Matrix Games Forums

I just saw Windtalkers, how does this film do with you guys? Was it totally true?

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

I just saw Windtalkers, how does this film do with you guys? Was it totally true?

i read up on this a bit... there seems to be a bit of controversy whether or not there were actually guys assigned to kill the codetalkers if they were in danger of being captured... some say absolutely untrue, other swear they were actually assigned the duty to do so... i suspect it might be true in some cases.

However, the battle scenes (esp. aircraft releasing bombs 50' or so from their target (and hitting them)) were not so realistic. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

I just saw Windtalkers, how does this film do with you guys? Was it totally true?

The only truth I know is that it's an awful film. Was glad to see Nick Cage die at the end. Even if the box office hadn't already made sure, it guaranteed no sequel.

Letters was probably not historically accurate, but it was at least a very good movie and didn't take the 'artistic license' that the movie that shall not be mentioned did.

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

I just saw Windtalkers, how does this film do with you guys? Was it totally true?

The only truth I know is that it's an awful film. Was glad to see Nick Cage die at the end. Even if the box office hadn't already made sure, it guaranteed no sequel.

Well, yeah, there's that... [:D] doesn't necessarily make it "historically innacurate", though.

i like "the thin red line"; like "apocalypse now" in the pacific

Apocalypse Now

 
Ever read "Heart of Darkness"...?  [;)]

I'm curious. Is Thin Red Line the film that can not be named? I loathed it.

spoiler alert

.
.
.
.
.
.
The Americans were all racist jerks (except the main character), and the Japanese were all saints who begged pretty please for him to surrender at the end so they wouldn't have to shoot him. Of course, in that alternate universe, the rape of Nan King never occurred. Oh, and didn't the main character also play Jesus in that blood/gore extravaganza Passion of the Christ? I need a vomiting smiley.

No, Thin Red Line is not the movie that shall not be named.  But I think it is even worse than the movie that shall not be named.  Windtalkers was bad but nowhere near the level of TRL or that which shall not be named.

ORIGINAL: Ubercat

I'm curious. Is Thin Red Line the film that can not be named? I loathed it.

spoiler alert

.
.
.
.
.
.
The Americans were all racist jerks (except the main character), and the Japanese were all saints who begged pretty please for him to surrender at the end so they wouldn't have to shoot him. Of course, in that alternate universe, the rape of Nan King never occurred. Oh, and didn't the main character also play Jesus in that blood/gore extravaganza Passion of the Christ? I need a vomiting smiley.

TRL is a love/hate movie. I personally love it. I guess it's hard for some people to swallow the fact that sometimes their fellow countrymen are not portrayed as saints and heroes in a movie.

Don't know where you came up with the "japanese were all saints" part though. There's exactly one scene where they try to convince an american to surrender, and that most likely is because they needed/were ordered to take a prisoner for intel purposes.

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

No, Thin Red Line is not the movie that shall not be named.  But I think it is even worse than the movie that shall not be named.  Windtalkers was bad but nowhere near the level of TRL or that which shall not be named.

That's correct. And anyone who even THINKS of the movie Peral Harbor should be banned. Period. [:D]

Thin Red Line and the movie that shall not be named are as bad as they get.
 
Letters was a good movie.
 
Wind Talkers was awful too, but not as cataclysmically awful as the first two.
 
I think Enemy at the Gates (Stalingrad) may be the best World War II movie I've seen.

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: Ubercat

I'm curious. Is Thin Red Line the film that can not be named? I loathed it.

spoiler alert

.
.
.
.
.
.
The Americans were all racist jerks (except the main character), and the Japanese were all saints who begged pretty please for him to surrender at the end so they wouldn't have to shoot him. Of course, in that alternate universe, the rape of Nan King never occurred. Oh, and didn't the main character also play Jesus in that blood/gore extravaganza Passion of the Christ? I need a vomiting smiley.

TRL is a love/hate movie. I personally love it. I guess it's hard for some people to swallow the fact that sometimes their fellow countrymen are not portrayed as saints and heroes in a movie.

lol. I bet I'm at least as willing to recognize the failings of my fellow Americans as you are. We have our fair share of racist jerks today, and I'm sure we had an even greater proportion in the 40's. I just get pissed at the Americans are ALWAYS the bad guys mentality that rewrites history. However bad we were, the Japanese were worse. Why else would the Pacific Islanders have always welcomed liberation from us as eagerly as they did? I guess they just didn't appreciate being maimed for the amusement of IJA soldiers.

Don't know where you came up with the "japanese were all saints" part though. There's exactly one scene where they try to convince an american to surrender, and that most likely is because they needed/were ordered to take a prisoner for intel purposes.

It has been years since I saw it. The please please surrender scene is the only one I remember that strongly featured Japanese that weren't being brutally slaughtered and flame throwered by laughing, leering US marines.

Terence Malick has a particular story telling style best described as an inner monologue fest. You either like it or you don't. I liked it except for a slew of casting decisions . . . Travolta, Nolte, Clooney, Penn and Cusack all looked terribly out of place. At least Travolta was unintentionally funny. Nolte and Clooney looked like their mortgage was due.

