Jump to content

John1966

Members
  • Content Count

    285
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About John1966

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 01/16/1966

Converted

  • Location
    UK
  • Occupation
    Civil Servant
  1. John1966

    Installing my old, old copy on new PC

    Thanks for the swift reply. So I install the disc (which then won't launch), then purchase upgrade and run it's installer? No patches first or anything?
  2. Bought a new PC a couple of years back. My disc of CMBN was bought in 2011 and installed on a previous PC and a laptop (never uninstalled on either) but I recalled you could run it on three machines. Thought I'd never track down my key but found it in my account here from when I first downloaded (assume it's still valid). Ran the disc. Never asked for key or Internet connection. Hit "Finished" and got "UI not found... Application will be terminated." I've now found an archived thread about this and Windows 10. It seems I need to upgrade to a later version. Can I do that if I haven't managed to install the old version? Would it be easier to just buy a newer version (or will I encounter the same problem with Windows 10?). Apologies for my lack of IT experience here.
  3. John1966

    Fury Movie Discussion.

    See how Angela dispatches the Wehermacht here. They should include this in an add-on pack or possibly a module in it's own right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0rRPU_cvGg Although to be fair it might just look like a bug. Is that a proper MG42 at 4.53? You'd have thought it'd do better than that...
  4. John1966

    Fury Movie Discussion.

    I bet it's not Angela Lansbury. Again.
  5. John1966

    Fury Movie Discussion.

    No. Not really. Don't know about you but I don't take the Oscars very seriously. I could go into a very long list of why I don't take the very seriously including all the times the academy has got it wildly wrong but I fear I may be straying way off topic, It also involes a lot of Angela Lansbury related complaints (three nominations and no Oscar!) but I reckon this is hardly the place...
  6. John1966

    Fury Movie Discussion.

    I think that was the one. Didn't get any Oscars last night though...
  7. John1966

    Fury Movie Discussion.

    Sounds a completely plausible story. Years ago I was reading a British account of D-Day that had been written late-'40s/early-'50s and a British soldier quite openly admitting (to the point of being proud of it) that he'd not taken some Germans as prisoners (he threw a grenade at them) because "it was not what he was there for" (although, it has to be said, it was a heat-of-the-moment incident). But the thing is, I still don't think that scene in Fury was credible. Just the whole way it was done and the reasons for doing it. Sorry, we've stopped talking about Fury now, havent we...?
  8. Yes, use of non-diegetic music in filmmaking is actually a bit controversial to me (no, really). In fact, it was hardly used in early talkies because filmmakers assumed (incorrectly) that an audience wouldn't accept music in a film if they couldn't see where it was coming from. That's partly why there were so many songs in films of that era that you wouldn't expect to have songs in (early Marx Brothers, for example) . I suppose it comes down to what you're trying to achieve. In a way, providing non-diegetic music to a battle scene is, sort of, selling a lie because when a soldier was surrounded by death and destruction he didn't usually hear a 40-piece orchestra while he was witnessing it. He just saw what he saw. Adding music adds all sorts of feelings or emotions that may not actually be there (or perhaps amplifies those that are). But then again, it is now readily accepted as a part of filmmaking so we're just used to it. Like I say, depends what you're trying to achieve: realism or heightened drama. Although in this case you have made rather a good movie (and kept the camera a ground level - funny how many of these films try to look like newsreel with cameras ten-foot off the ground) out of what is, at the end of the day, a computer game. So as it's unlikely to feature any Oscar-winning acting performances, I'd say use of music to add to the drama is pretty legitimate and, dare I say, quite cool. This is a film forum, right? IMDB? Oh...
  9. John1966

    Mistake. Ignore.

    Don't be daft. Who'd want to see that?
  10. John1966

    Fury Movie Discussion.

    Actually Jack Hawkins cries in The Cruel Sea; trumps them all. But in slightly different circumstances to Tom who does it on the battlefield.
  11. John1966

    Fury Movie Discussion.

    For the record, I rather like SPR. I didn't moan about it. Vastly superior to Fury IMHO. Yes there are some historical accuracies but it was groundbreaking at the time and there certainly aren't enough to distract from my enjoyment of it. I am not one of those people who can't watch a WWII movie because they've got the wrong chin-straps. In thirty years SPR will still be regarded as a classic but I seriously doubt Fury will be. I'm actually just a bit mystified why so many people liked Fury so much. I think one critic described it as "overblown war porn" (not my words). I think I know what he means. Incidentally, when Tom Hanks cried in SPR it was dramatic and unexpected; it wasn't a cliche back then. When Brad Pitt did it, it just looked like it was a film requirement because Tom Hanks had done it. I found Captain Miller an entirely convincing character but I can't say the same of Wardaddy. Reckon SPR would have been showered with Oscars (got plenty of nominations) if it hadn't have been the bizarre decision to give the biggee to Shakespeare in Love and (I think) Jack Nicholson in whatever he was in that year. I've seen SPR about 15 times (maybe more). Once was enough for Fury...
  12. John1966

    Fury Movie Discussion.

    Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)? [What did I say? - Ed]
  13. John1966

    Fury Movie Discussion.

    Hmmm. Not sure where I said it wasn't cliched enough. I'm going to take a punt (and I could be wrong) that you're referring to me saying that their lack of comeraderie was the cliche I was missing. No, I'm not citing that as a missing-but-necessary cliche. I'm saying that I found their lack of comeraderie difficult to believe. That's slightly different. I just thought that that their relationship as a crew wasn't believable. I assume you thought it was. OK, if you buy it then no wonder you enjoyed it. I didn't (on either count). Did you really think the final battle was "enjoyable"? OK... Incidentally, I preferred all the movies you cite above. And I'll add A Bridge Too Far (1977) as long as we're only talking about the dialogue among the senior staff. Wasn't so keen on the action. I'd also add A Walk in the Sun (1945), All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), Ivan's Childhood (1962), Come and See (1985) and Downfall (2004). Although with Downfall I'd add the caveat that they did rather gloss over certain elements of the battle for Berlin (for, perhaps, understandable reasons). Thinking aloud, Attack (1956) is also very good (and shows you don't need authentic Tigers to make a good movie - they really are rubbish) and The Cruel Sea (1953) is, of course, one of the best war movies ever. Stalag 17 (1953) and The Colditz Story (1955) are also great but I'm not sure I count POW movies. Actually this could go on and on... I'm thinking of all those Brit war movies of the '50s now. And the '40s, come to think of it... God, there's a lot of them and a shed load of them are great. But if I go on, this'll just be a film list... Did I mention The Halls of Montezuma (1950)? [Oh, just stop it - Ed]
×