Henri Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by gunnergoz: Spielberg's SPR is a perfect example of a generalized, anonymous fiction that was carefully crafted with integrity, focus and purpose. As a result, the film honored the men and the moment who lived in the event it depicted, even though it portrayed no identifiable individuals. SPR is a good movie, but although the Tiger tanks are more realistic, there were no Tiger tanks in the area at the time; is it more historical to have Tiger tanks where there were none than to have them represented by American tanks? There are many other "errors for cinematic effect" in the movie which, like BoB, is only loosely based on History.I will spare you the list, since it has been done before. Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 I think that the only thing they did good in this movie was to show the discrepency between Allied and German tanks. Using the M24 was probably the best way to model the inferiority of their tanks to German tanks using the material at hand. One thing that got me, was the large fields, with no trees, looked like it was filmed somewhere in Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Wayne: This is "The Battle of the Bulge" and is the most unrealistic movie I've ever seen. The Germans were seldom able to deploy tanks en masse as shown in the movie since the Ardennes region is heavily wooded and very rough country. The Germans were confined to the limited road network which was the main reason the Americans could slow them down, by defending "bottlenecks" until reinforcements could be brought up. The battle was primarily an infantry battle with the armor supporting. What you see happen in the movie is more like what you would have seen on the Russian Front. If you want to see a good movie on the Ardennes fighting watch "Battleground" when it comes around on TV. It was made in the early fifties and is filled with cliches and was shot in a sound studio, but it gives you more of the real flavor of the Battle of the Bulge than this movie of the same name. I like watching the tanks move and shoot everything up but that was not how the real battle was except in rare occasions. It's funny that you use the number of tanks as an example of how unrealistic this movie is... and you totally forget how the movie depicts the turning point of the battle as a couple of hollywood pretty boys rolling gas cans down on the German tanks. What is this... Spartacus???? Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Polar: It's funny that you use the number of tanks as an example of how unrealistic this movie is... and you totally forget how the movie depicts the turning point of the battle as a couple of hollywood pretty boys rolling gas cans down on the German tanks. What is this... Spartacus???? Joe What? Are you trying to tell me that the event depicted with the petrol cans didn't actually happen for real back in 1944? You're kidding aren't you? Christ, next you'll be telling me that the film U571 got it all wrong & that U-boat was actually captured by the British or some such and it was the "Limeys" who actually captured the Enigma machine. Get a grip man! Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Wayne: When Hollywood makes a war film and calls it "Battle of the Bulge", I think they have a responcibility to try and tell the story as truthfully as possible. In this film, this was'nt done. It's a matter of respect for the men who fought in this action to be as accurate as they can be. I don't expect them to get every detail right as to the vehicles being right or the uniforms exact, but they should tell the story as it happened and not make up a bunch of nonsense just to add excitement. You expect them to make a documentary but they are making movies. Movies are entertainment not history lessons. The overall story was on the Battle of the Bulge. For that, they got the overall picture right. I have to wonder though who is worse, Hollywood for making entertaining movies based on real events but not totally real or those who want real events depicted realisticaly so they can be entertained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Christ, next you'll be telling me that the film U571 got it all wrong & that U-boat was actually captured by the British or some such and it was the "Limeys" who actually captured the Enigma machine. Get a grip man! Something those who watched the movie know from the credits. <u>U-571</u> was never presented as a "historical" film. WWII and the want of the Enigma were "realistic" but that is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaws Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 The German Colonel is in fact Ober Sturmbahn Furher Joachim Peiper (Kampf Gruppe Peiper) of the 1st SS LAH. I don't now what the movie makers aim was. Maybe they only wanted to make money with it?? The tanks are M-48 for the Germans and Chaffee's for the Americans. If you are interested in the story buy the book from the English MAJOR-GENERAL Michael Reynolds. It a perfect neutral document. Good Hunting Jaws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: What? Are you trying to tell me that the event depicted with the petrol cans didn't actually happen for real back in 1944? You're kidding aren't you? You are kidding of course, but there are probably some here who don't know that the petrol drum incident did really happen. Henri [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 01-29-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaws Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Henri: You are kidding of course, but there are probably some here who don't know that the petrol drum incident did really happen. This incident did happened for 50%. And the story is that the Americans blow the fuel dump. But.. not a single German tank or infantry man was even near. The German objective was the town of Trois Ponts and the bridges over the Salm and Ambleve river to the east of it. And not the fuel dump north of Stavelot. So the Americans wasted a lot of tax money. Good Hunting Jaws [This message has been edited by Jaws (edited 01-29-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by CavScout: Something those who watched the movie know from the credits. <u>U-571</u> was never presented as a "historical" film. WWII and the want of the Enigma were "realistic" but that is all. The problem with this, and many movies on different subjects, is, that they take a fictional event and place it in some form of reality. In comparison, the movie 'Mission to Mars' has a part where someone is looking at a rudamentary strand of human DNA and says 'that's human DNA!'. I have many friends in biological science who flipped stating that there was no way, looking at a DNA strand, that anyone could tell wether it was human, dog, or mosquitoe DNA. The problem that people take with these movies, is, that they portray reality (albiet disclaimers and all) in a fictional way, and many people just accept this fiction as reality because of the specific topic, which they generally do not have much experience on. Most people will leave U-571 thinking that what they saw, was on the most part, true. The makers of U-571 had the choice to make something based off of history, or to create a contemporary/futuristic theoretical possibility (ala 'Hunt for Red October' or 'Starship Troopers'). They chose to take something from history, and changed things around to fit the audience. The same thing happened to SPR to a much smaller extent. Wether or not they have a responsibility to history is what people are debating here. CavScout believes that there is no need for responsible portrayal of history, as, it is just a movie and fiction. However, others believe that it is almost as much a documentary as a movie. Of course, you could then demand such accuracy as in the movies 'The Patriot', 'Gladiator', 'Excalibur', etc.. all of which took history and severely warped it to tell a story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Don't get me started on U-571! Here is my 1 minute remake of the entire movie: US First Officer - "Dang, I'll never get another chance at captain of my own ship!" US Captain - "Yay!!! We got the Enigma!! AGH!! I've been killed! Looks like you got a chance to be captain *gasp-choke-die*" US now Captain - "Uh-oh, we got the Enigma... now there is a U-Boat and we have no Torpedoes!!!!!" Engineer - "Yes we do, we have 4... but i'l be a millionta one cap'n!!!" US now Captain - "Okay, FIRE ALL FOUR TORPEDOES!!!!" Torpedo tubes - "WHOOOSH!!" German U-Boat captian - "You silly American pig-dogs! You missed me with all three torpedoes... now I'l kill you unless you shot a forth torpedo that is much slower yet more accurate then *gack!!!*" KAAAPPPOOOOWWW!!!! U-Boat - "Glub... glub..." US now Captain - "YAY!! Now we have the Enigma AND we killed a U-Boat! Let's sail home unmolested!!" Crew - "YAY!!" {middle story about a captured German Captain that was not very well tied up and even more poorly guarded} German Captain - "I'm free!! Agh!! I've been shot to death!!!" ..... Back to Enigma... Captain - "Uh-oh... somehow we didn't manage to get home... there is a German Destroyer closing!!! We don't have any..." Engineer - "YES WE DO!!! Good ole' Jimmy went and drownded himself good... but he got our one last torpedoe working!!!" Captain - "YAY!!! FIRE THE ONE AND ONLY MILLION TO ONE SHOT TORPEDOE AT THE BOW OF THE SHIP!!!" KAAAAPPPPOOOOOWWWW!!!!! German boat sinks... Crew, Captain - "YAY!!!!!!!!!!" Role credits. ********************************** For those of you who don't like the llong version, here are the Cliffe's Notes: Captain and Crew - "YAY WE GOT THE ENIGMA!!" Captain - "YAY WE KILLED A SUB WITH A MILLION TO ONE SHOT!!!" German Captain - "I'm free!" (died of multiple lead poisoning) Captain -"Yay!!! ID MANAGED ANOTHER MILLION TO ONE SHOT!! I'm GREAT!!!" Role credits. Did anyone else get more from this movie than me? Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz [This message has been edited by Polar (edited 01-29-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Major Tom: Most people will leave U-571 thinking that what they saw, was on the most part, true. Really? I am sure some did, but to say most is rather bold. how many people went and saw <u>JAWS</u> and left thinking it was a real event? Can only imagine what those leaving <u>Jurassic Park</u> were thinking... The makers of U-571 had the choice to make something based off of history, or to create a contemporary/futuristic theoretical possibility (ala 'Hunt for Red October' or 'Starship Troopers'). They chose to take something from history, and changed things around to fit the audience. The same thing happened to SPR to a much smaller extent. Wether or not they have a responsibility to history is what people are debating here. CavScout believes that there is no need for responsible portrayal of history, as, it is just a movie and fiction. However, others believe that it is almost as much a documentary as a movie. Of course, you could then demand such accuracy as in the movies 'The Patriot', 'Gladiator', 'Excalibur', etc.. all of which took history and severely warped it to tell a story. Exactly. I think some on this board have lost perspective and have let their own interest in WWII obscure that movies tend to be entertainment not recreations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by Polar: Did anyone else get more from this movie than me? You skipped the best part: When Jon Bon Jovi gets wacked by a hatch-cover moving at about warp 9... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by CavScout: Exactly. I think some on this board have lost perspective and have let their own interest in WWII obscure that movies tend to be entertainment not recreations. Yeh, but Cav... my problem is not with the entertainment value of the movie but calling it U-571 was an insult to all the real life combatants that risked their lives and died in the process of capturing the precious Enigma machine. If they called it U-879 or something OTHER than the real name of the submarine that was actually captured by the British I wouldn't have had a problem. It's akin to all the comotion that Hasbro stirred up by calling their latest crap piece of software attempting to depict small unit actions on the Western Front "Squad Leader". It was an insult to the original designers and the integrity of the original game itself. Perhaps not a great analogy but you get my drift. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Yeh, but Cav... my problem is not with the entertainment value of the movie but calling it U-571 was an insult to all the real life combatants that risked their lives and died in the process of capturing the precious Enigma machine. If they called it U-879 or something OTHER than the real name of the submarine that was actually captured by the British I wouldn't have had a problem. You do know that U-571 was not captured by anyone and was sunk "on its eleventh war patrol after fighting on the surface with an Australian Sunderland aircraft from RAAF 461 Squadron. The aircraft pilot noted that most of the crew got into the water, but froze in the cold water. U-571 is listed as sinking with all hands at 52.41N; 14.27W."<sup>1</sup> When being petty at least be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by Major Tom: They chose to take something from history, and changed things around to fit the audience. The same thing happened to SPR to a much smaller extent. Wether or not they have a responsibility to history is what people are debating here. Could one of the people who get so upset at movies set in a historical setting but not necessarily being historical in their plot tell me exactly why that is such a horrible thing? What precisely about SPR or The Patriot results in a an undesirable effect on those who watch it? Does anyone realize how many great movies would not exist if this rather ridiculous standard was consistently applied? I think the existence of people who watch SPR and 1) Know what a Tiger tank is, and 2) Do not know enough about WW2 to spot the obvious flaws (no Tigers in Normandy), and 3) Are stupid enough to form ideas about actual history based on a movie are exceedingly small. Most movie-goers could not care less about whether the "Tiger" looked like an actual Tiger, or even what the difference between a Tiger and Marder are to begin with. Those who do care probably know enough to discount unimportant details. And finally, the number of people who actually form opinions about WW2, or the Revolutionary War, based on something that happened in a movie is very small. And of those that are that stupid, who cares? They are going to be uninformed one way or another, so what difference does it make? Anyone ignorant enough to think that the British burned American colonists in churches because he saw it on a Mel Gibson movie is hopeless to begin with. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by CavScout: You do know that U-571 was not captured by anyone and was sunk "on its eleventh war patrol after fighting on the surface with an Australian Sunderland aircraft from RAAF 461 Squadron. The aircraft pilot noted that most of the crew got into the water, but froze in the cold water. U-571 is listed as sinking with all hands at 52.41N; 14.27W."<sup>1</sup> When being petty at least be right. I wouldn't go so far as to call someone petty for defending what they believe should be the responsibility of movie makers. By your accounts no Americans took any direct part in capturing information from U-571, unlike the movie where they played the most important part. Just because he was off on the details doesn't mean that what he was trying to get across is utter garbage. Also, I might agree that it is impossible to get accurate historical context for every movie made (ie. 'Gladiator', etc..) but these movies have less of an impact on society than movies made within the past 200 years. Movies like 'The Patriot' and 'U-571' unduely glorify or defame people whose legacy is still prominent today. Americans played no active part in the U-571 escapade. The U-505, which WAS boarded by US sailors and still rests today in Chicago (I actually saw it!) was an intelligence bonanza. Why couldn't they have done this U-Boat instead of one that the US had nothing to do with? Unfortunately, I guess the story wasn't quite spectacular enough to warrant making of a movie (most of the US Sailors survive, they came from a Destroyer/Destroyer Escort, both ships survived, and it wasn't actually a calculated effort but more of a target of opportunity. Having it as a calculated plan in U-571 just makes the Allies look more clever than we actually were. Propaganda after 50 years!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Must stop myself..... argh! Can't.... I agree with Jeff Heidman on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by Major Tom: I wouldn't go so far as to call someone petty for defending what they believe should be the responsibility of movie makers. By your accounts no Americans took any direct part in capturing information from U-571, unlike the movie where they played the most important part. Just because he was off on the details doesn't mean that what he was trying to get across is utter garbage. It certainly does as his point was "If they called it U-879 or something OTHER than the real name of the submarine that was actually captured by the British I wouldn't have had a problem." You'll have to excuse me, I love the hypocrisy of those who attack movies for not sticking with historical reality when those attacking don't know the history themselves. Also, I might agree that it is impossible to get accurate historical context for every movie made (ie. 'Gladiator', etc..) but these movies have less of an impact on society than movies made within the past 200 years. Movies like 'The Patriot' and 'U-571' unduely glorify or defame people whose legacy is still prominent today. Americans played no active part in the U-571 escapade. NEWSFLASH The movie <u>U-571</u> was not a real event. It was FICTION. The U-505, which WAS boarded by US sailors and still rests today in Chicago (I actually saw it!) was an intelligence bonanza. Why couldn't they have done this U-Boat instead of one that the US had nothing to do with? If they were doing a movie depicting a real life event, perhaps they would have. But again, it was FICTION, as in not real. In any case. If they would have made it hisotrical based on that US capture, you guys would probably attack them for not depicating the other Allied efforts (such as the British captures) and called the movie pro-US propaganda. Unfortunately, I guess the story wasn't quite spectacular enough to warrant making of a movie (most of the US Sailors survive, they came from a Destroyer/Destroyer Escort, both ships survived, and it wasn't actually a calculated effort but more of a target of opportunity. Having it as a calculated plan in U-571 just makes the Allies look more clever than we actually were. Propaganda after 50 years!). It was a movie.... Cav PS I wonder why those who want "realistic" portrayals of war aren't out doing it for real instead of sitting in a movie theater criticizing that they know how it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Anyone ignorant enough to think that the British burned American colonists in churches because he saw it on a Mel Gibson movie is hopeless to begin with. Sometimes I am amazed at what people don't know. I had an argument with this girl who was upset that I said that the movie "Elizabeth" probably wasn't too good of an example to understand what Queen Elizabeth actually went through during her reign. Now, this girl wasn't an idiot (going to be a doctor, gets nothing lower than 90's in school) but just not versed in 'reality' and certain movies (ie. historical based movies). That Mel Gibson Scottish movie "Braveheart" got a lot of scottish friends of mine claiming that the scots were fighting for democracy, etc. after watching it because the movie was about freedom for scottish people (with the king being all benevolent, people getting more say, etc. which in reality it wasn't). This concept of treating TV and Movies as reality is an actual concern. Why else is there a movement to stop TV violence if everyone knows that it is all fiction? Eventually you start to 'believe' in what you are seeing to be real. When you take historical events, and put a serious fictional story to them people tend to believe it more than if you put in some wacky storyline, like an impression of the 1960's from watching "Austin Powers" (Albiet many people I know STILL see the 1960's as a time where EVERYONE was a hippy, from watching movies like this). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 "Why else is there a movement to stop TV violence if everyone knows that it is all fiction?" Because people are stupid. Considering TV and movies have become more "violent" over the years but crime has fallen, how does one come to that conclusion? You might as well blame oxygen for violence because everyone who has comitted a violent act has breathed O<sup>2</sup> so that must be the cause. Also, lets not forget that TV companies have money and like everything, money is the driving force behind most things. Like Tobacco, people think they can get money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Hrm. Well...I'm going to agree with CavScout et al. Having been (briefly) a film major at one point, and being a history student now, I firmly believe that good history doesn't necessarily make good movies. For example, take SPR - a movie which I didn't like, by the way. A historically accurate SPR probably would have followed the beach landing with another hour or so of Americans alternatively wandering into ambushes and getting slaughtered or stumbling across a pack of shell-shocked conscripts and slaughtering them. Realistic? Yeah, more or less. But it wouldn't make good theater. As for movies like The Patriot, or U-571...they're made for an American audience. American audiences like it when Americans do good things. Basic marketing. And like Jeff said, if people are basing their ideas on a movie they saw...well, then they're plain stupid, and there's no cure for that. Frankly, I don't understand the argument that movies which aren't perfectly accurate in their depiction of history are somehow disrespectful to the real participants. It's not as if in the middle of U-571, Matthew McConauwhatever looked straight into the camera and said "by the way, British people are bad. American people are better than them. USA! USA!" The mistake is not that fictional movies are bad history, rather the mistake is that fictional movies should even be seen as history in the first place. ------------------ 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...
CavScout Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by Chupacabra: The mistake is not that fictional movies are bad history, rather the mistake is that fictional movies should even be seen as history in the first place. Exactly! [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-30-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Movies result in impressions on people. They aren't just thinks you take nothing away with. Many people said that after leaving SPR they felt in awe of actually experiencing what it was like to be there, movies DO have power of persuasion. CavScout, your claim about anti-Americanism is sort of unfounded. The sinking of the U-571, wether or not it was captured DID NOT involve the US at all. It did involve Australians and British. The capture of the U-505 did involve the US. It would be like having a movie portray the British fighting on Omaha beach and overcoming the obsticles, negating the bravery and initiative taken by the Americans. Has anyone complained that SPR and TRL were just about Americans?? Possibly about TRL taking its title from a British action during the Crimean War, but nobody complained that there were no Tommies or Canucks in SPR (because they weren't there!!), and if they did they had no basis. But as my last post states, WE might know that it is fiction, because being wargamers we are to a great extent historians. However, people who have no knowledge will come away from movies based on history with the assumption that it was generally true, with only diologue changed around to spiff up the plot. When I watch movies involving a lot of scientific stuff I don't catch many of the totally impossible things that are mentioned in the movie, and come to believe that they are possible (until informed by someone!). There was a Canadian made movie about Dieppe made not too long ago. It was subsidized by the Canadian Government so its quality was very high, but, it kept very well to the actual historic event. The characters were secondary to the plot, which is almost required when you create a film on an EVENT. I don't care wether or not the Germans attacked wrong in SPR, or the helmet buckles weren't the right type, what I do care about is the cheezy ending, which defied all sense of logic and denuded the visual reality of the rest of the movie by imposing a cliche. Unfortunately people still believe in these cliche's when the don't know otherwize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by Major Tom: CavScout, your claim about anti-Americanism is sort of unfounded. Has anyone complained that SPR and TRL were just about Americans?? Possibly about TRL taking its title from a British action during the Crimean War, but nobody complained that there were no Tommies or Canucks in SPR (because they weren't there!!), and if they did they had no basis. The very complaints were raised on this forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts