Talk:Fury (2014 film)

Article Neutrality

"Fury is 2014 American war propaganda written and directed by David Ayer." This opening statement should be changed to a standardized and accurate statement reflecting that this is a 2014 American film. Including that this movie is propaganda is a non-subjective point-of-view and would be better served by a section addressing perceptions of this movie. 66.143.34.239 (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, but then this should be done the same way with any other movie. Including German movies from that era. --154.69.6.148 (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless, of course, it IS a propaganda film, such as Triumph of the Will-backed up by sources.50.111.5.65 (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Comparison between late and early model Tigers

There are some pretty glaring differences between the early model Tigers (which is shown in the movie) and the later models (which one would assume the one in the movie is portraying given that it's 1945). One of the most immediately obvious differences is the addition of an extra set of road wheels, which are also rimmed with rubber. I don't know how someone is linking a model reference book to use as a reference that the exteriors are identical. I think this should be edited to say that the exteriors are similar but with some differences, or simply removed altogether. 123.3.161.148 (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC) 5hifty

Early-model Tiger 1s were still being used in the European theatre at the end of the war.

Correct...this can't be called an error really. While it is far more likely they'd encounter a later Tiger, there were all kinds of AFVs in German units right up to the end of the war including not just early Tigers but junk such as 38(t)s (in regular units, not just anti-partisan or rear-area units). Given that, I think the technical content describing the Tiger features is really undue weight. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Just found here an early Tiger w/ drum cupola and rubber wheels, just liek Tiger 131 in the movie. But this one is in Berlin, May 1945. So, as has been said, not an error. Merely unusual. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

2009-12

"The 131 was only restored to running condition in 2009-12" Is that "December 2009" or "from 2009 to 2012"? Why are we repeating the Y2K bug in Wikipedia? To save space, for no reason, we are creating ambiguity. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement

From the article: "The only pak 40 7.5 cm KwK 40 (75x495mm) shell to actually hit a Sherman (another inaccuracy given the pak 40's high precision, flat firing arc, and the tank's trajectory of advance into direct line of fire) ricochet's off its frontal hull 51 mm armor." In the movie, the 75mm Anti-Tank round glances off the side of the Shermans turret and not off the frontal hull as stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.72.171 (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The fine line of Original Research (in section 'Portrayal of history')

The wikipedia policy on original research states 'Wikipedia articles must not contain original research' and goes on to specify: 'This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources'.

While the first half of the section 'Portrayal of history' is probably fine, I think the part after 'However, several inaccuracies are depicted in the film as well as several extremely unlikely, though not impossible situations' is not OK.

The problem is that in several cases a source which does not mention 'Fury' at all is quoted to support a conclusion drawn by the Wikipedian. So while it would be OK and the intended use of Wikipedia to quote a source stating for example that a scene in 'Fury' where stationary anti-tank guns repeatedly miss is unrealistic, then it is original research for a Wikipedian to make and write such a conclusion, and it is misleading to end the paragraph that contains this conclusion with a source that only makes a general statement on such stationary Anti-tank guns.

So if a source can be quoted that directly supports the conclusion written by the Wikipedian, or if the text can be rewritten so the intended conclusion is self-evident, then it is OK otherwise I believe the text has to go.

For clarity I will provide an example of my own: During the last standoff the tank is hit by a panzerfaust, a weapon which multiple sources describe as relying on the Munroe effect. Nevertheless, the film shows the effect of the weapon inside the tank as a contiguous fragment that pierces a single crew member, leaving the inside of the tank and the rest of the crew (physically) intact. It would however still be original research if I concluded that the scene is unrealistic and that the entire crew and the inside of the tank should instead have been destroyed by the intense, supersonic stream of many small and very hot particles actually produced by the weapon's penetration of the armor. Also if I provide a source describing the Munroe effect. But perhaps a different formulation may be OK, such as: "While a Panzerfaust would entirely destroy the interior and crew of a penetrated tank,<some source for that> the film actually depicts a panzerfaust that pentrates the tank but leaves all but one crew unharmed".

The difference is that the example sentence just consists of two parts, an initial observation supported by a standard source and a second observation (citing the film) which self-evidently conflicts with the first observation. I think a rewrite like that would improve the article. (As for my example, many aspects of that last stand are so 'Hollywood' that a mention of a single unrealistic event there would make little difference). Lklundin (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of feedback I have removed from the article what I believe is original research. Lklundin (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

rape scene

There was some controversy about a rape scene in the movie. Could that be included into the article? --165.165.77.4 (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why, since no rape is shown or referred to in the film. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Depends on your perspective, and how critically the scene is read. The scene in the German town, where Norman has sex with the German girl has been considered a rape scene, see the following.

