Talk:The Hunt for Red October (film)/Archive 1

Cast List

It seems redundant to have the cast listed three times in the article - at the start, in the infobox, and in the character section. My inclination is to remove it at the start of the article. Your thoughts? Seaphoto 03:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, once is enough. --96.244.248.77 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Note added under "Trivia"

I just added the notes about the Admiral's ribbons under "trivia." Ribbons you would expect to see on an admiral are not set in stone, so my note on it is sort of hard to reference. I was stationed in DC for a few years and worked around my share of very Big Dogs, but I never, ever saw an admiral or a general without at least a Meritorious Service Medal as a senior decoration. I'm sure that's not an official prerequisite, but an O-6 who didn't get awarded anything above an MSM would be fairly unlikely to make flag rank. This would be like seeing a Captain or a Master Chief with a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal as a senior decoration. I guess it could happen, but not in the real Navy. It's a minor point (hence, "trivia"), but I noticed it right away, and I would bet other Navy/USMC people did too. Any other active duty or vets have any opinion on this?

prokaryote1234 23:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Another bit of trivia is that there are two mistakes in the Russian for Red October appearing in the title at the beginning of the movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.16.161.89 (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please elaborate. --96.244.248.77 (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In the title it says "KPACHЫЙ (red - correct) OKTIABR (mistakes)" OKTIABR should be ОКТЯБРЬ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.227.224 (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Pop Culture

Family guy parodied Red October in their Star Wars episode during the scene with multiple fighter ships doing a ready check for attacking the death star. "Red October, Standing By." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.240.133 (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis

This section needs a spoiler warning. (Sorry, I don't have time to do it myself right now.) 130.195.86.36 20:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's called a Synopsis section (definition: a brief summary of the plot of a novel, motion picture, play, etc.) - I believe WP:SPOILER says it is unnecessary to add spoiler tags to those areas. Thanks, OSborn^arf 20:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:326103.jpg

Image:326103.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) 04:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Other non-trivial reference to the film

Reference to the film, including a quote, helps provide perspective when Russia invaded Georgia. http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/08/15/georgia-putins-biggest-mistake-so-far/ Article: August 15, 2008

Cold War Implications

The content provided to this article about an outed black project caused by the release of the movie is absolutely true. It should NOT be deleted, following Wiki rules. And it is referenced.

Listen closely to that portion of the movie. Why on earth would they even mention "milligals" in the background? Because the crew was a real submarine crew and they knew about it because it was part of their training.

Also, check with Bell Geospace and their website. They'd be happy to tell you the story.

By the way, I personally worked on this now declassified black project. And I remember exactly what happened from the inside. It was a major problem at the time. Remember, lots of people worked on this project - it was a billion dollar project. So it is not just fan rumor, it's a fact.--Klezmer (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for revised plot summary

As noted, the existing plot summary is too long and detailed. Here is my attempt at a more concise revision, which comes in at less 1/2 the length of the existing one. I welcome any constructive feedback or counterproposals.

---

Marko Ramius (Sean Connery) is captain of the Soviet submarine Red October, which features caterpillar drive--a revolutionary silent propulsion system that renders the boat virtually undetectable. At the start of the film, Ramius takes the boat out to sea for exercises with the submarine V.K. Konovalov, commanded by Captain Tupolev (Stellan Skarsgård), a former student of Ramius.

Once underway, Ramius murders Political Officer Ivan Putin (Peter Firth), the one man aboard not under his command and the only man aboard besides himself who knows the sub's official orders. Ramius then burns the original orders and informs the crew that their mission is to conduct nuclear missile drills off America’s east coast. The USS Dallas, an American submarine on patrol nearby, detects the Red October but loses contact once Ramius engages the silent drive.

The next morning, CIA analyst Jack Ryan (Alec Baldwin) briefs several senior U.S. government officials on the departure of Red October and the threat it poses. In the briefing, Ryan learns that the Soviet Navy has deployed the bulk of its Atlantic fleet to find Red October and sink her. The officials in the briefing fear that Ramius may be planning an unauthorized first strike against the U.S., but Ryan suggests that Ramius plans to defect. Ryan is sent out into the North Atlantic with a brief opportunity to prove his theory before the U.S. Navy will be ordered to sink Red October.

While under way, Red October's caterpillar drive suddenly fails, and sabotage is suspected. No longer silent, the sub comes under attack by Soviet forces and begins a series of risky maneuvers through undersea canyons. Meanwhile, Seaman Jones (Courtney B. Vance), a sonar analyst aboard Dallas, reconstructs Red October's path and plots an intercept course. Ryan learns of his findings and arranges a hazardous mid-ocean rendezvous to get aboard Dallas, where he convinces the sub's Captain, Bart Mancuso (Scott Glenn) to attempt communication with Ramius through morse code in order to determine his true intentions. Ramius, stunned that the Americans guessed his plans, accepts their cooperation and agrees to a new course.

