Talk:They Shall Not Grow Old

Film dedications

Noting here the three dedications at the end of the film (Jackson's grandfather is already mentioned in the article):

• Sergeant William Jackson, DCM, 2/South Wales Borderers (1890-1940)
• Sergeant Sidney Ruck, 2/Monmouthshires, killed 8 May 1915 - CWGC record
• 2nd Lieutenant Thomas Walsh, NZ Tunnelling Company and NZ Rifle Brigade, killed 4 May 1918 - CWGC record

Carcharoth (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So that would be the South Wales Borderers, the Monmouthshire Regiment, the New Zealand Tunnelling Company, and the New Zealand Rifle Brigade (Earl of Liverpool's Own), yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Those are probably the right articles, yes. Not sure if the other two are also from Peter Jackson's family tree. I did find this article (in French) that states that Thomas Walsh was an ancestor of Jackson's partner Fran Walsh (I should have recognised the surname). Have not found anything more on the connection with Sidney Ruck. Hang on. His mother's maiden name was Ruck (Joan Ruck), so presumably from that line of the family. Carcharoth (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I think he did mention them briefly during his Q&A session at the premiere. (He mentioned his father, when still a teenager, having to carry his grandfather up to bed on his back, as he could not manage the stairs in later life, such were his wartime injuries). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

The section on historical accuracy is cited to a reddit post. This looks suspiciously like original research.

It should be removed.

98.190.223.50 (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Just in case anyone can find any better source(s), the removed section said this: "The film includes a number of short clips of British Mark V and Mark V* tanks, which entered service in 1918. They have been colourised green, whereas from late 1916 it was ordered that all tanks be painted a "neutral brown." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The section on historical accuracy isn't "cited to a reddit post." I'm surprised the circling Wikivultures haven't noticed Reference 24, https://tank100.com/tanks/tank-camouflage-first-world-war/ If you read the article you will see that it is published by the Tank Museum, Bovington. It is hard to think of a more reliable source. The article is published electroncally. The paragraph on the mud-brown paint scheme explains the situation thus: "Surrendering to the inevitable, towards the end of 1916 it was ordered that the tanks should be painted in a ‘neutral brown colour’ all over. Although a few camouflaged sponsons were seen as late as Arras in April 1917, by the time the Mark IV was introduced in June the days of elaborate paint schemes on the battlefield were over."

If you don't like Reddit, you can watch the same video on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBf-GgVdIr8

Reddit is just the medium, not the source. Sources can be evaluated independently. This particular source shows the curator of the Tank Museum, from 6' 59" to 8' 08", explaining that from late 1916 all tanks were painted "dog-turd brown." Hengistmate (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

tank blogging
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I guess, in the early part of the war, the generals had imagined those tanks gracefully blending in with the verdant pastures of France and Belgium? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Not the generals. They sought the advice of Solomon Solomon, but yes, he imagined they would operate against a rural landscape. Hengistmate (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC) How very artistic. Many thanks for that link. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that this source does not mention this film or any commentary in reliable sources about alleged errors in this film. Using this source in an article about this film violates WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Either find a reliable source that discusses this camouflage issue as an error in this particular film, or it simply does not belong in this article. Feel free to blog elsewhere. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems like the anon IP from Fairfax Virginia, the OP here, has now "taken care" of it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC) p.s. there's an interesting article by Robert Fisk in The Independent here, but no mention of the green tanks.

Not a good sentence

The response was not universally positive however, and particularly among archivists and film historians some concerns were raised about the ways in which the film erased the original filmmakers, manipulated the image through colourization and other techniques and implied that the original footage (much of which had been extensively restored by the IWM archives) was in disrepair.

First of all, that's a run on sentence with a jolting "and" bolted into the middle of a radical tone change.

Particularly among archivists and film historians some concerns were raised about the ways in which the film:

• erased the original filmmakers
• manipulated the image through colourization and other techniques
• and implied that the original footage (much of which had been extensively restored by the IWM archives) was in disrepair.

Let's boil that down further.

Concerns were raised about the ways in which the film implied that the original footage (much of which had been extensively restored by the IWM archives) was in disrepair.

What does that even mean? Also, the long parenthetical also seems awkward. As far as I could tell, the film implied no such thing, though the commentary track on the DVD did address some restoration issues. One specific thing Jackson says on the commentary track is that some of the film footage had shrunk to where it no longer played smoothly on a standard projector (sprocket hole alignment problems). That's not disrepair, it's simply natural aging, and I doubt even the most careful conservation can prevent this.

Finally, "erased the original filmmakers" is the kind of hysterical language that's become prominent in the era of identity politics, but I don't think the word "erased" has a leg to stand on. Only because of this restoration potentially millions of people have seen this footage that would not have found a mass audience. Can anyone imagine a cameraman standing around in that carnage and thinking "this film is all about me"? My guess is that some of these cameramen, if they were still alive to speak for themselves, would slap that notion down in a quick hurry. Jon Stewart liked to tell the story of the news through the production process of the news. We're not going to get that perspective on these cameramen of yesteryear. This was long before people started pointing cameras at cameramen. To my taste, use of the word "erased" borders on cultural anachronism. — MaxEnt 05:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Go for it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I've done "so fix it" on a thousand other articles but I did not go that route in this case, because I don't know the correct treatment. I simply would not have added those complaints in the first place, but clearly someone else thought this point of view belonged here, for reasons that make little sense to me. I try to fix problems on Wikipedia without unnecessarily erasing other people's point of view.

I actually returned here because I was surprised to find the word "erases" in an article by Adam Gopnik, who is usually fairly sensible.

• A Few Thoughts on the Authenticity of Peter Jackson's "They Shall Not Grow Old" — 14 January 2019

Colorizing and audibilizing and reimaging the footage—so that it is full of those camera movements that were not part of the era's cinematic language—would diminish the potency of the Chaplin parody and erases the parallel dimension of art, as it shows us what the people of the time couldn't see, and that the things that they could and couldn't see were what made them people of their time.

I'm immediately reminded of the old arguments about playing Bach on a modern piano. (1) Bach would have loved the improved dynamic range of the modern instrument. (2) Playing Bach on a modern instrument "erases" what Bach himself (and his audience) would have experienced. So, yeah, you can't have it both ways, and it helps to entertain both perspectives, and taking about one perspective "erasing" the other perspective does not help matters, to my ear. Can't they both coexist to better mutual effect? I have baroque music on period instruments and baroque music on modern instruments, and I'm better off for the sum total. We also have the same thing with Shakespeare, where sometimes the language is rendered entirely authentic (and harder to understand) and sometimes rendered less authentic (and easier to understand). Both experiences have their merits. And what about Good News Bible? "Yo, man, Jesus lives."

In any case, if the word "erases" came via Gopnik, his context is rather more sophisticated (he enters the subject via Chaplin) and he's speaking about a "parallel dimension of art" that might not even exist in the original trench context.

I am not qualified to fix this sentence, I'm only qualified to delete everything after the "and" and if other people agree with me that this is the best resolution (not a fix) then anyone else can perform this edit as easily as I can. Another approach I could take would constitute original research (like this nice little essay I'm writing now—also not suitable). Mine is not the only valid opinion on proper balance, so I'll leave it at that. — MaxEnt 06:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Why not just attribute the "erased" comment to Gopnik, and eliminate the "and" you object to? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)