Talk:Thirteen Days (film)

Origin of title

"The movie was based on the book The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis." Wouldn't it have, in fact, been based on the memoir of the same name by Robert Kennedy? Sheesh, non-fiction is poorly covered here. I'll make this a disambig with links to movie and book. Marskell 10:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This tag actually appears at the end of the credits to the movie. So, unless the movie credits are incorrect, the original citation stands and should be restored. The Cuban Missile Crisis described in both the movie and Robert Kennedy's book takes place over the course of thirteen days, so while the movie covers the same events as the book, it is not based on the book of the same name. 65.213.220.62 19:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)databoyecho@aol.com

The movie can't be based off the book The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis because the book's copyright is post film release. The book was not even published till 2001, while the film was well in production and released in 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.187.77 (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Kennedy Tapes was published in 1997. The 2001 edition was a reissue. Check the 'Thirteen Days in 145 Minutes' link at the bottom of the page.--Werthead (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

The article says: "The Missile Crisis was first publicly dramatized in the 1974 made-for-television play The Missiles of October. Thirteen Days portrays some incidents based on newly unclassified information not available in the earlier work, such as the shooting down of a U2 reconnaissance aircraft over Cuba during the crisis." However, Missiles of October includes the U2 shoot-down, so this is not an apt example. Also, the article ends with this way: In the book Reel Power: 'Hollywood Cinema and American Supremacy, Matthew Alford criticises the film for side-lining "the real-world Kennedy administration's preoccupation with launching secret attacks, including an attempted invasion, against Cuba, which persisted into the crisis and beyond".' Is it really appropriate to end the article, especially in a section called "historical accuracy," with the dubious opinion of one author, as if that represents the real truth? Kennedy was not "preoccupied with launching secret attacks"--that was the CIA, which Kennedy was trying to reign in. The fact that Kennedy went along with the misguided Bay of Pigs plot near the beginning of his presidency should not be blown out of proportion. After all, it wasn't Kennedy who came up with the plan. And Kennedy didn't come up with the Northwoods plan either, for that matter--that was the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And Kennedy rejected the Northwoods plan. So, ending the article this way seems like an unfair smear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.97.73 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

In the film, it is made plain by LeMay that the USA is aware of the presence of battlefield nuclear weapons on Cuba, speaking of the Frog tactical nuclear missiles they've identified. But in real life i am sure that the US was unaware of these tactical nukes, and had they been so then a land invasion would have been considered out of the question. Robert McNamara made clear years later that the US did not know about the tactical nukes. --Corinthian (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.56.102.132 (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The FROGs and the MiG-based cruise missiles (one of which was aimed at Guantanamo Naval Base) were photographed during low-level-flights, but their presence was not universally known during the crisis. From my readings, I gather that at least the presence of tactical nuclear weapons was known at some point during the crisis, especially since the military had asked for their own tactical nukes at some point. The book "One Minute to Midnight" by Dobbs (2009) is excellent and up-to-date, but be warned, reading it will make watching the film even more annoying. It's not only the fake Boston accent that's highly inaccurate. --91.32.95.94 (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Actual inaccuracy

In the article, it is stated that the movie says the missles would reach DC in 5 minutes, which was untrue, and thus an inaccuracy. In fact, the movie states they would have "5 minutes warning", and does not specify DC, but rather "cities and military installations in the southeast". I feel unless someone wishes to clarify the alleged inaccuracy, it should be deleted. -- rybock 10:52, 6 January 2007

Agreed, I logged on to point out the same fact. The movie says only "5 minutes warning" -- jph6t 20 January 2007

Incorrect. There's a scene where Robert Kennedy's talking to Kenny O' Donnell and Robert says "that's just for morale. The missiles take only 5 minutes to get here." "here" being DC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.56.102.132 (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Within the movie, we're talking about what are established "facts". It is specifically explained to the President, and the audience, that "Our cities andvmilitary installations in the Southeast, as far north as Washington, are in range of these weapons, and in the event of a launch, would only have five minutes of warning." The discussion mentioned between O'Donnell and RFK concerns the evacuation plan; whether the missles take 6 minutes or 60, with only 5 minutes warning, what RFK says is logical - it would take only 5 minutes for the missles to get there once the evacuation notice could be given.--Rybock (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ThirteenDays.png

Image:ThirteenDays.png 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) 02:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Proper use of tense in Plot

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) calls for using present tense when describing the plots of books or movies. This is appropriate for a movie like this, which is a docudrama and not a documentary. Please do not change the plot to past tense, which is appropriate when describing real-world history and not fiction.

The fact that (most) of the events depicted in the movie actually happened is irrelevant; the fact is that movies like this are only based on real events, and dramatic license is taken in these types of stories and you can't guarantee that everything shown is real. In effect, a fictional world is created. This is especially evident in this film, in which Kenneth O'Donnell intimately advises President Kennedy throughout the crisis, (even to the point of interposing himself between the President and an agitated General Curtis LeMay,) which most certainly did not happen in real life according to reliable sources. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

World clock times wrong

Unfortunately this probably looks right to anyone who grabbed an atlas and checked the time zone map but it's wrong. Washington and London were on daylight time until Sunday October 28. Not factoring that in makes the other clocks wrong. Peking's clock says 11:00 instead of 10:00, Moscow 6:00 instead of 5:00 (on year round daylight time then but added another hour in the summer starting in 1980, second hour made permanent in 2011), Berlin 4:00 instead of 3:00 (didn't observe daylight time until 1981 and not in October until 1996) and Havana 10:00 instead 9:00 (didn't observe daylight time until 1965 and not in late October until 1969), and London is correct as noted above. Minor nitpick perhaps and after 39 years it may have been difficult to get right or if they had done it right might have been to much trouble to convince people it was right. Skywayman (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

F5's

There are some comments about F-5 aircraft in the article regarding the use of Phillipino aircraft in the movie standing in for retired US aircraft. I don't know if there were any F-5's in the movie, but the United States never operated any--and certainly not during the Cuban Missile Crisis.198.229.236.246 (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)