Jump to content

Talk:A Few Good Men (play)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Very good article

[edit]

I just want to say that this is a very good article. -Amit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.216.150 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 18 July 2005

Jess[eou]p?

[edit]

I've changed what was Jessop to Jessup, since that is the name used in Amazon, Barnes and Noble and on the NY Times movie review. Also, Google search results:

  • Jessup - 8,240 [1]
  • Jessop - 803 [2]
  • Jessep - 799 [3]

It seems even IMDB has it wrong [4]. That's one reason why Reuters has specifically NOT approved Wikipedia or IMDB to be citable sources. Fuzheado | Talk 22:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it is not as simple as a Google search and count the numbers. The end credits of my DVD clearly show the character credit as "Col. Nathan R. Jessep". The DVD scene selection and liner notes also use that spelling, so the DVD is consistent. Two on-line scripts show the name as Jessep. [5] [6] Finally, the Awards Database of the Academy Awards Site list the nomination as "ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE -- A Few Good Men {"Col. Nathan R. Jessep"}" [7]. I think the Academy Awards site is the final authority here, since I cannot find a Aaron Sorkin site. Wendell 14:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholson's SAG and on-screen credit is definitely for portraying "Col. Nathan R. Jessep". Given the lack of an actual on-screen "canonical" proof (Jessep never wears a uniform with a nametag, alas) I think that has to be the best authority. I note that it was also spelled "Jessep" in the Broadway play. Shadoks 13:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I agree that Jessep is the best spelling given all current information, is there an on-line reference to a SAG credit? I could not find one. However the above Academy Awards Site seems most clear and authoritative. Wendell 00:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported Assertion: anti-American movie?

[edit]

Someone recently added a "Progression" section were he/she claims this is an anti-American/anti-military movie, something which is a) unclear (and false in my opinion) and b) unsupported original research, something frowned upon by Wikipedia's rules. I'm eliminating this section and reverting to the previous version. This is what gets eliminated:

Progression.
This movie seems to be a progression of anti-military movies generated by Hollywood (like From Here to Eternity). It seems the insipiration for the battle between lawyers on behalf of junior officers vs. senior officers or commanders was the depiction in the movie The Caine Mutiny. In the Caine Mutiny the initial drafts were anti-Navy written by a writer with Communist sympathies in the beginning of the cold war. Towards the conclusion of the movie the lawyer who convicts the General chances upon a group of celebrating and mutinous sailors who are then informed that they have done a disservice to their country by pressing charges against their Captain. Apparently a Few Good Men was written as a rebuttal to make amends for that last shred of vaguely pro military view.

201.235.51.167 01:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent cut. It's so wrong on so many levels it boggles the mind.--Buckboard 09:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor Change

[edit]

There was a line in the article that read, "... his history of quickly settling cases, which would remove the cloud of suspicion that could bring the Marine Corps embarrassment". This detail wasn't 100% accurate, probably closer to 90%. I added/changed the line to "... his history of quickly settling cases by plea bargains, which would have prevented the case from ever going to trial, bringing the Marine Corps embarrassment". Quickly settling cases implies still having gone to trial, i added the lines "by plea bargains" and "prevented the case from ever going to trial" to emphasize the facts that A, Kaffee reguarly settles cases by plea bargains to avoid trials, and B, explicitly show that keeping the case out of trial was exactly what was desired because it involves investigations and questionings. I just felt this was a bit more accurate.
Watemon 10:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced definition of "code-red"

[edit]

Just finished editing to replace the severely muddied and Orwellian definition of "code-red" with something more brief, appropriate, and factual. Any objections, please post them here. --68.100.2.20 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where was this movie filmed

[edit]

Where was this movie filmed? I can't place the city... Annapolis? Functionform 07:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Ft.Brag - Annapolis - 8th & I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.240.82 (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You can't handle the truth" denouement

[edit]

