Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Orm

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.

warspite1

Its obviously not a war film (and if it were that would indeed be a new kind of bad [;)]) , but it is a film about an historical event - Canoerebel said 'history is history' and did not limit this to military history. You say you haven't seen it - lucky you, you should keep it that way - aside from old whatsherface getting her norks out, the film has no redeeming quality whatsoever from an historical perspective.... well I suppose on reflection they got the name of the ship right and gave her four stacks so that was nice......

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Miller

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 remember watching it with my father in the 1970-ies... still have fond memories... [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"

Pete Best? Did 'Dick' also go by Pete? Not being sly here, just never heard him referred to by that name before....

Nell chopping the Big E SBD in 42 is a new one for me - did that happen in the Marshalls raid? Looking to learn.

And I probably should have searched to see if such a film has already been made, but the defense of Wake Island has oodles of drama that a film maker could have fun with. Pan Am Clipper (so we can throw some romance), Wildcats sinking ships, Civilian contractors bearing weapons (which brought us the SeaBees later), the near early showdown of flat tops. Reinforcement attempt. Repulsed first landing attempt (and if comms were better the 2nd might failed as well).

Regards,
Frank

ORIGINAL: warspite1

the film has no redeeming quality whatsoever from an historical perspective.... well I suppose on reflection they got the name of the ship right and gave her four stacks so that was nice......

[:D]

Thank you for the laugh. It always brightens the day when you get a real laugh. [&o] [:)]

There are a lot of films that tell great tales without sacrificing historical accuracy, at least in ways the sully the work.

A few I can think of: Schindler's List, Stalag 17, Mister Roberts, Gettysburg, Letters from Iwo Jima.

Then there are movies - well intentioned - that exaggerate for dramatic effect and, in so doing, lose credibility among those of us who know the real stories (but maybe not the general populace). Hacksaw Ridge and We were Soldiers Once come to mind.

And there are those who don't even try: TMTSNBN is a leading example.

ORIGINAL: Miller

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.

Rmeric does great work. Please dont right ir off. WW2 movies are better done than Civil War movies

Then there are movies - well intentioned - that exaggerate for dramatic effect and, in so doing, lose credibility among those of us who know the real stories (but maybe not the general populace). Hacksaw Ridge and We were Soldiers Once come to mind.

Therein lies the rub.

Movies are not being made for the AE audience. They are being produced for the general public without an in-depth understanding of events.

I'd also disagree that any historically themed film has to be a slavish reproduction of fact - the purpose of a film is to tell a story.

That differs from a documentary that seeks to communicate facts. I feel that AE forumites would do well to know the difference.

Nobody blasts Shakespeare as he got the politics of England during the War of the Roses wrong, do they?

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

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.

warspite1

Its obviously not a war film (and if it were that would indeed be a new kind of bad [;)]) , but it is a film about an historical event - Canoerebel said 'history is history' and did not limit this to military history. You say you haven't seen it - lucky you, you should keep it that way - aside from old whatsherface getting her norks out, the film has no redeeming quality whatsoever from an historical perspective.... well I suppose on reflection they got the name of the ship right and gave her four stacks so that was nice......

Amusingly enough, James Cameron made a significant effort after diving the wreck (and gaining an appreciation for the human aspect of the story) to get the story as close to the truth as possible, and even to this day continues to make minor corrections on inaccuracies (see recent documentary he made about the break-up).

Given that everything that happens during (SPOILERS!) the sinking section of the movie has basis in either fact or testimony, Titanicis probably one of the most factually accurate movies based on a historical event.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

....Titanicis probably one of the most factually accurate movies based on a historical event.

warspite1

...and that is one of the most unfortunate posts I've ever witnessed on these forums.

There are many examples of historically accurate movies that were highly successful, including recent years. I don't think anybody disputes that Schindler's List, Darkest Hour, Dunkirk, and Gettyburg tired to get things right and mostly did, naturally with some exceptions. They were well done, they made good faith efforts to tell the stories truthfully, and they were highly regarded and pretty successful.

There are others that were made less accurately to appeal to a broader or younger or less informed audience. They have the right to do that, of course, seeking to maximize the return on their investment. But they'll often lose this segment of the population - people who know history and don't like wild distortions.

Hollywood can make a movie in which Abraham Lincoln is a vampire slayer or a non-binary vegan, but I'm not interested.

I've written about Georgians on Titanic. In doing so, I read a great deal of information about what happened and interviewed some of leading experts (at the time, anyhow - around 2002). The hisorical portrayal of what happened is pretty accurate - especially the physical aspects of the ship taking on water, foundering, and breaking up.

Now the love story added to appeal to audiences? That was pretty cringe-worthy. But the movie is a credible portrayal of a momentous historical event.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

.....But the movie is a credible portrayal of a momentous historical event.

warspite1

You wrote earlier:

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

And yet you defend this pile of filth.

Not meaning to pick you out here Canoerebel - if you are happy with the film then that is your opinion. But I think the two comments re Titanic do go to illustrate perfectly the point that one person's 'line that can't be crossed' is another persons, 'yeah whatever'.

