fiction in the present tense. Is the issue that the mention of historical details might confuse readers that the film's events are real? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue is that Nehrams2020 is objecting to mentioning that it is a film in the plot section. , , , . Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have that much of an issue about whether or not that is included, but it is rather redundant. The topic is the film, and when a readers read the "Plot" section, they know it's the plot from the film. Fiction is not being confused with reality in that kind of self-contained section. If it was outside that section, that kind of clarifier would be useful before explaining the real-world context of a film's event. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say other articles have problems, but that when the section is clearly labeled with plot, making a reference within the description is unnecessary. If I was covering plot details within the production or reception section, then I may use "the scene" or "in the film". Do you believe there is confusion for readers in the fact that the plot's covering WW2 details which are not based on historical events, and need "the film" to differentiate it as fiction? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot tag

message: I've read that the original ending didnt have them going off into the sunset with the gold, but rather, they're caught with it, and its comedic. Has anyone else ever heard about this?? --2600:100F:B102:572D:0:1D:5093:9D01 (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The alternative ending was for the truck to end up heading for Switzerland and a group of MP's shouting at them that they're "heading in the wrong direction".--The Mercenary 73 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate ending

message: There's something about this movie that's bringing out the industrial strength stupid levels of speculation and guesswork. 
Under the Popular Culture section I'm removing that ridiculous reference to "Hogan's heroes". In all the analysis I've read about this movie no one had ever hinted that that's what was implied. Crapgame is supplying things like nylon stocking to Staff people in various headquarters so they can use them to gain favor with the local women, not so they can wear them themselves. Whoever wrote that is offering their own ill-conceived and unfounded opinions as fact so it's gone.John Simpson54 (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hogan in Intelligence 

message: One of the errors in the movie is that General Colt is NOT commander of the 35th Infantry Division as someone previously wrote but is rather a two-star (Major) General wearing a 3rd Army shoulder patch. In WW2 Lieutenant General Patton was the 3rd Army Commander before he was promoted to 4-star General rank. I'm not sure what a 2-star wearing a 3rd Army patch is actually "commanding" but it's definitely NOT the 35th Infantry Division that contains Kelly's Heroes.John Simpson54 (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Colt's Command? 

message: I deleted the above claim since it had already been tagged with unreliable source and the source no longer backs it up, presumably because such information can, and does, change over time. 2601:18C:4301:2880:C199:5E6E:9306:9AEC (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "making it the 25th highest-grossing film of 1970. [unreliable source?]"