Talk:Three Kings (1999 film)

Three Kings (1999 film) was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 8, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: Australian / War / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).

Nothing about the controversy?

Unless I'm really mistaken, wasn't there a huge controversy about this movie? David O. Russell abused his extras both emotionally and physically, and when Clooney tried to stop him, Russell tried to punch him in the face. It's on David O. Russell's page, is there a reason why it isn't on this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockslideproductions (talk • contribs) 03:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this too. According to the article's revision history, DBaba removed the "Conflict" section back in July, commenting that "this is a very tangential element, blown up a whole lot." While that may be true, and while the old Conflict secton (visible at [[1]]) was way too long, it's clearly notable enough (i.e. it's one of the primary associations people have with this film) to be kept around in some form—maybe just the form that appears on Russell's page—and maybe even mentioned in the lede. Wordshark (talk) 08:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed link

I removed a link to an article purporting to analysis the political subtext of the film. The article was poorly written (terrible grammar, occasionally garbled syntax) and appeared to be a high school essay. It also made several absurd inferences, i.e. that the film was an attempt to prevent the re-election of George W. Bush or to attack the idea that Saddam had chemical weapons. It was not informative in any way, extremely speculative, and not up to the typical quality of Wikipedia references.

Someone should mention the cinematography of the film, which was quite good. Three Kings used a washed out look to make the desert seem more desolate, same as Jarhead. Also, they used the "bullet cam" shot long before CSI came around. We also HAVE to work in a reference to the 'Iraqi Ass Map'. --129.252.176.46 17:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nate Scheffey 05:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clooney quote

Does anyone have a link for the George Clooney quote about the film being "overly political"? A) it needs a citation and B) it doesnt seem to jive with Clooney's other political projects (ie Syriana) and it would be nice to get some context. --Wesman83 16:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT- nevermind it says overtly, not overly. my b. still needs a reference tho. --Wesman83 18:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA FAILING

As per the style guidelines, this page shound include a Reception section, which should include:

“

Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers, and not comments from members of the public (for example, quotes from users of Amazon.com and the Internet Movie Database do not count). Websites such as Rotten Tomatoes ([2]) and Metacritic ([3]) collect professional film reviews and calculate a numerical score from them for each film. In the case of what the general public thought of the film, tend towards the expression "money talks" and provide a summary of the film's commercial success, consulting sites such as Box Office Mojo ([4]) and Box Office Guru ([5]).

”

Cbrown1023 22:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car Controversy

I personally think this section needs to be cleaned up somewhat:

1-The argument whether Infiniti or Lexus made a convertible (at the time of the Iraqi war) was a running gag between Troy Barlow (Mark Wahlberg) and Chief Elgin (Ice Cube) that is not mentioned in this article.

2-Chief Elgin (Ice Cube) did not drive the Infiniti into the compound just before it was blown up. Conrad Vig (Spike Jonze) drove the car, listening to the 'easy listening classics' cd that was reccommended to him by Elgin (Cube).

3-The driver's window was not broken by one of the US soldiers. It was shot by an Iraqi soldier on the roof of the bunker, shooting at Vig, who was staring into the locked car at his pistol as the window shatters.

4-The Infiniti did 'chirp' with a notable alarm sound after Vig and the Iraqi barber exited and closed the doors to the car. People can nit-pick this to death. If the door is open and the lock is set, it should unlock if the key is in the ignition. The car can be locked if the door is closed however.

Since this film takes place in the early 90's, when many people were installing aftermarket alarm systems of various types to vehicles, it can be argued that anyone with the financial means to import an M30 into Iraq would have the means to have such an alarm installed to protect their investment. I have worked in valet parking business for 20 years (and live in New Jersey, where many cars were stolen at that time) and I have seen numerous alarm systems fitted to all types of vehicles that have indeed locked the doors once they were closed, even if the car is running. It has been company policy for a long time for our employees to roll the drivers window down if the keys are left inside a vehicle, so we can reach in and unlock the door from the inside should it lock. One can assume Conrad didn't work as a valet parker or an Infiniti service technician back home.

5-If Saddam invaded Kuwait in July of 1990, and the M30 wasn't available until the 1991 model year, then it would be nearly impossible to think that during the war, someone managed to import the vehicle into Kuwait, in order for Saddam's army to seize the vehicle and return it to Iraq.

