Major Tom Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 My beef with U-571 is that they had a perfectly good story in U-505 which would have made a spectacular movie avoiding a lot of historical innacuracies. It was a totally US engagment, from what I have read about it, it would work VERY well as a movie-drama. Why did they have to take an event that the US had nothing to do with, when there was one sitting there, waiting for acknowledgement. I see it as much a sign of disrespect to the US Sailors who fought for U-505 as those Commonwealth who fought to sink U-571. Take 'Memphis Belle' for example. That movie generally followed history, using actual people from an actual event (it was their 2nd last mission, not their last mission which was really harry, but that is only a minor, inconsequential detail). It was specatularly raved, and was an interesting film. Nothing 'spectacular', like capturing a FW-190 happened, so little bits of fiction like who shot down what is more acceptable (since it happened a lot in war, so much that each individual plane shot down need not be totally accurate to history). The sole reason for it being a special event was that they were the first to survive 20-odd missions. The movie portrayed it without betraying any key historical event/fact. 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: 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. Good gawd. I knew grognards could be a little self-righteous at times but this takes the cake. Nothing like "We are smart enough but we must look out for the little people." 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!). I never had that problem... after <u>Hollow Man</u> I didn't need a science major to tell me you couldn't really become invisible... but hey, that's just me. 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: My beef with U-571 is that they had a perfectly good story in U-505 which would have made a spectacular movie avoiding a lot of historical innacuracies. It was a totally US engagment, from what I have read about it, it would work VERY well as a movie-drama. maybe but I doubt it. Real Life <sup>TM</sup> tends to be pretty boring. How many would pay to see movie of a ransacking of a deserted German submarine? Why did they have to take an event that the US had nothing to do with, when there was one sitting there, waiting for acknowledgement. I see it as much a sign of disrespect to the US Sailors who fought for U-505 as those Commonwealth who fought to sink U-571. Have you failed again to grasp that the event in <u>U-571</u> was not real? It did not take a non-US even and insert US characters but took a NON-EVENT and made up a story. You quibble over a non-issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted: 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!).B] At the risk of being thought callous, so what? If people get the wrong idea from a Hollywood movie about history, thats just hard cheese. Universal Studios and its ilk are not educational institutions, and we wouldn't want them to be. People who want to find out the truth can read books or ask questions. People who don't, don't. So, if some idiot runs around thinking that the US captured the enigma machine, the first book he reads about it will correct him. Of course I'd be happier if the world population understood its history better, but really, depending on Hollywood or the film industry as a whole to be the ones who carry the load is well ... not good. 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: 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). ). What can I say? You hang out with a much more gullible crowd than I do. The point is that if your future doctor friend is gullible enough to believe that "Elizabeth" is a good source for her to get her history from, she is gullible enough to believe damn near anything. As such, she is going to get some ill-informed idea of history from something, so why pick on movies? It could just as easily be some romance novel or another equally ill-informed friend. Before she ever saw the movie "Elizabeth" she was ignorant of the period in question. If she cares enough to educate herself she should go to a library and do some research. If she does not care enough, it is no skin off of my back for her to delude herself into thinking that some movie is any kind of basis for learning. In either case, she is uninformed, and in either case her knowledge is the same. Prior to watching The Gladiator I knew very little about that period in Roman history. You know what? After watching the Gladiator I know the exact same amount about Roman history, since I know that movies are not sources of information about history. If someone cannot draw that distinction, then who cares how they come about their misconceptions? They are gong to be wrong regardless of the source. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Jeff Heidman wrote: 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. I would agree with the general sentiment of not allowing a fictional account or a docu-drama account to substitute for real documented historical evidence, which is I believe what you meant. However, I wouldn't be so fast as to dismiss the possibility that the abstract representation of such events as depicted in the fictional account are completely devoid of merit either. Whether or not the British actually burned a church with people in it on any given day of the Revolutionary War, may be up for historical documentational grabs sure enough, but as for anyone who would portray the British Army of the time as altogether nice fellers on the opposite end of the spectrum, I believe would suffer from a similar state of naivete. http://www.longislandgenealogy.com/prison.html http://www.ardmoreite.com/stories/071800/new_british.shtml ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirOscar Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 I get a chuckle out of people saying that the movie goer does not belive the movie is real(or is rare) Do you know how many people thought Forest Gump was a real person and that the movie was a sort of documentary???? Propaganda works and works well for a very good reason, most people will belive just about anything if it's printed in a newspaper or they see it on a screen. I really don't mind a non-historical movie as long as they don't try and pawn it off as accurate. However if I know the subject well and they get glaring technical things wrong, that makes what they are doing impossible, now that bugs me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by SirOscar: I get a chuckle out of people saying that the movie goer does not belive the movie is real(or is rare) Do you know how many people thought Forest Gump was a real person and that the movie was a sort of documentary. How many? Do you have some cited study or survey of people that shows that there is an appreciable number of people who think it was real? If so, I would be itnerested in seeing it. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by Major Tom: My beef with U-571 is that they had a perfectly good story in U-505 which would have made a spectacular movie avoiding a lot of historical innacuracies. It was a totally US engagment, from what I have read about it, it would work VERY well as a movie-drama. Why did they have to take an event that the US had nothing to do with, when there was one sitting there, waiting for acknowledgement. I see it as much a sign of disrespect to the US Sailors who fought for U-505 as those Commonwealth who fought to sink U-571. Take 'Memphis Belle' for example. That movie generally followed history, using actual people from an actual event (it was their 2nd last mission, not their last mission which was really harry, but that is only a minor, inconsequential detail). It was specatularly raved, and was an interesting film. Nothing 'spectacular', like capturing a FW-190 happened, so little bits of fiction like who shot down what is more acceptable (since it happened a lot in war, so much that each individual plane shot down need not be totally accurate to history). The sole reason for it being a special event was that they were the first to survive 20-odd missions. The movie portrayed it without betraying any key historical event/fact. Incorrect - the first B-17 to finish 25 missions over Europe was Hell's Angels from the 303rd Bomb Group. Check out the Mighty Eighth series. I still don't know why the Belle got all the attention - guess the name was more politically correct for that day and age than "Hell's Angels" would have been. But as far as preserving historical facts - that is your biggest betrayal right there. More happened in Memphis Belle, in one mission, than happened to a plane during an entire tour, historically. The little details were wrong too - for example, they hated taking their oxygen masks off because it took forever to adjust them comfortably, plus the danger of saliva freezing in the tubes. There are many more but they are beside the point. My biggest objection was the BS "let's go around through the flak again to save the schoolchildren below" stuff - I found it extremely sickening. I'm pretty sure that US aircrew realized they were killing women and children. I am sure many didn't care. U-505 was a great book. Daniel Gallery wrote some other books, very humorous in nature and worth trying to find. Clear the Decks was especially good. I agree that U-505 would have been a fantastic movie - U-571 was plain stupid from start to finish - but the producers (give them credit) never claimed it would be otherwise. [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-30-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: How many? Do you have some cited study or survey of people that shows that there is an appreciable number of people who think it was real? If so, I would be itnerested in seeing it. Unrelated, but I remember reading an article about a number of people who thought the original "Blair Witch Project" was real. Now, the piece didn't cite actual statistics, but it did report that several hundred people (I forget exactly how many) had called the police station in the little Maryland town to find out why the law had not solved the dastardly crimes portrayed in the movie. Even when the local police chief told people that it was just a movie, many didn't want to believe him. Of course, the movie did go out of its way to pretend to be real, and the place where I went to see it, the Angelika in New York, had a museum-style exhibit of "artifacts" recovered from the scene of the "murders." So an exceptionally dimwitted person could perhaps be forgiven for thinking it was true. But Forrest Gump?!?!?!? Wow. It just goes to show you that H. L. Mencken was right when he said "no one ever went broke underestimating the American public." [This message has been edited by Terence (edited 01-30-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roborat Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Wow, a thread that starts about the battle of the bulge movie, and ends up in a heavy philosophical debate over truth vs perception. I didn't need to go to university, I could have saved my money and lurked here. Thanks all. By the way, for what it's worth, I enjoy watching the bulge movie, it's one of the funniest movies I have ever seen, it was on the history channel last weekend, and I watched it twice, laughing hysterically the whole time. I particularly love the ending, with that nasty nazi patton bogging in dense gravel and bursting into flames when a little gasoline splashes on it. Maybe the US air force should have changed their bombing methods, and just dump their belly tanks on the german armour. I love watching old war movies and picking out the disguised american stuff. I don't think I have ever seen an authentic german halftrack in a hollywood movie, and very few tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkins Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 To expect the film industry to comply with standards of historical accuracy is a fools errand. If a "happy ending" isn't slapped on to the end of a film you're ahead of the game. Hollywood is shallow and sadly our popular culture panders to the lowest common denominator. Yet, as in all things there are gems scattered among the trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 You'll never go poor betting on the stupidity of the human race. The problem is, everyone puts a LOT of weight on what other people say regardless of the source. Nobody can collect all the "knowledge" they hold personally due to many different constraints. People who buy into anything, regardless of their intelligence, is somewhat naive. I know that sounds kinda heavy... but without first hand knowledge, there is no way of one person determining the intelligence of another based on what that person choses to believe, as the person judging makes a similar choice too. Every piece of data is impeachable. There is no truth. 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...
SirOscar Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Jeff Sorry I do not have any stats, but I did read several articles on the subject, as well as my 14 year old daughter who watched it with me asking me why she had never heard of such an interesting guy. Now she is pretty smart girl, I am a bit of a history buff and that rubs off on her, she knew of most of the major events in the movie so the way the story was interlaced with real footage had her convinced it was based on a real person. I know she was NOT the only one. People want to belive, they do NOT want to belive that they would be lied to or misled. Just think of all the religious people in the world(this is NOT a pro or con on religion) if you get right down to it, you have to belive something that there is NO proof or evidence of. Does then mean we should knock movies that are non-historical? NO unless they represent it as historical, like "Based on a true story" When a book or movie takes that "historical" stand then it better get it right or be ready to get blasted by people who know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by Roborat: W I don't think I have ever seen an authentic german halftrack in a hollywood movie, and very few tanks. Bridge at Remagen 1968 - the only movie of that era that gets it even close- though the 251s are probably Czech Tatras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Aw, youth is wasted on the young... Didn't any of you at least "study" Orsen Wells 1938 broadcast of "War of the Worlds", and the absolute National hysteria that followed. Anyone notice the rising gather of believers behind the World Wrestling Federation? ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) [This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-30-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by SirOscar: Jeff Sorry I do not have any stats, but I did read several articles on the subject, as well as my 14 year old daughter who watched it with me asking me why she had never heard of such an interesting guy. Now she is pretty smart girl, I am a bit of a history buff and that rubs off on her, she knew of most of the major events in the movie so the way the story was interlaced with real footage had her convinced it was based on a real person. I know she was NOT the only one. People want to belive, they do NOT want to belive that they would be lied to or misled. . They aren't being lied to or misled, they are being entertained. As long as we are playing the anecdote game, here is one of my own: I do not know a single person, 14 or otherwise, who thought Forrest Gump was an actual person. Frankly if my 14 year old daughter asked me why she hadn't ever heard of this person before, i would be pretty dissapointed in her. The religious stuff I'll refrain from responding to. I can't see how you can compare someone believing in religion to the issue of whether Hollywood is responsible for educatng people, or whether people are stupid enough to believe that movies are all true and factual. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirOscar Posted January 31, 2001 Share Posted January 31, 2001 Jeff No I am NOT disappointed in my daughter, she knew about the major events in the movie including the U.S. Ping Pong team going to China, she knew about the "real" stuff. She is also not arrogant enough to think she knows everything, so when the movie was presented in a series of historical events she thought it possible that Forest was a real guy. Now maybe you can question her intelligence because you know everything that is real or un real but I admire her for keeping an open mind. As for my religious anecdote, it may of not been the best, I just thought it applied to the general idea, if you want something a little more to the subject just check Bruno's post from above. Fact, people committed suicide over that radio program because they thought it was real not because they thought it was entertainment. Thanks Bruno that was a GREAT example! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 31, 2001 Share Posted January 31, 2001 Originally posted by SirOscar: Jeff As for my religious anecdote, it may of not been the best, I just thought it applied to the general idea, if you want something a little more to the subject just check Bruno's post from above. Fact, people committed suicide over that radio program because they thought it was real not because they thought it was entertainment. Thanks Bruno that was a GREAT example! Except, unlike the movies talked about here (Bulge and U-571) the "War of the Worlds" was broadcast LIKE a real event. It was broadcast like a real newscast. Again, hardly the same as BotB or U-571... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 31, 2001 Share Posted January 31, 2001 That isn't true Cavscout. Here is what happened, and why I asked if anyone had actually studied it: On Halloween night (in 1938) Orson Welles and the Mercury Theater broadcast a dramatization of H.G. Wells' famous tale "War of the Worlds" which recounted a Martians invasion of the Earth. The adaptation includes realistic radio news bulletins informing listeners of the developing saga. A music program was interrupted to brief listeners that an alien object had landed in Grover's Mill, N.J. "News Announcers" describe the terrifying events as they unfold. Although Wells informed listeners at the start of the program that they were listing to a fictional radio drama, thousands of listeners who tuned in late believed the Earth was indeed under alien attack and panic soon followed. Wells claimed that the broadcast was never intended to fool people but wished to present a great Halloween tale. It was, he said, "the Mercury Theater's own radio version of dressing upon a sheet and jumping out of a bush and saying 'boo!'" In either case it indeed turned out to be the greatest Halloween story ever told. This whole episode tries to illustrate a number of things about mass psychology, but also about the willingness of people in the nineteen thirties to believe that we are not alone in the universe. So then, where do the Oliver Stone's fall into play. Both the movies Nixon and JFK, were based upon fictional assumptions, not established with fact entirely, but not devoid of fact either taking a hefty amount of liberty with reality to some degree. They were presented as fact though on a public that tends to believe what is broadcast, pictured, or printed. The fact is, the masses are gullible, as P.T. Barnum before Orsen Wells, and Josef Gobbles after him proved convincingly. ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) [This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-30-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 31, 2001 Share Posted January 31, 2001 Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: That is true Cavscout, though the people doing the broadcast claimed in their defense it tweren't so, they just neglected to tell anyone that fact as the court established. So then, where do the Oliver Stone's fall into play. Both the movies Nixon and JFK, were based upon fictional assumptions, not established with fact entirely, but not devoid of fact either taking a heafty amount of liberty with reality to some degree. They were presented as fact though on a public that tends to believe what is broadcast, pictured, or printed. The problem with Stone's movies, IMO, is he intends to play them off as "true". People buy into it for sure but I don't think he should be attacked for his movies. I think the people should be educated instead. Attacking movies because they are not perfect reflections of history just because some people can't tell the differance is like advocating for silent pictures as some movie goers may be deaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 31, 2001 Share Posted January 31, 2001 See above, my bad (I had to go look it up myself to get me facts straight, I was close). Wells did tell people the broadcast was not true, they chose to believe it anyway based upon the manner in which it was formatted, and because some tuned in later on. I was trying to find exactly what happened afterwards, but can't at the moment. I believe, maybe wrongly, that it was found that they were liable because the broadcast did not contain sufficient disclaimers, but I don't remember the exact specification of what the remedy was. Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not attacking the right of Hollywood to present fiction, or take liberties with the truth. Only making the point that P.T. Barnum was right, there is one born every second. ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) (edited 01-30-2001).] [This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-30-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 31, 2001 Share Posted January 31, 2001 Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: See above, my bad (I had to go look it up myself to get me facts straight, I was close). Wells did tell people the broadcast was not true, they chose to believe it anyway based upon the manner in which it was formatted, and because some tuned in later on. I beleive they gave notice at the begining of the show. Unless one was present through the entire show, they wouldn't have known. It be like turning on Dan Rather and having him anounce something but you missed the opening where he said it was fake. Hardly the same as going to a movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 31, 2001 Share Posted January 31, 2001 I think Wells viewed it that way, (like going to a movie), though I don't agree with him either, and neither did anyone else which is why he got in trouble over it. Well, again I'm not saying Hollywood shouldn't have freedom of expression, just that as the WWF has found, lots of folks tend to believe what they see, or hear, and make no attempt at, nor have any interest in a separate verification. Which, makes the Oliver Stone productions even more troublesome. I think there are a lot of people, who believe what they see in a movie based upon nothing more than historical references as presented, and having no separate knowledge of the facts, go off with the perception(s) as presented in the film. ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) [This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-30-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 31, 2001 Share Posted January 31, 2001 Speaking of Dan Rather though, a little OT, but I watched CBS news present something akin to this once. I was watching Dan Rather blather about a story on the rising Crystal Meth problem in small Mid-West communities, and so on and then they cut away to a police camera filmed chase scene. The scene was of a small pickup truck being chased by a camera equipped cruiser, and the announcer was talking about how the drug runners were attempting to evade the police and how dangerous it all was etc., then the pickup runs a stop sign and is immediately evaporated by an 18 wheel tractor trailer traveling at 70 mph. Thing is, I had just watched that exact video clip a week before on America's Most Exciting Police Chases, with that Sheriff whoever he is that moderates. The pickup was actually two teenagers who were evading police having stolen a lawnmower that was in the back of the pickup and had nothing at all to do with a drug bust or chase. I was sitting there watching this in total disbelief, and wondering how in the devil CBS had so managed to mangle the report. So, your analogy isn't all that far off base actually. ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts