Talk:The Beast (1988 film)

message: The "Mi-8" used for filming may well have been a western helicopter (indeed most likely was, although the Mi-8 was exported widely throughout the globe). It is, however, worth noting that the helicopter is, I think, modeled on a helicopter known as the Mi-18, a version of the Mi-8 with a sliding door, fuselage extended by about a metre, and, if memory serves, retractable landing gear. Two Mi-18s were used for trials in Afghanistan; today they are either scrapped or serving as training units. See:
http://www.fsdome.com/aviation-encyclopedia/helis/country/russia/helis/60.htm
http://avia.russian.ee/vertigo/mi-18-r.html
Anyone who can provide further information, it'd be appreciated.
:The helicopter in the film looks like an Aérospatiale Super Frelon, but I'm not sure if that's what it is.
GagHalfrunt 00:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This movie is not quite about the righteousness of one side in a military struggle over another.  Rather, it appears clear, no matter who wrote it, that it is about the emotional weight of foreign combat and the kinds of relationships which are constants in all human interaction.  And considering when it was made, I don't think anyone can fault it for having portrayed Soviets, at least one Soviet officer, in a poor light; the Cold War was still technically "on."  Further, despite the insanity of Daskal, there are elements of his character which inspire compassion: his passion as a former Red Army hero, his dedication to military-political authority, however malformed, and his will against understanding that he has obviously abandoned his duties as a commander in the midst of the moral schizophrenia that is war.  War is war, war is war--and it is one of war's many ironies that it is almost compulsory that combatants commit atrocitaries against one another, whether Russian, Afghan, American, Japanese, German, Angolan, South African, etc., etc, ad nauseum.  Soldiers are put in a position of alternate power (their rifle, their tank) and subordination (an officer, perhaps psychotic like Daskal, or the very fact of the war itself controlling their lives), which is somehow both compelling and dissonant in the way it upsets people's moral groundings.  If there is one thing this film tells us about war, agency, and human emotion, it is that war has been most often fought by men little more than children, who are given only a vague understanding of what they are fighting for, and are led in a hugely variable and haphazard set of ways (i.e. the next tank over might have a completely different type of dynamic; soldiers, even in lock-step, are still individuals).  It is unclear to me why we must constantly size the sides up against each other as if it were some kind of enormous murder mystery, where we search and search for who was the one did the most dirty deeds and then put the entire onus of the war's impact on them.  Rest assured both sides did horrible things, and as we uncover these things the recognition of the significance of the fact of mutual sin and abuse (which is a taske that has been far from mastered) is the only path to reconciliation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrschum (talk • contribs) 
140.77.129.213 22:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  as a film... 

message: Some years ago when I saw the film the first time I asked a co-student of mine who was of Afghan origin and had also seen the film about the language. She told me that they didn't speak any Afghan language in that film! Nor Pashtu nor any other language, it was just some fantasy language just like those ‘African’ or ‘Indian’ languages you can hear in many Hollywood films. So it would be good if someone who speaks Pashtu could confirm this. Based on my meager knowledge of Persian I can at least confirm that they don't speak Dari the major Afghan language of the region of Kabul. Driss 23:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pashtu 

message: :Image:Thebeast.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 page and edit it 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Thebeast.jpg

message: First of all, let me say that the critical remarks on this page are absurd and hold no water. It's not propaganda, neither side is portrayed as evil or heroic, and it seems reasonable to believe that the Soviets used a number of grotesque weapons, including poison gas, and the Afghans were no less brutal. The first comment in the 'as a film...' section was intelligent and well thought-out. I enjoyed reading it.
The issue I have to raise is, 'Commander' Daskal's epaulettes are black with two stars. So, according to the Soviet rank system, he could be a midshipman, praporshchik of aviation, or otherwise praporshchik. Since he's obviously in the Soviet ground forces, I think we can rule out midshipman and praporshchik of aviation. While it seems plausible that he's an army praporshchik, why is he called 'commander'? Is it just referring to his position within the unit? Also, weren't Soviet armored/cavalry troops' epaulettes red? Let me know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MDunn1937 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Tank and Artillery personnel wore black shoulder boards. His rank is indeed "Praporshchik", but his position would be "Komandir Tanka". 216.254.164.191 (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Nope. Look at the wikipedia article on Soviet ranks. Red was clearly used for armor, cavalry, and artillery. Black was for technical personnel and the navy. You may be confusing that with the western tradition of black as a tanker's color, particularly for British tank crews' berets, which were made of black wool to hide oil stains.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenophonscitroen (talk • contribs) 06:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That wiki page indicates piping colours but not the inside colour. These are the collar tabs and arm patch of a tank crewman: ["Post-War Insignia"]. The Red Army had used black for as long as they had used tanks:["Pre-1943 Insignia"]. These of course ideally become khaki in the field. I would have to rewatch the film again, but at a glance I think you'd quicker say he had black shoulder boards than crimson. 216.254.164.191 (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tank and artillery crews could also wear red shoulder straps when they belonged to the tank battalion of a motor-rifle regiment. 74.15.83.212 (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insignia