New war movies....

[KG Erwin]

Originally posted by rbrunsman


KG Erwin, how do you know this movie is coming out soon? I haven't seen trailers for it anywhere. And I saw trailers for Windtalker a year before it was released.

One of my coworkers is a Civil War reenactor, and he was involved in the segment that was filmed in and around Harpers Ferry WV. It was from him that I learned about the heightened sense of realism that will be featured in "Gods and Generals". If you remember, "Gettysburg" was originally intended as a TV miniseries for TBS, which is why the film seems so "bloodless". "Gods and Generals" is intended for nation-wide theatrical release, so Ron Maxwell could indulge himself a bit more this time around. You can visit the official website here: http://www.godsandgenerals.com/

[rbrunsman]

Originally posted by KG Erwin
One of my coworkers is a Civil War reenactor, and he was involved in the segment that was filmed in and around Harpers Ferry WV. It was from him that I learned about the heightened sense of realism that will be featured in "Gods and Generals". If you remember, "Gettysburg" was originally intended as a TV miniseries for TBS, which is why the film seems so "bloodless". "Gods and Generals" is intended for nation-wide theatrical release, so Ron Maxwell could indulge himself a bit more this time around. You can visit the official website here: http://www.godsandgenerals.com/

This is very exciting! Jan. '03 for release of Gods and Generals and they are already writing The Last Full Measure.

Thanks for the info!

[jnier]

Originally posted by rbrunsman
Just my two cents but, as long as you keep out the idiotic "love interest" in a war movie then it won't be that bad of a movie. Pearl Harbor was made that much worse because of the "love interest."

Well put. The history is dramatic enough. When they turn history into an amorous docu-drama the result is usually crap.

[Brigz]

Originally posted by Frank W.
i have seen "we were soldiers" and "windtalkers".

What´s up with american movie makers?

70-80% of these movies are senseless
battlescenes and slaughter.

okay, many here in this forum might like war
themes,but did really anyone enjoy these films
in cinema??

i think i would get sick after a while and leave.....

I was in the middle of responding to this last night but I got a long distance call and had to sign off and lost my brilliant train of thought. So, I'll fore-go my original diplomantic reply and just be blunt.

What do you mean by "What's up with american movie makers?" You didn't say, "What's up with MOVIE makers", you said, "What's up with AMERICAN movie makers". Why the political intonation? Don't you know any non-american movie maker that has put out an ultra graphically violent movie? I'll help you with one...Paul Verhoeven who directed such films as Robocop and Starship Troopers. Lots of flying meat and blood in those. And even though they are SciFi movies they are technically "war" movies, especially Starship Troopers. They are both the most violent movies I've ever seen. Good movies, but they top the list for violence in my book.

Sorry if I appear to be off on a tangent, but your original post did make me wonder if there wasn't a thinly veiled implication in it. Sure, both of the films you mentioned were directed by Americans, but do you think this indicates that Americans are basically more violent than other people?

[Frank W.]

yep. i agree, too.

same with "enemy at the gates"
this movie dissapointed me,too.
except the scenes at the beginning
which were very good (stuka attack!)

Originally posted by jnier


Well put. The history is dramatic enough. When they turn history into an amorous docu-drama the result is usually crap.

[Frank W.]

ooopss..... you US people seem to be quite
thin skinned these days.

okay, delete the "american filmmakers"
add "worldwide filmmakers" therefore.

okay, now?


ps: i don´t know how violent americans are.
and germans made some violent war movies as
stalingrad,too


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Briggs


I was in the middle of responding to this last night but I got a long distance call and had to sign off and lost my brilliant train of thought. So, I'll fore-go my original diplomantic reply and just be blunt.

What do you mean by "What's up with american movie makers?" You didn't say, "What's up with MOVIE makers", you said, "What's up with AMERICAN movie makers". Why the political intonation? Don't you know any non-american movie maker that has put out an ultra graphically violent movie? I'll help you with one...Paul Verhoeven who directed such films as Robocop and Starship Troopers. Lots of flying meat and blood in those. And even though they are SciFi movies they are technically "war" movies, especially Starship Troopers. They are both the most violent movies I've ever seen. Good movies, but they top the list for violence in my book.

Sorry if I appear to be off on a tangent, but your original post did make me wonder if there wasn't a thinly veiled implication in it. Sure, both of the films you mentioned were directed by Americans, but do you think this indicates that Americans are basically more violent than other people? [/QUOTE

[OKW-73]

Maybe someone complaining violent in war (movies) should stop watching them if it bothers? because that what war is, no matter if its old or new war movie, always someone dies and its violent...

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Anyone that would complain about the "violence" in a WAR movie is in my opinion a trifle odd.

I don't mind acting in my war movies and I certainly don't mind a few scenes here and there where someone isn't being killed.

But I DO after all go into a WAR movie fully aware that I am not watching Pokemon with my son eh.