6-I propose modifying this entry to call it a 'continuity error' and make mention of the banter back and forth betwen Cube and Wahlberg's characters, since that's more important to the story that if it should have locked or not.

7-I am getting some of my information about the film from viewing my copy of the DVD, and the Infiniti explosion scene matches this one I found on YouTube for verification.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxwSoSELiz0 8-It is possible that the person that made the initial comment viewed a different version of the film, but my copy is not a special edition, but the initial DVD release, and no mention of changed scenes or different 'takes' are noted in the packaging or in the menus. Neworderrr 09:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots & Plot

I've just added a screenshot of the internal camera. I chose to use the scene where Barlow's chest cavity is filling with air, as I think the screeshot is better. However, I've uploaded a screenshot of the bile as well:

Over the course of the next few days I'll also be improving the plot section, and I'll list what changes I've made and why here.

Evan.c.davis 13:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Less narrative article (story, not production)

I think that instead of just retelling the story, we should rather (for example) say the movie simply asks the questions about the morality of the United States - including as asked by an Iraqi torturer. You know, the way you do the movie review.

Or would be that "original research" this way? Look on few reviews and compile opinions and notes? --HanzoHattori 08:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the movie is full of awesome dialogue (you know, like "Michael Jackson is the pop king of the sick fucking country"). This for the Wikiquote people. --HanzoHattori 09:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:THREE-KINGS-internal-camera-lungs.png

Image:THREE-KINGS-internal-camera-lungs.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paralells to Front Mission 4

I thought it might be interesting to note that one of the plot lines from the Playstation 2 game Front Mission 4 bears much resemblance to to Three Kings. Three soldiers, who discover a shipment of gold from a corrupt miltary regime decide to keep it and desert their posts. They also end up deciding to stay and end up helping local rebels as in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.105.177 (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Front Mission 4? How about Battlefield Bad Company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.79.182 (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Real-Life Parallel" should be removed

The section about the "real life parallel" should be removed. The actions described in the parallel took place more than 5 years AFTER the movie was released. It's a minor correlation and it lacks relevance to the film its self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.100.188 (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is nothing more than trivia or coincidence and has nothing tangible to do with the movie. No incursion behind enemy lines after the cessation of hostilities like the movie, no capture, no involvement/rescue of Iraqi's etc. Those are big plot points. I removed it.

French Special Forces?

They put the French soldier in the movie as though he serves as some importance, but then at the end all he does it show up to help them with other Americans. Why did they include him in the movie? Its almost as if he had a larger role that was cut out. Why would he be cut off from the rest of his unit and with an American one? But more importantly, why have him in the movie at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M1a2u2 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this matters for this article. Vicarious Tendril (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some mention of Kelly's Heroes?

Should the article make some mention of the 1970 film Kelly's Heroes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.251.145 (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC) '[reply]

It certainly should. Dlabtot (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who writes this rubbish?

"hidden in his rectum." the piece of paper is clearly sticking out from the guy's cheeks, at least in the version I watched. At least in Australia that is along way from the rectum. Greglocock (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Aussie Greg I agree with you; the original wiki editor has a weak grasp on anatomy, the scene, or both.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:807F:FA96:B4CE:A7F6:65D:D3AF (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear that it's at least partly stuck up his rectum, not just between his cheeks. Conrad has to use a fair bit of force to pull it out, and the references to it stinking and needing a glove to open it. 2001:569:704B:C800:6811:C80D:7134:DEAD (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No way. It wouldn't come out all perfect like that if he ate it. User:TroyBarlow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.15.8 (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Epilogue

It's been a while since I've watched this film, but I am 99% sure the epilogue mentioned in the plot section of the article is completely made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.40.146 (talk • contribs) 21:13, October 1, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was my bad. I put the old epilogue section back. That said, I still like my version better... fits with the movie's title, and all. It's supposed to be about three kings. A Dark Fall (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Dark Fall, do not do that again. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White savior trope

I removed "see also: white savior in film". The film has never been discussed as portraying the "white savior" trope, nor does it, OTOH, subvert the trope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:807F:FA96:B4CE:A7F6:65D:D3AF (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The authoritative book The White Savior Film lists Three Kings as having the white savior trope. Our personal opinions about the matter cannot be cited to override that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jobless?

Why is Spike Jonze's character described as "jobless"? He's in the US Army. That is full-time employment.