ORIGINAL: Ubercat


It has been years since I saw it. The please please surrender scene is the only one I remember that strongly featured Japanese that weren't being brutally slaughtered and flame throwered by laughing, leering US marines.

Well, considering how you view and feel about ww2 japanese soldiers, would you have treated them kindly, and with compassion, taken their offers of surrender and so on, when you knew that there was noone really watching, and even if there was someone, they wouldn't really mind...

And TBH, i don't really recall any such scenes from the movie anyway, yes, soldiers were being killed here and there in battlescenes, but one would expect that. You could say at some points the japanese were being slaughtered, but they were so because of a rather successful american attack. Close quarters fighting ain't pretty.

PS: It wasn't "please please surrender". It was more like "I, and 12 of my squadmates, have guns pointed at you, now drop your weapon". Language barrier intervenes, one side doesn't understand the other, american gets shot.

PS2: Americans always the bad guys? Saving Private Ryan? Band of Brothers? The new and upcoming The Pacific? most of the war movies made in america.. since.. well, from the beginning?

My distaste for TRL had nothing to do with the portrayal of the Americans.  I don't even remember whatever part of the movie you are talking about.  My dislike has to do with poor acting, actors strutting about with 2002 personnas, the use of a modern Navy frigate, and a really inaccurate depiction of the fighting on Guadalcanal.
 
Contrast that with two other movies that had story lines that were glamorized and rather nauseating at times:  Saving Private Ryan and Titanic.  While both were flawed in that regard, each did a magnificent job of giving viewers a stunning view of historic event.  TRL, in contrast, was limp and inaccurate.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

My distaste for TRL had nothing to do with the portrayal of the Americans.  I don't even remember whatever part of the movie you are talking about.  My dislike has to do with poor acting, actors strutting about with 2002 personnas, the use of a modern Navy frigate, and a really inaccurate depiction of the fighting on Guadalcanal.

Contrast that with two other movies that had story lines that were glamorized and rather nauseating at times:  Saving Private Ryan and Titanic.  While both were flawed in that regard, each did a magnificent job of giving viewers a stunning view of historic event.  TRL, in contrast, was limp and inaccurate.

I like the "Thinn red Line" movie! [:)]

I also like the book the movie was made upon - it is 1960's novel of the same name by James Jones. He did serve before WWII and at Guadalcanal in WWII and was even wounded - thus "inaccurate depiction of the fighting" is very bold statement!

Also the movie is very fatefuly to the book (and with same sentiment and pace)...

BTW, please read the "The Thin red Line" book and please read the "The Naked and The Dead" book by Norman Mailer (from late 1940's) - they have many similariies!


Leo "Apollo11"

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: Ubercat


It has been years since I saw it. The please please surrender scene is the only one I remember that strongly featured Japanese that weren't being brutally slaughtered and flame throwered by laughing, leering US marines.

Well, considering how you view and feel about ww2 japanese soldiers, would you have treated them kindly, and with compassion, taken their offers of surrender and so on, when you knew that there was noone really watching, and even if there was someone, they wouldn't really mind...

I don't know what kind of marine I'd have made if I'd been of age to be one in WW2. As I said, I'm sure that plenty were jerks. My overwhelming impression after seeing the movie was of a grossly imbalanced depiction of both sides morality.

And TBH, i don't really recall any such scenes from the movie anyway, yes, soldiers were being killed here and there in battlescenes, but one would expect that. You could say at some points the japanese were being slaughtered, but they were so because of a rather successful american attack. Close quarters fighting ain't pretty.

PS: It wasn't "please please surrender". It was more like "I, and 12 of my squadmates, have guns pointed at you, now drop your weapon". Language barrier intervenes, one side doesn't understand the other, american gets shot.

My impression was of pleading to the point of an agonizing unwillingness to shoot the rifle holding American. Saints indeed.

PS2: Americans always the bad guys? Saving Private Ryan? Band of Brothers? The new and upcoming The Pacific? most of the war movies made in america.. since.. well, from the beginning?

In no way shape or form did I imply that all American made WW2 movies depict us as the bad guys. Mallick made TRL and it was his agenda that colored his work.

TRL gets a lot of hate from wargamers. I liked it quite a bit. It was always over shadowed by Saving Private Ryan which came out that same year.

My grandfather who fought in the Pacific as a army engineer said it was to him the most accurate protrayal of being a soldier. Hours of endless boredom punctuated by sheer terror. He also liked that the viwer was as confused as the soldiers in the movie during combat. He said 90% of the time in combat you never knew what the hell was going on more than 10 feet from you.
The movie does have some 'artsy' aspects which I think would turn off a lot of viewers looking for a pure actionfest or hero worship.

If we didn't like TRL we're looking for a pure actionfest or hero worship; and because we're wargamers we "hate" the movie?  My father, who is 85 and still spry as he can be, served in the US Army in WWII and saw combat.  He's never played a wargame nor, to my knowledge, touched a computer.  He detested TRL, but appreciated Saving Private Ryan.