Talk:The Hunt for Red October

message: On a read through of the plot I decided the references to the movie were not marked well enough and since the movie article has it's own synopsis are unnecessary.
I have removed them. --Stumpifier 03:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed movie changes

message: The harpoon game was released in 1989, and the book was released in 1984. So, Tom Clancy could not have based the book on the game. If anyone begs to differ, argue here.
The computer game is based on a wargame created by Larry Bond in 1980.
I have no idea but I know the first Rainbow Six game was made while Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six wasn't released(it came out before the book even). The makers adapted their special-ops games with a new name and some missions to loosely follow the plot (Tom Clancy must of given them a copy of the draft) when they heard about the book, so it could be a similar situation.  -MachoFern (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Harpoon game?

message: I moved the article from "The Hunt For Red October" to "The Hunt for Red October" (lower-case "for"), since that is the correct title as listed even in IMDb. --Wernher 12:25, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Erroneous capitalization removed

message: I've misplaced my copy of the book, and will check later, but maybe someone else will do it first: I seem to recall that it was only in the film version that the sub carried an MHD drive; the book originally described it just as a hydrojet drive with some sort of sophisticated sound baffling. Can someone doublecheck me on this? -FZ 05:14, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about sub

message: It's been a while since I've read the book, but this seems to be a summary of the movie, not the book...  Rast 12:49, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Based on my memory of the book, I would say that the summary provided adequately describes both the book and the movie. 69.72.78.56 07:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  this seems to be a summary of the movie 

message: The plot summary refers to the difference in the description of the Red October's caterpiller drive in the book and movie. I believe that the point about the movie should be taken out. There is a seperate page for the film, and they should not be referenced in a different article except to note that a film was created. Thank You!-Hairchrm 21:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Book vs. Movie

message: Let's work on integrating the trivia section into the main article. Mikieminnow 03:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section 

message: :Image:Hunt for Red October.jpg and :Image:Tc1thfro.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to |the image description pages :Image:Hunt for Red October.jpg & :Image:Tc1thfro.jpg and edit them to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:38, & 04:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for images 

message: The novel clearly called the SS-N-20 missiles that the Red October carried "Seahawks". However, the real SS-N-20's were called "Sturgeons". Should this be mentioned as a mistake that the author made? Sandy of the CSARs (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SS-N-20 

message: Could someone verify that the term "sleight-of-manipulator" is correct at the end of the plot summary?  That language makes no sense to me. Wdfarmer (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That confused me too (and could probably use some explaining), but it's clunkily correct. The Americans use a minisub to survey the damage, and through use of tricky lighting and a remote waldo (manipulator), make the Russian attaché believe that the wreckage is Red October. It's about pages 379 or so, according to Amazon.com. 205.167.180.131 (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sleight-of-manipulator"

message: The following snip from an AP article about BookExpo America in 2008 provides some insights into the publishing of the original book:
:The past matters for book people, who regret the decline of independent stores and adore the paper text. (David) Shanks (of Penguin Group complains that the convention is in a "time warp," yet speaks fondly of a simple, low-tech tradition: Walking the floor in search of new books, like when some 20 years ago he spotted a novel being released by The Naval Institute.
:"I didn't even know the Navy published novels, but I thought this had potential. We bought it for $49,000," he says, smiling at the memory of how he acquired Tom Clancy's "The Hunt for Red October."
::Rauterkus (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatching of book via '''The [[Naval Institute]]''' 

message: I was involved with the US submarine force during the cold war.  I became familiar with bridge, fire control, and sonar procedures.  Also with tactics and with the general culture, the way of talking, etc, in the submarine force.  Many things were secret and many others were tacitly so.  It may be hard for people now to remember that time, when everything was so secretive.  The Hunt for Red October was published shortly after I left the Navy and I was completely floored by the accuracy with which the author captured all of those procedures, tactics and cultural aspects.  I and others I talked to who knew about the submariner's world assumed that he had either a co-author or at least a very involved adviser who was from the submarine force.  At the time this person would have been violating vows of secrecy to have divulged so much information.  Time has passed and I wonder if Clancy has ever talked about this or if the adviser has ever come out.  It would be very interesting for some of us old-timers who took our vows seriously.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FatBear1 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Clancy didn't have military assistance for the book. He was an unknown. I read an interview a long time ago where he said most of his research was from public information like Popular Mechanics etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who advised on technical details 

message: I just stumbled upon this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Kill_the_Potemkin
A book with the very same storyline from the very same time! So who stole from whom? 93.219.173.174 (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiat? 

message: I propose merging Red October (fictional submarine) into The Hunt for Red October. As it stands right now, the submarine article is just a rewritten plot summary of the book and film, plus some additional info on its armaments. The book and film are notable, but the submarine itself doesn't appear to be, which seems to be a classic example of WP:BKD. A merger of the two articles wouldn't even necessarily require any work, unless we really want to list the Red Octobers information, but it doesn't seem necessary. ~SlyCooperFan1 02:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The link (13) is to a review of the movie. This pot-boiler is not likely to have received 'critical acclaim' as literature. Reagan rates as a literary critic...? 61.69.237.49 (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical acclaim?