We Were Soldiers

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Voxman:

Zee the only movie worse than that this year was the Black Hawk Down.

Did you see it ?

It reminded me of the old cowboy and Indian movies where the wagons would circle and the Indians would be dopey enough to ride around and around until shot. If you have seen these bad westerns you saw Black Hawk Down.

If you had read the book you would know that this is how the actual battle really was. Many of the Somalis were wacked up on a drug popular amoung the locals, and fought with little regard for proper military tactics or their personal safety. If that bothers you blame the Somalis' bad personal habits, not the film makers.

BHD was typical Americano military spew put to film.

Again, read up on the subject then comment when you know what you're talking about.

[Bruno Weiss]

wodasini88 wrote:

Bruno I'm sorry but if you think the NVA don't deserve to be called honorable fighters then neither do the US soldiers. We've done just as bad things throughout history.

Ixsnay the ostpay...

Think what cha like kid, sure sure, they was really schwell fellers, we juss ortta givem a heaping helpin of tributes and salutations and build a shrine to Jane Fonda in their memory.

[ August 31, 2002, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[Nidan1]

Hi Mom

Check out the New CMBB forum.

[Bruno Weiss]

Hi Dad!

You mean we gotta take all these idiotic discourses to yet another forum?

[Nidan1]

Yesssir, there is a whole new big world out there.

Endless fields of sunflowers, and flat Steppes that never seem to change from horizon to horizon.

And Winters so cold, they will freeze the oil in your Kubelwagen.

Yes my friend, welcom to the Ost Front.

[ August 31, 2002, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Nidan1 ]

[Bruno Weiss]

Ah ya gyrene burrhead , send me an email. What ladders are ya on?

[Nidan1]

On the way!!!

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

the "only two choppers in the 7th AC" comment refered to the film only showing the same two pilots (Snake**** and TooTall) flying every single mission --- including the last-second-save-the-day gunship run.

One of the criticisms levelled at BHD was the lack of 'characterization'. I disagree, and think there was plenty of characterization, but that it was done very economically. In any case, always showing the same chopper pilots in WWS was probably a concession to the viewer's desire to get to know the characters. If every pilot who flew that day had flickered by we'd be hearing the 'lack of characterization' complaints. Also, I believe that Snake**** 6 actually did personally lead the majority of flights that day including a critical improvised ammo resupply when the LZ was very hot. He made a personal decision that if the 1/7 lost it wouldn't be because his unit failed them, and then he led from the front. That one day probably aged him 10 years. So showing him most of the time could be seen as a deliberate choice and a way of honoring him. Film is a medium requiring compromises.

a pointless slaughter-fest (human wave attacks galore!) where the tactical situation is never really explained.

This is an interesting subject, because from looking at various war movies I think it is really difficult to make something that successfully conveys a tactical situation AND gives a story you can follow AND has likeable characters all in the same film. The tactical situation is indicated here (as in many films) through scenes at the CPs where the commanders are seen issuing orders and pointing to oversimplified maps.

In WWS, for example, two shots are juxtaposed where Nguyen Huu An, the NVA commander, orders troops into the dry creek area, and then, immediately after, Moore, sizing up the topography, determines that it is a vital spot and orders troops into there. This is the sort of tactical explanation you get in that film, and it also serves to show how the two commanders were trying to outguess each other.

BHD also used oversimplified maps. One of them was hanging on a wall with half the city in red 'HOSTILE ZONE' and Pakistani Stadium in Blue 'FRIENDLY ZONE'. The viewer, with only a few seconds to catch what's going on, needs those simple cues. It's a trade off. But if you stop and look at that map it's gimmicky as hell.

As for the human wave attacks and endless gore, that's what the battle was like, by all accounts. The American artillery and air support made it difficult to impossible for the NVA to maneuver and fight from stand-off distance and then systematically work their way in closer. They had to get in closer than the ring of fire and they had to do it fast. After the battle there were piles of bodies all around the perimeter. In the area where an American company was overrun bodies from both sides were intermingled. And in the forest all around were bodies from the heavy support. Troopers tell how marching in to relieve the 1/7 they started seeing bodies in the forest, then there were more and more, until they came to the killing zones in the M60 fire lanes and it was like the Somme. They were thinking 'jeezus what a fight!' Most of them had never seen anything close to that kind of massed carnage. So I'm not sure I agree with you that that was inaccurate.

And yes, I thought the wives on the home front scenes were a bit too maudlin. This movie just shoots for too many emotional change-ups that only serve to make things more confusing.

More confusing? Come on. If you want a more realistic war film you're going to have to be ready to figure things out for yourself and not complain that it's 'confusing'. On the one hand you're dissing techniques that simplify the film (like reducing the number of pilots we see flying in and out) and on the other you are complaining about the opposite.

But okay. It's legit if you'd rather not see the impact back home. But then you're just asking for a different film. This film was focussed on human beings and human cost, and created narrative continuity through personal stories rather than the tactical ebb and flow of the battle (though that is there as well). Perhaps we need to judge films according to how well they succeed at doing what they set out to do, rather than whether it's exactly the sort of film we wish it had been. In that regard, I agree that WWS has somewhat weaker combat scenes, and gets overly maudlin. So I would give it a B- or a C+.

[ September 01, 2002, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by von Lucke:

[qb]the "only two choppers in the 7th AC" comment refered to the film only showing the same two pilots (Snake**** and TooTall) flying every single mission --- including the last-second-save-the-day gunship run.

One of the criticisms levelled at BHD was the lack of 'characterization'. I disagree, and think there was plenty of characterization, but that it was done very economically. In any case, always showing the same chopper pilots in WWS was probably a concession to the viewer's desire to get to know the characters. If every pilot who flew that day had flickered by we'd be hearing the 'lack of characterization' complaints. Also, I believe that Snake**** 6 actually did personally lead the majority of flights that day including a critical improvised ammo resupply when the LZ was very hot. He made a personal decision that if the 1/7 lost it wouldn't be because his unit failed them, and then he led from the front. That one day probably aged him 10 years. So showing him most of the time could be seen as a deliberate choice and a way of honoring him. Film is a medium requiring compromises.

I realize that focusing on a limited number of characters is fairly standard in a movie like this, in order to give the audience a recognizable roster of faces to relate to --- it's just that I don't think there was enough back-story to actually make that emotional connection. I got that Snake**** was the squadron commander and had a personal interest in keeping flights coming into LZ X-ray, but it taxed my credulity to see his face behind the controls in every single shot that involved a Huey. I'm sure there were other pilots just as brave that day.

a pointless slaughter-fest (human wave attacks galore!) where the tactical situation is never really explained.

This is an interesting subject, because from looking at various war movies I think it is really difficult to make something that successfully conveys a tactical situation AND gives a story you can follow AND has likeable characters all in the same film. The tactical situation is indicated here (as in many films) through scenes at the CPs where the commanders are seen issuing orders and pointing to oversimplified maps.

If it were easy to tell a coherent, easily understood story on film, that gets all the facts straight, illuminates all the major players, and enlightens the audience, then the good ones wouldn't stand out so much.

In WWS, for example, two shots are juxtaposed where Nguyen Huu An, the NVA commander, orders troops into the dry creek area, and then, immediately after, Moore, sizing up the topography, determines that it is a vital spot and orders troops into there. This is the sort of tactical explanation you get in that film, and it also serves to show how the two commanders were trying to outguess each other.

True, but that sequence does more to highten the audience's sense of dreadful anticipation ("there's gonna be a fight!"), then really explaining why the Creekbed was so important to the defense of the perimeter. Actually, it was more the spatial relation of the various areas to each other I was confused about: Where were the Noll, Creekbed, A coy, B coy, the Mountain etc, in relation to each other? Who was attacking what where and when? (Probably more detail then I'm likely to see in a movie, I know).

As for the human wave attacks and endless gore, that's what the battle was like, by all accounts. The American artillery and air support made it difficult to impossible for the NVA to maneuver and fight from stand-off distance and then systematically work their way in closer. They had to get in closer than the ring of fire and they had to do it fast. After the battle there were piles of bodies all around the perimeter. In the area where an American company was overrun bodies from both sides were intermingled. And in the forest all around were bodies from the heavy support. Troopers tell how marching in to relieve the 1/7 they started seeing bodies in the forest, then there were more and more, until they came to the killing zones in the M60 fire lanes and it was like the Somme. They were thinking 'jeezus what a fight!' Most of them had never seen anything close to that kind of massed carnage. So I'm not sure I agree with you that that was inaccurate.

I didn't say that it was inaccurate, as I was fairly certain (for the reasons you stated) that the NVA just tried to overwhelm the US troopers with massed bodies. It was merely the way it was filmed: Almost like they shot it once, and then replayed it from different angles for each battle. Now something like you described, the aftermath of a fight, with the bodies layed out in ranks in front of the M60 positions perhaps...

And yes, I thought the wives on the home front scenes were a bit too maudlin. This movie just shoots for too many emotional change-ups that only serve to make things more confusing.

More confusing? Come on. If you want a more realistic war film you're going to have to be ready to figure things out for yourself and not complain that it's 'confusing'. On the one hand you're dissing techniques that simplify the film (like reducing the number of pilots we see flying in and out) and on the other you are complaining about the opposite.</font>

[Teufelhund]

Greetings,

If you want a good personal account of USMC operations in the DMZ. Try" Operation Buffalo",by Keith William Nolan. It Chronicles elements of the 3rd Mar.Div.(particularly 1/9 Marines"the Walking Dead" who suffered @ least 90% casualties on their tour.The book is a great account of what those Marines encountered,such as when the NVA overrun their outposts & stole helmets & flak jackets to confuse Marines in the rearward positions. This was a nasty fight & Mr. Nolan does great justice to what actually happened.Pick it up,you'll not be disappointed.

Regards,

Teufelhund

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Teufelhund:

Greetings,

If you want a good personal account of USMC operations in the DMZ. Try" Operation Buffalo",by Keith William Nolan. It Chronicles elements of the 3rd Mar.Div.(particularly 1/9 Marines"the Walking Dead" who suffered @ least 90% casualties on their tour.The book is a great account of what those Marines encountered,such as when the NVA overrun their outposts & stole helmets & flak jackets to confuse Marines in the rearward positions. This was a nasty fight & Mr. Nolan does great justice to what actually happened.Pick it up,you'll not be disappointed.

Regards,

Teufelhund

I was there with D Co. 1/3, we went in to help out 1/9, and wound up getting chewed up ourselves.Wasn't pretty.