Kanonier Reichmann Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: I have a question, why do people get angry when America makes movies about Americans? Surely there has to be movies by Brits about Brits or by Canadians about Canadians! Or is this just a weird acceptance that America (Hollywood) makes better films and you wish they'd do one about you country? Cav <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Cav lets not be at each others throats on this but where did I mention anywhere about getting angry at Americans making movies about Americans. I didn't say it & if you took my complaint about TTRL movie as proving this point I can only say you've completely misinterpreted me. All I'm saying is that ONE film I thought was a pile of wombat droppings in terms of its realism & portrayal of your typical GI. I personally love other films such as SPR, The Longest Day, Kelly Heroes etc. but I definitely draw the line at The Thin Red Line. Now if only someone did a movie on the original Thin Red Line consisting of a handful (relatively speaking) of British line infantry holding out against massed cavalry charges in the Crimean War. That WOULD be worth seeing. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted October 17, 2000 Author Share Posted October 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Sorry, I just had to say it. Oh, and one other thing. Who else but me thought that the Japanese manning those 2 MG posts in their prime location must have been pretty bloody stupid not to think to hurl some hand grenades at those all of 5 or so Yanks below them. How idiotic can you get? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Truth be told that scene actually happened. It was taken right out of the written testimonies of soldiers who were there. That Captain, that John Cusack played, actually got the Medal of Honor for that. Kind of weird that one of the most unbelievable scenes actually happened. Anyway... I still think the movie sucked. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Cav lets not be at each others throats on this but where did I mention anywhere about getting angry at Americans making movies about Americans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This was not meant to be directed at you specifically. I just used your post to jump in. Just that I am getting a vibe that some non-Americans seem a bit POed that we make films about ourselves. Sometimes I think people confuse fictional films with historical or documentaries. Cav ------------------ "Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "Wehrmact penis envy."--D. Bolger Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade "AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."-- Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 emsixteen: Soldier Boys sounds a lot like Uncommon Valor. Now THERE is a winner! as for deep thought by Jack Handey while in combat, no I wasn't there. Just seemed awfully unbelievable to me. I will give you the cinematography! It was fantastic. The fight scenes and the beautiful camera shots were the best parts of the movie for me and are the only reason I'd watch it again. I'm not against deep movies, I actually like them. I just couldn't believe that these particular characters would be that deep. It didn't work for me. ------------------ "Nuts!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lopkhan Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Originally posted by ibucephalus: "I find it odd that some people on this thread are claiming Apocalypse Now is the novel Heart of Darkness set in 'Nam. Put your bong down for a moment guys and get over to the library. Beyond a river and Kurtz, the movie is not like the novel at all. In the book, Marlow is a steam boat captain travelling down river and the moral change that happens within him. The character in Apocalyse Now doesn't undergo any change. He's an assassin at the start and an assassin at the end. " Ibucephalus you missed the connection. The movie is not really an adaptation, but is loosely based on the book and contains linking references. While the name links the characters of Col. Kurtz in the movie to Kurtz in the book, I believe the true link is between Col. Kurtz and Marlow. The moral change actually happened to Col. Kurtz prior to Willard meeting up with him which he discusses with him. This change is why Willard was sent to kill him in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 I liked The Thin Red Line. Dunno. I found its good points were good enough to make me overlook the bad. I certainly didn't find it either long or boring. Or unrealistic, for that matter. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by emsixteen: As far as bad movies, check out "Soldier Boyz". Holy christ. In this one, a former marine who was in Vietnam recruits prisoners to go back to Vietnam and rescue a hostage. Horrible plot, bad visuals and acting. Garbage! -Harry<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not to mention poor spelling. ------------------ Cats aren't clean, they're covered with cat spit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Blitzkrieg Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 I have to agree with this statment... This movie got way to hollywood when the p-51 stangs suddenly saved the day... i think it would of had a bigger impact if they all died at the end or most died and some were captured...room for a part 2!...oh and Matt Damon was a casting mistake...aside from Damon and the last 20-30 mins, it was bad ass... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeterNZer: I dunno... last half hour of Saving Private Ryan kinda ticked me off. After the amazing opening, you return to the old cliche of the religious sniper, the farm boy, the pacifist medic.. the silent, stoic captain.. *sigh*. The germans should have used more flames on them, the cardboard cutouts would have been easy to take down then. PeterNZ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by STRAKER: Enemy at the gates has had 100+ million spent on it, the most expensive for a European movie. Hmm that will be interesting. Stalingrad was a nasty war. If that movie isnt an NC17 STATES - R18 NZ i dont want to see it. SPR was R18 because it depicted realistic war scenes. If Enemy at the gates is a kiddies movie im gonna be pissed off. I have heard theres a love story going on in it to hmm. Pearl Harbour is apparently a love story as well, about a WOMAN torn between two men. What a crock! Part II!!!!!! There wont be much fighting in that, i mean how long did the attack go on for,( how much fuel did jap planes have 20 minutes or so to fight with) cause thats about how long the attack scene will last and thats it. The rest will prob be sucky sucky kiss kiss. The future of war movies looks grim. More movie stroy emphasis is now on fighting one another over woman, than the actual enemy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Enemy at the Gates looked good...until i read entertainment weekly where they mentioned a love scene in a tunnel between the guy and gal while surrounded by sleeping soldiers... W...T...F? as for pearl harbor, it IS a bruckheimer film so i'm more worried that he might make the explosions of us ships blowing up a little too bombastic. The trailer looks cool, jap planes zipping in at low level, camera following the dropped bombs in, real explosions used to show the damages, not cgi. can people explain why they didn't like midway? i thought it was reasonably accurate and entertaining. they mentioned the important and not so important elements: ensign gay's fate, the code breaking, coral sea, yorktown's damages, the japenese decision to refuel/rearm their planes... edited because i called "enemy at the gates" "stalingrad" when they are actually two dif movies...oops ------------------ "They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush "They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show [This message has been edited by russellmz (edited 10-17-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Open wide Mr Troll. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have a question, why do people get angry when America makes movies about Americans? Surely there has to be movies by Brits about Brits or by Canadians about Canadians! Or is this just a weird acceptance that America (Hollywood) makes better films and you wish they'd do one about you country?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's just as stupid as saying that Hollywood should stop employing British actors, because their own actors are not good enough. I do NOT believe that, I am just outlining an equally stupid statement. CavScout, why do your posts always have to be America vs The World? BTW, Starship Troopers is just misunderstood, it has good action scenes and is intentionally funny in places, it's a kind of gung-ho "Us versus the Foreigners" parody. ------------------ "War is like the cinema. The best seats are at the back... the front is all flicker." - Monte Cassino by Sven Hassel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Panic Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They could have made U-571 (or whatever) about some fictional event in the future/present (Red October was already made though!) BUT, they chose an event that ACTUALLY occured in history and bastardized it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They could have made a movie about the U-505, which was captured by a U.S. destroyer acting against orders (the last thing we wanted was for the Germans to know we captured a U-Boat and change the enigma code). The capture and the subsequent cover-up would probably make for decent drama. ------------------ Two Rules to Live By: 1. Never Get Out of the Boat. 2. Charlie Doesn't Surf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: Open wide Mr Troll.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Go stroke someone else Bates. I asked a serious question. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> That's just as stupid as saying that Hollywood should stop employing British actors, because their own actors are not good enough.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have no problem with British actors, so what's your point? You haven't seen me complain about who is acting what, have you? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I do NOT believe that, I am just outlining an equally stupid statement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure. Read through this thread. You can't see the remarks against Hollywood and the American character protrayed in films? Why can't I ask for an explination for "To get back to the topic, SPR has my vote for worst. Couyldn't get over the flag-waving. Yanks eat this artless crap up for some reason though. I'd like to make a movie called 'Stock Characters in Militarily implausible situations who save the free world with good ol' american know-how'."? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> CavScout, why do your posts always have to be America vs The World?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was "the world vs America" before I posted. I asked why. Cav ------------------ "Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "Wehrmact penis envy."--D. Bolger Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade "AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."-- Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Getting another post in before the lock-man cometh... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: BTW, Starship Troopers is just misunderstood, it has good action scenes and is intentionally funny in places, it's a kind of gung-ho "Us versus the Foreigners" parody.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The (original) book was a LOT better. Fun movie to watch for the hell of it, though. ------------------ Cats aren't clean, they're covered with cat spit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
virtualfreak Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 I saw Stalingrade and I can tell you now that I did NOT see any sex scenes that would make the movie rated X. Stalingrade is acctually kinda of a disturbing movie. It's very weird but there are no nude scenes as far a I can remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Christ, can't we get through one goddamn thread without it turning into a nationalist chest-thumping match? This **** is boring enough on the quasi-political threads, but movies??? Gimme a break. If you really need to butt heads that badly about the same goddamn shopworn ****, take it up in an email and leave these threads to the folks who can follow a conversation without feeling the need to make a point. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armdchair Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 The movie "Thin Red Line"(written by director Terence Malick) bears little resemblance to the book "Thin Red Line"(written by Pacific vet James Jones). The following passage is from the book:" What power was it that decided one man should be hit, be killed, instead of another man?...If this were a movie, this would be the end of the show & something would be decided. In a movie or novel they would dramatize or build to the climax of the attack. When the attack came in the film or novel, it would be satisfying. It would decide something. It would have a semblance of meaning & a semblance of an emotion. And immediately after, it would be over. The audience would go home & think about the semblance of meaning & feel the semblance of emotion. Even if the hero got killed, it would make sense. Art, Bell decided, creative art - was ****...here there was no semblance of meaning. And the emotions were so many & so mixed up, that they were indecipherable, could not be untangled. Nothing had been decided, nobody had learned anything. But most important of all, nothing had ended. Even if they had captured the whole ridge, nothing had ended. Because tomorrow, or the day after that, - they would be called upon to do the same thing again - maybe under worse circumstances...It would certainly end sometime, sure, and almost certainly, because of industrial production - end in victory, but that point in time had no connection w/ any individual man engaged now. Some men would survive, but no one individual man could survive. It was a discrepancy in the way of counting. The whole thing was too vast, too complicated, too technological for any one man to count in it. Only collections of men counted, communities of men, only numbers of men... The emotion this created in Bell was not one of sacrifice, resignation, acceptance, & peace. Instead, it was an irritating, chafing emotion of helpless frustration..." This is very different than Malick's musings:" How did evil creep into the world?..." The only sense of Jones' book comes through intermittently, during the firefight scenes, and through the character played by Sean Penn, Sgt. Welsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Out of curiosity, why must movies be 100% faithful to the books by which they are inspired? I think that Jones' book, which I've read, is no better or worse than Malick's film, merely different. Getting wildly off-topic here, but the consensus seems to be that, when adapting novels, directors shouldn't be allowed to take liberties with elements of the book, or to inject their own personality/philosophy/questions/whatever into the film. If this is in fact the consensus, may I ask why? ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armdchair Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 It's not about being literally faithful in every detail but an adaptation should at least capture the book's meaning and author's intent. Malick segues way off into his own philosophizing, which is fine but has nothing to do with Jones' work. The movie does not feel nearly as gritty or cynical as the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FABIO Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyingcursor: Thin Red Line (the last one) The first one was corny too but better. Battle of the Bulge. Deer Hunter. Not even a war movie. Richthofen and Brown. A really bad film from the '70's. Shudder. I've learned to accept the flaws in SPR. I liked it. Has anyone here ever seen a movie called "When Trumpets Fade"? It came out in Dec of '98. It's about some people from the 28th div in the Huertgen. I liked that very well. The only thing that bothered me was everyone was wearing their helmet liners backwards. I've never seen a photograph with them on backwards. Was this a pathetic attempt to make the soldiers look "cool" in a '90's kind of way? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Was that that HBO original movie that took place shortly before the Battle of the Bulge? That movie was TERRIBLE in accuracy, the helmet liners were nothing. 1. Identified 2 German tanks as Tigers when they were Panzer IV's (h model I believe). Forgivable, alot of allied troops thought every German tank was a Tiger. 2. The same 2 German tanks, with no infantry support whatsoever, attack and route an entire company of American infantry. Not in an open field, in dense woods and rough terrain! 2 buttoned downed tanks against 100 men with plenty of cover??? 3. The decision is made to send half a squad behind the lines to take out an artillery position. They arm 2 of the 4-6 guys with...flamethrowers??? To attack artillery guns?? The Sergeant believes that the only way to take out the guns is to have the flamethrowers rush up to them under fire and burn them, not shoot the crew from a distance and satchel charge them. Also, those flamethrowers must have been the new propane model since their flame shot about 10 feet from the nozzle then DISSAPEARED! It looked like they were using aerosol cans on lighters. 4. To take out the 2 German tanks, they decide that the only way is to (again) send half a squad of men behind the lines with anti tank guns, sneak up behind the tank under the noses of a few platoons of Germans, and shoot it. These tanks are just sitting in the middle of a German encampment in an open field. Airstrike???? Hello? Hell, they didn't even need the airstrike, they were just P IV's. AARRRGGGG!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Chuppy, buddy. Having studied English in college, I may be a lot biased regarding your last comment about directors staying faithful to a novel they are filming. As far as I'm concerned, if a director retells the novel with his own changes and "fixes," then he borders on plagiarism. Yes, that may be a bit harsh, but the fact is that they are taking someone else's work, changing it slightly (or greatly in some cases), and passing it off as their own. If a novel is good enough to make into a movie, then it really shouldn't need to be changed (perhaps extremely minor tweeks that don't affect the story *see Sleepy Hollow as an example of a director raping a story*) in order to put it to film. That's my 2 cents worth, and I'm sure I'll get more than my 2 cents worth of flames on my ass. But I do agree about this being a simple movie thread, and not a "USA vs. The World" issue. Let that damn topic die. ------------------ "Nuts!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Armdchair: It's not about being literally faithful in every detail but an adaptation should at least capture the book's meaning and author's intent. Malick segues way off into his own philosophizing, which is fine but has nothing to do with Jones' work. The movie does not feel nearly as gritty or cynical as the book.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In this specific case, I'm not sure that the movie doesn't, in fact, capture the book's meaning. Like I said, I've read the book, and there are layers to it which I think Malick brought out. I think in fact that the movie is a good deal more cynical than the book. Which brings me to another point - everyone reads books differently. They're one of the most terrifically difficult media to actually nail down. The words are right there on the page, but you'll never get two people to agree on what they actually mean. Malick clearly saw things in the book which he wanted to explore more than others, and these are what he chose to make the movie about. I think that liking a book better than a movie is one thing. There are plenty of books whose movie adaptations I thought blew chunks. I still wonder why, though, people seem so resistant to movies which bring out different elements of a book? To my mind, these movies, which play around with the material, and these directors, which make the material their own, are more intersting than the cut-and-paste, slap in some stars and off we go, adaptations. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm being needlessly contentious and nit-picky (and maybe I am! ) but I'm genuinely curious about what people think about this. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croda: Chuppy, buddy. Having studied English in college, I may be a lot biased regarding your last comment about directors staying faithful to a novel they are filming <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heh, see, this is where we differ. I studied film in college Was gonna major, and had dreams of moving out to Hollywood, and then reality kicked me in the ass and said "for the love of god, don't be such a putz." Regarding your plagiarism comment: I can see what you're getting at, but I disagree. Authors, or their estates, are paid big bucks for the rights to adapt their works. In most cases, the authors, or their estates, demand to see the preliminary treatment before they'll sign over the rights. In many cases, authors or their estates have script, shooting, or even final approval (depending on how powerful the author is) over the film. And of course, for a story like Sleepy Hollow, that's public domain. Legally, you can turn that into a porn starring The Pantless Horseman and Thickarod Crane. I'm sure the 1st Century Jews had some choice words to say about the lousy Christians who were stealing their stories. After all, they kept much of the content but changed the context, and the meaning. Yet you'd be hard pressed now to find someone who's going to sue the authors of the Gospels for plagiarism. I also realize that I'm taking your use of the word plagiarism a bit too literally, but what can I say, I'm an academic, taking things out of context and using them to prove our points is our job Quibbles are fun! ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MantaRay Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Matt, hurry before Steve beats ya to it Sometimes I am not sure how grown up some of you are by the way you turn harmless threads into this ****. Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by virtualfreak: I saw Stalingrade and I can tell you now that I did NOT see any sex scenes that would make the movie rated X. Stalingrade is acctually kinda of a disturbing movie. It's very weird but there are no nude scenes as far a I can remember.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> my bad, i called "enemy at the gates" stalingrad...i altered the historical record so it is now correct... ------------------ "They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush "They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FABIO: 2. The same 2 German tanks, with no infantry support whatsoever, attack and route an entire company of American infantry. Not in an open field, in dense woods and rough terrain! 2 buttoned downed tanks against 100 men with plenty of cover??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> it was actually pretty open. they were crossing a stream and the infantry had no antitank weapons. (they showed some infantry shooting their rifles at the tank, the tank opened up and they got routed. CLASSIC combat mission) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 4. To take out the 2 German tanks, they decide that the only way is to (again) send half a squad of men behind the lines with anti tank guns, sneak up behind the tank under the noses of a few platoons of Germans, and shoot it. These tanks are just sitting in the middle of a German encampment in an open field. Airstrike???? Hello? Hell, they didn't even need the airstrike, they were just P IV's. AARRRGGGG!!!!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> hey there was camoflauge over the tanks: they had two small branches over the top...snicker... the half squad decided to do it by themselves, without higher authority approval... actually i liked it, as the first 2/3 was pretty good then the last third was really unbelievable... ------------------ "They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush "They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts