Talk:U-571 (film)

message: I added a paragraph discussing the controversial 'lifeboat massacre' scene - 8/5/05 KMC
==It should be noted that there were instances on both sides of Submarine crews machine-gunning survivors.  Fortunately these were very rare instances.
One such American involved in machine-gunning survivors was Dudley Walker Morton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_W._Morton 
What is interesting in a tragic manner is that Heinz-Wilhelm Eck was tried for war crimes and executed for machine-gunning survivors when he was the Captain of U-852.
No charges were ever levied against Dudley Morton.  Dudley Morton was killed in action in 1943 so it is a legal moot point whether he did or did not commit war crimes.
War crimes are sometimes the excuse the winners use to hang the losers.  Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lifeboat Massacre" scene 

message: I think that the duel with German destroyer was partly inspired by a real duel between HMS Jupiter and the Japanese sub I-60 (of a Kaidai type), though in this fight the sub got the worst of it.
I also think the movie sucks and that it represents a poor, overaly action-packed and (as mentioned), historically incorrect  attempt of creating an American-style Das Boot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.137.119.238 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 26 August 2005.
::Hmmm... Well, I'm British, and an ex-navy man, but even I think that this article is a bit 'Anti-American' in its belittling tone.  The article is supposed to be about a movie, but mentions so little about it that it doesn't even merit the usual spoiler warning (not that there's much to spoil, to be honest).  We all know the real history, but the film is nothing more than a typical Hollywood action adventure 'yarn', which never claimed to be a historically-accurate documentary of real events. If Hollywood ever makes a movie where Tom Cruise designs a bomb that bounces on water, and the 'Memphis Belle' destroys dams with it I will change my mind.  But the fact that I am writing this in English means that we can maybe let Hollywood have its fun now and then without taking offence so hysterically.
::I think that the Germans have far more reason to be upset by this film than the Brits.  The film is unintentionally funny to British eyes, but at least we are not shown stereotypically as committing an atrocity  ChrisRed
:::I'm not certain about this, so i won't include it in the article... but it does make sense. Jonathan Mostow wanted to do the film with a British cast but couldn't get the funding. I know that was the case with Memphis Belle. David Puttnam wanted to do a film about a British bomber crew, but couldn't get the money so he did a film about the Memphis Belle instead. I agree with what Mr. Red said; this is a movie and this article mentions next to nothing about the movie. For my mind I rather enjoyed it, in particular the Oscar-nominated sound effects. Those depth charges were earshattering in the cinema. Scott197827 23/2/2006
::::Have attempted to correct this by adding a section entitled "Redeeming features of the film"--88.96.3.206 21:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humph...I was joking when I made the crack about Tom Cruise above, but I can't wait to see The Few. Apparently Mr Cruise also won the Battle of Britain for us as well :-) ChrisRed 08:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with ChrisRed that this article currently spends too much time bashing the historical inaccuracies compared to how much space it devotes to sketching the plot, for example. (I'm guilty, as I've added some myself). — Matt Crypto 21:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destroyer duel 

message: I made an error in my edit summary. In reading the paragraph in the Editor, with all the cite info, I thought the quote being referenced was from Bill Clinton. Upon seeing the viewed text, I realized that it was from "David Balme, the British Naval officer".
However, the text does not quote Balme; if it were a full quote where he said "Americanised", British spelling would prevail. However, as it is part of the text, American spelling is the default, since it is about an primarily-American-made film. (Oops, forgot to sign :(. - BillCJ 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, fair point: US topics get US spelling -- even if the film is really about a UK topic ;-) — Matt Crypto 21:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Americanized"

message: I have removed the following parragraph:
:The movie has also been criticized for a scene in which the U-boat crewmen machine-gun Allied merchant crewmen who have survived their ship's sinking, killing them in cold blood as they float helplessly in their lifeboat.  The implication is that the killing of survivors was typical U-boat behavior; critics of the U-571 movie, however, point out that this is an incorrect depiction of typical U-boat crew behavior.  In contrast to the depiction of U-boat men in the movie, U-boat crewman almost universally followed the accepted rules of war; in a number of incidents, they helped survivors with food, directions and occasionally medical aid.  Assistance to survivors only stopped after Admiral Karl Dönitz issued the "Laconia order" following a US attack on U-boats transporting injured POWs under a flag of truce. In fact, out of several thousand sinkings of merchantmen in World War II, there is only one documented case of a U-boat crew deliberately attacking the ship's survivors:  that of the U-852, whose crew attacked survivors of the Greek ship Peleus.
All of this may well be true, but it's uncited. I added two of the cite tags a week ago, and there was at least on other tag already there. Find a credible source before putting it back in. Thanks.
Oh, and use American spelling, unless its a direct quote. - BillCJ 18:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cited and reinserted.--67.10.240.169 22:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited

message: Everything from the cleanup tag onward needs a rewrite. Much of the assumptions and assertations are not cited, there are grammatical mistakes, etc. Just needs a general cleanup. Zchris87v 06:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Felt this was worth bringing up, but on the anti-submarine warfare page it mentions that there was only one time during World War II when a submarine successfully attacked another submerged submarine with torpedoes, and this involved some fairly complicated calculations and guesswork to achieve, whereas the movie appeared to make it look like a fairly routine procedure Masterblooregard 02:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, I can't in the movie any evidence that the U-boat sent to repair U-571 was specifically a resupply one (the picture seems to depict a submarine with a thinner hull than the Type XIV). If no reasonable objections, I'll remove the sentence related to this: Furthermore German Type XIV supply U-boats didn't have torpedo tubes and thus could not have attacked S-33.[15]  Regards, DPdH (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical inacurracies section 

message: Inaccurate I'm sure, as the sub was at 90 degrees to the boat and only a short distance off to the boat's port side. No way the boat could have turned around fast enough to ram the sub, however as I'm no nautical expert I'll leave it up so somebody else to remove this. Mathmo Talk 09:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts I'll be bold and remove it, but obviously I'll have no problem at all with anybody restoring this sentence. Mathmo Talk 09:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In these situations the destroyer captain would also have the option of sinking the submarine through simple ramming." 

message: I think the entire "general inaccuracies" sections should be removed.  This is a movie, and as they state in the first paragraph, COMPLETELY FICTITIOUS.  Unless we are going to make a point to create an inaccuracies section in every movie there is a page for, I think that this section serves no purpose at all except to clutter up the article.  It may serve a purpose if this was a movie based on actual events, as a comparison between the movie's storyline and history, but in the case of a fictitious story, it doesn't need to be there.  I deleted it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Odie1344 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have reinstated it. The lack of factual accuracy received extensive media coverage at the time, and so it is valid to cover the subject on this page. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

text: After further research I have reinstated the comment I was discussing above.  It does indeed appear that for this film a number of M1928A1 Thompsons were extensively modified to a unique configuration that has no positively verifiable precedent in history.  M1A1 carbine side-folding stocks and unique, Hollywood style star-fish compensators were fitted to these weapons. While a side-folding stock would have been handy for the CQB situations encountered in clearing an enemy submarine, there is simply no evidence that such a Thompson was ever completed or officially so-modified.  However, necessity, in-field ingenuity and modification have long been the mothers of unique modifications to weaponry and equipment.SAWGunner89 (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are guidelines at WP:FILMHIST to address this subject matter. In short, we need to reference reliable sources that compare this film to history. We cannot be making the comparison ourselves. There is a lot of that being done here, which is original research. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "General Inaccuracies" section 

message: Why is there a picture of U-570. There is no mention of this vessel anywhere in the text so I can't see what this is trying to illustrate. How does this picture relate to the film or the related real-life events?Tvx1 23:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  U-570 picture 

message: After reading Racial segregation in the United States Armed Forces#African-Americans 3, I can't tell if the role of Carson (played by Carson) is accurate.
Would a black seaman be in a submarine crew and be ready to operate the devices he operates?
Do you know?
Antinitpicker antinitpicks:
:While sub crews were not fully integrated at the time, African-Americans did serve, as shown here, as messmen and stewards.
:Black men were allowed on submarines as cooks or stewards in WWII. In a sub everyone has to know two or three jobs. Often this was the only way for a black man to learn technical jobs like sonar or navigator.
:Every man on the submarine learns the controls since they're out at sea for so long and it is so crucial to be able to run the submarine at all times.
--Error (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Segregation