Talk:A Bridge Too Far (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Old talk[edit]

although the movie is now considered a failure,probably because no one except world war 2 enthusiasts could sustain interest for so long,it is historically one of the more accurate of Hollywoods offerings on the war. Anon.


That is wrong. Though the movie is long and meandering, the screenwriter and director have said that any sort of non-minor cuts would have obscured the plot, making it even more confusing. From what I've seen (critical and popular opinion), it's in fact considered one of the best WW2 movies ever made.--67.161.115.23 00:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fail to see how the movie is a failure in any sense of the word - probably simply because you have too short an attention span.

it is historically one of the more accurate of Hollywoods offerings on the war - LOL! - read the A Bridge Too Far book and see how 'accurate' it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.47.119 (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cultural pharase[edit]

I think that there needs to be a mention that the phrase 'A bridge too far' has spread into popular culture. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The guy with the umbrella[edit]

In Ryan's novel, the umbrella guy seems to be a British officer called Tatham-Warter, but in the film hasn't that name. Is it also true that the very same Tatham-Warter at a later stage submerged into the Dutch underground, helping their efforts? --Keimzelle 30 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)

Caine-Hackman Thesis[edit]

Leithp, I don't know if you have an attitude, but my contribution to this page is valid as this film holds a special cult status for fans of PCU. Rather than write the cult status on this page, which I would agree would be clutter, I placed a low-key link to the cult status in the "See Also" section. It's a minor element to this movie's page but properly links this film into the cult status it holds. Please don't remove it again. It's a valid contribution. --Bark 03 April 2006 14:50 (UTC)

I agree that it's important in the context of PCU, but I didn't really think it was important to this page and that's why I removed it (I have a dislike of the kind of cruft that builds up on Wikipedia pages so I tend to revert stuff that looks like it on sight). I've never heard of PCU, so can't really judge it's importance, but do you think that people looking at this page will be interested in a sub-plot of that film? Leithp 15:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I do think the link is relevent and garners interest. I wouldn't have added it if I thought otherwise. It may not be up your alley, but we're talking about movies here. One movie references another. It's a quirky, interesting tidbit that has a cult following. I'm going to ask for some lattitude on this. --Bark 03 April 2006 17:25 (UTC)
This has been removed from the main article as of this date, but for those of you who want an "unneccessary reference to minor trivia point in another film (as some call it)," click here. Bark 15:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mediation[edit]

