Talk:Platoon (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Cynicism

Both of the sergeants are cynical, aren't they? It's just that one cares about human life and the other pretty much doesn't. I think Willem Dafoe's character is cynical about the war, whereas the other guy is cynical about the rights of others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sekoh (talk • contribs) 18:21, March 27, 2005

It seems like the word "cynical" is thrown around to often these days. :) It seemed to be a struggle between civilized personal morality and primitive group mentality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.130 (talk • contribs) 17:37, May 30, 2005

What makes you think that Crawford and Big Harold die? Harold is next to Lerner with the other wounded after the ambush and certainly isn't dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looper5920 (talk • contribs) 13:35, December 9, 2005

Your correct neither of them die, Crawford was shot in the lung and Big harold has his leg blown off but the last we see of them they are being evacuated seemly in a stable condition. Lerner on the other hand seems to be in a more serious condition but is also still alive the last we see of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.61.72 (talk • contribs) 04:25, March 6, 2007

Cleanup

This Article needs to be cleaned up to meet a higher standard of quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.248.11.18 (talk • contribs) 21:17, August 6, 2005

Swastika

At the end of the film an US armoured unit rescues Taylor. It is flying a Swastika (though the flag is slightly tangled around the pole). Does anyone know if there is any truth to Americans flying this flag in reality? It is just a commentory on the US and the 3rd Reich? Hobo 04:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen this film in a while but I think it's not. It's the Kriegsmarine flag shown, with the Balkan cross on it. --Moebius 19:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a Swastika, from watching the commentary of the film Oliver Stone admits that Armoured Calvary divisions (of which the men who flew the flag belonged to) were generally quite a dirty bunch and they would adorn there vehicles with human skulls and Swastikas and the like in order to try and strike fear into their enemies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctsamados (talkCtsamados (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC) • contribs) 06:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Its definately from the Kriegsmarine, which was the German naval force during WWII. Here's the link to the Kriegsmarine page on wiki, & you can see from on the flag it has the 'Swatika'.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsmarine) However the cross on the top-left hand corner is not a 'Balkan Cross' its the 'Iron cross' of the army. Its a military decoration founded in Prussia way before the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.186.69.111 (talk • contribs) 14:53, December 14, 2009

Themes

This article also needs added commentary about themes within the movie. For example, Elias and Barnes representing duality within man, the battle of good and evil. MarlonG 02:25, 24 May 2006

I concur. This article seems to be missing a lot of important information, and is essentially a long character list. Perhaps I'll do some research into articles on Platoon. Zepheus 20:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yea I was looking forward to a themes section here n all, more specifically about the relationship between Barnes & Wolfe. Ya know

the problem of how a young, educated but inexperienced officer has to assert command over an old, battle hardened soldier, who invariably has the love of all the other men Ryan4314 (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Like the change

Kaisershatner - like the change. I think it reads better than it used to. --Looper5920 17:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Rhah

Does Rhah really take narcotics from the corpse at the end of the movie? Looks like he takes cigarettes to me. Lochdale 18:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In the directors commentary on the Special Edition version of the film either Stone or Dale Dye (can't remember) confirms that Rhah takes Heroin from the dead NVA soldier. This info is also in the Triva section about the film. Apparently they (the NVA) would use the drug to work themselves up before entering battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.11.80.250 (talk • contribs) 17:11, March 1, 2007

Characters

Is the characters section really needed? I think it isn't interesting for anyone who has not seen the movie, and hardly contains any new information for those who have seen it. I think all salvagable material should be integrated into the plot section, and then it should be removed. Thoughts? --Zoz (t) 22:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I first printed a break down of the characters on the Platoon imdb page and since doing it have had loads of response from people saying it is really helpful. I've cleaned up the character section on here as there were a few inaccuracies. I think its just helpful for people if their not sure who someone is, its a pity I can't post pictures of each character but I guess that'd bring all sorts of copyright issues into play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.11.80.250 (talk • contribs) 21:26, February 28, 2007

User feedback: the characters section is useful for someone who has seen the movie. I just saw it last night for the first time, then watched it again with the commentary on. Even after these two viewings, I still had trouble keeping track of who was who, a significant weakness of the film. When I read the list here, I was filled with "Oh, that was *him*?" and "Oh, that was the same guy?" (and in a few cases "I *still* don't know who that is.") Since the characters in the movie are confusing, and there are so damn many of them, I found it most useful to have this list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.201.182 (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree with 24.18.201.182 up above. I came here to find out who Johnny Depp was in the film, I didn't even notice him until the end credits (lol one of the drawbacks of everyone wearing green!), was he the translator? Ryan4314 (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. --J.D. (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong person linked

Under the Character section Reggie Johnson is linked to the wrong person. The hyperlink leads to a professional boxer instead of the actor. Can anyone link the actor to his correct page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.170.231 (talk • contribs) 16:57, February 5, 2007

There is no entry in Wiki for the actor Reggie Johnson and I don't know how to add one. So I've removed the hyperlink on his name, so you won't be directed to the boxer Reggie Johnson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.11.80.250 (talk • contribs) 17:08, March 1, 2007

If a link already exists for "Reggie Johnson" a new link is made by changing the tag to "[[Reggie Johnson (actor)]]". This creates a red link, which, when clicked on, will open a page asking if you want to create a page for the subject. In this case, it is not a good idea because the guy was only active from 1985 - 1988 and thus would probably be deemed as not noteworthy of an article. TinyMark 07:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a few of the missing characters to the cast list Ebenhoch and Huffmeister who were both played by Assistant Technical Directors. I've also deleted the second name someone attributed to Elias (Grodin), as this only appears on the poster of the film and when Stone was quizzed about this he said that the characters name was simply Elias. On top of this when Cpt Harris has been informed of SSG. Barnes unlawful killing he refers to each soldier with there full rank and name, I don't think he'd be using someone's first name (Elias) in a situation as serious as this. --Ctsamados (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Trivialities

I remember a character said about Dafoe's Character: "That guy's been here for three years and he thinks he's Jesus F****** Christ!". Well, he did become Christ two years later! Anyone up for putting this on the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.5.8.157 (talk • contribs) 21:14, September 16, 2006

Sergeant Elias is repeatedly compared to Jesus in the film, from his first scene to his last. This is just one more way of doing it. DMorpheus 14:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Importance tag

Please note the tag is not intended as a way to elevate your personal favourite films. "Top" should be used exceedingly sparingly e.g for Charlie Chaplin or Western film. Individual film articles almost never qualify. Individual critical-acclaim, award-wins, box-office can at most amount to High importance. See also Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:OWN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.139.211 (talk • contribs) 13:20, February 7, 2007

I am reverting because you are re-categorizing based on your personal merit, not on mine. I don't care to see you re-categorizing a whole line of films based on your perspective of where they should rank -- the Halloween sequels for mid-importance? Where's the NPOV merit in that? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
ah, so only your personal merit is acceptable? please see WP:OWN. I would love to see objective criteria for the tag, but as its pure POV it would be somewhat difficult. Hence my motion to remove the tag altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.139.211 (talk • contribs) 13:31, February 7, 2007
Stop charging me with OWN. I reverted it to the status quo -- it doesn't matter whether I agree with it or not. I'm more concerned with your own POV re-categorization of these film articles without any kind of consensus. I'm not a particularly big fan of the importance scale, but you were advocating your own idea of the level of importance before you began to suggest, "Let's remove it entirely." Let's take this to WikiProject Films' talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
How does that explain this edit? Certainly does not appear to be the status quo! While I can understand fans like yourself over-inflating the importance of certain favourites, its important to remember that individual recent films cannot be placed on a par with articles about grand all-encompassing articles like Cinema, Western film, Bollywood etc etc. BY setting these articles to "top" you are creating inflation that will lead to almost every single film article on wikipedia that has a fan being set to High or above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.139.211 (talk • contribs) 13:46, February 7, 2007

You were updating the importance scale with your own POV decision. I was returning it to the status quo, charging you with POV as you have done with others. I don't profess to be certain of a film's importance scale, since I don't pretend to be my own reliable source. Please understand that I am not either in support or opposition of the scales that existed before your changes or even if they were valid, but your changes did not seem any mor valid than the ones previously made. And I reverted the T2 importance scale because I thought EVula was you. I already apologized on the editor's talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood. The rating in November was the status quo. (see Evula's edit summary). Your edit changed it to "TOP". I am attempting to assume good faith, but your edit comments about "bad faith" and your (wilful?) misunderstanding of the facts of the case make it difficult. Why apologize to Evula when you have personally attacked me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.139.211 (talk • contribs) 14:03, February 7, 2007
I only charged you with what you had changed those who reverted you. Please visit the talk page at WikiProject Films. I'm going to see if we can do anything to rid of the importance scale. I don't think it particularly helps film articles on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree and would like to see the importance scale gone. but the "Importance=disputed" tag seems a good compromise for these disputes, where it is one pov opinon versus another, dont you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.139.211 (talk • contribs) 14:09, February 7, 2007
"Dispute" sounds strong for a single word. Do whatever you wish; I'm going to see what it would take to get the importance scale removed, as it lacks criteria like the quality scale possesses, especially for such a broad range of approaches for films. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes at the end (~). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
well yeah its a single word but nevertheless a dispute. at least nobody will feel insulted that "their" article has been downgraded. or shocked that its been upgraded. 82.2.139.211 18:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well... I'm not going to touch the importance scales at the moment, as I'd like to take the approach that would potentially address all of them (the complete removal of the scale). I don't want to waste my energy on potentially irrelevant edits if something can be done on a larger scale (no pun intended). Keep your eye on the WikiProject Films talk page -- while I didn't agree with your initial edits, your input on trying to establish the objective nature of these film articles would be appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added high importance per consensus of critical reviews and AA Best Picture award. —Viriditas | Talk 02:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thigh Wound

This is from Shakespeare Henry IV, where Falstaff has stabbed himself in the thigh to feign death. When he is resurrected in front of the prince he says "Come friend John, Let us to the highest ground, to see what friends are living, who are dead." I think this is a scene very appropriate to the 1960s where so many rumors of death and not death, such as the rumors about McCartney.

Also, when the commander calls in "all remaining ordnance" on his own position, remember that many of those planes were equipped to carry battlefield or "tactical" nuclear weapons. Use of nuclear weapons for defensive purposes was not outlawed by President Trumans executive order. Frizb 03:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I just added a trivia section to this film which includes the statement "Johnny Depp's portrayal of Gator Lerner was considered so amazing by Oliver Stone, that most of rising star Depp's scenes were deleted because it was felt that they "upstaged" Charlie Sheen." Please do not delete this because you are a huge Charlie Sheen fan and don't want anything shown that mocks him. It was a fact and not put on this page to make Charlie Sheen look bad, it was just put in because its interesting. DurotarLord 23:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to your point here. Either way, it doesn't seem neuteral.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reggie Johnson

The actor who plays Junior Martin has his named linked to the Wiki listing for a boxer named Reggie Johnson. Is this the same person? On the boxer's Wiki page, there's no mention of an acting career. Anthony71 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the hyper link to Reggie Johnson the boxer, who is someone else. If anyone knows how to create a new entry for Reggie Johnson the actor please do and re-instate the hyper link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.61.72 (talk • contribs) 04:19, March 6, 2007

.02

Hi:

Maybe someone who has read the novel can comment, but I read elsewhere that the film bears a resemblance to the novel 'Go Tell the Spartans,' which was made into a film, with some alterations to the plot. I've no idea if this is true or not, but am just passing the remark along. AG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.183.92 (talk • contribs) 21:47, May 17, 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Platoonmovieposter.jpg

Image:Platoonmovieposter.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. Adam McMaster 11:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Character list....!!!!

How the heck did such a bloated character list get in here? It's longer than the article!! I say we cut most of it out & just list the major players. Not to mention that most of it reads like OR. Tommyt 16:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I pruned the list of a few of the minor characters. --J.D. 17:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, it just read mostly like fanboy nonsense & OR. Tommyt 18:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you again Tommt. Do you like the current character list?--Hammerandclaw (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Tagline

The first casualty of war is innocence.

Should it be mentioned that this tagline looks (or even be a twist on) Aeschylus: In war, truth is the first casualty.? Mallerd 16:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies and Reaching

Maybe some of this was written by people who have read the original screenplay or a novelization, but some of the details and 'facts' are not supported by the film. A few examples: Elias is referred to as "Sgt. Elias" throughout the film, even by his Captain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.253.4.21 (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Error in the Summary

Taylor does not kill Barnes with an AK-47. At the moment, I don't know remember what the name of the gun is(it's basically the Russian version of the BAR), but I do know it's not an AK-4771.145.140.14 (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Watch it again my friend.....it is most definitely an AK. Might be a Chinese clone (I don't recall) but there's no question is is an AK of some kind. DMorpheus (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right.71.145.141.57 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Characters

This section needs sorting, It's longer thatn the plot, is of little use to anyone! Some of the information presented, such as Gardner buying paraphanallia (right spelling?) isn't even mentioned in the film.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Per one recommendation of WP:MOSFILM, the cast section has now been eliminated, as all the relevant information has been placed elsewhere in the article. It'll be reinstated (after a fashion) once I, or someone else, gets around to digging out some real-world casting information. Steve T • C 07:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Video game merge

The video game article is a stub and should be merged into the appropriate section in the film article. --Nreive (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Why do most films depict white Southerners as violent rednecks who do nothing except drink beer ,listen to country music and use bad grammarjeanne (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)?I'm referring to the character of Bunny-who by the way happens to be my favourite character.But couldn't Stone have shown him to be less stereotypical or else had Bunny speak with a standard US accent?

This page is pretty bad

I tried to edit some things, add some "references needed" tags and cleanup a bit, but the source article is really really bad, poorly organized, terribly written, and doesn't cite its sources. Too much work for me :-) 200.89.148.92 (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I will take a crack at it. I've got a lot of articles and other sources that I will improve this article greatly.--J.D. (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Survivors

There were more platoon members alive at the end than just the one's mentioned. What about Big Harold, Sergeant Warren, Crawford, Tony, Tex, Ebenhoch, Huffmeister, and possibly Gator?68.112.145.172 (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, why did we get rid of so much of the character list? It is very hard to tell who is who in this movie and it would be very helpful for many people. I strongly suggest bringing it back. Even the minor characters deserve mention. 68.112.145.172 (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of important actors in the film. Some, like Forest W. and Johhny Depp had very minor roles, and probably aren't worth including in the plot, at least from a plot perspective. It is tempting to throw them in, though...we would just end up with a very long plot summary. JohnnyCalifornia 12:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote part of that character list which was dismissed as fan boy nonsense even though the parts I wrote only stated very basic facts, so people can establish different people in the film. I can re-add it again if you wish but this time the whole of it can be in a basic facts format? --Ctsamados (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot

Hey people. I just did a major re-write of the plot. I hope you find it to be a big improvement. At least this one is factually accurate. It's still not perfect- It could probably use copy-editing, wikifying, and some general editing. But, it's a good start. I'd really like to see this article get FA status some day, so lets get crackin' JohnnyCalifornia 12:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the contribution, it must have taken a while. Unfortunately, the film style guidelines reckon 1250 words is far too many. Around 500-700 would be more appropriate for a film of this type. In addition, the plot summary should be utterly free of editor interpretation. Even simple phrases such as, "Ironically, Taylor naively assumes that the wound is mortal..." This is classed as original research by Wikipedia and would be removed sooner or later. Sorry, and I hope you can help in other ways. Steve T • C 12:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, you don't have the right to revert my work based on the evidence you cited. It clearly says "should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason, such as a very complicated plot." This is a complicated plot, and even if it is a little long, it is much better, by any standards. You are entitled to erase un-referenced work that has been challenged, but this is not a blatant violation of any userpolicy. We will need a 3rd party if you're going to wikilawyer this page into a B-rating for selfish reasons JohnnyCalifornia 12:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to point your attention to the top of the policy page, "This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Common sense. Have you seen the film? Do you see how many factual errors are in the plot you just reverted to? Common sense. You can always work to make something shorter, but will have to spend hours, as I just did, to modify an article like that, and make it readable. Common sense. I have never seen such careless disrespect for another editor's work in my life. 12:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyCalifornia (talk • contribs)
The plot section should not be a blow-by-blow account of the film; it should only carry enough detail to enable the provision of context to the rest of the article. And, thorough though your work is, along with the one I cite above, a casual glance reveals words such as "shocked", "ironically", "tremendously", "naïve enthusiasm" and "carelessly" - which are all examples of interpretation, which are strictly disallowed. I know it must seem obvious to you, but those are the tenets we edit by. I am more than happy to court a second opinion on this, and will ask at the Wikiproject Films talk page. All the best, Steve T • C 13:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Responding from WT:FILM, I have to concur with Steve. Johnny, I know you mean well, but the revision you wrote is a little too long and has flavorful wording. We need to write plot sections not to only summarize the film's events, but to ensure neutral language. Unfortunately, this can result in dry writing, but we need to accept that because we're not trying to sell the film, just state what happened in it. My suggestion is to try to work with the revision Steve reverted to and see if you can't make corrections to the factual errors within that revision. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in, Erik. In addition, I'm more than happy to work with you (Johnny) in order to make this right. Either by sorting through the factual errors in the existing (short) version, or by working through your own (long) version in order to point out where it slips into both 1) interpretation, and 2) unnecessary detail. All the best, Steve T • C 14:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Erik, first of all, I appreciate your feedback, which was much more neutral and does not show a personal agenda. Your comments unintentionally hit the nail on the head: "Work with the revision Steve reverted to and see if you can't make corrections to the factual errors within that revision"? That's what I did. It took me hours. I didn't replace the plot summary, I worked with it. It would have been much easier and much less time consuming if I had just re-written the thing. Perhaps it was a mistake to call it a re-write. Now, at the risk of sounding snooty, do I need to make revisions slower so that they aren't all deletedl? That's how I feel. My revision was so quickly deleted that there is no way it could have been compared to the original in a neutral and fair way. You ask me to work with your work, but I did. I'm asking you to work with mine. It does not require reversion, and I see no policy on wikipedia that suggests it would be fair or appropriate to do so. In my opinion, quality issues outweigh quantity issues, so I ask you to re-evaluate your positions, because I know that as good editors, with good intentions, you'll at least see my point. JohnnyCalifornia 23:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Steve, I missed your comment above. I am willing to work on it, if you know a place and way we could collaborate. I was under the impression that the easiest way to do this is to let you "have at it" on the main page. I still don't agree that my version is somehow too dangerous to leave up there (content issues, in my opinion, vastly outweigh problems with length or simple wording like "ironic"...you have to admit that at the very least, these issues are debatable.) ....but if for some reason it is, I apologize. I am new to wikipedia as an editor, although I am not new to editing, and I have read and memorized most of the policy guidelines already. I believe in wikipedia and I also believe in Platoon being one of the best movies ever made, so I hope we can "squash" the proverbial "beef". Peace JohnnyCalifornia 00:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyCalifornia (talk • contribs)

Arbitrary break

Ok, ok, ok...I made some changes: Cut the length down to 825 words, deleted some of the adjectives and descriptions that didn't seem neutral, wikified a little bit, and made some other film-specific formatting. It's still not perfect, but we need a place to collaborate on it, so here it is. I feel that 825 words is acceptable according to the guidelines on the Wikiproject Films page, at least acceptable enough that we can add it back and invite other editors to contribute. Of course, feel free to make any changes you think are necessary, and then please add it back to the main page, as per our discussion above:


Take care, JohnnyCalifornia 05:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyCalifornia (talk • contribs)

Hi, that's much cleaner to my eyes. I have some suggestions for changes. The strike outs are what I believe should be removed from the text, the italics are what I have added in. This would reduce the number of words to 674:

I believe this eliminates several redundancies and details which does not add to an understanding of the plot (though an understanding of the characters' emotions is a different matter, and one which would not generally be included in the plot section). If you want to see how it reads without all the strike outs and italics, take a look here. I'll incorporate this into the article for now, but feel free to point out where it might be lacking. Steve T • C 09:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, good work Steve. JohnnyCalifornia 18:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyCalifornia (talk • contribs)

Johnny Depp

Why is Johnny Depp's name the very first name mentioned on the page? He doesnt even get a big role. The only time you see him is when he is carrying that kid out of the village. Kylee20051 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Depp's name should be removed from the first line of this page. Depp is a big star now, yes, but surely anyone who has actually seen this film would agree that his is a very minor character. Forrest Whitaker has more lines than Depp, he's won an Oscar for Best Actor, where's his name? I'm not saying that Whitaker should be mentioned in the opening line, but certainly before Depp is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.206.183 (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoyt?

I see we call Ivan Kane's character Tony Hoyt. However, he is never called Hoyt in the movie. He is called Tony only once by Elias, never Hoyt. He also wrote some stuff in his helmet cover about his "italian ass". I don't think Hoyt is a italian name.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Platoon_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1137088561"