I remember watching Enemy at the Gates and thinking dang this is a cool war movie. Then that **** woman pulls down her pants intentionally letting me know she has a great looking ***. Ruined the movies perfect score right there (I only give it a 9 out of 10). Why they put that scene in is obvious though, sex sells.

Sure people have sex during war, they also crap, shower and shave. You don't think I want to watch that either do you? (although french film makers think we do).

I don't have ANY problem depicting a horrific event with horrific scenes. I do have a problem with horrific scenes in a non war movie if there is no point. I don't have trouble with sex in a romance movie either.
I think swearing is often entirely over done in most films (it reeeeeally gets tedious in some films, although it must make it easy for no talent actors to remember their lines).

But until WAR becomes a kind gentle act to visit upon a person, I don't expect it to be treated as such.

[Kanon Fodder]

Thanks for the "Gods and Generals" info, KG

I will be looking forward to that one.

[OKW-73]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1

I remember watching Enemy at the Gates and thinking dang this is a cool war movie. Then that **** woman pulls down her pants intentionally letting me know she has a great looking ***. Ruined the movies perfect score right there (I only give it a 9 out of 10).

heheh...i agree with you here 101%

[Brigz]

Originally posted by Frank W.
ooopss..... you US people seem to be quite
thin skinned these days.

okay, delete the "american filmmakers"
add "worldwide filmmakers" therefore.

okay, now?


ps: i don´t know how violent americans are.
and germans made some violent war movies as
stalingrad,too

Although I think we "US people" might have a good reason to be thin skinned these days, that has nothing to do with what I was trying to say. I also figured, based on your initial post, that you might reply with such a remark. I'm sorry you didn't choose to explain your original question, as I was asking you to do. Instead you chose to toss in another veiled remark.

I don't very often hear people talk about movies with a national attachment to the conversation. Movies are truely international. No one makes movies for a particular nationality. All movies today are made for international release or at least that's what the producers hope for. When most people talk about a movie they have seen or are reviewing they usually talk about the director or producer or the actors. I very rarely hear someone bring the country the movie was made in into question. But your reply does seem to give me an indication of your initial intent. Let me try to explain my reasons for my comments.

When I first saw "Das Boot" for example, I knew when I bought my ticket that it was a movie made in Germany and was directed by a German and had a German cast and it was in the German language with English subtitles. But after the movie was over, I didn't think, "Gee, what a great job those Germans did with that movie." Instead I thought, "What a great movie." The nationality of the producer, director and cast didn't even enter my mind. It was a fabulous movie, period. The same goes for Kurasawa movies, one of my favorite directors. I don't see his movies and think, "What a great Japanese movie." His movies are wonderful and his nationality is no factor in the appeal of his work. If I see a movie I don't like, I don't say, "What were those Australians thinking?" I think, "What a crummy movie." You might find this hard to believe, but if you would have been talking about a French movie and had said "what's with French movie makers", I would have responded the same way.

I'm not angry with you or think any less of you, and I respect your opionion. I just wanted to clarify what you were asking. I honestly couldn't figure out if you actually wanted to know what's with with American movie makers or what's with the directors of the two movies you mentioned.

Don't take this too seriously, Frank. I'm just someone who is bold and forward enough to ask someone a direct question and take them to task for what they say or appear to say. Isn't that what forums are all about?

[KG Erwin]

...Hollywood is simply cashing in on the post 9/11 wave of American patriotism. That may be true of films such as "We Were Soldiers" and "Windtalkers", but I hope "Gods and Generals" will avoid that sense of rah rah flag-waving that "Gettysburg" did so admirably. It's a period piece, and it's only necessary to portray the sensibilities OF THE TIME. That's a vital part of historical storytelling. You show the participants behaving as they would in the time in question, not some 21st century social revisionist trying to project their twisted notions of all-inclusiveness into a historical setting. It's just ludicrous. Nevertheless, the overall quality of war films HAS gotten better. I don't think we'd be subjected to a piece of tripe such as 1965's "Battle of the Bulge" in this day and age.

[KG Erwin]

... the Germans should be courageous enough to present a film such as the American "Dances With Wolves", which dealt with our treatment of the native American people and presented a fair and balanced view of their way of life, as well as our persecution of them. Let's see the Germans do that with the pre-war Jewish population. The closest example I can think of is "Europa Europa" . (Frank, I told you about that one, didn't I?) That was a French-Polish production. Should I mention "Schindler's List"? I rest my case.

[Brigz]

Originally posted by KG Erwin
...Hollywood is simply cashing in on the post 9/11 wave of American patriotism. That may be true of films such as "We Were Soldiers" and "Windtalkers", but I hope "Gods and Generals" will avoid that sense of rah rah flag-waving that "Gettysburg" did so admirably. It's a period piece, and it's only necessary to portray the sensibilities OF THE TIME. That's a vital part of historical storytelling. You show the participants behaving as they would in the time in question, not some 21st century social revisionist trying to project their twisted notions of all-inclusiveness into a historical setting. It's just ludicrous. Nevertheless, the overall quality of war films HAS gotten better. I don't think we'd be subjected to a piece of tripe such as 1965's "Battle of the Bulge" in this day and age.

I agree with all you said. But I think it's more than just this wave of patriotism. Frank W. was commenting on the excessive graphic gore in current movies. I think this has more to do with contempory artistic technology than anything else. I just watched the DVD of Lord of the Rings and was amazed that they did such a good job of bringing the book to film. Wouldn't have been possible without the technology availabe today. I think current filmmakers are so graphically realistic because the technology is available. In other words, if it can be done, they will do it. Leave nothing to the imagination. I don't think Hollywood is so patriotic but rather it is immersed in "realism", not just in war movies but all movies.

And I'm eagerly awaiting "Gods and Gernerals" too. Didn't really like Turner's "Gettyburg". Didn't do justice to "The Killer Angels". Maybe it was the beards.

[Frank W.]

yeahh.

your are right.

i´m **** fed up with this jungle fighting films (vietnam or WW2)
with all that american heroism against japanese or vietnamese "untermenschen" , combinied with poor acting given the 2 movies i mentioned. why not make some realistic films about
the sea or air war. there are much more themes to discover
than jungle fighting.

sorry, i was somewhat upset in wasting my time with these
films.

but i´m looking forward for the civil war movies announced here, as i found gettyburgh a very good movie.

as you see i´m also interested in american civil war......

Originally posted by Dave Briggs


Don't take this too seriously, Frank. I'm just someone who is bold and forward enough to ask someone a direct question and take them to task for what they say or appear to say. Isn't that what forums are all about?

[Frank W.]

for german films:

i can´t remember any good newer
german films, and i don´t know any outstanding german
actors. but if anyone knows good german
films in the last 2-3 years tell me!

so perhaps i should not blame the US films industry
but more the film industry in general.

[Kanon Fodder]

Originally posted by Dave Briggs
And I'm eagerly awaiting "Gods and Gernerals" too. Didn't really like Turner's "Gettyburg". Didn't do justice to "The Killer Angels". Maybe it was the beards.

I see I am not the only one who thought some of those guys should have taken the time to grow a real beard ...

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Most war movies eventually do have to suffer one significant set back though, they won't be filming it to show it to just a few hundred wargamers.

So they have to take into account each and every part of the movie going public.
But that is why I get more annoyed by petroleum laced grenades, than I do watching people have sex in a combat zone.

Joe schmuck movie goer won't be to upset watching a soldier get some poontang in a combat zone, but he also won't know he is being systematically insulted by all those phoney munitions either.
And then there is firing small arms, who here has NOT fired a battlefield assault rifle yet?
There is good reason for being taught to tuck that thing into your shoulder, because failing to do so gets you a broken collar bone.

Arguments that the Tiger tank was not very real is perhaps pointless nit picking, because no movie producer is going to pay to have a white metal exact replica Tiger made just so it can waste a few moments rumbling by and not offend us accuracy cops eh.

But grenades do NOT produce any flame nor do they thrown full grown men flying through the air, even with a running start. I know because I have used grenades. They produce nasty jagged shards of quite lethal metal that punch rather vicious holes in flesh. Then you probably fall down and die.
Incendiary greandes set OTHER things on fire too.

The best route to getting a great video experience, is to watch one of many good war documentaries. The dialogue in some is a bit hard to stomache occasionally (Why We Fight sure is a hoot).
I have a very large collection of documentaries. They are incredible at delivering what I suspect some of us were wishing to see when we went to the movies.

In truth I have yet to see ANY movie that is better than a good documentary series. Watching say The War Years in proper sequence is amazing.

[Brigz]

Originally posted by Frank W.
so perhaps i should not blame the US films industry
but more the film industry in general.

That's exactly where I was coming from and the whole purpose of my comments.

Although it isn't a war movie, wasn't "Run Lola Run" a "German" production. A good movie.

And years ago I saw "Hiemat" (hope I spelled that close enough.) That should stiffle those who say there aren't any introspective films by German film makers.

[KG Erwin]

First of all, my wife bought me a copy of this as a Christmas present. Secondly, she liked it, and this helped me to get HER more involved in understanding my interest in history and gaming. Thirdly, the obvious intent of PH was to appeal to a mass audience, not some specialized historical interest group. Fourthly, I enjoyed it, too, for all its romanticized gloss. Despite its obvious intentions to grab the "Titanic" audience, even down to the music video at the end of the movie--I KNEW what this movie's creators were trying to do, BUT they DID give a nod to those of us interested in a realistic recreation of the actual attack. In that, I think they did a fine job. I don't think this movie should be as instantly dismissed as it is amongst many of the hardcore gamers. You simply have to watch it with your wife or girlfriend, and understand its intent. Now, having said all that, I will add that the next director who tries to turn an historical epic into a "chick flick" should be run out of town on the nearest rails. That's my last word on "Pearl Harbor".