von Lucke Posted February 9, 2000 Share Posted February 9, 2000 BDW: I don't know if you're just wiggling my twig here or what, but if you're looking for a good story about WW2 from the "other" side, you couldn't do better than "the Forgotten Soldier" by Guy Sajer. Though there's some controversy over whether Msr. Sajer was actually ever involved in the story he tells, it's still a damn fine story: A common German soldier's first hand account of his experiences on the Russian Front. His description of the action around Belgorod, in it's mundane terror (if you can put those two words together), is one of the best accounts of any war I've ever read. [This message has been edited by von Lucke (edited 02-09-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixman Posted February 9, 2000 Share Posted February 9, 2000 Mark IV. Those were fruit bats, not tropical birds, lol. In fact I think one was "Eric the Fruit Bat". ------------------ Fact is the enemy of truth. - Don Quixote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerLeader Posted February 9, 2000 Share Posted February 9, 2000 John Kettler, I have seen Stalingrad and I think it is great. However this is the only EF movie available out there(I'm not talking about all the ones that are good but impossible to find anywhere). In comparison to the amount of pro-american **** movies covering the Ardennes offensive of 44 or Normandy... And what about a movie on the early war 39-41? Anything wrong with that? Are the people so scared about watching german Blitzkrieg beating up the Allies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted February 9, 2000 Share Posted February 9, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PanzerLeader: John Kettler, I have seen Stalingrad and I think it is great. However this is the only EF movie available out there(I'm not talking about all the ones that are good but impossible to find anywhere). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Umm what about The Iron Cross?!? I seem to remember that one taking place in the Ost Front! At least here it took all of about 5 minutes at the local video store to locate and purchase although YMMV (thats Your Mileage May Vary" and it took me forever to figure that one out! ) Madmatt... p.s. I just recently figured out "IIRC" ------------------ If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ! combathq.thegamers.net [This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 02-09-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWIIRulz Posted February 9, 2000 Share Posted February 9, 2000 I thought SPR was a great movie but one thing I couldnt understand is why when they came upon the MG42 guarding the radar tower they sent the medic up (who had no weapon because of the Geneva convention) to help take the 42 out and have Uppham sit back and watch? That made no sense. What could the medic do? But all and all I think it was a good movie and to the ones complaining about it remember - Its just a movie- You can't get every historical aspect right, that would take forever! Hmm for example Look at CM. There are many things that are going to be left out of the game because of time restrictions so CM isnt going to be a "totally historic" game but does that make it a bad game? NO of course not, same goes with SPR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted February 9, 2000 Share Posted February 9, 2000 SPR is definately ONE of the best War movies I've seen, which is best is kinda hard to say. All I do know though is that they're making way to much crap compared to the gems like SPR. Btw Dreamworks are doing research on the Norwegian Commando raid at Vemork heavy water plant for a possible movie on the feat. Kinda cool from a Norwegian standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDW Posted February 9, 2000 Share Posted February 9, 2000 van Lucke - thanks for the info. No twigs are being wiggled, BTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted February 10, 2000 Share Posted February 10, 2000 Madmatt: You mean, perhaps, "Cross of Iron"? One of Pekinpah's more interesting efforts --- and being a former NCO myself, I always kinda identified with Steiner's attitude toward officers... howardb: Actually, what Dreamworks is doing is looking at re-making an old Kirk Douglas movie called "The Heroes of Telemark" (1965), that dealt with just that subject. BDW: So what's the name of your production company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDW Posted February 10, 2000 Share Posted February 10, 2000 Berg-Saccani Entertainment. New Co. formed by two ex studio execs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted February 10, 2000 Share Posted February 10, 2000 Hell, they just need a couple of us to be "Historical Consultants" and just apply some common sense to scenes, tactics, weapons etc. Just get 2 or 3 wargamers on the set, pay them a small amount to compensate them for being there and let them keep some cool uniforms and appear in the film. 2 to 3 guys means you'll get arguments about all the details etc and come up with good consensus opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDW Posted February 10, 2000 Share Posted February 10, 2000 Fionn - I agree, and it has to happen at the conceptual stage, before writing even begins. The key is to find some historical event that lends itself to a good film without having to alter the facts in order satisfy the "rules" of filmmaking and story structure. Then the challenge is to stay TRUE to the historical event from a technical and story perspective. Has there been a war film yet that has done this? What about "Hamburger Hill"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren J Pierson Posted February 10, 2000 Share Posted February 10, 2000 Long and sometimes meandering post below. One of the nice things about this board is the global perspective that gets shared that allows some of us to expand our horizons a bit. (When the board isn't trying to barbeque somebody as seems to be happening a lot lately ) I must admit though that I am surprised at all of the anti-American comments that keep popping up, especially regarding the movies. As a Canadian living in the U.S. (and teaching U.S. history at the college level, btw) I feel that I tend to see both sides of the issue and I readily admit that most American students are woefully unfamiliar with non-U.S. history. (Of course, they are about the same with U.S. history as well.) However, I don't feel that it is fair to attack American movies for being pro-American. As mentioned earlier, by Los, I think (my apologies if I am wrong) there would be nothing wrong for the British to do their own movie with a British slant. When I saw SPR, I loved it, but I must admit that I felt a small twinge of "Hey! Canada was there too!" But, it was an American movie made for profit. Isn't it a little unfair to jump on Americans for making a movie for themselves? No one would really care if Canadians produced a gung ho pro-Canadian movie. (Of course, who would ever know? ) Unfortunately, I don't think that Eastern Front movies have much of an appeal in the U.S. movie market, and that is what Hollywood has to deal with to a large extent. Mr. Spielberg made a great movie for his intended audience. Besides, even with all of SPR's flaws, I can't tell you how many college freshmen it has motivated to read books on the subject and even ask questions in class. For that, I will be eternally grateful to Mr. Spielberg. I would love to see more historically accurate movies out there, but most movie makers aren't historians and never will be. (Nor should they be.) Simply put, it isn't their jobs to be historians. I cringe at some of their efforts, but I welcome the interest that it spawns. I was lucky enough to attend a talk last week by John F. Marszalek who wrote the book that the movie Assault at West Point was based on, and he said he was very lucky to have a director/producer who really cared about accuracy. A very atypical experience, to say the least, and even then the movie took a path that the historian would not have done. (Focusing on the two defense attorneys.) Anyway, I will wind down now. I just wanted to point out that I think it is a little unfair to criticize Americans for being pro-American, especially *in their entertainment* and that is what SPR and TRL were, entertainment. BTW, this is not targeted at anyone in particular and is not meant as an attack on anyone. Just enjoying a good healthy debate. [This message has been edited by Darren J Pierson (edited 02-09-2000).] [This message has been edited by Darren J Pierson (edited 02-09-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumbo Posted February 10, 2000 Share Posted February 10, 2000 "Anyway, I will wind down now. I just wanted to point out that I think it is a little unfair to criticize Americans for being pro-American, especially *in their entertainment* and that is what SPR and TRL were, entertainment. " Thats fine. I dont have to watch it and I certainly wont watch any other WW2 Speilberg propaganda again. The rest of you can enjoy it to your hearts content That said if its Ok for Speilberg to spout his propaganda I am certainly entitled to spout my own. [This message has been edited by dumbo (edited 02-09-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDW Posted February 10, 2000 Share Posted February 10, 2000 In my opinion, the problem with Spielberg movies, in general, is that they manipulate the audience. Spielberg wants everyone to come out of the theatre feeling the same way. Liam Neeson noticing the red colored jacket in the black and white world. Tom Hank's hand shaking. etc etc. Not too many interpretations left for the audience after those kinds of devices are used... In other words, his films lack real subtext and do not challenge the audience. Of course, American audiences love this type of filmmaking because it makes them feel intelligent when really they have just been steered into an intellectual dead end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted February 10, 2000 Share Posted February 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Darren wrote No one would really care if Canadians produced a gung ho pro-Canadian movie. (Of course, who would ever know?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Didn't you see "The Wars?" Best mini-series I ever saw. Not sure if it qualifies as gung ho though, what with the main character being a weenie and all... ------------------ Floreat Jerboa ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe Posted February 10, 2000 Share Posted February 10, 2000 SPR was a great movie. Ficticious but linking to reality. My absolute favorite war movie was Apocalypse Now. I saw it when I was ten. it has taken years to figure out the effect it had. I was scared. Ficticious, was it. The psychological effects of war. Very loose on the Vietnam War but I can imagine how frightful and chaotic it was to experience it. I break out in a cold sweat watching it. The Nam Vets must turn their heads and cry. Hats off my friends. Scary as hell. My love and support to all of our Vets!!!!!! All of must be honored by their sacrifices!!!! Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren J Pierson Posted February 10, 2000 Share Posted February 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: Didn't you see "The Wars?" Best mini-series I ever saw. Not sure if it qualifies as gung ho though, what with the main character being a weenie and all... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, no I haven't seen "The Wars?" AFAIK. Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Darren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted February 10, 2000 Share Posted February 10, 2000 Hey Canadian's, eh. Didn't you see the mini-series all about the raid on Dieppe? I cannot remember what it was called, possibly "The Raid on Dieppe". Anyway, it dealt with one battalion which landed on one of the main beaches. They were shredded. It didn't have the Special effects of SPR, but, it got the hopless message across. I find it really interesting when it is described as a Commonwealth raid or an Allied Raid, 90% of all troops involved were Canadians. You thought that the landing's on Omaha were tough? Think of Spielburg doing a recreation of the landing at Dieppe. Way much more carnage and hopelessness, without all of the fancy weapons to back them up. Frankly, this would make a most intense movie, better than another rehash of the 'Battle of the Bulge'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted February 10, 2000 Share Posted February 10, 2000 There's a level in the game Medal of Honor for PSX that deals with Heavy Water and D20 and the Norwegians. Man I love that game despite the historical inaccuracies. ------------------ Visit my webpage! http://cm4mac.tripod.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted February 10, 2000 Share Posted February 10, 2000 The Wars was a CBC mini-series about disillusionment in the First World War à la Remarque and Sassoon. It was very well done. The Dieppe mini-series was a noble effort, but didn't hit the mark, being too heavily hindered by budget constraints and political interference. I can't imagine a harder battle to translate into a film anyway. It would take a Spielberg to do it right. ------------------ Floreat Jerboa ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren J Pierson Posted February 10, 2000 Share Posted February 10, 2000 Babra and Major Tom, Thanks for the info. I will try to track those down. Darren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoop88 Posted February 10, 2000 Share Posted February 10, 2000 Dear BDW: Read your posts soliciting ideas for scripts to do war movies. This is not World War II, but I think it has all the ingredients of a great movie based on an actual event. If you are familiar with Civil War history, you have no doubt read about The Crater during the Union army's siege of Petersburg, Va., in the summer of 1864. If not, in summary: Grant's and Lee's armies had deadlocked outside Petersburg in a trench war that was later to become common on the Western Front in World War I. To break the deadlock, a bunch of Union soldiers who were Pennsylvania coal miners came up with the idea of digging a tunnel from the Union trenches to the Confederate trenches, packing explosives under the Confederate trench, then blowing it up, creating a big hole through which an infantry assault would breach the line and open a direct route to Petersburg and Richmond, resulting in the destruction of Lee's army and the end of the war. The Union's engineering officers poo-pooed the idea saying no tunnel of that length could be built, but the Union commander in that sector of the line, Ambrose Burnside, told the coal miners to go ahead. So with no official support, and having to scrounge the tools they needed, they still succeeded in digging the tunnel. A Negro unit was picked by Burnside to lead the assault. Of course, the notion of using Negro soldiers at that time was considered an insult by Confederates and most Union troops. But the unit was fully trained in the tactics to follow up the explosion and exploit the breakthrough. The night before the attack Grant and the Union army commander, Meade, told Burnside not to use the Negroes for fear the attack would fail, the Negroes would be slaughtered, and Lincoln would be blamed and possibly lose the presidential election that November. (His popularity was already low among many war-weary Northerners.) So Burnside had the units draw straws, and the one that drew the straw to attack turned out to be led by an officer who holed himself up in his dugout, got drunk, and never was on hand to lead the attack. His unit, which was untrained in the special tactics needed to exploit the breakthrough, panicked when the Confederate trench blew up and instead of exploiting the huge hole that resulted, cowered in the crater. Burnside kept sending more men (including the Negroes) into the breech, and instead of fanning out and rolling up the Confederate lines, they too sought shelter in the crater. After awhile the Confederates reacted, and their men just stood on the rim of the crater and fired into the mass of humanity in it. Many Confederates apparently yelled "take the white man, kill the nigger" and deliberately killed many of the Negroes who tried to surrender. The attack failed miserably, and the North lost a golden chance to win the war. Instead it dragged on for nine more months, and many people needlessly died before the North finally won. This story has many subplots that would lend itself to a script: 1. Racism 2. Politics (Generals changing a sound tactical plan to save Lincoln from possible blame if the attack failed.) 3. Cowardice (The Union leader of the attack getting drunk and not being at the battle) 4. Character conflict (Burnside had been the commander of the Army of the Potomac in 1862 and had a sound tactical plan go awry resulting in a slaughter of Union soldiers at Fredericksburg December 1862 ... just like the Crater. Meade had been Burnside's subordinate in 1862. By 1864 the roles were reversed, and there was no love lost between the two.) 5. Ingenuity vs. authority (the coal miners with their unorthodox idea vs. the engineering "experts") 6. Great visuals (The exploding trench, the assault, the slaughter in the Crater) The Civil War is an immensely popular topic in the U.S. (witness the success of Ken Burnes' documentary a couple years ago), and a well-done film should have great appeal to movie-goers. There is also no lack of documents that can be researched to come up with an accurate screenplay. Besides the many books on the Petersburg siege, there was also an extensive Army inquiry into the Crater after the war and the testimony of all the participants (Grant, Meade, Burnside and many others) should be easy to find. I'm a writer and I've often thought of writing a novel based on the Crater. Funny how my regular job and my family activities keep postponing my plans! Anyway, hope this is useful. And one other WW2 topic: Marines storming Betio atoll (commonly referred to as Tarawa) One WW2 ex-Marine told me he had heard that somebody in the chain of command screwed up and ordered the invasion at low tide instead of high tide. Result was that on one sector Marines had to wade 400 yards from their landing craft, which couldn't get over a coral reef at low tide, to the beach, under intense Japanese fire. The few Japanese who survived the battle were in awe that the Marines kept coming through that storm of machine-gun fire. And all for a pitifully small island that had an airstrip. I've never read any convincing justification for taking the island; seems to me the island could have been bypassed (as happened with Rabaul) and the garrison left to wither on the vine. The entire assault succeeded by the slimmest of margins. Lots of good movie elements here: many examples of individual heroism; wholesale slaughter of good troops; fight-to-the death Japanese defenders, etc. etc. If you're interested in anything more from me let me know. I tried your e-mail address and got a reply that the message was undeliverable. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanE Posted February 10, 2000 Share Posted February 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by scoop88: Dear BDW: If you are familiar with Civil War history... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ahhh...the American Civil War. Finally a topic that I know something about. Okay, now that I got my smile in for the day I'm back to taking notes from the WWII masters here. ------------------ Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted February 11, 2000 Share Posted February 11, 2000 One battle that would be great for a movie (or better yet for a CM operation) is Mortain. Here, the 30th infantry division, most spectacularly the 2nd Battalion, 120th Infantry Regiment on Hill 314, held off an attack by elements of the 2nd SS "Panzer Lehr", the 1st SS Panzer "Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler", 116th Panzer, and17th SS Panzergrenadier divisions. Individual heroism abounded. There was also great drama, the GI's growing despair as the last of the radio batteries ran out, the failed attempts at inserting plasma and other medical supplies to the surrounded troops. Their stand also had broader implications, as the German attack fixed them to the area around Mortain, making the Falaise pocket possible. Check out http://www.concentric.net/~cvlv692/page6.htm or read Ambrose's Citizen Solider for more detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. Sosaboski Posted February 11, 2000 Share Posted February 11, 2000 How about a movie on the Invasion of Poland? This way, people can find out that, no, the Polish Air Force was NOT destroyed on the ground, and NO Poland was not just another country swept away. Also, this would help bring to mind that no one helped. Sorry, just had to get that out. Dieppe-now that'd be a good movie subject. I can see it now... ------------------ Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn. Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts