Talk:In Harm's Way

Rock Torrey is divorced?

This is in reference to edit: 07:43, 6 December 2006 Quuxplusone. I could be wrong but I do not believe the Wayne/Rock Torrey character is divorced. I recall Wayne visiting Parker/Maggie for dinner and saying that his wife invited him to "come visit" whenever he was not "boating with the Navy" and "that was how we left it." Describing the Rock-Maggie relationship as a romance is certainly less judgemental than to call it an affair, though according to the mores of the times I think a romance that gives rise to a sexual relationship becomes something more than a simple "romance," regardless of the number of such liaisons as may have occured during World War II. Cryptonymius 15:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Rock Torrey is divorced

In the scene described above, Rock goes on to say that he continued to visit when he was "boating with the Navy", but when he was stationed in the Philippines, that ended it. It is exactly because of the mores of the times that there would have been and was a mention made of him being divorced. User:gr8mochas 12:30, 3 February, 2007

Yes, Rock Torrey is divorced - - no question about it.

In one of the scenes near the beginning of the movie, Rock Torrey goes to a party with Egan Powell. The party is crowded, and Torrey is not comfortable, especially when Egan starts dancing and leaves Torrey on his own. At this time Torrey goes to a part of the party that is near the sea and without lots of people. He also meets Nurse Maggie Haines there whom he does not remember from the hospital, but Maggie remembers him. She asks him about Ensign Jere Torrey who is dating her roommate. Maggie wonders aloud if he is alright. At that point Torrey tells her that he "- - - - - - has been flying under false colors". He has been divorced for many years, and gave his son up to his ex-wife. He does not know his son for this reason, and did not know that he was in the Navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocean4191 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:In Harms Way.jpg

Image:In Harms Way.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 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 08:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Old Swayback"

I believe this moniker refers to the USS Salt Lake City (CA-25), a Pensacola Class heavy cruiser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.224.195 (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it not. The "old swayback" has only one turret in the rear section of the ship, so this cannot be the Pensacola class heavy cruiser, because they had 2 turrets in the rear part of the ship. Also in the beginning of the movie there can be seen, in the first two turrets are 6 (2x3) guns, what does not correspond with Pensacola Class - Pensacola Class had 5 (2+3) guns in the front and 5 (3+2) guns in the rear section of the ship. Artur.Linhart (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, so, like also written in the article, it can be much more the heavy cruiser USS Saint Paul (CA-73), so the Baltimore class cruiser. There is only one difference between the pictures of this ship and "old swayback" - the missing front 5-inch cannon turret between the second 8-inch cannon turret and the bridge. In the wiki article USS Saint Paul (CA-73) is written nothing about such modification of the ship USS Saint Paul (CA-73). Artur.Linhart (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, "Old Swayback" in the novel and movie was based on the real "Old Swayback" CA-25 which was escorting carrier Enterprise from Wake Island returning to Pearl Harbor 7 Dec 1941. The cruiser in the novel was nicknamed "Old Swayback" and was at sea during the Raid on Pearl Harbor. Both real and fictional cruisers made an unsuccessful attempt to locate the Japanese. Otherwise there is no connection to the actual ship, her commander, or their battles. Island names Gavabutu and Levu-Vana were made up for the novel. By the time the movie was made there were no Pensacola class ships available, so a later class ship was used as a stand-in. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

poor effects

Kirk Douglas thought the special effects poor.... Well, In Harm's Way 1965 came out to an audience that could remember the excellent effects in I Bombed Pearl Harbor 1961 (aka Storm in the Pacific Ocean Toho 1960), Sink the Bismark 1960, and the use of real RN and USN cruisers in The Battle of the River Plate 1956 (aka Pursuit of the Graf Spee btw for the scuttling they used a 23 foot model). The model effects in In Harm's Way were embarrassing, they lacked detail and proportion. They looked like toys. If Kirk had been allowed to redo the effects on his own dime--as Disney redid the squid battle sequence for 20,000 Leagues--the movie would have been much better. Effects footage from Storm in the Pacific can be spotted reused in other films, such as Midway. I can't imagine anyone wanting to reuse the model footage from In Harm's Way. 67.232.94.35 (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Capt. Torrey promoted to Rear Admiral

In the movie Henry Fonda, playing Chester Nimitz, promoted captain Torrey to admiral by saying >>... the president has approved the action of the flag officer selection ... advanced you to temporary grade of rear admiral lower half with the date of rank ...<< what, in the fact, is a wrong specification of the Rear admiral rank in 1942. In the WWII the rank Rear Admiral (lower half) did not exist yet, it has been introduced after WWII. At the time of WWII this rank has been named Commodore in US Navy. Also this rank has only 1 star (it is the lowest flag rank). Later in the movie, there can be seen Torrey has two stars, so he is actually in later ranking Rear admiral upper half, what corresponds to the US Navy Rear admiral rank during the WWII. (User:Artur.Linhart) 1:43, 2 December 2011 (CET)

Mentioning of MacArthur and Halsey

In the movie is multiply times mentioned gen. MacArthur and admiral Halsey, but they are mentioned in bad connections - at the time of Guadalcanal battle - Solomon Islands campaign - this area has been put under command of Chester Nimitz (South-Pacific area), direct area commander was Robert Ghormley, so no commanding involvement of Douglas MacArthur. Also admiral Halsey has never commanded the carrier task forces in the area of Solomon Islands at the time of Guadalcanal battle - during the Guadalcanal battle have been involved in tactical command admirals Fletcher, Noyes, Kinkaid, Murray, etc. but never directly Halsey. He came to south Pacific like the commander of South-Pacific area first after vice-admiral Ghormley has been released from this job because of his poor results. Artur.Linhart (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal parallels of the movie with reality

Like written in the article, Henry Fonda is obviously Chester W. Nimitz, Franchot Tone is obviously Admiral Husband Kimmel.

I think, the name Rockwell Torrey and also his character could point to the name of Rear admiral Richmond Kelly Turner, who was actually responsible for the direct tactical leading of Guadalcanal battle (maritime operations and direct Navy support) on the US side. Similar is also his command heavy cruiser Astoria at the time he had the rank Captain.

Somebody could say, vice-admiral Broderick could correspond to vice-admiral Ghormley (same rank, same commanding area, same poor results), but the character and initials do not support this theory. Artur.Linhart (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this really the last black and white WWII epic?

In the current post, this is listed as the last black and white WWII epic. I would argue that Is Paris Burning? which was released a year later (1966) qualifies as a WWII epic, and it is entirely shot in black and white. Marcman411 (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that the text needs to be modified, perhaps to "...one of the last black-and-white World War II epics...". The original insertion was here, without any explanation. There has been no discussion on the Talk page. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on In Harm's Way. 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/20150402164515/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1166642311582 to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1166642311582

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: 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) 05:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)