Talk:Tora! Tora! Tora!

Background

The "awaken a sleeping giant" quote both in Tora! Tora! Tora! and in Pearl Harbor appears to derive from a statement attributed to Yamamoto in 1942 (the year, not a movie):

"A military man can scarcely pride himself on having 'smitten a sleeping enemy'; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten. I would rather you made your appraisal after seeing what the enemy does, since it is certain that, angered and outraged, he will soon launch a determined counterattack."

Tora! Tora! Tora! Movie Paraphrase from Yamamoto: "I fear all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve."

Pearl Harbor Movie Paraphrase from Tora! Tora! Tora!: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant...."

That's why they have a cable TV series entitled History v Hollywood.Naaman Brown (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The fictitious "sleeping giant" quote attributed to Yamamoto needs to be more than a footnote. It seems to have made such an impression on some movie goers that they have accepted it as a historical fact. Bill Gates used parts of the quote in the opening of a major 12/07/95 speech that the Wall St. Journal called a "thinly veiled threat" to Microsoft's competitors. In Gates' speech, he implied that Microsoft was the "sleeping giant" and would respond to its competitors' internet challenges like the U.S. had responded to Pearl Harbor and crush its competitors with its own internet initiative MSN. This speech was widely reported and not one news agency questioned the Yamamoto quote's accuracy.

I am not at all convinced that the quote stems from a 1942 writing by Yamamoto. Tora, Tora, Tora is very praiseworthy of the Admiral and I believe the screenwriter in trying to close with a passage that makes Yamamoto look prescient decided to paraphrase Napoleon's comment on China being a "sleeping giant" which should therefore not be awakened. At the time this movie's screenplay was being written, this was the well known statement from a military person about a nation being a "sleeping giant."

Plot Summary

"It was fortunate timing that the U.S. sent its two operational Pacific aircraft carriers, USS Enterprise (CV-6) and USS Lexington (CV-2) on plane delivery duty to Western Pacific islands not long before the Pearl Harbor Raid. Though this reduced the number of fighter aircraft available at Pearl Harbor, it may have saved the carriers. If they had been lost at Pearl Harbor, it would have been much more catastrophic for the Americans. Japanese commanders should have considered aborting the mission. Their intelligence revealed the carriers had left Pearl Harbor. (But they had made a political decision to go to war that these factors could not disrupt.)"

Is this really pertinant to the movie plot?

No, it isn't pertinent, and I have deleted that paragraph. It is an editorial comment inserted into the middle of a plot summary. AlbertSM (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

East-West Center: External links

Tuesday June 7, 2005
10:00-12:00 - War and Image Making:
Two Films on the Pacific War ... Frank Capra’s “Why We Fight”
and Richard Fleischer and Fukasaku Kinji’s “Tora Tora Tora” - Professor Jonathan Lipman

• Japan Studies Institute 2005 at San Diego State University
  • Timeline: Life, Liberty, Loyalty, Honolulu Star-Bulletin - Monday, Septermber 13, 1999

Pacific Rim Studies: Related resources

• Association for Asia Pacific Studies (AAPS)

RJBurkhart 10:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Plot

Um, can someone actually post a plot for this movie? Raveled

Attack on Pearl Harbor :) Palm_Dogg 21:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps instead of a Plot section, a section listing what Hollywood changed for the movie? I understand this wasn't exactly a documentary, after all. Raveled

Yeah, either someone needs to write a plot summary or we don't need a "Plot" section (with a spoiler tag, no less). I will remove it for now.

Kurosawa

Director's commentary of the DVD says Kurosawa was replaced after two weeks of shooting. Can someone verify if Kurosawa was replaced after two weeks or two years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.164.132 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 27 March 2006

He was replaced after two weeks of shooting but he had been involved in the preproduction of the film for years. Doctor Sunshine 03:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Donald Richie, perhaps the foremost authority in the West on the films of Akira Kurosawa, states in his book, "The Films of Akira Kurosawa" that Kurosawa's actual shooting time on Tora! Tora! Tora! amounted to three weeks in December 1968. There is nothing in the book to suggest that Kurosawa's preproduction involvement amounted to "years." Kurosawa's contract with Toho only expired in 1966. Prior to that time he would not have been free to work for another film company. Also, during 1966 and on into early 1968, Kurosawa was fully involved in trying to get his own project, "Runaway Train" off the ground. He did not get together with Fox until he realized he could not get "Runaway Train" made.Oldbubblehead (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Unintentional POV?

The introduction includes "the series of American blunders that aggravated its effectiveness". The word "aggravated" implies a point of view. I have replaced it with "unintentionally improved". Bazza 14:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The two pilots

I have revised the sentence, "Two American fighter pilots race to Haleiwa and manage to take off knowing full well they cannot survive the mission" to "Two American fighter pilots (portrayals of second lieutenants George Welch and Ken Taylor) race to Haleiwa and manage to take off, despite the overwhelming odds." The original statement called for revision simply due to the fact that both pilots did, in fact, survive the battle, and since George Welch has his own WP page, I think mentioning them both by name is warranted as well. --Warrior-Poet 17:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Good editin', WP. Maikel (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Extensive rewrite coming

Due to some rather expansive sections, there is a need to revise sections in the article, especially providing citations for the many statements. FWIW, I invite comments and response as the editing process is starting. Bzuk (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC).

Involvement of John Ford

In the booklet included with the Criterion Collection release of Seven Samurai, Peter Cowie writes, "In a poignant footnote to film history, the war epic Tora! Tora! Tora!, from 1970, might have been jointly directed by [John] Ford and Kurosawa but slipped from their grasp and was eventually made by Richard Fleischer, Toshio Masuda, and Kinji Fukasaku." I can find no more information about this. The pages John Ford and Akira Kurosawa say nothing but that Ford influenced Kurosawa. What hand did Ford have in the development of this film? - Calmypal (T) 19:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That would have been a hell of a conclusion to the credits: Directed by John Ford and Akira Kurosawa. You don't see that every day. Racing Forward (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Etymology of Tora

Quote: (虎 tora is Japanese for "tiger" but in this case,[citation needed] "to" is the initial syllable of the Japanese word 突撃 totsugeki, meaning "charge" or "attack", and "ra" is the initial syllable of 雷撃 raigeki, meaning "torpedo attack").

So To-ra would mean something like "attack torpedo attack"? Could we have some verification, please? Maikel (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sticklers, Sideburns & Bikinis by Graeme Donald backs this up on p. 256. - Calmypal (T) 03:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by this source. What does Prange say about it? --Yaush (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Tora is NOT an acronym. It is the word tiger. It is NOT totsugeki raigeki. Acronyms were not even common usage until DURING WW2 and started by the Americans. Certainly not the Japanese. This whole thing is modern revisionist historians attempting to make something more out of nothing. Tora tora tora is simply the word "Tiger" repeated three times for radio clarity, the meaning of which was a pre-established code to announce that surprise was achieved. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not even make sense for it to be Totsugeki Raigeki... as the transmission was NOT an order to commence the attack. It was to report their having achieved surprise without alerting the Americans.

Claiming it to be An Acronym of Totsugeki Raigeki is people trying to feel smarter than they are by contributing their erroneous two cents. Cg23sailor (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Inclined to agree, but it would be useful to have a cite of a reliable source, particularly as this is likely to come up again. Urban legends die hard. --Yaush (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

jawp article jp:トラトラトラ's cnclusion is "unclear origin". Generally, such military codes tend to choose intentionally MEANINGLESS strings for secrecy.--125.0.38.56 (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

“TORA TORA TORA," the code used by the Japanese to signal a successful surprise attack at Pearl Harbor is neither the Japanese word for “tiger” nor is it an acronym for “totsugeki raigeki.” First of all, acronyms are not a post World War II American invention. Acronyms existed in the ancient world and were a common feature of ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. SPQR is a typical example. Acronyms are very common in modern Japanese and were extensively used by both the Imperial Japanese Army and the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. Using an acronym as a code is counter intuitive. The whole purpose of a code is to disguise the intended message. During the Pearl Harbor attack, the Japanese used a simple substitution cipher to quickly send important messages without the need for further enciphering. I do not know if the particular code book was used throughout the IJN or was unique to the First Air Fleet. The codes (there were several hundred of them) consisted of one or two consonant-vowel pairs from the fifty consonant-vowel pairs of the Japanese language Katakana syllabary. “TO ” indicated that the attack had commenced and “TO RA” indicated that surprise had been achieved. Not all of the codes used “TO.” For example “HA” indicated my aircraft is crashing. While “tora” is indeed the Japanese word for tiger, “TO RA” as transmitted by the Japanese in Morse Code is sent as two “words.” The space between the two pairs is significant. The fact that “tora” is the Japanese word for tiger is simply a coincidence since the code words were randomly devised. Almost all of the two pair code words used are gibberish and are not readable as actual words in the Japanese language. “TO RA” was listed in the code book as “TO RA Renso” meaning “TO RA Repeat.” Given Japanese Navy communications practices, in all likelihood, “TO RA” was probably transmitted more than three times.Oldbubblehead (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Need a reference for that. Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't provide one which will satisfy Wikipedia because it comes under the heading of "original research" based on conversations with Japanese historians and Japanese communications documents at NARA.

Thanks. I came by to wonder about mode. "What I'm wondering: transmission by voice? not reliable over long distance, and propagation conditions around dawn on HF are always iffi. Perhaps using CW?" p.s. on this very credible PBS special it was stated "Sent for one minute." Which this old CW rubber-head finds extremely plausible. --BenTrem (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

It was CW but I don't have a reference. By the way, HF is HF whether it's CW or voice. HF radio wave propagation is largely a function of time of day, power out, and frequency. Height above seal level of the transmitting and receiving antennas also has an effect. Early morning transmissions can be good or bad. Night of course is best which is why you can pick up distant AM radio stations at that time. This has been my experience as a USN Morse operator.Oldbubblehead (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Though I agree with the overall conclusion here (and I'm a couple of years late commenting anyway, I must take issue with one comment further up: "Acronyms were not even common usage until DURING WW2 and started by the Americans." (User:Cg23sailor) Military acronyms were in common use by the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, and had been in common use since before the beginning of the 20th century. Germany's FliegerabwehrKanone (anti-aircraft cannons) were known as "Flak" (a term still in general use) since 1938, and that was a continuation of the acronym "Bak" used for Germany's anti-balloon cannons - a term used since the 1870s. The Soviet Union was flying MiG's (Mikoyan-Gurevich aircraft) by 1940. The suggestion that the Japanese would not have considered using military acronyms by 1941 is, frankly, a bizarre one, and to say they were first used by the US is patently false. Grutness...wha? 09:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm unclear how I stumbled across this, but I am surprised by the arguments expressed here. "To'ra" or "Tora" would not be an acronym, but rather a contraction. There are many instances of contraction use in the Japanese language both as modern slang as well as evolved etymologies of formal words and references. The use of To'ra wasn't a verbal communication of the word "Tora", but was a Morse Code signal transmission of "TO RA". This can be found referenced in various military texts. Here's an example: Mespinola (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

i'm even later, but my 2 cents:

1) totsugeki raigeki is meaningless in japanese. the "geki-geki" redundancy sounds as bad in the original as it does in english. surely whoever put forth this theory meant to say totsuZEN raigeki -- "sudden torpedo attack" sans redundancy. so let's start with that.

2) if to-ra is indeed from totsuzen raigeki (or something similar), that could legitimately be called an "acronym" (unlike "SPQR" up there, which totally can't! gee, thanks for the detour, pal...), since japanese "letters" in this case are full syllables. (technically "mora" in linguistics, but no need to get into that)

3) as such, they are indeed a form of "contraction" and have been around in japanese for centuries, longer than in english even. japanese military in WWII used a zillion similar acronyms/contractions; the time period is not an argument against such a derivation.

4) what IS an argument against it, however, is that the syllable breaks are not in the right places! a japanese speaker would contract totsuzen raigeki to "totsu-rai", NOT "to-ra". yeah, it's POSSIBLE to do the latter, but not at all natural -- like abbreviating new mexico to "ne-me", say.

5) if to-ra was just a result of piecing together two 1-syllable codes, and the match to "tiger" purely coincidence (as i am inclined to agree), then the line about "homophones" is misleading. it implies there is an actual WORD "tora" meaning "complete surprise", which is not the case.

i would correct it, but i'll await feedback first.

in any case, #4 is the main problem with this theory. i am surprised no one has mentioned it yet. unless the movie was originally called "Totsurai! Totsurai! Totsurai!", i see no merit in any acronym/contraction claim. just another sad backronym. 2601:19C:527F:A680:3C79:7523:794F:7DC0 (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

References

reference formats

User:Bzuk does not seem inclined to use discussion as petitioned, but he seems intent on keeping his personal style of references in this article, and opposes any departure from it, even when consensus favours a different style. Once a reference style is established, it is not necessarily the reference style for that article forever -- and furthermore, different editors have tried to use superior reference styles only to get reverted by Bzuk. This is clear WP:OWNership of the article. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

What superior reference styles? what consensus? Using the citation templates that have bugs in them is not a better system. I have used a consistent style format perfectly in line with the established styles in the article. Introducing ISO dating and references from websites instead of bonafide reference sources are at the heart of this concocted dilemma. If you want to stay on topic, any major issues should be brought to talk pages of an article first. FWiW 21:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

I was not aware you owned the article, and your preferred reference style is not necessarily "an established style" -- especially when new contributors introduce references that have other styles. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources; it's also a bad faith accusation to say that the citation templates are buggy when there are so many people watching them. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You can stop the accusations and personal comments now. See the MOS guide for any issues about citing and references. The cite templates are filled with errors, and often involve the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome. When a templated cite was recently put in, I recognized that this is part of a blitzing by an editor who wants to introduce that particular source, and it is a website, not the authoritative book reference that was substituted; at the same time, the editor also used an ISO dating that is not consistent with the M/D/Y format already used in the article. All my changes are to create consistency for a reader. Other editors may not choose to do that but it is simple matter of resolving differences in style at hand. If a reader sees two or sometimes three different dates in use in the article, it becomes confusing for everyone. Now to allay your concerns that I am a Luddite, my background is as a reference librarian and I have introduced electronic cataloguing to many collections; but those electonic databases relied on templates that were "bullet-proof". Even then, accommodations had to be made for special or unique library systems. After two years of trying to change the templates by appealing to the designers, I have found ways to adapt the Wiki templates, but it does take time and considerable effort to change all the "tracings" to match a particular bibliographic reference format. It is ultimately easier to write out the citation and bibliographic record in what was formerly called "scratch cataloguing." I invite more discussion on this topic, your place or mine? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

Badly written article

This article is very difficult to read. I don't know what happened, but much of the writing doesn't make sense. For example some sentences are totally disconnected from the other ones around them, even the first sentence of the article. The second paragraph of the article is completely disjointed from the context of discussing the film. Is there some kind of ongoing spat or other reason for this poor quality? Someone needs to do something about this very poorly written article very badly, but I don't feel confident in editing this kind of absurd-looking thing since it must be the product of infighting. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Be bold and rewrite it. If someone objects to your edits it can be discussed here so just try your best.--Cattus ^talk 20:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cattus. I have already done a fair amount of rewriting, mostly removing things which don't seem to belong in the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverting out corrections of errors

Bzuk seems to have just reverted out a series of edits, one of which was a correction of a spelling mistake of someone's name, one of which was an automated correction of citation requests, and one of which contained a sentence which contradicted itself. Could Bzuk please explain? If the link to the flying squad belongs in the article, then perhaps it should have some explanatory text. Thanks. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm a bazillion years late (1 bazillion = 4, apparently), but if I had to guess, the mindset was that Bzuk saw an error in the history, though "I should undo that", and hit the revert button, accidentally wiping the other two. --XndrK (talk | contribs) 19:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Akira Kurosawa screenplay

