Talk:The Eagle Has Landed (novel)

message: Where does the phrase "the eagle has landed" originate?  I know the Apollo 11 astronaut Armstrong (q.v.) uttered "Houston, Tranquility Base here.  The Eagle has landed."  as his Eagle lunar module touched down on July 20th, 1969, it has been the name of various warcraft, and it was the title of this 1975 World War II novel, but where/when did it originate?
As far as I know it was Armstrong! but am open to being corrected. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 09:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of phrase

message: I haven't read the book in a while, but I am reasonably certain steiner that he doesn't shoot the man that he thinks is churchill, he gets the oportunity but hesitates and is shot. And as anyone who has read the eagle has flown knows, he apparently did not actually die.
You are right: in the book Steiner does appear to hesitate and is shot dead by Kane and Foster, the actor playing Churchill, is inharmed. In the film, the actor/impersonator is killed. :: 
Jim Dunning 23:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in synopsis

message: ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITC project 

message: The article states that the village church, watermill and house were used in the filming. Certainly the church and Mapledurham Watermill feature in the film, but I'm less sure about Mapledurham House itself. Is there a source for this claim?. -- Chris j wood 12:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Mapledurham House used in filming. 

message: I found the following text under 'External links', where it certainly does not belong. I take it to be a criticism of current article content, so it probably does belong on this page. -- Chris j wood 12:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content criticism?. 

message: As seen above, there seems to be some confusion resulting from the fact that the summary in this article deals with the film version, yet there are some major differences between it and the novel. The way I see it there should be either a) separate articles for the book and the film or b) the summary should refer to the novel, with a section noting the differences in the film. What do people think? MarkSutton 10:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think two articles might be excessive - I would suggest either one plot summary, based on the novel but with differences in the film noted, or, if there are so many that that would be confusing, two distinct plot summaries within one article. Barnabypage 12:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Numerous articles would be excessive - only two uses: one film, one NASA. A simple "also a phrase used by Nasa, see ...." type line would suffice at the top of this article. Rgds, - Trident13 22:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate articles?

message: "Some details, such as Joanna Grey's hatred of the English due to her South African heritage and experiences, are not made clear in the film version."
Apart from Jean Marsh's South African accent, her statement that she is South African, and the whole scene where she bitterly explains her husband was killed in an English concentration camp in South Africa?
Can we change this please?--Stu-Rat 19:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: South Africa

message: In the movie the Americans were warned, but in the book, wasnt it the home guard that were warned...?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.103.133 (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  American base 

message: The novel claims that "at least fifty percent of it is documented historical fact." The article makes no assessment of this claim.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.192.125 (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If reliable sources can be found that assess the claim, then it can be added to the article.  Otherwise, it would be original research.  Brilliant Pebble (talk) 06:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a nicely equivocal claim, rather tongue-in-cheek, by 'Higgins'. There was in fact a man named Hitler, and a man named Churchill, and man named Himmler, and an organisation called the Irish Republican Army, and the German Army had a punishment battalion, and there were such things as man-steered torpedoes, and both sides used captured aircraft... and so on. All those are facts. Add them up and you get a good serve of 'truth' in this novel. Now mix in some fiction and farce and fable along with a touch of propaganda and the whole dish becomes a treat. 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:5C2B:C4FE:B938:7C4F (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  50% true? 

message: Was there any controversy about the story looking like a rip-off of Went the Day Well?
It copies the central idea of Germans disguised as Allied troops taking over a quiet English village, helped by a "fifth column".  And the scenes in the church are very similar.
Based on the film versions alone, I think the original is better, because of the dramatic tension created by the several attempts to get help and the ongoing story of the mole.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a Hogan's Heroes episode where the idea of an impersonator being sent back to kill Churchill is used, and Hogan and his men must stop him. I don't know if it's that blatant, more like using ideas from different places and using them with a new angle.  One might also find similarities in some of the Soviet films on Operation Long Jump, after all, which I surfed ehre from because I wondered, in responding to criticism that the article should be removed - due to the operation being almost surely fictional - a mention might instead be placed here in several sentences as a possible source of ideas, along with "Went the Day Well."108.90.89.40 (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

text: This article is about the novel, not the film. The Wiki article about the film mentions 'Went the day well'. Went the day well was adapted from a Graham Green story, which has no Wiki article, but this should really be referenced in the article.Lkingscott (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rip-off of [[Went the Day Well]] 

message: In England all the medieval village churches became Church of England during the reformation, and subsequently most catholics are either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants, and their churches are mostly 19th and 20th century. And yet in the film the village's medieval church is catholic as are the villagers. Is this anomaly in the book? Is it explained? 87.194.105.247 (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In the novel it's described as a church which (as you say) became Anglican during the Reformation, but was then reconsecrated as a Roman Catholic church in the nineteenth century. Barnabypage (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Church 

message: Substituted at 08:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The priest and his sister's surname appears twice in this article as "Vereker", but in the Wikipedia article on the film it appears twice as "Vereker" and twice (in the cast list) as "Verecker". I have no idea which spelling is correct, as the name is very rare, perhaps even unique, in English (I've never come across it before or since). I've also mentioned this in the Talk page on the film.213.127.210.95 (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The spelling "Vereker" is used in the book and indeed first appears on page 2. The village gravedigger tells the narrator that the whole village is Catholic: "All Romans here... Always have been." Recusant Catholic villages in England are extremely rare, Little Crosby near Liverpool being the best known, but, given the Norfolk setting, the author was probably thinking of Walsingham, where, long after Henry VIII had the priory pulled down, some of the locals did go on believing in the kind of visions, miracles and relics (such as vials of what was supposedly the Virgin's milk) that had once brought pilgrims and prosperity to the area: a kind of cargo cult. Vereker is an Irish name, possibly of Dutch origin -- this might be due to Dutch Protestants fleeing the Catholic oppression of Philip II of Spain, or it might be due to Dutch Catholics fleeing the Calvinists that Philip was reacting against; the latter is perhaps more likely, as Verekers tended to be found in the West of Ireland -- and there certainly are still Catholic Verekers, though the best-known branch of the family was Anglo-Irish nobility and therefore very much Tory, Orange and not Catholic. https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1820-1832/member/vereker-hon-john-1790-1865 Field Marshal Lord Gort VC, alias John Vereker, the pre-war Chief of the Imperial General Staff, later commander of the BEF in France in 1940 and governor of Malta during the siege, was a member of this branch.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Vereker,_6th_Viscount_Gort Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vere(c)ker