Matrix Games Forums

Please remember to support the movie no matter how many "why did they do that moment"
As much as Bays Pearl Harbor was the worst cinamatice rash fire of all time I am glad he made it.
WW2 and American heorisum has been forgotten about and delibertly removed from school.
This movie at least brings it up again and that is great.

ORIGINAL: jagsdomain

Please remember to support the movie no matter how many "why did they do that moment"
As much as Bays Pearl Harbor was the worst cinamatice rash fire of all time I am glad he made it.
WW2 and American heorisum has been forgotten about and delibertly removed from school.
This movie at least brings it up again and that is great.

Hell no, they made the movie only for money, maybe propaganda but essentially for money (like the wars themselves).

If you want to pass a message to the new generations I don't think a blockbuster movie without historical research/accuracy is the good means, of course IMHO [:)]

This movie has a lot of research embedded in it. Make no mistakes - Emmerich loves the topic and he went to great lengths to inject some flavor. Some stuff that was asked to the Midway Roundtable and the fact some of them over there served as advisors is a very good thing. Bombs and flight gear will have the proper color - that is for the historical accuracy part [:D]
Another example is that they went full shattered sword regarding the state of the flight decks during the attack. Again, that wasn't a given at all.
Of course, they had to spoil all this with all these ships so close together, too many planes everywhere, or the classic outrageous hollywood shots between the towers of battleship row. But, again, if you can go beyond the exaggerated eye-candy, I bet you here and now that it will be leagues above 1976's Midway in terms of historicity and research.

Of all the wars that I know about. Ww2 is the only one that you can make a strong case for.
And American exalance has to be remembered.

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

This movie has a lot of research embedded in it. Make no mistakes - Emmerich loves the topic and he went to great length. Some stuff that was asked to the Midway Roundtable and the fact some of them over there served as advisors is a very good thing. Bombs and flight gear will have the proper color - that is for the historical accuracy part [:D]
Another example is that they went full shattered sword regarding the state of the flight decks during the attack. Again, that wasn't a given at all.
Of course, they had to spoil all this with all these ships so close together, too many planes everywhere, or the classic outrageous hollywood shots between the towers of battleship. But, again, if you can go beyond the exaggerated eye-candy, I bet you here and now that it will be leagues over 1976 Midway in terms of historicity and research.

Have to agree. Roland has always done solid work.
Also remember that real life does not always make a good movie. Having the ships close is a must for the movie. Having alot of planes is a must for the movie.
I got into civil war history because of Gettysburgh the movie.
I look at it today and see a very flawed movie but without it I would know nothing about it.

Gettysburg was an excellent movie, both historically and as a work of art/entertainment.

If the AE forumites had to write the script for that film, I have no doubt it would be amazingly accurate, but unspeakably dull.

Emmerich seems to be ramming all the action he can in, which makes sense given that watching two hours of code breaking and planning meetings would not make engaging viewing.

Watching the trailer, seems a pretty fair representation of history. Will wait and see what the reviews say.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If the AE forumites had to write the script for that film, I have no doubt it would be amazingly accurate, but unspeakably dull.

Emmerich seems to be ramming all the action he can in, which makes sense given that watching two hours of code breaking and planning meetings would not make engaging viewing.

Watching the trailer, seems a pretty fair representation of history. Will wait and see what the reviews say.

Cramming in lots of action is one of the reasons I hated the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan. They crammed the carnage that took place over miles of beach into a few hundred yards. I get that they wanted to shock the viewers, but that was overboard and gave the impression no one survived the landing intact. But I am a purist who has watched lots of actual war footage so I am sure that is not most people's reaction.

Museum Director: "We'll attract a bigger audience if we cram more action into this display. Instead of the president getting shot in a booth and the perpetrator jumping down and escaping, let's have him seated in the audience amidst a group of children and Booth having a bazooka and zooming down a zip line."

I have to admit my entire interest in the pacific WW2 theatre came from watching the original Midway movie as a child. Sure, looking back it has lots of flaws which I won't go into now, but at the time not all the facts from the battle were known and there was no CGI for the battle scenes.

I'm surprised they've even bothered doing a new movie on it, considering the youth of today would have little or no interest in it (maybe men over 40 would but thats it, I doubt any women would want to watch it). Obvioulsy it has been "spiced up" a lot to try and appeal to a wider market, but imo it's doomed to be a massive turkey.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If the AE forumites had to write the script for that film, I have no doubt it would be amazingly accurate, but unspeakably dull.