I'm pretty certain that I heard Jessup say to the judge in the movie "Colonel, what's going on?" after the court members are cleared from the courtroom, not just "What's going on?". Is that accurate? If it is, it'd be notable in that it's the only time when Jessup looks like he has no idea, and no control, over what's happening. Ironic given Downey's on-the-stand confusion when questioned by Ross. Wl219 21:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Blanket Party"- another term for Code Red

[edit]

The term "Code Red" may be fictional, but the practice of using physical means to correct the actions/attitude of a fellow soldier is still in use. In the Army we called it a "Blanket party"- when the individual in question is in his bunk, a group of guys will rush in and throw a blanket over him. Two to four guys will hold the blanket tight, effectively pinning the "Correctee" down, while others will pummel him with pillowcases full of soap (or other objects) or simply beat him with their fists. Head and face shots are avoided, and the correctee usually just gets a few bruises. This is a barbaric and (obviously) illegal practice, but I have seen it straighten out a couple of soldiers in Basic Training who were not team players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.166.78.66 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 13 November 2006

Wow, that's a scene straight out of Full Metal Jacket. Head and face shots are avoided? What about shots to the genitals? Also, do women in the service get the same barbaric treatment? If so, what about shots to the boobs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenFehling (talk • contribs) 01:42, 24 May 2007
Talk pages aren't really the place to bring up issues of discussion. BUT.... Blanket Party is apparently now an article (haven't checked it.) Blanket parties are real and do occur (at least, when I went through Army Basic in 1986. It's a tradition that is strictly forbidden by TRADOC (again, a couple of decades ago,) but nevertheless occurs and is persistent in Initial Training. As such, there are no "rules" per se, but again tradition holds that you don't render someone unfit for duty, nor cause bruises, etc. that would be visible when wearing uniform, nor cause permanent injury. You just pummel them so that they know they're fucking up not just themselves, but the unit. I can't speak to women recruits. 98.215.48.213 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my Marine corp. unit new joins were pink bellied (everyone in your platoon got to give you, one after the other - a slap - open handed - in the belly - doesent sound so bad does it. Best results acheeved when you lick your hand before giving the slap. When a Marine becomes a NCO he wares a red stripe down the leg of his dress blue uniform - blood stripe. All other NCO's get to give him a dead leg when they first see him. These are all called hazeing and in a way byond my ability to explain unify the platoon. Dont expect civilians to understand this. Marines job description - killing people - it's not normal - it's a life outside the normal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.240.82 (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

[edit]

There is a line in the trivia section that seems to be missing a word or have accidentally replaced a word such that it doesn't make any sense. "The play was sent being performed on stage and being sent to producers as a sample of Aaron Sorkin's writing ability. It was never intended to be used as screenplay material." In particular, the first "sent" makes the sentence very confusing. Could someone else take a look at this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.163.47 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 16 November 2006

Is the trivia section necessary for this article? Having viewed it briefly I can think some of these points could be included in the article. For discussion..... Lukeyboyuk (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Code Red

[edit]

In the article, it says that the "Code Red" is not real and that it was created for the movie. However, in a documentary included on the DVD version of the film, Aaron Sorkin says that it is a real term. The page on the various "Code Reds" states that the term is a slang term for roughing up an uncooperative soldier. I'm not sure which is right-the documentary and the "Code Red" page, or the article on the film. Anyone know for sure? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CJS102793 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think the text has been cleared up somewhat. In the film, one of the witnesses states that it is a term used only at Gitmo. It wouldn't surprise me that Blanket Parties have different terms at different bases, though. So the complex answer in the article right now is probably correct -- the term itself may have been invented for the movie for a very real act... Or it could be that somewhere, someplace, Code Red was a real term. Maybe citing the commentary would solve the problem? 98.215.48.213 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On which real person is Caffey based?

[edit]

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but this article, near the top, states the character of Lt. Caffey is based on "the exploits of" Don Macari, while farther down it states the character is based on David Inglesias, now famous as one of the eight U.S. attorneys dismissed by the Bush Administration. Is there a conflict of facts here, or is the Caffey character constructed from bits of both men? Of the two statements, I tend to believe the character is based on Inglesias, since this has been reported widely on the web. But that is not conclusive proof. Gladmax 14:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you that Don Marcari certainly believes the film is based on his exploits as he uses that for advertisements for his current law firm. I was also taken aback when I heard that David Iglesias was the inspiration for Cruise's character... I assumed that both of the men were probably involved in the case in some way... This is the only link I have seen that references them both... However there seem to be a lot of news sources referencing either one or the other as inspiration for Tom Cruise's character... This link references a 1994 article in which Maracari says that the character is a composite of him and 2 other guys, and Iglesias is named as one of the others...[8]

I also find it odd that the info about Marcari is included in the Plot Summary section. that doesn't seem like the appropriate place for it. --SportyJames 16:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the 2 edits made that changed the Don Marcari reference to David Iglesias. Iglesias is already mentioned in the Trivia section. There are citations in various news sources that Marcari was the inspiration for the lead in the movie. I'm guessing that there are that many more available citations for David Iglesias because he is of course in the limelight due to his recent controversial dismissal from his post as federal prosecutor for New Mexico. It appears that Sorkin probably took inspirtaion from both attorneys and perhaps more than just those 2. At this point it would make more sense to take the Marcari reference out of the plot synopsis section, and the Iglesias reference out of the trivia section and make a new reference citing the fact that there are claims that both men are the inspiration for the films lead. I think that would be the best route until perhaps a quote from Sorkin himself is found that sheds some light on the issue.--SportyJames 06:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, this update is almost a year overdue, but in the DVD special features, Sorkin states that the case is based on a case his sister, a JAG attorney, had. Minaker (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cast differentiation

[edit]

Does any one else think there should be some differentiation made between the cast of the play and the cast of the movie, also the plot lists the characters portrayed by their on-screen counterparts?

Plot description

[edit]

is far too long, and would profit from hitting the high points and cutting the play-by-play. I have done a little basic copy-editing, but see this as requiring more time than I am willing to spend. JNW 20:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who hasn't seen the movie, I find the description is difficult to follow. For example, "When Markinson unexpectedly shows up in the back seat of Danny's car after a bad trial day, Kaffee sees a ray of hope and plans to put him on the stand as a witness to the true course of events." Are they talking about three people here, or two? 76.19.66.118 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the 2300-word summary from an older revision of the article [9]. At 800 words, this isn't as short as it could be, but I think it's more readable and it's more in keeping with Wikipedia's style. --Tony Sidaway 06:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed fact tag

[edit]

The statement, "Marines do not salute whilst indoors, unless under arms (ie, carrying a weapon and wearing cover)." was labeled with a Fact tag. I removed it, because this is something elementary that every soldier in the United States knows. I'm sure that a citation could easily be found for it, but IMVHO it doesn't need to be because it's a case of drive-by tagging. 98.215.48.213 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC) A Marine under arms can be as simple as a marine wearing a war belt (tight belt worn ourside the blouse) signifing he is on-duty. In this case and this case only does a Marine ware a cover inside. Having a cover on therefor he must salute a superior - however that superior will not salute back as he/she has no cover on in doors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.240.82 (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Seperation

[edit]

The film and the play should have their own separate articles. They are different enough to justifiy seperating them. 61.72.47.41 (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur--Levineps (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks

[edit]

Is it normal, in the USN JAG, for the lead counsel (LTJG Kaffee) to be out-ranked by his junior counsel (LCDR Galloway). Is this an error of the writer or is it explained somewhere? Avalon (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Few Good Men (play). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the link Donald W. Marcari because it directs to a law-firm that has nothing to do with the play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.105.10 (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Few Good Men (play). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessup versus Jessep

[edit]

Currently the name "Jessep" occurs seven times in this article and "Jessup" 14 times.

  • Should just one spelling be used?
  • If so, which one?

The article A Few Good Men (film) uses only "Jessup". Michael Hardy (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Few_Good_Men_(play)&oldid=1197172473"