Jump to content

Talk:Glory (1989 film)

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

Casualty rate

[edit]

-I have made a minor numerical adjustment to the casualty rate at Fort Wagner (a difference of 16), based on another wikipedia article. This other article is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/54th_Massachusetts_Volunteer_Regiment I apolagize if the correction was in error, if someone with more time would like to look into this and figure out which figure was correct, please do so. (For reference the original article stated 256 deaths) -orionriver 20:45 (PST) 1/23/07 -Do you know why the movie was called Glory? I don't. Help me.

In the commentary the director simply says "It just came to me." Which isn't much help! The Singing Badger 21:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few years ago, original newspaper reports and other written sources from the period resurfaced which higlighted a Bermudian, First Sgt. Simmons, who served in the Regiment, and (in a newspaper report, given variously as being from a Charleston or a Georgia newspaper) who said he had fought for glory. This was apparently the first report of the battle published (at least in a Southern newspaper). It didn't give Simmon's name, but other sources clarify that. It was pointed out by the historian who brought this material forward that this report would not have been know to the film makers, so it's merely an interesting coincidence. I tacked in a mention of Simmons in this article, and in the one on the Regiment. Aodhdubh 18:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the Royal Gazette [1], of Bermuda, reported that the newspaper article refered to above was in the Weekly Colombus Enquirer, but the website of Historian Mark Mitchell [2] records it as the Charleston Daily Courier: the archive also contains the first newspaper report of the brave but failed attack in the Charleston (SC) Daily Courier including an interview with a captured black sergeant from Bermuda, Robert John Simmons. Aodhdubh 18:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-In the article it is stated that the depiction of the african american soldiers was historically inaccurate, but an accurate account is not provided. Someone who knows the truth ought to amend this.

-I'm not good at writing movie summaries which is why I didn't try to write one, but a better one should be added.

I saw this movie in class, i've got to say that this movie was good. Khang 15:36, 29 2006 (UTC)

- I'm a wikipedia newbie, and I don't feel comfortable editing articles just yet, so I'll note an erratum here, and somebody else can edit the article. In a list of differences between the film and history, it is stated: The 54th was not in fact the only all-black regiment; so many men signed up to enlist that a sister regiment was formed, the 55th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. The other black regiment actually is depicted in the film, in a scene beginning at about the 1 hour, 4 minute mark. Capedia 22:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a completely different regiment. The referenced 55th Regiment was a unit formed from the surplus of recruits from the 54th camp [3]. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 05:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Article stated that it was based parially on Shaw's "own memoirs". As Shaw was KIA at Battery Wagner, as depicted in the film, it's safe to say that he never lived to write any memoirs! Input of Shaw's words were from his letters home, as noted in the intro to the film.209.158.189.54 15:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing semantics. Colonel Shaw kept a detailed journal and diary, as was ver common among "young gentlemen" of the time, as well as penning several letters to friends and family members detailing the activities of the 54th and his feelings about being in command. While these may not be considered "memoirs" in the truist sense of the word, in that they were not penned with the intention of being passed on to future generations...to say that Shaw "never lived to write any memoirs" is completely innaccurate considering the amount of writing we do have directly from him. Rapier1 (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant William Carney

[edit]

Sergeant William Carney was the only flag bearer that day for the national flag. He was wounded several times but he never had to relieve anyone. The previous statement which mentioned that "When the flag bearer fell, another black soldier, Sergeant William Carney grabbed the flag and carried it" was incorrect. He carried the flag straight throughout the battle despite being severely wounded which is part of the reason why he received the Medal of Honor. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 18:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I stand corrected. I neverr90.207.91.122 (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC) heard of the story of Sgt. Wall who was the original flag bearer that day. My fault! --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 19:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical comparison section may need deletion

[edit]

I was just watching the movie. The anamolies section said the men went forward without bayonets fixed even though Shaw ordered them to fix bayonets. It's the other way around: the men went forward WITH bayonets fixed even though Shaw HAD NOT ordered them to fix bayonets. So I just fixed thatParallelPain 00:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. In one scene they clearly don't have the bayonets on, yet in the scene immediately after that they are shown charging with bayonets fixed. C d h (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but this kind of stuff is irrelevant, historically. I mean, he could have given the order when we weren't looking (in the movie universe), the soldiers could have taken the initiative themselves (I would have!), or this might have been a part of the "fire at will" order---I mean it certainly seems clear from the film that once hand-to-hand combat ensues, any sort of orders are thrown out the window. (Whether or not the film's depiction of these "fire at will" scenarios is historically accurate would be a more neutral way to address the issue). I digress, this section has major issues:

1. There is nothing wrong with a historical comparison per se, but it needs to be neutral, not a critique. In other words, it would need to address the historical accuracy as much as the inaccuracy...unless, of course, this movie was known for it's historical inaccuracy and this fact was supported with references (and it isn't). (see WP:NPOV.)
2. trivia sections are strongly discouraged. The list needs to be changed into a coherent body of writing to avoid looking like a trivia section or fansite.
3. Next, the facts need to be referenced, because they appear to resemble original research.

If these things aren't addressed, I think the section will probably need to be removed. JohnnyCalifornia (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw's Burial

[edit]

Regarding the recent deletion of my edit describing the manner of Shaw's burial, my edit was not an act of vandalism. I read a great deal about Shaw several years ago, and I'm sure I remember reading that he was stripped of his uniform before being buried. Has anyone else heard this? I will try to locate a source for it, though perhaps I have remembered incorrectly. Marsoult (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read about this too. His sword was actually found years later in the attic of a Confederate veteran which was later returned to his family. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 16:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible error

[edit]

The real attack on Fort Wagner took place in a south to north alignment with the Atlantic to the right; whereas in the movie the attack is filmed taking place with the sea to the left and the 54th marching south into battle. According to the film, this would place Fort Wagner to the north of Charleston harbour wherein it was on Morris Island, south of the sea lanes.

I find it strange that the director would have taken such a glaring error in what is such a minutely crafted historical film. They could have just reversed the negatives of the last 25 mins of the film, and no one would have noticed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.77.152 (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The negative could simply have been flipped or the director could have done it for any of a dozen reasons. Considering only history geeks like us would ever know the difference, I'm sure the people who produced the movie figured "no one" would care. Ckruschke (talk)Ckruschke

Several movie makers have stated that narratives in movies are better depicted left to right because we read left to right. I won't find articles supporting that fact or edit the article myself because I have better things to do than battle the trolls of wiki. 98.164.95.72 (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flogging scene

[edit]

I think removal of this section is a serious mistake. Add to the errors that the flogging scene never really happened. Flogging was banned by the US Army years beforehand. See https://books.google.com/books?id=2YBIg-iwfUUC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=glory+flogging+scene&source=bl&ots=syuHmw4-nj&sig=t2tw-iFDPwZIR2WKwQfQYEssABA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW9tXswd_PAhUPwmMKHRrzAbEQ6AEIQjAF#v=onepage&q=glory%20flogging%20scene&f=false and many other reputable sources. This scene was done purely for dramatic affect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biography vs. Plot

[edit]

Why do we list biographies of characters, rather than a regular plot summary? Sonicsuns (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely need to either get rid of the empty "Synopsis" section, or someone should actually fill it with facts. --Vamptvo (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article needs a major face-lift. I hope nobody minds if I take the liberty.... JohnnyCalifornia (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't seen the movie in over a decade, but while reading the synopsis I got pretty confused. "Any black caught bearing arms against the Confederacy will immediately be returned to a state of slavery, any black captured wearing a Federal uniform will summarily be hanged. Any white officer leading a Negro regiment in battle against the Confederacy will also be executed." The article makes it sound as if the 54th was a Confederate regiment and discussing how treason would be dealt with. From just reading the synopsis one would be under the impression that the 54th Massachusetts regiment was a Confederate regiment, but in reality is a Union regiment. If someone has recently seen the movie, can they sort this out/reword it? Thanks Ghostalker (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why don't you mosey on over to the Wikipedia page on the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Regiment and your questions will be answered. Jefferson Davis (pbnuh) did not recognize the legitimacy of Black Union soldiers and was therefore going to treat them akin to escaped convicts rather than in the manner customary for prisoners of war. The same went for the white officers. 98.180.8.57 (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

[edit]

Quoting from the article: "Of these casualties, only 116 were fatalities, just under one fifth of the men to storm the fort. If the 156 soldiers that were captured are included, it would bring the total to "over half". In formal military terms, though, "casualties" include captured soldiers." What's the source for these numbers? They seem anomolous to me for two reasons. One, 'casualties' normally includes dead, captured, and wounded. These numbers name no wounded, and I find that surprising. Second, if the events in the movie are accurate, it can be reasonably assumed that the 156 captured soldiers were killed, since the Confederate working orders at the time were to kill any man in or leading a black regiment captured in uniform. That could explain the lack of distinction in the movie. JeffHCross (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"What's the source for these numbers?" Look in the references section. They are documented in those books. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 15:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Wagner

