Jump to content
weapon2010

Fury Movie Discussion.

Recommended Posts

That is a good point about the chances of a crew keeping the same tank from '42 through until '45. Strikes me as pretty unlikely,

 

As far as know, in the case of the Desert Rats, when they came back to Britain to prepare for Normandy their tanks remained behind to be used in Italy, and they were equipped with new "mounts". I'm not sure if that was the same in the case of US units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a good point about the chances of a crew keeping the same tank from '42 through until '45. Strikes me as pretty unlikely,

 

As far as know, in the case of the Desert Rats, when they came back to Britain to prepare for Normandy their tanks remained behind to be used in Italy, and they were equipped with new "mounts". I'm not sure if that was the same in the case of US units.

 

Could be colloquial. 

 

Alot of tank crews referred to a series of tanks as the same one, for example. Two prominent examples are Lafayette Pool's "In the Mood" which were numbered I-III; despite losing them to enemy action. Abrams had Tunderbolt I through VII iirc; and V-VII were all upgrades and mechanical replacements, rather than combat losses. "The same tank" may not mean physically the same one; a shot in the dark from me.

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not seen the film but clearly units swapped tanks very regularly. 7th armoured was completely re-equipped for Normandy - primarily with Cromwells. German units regularly left vehicles with other units when they were redeployed. Tanks had, apart from the chances of getting battle damaged, fairly limited shelf lives due to wear and tear. The Americans built 47,000 M4 Shermans, 20,000 M3 (Stuarts and Lees) and over 2,000 Pershings between 1942-45. Even deducting those supplied to Russia, UK and Cdn forces, that suggests a very regular replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea of the statitics on this but how many American tank crews who'd managed to survive from '42 to '45 would still be driving around the same tank they landed in North Africa with?

 

Virtually zero. And I do mean zero. In fact, I doubt that very many Shermans that saw front line service in Africa were seeing front line service anywhere even with new crews. Mostly, if they weren't scrapped or cannibalized, they were used for training or some such service away from the front. Whether any were taken to be modified into some other tracked vehicle, such as the M7 priest, I tend to doubt.

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currymutton,

 

Welcome aboard!

 

There is the game "Liar's Dice, seen below



and the book Liar's Poker, described in its Wiki,

 

to which we can add a second "Liar's Poker," a game played with paper money.

Michael Emrys,

 

In light of item below, from an esteemed and official source, you've either mastered time travel or possibly have the Fountain of Youth in your backyard. If neither, Rip Van Winkle's suing!

 

http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/m/missouri-i.html
 

Missouri
 
(Steam Frigate: displacement 3,220 tons; length 229'; beam 40'; draft 191; complement 268; armament: 2 10-inch guns, 8 8-inch guns)

The 24th State, admitted to the Union 10 August 1821, Missouri was named for the Missouri River, an Indian name meaning -muddy waters.-

I

The first Missouri, a 10‑gun side‑wheel frigate, one of the first steam warships in the Navy, was begun at New York Navy Yard in 1840; launched 7 January 1841; and commissioned very early in 1842, Capt. John Newton in command.

 

Brother Ed, who lived in Shrewsbury for a year after moving from the States to sort out Inland Revenue's cyber chaos, possibly worse than the IRS here, has seen the Battle of Britain Commemorative Flight twice and been to Duxford, the IWM, the Royal Armoury, Hadrian's Wall ad infinitum. I try not to hate him. He's also flown in a B-17. Have to draw the line somewhere!

 

Regarding "Fury," I was appalled at how little actual use was made of the Tiger 1. We could've been treated to a flying shot like in "Gettysburg," showing the sweep of the efforts to flank the beast, but instead we got the treadhead version of Star Trek battles in which, for the sake of framing, the ships are shown so close together it's a wonder they don't collide near instantly.

 

Maybe we should blame the altogether too brief appearance of the Tiger on ill-considered contract language accepted in the rental agreement with the The Tank Museum? "Renter herewith agrees not to exceed 0.1 kilometers additional distance on the odometer of the Rental Item, hereinafter Tank. Renter agrees said 0.1 kilometer includes any and all distance involved with loading, unloading, actual movie shooting, reloading and other needful acts performed until such time as the Tank is off the Renter's transporter and returned to the Museum."

 

After the buildup of the real Tiger tank that was going to be in the movie, I found it depressing we saw so very little of the beast. What a waste!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Michael Emrys,

 

In light of item below, from an esteemed and official source, you've either mastered time travel or possibly have the Fountain of Youth in your backyard. If neither, Rip Van Winkle's suing!