One interpretation is that Pitt's character gives Norman the push he needs to find love in the midst of horror, the other is that the German girl was stuck between a rock and a hard place not to mention Pitt's character explicitly states if Norman doesn't have sex with her, he will I.e. he will go and rape her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B109:FC72:F51C:5A95:493D:536C (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Many of the returns in that Google search are demonstrably not even about the film in question,a nd even of those that are, quite a few are simply references to the same piece on The Conversation, which even in itself admits that the sex is consensual, but then goes on to claim that it isn't because of changes in attitudes and international law that post-date WW2 by more than half a century. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

1. The search demonstrates that there is at least chatter about there possibly being a rape scene in the movie in contrast to a blanket statement that there is not
2. Granted most of the reliable sources link back to the conversation article
3. The article does not admit that it is consensual, O'Brien states "the circumstances in Fury are certainly inherently coercive" despite "the sex scene [being] shot as consensual" as Norman takes his weapon into the room with them, and that is after Pitt's character states "If you don’t take her into that bedroom, I will."
4. The article quotes Fox correspondent Josh Boards comment "But to me, that’s a threat of rape. Are we supposed to cheer the fact that this young soldier loses his virginity and not think about how these women were forced into this situation?"
5. The article actually states "Rape has been a war crime since the 1800s"
6. So at least two journalists have called the scene, a rape scene. Rather than being dismissed, it would appear wiki guidelines of reporting what sources say should be followed. Of course, without too much weight applied, for as the article notes, not everyone read the scene that way.2600:1015:B10F:9243:F9B5:823B:4D27:FB5 (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Scott Mendelssohn, Forbes: "Those moments of young Lerman kissing a random pretty girl in the trailers come from this sequence, and while the scene isn’t quite rape (there is implied consent and mutual pleasure in said encounter) the film never answers the question of what would have happened if young Emma (Alicia von Rittberg) would have refused. The scene by itself is tense and disturbing, especially when Pitt’s less polite fellow soldiers show up, and it’s a proximate reenactment of something that presumably happens in every war. But nonetheless, at no point are we privy to how these two innocent women feel about being ordered to play house for a bunch of gun-toting and (for all they know) rape-and-murder-minded soldiers, which makes the scene yet another example of women being treated like chattel in a mainstream studio release."

While he argues the scene is not a rape scene (just about), it is problematic for other reasons. Additional material that could be used to provide a full discussion on the scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B10F:9243:F9B5:823B:4D27:FB5 (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, perhaps a separate section calling attention to the fact that a debate exists on this subject? DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B10F:9243:F9B5:823B:4D27:FB5 (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

A few other reviews that take shots at the scene: reached.com and vox magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B11E:4B0E:85F0:B31D:5539:FA05 (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Norman doesn't pull the girl into the room. The girl pulls Norman, and she smiles at her cousin afterwards. Although it (war) is stressful that doesn't make sex during stress rape any more than a woman consenting because she expects something she doesn't get makes it rape. That would place the state, which outlaws, and punishes rape, into the position of pimp collecting what the woman claims she expected.

Exactly. The silliness of this whole discussion is beyond the pale. Not only does Norman have real feelings for this girl, but her death shatters him, and instills in him a hate for the Nazi soldiers he guns down later in the film. 50.111.25.210 (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Tiger I Tanks in the 1968 Film Kelly's Heros

The comment "It is the first time a genuine Tiger I tank was used in a contemporary war film since 1946;" seems inaccurate as real Tiger One tanks were used in the 1970 Film Kelly's Heroes. They were on loan from the Romanian army as I recall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3788:2350:300f:1d4c:3fc1:c189 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 14 May 2015‎

No they weren't, they were T-34-based mock-ups originally made for Battle of Neretva. Nick Cooper (talk)

That's what I've read, but when I watched the Battle of Neretva, the "Tigers" were not nearly as convincing as the ones in Kelly's Heroes. If I get a chance, I'll look at the treads and wheels on the Tigers in Kelly's Heroes, as I've read that's what gives them away as converted T-34s.

OK, I watched the Tiger scenes in Kelly's Heroes again, and the "Tigers" in it look as fake as the ones in Battle of Neretva. My memory from decades ago was that the Tigers in Kelly's Heroes looked real. Seems that was wrong.

Portrayal of history

How is referencing a 1943 film an example of historical portrayal of a film set in 1945?

