Talk:Full Metal Jacket

Poge, Pogue, POG, P.O.G, [...]

Here I've redone the spelling of the term previously shown as Poge to POG, wikilinking the article named Pogue in order to an effort to better clarify the original un-wikilinked term spekt as Poge. Perhaps P.O.G. would be better. Perhaps a clarifying footnote giving part of the explanation of the "Personnel Other than Grunt" explanation found in Pogue#History and etymology would be good, but I think that would be overkill here. Discussion/improvement welcome. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

(addition) I'm reverting the re-addition of pogue by this edit. See earlier edits by me [1][2][3] adding this term and then removing it, explaining why in the edit summaries. A good source to resolve this with support would probably be Kubrick, S.; Herr, M.; Hasford, G. (1987). Full Metal Jacket: The Screenplay. Borzoi book. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-394-75823-7. A page-numbered cite would be needed in support, probably in an explanatory footnote, and I have not seen the book (I'm located in the Philippines and am pretty much limited to online-accessible sources). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

copy-editing in response to the GOCE request

I've been copy-editing the article and I have some questions, which I hope @Magical Blas (who requested CE) and others can help with.

• Plot: I think the plot is a bit too detailed, for example mentioning the fact that his rifle jams, but the section is so well written I didn't feel like trimming it
• Filming: The first sentence lists an assorted list of places, some of which are counties (Cambridgeshire and Dorset), while others are specific locations, e.g. Millennium Mills. Perhaps someone else familiar with the filming locations or better sources of these can weigh in? I also don't really understand the last sentence of the para (mentioning the River Thames).
• Music: Shouldn't the list of songs be preceded by a sentence saying the following songs appear in the film or some such?
• Differences: "callous humor"? Should it be "gallows humor"?
• Themes: The whole section is similar in style to Critical Reception. I've replaced one quote (Ebert's), which already appears in Critical Reception, but I feel the whole section isn't very focused.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Leoseliv (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, Leoseliv. I´m fixing and improving the article in Spanish. Maybe it can be a mirror to fix in English. I'm Spanish, so I do not speak English perfectly. A big hug, --Magical Blas (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC).

Netflix and Vietnam ban

I don't know if this fits anywhere, but according to this article in The Verge, Netflix was forced to remove the film from its service in Vietnam in 2017. (No idea if Vietnam had issues with this specific film or if other Vietnam War-related movies were also taken down.) 70.73.90.119 (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Removed text

I've removed the following sentence from the Critical reception" section because this is extended commentary that's not directly related to the film.

Their difference in opinion was parodied on the television show The Critic, in which Siskel taunts Ebert with "coming from the guy who liked Benji the Hunted!"

References

Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Excess cast

First, IMDB cannot be used as a ref per WP:RS/IMDB. Second, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Cast there is no need to list every minor actor in the film. MarnetteD|Talk 23:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Move to Full Metal Jacket (movie)

The movie is named after the ammunition type, currently sitting at full metal jacket (ammunition) with brackets. I propose it should be the other way around, with the movie article having brackets, not the ammunition article. Blockhaj (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Terminology: head, latrine, bathroom, toilet, loo, water closet, comfort room, etc.

This edit caught my eye. It inserted a parenthetical note explaining that the communal facility termed "bathroom" in the article is referred to as a "head" in the Marines. The term "bathroom" was inserted without explanation here to replace "toilet", and strikes me as particularly wimpy usage in the context of an article about this film. See also this insertion and other relevant edits. I have WP:BOLDly redone this here. Please discuss here before changing this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

​ I was initially pleased to see the replacement of the word "bathroom", a particularly prissy and inaccurate euphemism. Alas the replacement formulation takes the reader even further from a clear understanding. The note attached to the jargon word "head" merely tells that that word is used in its watercraft sense because the soldiers are marines, without revealing its actual meaning. One has to bring up the note then follow it to the linked article for enlightenment.

In any case, whatever word the soldiers use for the facility where they empty their bladders and bowels is not a plot point, so there is no need to employ their jargon rather than something easily understood by the reader. For being both widely understood and its military connotation, "latrine" seems most appropriate. I therefore propose "latrine" be used in place of "head", Wikilinked to its article, and without superfluous explanatory notes. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Why even mention the location at all? It's quite incidental to the plot where in the barracks the confrontation takes place. If it was just in some random room, the effect would be the same. I suggest deleting it altogether. Sbishop (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Military basic training is, by design, something of a life-shaping experience. I wasn't a Marine, but details like this, though incidental to the story line, resurfaced vivid memories of my own basic training in 1960 in another service branch. These details established a strong connection with the film for me from the opening scene (showing the shed-your-civilian-life initial military haircut -- having just looked at that again, I remember it well from 1960). Maybe this film article in Wikipedia is, in today's world, no longer meant to be meaningful to old farts like myself who can feel a connection with the film and an appreciation of the article through realism in details like this. Any comments from editors who did military service more recently than I? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It is touching that the film, and by extension the article, evince nostalgia in you. The film may legitimately prompt that response, but the Wikipedia article can only do so incidentally, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to actively seek that. We are here on the talk page to improve the article, and the goal is clarity, not sentiment. It is not just "in today's world" that Wikipedia is not meant to establish a meaningful emotional connection, that was never Wikipedia's purpose. That is the film's purview, Wikipedia's is to report dispassionately.

I have some sympathy with Sbishop's suggestion to delete it altogether, but on reflection I feel that there is some relevance to the particular location, in that it is both an incongruous, and ostensibly private, location to be carrying out those activities. Were he doing so out in the open, or in his bunk, the impact of what he is doing would be somewhat diminished.

I'm of the opinion that substituting "latrine" is the suitable option. As a less ideal compromise, perhaps: head (latrine). The current state is the worst of both worlds, a jargon word with an obfuscating note. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I lost the longer response I was making to this in a computer crash, and spent a couple of days recovering from that crash. After a few days with this out of my thoughts, I agree that "latrine" is better. As I see it, the point of the first half is the forced conversion of recruit mindsets into a military mold, the scene at issue drives that point home, and the film's second half takes this remolding as a given. I note MOS:FILM § Themes, and it seems to me that the article ought to point this remolding up and the "bathroom" terminology would trivialize or pointedly ignore it as a thematic point. Service-branch specifics are of little or no relevance to that point; "head" is used in the film, though and some sources make a big deal out of the supposed significance of that (see e.g., this, which I don't pretend to understand). In sum, IMO the term "bathroom" or another clearly unmilitary term ought not to be used, the way this is currently handled needs improvement, and that probably ought to be done by a more film-oriented editor than I. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Our discussion seems to have run its course here, I'll go ahead and make the edit. Thanks all! Captainllama (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Post-close support for changing to latrine. Noting we have BrENg (English English), AmEng (American English) and IndEng (Indian English), but, thank god, we are not yet forced to use some bizarre MarEng. And someone here owes us for one jelly donut. SN54129 13:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Magazine change continuity error.

In the scene where the squad first contacts the enemy they pepper a building with gunfire. After they stop firing the focus is on Kieron Jecchinis "Crazy Earl". The shot depicts him listening. There is a magazine in the rifle. It cut to the others listening. It cuts back to him in the same pose as when he stopped firing but there is no magazine. The shot cuts away to the others who start changing magazines. It cuts back to him but the magazine is now in the gun. He unlocks the magazine, and it drops from the gun. He fumbles getting another in allowing 5 enemy troops to escape. He gets the following two.

Kubrick was too meticulous a film maker for that to have been accidental. The shot without the magazine shows nothing else except that the magazine is missing. It was specifically spliced into the film. It's a plot point because analysis of the movie point out elements of change that occur. The scene is about changing magazines, and specifically focused on "Crazy Earl's" magazine change. Also, as a cultural point, Kubrick fans go over his films meticulously looking for clues about "what it means". But for 40 years they missed this. Pointed out it is a glaring point. But still they missed it.

It should be mentioned in the article. 2600:8807:5400:7000:D089:80:28D2:9342 (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)