Emmerich seems to be ramming all the action he can in, which makes sense given that watching two hours of code breaking and planning meetings would not make engaging viewing.

Watching the trailer, seems a pretty fair representation of history. Will wait and see what the reviews say.

Cramming in lots of action is one of the reasons I hated the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan. They crammed the carnage that took place over miles of beach into a few hundred yards.

Obviously the purpose of that sequence has went right over your head.

I get that they wanted to shock the viewers, but that was overboard and gave the impression no one survived the landing intact.

The bulk of Omaha casualties were concentrated in the first wave.

But I am a purist who has watched lots of actual war footage so I am sure that is not most people's reaction.

Yeah, and I'm Steven Spielberg.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Museum Director: "We'll attract a bigger audience if we cram more action into this display. Instead of the president getting shot in a booth and the perpetrator jumping down and escaping, let's have him seated in the audience amidst a group of children and Booth having a bazooka and zooming down a zip line."

Surely I don't need to explain that different mediums require different approaches to displaying events?

Yeah, I know.

But the point is that history is history, for some of us. Taking big liberties with it is kind of sacrilegious.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Museum Director: "We'll attract a bigger audience if we cram more action into this display. Instead of the president getting shot in a booth and the perpetrator jumping down and escaping, let's have him seated in the audience amidst a group of children and Booth having a bazooka and zooming down a zip line."

"Oh! Oh! I've got it! To appeal to the younger audience, when he jumps down onto the stage and yells, "Sic semper tyrannis", an ill-tempered Tyrannosaurus pushes through the stage curtains and sics Booth!"

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
wearwolves and vampires.

Wearwolves? Are those stories about canidae with a sizable wardrobe?

Per the song "Werewolves of London"

"Stay away from him, He'll rip your lungs out Jim! , ...but I'd like to meet his tailor."

"Werewolves of Midway... He'll rip your flight deck out..."

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Museum Director: "We'll attract a bigger audience if we cram more action into this display. Instead of the president getting shot in a booth and the perpetrator jumping down and escaping, let's have him seated in the audience amidst a group of children and Booth having a bazooka and zooming down a zip line."

"Oh! Oh! I've got it! To appeal to the younger audience, when he jumps down onto the stage and yells, "Sic semper tyrannis", an ill-tempered Tyrannosaurus pushes through the stage curtains and sics Booth!"

[&o] [:D]

Can I have tickets to that, please.

As long as it isn't a real Tyrannosaurus, of course.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Yeah, I know.

But the point is that history is history, for some of us. Taking big liberties with it is kind of sacrilegious.

warspite1

Taking big liberties with history = sacrilege

Surely Canoerebel, if that were the charge then there would be no historical films to be watched?

It's clear from what people have written over many posts of this nature that we all have our lines that shouldn't be crossed. But no film will ever be perfect and we can still enjoy films with ahistorical content so long as its the right side of our own personal line. How big is big?

Celluloid aberrations like for example Pearl Harbor, Titanic or U-571 aside, where the hideousness of the script/story/CGI/acting are soooo bad that they defy comprehension, most (all?) films will have the grognard sucking their teeth - but to a greater or lesser extent may remain worth watching.

As for this film, we'll have to wait and see - but early signs are that this could be Pearl Harbor II - 2 Pearl 2 Harbour.

I have no problem with 'fantasy' films in a historical setting. It is just when they claim that it is a film about a historical event and it is pure fantasy, then that it passes the line for me. Creams my corn, if you will.

The movie that should not be mentioned, for example. It is a load of Tottenham, that is. Yeah, a steaming pile of Hotspur.

I am sorry Warspite1, and other spurs fans. I recently was remembered by that quote and I've been looking for a place to use it since.

ORIGINAL: Orm

The movie that should not be mentioned, for example. It is a load of Tottenham, that is. Yeah, a steaming pile of Hotspur.

warspite1

Oh my, my.... that sounds like it must have a been a really, really not very good film at all. Must have been Titanic .

Yeah, Titanic, if that were a historical war film, then it would have been a new kind of bad.

Although, what would I know. I haven't actually seen the film.

A bit off topic...but when I saw that Roland Emmerich made the movie it reminded me of a quote a German General made about the abysmal performance of Russian cossacks in German service after D-Day:
"Russians fighting for Germans in France against Americans - no wonder it did'nt work!"[:D]

So a German making a movie about Americans fighting against Japanese...wonder how it will work. [;)]