JonS Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Um, I did read the entire post. I may not necessarily agree with his POV, but he was certainly not limiting himself to just movies, as was clear from his post. You, on the other hand, were. He's talking about telling stories, rather than specifically telling-stories-through-movies. Sure, many folk wouldn't know their arze from their elbow WRT WWII, and things like SPR did generate an interest broad enough to spill over into other media. Emrys' cynicism about the decision making process in Hollywood is well founded, and it would be fair to say that - artistically - Hollywood is pretty much a wasteland. But you know, they keep making movies that people go and see, and they keep making money. And guess what - the sixth or seventh SPR-like "movie about the real experiences of the US soldier in WWII" released in a short space of time is going to be a total bomb. That's why not many "Normandy stories" get told on celluloid. Shoot, I probably wouldn't go see more than the first 2 or 3. Oh, wait. No one is allowed to riff on anyone else's ideas. You know, this new rule of yours is going to severely retard teh intarwaebs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 And concur about TRL - that was revisionist tripe. Oh, I don't know about that. I kind of have it mentally classified as "not a war movie", and possibly "french art-house". I mean, it literally is a war film, because it has, you know, soldiers. And guns. And stuff. But ... oh, heck. I don't know. Like I said - I didn't get it :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 How many films have there been which featured or even depicted one of the Duplex Drive tanks, or showed what life was like for an M4 (or any other kind of tank) crew? Maybe Pixar would be interested in a movie about DD tanks ("The little tank that could"?) but I don't personally see the point, and I don't want to lament the lack of formulaic bilge. Wargamers are no different from other 'special interest groups'. Bridezillas want to see more wedding movies, dog lovers want to see more pet films, and frat boys want to see Adam Sandler comedies. Personally I'd much rather see a truly good movie about any topic, rather than a mediocre one about something that I love. And I know better than to expect a truly good war movie. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 actually Antietam was the bloodiest small-arms battle in American History: The battle was over by 5:30 p.m. Losses for the day were heavy on both sides. The Union had 12,401 casualties with 2,108 dead. Confederate casualties were 10,318 with 1,546 dead. This represented 25% of the Federal force and 31% of the Confederate. More Americans died on September 17, 1862, than on any other day in the nation's military history, including World War II's D-Day... ..but when did history ever get in the way of movie marketing... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antietam 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 My impression has long been that no Hollywood (or similar) movie will ever be not at least a little bit propagandistic (and thus somewhat unhistorical), because in Hollywood there's always an axe to grind -- if a movie doesn't have an axe to grind, no one will fund it, and so it won't see the light of day. In light of that, it's no surprise that, just to name one example, in Saving Private Ryan there happened to be an awoved Jewish GI and he happened to be knifed to death by a Waffen-SS soldier. ...the short bombing during 'Cobra'... In watching Flags Of Our Fathers, the hair on the back of my neck stood up during those long-distance shots of bombers making their runs on Mount Suribachi because instead of just showing the bombers flying overhead and then a line of fire-and-smoke explosions on the ground, you could actually see the bombs pouring from the planes. These details have nothing to do with making dramatic, engaging movies because that's character and dialogue and story, and tanks and ballistics are beside the point. When a tank fires its cannon in a movie, why is it that they almost never make the barrel recoil as if the cannon actually fired but instead just put a flashpot (non-technical term) in the barrel? And you rarely (if ever) see tanks at anything beyond effectively point-blank range to the infantry (oftentimes because the infantry are the main characters). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Battle of the Bulge. I win. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Ah, yes, the unforgettable scenes of tanks on the attack, charging past the blowing tumbleweeds of the Ardennes plateau... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 So, yeah, that movie was taking the pith a bit with respect to suspension of disbelief, but as far as I'm concerned stuff like effects and equipment and setting are secondary to a really good story with really good characters, told well. Take the original Star Wars - the SFX were pretty poor (although beyond cutting edge for the time, I suppose), but the characters were engaging and the story was credible. Compare that to ... the one with Jar Jar Binks. Outstanding SFX, but who cares? The movie sucked donkey dong. Same with war movies. I don't really care whether they used the wrong helmet chin straps in SPR, or bad tactics at the radar station - the movie was ok. I don't care whether the bomb in in Pearl Harbor followed a ballistic trajectory or not - the movie was just bad, on so many levels. Good story well told >> everything else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Oh, no - can't have the wrong chin strap! I won't go see it then! I took heart from SPR that perhaps we would start to see some decent war movies. It was a disappointment on some levels, but fulfilling on others. BOB was near perfect, AFAIC and should be a model for war films, be they a series or single productions. On the issue of tank movies, I absolutely agree. Almost every one I've seen sucked to some degree. The Beast was at least dramatic and dynamic, with a very interesting twist in the location and characters. Bogart's Sahara at least showed an M-3 off nicely and was the first tank film to hook me, when I was just a kid in the '50's and saw it on TV. It would be great if someone did a really good tank movie from the American perspective. Or TD's for that matter. Years ago I read a pretty good novel called Barbara, which was about an M-10 TD crew. Pretty intense IIRC - but that was in the '60's and the author may have been a veteran. On the Brit side, Crisp's Brazen Chariots would be excellent grist for a film. Not that there are many M3 Stewart's running around these days, but heck, a mockup could be made...look at the running M3 medium mockup they made for that John Belushi movie, 1941. It was really impressive. Anyway, there are stories to be told out there and it just takes someone with belief in them to get them to the screen. I don't begrudge Dale Dye for his attempt with the film that this thread is about - it's a legitimate subject, the public already knows a bit about it and if he is riding the wave, so what? Assuming the film is well made and reasonably true to history, then the public gets educated and guys like me get entertained. Not everyone is going to plow new ground, like my Ukrainian friend may be able to do some day with his WW2 film. I just don't want the era and its stories forgotten - or totally screwed up in the retelling, either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Take the original Star Wars - the SFX were pretty poor (although beyond cutting edge for the time, I suppose), but the characters were engaging and the story was credible. Boy, are you easy to please! I groaned all through the first episode (counting dates of release). The second episode was the best of the series, and then it was pretty much all downhill from there. Crappy bunch of flicks and Lucas is a horse's behind as far as I am concerned. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrocles Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I was speaking of Hollywood doing this particular historical event...AFAIK, it has not been done in a movie treatment before. Of course I've read of it in several different books. That's not what I meant. And I do wish Hollywood (and other nation's movie centers) would do more in this vein - telling the stories of soldiers from this era - with some semblance of historical accuracy. SPR was fine cinematography, but wasn't history; Enemy at the Gates was a fine love story - but wasn't history. Etc, etc. Now I only hope that the global economic situation clears up, so I can start leaning on my Ukrainian movie producer friend again, to do the WW2 movie he has been thinking about for several years now. He's got an interesting story to tell, based upon a real event from the war, where the Germans had a small Red Army unit cut off behind their lines and basically let it be for a while - and when they tried to break out, it was their own side that cut them down as they tried to enter the main Red Army lines. Sad but all too typical and true. Too dismally bleak for a movie, you say? Well, it's a Ukrainian thing - what else do you expect from a people whose anthem, roughly translated, goes "Ukraine is not yet dead"...? nice! I wish I was rich enough to provide you and your friend with substantial funding for your film. As long as they don't make a piece of celluloid **** like Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" OT... I used to love watching teh show Dogfights on the history channel. However, I grew bored with the series when a pattern quickly developed - US kicking German butts, US kicking Japanese butts, US kicking N. Korean butts, US kicking German butts again, US kicking N. Vietnamese butts, US kicking German butts, US kicking more Japanese butts, etc etc (I think they tossed in a Brits kicking German butts and Israeli kicking Arab butts). ok, ok, i get it already, the U.S. and its allies are AWESOME!!! I guess this bias towards US victories makes sense - it's a US production, US audience, US funding(?), easy to find the US combat pilots. I thought it would have been more fascinating if they showed the battle from, say, a N. Vietnamese or N. Korean pilots point of view in going up against the most powerful air force in the world! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 So a short film rather than a movie?! :D:D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 nice! I wish I was rich enough to provide you and your friend with substantial funding for your film. As long as they don't make a piece of celluloid **** like Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" OT... I used to love watching teh show Dogfights on the history channel. However, I grew bored with the series when a pattern quickly developed - US kicking German butts, US kicking Japanese butts, US kicking N. Korean butts, US kicking German butts again, US kicking N. Vietnamese butts, US kicking German butts, US kicking more Japanese butts, etc etc (I think they tossed in a Brits kicking German butts and Israeli kicking Arab butts). ok, ok, i get it already, the U.S. and its allies are AWESOME!!! I guess this bias towards US victories makes sense - it's a US production, US audience, US funding(?), easy to find the US combat pilots. I thought it would have been more fascinating if they showed the battle from, say, a N. Vietnamese or N. Korean pilots point of view in going up against the most powerful air force in the world! Or for that matter, a Soviet pilot in N. Vietnam going against the US air power. There were a few, it seems. Probably Soviets and Chinese in N. Korea in the 50's too. Off topic, but what I'm still actively trying to do is convince my film producer friend (and a banker I know there) to make a really good, epic film about the Crimean War. It has all the major movie-going nationalities involved - even Americans, if you do your homework. I'll call you guys if I need any extras. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Well, it's a Ukrainian thing - what else do you expect from a people whose anthem, roughly translated, goes "Ukraine is not yet dead"...? The Ukraine is STRONG! Slams fist into the Risk board. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The Ukraine is STRONG! Slams fist into the Risk board. Regards Jim R. <Gunnergoz grabs the vodka bottle before it spills onto the Risk board> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Probably Soviets and Chinese in N. Korea in the 50's too. More than probable. IIRC there was a magazine article a couple of years back that mentioned some Soviet aces in Korea. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I don't really care whether they used the wrong helmet chin straps in SPR, or bad tactics at the radar station. But what if a movie about GIs in Normandy were to show them most of them using M1903 Springfields instead of M1 Garands? That might seem like too obvious a gaffe to be possible, but that's not too far off from what was done in the end battle of Saving Private Ryan: in a number of shots you can see either an MG34 or an MG42 carried by the German troops in that scene, but at no point in that entire battle does any of them ever fire. There's even one shot (perhaps more) of that 20mm FlaK gun being manhandled while another German soldier puts an MG42 into position. Not only is it a glaring omission for the Germans not to be employing their LMGs (which in reality formed the lynchpin of their squad-level tactics), it's even more ludicrous in the context of them bothering to use a 20mm FlaK gun as if it were an über-caliber LMG on a wheeled carriage. But then again, the Rangers and Airborne troops didn't bother to use the bazooka(s) they had (you can see one resting against an exterior wall in at least one shot). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 You've only scratched the surface of the errors in SPR, but they are mistakes that only a grog or wargamer would notice. It doesn't really make that much difference to the story. (My pet one is the fact that the tanks never fire their machine guns at infantry. But there are so many more... I bet there's an old thread somewhere in the forum archives that lists them all.) But then again, the Rangers and Airborne troops didn't bother to use the bazooka(s) they had (you can see one resting against an exterior wall in at least one shot). Actually, they did. Sgt Horvath (sp?) used one. Also, it was specifically mentioned that the Airborne were critically low on certain weapons and ammo, so that detail's covered. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The last two posts are exactly what I was talking about. SPR isn't a documentary, I don't watch it for tactics (although I *have* watched bits of it as part of a LOAC brief). Like any movie I watch it for the story. I don't give a flying fig if the tactics aren't quite right - that has nothing to do with the story. Focussing on the SFX of any movie (and in this I include your entire post, D) at the expense of story tells me more about you than it does about the movie. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popfreak Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Dye, better hire some black actors or else Spike Lee will be pissed. Speaking of Lee's movie. It came out on RedBox this week, it wasnt worth the $1 it cost to rent it... Pop 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watch-man Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 SPR isn't a documentary, I don't watch it for tactics (although I *have* watched bits of it as part of a LOAC brief). Like any movie I watch it for the story. I don't give a flying fig if the tactics aren't quite right - that has nothing to do with the story. And if you were some sort of acknowledged expert on tactics, perhaps your reluctance to grade the film based on their portrayal of same might mean something. Hearing that an African bushman refused to judge "The Natural" on the accuracy of its baseball scenes wouldn't impress me much either. Anyway, let's get back to the subject at hand: No part of Normandy landings is an untold story, at least from the American perspective. I was speaking of Hollywood doing this particular historical event...AFAIK, it has not been done in a movie treatment before. Of course I've read of it in several different books. That's not what I meant. I stand by my statement that With the unfortunate exception of every single part of them. The films to date are a unique bunch * D-Day The Sixth of June * Saving Private Ryan * The Longest Day * The Big Red One (vignette only) * Band of Brothers (television episode) but mostly older now and certainly don't cover the entire experience of the landings. Movies are about character and story; the suggestion that suitable film ideas can't be found with the Normandy invasion as a background seems silly, especially given all the facets of the landings that have been covered so superficially and many, "even from the American perspective" that haven't been covered at all. Beyond that, how many have been told from the German point of view? From the French? I can think of one - The Blockhouse (1973, starring Peter Sellers), about French labourers trapped inside a coastal defence bunker for six years after Allied shelling sealed them underground. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 From the French? The Longest Day had quite a bit about the French Commandos and the Resistance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 And if you were some sort of acknowledged expert on tactics, perhaps your reluctance to grade the film based on their portrayal of same might mean something. Hearing that an African bushman refused to judge "The Natural" on the accuracy of its baseball scenes wouldn't impress me much either. Would you have an African bushman who was a professional baseball player refuse to judge "The Natural" on the accuracy of its baseball scenes? Just with JonS being a professional soldier and all (even if it IS the artillery). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watch-man Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Would you have an African bushman who was a professional baseball player refuse to judge "The Natural" on the accuracy of its baseball scenes? Just with JonS being a professional soldier and all (even if it IS the artillery). We had discussed letting other people speak for themselves earlier in this thread. If JonS wants to introduce his resume into evidence, he's free to do so. I'd be very leery of using 2009 era experience as an artilleryman to claim expertise in 1944 era infantry tactics, but if he wants to go down that road, that's his call, not yours. If you wanted to post something more relevant to the thread topic, though, and avoid simply stoking the embers of a flame war, I'd be interested to read it. Do you have an opinion on, say, films about the Normandy invasion? Because that's what I was hoping to discuss. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 We had discussed letting other people speak for themselves earlier in this thread. If JonS wants to introduce his resume into evidence, he's free to do so. I'd be very leery of using 2009 era experience as an artilleryman to claim expertise in 1944 era infantry tactics, but if he wants to go down that road, that's his call, not yours. If you wanted to post something more relevant to the thread topic, though, and avoid simply stoking the embers of a flame war, I'd be interested to read it. Do you have an opinion on, say, films about the Normandy invasion? Because that's what I was hoping to discuss. You're not the thread police and this is not your thread. It's not for you to say what is or is not discussed or who can or cannot say what. I've given my thoughts on the movie and the reasoning behind it on the first page. You're welcome to comment on them if you wish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.