Talk:Ice Station Zebra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:2e54.jpg

Image:2e54.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tigerfish Bridge Hudson.jpg

Image:Tigerfish Bridge Hudson.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ice Station Zebra SFX Shot1.jpg

Marcd30319 14:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ice Station Zebra McGoohan Hudon.jpg

Marcd30319 14:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ice Station Zebra Surfaced Sub.jpg

Marcd30319 14:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ZebraMiG21.jpg

Marcd30319 00:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Point of Contention

Re the Trivia section, mention of a continuity error involving MiGs and Phantoms. The Phantoms are supposed to be there. No continuity error. The MiGs took off first, but were soon matched by US Phantoms coming up behind them (a minute behind). This was the reason why the Russian MiGs didn't attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yak sox (talk • contribs) 02:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a Detailed Story

Which makes it very tough to tighten up, y'know. Also, I noted the scenes re the sub's brief disappearance had to be added. I just hope it adds something to it ! (Anything for the Cause !) PFSLAKES1 (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

- Nevermind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PFSLAKES1 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sabotage method

The method of sabotaging the submarine's torpedo tube described by Patrick McGoohan's character in the film, was based on an incident that happened to HMS Thetis in 1939, where a bow tube test cock that allowed the tube to be tested for water, was found afterwards to have been blocked by paint. This allowed the tube inner door to be opened when the corresponding tube's bow cap was also open. The submarine sank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.67.206 (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The Ending of the Movie

In the tightening up process the description of the ending of the film has been modified several times which potentially changes the meaning of the last climactic scenes. I've gone over my DVD copy and the sequence of events is quite clearly: the incoming fighter is revealed to be an American F-4 Phantom, Lt. Walker rushes the Soviet soldier holding the self-destruct device and prevents him from detonating (Walker is shot in the process), then Capt. Ferraday uses his detonator to destroy the film even though it is about to be captured by the Americans. It is a paradoxical ending and the viewer is left to explain why he would do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmarshal (talk • contribs) 12:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is pure speculation, but I wonder if the actors were told of the ending? Obviously, the insertion of the F-4 Phantom picking up the capsule was added in post production, so it could either have been made US or Soviet. If a Mig had been used, then the motive of Lt. Walker's action would have been to seize the self destruct device and destroy the capsule (since he did not know that Ferraday had his own device). Then Ferraday's action would have been quite normal (blow it up, stop it from going to the Soviets). The unusual ending was perhaps the more interesting since it is unexpected. Whatever the original intent, ISZ was supposed to be Hudson's favorite film, so he did not object to the ending no doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmarshal (talk • contribs) 03:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The fighter is supposed to be a Soviet plane. This is supported by everyone's reaction to its arrival, especially the enemy commander's, and the timing. This wouldn't be the first time movie producers got sloppy and used an unconvincing substitute. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is quite evident that this is NOT a goofup on the part of the editor. There is clearly a setup since the F-4 Phantoms are positively shown in pursuit of the Mig-21's (and Russian paratroop transports). There are clearly THREE types of aircraft present including the F-4 shown in the final scene. REMEMBER, this is MOVIE. The reaction of the actors is according to what the director is telling them to do, i.e. "Look up, there's a Russian/American plame up there so look startled". In reality they are looking up at the roof of the sound studio. ISZ was VERY careful with the use of it's hardware and is probably one of the most technically correct films (allowing for cold-war security concerns) that you could hope for. Considering they had the full support of the Department of Defense (up to and including the use of a non-nuclear submarine to shoot), I doubt the DOD would have casually let such a slip get by without comment. What the F-4 was supposedly attempting to do was a "landing gear snag" of the balloon (freeze your DVD and note that the landing gear is down). This was considered a very risky method which was briefly contemplated during the Corona spy satellite program. During Corona specially modified aircraft with large "Y" shaped rigs were used to snatch the parachute lines of the falling satellites before they hit the ground. If the producers had been a little more thoughtful, they would have shown at least one of the Russian transport aircraft with a similar "Y" rig to indicate that they would be doing the pickup. You also have to ask yourself, why would the enemy commander be startled by the arrival of his own aircraft? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmarshal (talk • contribs) 11:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Just watched it. There's no way it's meant to be an American plane. It's a Soviet plane and everyone is doing their best to keep the Soviets from getting it. Walker makes an attempt, Hudson blows it up. Being no capsule, everyone goes home. If it was a US plane, the Soviets would have blown the capsule up themselves. The Soviet Commander states earlier he has a detonator.

It's clear that a US plane was put in by mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.124.101 (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly question your powers of observation if you just re-watched it. You put that both Walker and Vaslov were "KILLED". They are obviously both alive but wounded at the end of the movie (they might die off camera, but it is certainly wrong to say they were killed). The Russian specicifically comments that they should both "take care of your wounded...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmarshal (talk • contribs) 21:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Again...I'm repeating myself

• Why is it "...clear that a US plane was put in by mistake"? You show absolutely no proof of this, either here or quoting someone involved with the film, or with the many reviewers who could have pointed this out. That is an F4 PHANTOM. There is no doubt. That this was a mistake is questionable to say the least.
• This movie was vetted by the defense dept. (they provided use of a SUBMARINE for gosh sakes), they would hardly have let it go by mistake.
• There are clearly F4 Phantoms (shots provided by the DOD) shown earlier as a chase flight along with (MODELS) of Mig 21's
• The Soviet's COULD NOT have detonated the capsule BECAUSE Walker had tackled the soldier holding the detonator.
• "...Walker makes and attempt" [to blow up the capsule]. Look carefully. He does not try to grab the detonator to use it, he's tackling the soldier to PREVENT him from using it. He's not trying to blow up the capsule, he's trying to SAVE IT.
• Purely from a movie standpoint, this stuff is all done in EDITING!!! They had models of Mig-21s and Soviet transports, why didn't they use them? You have months to edit a major film and lots and lots of eyeballs (and many military and former military involved in the process).
• Because the DOD contractually requires review of a film that uses U.S. Government assets, they would have specifically had a pre-screening before release. The F4 has one of the most distinctive shapes in the US inventory (droop nose, large rectangular laminar flow diverters, inverted gull-wing delta, downward sloping elevators, and not to mention US MARKINGS), not a whole lot of chance they would not have noticed.
• No editor would make a mistake IN THE SINGLE MOST CRITICAL SCENE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmarshal (talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

TCM's plot summary says Russian "recovery aircraft", DVD Savant says "Russian jets", Allmovie says "And with the storm clearing from the Soviet side first, their planes and their paratroops are closing in", and you yourself admit your interpretation makes no sense ("paradoxical ending"). Plus you insist that no editor would make a mistake? Yeah, right. Tell that to the people who watched Battle of the Bulge. In the climax, was Hessler coming to the rescue of the fuel dump in American tanks? Obviously, the producers didn't want to go to the trouble of finding and renting Soviet planes, figuring most people wouldn't even notice (I didn't).

More objections:

• How did the Americans know to send the plane so it would arrive at that exact moment?
• How did the Americans know to equip it so it could snag the balloon?
• Why didn't the Soviets start shooting at the "American" plane or even appear concerned when it showed up?

Clarityfiend (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If the plane at the end doing the recovery is meant to be a Russian plane why is it a Phantom with US air force markings? There were lots of shots in the film of mig 21's I am sure they knew the difference. 92.29.173.94 (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok I've thought about this some more.

The plane at the end that goes to collect the balloon is a F4 phantom in US air force markings of that there is no doubt. But I there is a possibility that the film makers made a mistake and intended it to be a Russian plane.

So here are the two scenarios

The plane at the end was meant to be Russian:

• Walker didn't know Ferraday had a detonator.
• Walker went to grab the detonator from the Russians to blow up the film and gets killed in the process.
• Ferraday not wanting the film to fall into Russian hands blows up the film. (Why doesn't he do this before Walker makes a grab for the other detonator)

The plane at the end was American:

• Walker didn't know Ferraday had a detonator.
• The Russians don't blow up the film for unknown reasons.
• Walker goes to grab the denetator to prevent the Russians blowing up the film and gets killed in the process.
• Ferraday blows up the film for unknown reasons (possibly to avoid starting a world war or a battle on the ice).

On reflection I have to confess it seems more plausible that the plane at the end was meant to be Russian but it does seem ambiguous. 92.29.173.94 (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

When I first saw the film many years ago, I thought it was a Russian plane, and this is the first I've heard of any other interpretation. The actual plane footage was probably just what stock footage (translation: 'CHEAP') they had- they had some MIGs flying in formation, but not any of a single Russian plane trying to snag something (which at the time probably would have been classified footage by the Soviets), so that's not determative. Worst mistakes have been made in films (MANY WW2 films use footage of tanks or aircraft from the wrong side). They do mention in particular that the storm is clearing from the Russian side, which is why the Soviet planes were launched first. CFLeon (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note you list an incorrect date . . .

For the Clint Eastwood movie "Firefox." The date is not 1983, but 1982, as the "Firefox" page clearly states. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Firefox_(film)johncheverly 18:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

John, I corrected the year. In the future, you are welcome to make such fixes yourself. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 21:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Eric, that very nice of you to offer. However, I spent four months on an indefinite block and was only freed from Wikipedia Jail about a month ago. Go Phightins! adopted me a month ago and is mentoring me through editing exams. I WILL NOT do any editing on a main page until I successfully complete those examinations.johncheverly 23:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ice Station Zebra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120121654/http://www.alistairmaclean.com:80/Ice-Station-Zebra-(1968).html to http://www.alistairmaclean.com/Ice-Station-Zebra-(1968).html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 06:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Plot correction in both summaries

A nicely written concise summary of the movie. There were just a few sentences where some clarity was needed.

Lt. Mills is tasked with opening the torpedo tube door, not a crewman, so this sentence was changed to reflect it.

There is nothing in the movie that says that the boat is going beyond its crush depth. The reactor room crewman mentions it as a concern, but since we don't know what the crush depth is and there are no audio indicators of the hull under stress, I changed this to "possibly".

You can argue the point of "flood" versus "rush". I think "rush" is better because rush indicates a unyielding torrent of water whereas flood means a massive leak. So, I think "rush" better describes the action.

There is nothing in Jones' description of the satellite picture taking which states the Russians were worried about taking pictures of their own bases. This is because they intended to recover the film in their own territory. If they didn't take pictures of their own bases and only the American bases, why would they care that the Americans got the pictures? The whole point is now that the Russians can't recover the film on their own territory. The fact it has pictures of their bases is what sets up the whole movie plot.

We know that Ferraday has an "ace in the hole" because he found the Russian Agent's detonator. He knows that push comes to shove and they can't keep the film, that he can destroy it. Ostrovsky makes a key error in analyzing Ferraday agreeing to give him the film. Why is he giving me the film? What don't I know? Didn't his superiors or Vaslov know there was a second detonator?

You must always create a summary where you don't necessarily know what's coming next in order for it to be a good summary. I modified some of the summary to achieve that end.

Aspenguy2 (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

In Popular Culture?

There needs to be some reference to the fact that this movie title was used in Breaking Bad as the name of Saul Goodman’s money laundering account. And in the series Better Call Saul you learn why: it’s a movie he and Kim used to watch together. Those two shows are the only reason I ever found out about this movie And I’m sure I. Not the only one, so I think that has some significance. I don’t know much about editing this thing, so maybe someone else can do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.195.156 (talk) 09:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It’s the reason I’m here on this page, and I think there’s enough sources by now to add something, but I’m not a fan of popular culture sections. BCS is ending soon enough, so we should wait a bit. The unfounded rumor is that we are going to get more about the meaning of this film as things progress. Or not. Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Backdrops used once more for "Assault on the Wayne" (1971)

The backdrops and the fictional submarine 509 were used once more for the movie "Assault on the Wayne" (1971). Apparently, a few takes were used once more, for example the diving submarine. 91.50.9.250 (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)