 

http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/m/missouri-i.html

 

Missouri
 
(Steam Frigate: displacement 3,220 tons; length 229'; beam 40'; draft 191; complement 268; armament: 2 10-inch guns, 8 8-inch guns)

The 24th State, admitted to the Union 10 August 1821, Missouri was named for the Missouri River, an Indian name meaning -muddy waters.-

I

The first Missouri, a 10‑gun side‑wheel frigate, one of the first steam warships in the Navy, was begun at New York Navy Yard in 1840; launched 7 January 1841; and commissioned very early in 1842, Capt. John Newton in command.

 

Sorry, John, I don't follow. What is the relevance of this to anything I have posted in this thread?

 

:huh:

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Emrys,

 

You started the ball rolling by remarking you saw the USS Missouri sail through Admiralty Inlet and dared people to top that. JonS responded with a pic of that one's naval ancestor from the Great White Fleet. I then did some digging to find the very first USS Missouri, whose arrival on the scene in the 1840s created the opportunity for further temporal wit, if you will. JonS made his point with an image, whereas I used words.

 

While this explanation doubtless falls well short of transparent, I can but hope it's similarly short of opaque.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel fortunate to have seen the original (uncut version) of "Apocalypse Now" within days of its release. Twice. On the big screen, no less. 

 

While I had planned on attending the early show, it turned into a double-bill. After sitting through the first two-and-a-half hours of Coppola's masterpiece, I subjected myself to a further two-and-a-half hours before calling it a day (night). 

 

Who could forget the obliteration of Colonel Kurtz's Compound as the credits rolled? 

 

Talk about an assault on the senses. Good movies will do that.

 

I sat through "Fury" once. Once is enough, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel fortunate to have seen the original (uncut version) of "Apocalypse Now" within days of its release. Twice. On the big screen, no less. 

 

While I had planned on attending the early show, it turned into a double-bill. After sitting through the first two-and-a-half hours of Coppola's masterpiece, I subjected myself to a further two-and-a-half hours before calling it a day (night). 

 

Who could forget the obliteration of Colonel Kurtz's Compound as the credits rolled? 

 

Talk about an assault on the senses. Good movies will do that.

 

I sat through "Fury" once. Once is enough, thanks.

 

 

What do you mean by the uncut version of AN? the redux? the workprint?

Edited by para

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Emrys,

 

You started the ball rolling by remarking you saw the USS Missouri sail through Admiralty Inlet and dared people to top that.

 

Oh okay. It would really help a lot if you would quote the post you are referring to. Just giving a person's name doesn't help much as who is going to search back through a log thread while trying to figure out just which post by that person is the one that counts?

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched the movie, finally. 

 

It shows the grim side of the war well. So well it almost makes you doubly think playing a game simulating just that.

 

BUT it screws up by non believable "We've been riding this beauty since Africa" story, all those German AT guns missed shots, Tiger firefight (to some degree) and all bits and pieces of final battle which is fubared to the Moon and back. They botched what could have been a great movie with those scenes. 

 

Not disappointed I saw it though. I would give it a 6.8 out of 10. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by the uncut version of AN? the redux? the workprint?

 

From Wikipedia:

"At the time of its release, discussion and rumors circulated about the supposed various endings for Apocalypse Now. Coppola stated the original ending was written in haste, where Kurtz convinced Willard to join forces and together they repelled the air strike on the compound. Coppola said he never fully agreed with the Kurtz and Willard dying in fatalistic explosive intensity, preferring to end the film in a more encouraging manner.

When Coppola originally organized the ending, he considered two significantly different ends to the movie. One involved Willard leading Lance by the hand as everyone in Kurtz's base throws down their weapons, and ends with images of Willard's Swift boat slowly pulling away from Kurtz's compound, this final scene superimposed over the face of a stone idol, which then fades into black. The other option showed an air strike being called and the base being blown to bits in a spectacular display, consequently killing everyone left within it.

The original 1979 70mm exclusive theatrical release ended with Willard's boat, the stone statue, then fade to black with no credits, save for '"Copyright 1979 Omni Zoetrope"' right after the film ends. This mirrors the lack of any opening titles and supposedly stems from Coppola's original intention to "tour" the film as one would a play: the credits would have appeared on printed programs provided before the screening began.[46]

There have been, to date, many variations of the end credit sequence, beginning with the 35mm general release version, where Coppola elected to show the credits superimposed over shots of Kurtz's base exploding.[46] Rental prints circulated with this ending, and can be found in the hands of a few collectors. Some versions of this had the subtitle "A United Artists release", while others had "An Omni Zoetrope release". The network television version of the credits ended with "...from MGM/UA Entertainment Company" (the film made its network debut shortly after the merger of MGM and UA). One variation of the end credits can be seen on both YouTube and as a supplement on the current Lionsgate Blu-ray.

Later when Coppola heard that audiences interpreted this as an air strike called by Willard, Coppola pulled the film from its 35 mm run, and put credits on a black screen. (However, prints with the "air strike" footage continued to circulate to "repertory" theaters well into the 1980s.) In the DVD commentary, Coppola explains that the images of explosions had not been intended to be part of the story; they were intended to be seen as completely separate from the film. He had added the explosions to the credits as a graphic background to the credits.

Coppola explained he had captured the now-iconic footage during demolition of the sets (set destruction and removal was required by the Philippine government). Coppola filmed the demolition with multiple cameras fitted with different film stocks and lenses to capture the explosions at different speeds. He wanted to do something with the dramatic footage and decided to add them to the credits. [47]"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should blame the altogether too brief appearance of the Tiger on ill-considered contract language accepted in the rental agreement with the The Tank Museum? "Renter herewith agrees not to exceed 0.1 kilometers additional distance on the odometer of the Rental Item, hereinafter Tank. Renter agrees said 0.1 kilometer includes any and all distance involved with loading, unloading, actual movie shooting, reloading and other needful acts performed until such time as the Tank is off the Renter's transporter and returned to the Museum."

 

I do have to wonder why so much money, time, and labor was spent restoring the tank. It seems all the museum ever does with it is dust it off once a year and drive it around the parking lot for the tourists to take pictures.

Speaking as someone who followed the story of the tank restoration project from the very beginning, I was honestly hoping the museum would turn it into a film star, given the fact that a typical Hollywood war movie budget could be easily stretched to cover the cost of preventative maintenance, and repairs to the vehicle while shooting a movie.

However, the sad story is most restored tanks end up sitting in a barn for 364 days a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have to wonder why so much money, time, and labor was spent restoring the tank....most restored tanks end up sitting in a barn for 364 days a year.

 

As do nearly all museum artifacts. The first mission is to ensure their preservation. If this can be done while using them in movies, that's great. But a major consideration is to cover possible damage including from just moving them around. We are not accustomed to thinking of tanks as especially fragile (!), but mechanically they often were, especially the kitties. And authentic spares for them do not exactly grow on trees. Replica parts can be very expensive and hard to fabricate, and museum budgets do have limits, as do film makers.

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ para

 

I didn't exactly answer your question, did I? Sorry about that. I wasn't trying to be obtuse. I just come by it naturally.

 

Calling the General Release 35mm version which I saw (before it was pulled by Coppola) both "original" and "uncut" was misleading. It may have been original. But it was by no means "uncut".

 

I didn't realize there were so many versions of "Apocalypse Now" until you mentioned the "Workprint Edition". That sent me to Wikipedia and the text I cut and pasted three posts back.

 

I do own a copy of "Redux" but would love to get my hands on the "Workprint Edition". Has anyone actually seen it?

Edited by BLSTK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only person who reckons the Redux version of Apocalypse Now is actually nowhere as good as the theatrical release? I was as keen to see the legendary planation scene as the next man but in the Redux version the pacing is way off and there are scenes that actually ruin my perception of the movie. Specifically the scene in which Captain Willard nicks Kilgore's surf board as a prank. Firstly, it shows Willard in an entirely different light to the way I'd come to understand him in the theatrical version. He was spposed to be all about the mission and makes little effort to bond with the crew of the boat. Yet here he is in high jinks and having a laugh with them.

 

Secondly (and most unforgivably), we have Kilgore fyling over the jungle distraught and begging for his board back. The whole point of Kilgore is that he's almost supernaturally untouchable. He is the essence of war; he thrives on it. As Willard remarks, nothing will ever touch him. He is a mystical character. Nothing could ruffle his feathers. He wouldn't get upset if Willard took his board because he wouldn't be able to take his board; fate would intervene because war is Kilgore's mystical realm where no harm can come to him. A notion completely destroyed by that scene.

 

And if you just think I'm getting a bit too Film Studies about all this, Coppola said many times that he edited the movie to make sure Kurtz (a special forces colonel) didn't look fat. When he discovered Brando was not "in shape" as he had claimed, he suggested that he change the character so that he'd let himself go. But Brando insisted that he play him as written, hence the careful editing. But in the Redux, he leaves numerous shots that clearly indicate Brando was as fat as I am. ;)

 

Francis, you should have left it alone. It was a fine as it was...

Edited by John1966

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

"Apocalypse Now" never made any sense to me at all--until I got to see the Director's Cut. It was much longer than the standard theater version and filled in vast chunks of the to me previously disjointed, hugely perplexing story line. Then the film became a coherent whole. My understanding is that, over Coppola's vehement protests, the studio forced huge cuts to the film, in order to shorten viewing time, making it more approachable and thus guarantee more theater revenue via making more showings possible per day shown. I highly recommend it.

 

Michael Emrys,

 

Sorry about that. Don't really know what I'm doing yet in the new BB system, and you'll recall I wasn't exactly the King of Quotes in the old one.

 

SLIM,

 

Maybe filmmakers could give real German tanks another shot? How about a Bulge film with this in it? Belgium's only one country over, after all.

 

Which, of course, conjures up this fond memory. I spent years trying to find the soundtrack, specifically for this sequence, and when I did, long before YT, the album was $70. I passed. Later, I learned it was from an actual Panzer song. Later still, I learned there were more verses. A powerful scene, which sets the stage for what's to come. Roll, CM Bulge! 



 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting a bit late to this thread... but I just watched it over Google Play.

 

The movie is, sincerely, rubbish. The only okay bits were 1) the ambush in the woods that gets the leading tank and 2) the Tiger ambush and 3-on-1 tank scrum that follows. The battle scenes reminded me of one of my very first PBEM games with CMBN, where I was doing the same dumb stuff we get to see those - supposedly - extremely experienced tankers do in the movie.

 

Still waiting for a good biopic about Audie Murphy, though. Plenty of action and drama there to be appreciated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As do nearly all museum artifacts. The first mission is to ensure their preservation. If this can be done while using them in movies, that's great. But a major consideration is to cover possible damage including from just moving them around. We are not accustomed to thinking of tanks as especially fragile (!), but mechanically they often were, especially the kitties. And authentic spares for them do not exactly grow on trees. Replica parts can be very expensive and hard to fabricate, and museum budgets do have limits, as do film makers.

 

Michael

 

I do understand all of that. It just makes me sad to see tanks driving around parking lots. I would love to see an event where museums and collectors bring their tanks to Salisbury Plain, or Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and drive around blowing stuff up. Maybe another 50 years in the future we can just 3D print some tanks and do exactly that...

 

 

Maybe filmmakers could give real German tanks another shot? How about a Bulge film with this in it? Belgium's only one country over, after all.

 

That proud and noble thing, forged in the fires of industry, with thick armor, and a big gun, relegated to a tourists photo op. It should be stomping around the countryside, destroying everything in it's path, leaving a trail of fire and mayhem in it's wake!

 

Hot damn! Tanks are so cool! I love them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That proud and noble thing, forged in the fires of industry, with thick armor, and a big gun, relegated to a tourists photo op. It should be stomping around the countryside, destroying everything in it's path, leaving a trail of fire and mayhem in it's wake!

 

Hot damn! Tanks are so cool! I love them!

 

Well said, SLIM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the negativity. You guys really suck.

You almost wrecked the movie for me before I even watched it.

Yes, does the scenes play out like they would in real life. Heavens No. But really, do they in any movie. Really, Maybe Band of Brothers, since they were trying to mimic the real stories.

But, let me think, what other movie has focused on Tank warfare and gave you so much camera time on Armour and tried to delve into the mindset of the crew and so forth. (actually there has been a few). None even close to as good as this.

Just two comments about the final scene which is easy to insult, since you all want to. There is comments about how impossible it would be for the germans to be so stupid about coming up on the crossroads like they did. All I will say here is do some more reading. I have read actual accounts at the Battle of the Bulge of just as stupid stuff. There was plenty of incompetent small unit leaders by this point in the war. Now if you want to complain, by April 45, I would say it would be almost impossible to even find a German unit like that, that was anything of a coordinated fighting unit.

The second comment about the fact they would never have stayed and fought. Again I will disagree, it is in the realm of possible happening. There is many studies that show how soldiers at some point somewhat give up on the fact that they will make it alive through a conflict and will do things that endanger themselves because of their present mental state. And normally it is for the saving of someone elses life. Which if you recall they were to stop the germans from getting into their rear area troops, which would be a blood bath.

Very likely, no. But have men sacrificed their life's for others before . We all know the answer.

Edited by slysniper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The film is a good action movie set in WWII.

If you look at many WWII 'classics' they are in the same mould. Great action, gritty, sometimes giving you an insight into what the characters are thinking etc... but not always trying to portray historical accuracy.

I can say though that I thoroughly enjoyed the film :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...