Talk:Glory (1989 film)

message: -I have made a minor numerical adjustment to the casualty rate at Fort Wagner (a difference of 16), based on another wikipedia article. This other article is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/54th_Massachusetts_Volunteer_Regiment
I apolagize if the correction was in error, if someone with more time would like to look into this and figure out which figure was correct, please do so. (For reference the original article stated 256 deaths)
-orionriver 20:45 (PST) 1/23/07
-Do you know why the movie was called Glory?  I don't.  Help me.
::In the commentary the director simply says "It just came to me." Which isn't much help! The Singing Badger 21:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few years ago, original newspaper reports and other written sources from the period resurfaced which higlighted a Bermudian, First Sgt. Simmons, who served in the Regiment, and (in a newspaper report, given variously as being from a Charleston or a Georgia newspaper) who said he had fought for glory. This was apparently the first report of the battle published (at least in a Southern newspaper). It didn't give Simmon's name, but other sources clarify that. It was pointed out by the historian who brought this material forward that this report would not have been know to the film makers, so it's merely an interesting coincidence. I tacked in a mention of Simmons in this article, and in the one on the Regiment. Aodhdubh 18:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, the Royal Gazette , of Bermuda, reported that the newspaper article refered to above was in the Weekly Colombus Enquirer, but the website of Historian Mark Mitchell  records it as the Charleston Daily Courier: the archive also contains the first newspaper report of the brave but failed attack in the Charleston (SC) Daily Courier including an interview with a captured black sergeant from Bermuda, Robert John Simmons. Aodhdubh 18:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I saw this movie in class, i've got to say that this movie was good. Khang 15:36, 29 2006 (UTC)
- I'm a wikipedia newbie, and I don't feel comfortable editing articles just yet, so I'll note an erratum here, and somebody else can edit the article.  In a list of differences between the film and history, it is stated:  The 54th was not in fact the only all-black regiment; so many men signed up to enlist that a sister regiment was formed, the 55th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry.  The other black regiment actually is depicted in the film, in a scene beginning at about the 1 hour, 4 minute mark. Capedia 22:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a completely different regiment. The referenced 55th Regiment was a unit formed from the surplus of recruits from the 54th camp . --† Ðy§ep§ion †  Speak your mind 05:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You're arguing semantics.  Colonel Shaw kept a detailed journal and diary, as was ver common among "young gentlemen" of the time, as well as penning several letters to friends and family members detailing the activities of the 54th and his feelings about being in command.  While these may not be considered "memoirs" in the truist sense of the word, in that they were not penned with the intention of being passed on to future generations...to say that Shaw "never lived to write any memoirs" is completely innaccurate considering the amount of writing we do have directly from him. Rapier1 (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Whoops. I stand corrected. I neverr90.207.91.122 (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualty rate

message: Sergeant William Carney was the only flag bearer that day for the national flag. He was wounded several times but he never had to relieve anyone. The previous statement which mentioned that "When the flag bearer fell, another black soldier, Sergeant William Carney grabbed the flag and carried it" was incorrect. He carried the flag straight throughout the battle despite being severely wounded which is part of the reason why he received the Medal of Honor.  --† Ðy§ep§ion †  Speak your mind 18:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops. I stand corrected. I neverr90.207.91.122 (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sergeant William Carney

message: Regarding the recent deletion of my edit describing the manner of Shaw's burial, my edit was not an act of vandalism. I read a great deal about Shaw several years ago, and I'm sure I remember reading that he was stripped of his uniform before being buried. Has anyone else heard this? I will try to locate a source for it, though perhaps I have remembered incorrectly. Marsoult (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Shaw's Burial

message: The real attack on Fort Wagner took place in a south to north alignment with the Atlantic to the right; whereas in the movie the attack is filmed taking place with the sea to the left and the 54th marching south into battle. According to the film, this would place Fort Wagner to the north of Charleston harbour wherein it was on Morris Island, south of the sea lanes. 
:I find it strange that the director would have taken such a glaring error in what is such a minutely crafted historical film. They could have just reversed the negatives of the last 25 mins of the film, and no one would have noticed!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.77.152 (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The negative could simply have been flipped or the director could have done it for any of a dozen reasons. Considering only history geeks like us would ever know the difference, I'm sure the people who produced the movie figured "no one" would care. Ckruschke (talk)Ckruschke
Several movie makers have stated that narratives in movies are better depicted left to right because we read left to right. I won't find articles supporting that fact or edit the article myself because I have better things to do than battle the trolls of wiki.
98.164.95.72 (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Incredible error

message: I think removal of this section is a serious mistake. Add to the errors that the flogging scene never really happened. Flogging was banned by the US Army years beforehand. See https://books.google.com/books?id=2YBIg-iwfUUC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=glory+flogging+scene&source=bl&ots=syuHmw4-nj&sig=t2tw-iFDPwZIR2WKwQfQYEssABA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW9tXswd_PAhUPwmMKHRrzAbEQ6AEIQjAF#v=onepage&q=glory%20flogging%20scene&f=false and many other reputable sources. This scene was done purely for dramatic affect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Flogging scene

message: Why do we list biographies of characters, rather than a regular plot summary?
Sonicsuns (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, why don't you mosey on over to the Wikipedia page on the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Regiment and your questions will be answered. Jefferson Davis (pbnuh) did not recognize the legitimacy of Black Union soldiers and was therefore going to treat them akin to escaped convicts rather than in the manner customary for prisoners of war. The same went for the white officers. 98.180.8.57 (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography vs. Plot

message: Quoting from the article:
"Of these casualties, only 116 were fatalities, just under one fifth of the men to storm the fort. If the 156 soldiers that were captured are included, it would bring the total to "over half". In formal military terms, though, "casualties" include captured soldiers."
What's the source for these numbers? They seem anomolous to me for two reasons.  One, 'casualties' normally includes dead, captured, and wounded. These numbers name no wounded, and I find that surprising. Second, if the events in the movie are accurate, it can be reasonably assumed that the 156 captured soldiers were killed, since the Confederate working orders at the time were to kill any man in or leading a black regiment captured in uniform. That could explain the lack of distinction in the movie. JeffHCross (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "What's the source for these numbers?" Look in the references section. They are documented in those books. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 15:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties

message: It seems that the sequence of events in the synopsis is off  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.48.249 (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it just me? 

message: While I watched this movie, I found that Shaw was actually a Captain during the battle of Antietam creek. He was named Colonel after the battle, at a dinner party. The same place he was given the leadership of the 54th division.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.25.140 (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Battle of Antietam was fought on September 17, 1862. Shaw was promoted to major on March 31, 1863, and to colonel on April 17. WikiParker (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaw's Rank 

message: Appears as Rawlins in the plot summary and Rollins in the cast list. -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rawlins" or "Rollins"? 

message: It is incorrect to say -- as stated in the current version of the Wikipedia listing, but not claimed in the movie -- that the 54th Massachusetts, mustered in on May 13, 1863, was the first black "formal unit" in the Union army, to the exclusion of numerous other such black units that preceded it. This assertion, as well as similar ones made on other Wikipedia pages, fails to define "formal."  In fact, to the extent a military unit was mustered in the Union army, it was just as "formal" as any other unit. Thus, the 1st Regiment Kansas Volunteer Infantry (Colored) -- a Northern regiment in every sense of the word, mustered into federal service on January 13, 1863 -- preceded by four months the 54th Massachusetts. Moreover, the 1st Kansas was actually fighting in the field by early fall 1862, well before the 54th Massachusetts was even authorized. However, because of political controversy surrounding the use of federal black units in the North, the 1st Kansas wasn't mustered into the Union army until early January 1863. Dyer's authoritative Compendium of the War of the Rebellion documents all the foregoing, and is reproduced in the federal Civil War Soldiers and Sailors database. For the federal government's entry regarding the 1st Kansas (later re-designated the 79th U.S. Colored Troops), see: http://www.nps.gov/civilwar/search-battle-units-detail.htm?battleUnitCode=UUS0079RI02C 
Moreover, unlike the 1st Kansas (re-designated as a U.S.C.T. regiment in the last months of the Civil War), the 54th Massachusetts was NEVER a unit of United States Colored Troops, as incorrectly stated in the current version of the Wikipedia page. Although the 54th Massachusetts was "mustered" into federal service -- like virtually all volunteer state units actively serving during the war -- it never was a federal unit of the U.S.C.T., which was a formal organization of Regular army regiments in the United States Army. The 54th Massachusetts remained throughout its service a regiment of Massachusetts state volunteers.
In view of the foregoing errors, I am editing the second paragraph of the current version of the Glory (1989 film) entry.  Don Columbia (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  54th MA NOT "the first formal unit of the Union army" made up of African Americans 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Glory (1989 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.booknotes.org/FullPage.aspx?SID=55946-1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I see by this Talk page that there was once a section comparing the depiction of this regiment with its actual history and that this section was controversial, and now see that it was apparently deleted. This was a mistake. One of the main reasons I came to this entry was specifically for that information, and I doubt I'm alone -- or even in a minority. WP movie entries frequently compare and contrast book-based films with the original text, and no-one finds that superfluous. I would ask the doyens of this article to consider that in the case of historical dramas, actual events constitute "the book", making removal of the history section an act of de facto (though good-faith) vandalism. (I'm not sure "good-faith vandalism" is actually possible, but you get my drift.) Laodah 08:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's cited to a reliable source, it can be added, but we can't perform our own analysis.  That belongs on Wikia or the IMDb. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Return of historicity section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Glory (1989 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110224185421/http://ace-filmeditors.org/ace-eddie-awards/nominees-recipients/ to http://ace-filmeditors.org/ace-eddie-awards/nominees-recipients/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125220223/http://nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=1989 to http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=1989
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061001153001/http://www.wga.org/awards/awardssub.aspx?id=1551 to http://www.wga.org/awards/awardssub.aspx?id=1551
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Glory (1989 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/reviews.html?sec=1&subsec=259
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929143031/http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/24155 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/24155
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified