This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I just added the very poorly written section "Theme". Could someone please tidy it up? I am in a hurry and it will be several days later that I will be able to come back to the page. Thanks. -- coolmallu 14:14, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
Hi, the material in the section "Theme" is my own thoughts about the movie which I think is what the director intended. -- coolmallu 14:16, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
Hello there. Did you still want some help tidying up the Theme section? If so, I would be glad to elaborate further and perhaps create some sub-sections under the Theme one detailing the major themes of the movie, etc. -- Nadsat 04:43, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
It would be really nice. Thank You. I am editing the Theme section again to add the links to relevant pages. -- coolmallu 19:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I made the changes as reflected by the ip:128.173.160.86. I was not vandalising. Please mention why it was reverted to the earlier state. I welcome suggestions. I thought I made sensible changes - more formal for the article and fixed some points to actually reflect the idea. -- coolmallu 15:26, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
From memory, there were a numbers of relevant Vietnamese characters in the movie, although none of them are listed in the synopsis of characters. Can someone with the info correct this omission? ~ trialsanderrors 06:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The guy was trying, the guy was taking it seriously. If anything he was trying too hard and was too nervous, and that was causing him problems.
The guy was a fuck up. I will be 100% clear about that. I will concede that. He didn't seem to be able to do anything right. He was clearing washing out. And it was a failure of leadership by Sgt. Hartmam not to go ahead and make the obvious decision and kick him out.
Instead, while Leonard was sleeping, the guys all gather around (only the recruits, not the sergeant), use a blanket to hold him to the bed, and beat him with bars of soap folded in towels. This is also called a "code red." yeah, just great. Including his friend Joker who acquiesced to this. First you're trying to teach the guy and then, what, you decide he's not learning fast enough? Now, if Leonard had not been trying, I don't think that would have carried the case in favor of this, but at least there would have been a case to have been made. As it stands, I don't see that there was any case in favor of this beating.
Now, the interesting point psychologically, no one suggested it to the guys. It's as if they were doing what was expected of them, and there was no more to it, nor less to it than that. As soon as Hartman started the group punishments, it's as if they took the next step in the script that everyone seemed to know. And it wasn't as if it was a branch-point and or a skill set with multiple actions, some of them appropriate in some circumstances, others appropriate in other circumstances. No, they somehow intuited the one and only thing that was expected of them. And they did it--without thinking it through at all, and without seriously considering even one alternative.
(I don't feel I'm explaining this real well, but don't you think something like this was going on? I certainly do. And if you can add a better explanation, please, I can use your help. I have not been in the service myself, I wish to lay that on the table. And I especially invite the comments of those who have.) FriendlyRiverOtter 07:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely the reason for the scene is that they were all showing their frustration at being punished for his mistakes. Maybe it was a failure of the sarge not to kick him out, but this scene shows the result of his decision. The film doesn't show them arranging to beat him, but you can assume they did plan it. I don't think it was some bizarre coincidence that they all had a desire to beat him at exactly the same time. As a viewer I think this adds to the surprise of this shocking scene. I think the reason Joker joined in is that he didn't want the same treatment. If he didn't go along with it he might have ended up getting a similar beating.
Lucasmaximus 16:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added information about the music, regarding the period the music is from. -- Allseeingi 21:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Free Bird was not actually recorded until the mid 1970s, not before 1968 as noted in the article. Is it possible to have that changed? -- budcrew08
Althou IMDb says that "Surfing Bird" was performed by the Trashmen (they are the authors of the song) I am pretty sure that the versioon played in the movie is the Ramones famous cover to this song. Anyone who has the DVD can confirm that? -- Daniduc 23:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I think the quotes section does nothing for the article and is largely consuming space on the page. I don't see any real reason why they should need to be there at all.
-- 65.94.4.40 20:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
"Leave her to the mother loving rats" is the correct quote.
The theme part here should be rewritten. It's not NPOV and smacks of original research. Things like: "Although often said to contain two distinct parts, the film can be categorized into three." don't belong here. If someone says the film has two distinct parts, then summarize that opinion and provide a reference. If someone else says it has three parts, summarize and reference that too. But I can't see how it's within the guidelines to advocate one interpretation of a movie over another. -- BluePlatypus 00:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Pipedreambomb asks:
Kubrisk shot a lot of his films in full-frame (4:3) and they were then matted-down to make a wide-screen theatrical presentation. So the DVD is actually providing the entire image that Kubrick photographed. (And I'm pretty sure I read that on Wiki somewhere. ;-) But if not here, then IMDB. )
Atlant 00:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"To which Marines when they capture the sniper, mercy kills her with a point blank shot." I have no idea what this means. I know the part of the movie, but I'm not sure what the writer wanted to say here. Rahulchandra 02:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The plot outline for the first half of the film is pretty light. It needs filled out. Also, most of the trivia (if memory serves), comes from the movie's IMDB page. It needs sources. Levid37 15:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the racial bigotry trivia point because it doesnt make sense and selectively quotes the movie, the rest of the quote points out that there is no bigotry because the drill instructor hates all races equally. -- Cptbuck 02:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
It interests me that Joker spends most of the film feeling smugly superior to his fellow Marines, but caves in to peer pressure at two climactic points (the murder of Sergeant Hartman and the killing of the sniper), with fatal results. -- Cranston Lamont 22:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
How does he cave in to peer pressure? Pyle kills Hartman (Joker is screaming "NO!" while he does so) and Raptor-Man kills the sniper, sure Joker finishes her as it were but its a mercy killing, one that he wants and that his squad mates dont.
In the Category section, the film is categorized as an anti-war film. However, according to Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures, Stanley Kubrick is said to had made this film without any moral judgements making this neither an anti nor a pro-war film. If it is correct, then can somebody edit this? Thanks. -- 71.83.182.91 20:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC) I defy anyone to watch it and feel that it supports war in general.-- MartinUK 21:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC) It doesn't support war in general, that's not what the user was saying, Martin. "Neither anti nor pro-war" usually means just that. Neither anti nor pro-war.
Karl eichholtz 13 has continually modified info on this article to state that United Artists distributed this film. All his edits have given no reasoning or proof. Three minutes of research n imdb.com showed that Warner Brothers had distibuted every single release of the film and had no mention of United Artists. If this user modifies this info again, please revert it and give the user a proper warning; he has vandalized before. Gdo01 03:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit this but when I watched the movie I got the feeling that Joker killed the sniper out of mercy. As I recall Animal Mother wanted to leave the Gook to die on the floor for shooting their leader and the two other guys. Joker was the only person who wanted to shoot the girl because he felt he couldn't have left her their to suffer and die for long. Thats the impression I got based on what was said, but maybe someone might want tol look into this more
I'm going to delete this section. I haven't gone through the history, but it appears to have been needing work for some time. This appears to be one person's opinion of the themes, and I highly doubt it was from a notable source. I'm a bit weary about deleting this much text about themes (since it's subjective), but the arguments/examples used to point out the themes are just so weak, I don't see how it adds to the article.
Some of the irony is questionable. Pyle killing Hartman is somewhat ironic, but pulling a trigger doesn't require a lot of training. The mention of Oswald and Whitman isn't ironic; they were taught how to kill people from a distance and they succeeded. The fact that it wasn't an enemy per se isn't ironic, it's just tragic. Irony would be if they (as sharpshooters) died while cleaning their gun. I don't see any irony in the "you don't lead them as much" statement. It's not even a joke, but that's besides the point. It's been a while since I seen the movie, but wasn't the sniper the prostitute we see earlier in the movie? I dont' remember her being a school girl. Besides, what's ironic? That the sniper was a small asian female? Because women can't shoot? This seems to stem from some gender or cultural bias.
As for the religion, it's hardly a theme. Hartman could have just as easily asked Joker about the president instead of the Virgin Mary. Religion, or the Virgin Mary wasn't the point of this scene.
The examples for the transformation theme aren't the best. I never got the impression that Pyle was gentle or sweet, but that he was simple-minded. He doesn't transform into some sophiscated, calculating killer; just desperate, vindictive and suicidal. As for Joker killing the sniper, it could easily be argued if it was in "cold-blood". The same section mentions it was a mercy shot. If anything, that shows that Joker hasn't transformed into some jaded, heartless animal like some of the others in the squad. The rest of the paragraph is just opinion. jag123 12:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Only one shot of the movie? It's not a particularly good one either, in my opinion. Gohst 12:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the following:
"Roger Ebert gave the film a Thumbs Down in the same show he gave Benji the Hunted a Thumbs Up."
This information adds nothing to the article. RichMac 10:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
You have a quote here by Roger Ebert, but it is not representative of the critical reaction to Full Metal Jacket. It is the opinion of one critic and one critic only. If this section is to be maintained, I would encourage it to be expanded and add reactions by other critics, maybe with different views. And possibly add some bibliography, as Full Metal Jacket has been focus of a great number of academic essays. These three come to mind as particularly significant:
Moore, Janet C. "For Fighting and for Fun: Kubrick's Complicitous Critique in Full Metal Jacket". Velvet Light Trap, 31:39-47. Spring 1993.
White, Susan. "Male Bonding, Hollywood Orientalism, and the Repression of the Feminine in Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket". Arizona Quarterly, 44(3): 120-144. Autumn 1988
Williams, Tony. “Floating ‘in a World of Shit’ – Full Metal Jacket’s Excremental Vision”. Film and Philosophy, v.1. 121-135. 1994.
-- 201.78.71.98 02:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally I always disagree with Roger Ebert. I was way more in agreement with Siskel. I liked this movie so it doesn't surprise me that Roger Ebert didn't. And I don't really know why the Robert Ebert quote is in here. He isn't the last word on film reviews. -- 66.171.76.140 05:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the inclusion and focus on Ebert's review is odd when it is so out of step with the critical consensus of the movie.-- 193.203.82.194 12:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I never saw this movie- but 2 times in the Cultural references here they reference the "Steers and Queers" line (From An Officer and a Gentleman: "only 2 things come out of oklahoma boy, Steers and queers... now I don't see no horns on you- so you must be a queer.") Did they do this line in FMJ too?? Trcrev 20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
yes, but it was texas. IIRC, the line was "holy jesus, texas! only two things come from texas, steers and queers. and you don't look like a steer so that kinda narrows it down now, huh?" or something like that. 124.106.193.225 05:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
"Technically, each training Platoon would have been run by three Drill Instructors, Hartman is an amalgamation of all three."
They showed the other two assistant DIs on several occasions. Unless I see a rebuttal I'll delete this line. John DiFool2 00:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Eh? There was an animated cartoon show, but what did RLE have to do with that?
Removed cultural references as almost none of it is references, none of it is notable, it increases the article size without any encyclopedic content, and because it violates Wikipedia:NOT. -- Wasted Sapience 18:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
what does P.T. stand for?
P.T. stands for Physical Training, or "exercise" for your civilian types.
I would like to nominate this article to be locked. This is a high-interest article by many, many people, most of whom stumble across this page on Google and start making mindless changes, impregnating the page with typos, misspellings, and errors-in-fact. I suggest locking this page to only registered users indefinitely. Robotempire 11:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Should the following line be added to the quotes section: "Private Pyle, you climb obstacles like old people fuck!" I know there were many quotes but this is one of my favorites.-- Dominik92 18:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody else think that "Full Metal Jacket" should redirect to the movie rather than to the type of ammunition? I think it's a more frequent search.-- Dominik92 02:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Can someone request this article for semi-protection. People keep adding unnecessary quotes and fill it with spelling mistakes and terrible grammar.-- Dominik92 17:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused, when the 'Platoon leader' was killed, didn't 'squad leader' Crazy Earl- become Platoon leader & Cowboy simultaneously become squad leader? GoodDay 18:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The list of cast and characters is waaay too long. That is what the Internet Movie Database is for. I've removed some of the less important ones and dumped 'em here:
-- J.D. 15:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This link which I have just restored has been here for over a YEAR without anyone having a single issue with it. I am simple restoring the status quo. Two independent arbitrators have demonstrated (see Wikiquette alerts) that my Kubrick links are neither spam nor self-promotion. Indeed, this "Long Distance Views in Full Metal Jacket" document doesn't even have my name on it. It is purely scholarly, and for the benefit of all Kubrick fans, newcomers, students, and scholars. If any editor new to this page has an issue with the restoration of this link, then it will have to be demonstrated that my article lacks scholarly merit. I welcome any discussion. Scrooby 20:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
“ | The movie disintegrates into a series of self-contained set pieces, none of them quite satisfying. The scene in the press room, for example, with the lecture on propaganda, seems to reflect some of the same spirit as Dr. Strangelove. But, how does it connect with the curious scene of the Vietnamese prostitute — a scene with a riveting beginning, but no middle or end? And, how do either lead to the final shoot-out with a sniper? | ” |
Roger Ebert cite removed because :
--- 200.73.30.108 19:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
the article states that Ermey was a Drill Instructor in real life, infact he was an aircraft mechanic at Da Nang, according to his bio on Historychannel.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.169.43 ( talk) 08:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
he was a DI at paris island~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.165.19 ( talk) 18:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
In 11 years of service it is very possibly for a member of the services to take on more than one assignment. In fact in that length of time, it is possible for several assignments. In the case of Ermey, he indeed had several assignments including DI stateside, assigned to a maintenance wing in Da Nang, and an assignment to Okinawa. Theshowmecanuck ( talk) 02:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
There's a box that describes him as such - this is inaccurate, a psychopath is usually defined as highly intelligent - i think psychotic is more appropriate, but then i'd DO MY RESEARCH BEFORE CHANGING IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.50.225 ( talk) 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.180.122 ( talk) 08:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Surprisingly not - check the script or the subtitle track. 24.57.145.150 ( talk) 04:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The duality of man should be included in the synopsis. It deals directly with a central theme of the entire film, and deserves at least a nod, elaborating on the theme itself would costitute OR I believe unless I can find a good source for it. It is on the poster after all. I know the synopsis is quite long already, but if someone gets a chance please add it.
Also, pretty sure its Raptor-man, not Rafterman. (I was wrong, it's rafterman in the script, go fig. -grey 13Aug2008)
-grey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.167.102 ( talk) 06:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why Rotten Tomatoes review information is being removed when its compliant with WikiProject Films guidelines. I have added the RT freshness rating back to the page and also included some quotes from critics as this section is embarrassingly lacking in content. Tomdobb ( talk) 16:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The synopsis says that the movie "follows a squad of U.S. Marines from their United States Marine Corps Recruit Training through their experiences in the Tet Offensive (1968) during the Vietnam War.".
I don't think that's accurate. There are only two marines shown in both parts of the movie, Joker & Cowboy. By the time of the second part of the movie both Joker & Cowboy are obviously experienced Marines, both having been promoted and assuming roles of teaching less experienced Marines the ropes in Vietnam.
I think it would be more accurate to say it "follows a squad of U.S. Marines through their United States Marine Corps Recruit Training and the experiences of two of them in the Tet Offensive (1968) during the Vietnam War.".
Any comments?
Gorillatheape ( talk) 02:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Gorillatheape ( talk) 12:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 17:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Full Metal Jacket → Full Metal Jacket (film) — "Full metal jacket" covers both the film and the type of bullet. I would say that both of them are pretty notable, so it would make more sense to have "Full metal jacket" direct to the film or the bullet page (in my opinion it should be directed to the bullet page), rather than having one page get to "keep" the name. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 21:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is Pyle's name in quotes throughout the article? Yes it is his nickname, but all the privates are called by nicknames: Joker, Cowboy, Rafterman, Touchdown, Crazy Earl, etc., and none of them are quotated. It makes sense for the first occurrence to be in quotes, as it mentions that Hartman calls him that, but thereafter, that's the character's name for all intents. What's everyone think on this? Rails ( talk) 00:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I think there's a parallel between quoting character names and wikilinking words that have their own articles – one time is good; more is clutter. -- CliffC ( talk) 03:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
A request was made to look over the article to determine what work needs to be done for the article to become a GA. The following should be addressed before nominating:
It would be great to see this article reach GA, and hopefully the above comments are helpful. Once these are resolved, let me know, and I'll take another look to see if anything else should be addressed. If any assistance is needed for the above suggestions, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It would be great if someone had a copy of this online seeing as it's mentioned, and has been cited all over the web (presumably from here). -- 118.209.228.200 ( talk) 07:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I just added the very poorly written section "Theme". Could someone please tidy it up? I am in a hurry and it will be several days later that I will be able to come back to the page. Thanks. -- coolmallu 14:14, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
Hi, the material in the section "Theme" is my own thoughts about the movie which I think is what the director intended. -- coolmallu 14:16, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
Hello there. Did you still want some help tidying up the Theme section? If so, I would be glad to elaborate further and perhaps create some sub-sections under the Theme one detailing the major themes of the movie, etc. -- Nadsat 04:43, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
It would be really nice. Thank You. I am editing the Theme section again to add the links to relevant pages. -- coolmallu 19:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I made the changes as reflected by the ip:128.173.160.86. I was not vandalising. Please mention why it was reverted to the earlier state. I welcome suggestions. I thought I made sensible changes - more formal for the article and fixed some points to actually reflect the idea. -- coolmallu 15:26, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
From memory, there were a numbers of relevant Vietnamese characters in the movie, although none of them are listed in the synopsis of characters. Can someone with the info correct this omission? ~ trialsanderrors 06:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The guy was trying, the guy was taking it seriously. If anything he was trying too hard and was too nervous, and that was causing him problems.
The guy was a fuck up. I will be 100% clear about that. I will concede that. He didn't seem to be able to do anything right. He was clearing washing out. And it was a failure of leadership by Sgt. Hartmam not to go ahead and make the obvious decision and kick him out.
Instead, while Leonard was sleeping, the guys all gather around (only the recruits, not the sergeant), use a blanket to hold him to the bed, and beat him with bars of soap folded in towels. This is also called a "code red." yeah, just great. Including his friend Joker who acquiesced to this. First you're trying to teach the guy and then, what, you decide he's not learning fast enough? Now, if Leonard had not been trying, I don't think that would have carried the case in favor of this, but at least there would have been a case to have been made. As it stands, I don't see that there was any case in favor of this beating.
Now, the interesting point psychologically, no one suggested it to the guys. It's as if they were doing what was expected of them, and there was no more to it, nor less to it than that. As soon as Hartman started the group punishments, it's as if they took the next step in the script that everyone seemed to know. And it wasn't as if it was a branch-point and or a skill set with multiple actions, some of them appropriate in some circumstances, others appropriate in other circumstances. No, they somehow intuited the one and only thing that was expected of them. And they did it--without thinking it through at all, and without seriously considering even one alternative.
(I don't feel I'm explaining this real well, but don't you think something like this was going on? I certainly do. And if you can add a better explanation, please, I can use your help. I have not been in the service myself, I wish to lay that on the table. And I especially invite the comments of those who have.) FriendlyRiverOtter 07:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely the reason for the scene is that they were all showing their frustration at being punished for his mistakes. Maybe it was a failure of the sarge not to kick him out, but this scene shows the result of his decision. The film doesn't show them arranging to beat him, but you can assume they did plan it. I don't think it was some bizarre coincidence that they all had a desire to beat him at exactly the same time. As a viewer I think this adds to the surprise of this shocking scene. I think the reason Joker joined in is that he didn't want the same treatment. If he didn't go along with it he might have ended up getting a similar beating.
Lucasmaximus 16:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added information about the music, regarding the period the music is from. -- Allseeingi 21:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Free Bird was not actually recorded until the mid 1970s, not before 1968 as noted in the article. Is it possible to have that changed? -- budcrew08
Althou IMDb says that "Surfing Bird" was performed by the Trashmen (they are the authors of the song) I am pretty sure that the versioon played in the movie is the Ramones famous cover to this song. Anyone who has the DVD can confirm that? -- Daniduc 23:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I think the quotes section does nothing for the article and is largely consuming space on the page. I don't see any real reason why they should need to be there at all.
-- 65.94.4.40 20:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
"Leave her to the mother loving rats" is the correct quote.
The theme part here should be rewritten. It's not NPOV and smacks of original research. Things like: "Although often said to contain two distinct parts, the film can be categorized into three." don't belong here. If someone says the film has two distinct parts, then summarize that opinion and provide a reference. If someone else says it has three parts, summarize and reference that too. But I can't see how it's within the guidelines to advocate one interpretation of a movie over another. -- BluePlatypus 00:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Pipedreambomb asks:
Kubrisk shot a lot of his films in full-frame (4:3) and they were then matted-down to make a wide-screen theatrical presentation. So the DVD is actually providing the entire image that Kubrick photographed. (And I'm pretty sure I read that on Wiki somewhere. ;-) But if not here, then IMDB. )
Atlant 00:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"To which Marines when they capture the sniper, mercy kills her with a point blank shot." I have no idea what this means. I know the part of the movie, but I'm not sure what the writer wanted to say here. Rahulchandra 02:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The plot outline for the first half of the film is pretty light. It needs filled out. Also, most of the trivia (if memory serves), comes from the movie's IMDB page. It needs sources. Levid37 15:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the racial bigotry trivia point because it doesnt make sense and selectively quotes the movie, the rest of the quote points out that there is no bigotry because the drill instructor hates all races equally. -- Cptbuck 02:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
It interests me that Joker spends most of the film feeling smugly superior to his fellow Marines, but caves in to peer pressure at two climactic points (the murder of Sergeant Hartman and the killing of the sniper), with fatal results. -- Cranston Lamont 22:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
How does he cave in to peer pressure? Pyle kills Hartman (Joker is screaming "NO!" while he does so) and Raptor-Man kills the sniper, sure Joker finishes her as it were but its a mercy killing, one that he wants and that his squad mates dont.
In the Category section, the film is categorized as an anti-war film. However, according to Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures, Stanley Kubrick is said to had made this film without any moral judgements making this neither an anti nor a pro-war film. If it is correct, then can somebody edit this? Thanks. -- 71.83.182.91 20:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC) I defy anyone to watch it and feel that it supports war in general.-- MartinUK 21:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC) It doesn't support war in general, that's not what the user was saying, Martin. "Neither anti nor pro-war" usually means just that. Neither anti nor pro-war.
Karl eichholtz 13 has continually modified info on this article to state that United Artists distributed this film. All his edits have given no reasoning or proof. Three minutes of research n imdb.com showed that Warner Brothers had distibuted every single release of the film and had no mention of United Artists. If this user modifies this info again, please revert it and give the user a proper warning; he has vandalized before. Gdo01 03:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit this but when I watched the movie I got the feeling that Joker killed the sniper out of mercy. As I recall Animal Mother wanted to leave the Gook to die on the floor for shooting their leader and the two other guys. Joker was the only person who wanted to shoot the girl because he felt he couldn't have left her their to suffer and die for long. Thats the impression I got based on what was said, but maybe someone might want tol look into this more
I'm going to delete this section. I haven't gone through the history, but it appears to have been needing work for some time. This appears to be one person's opinion of the themes, and I highly doubt it was from a notable source. I'm a bit weary about deleting this much text about themes (since it's subjective), but the arguments/examples used to point out the themes are just so weak, I don't see how it adds to the article.
Some of the irony is questionable. Pyle killing Hartman is somewhat ironic, but pulling a trigger doesn't require a lot of training. The mention of Oswald and Whitman isn't ironic; they were taught how to kill people from a distance and they succeeded. The fact that it wasn't an enemy per se isn't ironic, it's just tragic. Irony would be if they (as sharpshooters) died while cleaning their gun. I don't see any irony in the "you don't lead them as much" statement. It's not even a joke, but that's besides the point. It's been a while since I seen the movie, but wasn't the sniper the prostitute we see earlier in the movie? I dont' remember her being a school girl. Besides, what's ironic? That the sniper was a small asian female? Because women can't shoot? This seems to stem from some gender or cultural bias.
As for the religion, it's hardly a theme. Hartman could have just as easily asked Joker about the president instead of the Virgin Mary. Religion, or the Virgin Mary wasn't the point of this scene.
The examples for the transformation theme aren't the best. I never got the impression that Pyle was gentle or sweet, but that he was simple-minded. He doesn't transform into some sophiscated, calculating killer; just desperate, vindictive and suicidal. As for Joker killing the sniper, it could easily be argued if it was in "cold-blood". The same section mentions it was a mercy shot. If anything, that shows that Joker hasn't transformed into some jaded, heartless animal like some of the others in the squad. The rest of the paragraph is just opinion. jag123 12:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Only one shot of the movie? It's not a particularly good one either, in my opinion. Gohst 12:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the following:
"Roger Ebert gave the film a Thumbs Down in the same show he gave Benji the Hunted a Thumbs Up."
This information adds nothing to the article. RichMac 10:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
You have a quote here by Roger Ebert, but it is not representative of the critical reaction to Full Metal Jacket. It is the opinion of one critic and one critic only. If this section is to be maintained, I would encourage it to be expanded and add reactions by other critics, maybe with different views. And possibly add some bibliography, as Full Metal Jacket has been focus of a great number of academic essays. These three come to mind as particularly significant:
Moore, Janet C. "For Fighting and for Fun: Kubrick's Complicitous Critique in Full Metal Jacket". Velvet Light Trap, 31:39-47. Spring 1993.
White, Susan. "Male Bonding, Hollywood Orientalism, and the Repression of the Feminine in Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket". Arizona Quarterly, 44(3): 120-144. Autumn 1988
Williams, Tony. “Floating ‘in a World of Shit’ – Full Metal Jacket’s Excremental Vision”. Film and Philosophy, v.1. 121-135. 1994.
-- 201.78.71.98 02:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally I always disagree with Roger Ebert. I was way more in agreement with Siskel. I liked this movie so it doesn't surprise me that Roger Ebert didn't. And I don't really know why the Robert Ebert quote is in here. He isn't the last word on film reviews. -- 66.171.76.140 05:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the inclusion and focus on Ebert's review is odd when it is so out of step with the critical consensus of the movie.-- 193.203.82.194 12:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I never saw this movie- but 2 times in the Cultural references here they reference the "Steers and Queers" line (From An Officer and a Gentleman: "only 2 things come out of oklahoma boy, Steers and queers... now I don't see no horns on you- so you must be a queer.") Did they do this line in FMJ too?? Trcrev 20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
yes, but it was texas. IIRC, the line was "holy jesus, texas! only two things come from texas, steers and queers. and you don't look like a steer so that kinda narrows it down now, huh?" or something like that. 124.106.193.225 05:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
"Technically, each training Platoon would have been run by three Drill Instructors, Hartman is an amalgamation of all three."
They showed the other two assistant DIs on several occasions. Unless I see a rebuttal I'll delete this line. John DiFool2 00:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Eh? There was an animated cartoon show, but what did RLE have to do with that?
Removed cultural references as almost none of it is references, none of it is notable, it increases the article size without any encyclopedic content, and because it violates Wikipedia:NOT. -- Wasted Sapience 18:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
what does P.T. stand for?
P.T. stands for Physical Training, or "exercise" for your civilian types.
I would like to nominate this article to be locked. This is a high-interest article by many, many people, most of whom stumble across this page on Google and start making mindless changes, impregnating the page with typos, misspellings, and errors-in-fact. I suggest locking this page to only registered users indefinitely. Robotempire 11:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Should the following line be added to the quotes section: "Private Pyle, you climb obstacles like old people fuck!" I know there were many quotes but this is one of my favorites.-- Dominik92 18:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody else think that "Full Metal Jacket" should redirect to the movie rather than to the type of ammunition? I think it's a more frequent search.-- Dominik92 02:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Can someone request this article for semi-protection. People keep adding unnecessary quotes and fill it with spelling mistakes and terrible grammar.-- Dominik92 17:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused, when the 'Platoon leader' was killed, didn't 'squad leader' Crazy Earl- become Platoon leader & Cowboy simultaneously become squad leader? GoodDay 18:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The list of cast and characters is waaay too long. That is what the Internet Movie Database is for. I've removed some of the less important ones and dumped 'em here:
-- J.D. 15:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This link which I have just restored has been here for over a YEAR without anyone having a single issue with it. I am simple restoring the status quo. Two independent arbitrators have demonstrated (see Wikiquette alerts) that my Kubrick links are neither spam nor self-promotion. Indeed, this "Long Distance Views in Full Metal Jacket" document doesn't even have my name on it. It is purely scholarly, and for the benefit of all Kubrick fans, newcomers, students, and scholars. If any editor new to this page has an issue with the restoration of this link, then it will have to be demonstrated that my article lacks scholarly merit. I welcome any discussion. Scrooby 20:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
“ | The movie disintegrates into a series of self-contained set pieces, none of them quite satisfying. The scene in the press room, for example, with the lecture on propaganda, seems to reflect some of the same spirit as Dr. Strangelove. But, how does it connect with the curious scene of the Vietnamese prostitute — a scene with a riveting beginning, but no middle or end? And, how do either lead to the final shoot-out with a sniper? | ” |
Roger Ebert cite removed because :
--- 200.73.30.108 19:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
the article states that Ermey was a Drill Instructor in real life, infact he was an aircraft mechanic at Da Nang, according to his bio on Historychannel.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.169.43 ( talk) 08:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
he was a DI at paris island~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.165.19 ( talk) 18:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
In 11 years of service it is very possibly for a member of the services to take on more than one assignment. In fact in that length of time, it is possible for several assignments. In the case of Ermey, he indeed had several assignments including DI stateside, assigned to a maintenance wing in Da Nang, and an assignment to Okinawa. Theshowmecanuck ( talk) 02:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
There's a box that describes him as such - this is inaccurate, a psychopath is usually defined as highly intelligent - i think psychotic is more appropriate, but then i'd DO MY RESEARCH BEFORE CHANGING IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.50.225 ( talk) 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.180.122 ( talk) 08:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Surprisingly not - check the script or the subtitle track. 24.57.145.150 ( talk) 04:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The duality of man should be included in the synopsis. It deals directly with a central theme of the entire film, and deserves at least a nod, elaborating on the theme itself would costitute OR I believe unless I can find a good source for it. It is on the poster after all. I know the synopsis is quite long already, but if someone gets a chance please add it.
Also, pretty sure its Raptor-man, not Rafterman. (I was wrong, it's rafterman in the script, go fig. -grey 13Aug2008)
-grey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.167.102 ( talk) 06:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why Rotten Tomatoes review information is being removed when its compliant with WikiProject Films guidelines. I have added the RT freshness rating back to the page and also included some quotes from critics as this section is embarrassingly lacking in content. Tomdobb ( talk) 16:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The synopsis says that the movie "follows a squad of U.S. Marines from their United States Marine Corps Recruit Training through their experiences in the Tet Offensive (1968) during the Vietnam War.".
I don't think that's accurate. There are only two marines shown in both parts of the movie, Joker & Cowboy. By the time of the second part of the movie both Joker & Cowboy are obviously experienced Marines, both having been promoted and assuming roles of teaching less experienced Marines the ropes in Vietnam.
I think it would be more accurate to say it "follows a squad of U.S. Marines through their United States Marine Corps Recruit Training and the experiences of two of them in the Tet Offensive (1968) during the Vietnam War.".
Any comments?
Gorillatheape ( talk) 02:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Gorillatheape ( talk) 12:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 17:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Full Metal Jacket → Full Metal Jacket (film) — "Full metal jacket" covers both the film and the type of bullet. I would say that both of them are pretty notable, so it would make more sense to have "Full metal jacket" direct to the film or the bullet page (in my opinion it should be directed to the bullet page), rather than having one page get to "keep" the name. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 21:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is Pyle's name in quotes throughout the article? Yes it is his nickname, but all the privates are called by nicknames: Joker, Cowboy, Rafterman, Touchdown, Crazy Earl, etc., and none of them are quotated. It makes sense for the first occurrence to be in quotes, as it mentions that Hartman calls him that, but thereafter, that's the character's name for all intents. What's everyone think on this? Rails ( talk) 00:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I think there's a parallel between quoting character names and wikilinking words that have their own articles – one time is good; more is clutter. -- CliffC ( talk) 03:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
A request was made to look over the article to determine what work needs to be done for the article to become a GA. The following should be addressed before nominating:
It would be great to see this article reach GA, and hopefully the above comments are helpful. Once these are resolved, let me know, and I'll take another look to see if anything else should be addressed. If any assistance is needed for the above suggestions, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It would be great if someone had a copy of this online seeing as it's mentioned, and has been cited all over the web (presumably from here). -- 118.209.228.200 ( talk) 07:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)