Nearing the Grand Banks, Ramius stages a nuclear reactor emergency and orders the bulk of his crew to abandon ship, telling Red October’s doctor that he will scuttle the sub rather than let it be captured. Once Ramius submerges, Ryan, Mancuso and Jones come aboard via mini-sub, at which point Ramius formally requests asylum in the United States for himself and his officers.

Thinking their mission is complete, the Red October's skeleton crew are surprised by a torpedo attack from the Konovalov, which has tracked them to the Grand Banks. As the two Soviet subs maneuver against each other, the Red October's cook (and apparently the saboteur) reveals himself and opens fire, fatally wounding Ramius's first officer before retreating into the missile launch area. Ryan follows, finds the saboteur and guns him down just before he can detonate one of the missiles and destroy the sub.

Meanwhile, with some help from Dallas, Red October makes a series of evasive maneuvers, causing one of Konovalov's own torpedoes to circle around and destroy it. The evacuated crew of the Red October, on board a U.S. Navy rescue ship witness this explosion and, unaware that there is a second Soviet sub in the area, they assume it is the Red October that was destroyed. Their subterfuge complete, Ryan and Ramius sail the Red October to a haven in the Penobscot River in Maine.

---

Nizamarain 06:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizamarain (talk • contribs)

Looks great! Go ahead and do it! --Izno (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

BAHAHAHA. Just at the moment you think to do it, I'm working on it too. You E/C'd me. Well timed, good sir, well timed! --Izno (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Uncited section

I have removed the following text due to a complete lack of sources (and the source that was there before was irrelevant):

Cold War implications The film caused a minor sensation in the black projects / submarine warfare technology community. In one scene, where Dallas is chasing Red October through the submarine canyon, the crew can be heard calling out that they have various "milligal anomalies." This essentially outed the use of gravimetry as a method of silent navigation in US submarines. Thought to be a billion dollar black project, the development of a full-tensor gravity gradiometer by Bell Aerospace was a classified technology at the time. It was thought to be deployed on only a few Ohio class submarines after it was first developed in 1973. Within a few months after the film was released, Bell Aerospace partially declassified the technology, ultimately leading to its sale to Bell Geospace, which still uses the technology for oil exploration purposes.

Colinpendred (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This section should NOT have been deleted, as it was properly sourced. This is a true fact and would greatly add to the impact of this article. I put it back in. --Klezmer (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hymn to Red October deserves a link

I can't see a graceful place to put it, but if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymn_to_Red_October deserves its own article (Which I'm not disputing), it should be linked to from this one. 78.149.21.125 (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The header in this talk page says Hymn to Red October was merged into this page, yet I see no mention of Hymn to Red October other than the See Also link which redirects back to this page.... Kevink707 (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't merged, but plainly redirected. The article held no verifiable information, much less information which would have improved this article. With regards to a link, most if not all external links to the hymn will be in violation of ELNEVER #1. --Izno (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Mixed Reviews?

When a film scored 95% on rotten tomatoes, I hardly call that "mixed reviews"

Maybe "Mostly positive" would be more appropriate.

AlphaTangoEcho (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Either "overwhelmingly positive" or "critically acclaimed" would be most accurate. 95% is very high, higher than several best picture winners as well. 24.16.148.194 (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess. But "overwhelmingly positive" now looks kinda bad followed by 3/4 of a paragraph of negative criticism. I see some well-known names there, so if the initial reaction of the influential critics wasn't all that positive, I'd still write "mostly positive" or somesuch. Of course, unless the negative criticism I see here isn't the only bad lines taken out of two pages of good reviews. 95% on Tomatoes is a lot, though. Wonder if it also is on Metacritic? Still, one's gotta decide if we base the reception description on a present-day aggregator, or contemporary influential critics. The classical approach would be the latter, then again, there's 500 people reviewing on Tomatoes. 89.102.120.134 (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing

This article seems to be uneditable but there is no detail given on its protection.--77.96.116.198 (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Worth adding to the article with proper credit, if it is true (I won't make the research): (source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-Ry2wtYVZY)

The Hunt for Red October was inspired by two real incidents. In 1961, Soviet Navy submarine captain Jonas Pleškys, a Lithuanian, sailed his vessel from Klaipėda to Gotland in Sweden, not the planned destination of Tallinn. The Soviet authorities sentenced him in his absence to death by firing squad, but the CIA hid him, first in Guatemala and later in the United States.

On November 8, 1975, the Soviet Navy frigate Storozhevoy mutinied. At the time, the Western powers believed it was an attempt to defect from Latvia to the Swedish island of Gotland. The mutiny was led by the ship's Political Officer, Captain Valery Sablin. The mutiny was unsuccessful, and Sablin was captured, court-martialed, and executed.

The Hunt for Red October is a 1990 film based on the best-selling novel of the same name by Tom Clancy. It was directed by John McTiernan and stars Sean Connery as Captain Marko Ramius and Alec Baldwin as Jack Ryan.

The Hunt for Red October received negative critical reviews from many major publications upon its theatrical release but was one of the top grossing movies of the year, grossing $122 million in North America and $200 million worldwide. The film won the Academy Award for Sound Editing in 1991.