[edit]

See the WP article on Fort Wagner. The Union forces began a traditional siege of the fort which resulted in the Confederates knowing it would eventually fall. As a result, the Confederate garrison slipped away and escaped and the fort was taken by the Union. There are any number of books that relate this also. So to state that the fort was never captured is incorrect. It was captured because the Union worked at doing so by traditional siege methods. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's section on erroneous details suggests to the reader that the film makes the claim that the fort never fell at all - in fact it says the the fort "was never taken", and by this the inference is 'taken' by assault.
Indeed, it was not taken by assault, but was abandoned and, so unmanned and undefended, the remaining ramparts fell into Union hands afterwards. This 'capture' of unmanned 'earthworks' (and ephemeral sand at that) occurred after the battle was done.
Perhaps the article might better clarify this point, instead of listing the movie's closing card statement as a flat-out 'goof'? 2A00:23C7:3131:FE01:6168:112E:147E:D144 (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my mistake. I confused the film's "Synopsis" with real history. I saw that the real history is listed further down the page. I undid my two edits of the fort "never being captured." Sorry. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me?

[edit]

It seems that the sequence of events in the synopsis is off —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.48.249 (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw's Rank

[edit]

While I watched this movie, I found that Shaw was actually a Captain during the battle of Antietam creek. He was named Colonel after the battle, at a dinner party. The same place he was given the leadership of the 54th division. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.25.140 (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Antietam was fought on September 17, 1862. Shaw was promoted to major on March 31, 1863, and to colonel on April 17. WikiParker (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Rawlins" or "Rollins"?

[edit]

Appears as Rawlins in the plot summary and Rollins in the cast list. -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

54th MA NOT "the first formal unit of the Union army" made up of African Americans

[edit]

It is incorrect to say -- as stated in the current version of the Wikipedia listing, but not claimed in the movie -- that the 54th Massachusetts, mustered in on May 13, 1863, was the first black "formal unit" in the Union army, to the exclusion of numerous other such black units that preceded it. This assertion, as well as similar ones made on other Wikipedia pages, fails to define "formal." In fact, to the extent a military unit was mustered in the Union army, it was just as "formal" as any other unit. Thus, the 1st Regiment Kansas Volunteer Infantry (Colored) -- a Northern regiment in every sense of the word, mustered into federal service on January 13, 1863 -- preceded by four months the 54th Massachusetts. Moreover, the 1st Kansas was actually fighting in the field by early fall 1862, well before the 54th Massachusetts was even authorized. However, because of political controversy surrounding the use of federal black units in the North, the 1st Kansas wasn't mustered into the Union army until early January 1863. Dyer's authoritative Compendium of the War of the Rebellion documents all the foregoing, and is reproduced in the federal Civil War Soldiers and Sailors database. For the federal government's entry regarding the 1st Kansas (later re-designated the 79th U.S. Colored Troops), see: http://www.nps.gov/civilwar/search-battle-units-detail.htm?battleUnitCode=UUS0079RI02C

Moreover, unlike the 1st Kansas (re-designated as a U.S.C.T. regiment in the last months of the Civil War), the 54th Massachusetts was NEVER a unit of United States Colored Troops, as incorrectly stated in the current version of the Wikipedia page. Although the 54th Massachusetts was "mustered" into federal service -- like virtually all volunteer state units actively serving during the war -- it never was a federal unit of the U.S.C.T., which was a formal organization of Regular army regiments in the United States Army. The 54th Massachusetts remained throughout its service a regiment of Massachusetts state volunteers.

In view of the foregoing errors, I am editing the second paragraph of the current version of the Glory (1989 film) entry. Don Columbia (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Glory (1989 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Return of historicity section

[edit]

I see by this Talk page that there was once a section comparing the depiction of this regiment with its actual history and that this section was controversial, and now see that it was apparently deleted. This was a mistake. One of the main reasons I came to this entry was specifically for that information, and I doubt I'm alone -- or even in a minority. WP movie entries frequently compare and contrast book-based films with the original text, and no-one finds that superfluous. I would ask the doyens of this article to consider that in the case of historical dramas, actual events constitute "the book", making removal of the history section an act of de facto (though good-faith) vandalism. (I'm not sure "good-faith vandalism" is actually possible, but you get my drift.) Laodah 08:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's cited to a reliable source, it can be added, but we can't perform our own analysis. That belongs on Wikia or the IMDb. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Glory (1989 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glory (1989 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glory_(1989_film)&oldid=1195374134"