I'm reluctant to agree to this, since Bark hasn't taken the steps needed to justify mediation and this has come right out of the blue after just a few edits to this article -- and I don't want to be seen wasting a mediator's time. The issue appears to be his determination to keep a link to a very minor trivia point from another film on this article. It's one thing to have a trivia entry here saying that A Bridge Too Far is the only film that Michael Caine and Gene Hackman appeared in together. It's quite another to include trivia from another film... in this case PCU, in which (apparently) one of the characters formulates a hypothesis to do with Caine and Hackman. Still, if required, I suppose I will go through with mediation. - Motor (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, since the steps of mediation ask all parties involved to not say anything about one another and only stick to the issues, I will try my best. I will say this though. I only ask that a third party look at the situation and history of the edits. Some Wikipedia members try their best to work with others and develop compromises where disagreements exist. Others do not. This article is about a movie. My questions are two. Are trivia sections relevant to movie pages here at Wikipedia? Is it permissible to cross-link a trivia item concerning one movie to another? Bark 02:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. "Permissable" is not the issue. 2. Trivia sections are not the problem -- they aren't particularly desireable (this is an encyclopadia aricle), but they are allowed. The problem is that you are/were insisting on including trivia from another film. A very minor comedy film like PCU has nothing at all to do with A Bridge too Far. You might also like to note that this is actually an article about the book A Bridge Too Far by Cornelius Ryan, it has a section about the film.
One of your posts here on the talk page says this: "It helps to garner interest"... plugging PCU is not the function of this article. Another part: Leithp, I don't know if you have an attitude, but my contribution to this page is valid as this film holds a special cult status for fans of PCU. -- but PCU does not hold special cult status for those watching (or reading) A Bridge Too Far -- in fact, it's completely irrelevant to it. Trivia about the film PCU belongs on the article about PCU. Hence the reason I've just removed the reference again. Please keep trivia about the film PCU on its own article. Your jump to insisting on mediation after just a few edits was surprising, and as I said, I am reluctant to waste a mediator's time with such a minor problem... but if you insist on running through a mediation process... so be it. - Motor (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like trivia about films, but Motor is 100% correct here. No question. Jooler 10:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously I agree with Motor here as well. Though that might be because of my "attitude" ;). This is also the quickest jump to dispute resolution I've seen on Wikipedia. Leithp 12:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know what guys? I'm not unreasonable. I'm fine with having the item just say "This is the only film to star both Michael Caine and Gene Hackman," without linking. I'll just add a link to the PCU page in the "Caine-Hackman Thesis" portion of the talk page. A few weeks ago, Leithp and I discussed this issue very civilly. Your problem, Motor, is that you never opened the dialogue of communication with me. You just deleted away. I can guarantee if you hadn't been a pain in the butt, I wouldn't have either. Since Jooler agrees with you guys, I'll yield, as long as you leave the trivia item as it currently stands. Is that a reasonable compromise? Bark 15:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any way to add more trivia to the section without violating copyrights? Bark 15:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It depends on the source. If I understand correctly the problem was that copying directly from the IMDB is a violation of their copyright. I imagine that you could some the stuff back in as long as it was re-worded. IANAL etc. Incidentally I just had a look at the IMDB page and was amused by the quote from Horrocks (Edward Fox in the film) about how scruffy Caine looked. Horrocks was pretty famous for always looking disshevelled, it seems unlikely he would chide anyone else for it. That's getting way off topic though.... Leithp 15:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I get more time, I may add some items back into the trivia section. There are some interesting tidbits in there. Bark 16:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IF it is acceptable to put the info about Caine and Hackman in a trivia section on this page, it certainly seems reasonable to link to a Caine-Hackman thesis related to that piece of trivia. Dstanfor 17:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For my money, that piece of trivia is completely pointless. Why on earth would anyone care if any particular film is the only one where any two particular actors have appeared side-by-side? There is no externally verifiable reason why this should be important. A spurious thesis advanced in one comedy film does not qualify. It might qualify for a brief mention in the PCU article as an example of the absurdities in that film. Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It really does seem out of place. I would vote for removal. In fact, the blooper section could go too - seems unneccesary Seaphoto 01:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree completely with Just zis Guy you know?. If this piece of "trivia" (and could anything be more trivial?) is valid, we could just as easily go through the cast list, compare their filmographies on IMDB, and list every other instance in which prominent actors appeared in only one film together. What would be the point? In the context of the PCU article, it is valid---here, it is cruft. ---Charles 18:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And for what it's worth, so do I. Motor was right. JzG is right. But I'm beginning to think it's a losing battle and that cruft like this is going to swallow up every film article on WP. -- Slowmover 19:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only if we allow it. I have no intention of giving up the fight. ---Charles 19:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Request for Mediation was closed 05:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC). The reason given for closure was: inactivity. Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request. The Request for Mediation template has been removed from this talk page. -- Jreferee 19:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Colin Farrell[edit]

How can Colin Farrell play a Corporal in this movie? At the time of release, he would've been one year old. Bloodfyr 22:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a different Colin Farrell  :) Gnorn 22:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then why does it link to the Colin Farrell that it does? 151.204.9.209 01:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link was still present today (2009/03/24) - I will try to remove it (my first go at a link edit). Pylonvu (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ben Cross[edit]

Ben Cross is in this movie but I don't seem him listed in the cast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.131.146.51 (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to contribute ...[edit]

If you are looking to contribute to this article, review what links to this article and if any of that material is relevant to this article, add it. -- Jreferee 22:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect link for richard Levin[edit]

There looks to be an incorrect link for Richard Levin. Nitin 11:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Incorrect link for Lex van Delden[edit]

(under 2.2 Germans) - links to page for the actor's father, a composer, of the same name. The page 'Lex van Delden (actor)' does not exist in wiki.en Sintermerte (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect info for Major Cook[edit]

Major Cook was based off of Major T. Moffatt Burriss. More information about him can be found here:

http://www.sceducationlottery.com/lottery/burriss.aspx

And he wrote a book about the event called Strike and Hold which can be found here:

http://www.amazon.com/Strike-Hold-Memoir-Airborne-World/dp/1574883488/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1

Please update! Melaniesayshi (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Major Cook is based upon Major Julian Cook, C/O of the 3rd Battalion of the 504 PIR, 82nd Airborne. He was a real figure in life, and did lead the assault across the Waal river. Major Burriss was also there, but would have been a Captain at the time, in command of I Company, in Cook's 3rd Battalion. It's possible that a few of Buriss' actions were merged into Cook's (he is a slight composite character) - a veteran (it may even be Burriss) mentions this on the extra's DVD of A Bridge Too Far. But the main character is Cook himself. Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relevance of Band of Brothers link?[edit]

Regarding the note about "Col. Robert Stout" under Historical accuracy. What is the significance to include the information about Band of Brothers? It has nothing to do with this film. (In fact, I get a bit fed up to see links to Band of Brothers all over Wikipedia for every tiny bit of information that has some fague link to the series, seems a bit fanboyish to me) Gnorn 09:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason why Band of Brothers is relavant is really quite simple. Easy Company 506th PIR 101st Airborne Division, was the unit at Son when the bridge over the Wilhelmina Canal blew up. Colonel sink and Captain Richard Winters (the CO of Easy company) were approaching the bridge when it was destroyed. It is important to note, because the character in "A Bridge Too far" is not the historical figure. Please remember to read the real history and know your facts before making comments. I quote from the book Band of Brothers, by Stephen E. Ambrose. "When the lead American elements were 25 meters or less from the bridge, it blew up in their faces. There was a hail of debris of wood and stone. Winters, with Nixon beside him, hit the ground, big pieces of timber and large rocks raining down around him. Winters thought to himself, What a hell of a way to die in combat!" The Colonel in the film was a combination of Sink and Winters. Winters was there when the bridge exploded, and Sink oversaw the building of the Bailey Bridge. Though insignificant to the movie, the reference being mentioned here his historically relevant. Let us not forget that Band of Brothers, is probably the most real, accurate, and powerful depiction of WWII.74.192.180.176 (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Stephen George Doe, military history major at Sam Houston State University. Third of March, 2009.Reply[reply]

Sorry to object but Band of Brothers is far from the most "real, accurate and powerful" depiction of WW2. It is a narrow, focussed account of a single company level perspective. And from a wider view, Ambrose is far from a credible historian; he tends towards sensationalism amongst other faults. Band of Brothers is excellent, there is no doubt but let's be objective. Kentish 19 Dec 14 GMT

This may come as surprise you but there is a lot more to the 506 PIR than just Easy company. In truth the source material for this film is the book of the same name by Cornelius Ryan and it nowhere mentions either Easy co or Richard Winters. Furthermore the official histories of the actions at the Son Bridge state that the lead elements came from the First Battalion whereas Easy Co was from the second battalion of course. The idea that the fictional Robert Stout is an amalgam of Col Sink and Richard Winters is patently absurd and an example of the fanboyishness alluded to above Andrei nzv8 (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:008a.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:008a.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) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Officer with Umbrella[edit]

I should point out that this British officer actually survived the battle, rather than dying, as he did in the film. Although I can't for the life of me remember his name. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The character in the film is an amalgam of at least 2 characters. The real life character who carried the umbrella was Major Digby Tatham Warther who did indeed survive the war to become a noted safari leader in Kenya. Kentish 19 Dec 14 2143 GMT

Fair use rationale for Image:Too far bogarde.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Too far bogarde.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) 13:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Too far max.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Too far max.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) 13:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Too far1.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Too far1.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) 13:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Too far2.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Too far2.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) 13:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awards (or lack thereof)[edit]

I recall seeing a documentary about the making of this film where the lack of Oscar nominations was attributed (by Attenborough or some other senior figure in the film) to the idea that U.S. audiences didn't understand why a movie was made that showed the Allies losing... If anyone can find out the name of that documentary (or find another source), I think we should add it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KarenSutherland (talkcontribs) 12:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Bridge too far movieposter.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Bridge too far movieposter.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) 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blumentritt[edit]

Blumentritt's rank is not SS-Gruppenführer but general. Blumentritt has never been in the SS. Educate yourselves.

Actually at the time of Market Garden he was General der Infanterie, a rank in the German Army. Can't recall which command he hold then... can anyone help please? Regards,DPdH (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He was chief of staff to von Rundstedt, commander Army Group D and C-in-C West. Khamba Tendal (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the Germany (typo?)[edit]

From the Plot summary: "observes the German withdrawal toward the Germany".
Shouldn't that be "towards Germany"? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lists of miscellaneous information should be avoided. Please relocate any relevant information into appropriate sections or articles.[edit]

How is this to be done? The section deals with the instances where historical fact differed from the script. It seems to me an appropriate place to highlight this as a 'liberty' taken with history by the director/producer/writer(s) of the script? Looking for further advice--121.217.128.27 (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The film is a work of fiction, so the creative team is not necessarily taking liberties with historical accuracy. The adaptation process inevitably results in "differences" from reality (history), so sections like this in an article about a fictional work are probably inappropriate or irrelevant. Film article style guidelines, however, do offer suggestions on how to use the material to enhance the article, usually by incorporating the copy into the Production and Reception sections (see the notes on Adaptations and historical accuracy). Since most of the material in this section appears to be some editor's original research and has been tagged as such since January (with no apparent efforts to resolve), I'm going to relocate to here so the article is improved, but the information is available for improvement. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The film was never intended to be a literal retelling of the book, and certain liberties were taken. Nevertheless, it tried for a high degree of accuracy, presenting one of the most realistic portrayals of a World War II battle within the confines of the movie format.[citation needed]

  • During the conference between Model and von Rundstedt where they discuss moving II SS Panzer Corps to Arnhem, the marker designating that unit incorrectly reads, "II SS Panzer Div".[1]
  • German military policemen properly wear the appropriate gorget while on duty.
  • The "such power at my disposal" dialogue attributed to General Bittrich as he watched the massive Allied air armada was actually only thought by German paratroop expert General Student.
  • On the German side, there was no "Maj. Gen. Ludwig". He is a composite of Generals Harzer and Harmel of the 9th and 10th SS Panzer Divisions. In the film's meeting between "Ludwig" and Bittrich right after the initial British landings, Bittrich says he'll handle Arnhem and that Ludwig should deal with the Allied troops in Nijmegen. In reality, the 9th SS (Harzer) was ordered to deal with the British in Arnhem and the 10th SS (Harmel) was ordered to Nijmegen.
  • British tanks are of the right color and, impressively, wear the appropriate divisional insignia of the Guards Armoured division. However, there are no short-barrelled 75 mm Shermans in evidence, which should still be the predominant type in service in late 1944.
  • The anti-tank guns used by the Germans defending against XXX Corps' advance look like 75 mm PAK 40s, which would be correct. However, their light grey color is wrong and the muzzle for some pieces are incorrect.
  • In a road clearing operation, a British Guards Armoured division tankdozer pushes a knocked out M24 Chaffee out of the road. But the Allies did not use M24s during that period. The tank only became available in small numbers to American units during the Battle of the Bulge.
  • Unusually for a film of this period, many actors representing Waffen SS soldiers wear the correct, distinctive uniforms of the Waffen SS. However, by 1944 the party insignia on Waffen SS helmets was usually not worn. However, the credits at the end list (full) General Bittrich and Lieutenant General ("Generalleutnant") Ludwig as one rank lower than their correct insignia indicated[2].

People always say that re SS runes on helmets but I can point out plenty of 1944 era photos where the markings are still visible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.64.67 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • For the attack by the 9th SS Aufklärungs Abt, commanded by SS-Hauptsturmführer ("Hauptmann," or Captain, in the Waffen SS[3] ) Graebner, it was understandably impossible to accurately recreate that unit's armoured cars and half-tracks, although a reasonable attempt was made. Vehicles that somewhat resemble Sdkfz 231s and Sdkfz 222s were built for the film. Also, authentic Sdkfz 7 prime movers (although Graebner's unit did not deploy those) and Kübelwagens were also used. The actor portraying Graebner rides in what looks like a Sdkfz 251/3 command/communications half-track which was correctly used by his HQ company. But in reality Graebner reportedly rode in a captured British Humber Armoured Car.
  • The vehicles of the 9th SS Aufklärungs Abt bear the correct insignia of the "Hohenstaufen" division, and the correct tactical sign for the unit.
  • In reality, the first few German armoured cars of Graebner's column made it across the bridge unscathed due to the fact that they took the defenders by surprise. The British had laid mines on the bridge's approaches and these were expertly avoided by the speeding German drivers.
  • Leopard 1 tanks of the Dutch Army portrayed German armour (presumably intended to be German Panzer IVs or Panthers). Their light grey color was incorrect for any German armour of WWII.
  • When the lone "Tiger" attacks the British at Arnhem, it attacks from the southern end of the bridge. In reality, after Graebner's failed attack, no more German armoured attacks came from that direction.
  • In the film, the British kill or disperse the resting crew of a German tank, thus allowing General Urquhart to return to his headquarters. In reality, while a number of German tanks (including King Tigers) were lost in the battle to British PIATs and 6-pounders, in this case, he just waited for the German tank to move on.
  • On the American side, there was no "Col. Robert Stout" of the 101st Airborne. The character is based on Colonel Robert Sink, commander of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment whose troops were about to seize the Son River bridge when it blew up in their faces, and who hastily built a temporary bridge in its place.
  • In a few scenes filmed in Nijmegen, the Sint Stevenskerk (Saint Stevenschurch) isn't partially destroyed, which it was, because of the bombardment of February 22, 1944 by the Americans.
  • The incident where a British paratrooper is killed bringing back a supply canister full of red berets is only partially accurate. In reality the paratrooper survived.
  • The Dutch physician 'Dr Jan Spaander' played by Laurence Olivier was a fictional character.
  • The Invasion Stripes on all the C-47 troopcarriers depicted are incorrect: only painted on bottom half of wings and fuselages instead of completely around as they actually were.
  • The British fighter bombers depicted in support of the advancing XXX Corps column were P-64s[4] - never used by the British or in the European Theater even.
  • The dialoge between Frost and Model's adjutant requesting surrender never took place. Instead Obersturmbannführer Heinz Harmel, commander of the 10th SS Panzer Division Frundsberg, selected a British prisoner, Sergeant Stanley Halliwell (1st Parachute Squadron, Royal Engineers), and sent him into the British perimeter to request that Frost surrender his forces. After arriving, Halliwell explained what Harmel wants; Frost gave Halliwell a message for Harmel to “Go to hell.” Halliwell then told Frost, “If it’s all the same to you, Colonel, I’ll stay. Jerry [the Germans] will get the message sooner or later.”[5]

It's not OR. I did not write it myself but I know where all of it comes from and its not OR. It can verified from the book of the film, and from the articles about the film in AIR International and After the Battle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It may be a Leopard 1, which would also be out of place however. --Ferbess (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a Leopard 1, possibly substituting a Panther of which in the 1970s may not have been any in working order. Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"It sucks that they can get something liek this wrong in a movie." Silly comment - they did not get it wrong! there were in those days very few if any running WW2 German tanks available - even SPR had to use a T34 pretending to be a Tiger! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.64.67 (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.186.69.111 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Urqahart did not "wait" for the armoured vehicle to move. To be accurate, the advance of 2nd South Staffs towards the hospital forced the Germans to retreat. The owner of the house where the GOC was hiding advised him that British troops were at the end of the street, giving Urqahart to the chance to escape, Kentish 2148GMT 19 Dec 14

References

Nationality of Organist[edit]

Role of Organist (Eric Chitty) believed to belong in the English cast.

Nationality is not specified in the movie, but scene matches descriptions of disrupted English church services (see e.g. A Bridge Too Far, Part Three, Para 2).

Hexborne (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reality creeping in ?[edit]

I suspect (it's a few years since I watched the film) that some of the detail in this article relates to the real-life events rather than to the film plot. I've removed some (e.g. "General Gavin ... breaks two discs in his back during his landing") already as part of general trimming. I think it needs someone to watch the film and remove non-film stuff. In the meantime I'll try to make it read a bit less like military history to discourage the addition of more reality. DexDor (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the movie, they mention that they think Gavin 'broke his spine' in the jump. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lex van Delden[edit]

Oberscharführer Matthias is played by lex van delden jr. The link on this page is too his fathers page lex van delden sr. the composer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.36.216 (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Bridge Too Far (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:

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) 13:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plot[edit]

Treatment of plot was double the size permitted by the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines. Meeting them was going to be difficult, in any case, given the fragmentary nature of the film itself, which covers the broad advance behind Arnhem and the conflict in the town itself, as well as a number of anecdotal episodes. In shortening the plot, only a narrow sense of the narrative can be given, and in certain cases the actual sequence of events in the film had to be changed in order to clarify what is happening. If other editors wish to change priorities, they should bear in mind that 700 words is the maximum limit and they risk reversion if they go beyond. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting Facts?[edit]

A list of facts deemed interesting infringes WP:NPOV and strays into the anecdotal. Such a magnet for trivia does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Most items there belong in the Production section, which has carried an expansion tag since February last year. If the relevant items are not transferred by the end of this February, after a year's grace, the subsection will be deleted per MOS:EMBED. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most of the usable items with references have been given a "Finance" section of their own. Another item has been transferred to the notes. Unreferenced material (and one anecdotal item) have been deleted. It is notable that some of the so-called references seem no longer accessible. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Bridge Too Far (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:

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) 08:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarify, please[edit]

Failure to complete the scene would have necessitated rescheduling at a cost... of at least a million dollars. For this reason, Attenborough insisted that all actors playing corpses keep their eyes closed.

Whatever does this mean? Valetude (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If their eyes were closed, they would be less likely to ruin the scene by glancing at something, or blinked their eyes mid-scene in response to light or dust. So, even though dead bodies don't always have closed eyes, it was safer to have the actors do so for filming. Another option would be to make convincing dummies for each body, but that would also be expensive. Or all the bodies could be positioned head down, or face away from the camera, but that might look suspiciously staged. These days, if anyone blinked, it could be digitally fixed, but that option would have been expensive then, too, and/or look bad. StuRat (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seemed perfectly clear to me. The above is speculation written for Valedtude's benefit, but it does not entitle him to make feeble edits to a passage in the article which has a reference. Adding to it counts as WP:Original Research. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invasion stripes[edit]

Most of the allied planes in the movie still carry the D-Day livery (black and white stripes). The story takes place in September '44, is this factually correct? 178.115.129.131 (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invasion stripes still used until the end of '44, but only applied in the lower surfaces. The Dakota of Battle of Britain Memorial Flight has a livery of a Dakota that participated in Market Garden has Invasion stripes in the lower surfaces.[1] Jauhsekali (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]