If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
New WWII movies coming!
"TooPlaneCrazy7" wrote in message ... Thanks for your viewpoints. I disagree with Spielberg not showing the viewpoints of the opposing forces. If you see his "war films" such as Empire of the Sun, SPR, and Schlinder's List, you'll see that Spielberg gives the "enemy" a human heart. Spielberg treats his characters with nothing short of respect, unlike most directors today. Schindlers list was unmitigated bull despite the 'gravity' and authenticity with which it was promoted. Schindlers widow said as much and more than a few people have torn holes in the "facts" in that film. Schindlers List goes down the highly selective path of 'righeous gentile' which can only be accomplished by puting your life at risk for a Jew. It is a holocaust movie not a war movie and it barely relates to the facts unfortunatly. I don't see that anywhere that Spielberg give a "human heart" as you say to any German character in SPR (saving private ryan): He turns the main German character into a vile treacherous and dishonourable ogre as is to be expected. As is usual Germans are shown as idiots that have 2/3rds of their bodies hanging out of a 'crap' poorly simulated "tiger tank" ready to get shot up like idiots when in fact these tanks did NOT have peep holes for americans to stick thompson submachine guns into, they opperated in pairs and hosed of infantry of each other and had Grenade lauchers that fired up Grenades vertically to clear any infantry on or near the tanks. In 'Band of Brothers' they are just dumb targets. Ok I understand that the Allies (Americans) win in the end and are the good guys (even though some of them weren't) and the Germans not but they are just another series of americanised, stereoptyped movies in which characters, history, technology are so modified as to be utterly meaningless. It would be better of Spielberg would leave films about Historical events like this to directors and producers with more integrity and authenticity. Even "Memphis Bell" missed an opportunity and that is the best of the films. I'm sick of this rubbish. Taking credit for a British fia't in obtaining code books from a u-boat is another. To tell you the truth, I don't think Americans are able to seperate hollywood hype and historical fact from Hollywood fiction anymore. Some of that is due to low intelligence and knowledge that we have in all populations but it seems so widespread and so unchallenged that most of it is due to Hollywood's lack of authenticity. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 09:21:46 GMT, "The Enlightenment"
wrote: I don't see that anywhere that Spielberg give a "human heart" as you say to any German character in SPR (saving private ryan): He turns the main German character into a vile treacherous and dishonourable ogre as is to be expected. Ogre? He's shown as scared out of his wits, and then is picked up by another German unit and continues fighting. He never gave his word that he's find Alliedf troops, so where id he lose his honour? As is usual Germans are shown as idiots that have 2/3rds of their bodies hanging out of a 'crap' poorly simulated "tiger tank" ready to get shot up like idiots when in fact these tanks did NOT have peep holes for americans to stick thompson submachine guns into What about the Drivers vision slot like at http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWtiger.htm ? , they opperated in pairs and hosed of infantry of each other and had Grenade lauchers that fired up Grenades vertically to clear any infantry on or near the tanks. In 'Band of Brothers' they are just dumb targets. On a narow street how can tanks be mutually supporting? That's what the infantry was for. And don't forget the TIger was stripped of attackers by the 20mm at one point. No arguments about U-571 being a bag of pants though - worst film I saw that year. Peter Kemp |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Kemp" wrote in message ... On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 09:21:46 GMT, "The Enlightenment" wrote: I don't see that anywhere that Spielberg give a "human heart" as you say to any German character in SPR (saving private ryan): He turns the main German character into a vile treacherous and dishonourable ogre as is to be expected. Ogre? He's shown as scared out of his wits, and then is picked up by another German unit and continues fighting. He never gave his word that he's find Alliedf troops, so where id he lose his honour? As is usual Germans are shown as idiots that have 2/3rds of their bodies hanging out of a 'crap' poorly simulated "tiger tank" ready to get shot up like idiots when in fact these tanks did NOT have peep holes for americans to stick thompson submachine guns into What about the Drivers vision slot like at http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWtiger.htm ? That is a very poor web site. Just about all WWII tanks had bullet-proof glass in vision slits. In ' Armor Battles Of The Waffen-SS' an account refers to glass having to be changed due to numerous bullet hits rendering it opaque. Spielberger's book 'Tiger' which has a good photo of the driver's position. The glass is a solid block, bullet-proof and looks to be at least 2cm thick.It is clamped into an internal frame for ease of changing if damaged. That's the tiger I. The tiger II had an episcope/periscope. Trying to take out a Tiger I with a .45 was pure, grade 'A' Hollywood BS. The website also makes the statement that the tiger was not a succes because it was not reliable. That is not true. Both marks of tiger particularly I became reliable after initial modifications. http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger2.htm Numerous statements have been made that the Tiger II was too heavy, too big, too slow, "a casemate", etc. One is left with the impression that it was lucky to move at all. These banal generalities, stated as incontrovertible facts, are never substantiated by actual specifications, test reports or after-action accounts from the units that used the Tiger II. In spite of these frequently repeated remarks, the capability of the Tiger II to negotiate obstacles and cross terrain was equivalent to or better than most German and allied tanks. The Tiger II initially experienced numerous automotive problems which required a continuous series of minor modifications to correct. These problems can be traced to two main causes: leaking seals and gaskets and an over taxed drive train originally designed for a 40 metric ton vehicle. The problem of keeping a Tiger II in running condition was compounded by a shortage of skilled drivers many of whom may have never experienced driving any vehicle prior to entering the service. In addition they were provided only limited driver's training, and then usually on a different type of panzer, and received their own Tiger II usually within a few days before being shipped to the front. But, with mature drivers, taking required maintenance halts, and modification of key automotive components, the Tiger II could be maintained in a satisfactory operational condition. Status reports from the Western Front, dated March 1945, showed that the percentage of Tigers operational at the Front was about equal to the PzKpfw IV and as good as or better than the Panther. http://64.26.50.215/armorsite/tiger1-02.htm The 13.(Tiger) Kompanie, of Panzer Regiment Großdeutschland, reported on the armor protection of the Tiger: "During a scouting patrol two Tigers encountered about 20 Russian tanks on their front, while additional Russian tanks attacked from behind. A battle developed in which the armor and weapons of the Tiger were extraordinarily successful. Both Tigers were hit (mainly by 76.2 mm armor-piercing shells) 10 or more times at ranges from 500 to 1,000 meters. The armor held up all around. Not a single round penetrated through the armor. Also hits in the running gear, in which the suspension arms were torn away, did not immobilize the Tiger. While 76.2 mm anti-tank shells continuously struck outside the armor, on the inside, undisturbed, the commander, gunner, and loader selected targets, aimed, and fired. The end result was 10 enemy tanks knocked out by two Tigers within 15 minutes" (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.). , they opperated in pairs and hosed of infantry of each other and had Grenade lauchers that fired up Grenades vertically to clear any infantry on or near the tanks. In 'Band of Brothers' they are just dumb targets. On a narow street how can tanks be mutually supporting? I am not a tanker but here is my guess. The lead tank is protected by the rear tank. The rear tank is protected by the lead tanks mantlet gun by radio and of course its own grenade lauchers. Better hope the tiger runs o That's what the infantry was for. And don't forget the TIger was stripped of attackers by the 20mm at one point. No arguments about U-571 being a bag of pants though - worst film I saw that year. Peter Kemp |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What about the Drivers vision slot like at
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWtiger.htm ? That is a very poor web site. Just about all WWII tanks had bullet-proof glass in vision slits. In ' Armor Battles Of The Waffen-SS' an account refers to glass having to be changed due to numerous bullet hits rendering it opaque. Spielberger's book 'Tiger' which has a good photo of the driver's position. The glass is a solid block, bullet-proof and looks to be at least 2cm thick.It is clamped into an internal frame for ease of changing if damaged. That's the tiger I. The tiger II had an episcope/periscope. Trying to take out a Tiger I with a .45 was pure, grade 'A' Hollywood BS. This site notes the inaccuracies of SPR in regard to the Tiger I scenes: http://www.sproe.com/t/tiger-tank.html Rob |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Trying to take out a Tiger I with a .45 was pure, grade 'A' Hollywood BS.
From what I remember, Spielberg said that it was a play on the audience's imagination--what actually took out the tank were the P51 Mustangs that flew right over heard. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
(TooPlaneCrazy7) wrote:
Well you guys are not gonna like the new Tom Cruise WWII film about the Battle of Britain..... Please tell me you're joking. Please. His character is Billy Fiske. American volunteer pilot for the Brits in Battle of Britain. They were the Eagle Squadron. Olympic Gold medalist. Love story. Guns. Explosions. Top Gun 2? Yep, it's real: "The actor also spoke admiringly of Mann, who will direct him again in "The Few," an upcoming biopic of an American WWII pilot set to begin shooting later this year. "The layers upon layers that he puts into the film — that's what makes him Michael Mann." --from http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...71964_5/?hub=E ntertainment |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Not too fussed about the plots or how real/true the movies are, I just soak
up anything with combat-type flight scenes. I guess movies like The Blue Max, 633 Squadron, the Dam Busters etc., made a big impression on me in my formative years. The History channel was introduced in my country this year and I am glued to anything to do with air combat, especially WWII. The gun camera footage is just fascinating! Great movie idea to pass on to Hollywood: The George Welch story. http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Welch1.html The huge volumes of crap coming out of Hollywood nowadays makes even Top Gun look like a classic. Bring em on. "TooPlaneCrazy7" wrote in message ... (TooPlaneCrazy7) wrote: Well you guys are not gonna like the new Tom Cruise WWII film about the Battle of Britain..... Please tell me you're joking. Please. His character is Billy Fiske. American volunteer pilot for the Brits in Battle of Britain. They were the Eagle Squadron. Olympic Gold medalist. Love story. Guns. Explosions. Top Gun 2? Yep, it's real: "The actor also spoke admiringly of Mann, who will direct him again in "The Few," an upcoming biopic of an American WWII pilot set to begin shooting later this year. "The layers upon layers that he puts into the film - that's what makes him Michael Mann." --from http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...71964_5/?hub=E ntertainment |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: New WWII movies coming!
From: Date: 8/11/2004 10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Not too fussed about the plots or how real/true the movies are, I just soak up anything with combat-type flight scenes. I guess movies like The Blue Max, 633 Squadron, the Dam Busters etc., made a big impression on me in my formative years. The History channel was introduced in my country this year and I am glued to anything to do with air combat, especially WWII. The gun camera footage is just fascinating! Great movie idea to pass on to Hollywood: The George Welch story. http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Welch1.html The huge volumes of crap coming out of Hollywood nowadays makes even Top Gun look like a classic. Bring em on. "TooPlaneCrazy7" wrote in message ... (TooPlaneCrazy7) wrote: Well you guys are not gonna like the new Tom Cruise WWII film about the Battle of Britain..... Please tell me you're joking. Please. His character is Billy Fiske. American volunteer pilot for the Brits in Battle of Britain. They were the Eagle Squadron. Olympic Gold medalist. Love story. Guns. Explosions. Top Gun 2? Yep, it's real: "The actor also spoke admiringly of Mann, who will direct him again in "The Few," an upcoming biopic of an American WWII pilot set to begin shooting later this year. "The layers upon layers that he puts into the film - that's what makes him Michael Mann." --from http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...71964_5/?hub=E ntertainment Have you seen 12 O'Cock High? Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"ArtKramr" wrote in message
... || | Have you seen 12 O'Cock High? | | | | Arthur Kramer I think that's about the best (air) war movie of all time. I shudder to think what will happen if 'they' decide to remake it. It'll probably have fkkkkn Steve Martin -- Cheers Dave Kearton (oh NO , I've got _happy_ feet) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: New WWII movies coming!
From: "Dave Kearton" Date: 8/12/2004 6:14 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "ArtKramr" wrote in message ... || | Have you seen 12 O'Cock High? | | | | Arthur Kramer I think that's about the best (air) war movie of all time. I shudder to think what will happen if 'they' decide to remake it. It'll probably have fkkkkn Steve Martin -- Cheers Dave Kearton (oh NO , I've got _happy_ feet) It's my all time favorite WW II combat film.It has one moment in it that reminds me of moments of reality. It is when the plane gets hit by flak and the crew is all excited and babbling and the pilot gets on the intercom and quietly says," Ok now everyone just settle down, just settle down" A truly realistic moment. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hiroshima/Nagasaki vs conventional B-17 bombing | zxcv | Military Aviation | 55 | April 4th 04 07:05 AM |
WWII Aircraft still useful | Charles Talleyrand | Military Aviation | 14 | January 12th 04 01:40 AM |
FA: WWII B-3jacket, B-1 pants, Class A uniform | N329DF | Military Aviation | 1 | August 16th 03 03:41 PM |
"Target for Today" & "Thunderbolt" WWII Double Feature at Zeno'sDrive-In | Zeno | Aerobatics | 0 | August 2nd 03 07:31 PM |
"Target for Today" & "Thunderbolt": An Awesome WWII DoubleFeature at Zeno's Drive-In | zeno | Military Aviation | 0 | July 14th 03 07:31 PM |