War movies, how accurate should they be?

ToughOmbre · 07-16-2007, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogthedodge

Fair points but equally where's the need to include the 'over-rated' comment?

You claim we shouldn't take it seriously because it's fiction - isn't that the whole point of this thread ?

"Over-rated" comment? Many feel that Monty was just that. Again, you're being overly sensitive ("It sullied SPR for me and reminded me of 'Burma Victory' - never got over it, only ever watched the action bits since"). Just because that line was in the movie, doesn't mean it was so. Just the opinion of two characters in the movie.

And who claimed that "we shouldn't take it seriously because it's fiction"? I certainly didn't.

Njaco · 07-16-2007, 09:36 PM

Fair points back at you and I may be alittle harsh on TLD but I still love the film. As far as the "over-rated" comment, I look at like this. US troops had been with Monty and Patton since Sicily and maybe a bit in North Africa. The bias on their part, which is to me is understandable, was for Patton. With Monty in charge and Patton with a semi-non-existant 3rd Army, I can accept alittle grudge from US troops. Even though it can be debated if the comment was correct or not, I can't throw away the fact it might have been an emotion felt by the GIs. To that extent, it made the film seem accurate to me.

syscom3 · 07-16-2007, 10:37 PM

If the Brits want to make a film about THEIR troops in Normandy, or anywhere else for that matter, then go ahead and do it.

Just dont give us a sob story that SPR ignores the allied contributions because the movie WASNT ABOUT THEM.

Just as 633 Squadron or The Dam Busters wasn't about the 8th AF!!!

Or "Kokoda" ignored the US contributions!

rogthedodge · 07-16-2007, 10:56 PM

Fair do's - I'd argue that Monty had lots of bad points and made many mistakes but his conduct of the ops D-day to D+90 vindicates his reputation as a commander. As a man many of his views were odious & his personality 'difficult' - not unlike Patton (neither were Slim)

Much of the Monty-slagging has come from the pen of Stephen E Ambrose who was involved in SPR, his agenda is obvious and possibly unfair.

I don't think I'm being over sensitive, the slur was optional, included at the director's discretion, the same director who bangs on about the Holocaust & seems to forget that but for our efforts standing alone & bankrupting ourselves in the process it would have been completed.

We tried to make a film about Bomber Command, it ended up as 'Memphis Belle' - I'm not sure you guys have a real handle on how Hollywood works with regards to anything non-US.

I could mention U-57whatever to re-emphasise the point!

Look at Hollywood's recent output and that of the game industry (not unrelated) and you'll see the UK, Canada & the Free Poles being written out of WW2, which was my original point.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

ToughOmbre you mentioned 'fiction' to defend SPR (and capitalised it JIC I didn't get the point - I did!).

Njaco · 07-16-2007, 11:08 PM

Ok, as a whole I'll agree with you on the slant among films and games in general. But to apply that to one single movie I don't believe is accurate. I'm not well versed in the gaming aspect but I did recently buy "Call of Duty: Finest Hour" for the PS2 and it starts with the player as a Russian in Stalingrad, moves to British 8th Army in North Africa and then gets to US troops. Maybe the industry is waking up alittle.

But as for SPR, I wouldn't be too harsh on it because of movies like "Memphis Belle", "Pearl Harbor" or "U-57". At some point I try not to be critical and enjoy it for what it is...entertainment (if I can!). Anything more there's the History and Discovery Channel!

drgondog · 07-17-2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Just think about the latest Pearl Harbor thingy....why have a dogfight over Pearl Harbor when it never happened in reality?

Actually the 46th and 47th Squadrons engaged and shot down at least 10 a/c (Welch 4; Rasmussen 2; Brown, Sanders Sterling and Taylor one each

No encounter reports so I have no idea whether any actually were shot down over Pearl Harbor. Welch was the US's first ace shortly afterwards (before O'Hare)

Horrible movie.

I want them real. 12 O Clock High was the closest for me in the air - Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan for ground.

Stupid · 07-17-2007, 12:26 PM

I got a good laugh when I heard the real story of U-57 compared to the movie as in which people actually took part in it.

Theres not very many movies from the Eastern Front is there? I don't think Enemy at the Gates was entirely accurate, in many parts.

Njaco · 07-17-2007, 12:39 PM

You should watch "Stalingrad" if you get the chance. Made in German, its Very realistic, similar to SPR.

Stupid · 07-17-2007, 12:54 PM

looking at it on IMDb, it's from the German point of veiw to, so it's bound to be happy!!!
I'm deffinitely going to buy it.

Hopefully the upcoming movie about the Dr. guy who tried to blow up Hitler is accurate and not all jazzed ip with explosively random gunfights. And as a German Lutheran I hope someone else besides Tom Cruise get's the part

Gnomey · 07-17-2007, 02:07 PM

Personally I think war movies should be as accurate as realistically possible (I know there are some things that can be replicated as accurately as would be liked). Those movies that change the course of history to the uneducated masses (U-571/Pearl Harbour - Battle of Britain scenes in a way) I find annoying although sometimes they are enjoyable to watch (if you ignore the inaccuracies). Band of Brothers and SPR I like for their portray of the infantry whereas as regards to the air war I haven't watched any movies that I would say have been realistic although most have been fairly accurate.

glennasher · 07-17-2007, 02:41 PM

" A Bridge Too Far" was about as accurate as any I've seen, and it didn't leave out the Free Poles, they were integral to the story. It's perhaps dolted down with some of the character-fill-out (Elliot Gould's Bob Sink, in particular) but the rest was pretty straight up. It never gets mentioned, but it's a pretty good film, a LOT better than "The Longest Day" IMHO, then again, I was Airborne................

trackend · 07-18-2007, 12:23 PM

All war films are for entertainment first and foremost yes they tell stories some more accurately than others but none are very accurate B.O.B some good flying sequences agreed but the pilots were not flying for their lives so the planes never got push way beyond their limits as in relality.
The Battle of Midway real war footage but intermixed with Charlton Heston and his son arguing among other triva .
Even Private Ryan some good scenes but a fictious story to make it more saleable.

Most American war films (but not all) deal, as would be expected with US involvment, as they are first and foremost for the domestic market.
No war film is ever accurate as we all know that in nearly all scenes they are of actors, who next week we see in the Da Vinci code or some comedy film or another.
Its a fancy version of "bang bang you're dead now what shall we play".

The accuracy of war is that these deaths are real with real violence and real blood & gore the dead dont get up for the next battle and the physically and mentally maimed are not suddenly cured.
The movies cannot reproduce that.