Titanic is an abomination, Cameron's treatment of Officer Murdoch was a total and utter disgrace. To put into context, so those here who had parents or grandparents in the war, imagine how you'd feel if - for absolutely no reason whatsoever (other than a quick buck) - your relative (who you see as a hero) was named in a war film as a soldier that was court-martialled for being a rapist or a pead or a murderer or something equally horrific. This is your relative being named in full so there is no doubt as to who is being identified and accused of a crime. Imagine that. Nice.

There's a lot of misinformation and inaccurate legends about Titanic and a lot of uncertainty and gray areas involved with the sinking and actions of key players. Within that framework it would be possible to portray characters in movies in ways that one person found credible and another didn't. If so that may not be distortion merely to make a buck. We know that Titanic wasn't trying to set a speed record; we know the builders intentionally gave her less lifeboat capacity than the capacity shipboard (because she was supposed to stay afloat long enough to allow ferrying of passengers to rescue ships); we know that poor passengers were behind locked gates and doors but that it wasn't due to racism or any other kind of -ism (they were immigrating, thus restricted to certain areas, unable to move about the ship freely, and thus disproportionately became casualties due to their confinement).

If I watch Titanic and don't know anything about officer Murdoch, I'm not going to have any problem with his portrayal because I don't know any better. If I watch TMTSNBN, I'm going to have a problem with the two fighter pilot characters because I know that they didn't serve in England, fly Doolittle's B-25s, etc.

It's been a long time since I've seen Titanic, but nothing stands out in my memory that was horrendous in the portrayal of First Officer Murdoch. But I didn't know him nor do I know the truth of what he experienced and what he did.

Just pop a lot of popcorn and watch a good movie like Kelly's Heros, the Rocky Horror Picture Show, or even K19 the Widow Maker, and be entertained. Otherwise, watch a documentary or a movie that passes for a documentary.

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

No doubt.[:D]

watch a documentary

Even those have so much that is wrong in them.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Just pop a lot of popcorn and watch a good movie like Kelly's Heros, the Rocky Horror Picture Show, or even K19 the Widow Maker, and be entertained. Otherwise, watch a documentary or a movie that passes for a documentary.

I watched a Russian movie about a clutch of apartment buildings in Stalingrad being defended by a small Russian force against a small but better-armed German force. You never knew which of the characters would die or be badly wounded, both sides made mistakes and even the romance they built into the plot was a bittersweet doomed relationship and everyone knew it. Its purpose was to show how men seek the solace of love in the midst of the madness of war.

The only scene that was hokey was a Russian A/T gun using a ricochet shot with his last shell to knock out the last German tank hiding behind some rubble. Unnecessary theatrics.
You were left with a bitter taste in your mouth that no one was the untouchable hero or detestable villain, and the battle was far too costly for no particular advantage other than killing each other. That is exactly how one should feel about Stalingrad and other meat grinders.

Maybe it did happen, that ricochet shot so they put it into the movie. Do you have the name of the movie?

I think it was called something like "The Building", but in Russian. All the dialogue was Russian or German with subtitles IIRC.

EDIT: My mistake - the movie was just called "Stalingrad". Here's a trailer"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHzs4PtqIE

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

It's been a long time since I've seen Titanic, but nothing stands out in my memory that was horrendous in the portrayal of First Officer Murdoch.

warspite1

William McMaster Murdoch was not a made up character. He was very real. He served as an officer on board Titanic on that fateful night.

As far as we know from all the witness statements, Officer Murdoch did his duty that night, despite the fact that as an officer he knew he was unlikely to survive the sinking.

Yes there were reports of an officer shooting himself just before Titanic went down, but even if correct, there are no witnesses that can confirm who that officer was.

But Cameron decided it was Murdoch. But that is not the least of it. Because Cameron also decided to make First Officer Murdoch a bribe-taking coward who murdered two unarmed steerage class passengers (Irish naturally) before shooting himself.

Apparently the scenes were altered from the original Cameron dreamed up to make the bribe taking more ambiguous. But the given the way Murdoch throws the money back at Billy Zane's character (and the narrative that goes with it), there is little doubt what was being conveyed - and to suggest otherwise is simply disingenuous.

So this officer, a man who did his duty in helping to save passengers, and has a memorial in his hometown of Dalbeattie in Scotland where he is considered a hero, and where at the time the film was made he had close relatives (nephew) still living, has his name trashed for no good reason than making a buck.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So this officer, a man who did his duty in helping to save passengers, and has a memorial in his hometown of Dalbeattie in Scotland where he is considered a hero, and where at the time the film was made he had close relatives (nephew) still living, has his name trashed for no good reason than making a buck.

Seems similar to what Cy Endfeld did to Private Henry Hook in the movie Zulu. The movie makes him out to be a self-centered drunk malingering in the hospital at Rourke's Drift. The real Henry Hook had been a well-regarded soldier (good-conduct pay and all) and a strict methodist lay-preacher who was a part of the detachment guarding the hospital.

Two of his daughters were present at the UK premiere, and they were so disgusted by it that they walked out of it.