Talk:Inglourious Basterds

Biased reception section

In the lead section, it is stated that the film received "widespread acclaim". However, the contents of the Critical reception section are dominated by negative receptions about how the film offended some critics. Please fix it. enjoyer -- talk 15:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, a Metacritic 69 isn't exactly "widespread acclaim." I'll change it.--Somarain (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Critic section of the lede

The mention of the critical reception in the lede doesn't match the critical reception section in the body. The lede says "The film received widespread acclaim, with praise for Tarantino's screenplay, direction and performances." The body mentions a 69 Metacritic score ("generally favorable reviews") and quite a bit of criticism, mostly over the historical fiction elements. I changed the lede to "The film received a mostly positive response. Critics praised the performances and Tarantino's screenplay and direction, but some criticized the historical liberties taken." to better summarize the body. I'm sure that could be phrased better but it's a start. --Somarain (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

final paragraph under 'development'

paragraph beginning with "the film's title was inspired by the english-language title of director Enzo" has some rough bits, specifically "the Germans di not want a word" and then some incorrect(?) reference inserts. I am not good enough at wikipedia to edit this myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.5.186 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

"Nazis" vs "German soldiers"

Dear, Samurai Kung fu Cowboy do you carefully watched the movie? I do not agree that there were some "Nazis" in that scene, there is no reliable source about this and even internal dialogues contradict this statement. In that scene there were ordinary soldiers from the Wehrmacht about whose political preferences absolutely nothing was known, with the same success they could be called "communists" or "liberal-democrats", for example. This scene is the nearly same of the scene from the first chapter. In it, the allies commit war crimes against innocent people from among the prisoners of war, who were labeled "Nazis", by analogy with how Hans Landa from the first scene called the Jews "rats" in order to get the moral right to "hunt" and kill them. This is the opinion of many reviewers of this film and nearly all who ever watched that film because it's so obvious. This film is a product of a postmodern deconstructive experiment satire on American films of the past where there is a "good" attractive-hero side and a nasty-"bad" villainous side (plus a bunch of references to westerns). Not surprisingly, according to the script here, the most charismatic, educated and intelligent character here is the Nazi Hans Landa, and the most unpleasant, cruel and ridiculous are the "Basterds" led by the character of Brad Pitt. Therefore, there is no point in the vague term "Nazis" that draws in the reader's imagination the SS or Gestapo who only do what they commit war crimes and at least in some part "deserved" the fate of the participants in the scene. HernánCortés1518 (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, you seem like a Nazi sympathizer who's trying to defend them. Tarantino's intentions were nuanced for sure but never intended to sympathize for the Nazis. And regardless of our interpretation the plot and characters in the film are straight forward and they are Nazis. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• If I wanted to "defend the Nazis", I would not insist that being German in Germany in 1933-1945 and serving in its armed forces isn't enough reason to be considered a Nazi, especially since none of the savagely killed German soldiers in a particular scene was not named as such. I would then simply agree with you that all Germans are Nazis, because these "Nazis" in this film are portrayed as victims, along with the Jews. Tarantino doesn't really empathize with the Nazis, just as he obviously doesn't empathize with those who dehumanize innocent people by calling them "Nazis". But we are trying to improve the article without discussing the identity of the editors, so I think a third opinion is needed here, since you are so uncompromisingly defending non-neutral language, refusing to seek compromise and getting personal. HernánCortés1518 (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

You are talking about an analysis of the film. Not a plot synopsis. And you are welcome to argue whatever you want but personal analysis and original research are not used in a plot synopsis or anywhere on a Wikipedia page. Honestly the language is neutral. The German soldiers who fought in WWII are referred to commonly as Nazi soldiers and fought for the Nazi party and to further their cause. However, even if that was not the case it is how they were referred to and portrayed as in the film. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, in order to change anything from a common term like Nazi or Nazi soldier especially when it's the language used in the film is going to take more than one more opinion. It would take consensus most likely from quite a number of editors and seasoned editors. Personal? To refer to Nazi soldiers as Nazis in a plot synopsis of a film in which they are referred to as Nazis? Or personal to want to change that in to something else based on a personal analysis? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to say I was overboard in calling you a Nazi sympathizer. However, arguing for and changing Nazi in a WWII film seemed odd. German soldiers in WWII were Nazi soldiers and honestly this film's synopsis seems odd. And I definitely believe Tarantino isn't making the German soldiers out to not be Nazis. I do not agree with your analysis. But again, neither of our analyses matter right now. All that matters is common language and more importantly how they are referred to in the film. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• From my perspective: as a person who understands different languages, I briefly compared the versions of this article with some other versions of the article in other languages ​​​​and saw that only the English version of Wikipedia characterizes the German soldiers in this scene as "Nazis", which is why I initially wondered if the English was correct version reflects the scenario. I wouldn't mind the wording "Nazis" if it was indicated by the cited reliable sources with links to the script or something like that, which would refer to the particular scene we are discussing. But this is not observed here, so "my" wording, taking into account all of the above, seems to me more neutral and appropriate.
• Also, in my opinion, it is too categorical (to put it mildly) to consider that all people who fell into the mandatory army under the threat of death were obliged to share the ideology of their government, which sent them against their will to slaughter in agressive old-fashioned imperialist war (given the total losses of the Germans in the war, more of which are only Soviet and Chinese military losses), not to mention the fact that they did not know about the genocide, and most Germans denied the crimes of Nazism for another 10-15 years after the war and considered this is Allied anti-German slander.
• And finally, in the opening dialogue of Chapter 2, the leader of the Basterds explains to his subordinates that they are fighting mainly "regime puppets", nothing more. But he "doesn't care because they wear Nazi uniforms." This is the only scene in the film where Wehrmacht soldiers are called "Nazis". Further, he says that terror is required and they need to be "brutally killed", and their bodies "trampled and dismembered" for the sake of "the horror of the Germans. This confirms my original comment at the very beginning as well as Tarantino's interview where he calls SS-member Hans Landa the "hero of the film" (in French). HernánCortés1518 (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)