Talk:Backdraft (film)

Plot needs help!

The plot section needs some serious editing; I've changed a bit but it needs a more fully-fleshed out modification, as well as separating the cast out into a shortened bios section. Right now it reads like a mixture of both, elements of the plot intermingled in no timeline-logical order. I'll see what I can do here when time allows. Evixir (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Idiot

There is some nimrod who is compelled to put Ernest Borgnine in this wiki, either by pictures or by text. He seems persistent so I suggest you get rid of this prankster forever because he's nothing but a monster.

And why Ernest? This guy is a really unclever man. I hate him!

Clarification

Someone needs to clairfy if the exhibit at Universal lets one epxerience a real fire, a real backdraft experience, or the process of making a real movie. As it is worded, it could mean any of the above. -- Raveled

Fair use rationale for Image:Backdraft.png

Image:Backdraft.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 09:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephen or Steven?

In the plot section the two names Steven and Stephen are mentioned. Are they both of the same person or two different ones, because I think it's an error. - 222.164.81.26 (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section

Most of the trivia section is copy-pasted from the IMDB trivia page. It should either be deleted outright or reworded and properly sourced.--Davidwiz (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:3475904152.jpg

Image:3475904152.jpg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

it:Fuoco assassino is the interwiki to it.wikipedia. Some registered user may add it.

lack of realism

This article should have a paragraph on how this film suffers from a serious lack of realism. I would really appreciate some help with finding quotable sources. In this movie, fire has some conscious quality that is influenced by showing fear or not, as if it was some kind of animal. But fire never produces any smoke. Consequently, firefighters hardly ever use breathing apparatuses. They wander onto burning factory floors all alone. They use elevators in the midst of large blazes. They enter burning rooms just to smash furniture like they were a martial arts club overdosed on drugs. Etcetera. It find it appalling to the point to think this movie must have had a detrimental effect on a whole generations views on what a building fire is and on how firefighting works. -- Theoprakt (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

All of this is simply your opinion and interpretation. Without reputable sources, nothing like this can be allowed in the article. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Reputable" sources? I guess you mean reliable sources? Well, here's a start sourcing what you are so quick to dismiss as unfounded opinion:

• Ron Garner: "Fire Chief", iUniverse, 2004, p. 62 [1]: "The pictures of firefighters searching in movies like Back Draft do not really show what it is like to search in a fire. Realism in our case would make a very bad movie because the fact is that in almost every fire the smoke conditions completely obscure all vision."
• Jerry E. Lindsay: "A Firefighter's Story", p.52-53 [2]: "The movie "Backdraft" a Ron Howard film released in 1991 came pretty close at times, but it also suffered from the very same, all to common shortcommings that any visual presentation was bound to encounter (...) Smoke, steam and other miscellaneous factors usually combine to obscure almost everything that is taking place".
• Robert L Rowe, Pyrocop, Inc.: Fire Investigations and “The Scientific Method - Change is Good!”: "In the movie, “Shadow“ explains his philosophy about fire and fire investigation, “It's a living thing. It breathes, it eats and it hates“" ... "Ask any experienced fire expert about fire and fire investigation today and you will quickly learn that there is more to know the science of fire than what is portrayed in the movie" ... "Gone are the days of “gut feelings” and “shoot from the hip” theories regarding fire origin and cause. The investigation of a fire or explosion nowadays most often involves the identification, collection, and analysis of data, or facts which is addressed in National Fire Protection Association's NFPA 921 “Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations”. This process is what is referred to as the “Scientific Method” and has become a key component in the outcome of criminal and civil litigation".
• tvtropes page on the movie [3]: Both Bartel and Rimgale describe fire as an animal and as a sentient predator as a way to understand how it behaves.

-- Theoprakt (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure tvtropes isn't considered a reliable source. The fact that the link contains "wiki" isn't encouraging. Doniago (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Backdraft (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222063534/http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lancashire/plain/A356915 to http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lancashire/plain/A356915

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Backdraft (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150412034135/http://www.hgexperts.com/article.asp?id=27338 to http://www.hgexperts.com/article.asp?id=27338

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)