The fighting in the film also bears similarity to the 1943 film Sahara starring Humphrey Bogart in which the crew of an M3 Lee named "Lulu Belle" and a contingent of stranded British soldiers, defend a remote well in Libya against a larger German force of the elite Afrika Korps, to the demise of most of the Allies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.117.250 (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The Tank Museum's "Fury"

The Sherman used to portray "Fury" was an M4A2, not an M4A3. This is quite well documented on many web sites showing the Tank Museum's collection. I have made a couple of minor edits to reflect this. Here's one link: http://preservedtanks.com/Profile.aspx?UniqueId=2099

DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

When I added that image I captioned the tank as an M4A2E8, the E8 referring to its HVSS suspension I think. Some genius simply changed the 2. Wolcott (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, to be fair, it is confusing. The actual tank is an M4A2 (76mm, HVSS). But since the M4A2 was only very rarely used by US Army units in the ETO, in the movie it is presumably "playing" an M4A3. The movie never bothers to get into that detail but it's a fair assumption.

The "E8" designation really refers to the experimental models first fitted with HVSS and should not be used for production tanks - but it gets used that way all the time so why fight it.

regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverting Aug 25 '16

I reverted a few recent edits:

• The film never claims Fury's "regiment" is destroyed. A US tank regiment had over 100 tanks (158 M4s and 79 light tanks under the 'heavy' TO&E used by the 2nd AD). The film actually says that the platoon (five tanks at full strength) to which Fury was assigned in the opening seen now consists only of a single tank crew (the Fury crew). So that edit was simply wrong and OR to boot.
• The "confirmed kill" nonsense has been removed before by other editors. In WW2, the term "confirmed kill" refers to aircraft shootdowns by aircrew. There is no appropriate usage of that term for ground forces personnel.
• It is OR to read the character Norman's mind to say what 'hardens' him or whether he is 'hardened'.
• OR "swift and decisive" - simpler to say what we observe onscreen, which is that Fury maneuvers behind the Tiger.
• The tank radio is broken. No one says it is "beyond repair" whatever that means.
• OR "one man last stand" Surely Wardaddy's goal is not to have a 'last sand' although we do not know.
• OR that the crew intend a 'final sacrifice'. The only intent we can know is that they intend to defend in place.
• The crew engages the Germans with the tank's weapons, grenades and SMGs.
• OR we cannot read the sniper's mind.
• OR no one implies anything about the German 'offensive'.
• "infamous" - wrong term here. The tank or crew are neither famous nor infamous
• "Broken and battered" really?

DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Similar revert today. Apologies to Favonian. DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

And again, same problems, left message on editor's talk page. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Same edit set, another IP but probably the same user. left message on talk page. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The film reviews

I was just reading the critical response section, does anyone else think there's way too many reviews? There's like 50 of them. I think two or three positive reviews and two or three negative reviews get the point across. I just find it to be too much, but of course, that's Just my opinion Dpm12 (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Fury (2014 film)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Fury (2014 film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BOM":

• From Annie (2014 film): "Annie (2014)". Box Office Mojo. Internet Movie Database. Retrieved May 22, 2015.
• From The Best of Me (film): "The Best of Me (2014)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved January 5, 2013.
• From Suicide Squad (film): "Suicide Squad (2016)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved December 20, 2017.
• From Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 film): "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved November 10, 2015.
• From The Book of Life (2014 film): "The Book of Life (2014) (2014)". Retrieved November 10, 2015.
• From Brad Pitt: "The Big Short (2015)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved February 1, 2016.
• From End of Watch: "End of Watch (2012)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved June 21, 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Too Long

I think that the article at 58,600 bytes is far too long. A more reasonable size might be 35,000-40,000.

e.g. Is the 'Casting' section needed in its present form?
Or how about the 'Critical response' bit. As mentioned above, it goes on and on. What was it - 7 paragraphs?
According to the article, the film grossed $85.8 million in the US and Canada and $126 million world-wide. Therefore, as already stated, 2 or 3 reviews would be sufficient and some of them outside the US would balance the article.

Could 'tanker' be changed to 'tank-crewmen'? To most people, 'tanker' is a type of ship.
Likewise, 'Treads' are 'tracks' to everyone except people in the US.

What do other editors think?

RASAM (talk)

> for sure the "Critical response" section is way too long — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.68.34 (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I cut down this section. Metacritic shows out of 47 reviews that 29 were positive, 17 were mixed, and one was negative. So I trimmed it so that positive reviews make up 60% of the bunch and mixed reviews the rest of it. Referencing the one explicitly negative review would be undue weight to include. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)