Rumpy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 1:32 pm
I feel like calling this popular history. You make a historical movie while grossly blowing out the historical facts in order to just make a loud action movie to try being popular with the tentpole movie crowd. This looks so cringe-inducing, and I feel alarmed at the crowd of young people who are going to see this and think this is really how it played out.
This probably describes most war movies, really.
The typical war movie is a fantasy buddy-flick with nothing valuable to say about history, politics, the military, or war itself.
Rumpy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 1:32 pm
I feel like calling this popular history. You make a historical movie while grossly blowing out the historical facts in order to just make a loud action movie to try being popular with the tentpole movie crowd. This looks so cringe-inducing, and I feel alarmed at the crowd of young people who are going to see this and think this is really how it played out.
This probably describes most war movies, really.
The typical war movie is a fantasy buddy-flick with nothing valuable to say about history, politics, the military, or war itself.
This got me thinking which war movie is not guilty of this and does not have an agenda or is flat out propaganda. Soviet, Russian, German, French, and English movies are notorious for this as well. The one Hollywood movie that keeps coming up in my mind is The Thin Red Line but it does get the Terrence Malick treatment which I love.
Another came to mind is Stalingrad. A German movie about the battle of Stalingrad. Still ultimately a buddy movie but it encapsulates the environment like few movies have. Never felt so cold in the dead of summer.
mori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:55 pm
This got me thinking which war movie is not guilty of this and does not have an agenda or is flat out propaganda. Soviet, Russian, German, French, and English movies are notorious for this as well. The one Hollywood movie that keeps coming up in my mind is The Thin Red Line but it does get the Terrence Malick treatment which I love.
We were soliders came kinda close. With Mel Gibson playing Hal Moore, based on his book "Were were soldiers once, and young" Got good portrayal of Vietnam war, craziness of fighting close-quarters, at night and all that, though the final gunship strafe was kinda bull****. But it didn't portray VNA as just faceless goons. The respective commanders have respect for each other... sorta.
My game FAQs | Playing: She Will Punish Them, Sunrider: Mask of Arcadius, The Outer Worlds
We Were Soldiers did not portray anything close to what really happened. It was not like the portrayal and there was a second US unit in the fight that got torn to pieces. The ending was complete fantasy. Highly recommend reading the book.
War movies with little to now agenda: Letter from Iwo Jima, !2 O'Clock High, Best Years of Our Lives, The Gallant Hours....and of course Kelly's Heroes
Jaddison wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:48 pm
We Were Soldiers did not portray anything close to what really happened. It was not like the portrayal and there was a second US unit in the fight that got torn to pieces. The ending was complete fantasy. Highly recommend reading the book.
I actually did read the book. The movie tried to "dramatize" the book and took liberty with more than a few facts. But then, it's an American movie. For a Vietnam War movie (which includes Platoon or Rambo II) it's about as nuanced and balanced as you can expect.
My game FAQs | Playing: She Will Punish Them, Sunrider: Mask of Arcadius, The Outer Worlds
I think I did a little reading up on it afterwards, but I don't actually remember whether it was fairly true to the subject matter, or widely inaccurate.
Black Lives Matter
Isgrimnur - Facebook makes you hate your friends and family. LinkedIn makes you hate you co-workers. NextDoor makes you hate your neighbors.
TheMix wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:48 amEnemy at the Gates?
I think I did a little reading up on it afterwards, but I don't actually remember whether it was fairly true to the subject matter, or widely inaccurate.
Utterly false. They based the film off of the Russian propaganda campaign, not off of the actual events. And certain scenes were so iconic that people have begun to accept them as history.
Jaddison wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:48 pm
We Were Soldiers did not portray anything close to what really happened. It was not like the portrayal and there was a second US unit in the fight that got torn to pieces. The ending was complete fantasy. Highly recommend reading the book.
War movies with little to now agenda: Letter from Iwo Jima, !2 O'Clock High, Best Years of Our Lives, The Gallant Hours....and of course Kelly's Heroes
For the second unit are you referring to 2nd Battalion, 7th Cav? If so, that was under Lt. Col McDade's command, not Hal Moore's. The movie focused primarily on Hal Moore and the men under his command, and 2nd Battalion got into the fight on Nov 17, while Hal Moore's battalion fought on Nov 14-16, so it is understandable that they didn't show 2nd Battalion; that would have been a separate movie.
My reference was to how the movie was so vastly different from the book which covered the entire operation and covered what happen to the second unit in detail. The fantasy ending of the movie was a huge turnoff for me as well.
Jaddison wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:15 am
My reference was to how the movie was so vastly different from the book which covered the entire operation and covered what happen to the second unit in detail. The fantasy ending of the movie was a huge turnoff for me as well.
TheMix wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:00 am
Fair enough. So the story is bunk.
What about the portrayal of the struggle for the city? Bunk as well?
Honestly, I don't remember. I looked into it more deeply years ago, but it isn't at all fresh in my memory. I know that the character and events were completely unhistorical (despite it being based on a real person.) I know that the Order 227 "not one step back" bit was completely out of whack with history. In reality they didn't just mow them down, they rounded them up, executed a few extreme cases to set and example, and sent the vast majority to penal units tasked with such duties as clearing minefields and frontal assaults. Manpower and ammunition were gold, and they weren't going to waste either.
Jaddison wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:15 am
My reference was to how the movie was so vastly different from the book which covered the entire operation and covered what happen to the second unit in detail. The fantasy ending of the movie was a huge turnoff for me as well.
It seems more than a bit unfair to blame a movie for not covering every aspect of a book or particular battle, and instead focusing on one aspect. Blame them for inaccuracies yes, but this seems to be taking it a bit far.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Jaddison wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:15 am
My reference was to how the movie was so vastly different from the book which covered the entire operation and covered what happen to the second unit in detail. The fantasy ending of the movie was a huge turnoff for me as well.
It seems more than a bit unfair to blame a movie for not covering every aspect of a book or particular battle, and instead focusing on one aspect. Blame them for inaccuracies yes, but this seems to be taking it a bit far.
I thought the thread was about war movies not trying to sell a POV? That is the source of my comments. As a semi-fictional war movie it is fine fantasy ending and all. As a level look at the source material? Not even close.
I don't think I've ever seen a movie that was entirely accurate. I just try to enjoy them for what they are...a movie.
And of course tearing them apart for not being accurate.
I can enjoy a good war-themed romp. The problem has always been the sheer number of people that will look at a film based on historical events and remember it as history, essentially redefining what really happened for many people.
Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 4:16 pm
I can enjoy a good war-themed romp. The problem has always been the sheer number of people that will look at a film based on historical events and remember it as history, essentially redefining what really happened for many people.
Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 4:16 pm
I can enjoy a good war-themed romp. The problem has always been the sheer number of people that will look at a film based on historical events and remember it as history, essentially redefining what really happened for many people.
mori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:55 pm
This got me thinking which war movie is not guilty of this and does not have an agenda or is flat out propaganda. Soviet, Russian, German, French, and English movies are notorious for this as well. The one Hollywood movie that keeps coming up in my mind is The Thin Red Line but it does get the Terrence Malick treatment which I love.
Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 4:16 pm
I can enjoy a good war-themed romp. The problem has always been the sheer number of people that will look at a film based on historical events and remember it as history, essentially redefining what really happened for many people.
Yeah, that's part of what I'm saying. And the fact that this movie is kind of cartoonified doesn't really help. I'm not saying all war movies are perfect, but some are definitely better at telling their stories. Some will inevitably see this movie years down the road and think that's the way it really happened.
Latest war movie I've seen was The Last Full Measure. It's a vietnam war movie about Airman William H. Pitsenbarger, Jr, and the effort to get him posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. What sets its apart are the modern-day scenes where an investigator interviews his former buddies played by a whole host of big A-list stars such as Samuel Jackson, William Hurt, Ed Harris and Peter Fonda, and Christopher Plummer playing the war hero's father, all recounting the wartime efforts.
Rumpy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 1:32 pm
I feel like calling this popular history. You make a historical movie while grossly blowing out the historical facts in order to just make a loud action movie to try being popular with the tentpole movie crowd. This looks so cringe-inducing, and I feel alarmed at the crowd of young people who are going to see this and think this is really how it played out.
This probably describes most war movies, really.
The typical war movie is a fantasy buddy-flick with nothing valuable to say about history, politics, the military, or war itself.
This got me thinking which war movie is not guilty of this and does not have an agenda or is flat out propaganda. Soviet, Russian, German, French, and English movies are notorious for this as well. The one Hollywood movie that keeps coming up in my mind is The Thin Red Line but it does get the Terrence Malick treatment which I love.
My favorite is still A Bridge Too Far. Obviously it focuses on various personalities (and it stars basically half the 1970s' leading men), but it does a terrific job of keeping the viewer aware and interested in the various moving parts of the operation as a whole. I can't think of more effective "operational-scale" war movie.
Plus, it remains incredibly well-shot and moving. The final scene of exhausted British paratroopers singing "Abide with Me" as the Germans move in to take them prisoner is one of the most affecting single scenes in war moviedom.
mori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:55 pm
This got me thinking which war movie is not guilty of this and does not have an agenda or is flat out propaganda. Soviet, Russian, German, French, and English movies are notorious for this as well. The one Hollywood movie that keeps coming up in my mind is The Thin Red Line but it does get the Terrence Malick treatment which I love.
I'm willing to cut filmmakers slack on fudging the truth. It is physically impossible to be 100% true. Even if you have cameras recording the war as it happens you can''t have a completely accurate movie because the footage needs to be edited and the decisions made in editing alter the depiction of what happened.
What I don't like is when they force plot developments in there due to some screenwriting formula. For instance, many war movies have love stories in them, or even just sex scenes. The movie Fury is a good example of what I mean. The concept, American tank crews fighting through what's left of the German army at the end of the war is an interesting one. What was left included children. A movie showing US forces confronting child soldiers forced into battle could and should be a powerful story. Yet they had no faith in that. The filmmakers managed to have the tank crew share a moment with a couple of German women in the middle of the movie. Why is that scene in the movie? It helps keep the movie from being a sausage fest, that's all. It wouldn't surprise me to find out someone in charge said "Someone in the movie gets laid right? There's space in this movie for a hot looking chick isn't there?".
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
gameoverman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:25 pm
I'm willing to cut filmmakers slack on fudging the truth. It is physically impossible to be 100% true. Even if you have cameras recording the war as it happens you can''t have a completely accurate movie because the footage needs to be edited and the decisions made in editing alter the depiction of what happened.
What I don't like is when they force plot developments in there due to some screenwriting formula. For instance, many war movies have love stories in them, or even just sex scenes. The movie Fury is a good example of what I mean. The concept, American tank crews fighting through what's left of the German army at the end of the war is an interesting one. What was left included children. A movie showing US forces confronting child soldiers forced into battle could and should be a powerful story. Yet they had no faith in that. The filmmakers managed to have the tank crew share a moment with a couple of German women in the middle of the movie. Why is that scene in the movie? It helps keep the movie from being a sausage fest, that's all. It wouldn't surprise me to find out someone in charge said "Someone in the movie gets laid right? There's space in this movie for a hot looking chick isn't there?".
Fury is interesting. The grittiness and ugly personalities of the tank crew cut against the usual Every-Soldier-Is-a-Saint quality of most war movies.
I recall the dinner scene with the German women, but I can't remember how it ends. Was there sex shown or implied?
I definitely know that while I was watching it I wondered if the movie would go so far as to show a rape or attempted rape by American soldiers. It didn't, but the tension was all over that scene, and it made the movie serious.
Too bad it had to end with five guys absurdly holding off an apparently brainless veteran German battalion.
The sex was off screen, and the whole thing was just weird. As I recall, when the US soldier and German go in the next room to have sex, Pitt's character says something about them being young and alive. The German woman with him then says "Bitte" which I know is usually German for 'please'. So how I interpret that is he's trying to put a positive spin on it and she's rolling her eyes saying 'Oh please' because it's an enemy soldier having sex with a civilian woman of the opposing country, how do you get anything positive out of that from their eyes?
All this is after Pitt's character tells the other guy if you don't take her in that bedroom, I will. What the hell? Oh and the women get blown up right after. And yeah the movie also ends in Rambo fashion after starting out so promising and gritty. At least with this Midway movie I don't have high expectations for it.
For a Vietnam War movie (which includes Platoon or Rambo II) it's about as nuanced and balanced as you can expect. 