Hi there Bzuk. I agree Akira Kurosawa was most likely fired, but it was not made official either way. He left the film is meant to be somewhat ambiguous, but I'd like to put it another way without flat-out saying he was fired. He was reportedly unhappy, and he was a stubborn guy. He may have walked away after getting too much grief. You wrote Not according to Fleischer, nothing at all was useable and the screenplay that was used by the Japanese production was unrelated to Kurosawa's work. Fleischer said he was fired (he didn't just leave for health reasons as was stated in the media). I think Fleischer was talking about his footage. As to the script, it's credited to Larry Forrester and frequent Kurosawa collaborators Ryuzo Kikushima and Hideo Oguni, who worked on a dozen other of his films. So it seems most likely it was the script Kurosawa developed, though it was substantially cut down, if it really was four hours long. So perhaps we could say Portions of the screenplay he developed were still used, but none of his footage. I'll leave it up to you. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The interview of Richard Fleischer is not ambiguous, the entire Kurosawa contribution, screenplay and all was dumped. The two meetings face-to-face between the two directors were amicable and Kurosawa seemed to accept all the direction given from the American production team, but when he went back to Japan a series of unusual incidents not only led to production delays and disruption, but were extremely problematic. Kurosawa was always known for his unusual methods and eye for detail, but one entire day was devoted to his crew repainting a shrine a particular shade of white, while another scene was held up while period books were brought in to serve as a backdrop even though they were barely in the background. While the hiring of a bevy of amateurs was questionable, finding out that the group was made up of wealthy industrialists with no acting background, was puzzling, and contributed greatly to the final decision to end the relationship with Kurosawa. With due deference to his stature, a publicity story was made up that indicated his health concerns were involved, Fleischer indicated that this was done so that Kurosawa could "save face." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC).

Okay, but what happened with the script? Presumably Fox approved it (at four hours?) - It still seems most likely they just cut it down. Again, it's Kurosawa's usual collaborators who are credited on it - it seems they wouldn't have even had time to re-write it. How long was it before the two new directors started work? I'm asking as a point of interest, though this info could go in the article if your sources cover it. If not, the article works - I thought of simply using replaced, but wanted to break it into two sentences so it didn't sound like they just replaced him at the drop of a hat. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll do some more digging, but 20th Century Fox did not approve Kurosawa's first voluminous script nor any of the subsequent revisions as they were so centered on minutiae that would only make sense to a Japanese audience steeped in the lore of pre-war machinations, that Fleischer called Kurosawa in for a "showdown" in Hawaii, and was amazed that the veteran director readily agreed to changes in the script. However, the resulting laborious rewrite and slow pace of principal photography again alarmed the US team and a second meeting was held in Hollywood, with Kurosawa again agreeing to make the script more amenable to an American audience. The results, however, were simply a tedious collection of scenes that were basically no better than the first sequences shot, leaving the production with the little more than the realization that the Japanese portion of the production would have to be completely redone, and that Kurosawa was not the director they wanted or needed. The decision to cast him adrift was fraught with peril, as 20th Century Fox had actually been sold on the premise that the epic would feature the work of the renowned Japanese director, and the initial "seed money" was tied directly to the involvement of Kurosawa. Nonetheless, the production was faced with the ultimate dilemma of a massive project that was running behind schedule and over budget. Even with the replacements for Kurosawa, the final film, complete with the trappings of an intermission, still was considered a very long slog for most viewers, and only in recent times, has the film been recognized more for its documentary-like approach to a historical event. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC).

Having seen it more than once, I find the unique long, slow build in this film to be very effective. I would even say the half hour leading to the actual attack is masterful, along with most of the attack itself. Don't know who was most responsible for that, but it was probably Richard Fleischer. Perhaps Elmo Williams had a hand as well, as he edited the much shorter build-up in High Noon, though Fred Zinnemann has said he designed all of that famous montage on paper beforehand. But, personal opinion aside, I've heard some of what you're saying before (an on-camera interview with Fleischer years ago), and would like to know more detail about the making of this very unusual film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier, but although Cuba has luscious beaches, it has lousy Internet service. I am back home today and will fill in some more of the Tora! Tora! Tora! "back story" soon. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC).

Fox has said that Kurosawa quit for health reasons. Kurosawa said he was fired. The truth is somewhere in between. Fox lied to Kurosawa to get him to come on board the project. Zanuck promised Kurosawa that he would be able to make the Japanese portions of the film his way using the methods he had used in Japan. Zanuck also told Kurosawa that the U.S. portion of the film would be directed by David Lean. Kurosawa was dismayed to find out that the director was actually Fleischer (a director of considerably lesser stature than Lean) and not Lean and that Fox and Fleischer would be calling the shots as to what Kurosawa did or did not do and how he went about it. That quickly ended Kurosawa's interest in the project. Thereafter, Kurosawa acted in a manner to ensure that Fox had to let him go. Whatever face saving was involved was mostly on Fox's end. It certainly would not have looked good for Fox to admit that they had fired one of the world's greatest film directors. It also would not have gone down well with Fox's shareholders who would have started asking nasty questions about why Fox had not done more due diligence before inviting Kurosawa to direct. Kurosawa was well known in the industry for has particular way of making films. His autocratic style had earned him in Japan the nickname "The Emperor."Oldbubblehead (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Cast

The cast list shows "Admiral James O. Richardson, Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet." Richardson had never been Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet. Prior to his relief by Kimmel his title was Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Fleet. Kimmel was the first CincPac. At the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, Richardson had reverted to his permanent rank of Rear Admiral and was assigned to the Navy General Board. The list also shows "Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet." Kimmel was Commander-in-Chief, Pacific (not Commander-in-Chief, U.S Pacific Fleet). See the Wikipedia bios on both men for more details.Oldbubblehead (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Training flight

Though an extremely small part of the movie, the 'incident' involving the yellow trainer biplane being overflown by all the Japanese planes right before their attack on Pearl Harbor -- was it real or a minor "funny" scene inserted into the movie.

There's all this discussion about ship's superstructures and other details in the entry/article, but absolutely no mention of this scene.

Can anyone find out if this was a historically accurate event or a fictitious movie scene or was it meant to be (symbolically) representative of something? 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This actually happened. The pilot was Cornelia Fort, a civilian who was giving a flying lesson.Oldbubblehead (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tora! Tora! Tora!. 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://archive.is/20130121153507/http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/99999999/FAMOUSIOWANS/608270355/Prange-Gordon-W- to http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/99999999/FAMOUSIOWANS/608270355/Prange-Gordon-W-

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) 22:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Not historical accuracy

Presently, the content of the historical accuracy section seems to have little to do with substantive historical events. Rather, it mostly concerns comparatively small production compromises of a techincal nature. Historical accuracy covers, for example, whether or not the attack on Pearl Harbour commenced fifty-five minutes before the delivery of Japan's ultimatum to Washington—not whether the carrier from which Janapese aircraft took off had a large rather than a small bridge.

The film's opening caption states: "All of the events and characters depicted are true to historical fact". If that is indeed the case then the bulk of the material in this section ought to be deleted (or moved to the production section) and a simple statement to that effect put in its place. Pololei (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Actors who served in armed services

@Ldavid1985: please explain your rationale for your revert of my recent edits. You did so without an edit summary and marked your edit as a minor edit, see WP:REVEXP and WP:MINOR. My edits were to add 'US' before the names of military units in the table of cast members with military service, for example changing 'Army' to 'US Army'. This is needed because the text above the article does not specify that these are US units. Moreover, some of the actors who played Americans could have served in the armed services of other nations and the Japanese-heritage actors might have served in the Japanese armed services. Also, your restoration of the pipe [[United States Marine Corps Reserve|Marine Corps]] is undesirable because linking should be explicit and not hide information. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of a response I have reverted again. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

No major stars whatsoever

Very odd WW2 high-budget film in that regard. Racing Forward (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

goof?

ok, i don't want to introduce a trivia section, but i have to ask: what's up with yamamoto's messenger driving and parking on the RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD during the opening scene? was japan on that standard pre-war?

AFAIK, the only time that happened was during the okinawa occupation. never in tokyo, and never pre-war. how could they make SUCH an obvious goof?

or am i missing something? 2601:19C:527F:A680:2169:D9D:D6C:B4B4 (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)