Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The greatest historical mistakes in movies...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Just casting a Demi Moore type in GI Jane was enough for me.

    Pruitt
    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

    Comment


    • #77
      To watch it?

      Comment


      • #78
        How did I miss this thread!!!

        Originally posted by billscottmorri View Post

        Any film made about medieval warfare has to be a candidate for winner here. "The Vikings" where you can see a longship oarsman wearing a watch for example.
        I enjoyed "The Vikings," despite its flaws...

        Originally posted by MountainMan View Post

        Three Kings.
        I missed the "Based on a True Story" in Three Kings.

        I thought it was clearly fictional..., just a fun summer movie...

        Originally posted by Hufflepuff44 View Post

        I like the crazy Irish guy in that movie though he ROCKS
        Thanks to Braveheart "that crazy Irish guy" is perma-cast as such. Too bad..., he's quite talented...

        Originally posted by Captain General View Post

        Pretty much everywhere. The movie shows a totally undisciplined unit of marauding murderers, rapists, drug addicts, and alcoholics.
        This film has several of its own threads (some started by me) over the accuracy. In the end, we tend to agree that the movie is technically superior, although it does focus on a darker storyline than some would approve of.

        Since Stone and Dye created the film, and both were decorated combat veterans, I tend rest my case on their merits. They claim they tried very hard to make a Vietnam War film that would be honest and accurate, but that would also make money (the point of making a film, for those who forgot).

        In my experience, the film is the most argued over of the genre.

        As a side note, despite its dark story it opened at Christmas and SMASHED Top Gun. People like more realism in their war films I guess...

        Here's a link to my personal favorite Platoon thread...

        Elias vs. Barnes (Who Are You Most Like?) Thread Link

        Just for practive though, I'll take this apart and put it back together one more time...

        First: "undisciplined unit or marauding murderers"

        Barnes and Bunny commited the only murders. Hardly a "unit."

        Second: "rapists"

        The rape scene happens more or less as Oliver Stone witnessed it himself.

        Originally posted by Captain General View Post

        I've read many veterans condemn Oliver Stone's Platoon for taking every bad stereotype of troop behaviour and throwing it into the movie.
        I'd like to refer you to the documentary extras on the film in which the veterans split down the middle on the realism. About half say the movie is solid gold, and about half say it's total BS. Just like in America, there was a cultural shift in the military during the late 60s.

        Many times I've said this after reading and listening to Vietnam Veterans: No two soldiers experienced the Vietnam War in exactly the same way.

        Originally posted by Captain General View Post

        I know this type of behaviour existed. However, it was not as widespread as depicted in Platoon.
        What widespread? The movie was only about ONE platoon, not the whole Army...

        Originally posted by Captain General View Post

        More realistic movie versions of Vietnam can be found in Hamburger Hill and We Were Soldiers.
        Hamburger Hill is technically inferior to the advising done by Captain Dye.

        We Were Soldiers seems to suffer more from artistic license than innaccuracy however...

        Originally posted by Captain General View Post

        Platoon is more of Jane Fonda's view of the American soldier in Vietnam.
        Can you link me to a quote from Fonda that expresses your opinion?

        Originally posted by Lance Williams View Post
        There's probably some truth to them both being considered accurate by vets, it just depends on when they served. "..Soldiers" showed the very professional army of 1965, while 'Platoon" depicts the conscrips of perhaps 1970 (or later) when they length of the war and political tension at home had entered the mindset of the typical "grunt".
        No.

        Platoon takes place over the Fall of '67 and Spring of '68.

        And the interviews even include two 1965-66 combat veterans, who argue over every detail, and claim each is wrong about the film.

        My Dad served in 66-67 and finds the film quiet realistic.

        Originally posted by Outrider View Post

        And it is ironic that Platoon with it's depiction of the soldiers is the one that is "Dedicated to the men who fought and died in the Vietnam War".
        Yeah, and also written and directed by the men who fought and nearly died in the Vietnam War.

        People should show those Veterans some respect...

        Originally posted by Pruitt View Post

        No way dopeheads like Elias would have been given stripes early on.
        Bullshit.

        Sorry.

        I PERSONALLY know two 66-67 Veterans who made Sergeant and smoked dope. And my Dad made Corporal and Lance Corporal while he was smoking dope, and did it in very little time in-country.

        Originally posted by Naffenea View Post

        How could we have forgotten the tripe that is GI Jane or Tigerland?
        I gave G.I. Jane to a non-military friend for his birthday, he enjoyed it. Maybe we're watching with the wrong kind of eyes...

        Sometimes I wish I hadn't shot my copy of Tigerland, it was a Captain Dye piece...
        Last edited by Paul Mann III; 28 Oct 08, 20:15.
        "This life..., you know, "the life." Youíre not gonna get any medals, kid. This is not a hero business; you donít shoot people from a mile a way. You gotta stand right next to them... blow their heads off."

        BoRG

        Comment


        • #79
          Agreed on Windtalkers; over half of the film wasn't even about the Navajo code talkers
          Last edited by Hufflepuff44; 28 Oct 08, 20:06. Reason: mistakes in quotes
          Best regards, Hufflepuff

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
            Just casting a Demi Moore type in GI Jane was enough for me.

            Pruitt
            Yeah, that really was a stinker, wasn't it? Poor Michael Biehn - he deserved something a lot better.

            Windtalkers was the only recent film that totally eclipsed Pearly Harbor. Someday, a director has to give Cage a second expression.
            Last edited by Mountain Man; 28 Oct 08, 21:32.
            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by sawman0311 View Post
              It might have been said before, but I'll say it again: Saving Private Ryan.
              'Saving Private Ryan' was, I think, a fictitious story so perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on it.
              "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
              Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Paul Mann III View Post
                I gave G.I. Jane to a non-military friend for his birthday, he enjoyed it. Maybe we're watching with the wrong kind of eyes...

                Sometimes I wish I hadn't shot my copy of Tigerland, it was a Captain Dye piece...
                GI Jane was ruined for me when she DOR'd and was let back in. I have no problem with the action.

                For the rest, I agree with you on Platoon. The only thing I didn't like about it was it was too short.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                  'Saving Private Ryan' was, I think, a fictitious story so perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on it.
                  Personal opinion, as is usually the case special effects excellant. The story itself rather Hollywoody. (I am now going to be told that the basis of the story was known to be done!!) O.K. but it was still Hollywoody!!!!!
                  'By Horse by Tram'.


                  I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
                  " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Naffenea View Post

                    GI Jane was ruined for me when she DOR'd and was let back in. I have no problem with the action.
                    I enjoyed watching Demi Moore do her exercise routine...

                    Originally posted by Naffenea View Post

                    For the rest, I agree with you on Platoon. The only thing I didn't like about it was it was too short.
                    Yeah, I would watched a 3-hour cut...

                    I don't know if it would've sold the way it did though. It's hard to find people who enjoy movies past the 2-hour mark...
                    "This life..., you know, "the life." Youíre not gonna get any medals, kid. This is not a hero business; you donít shoot people from a mile a way. You gotta stand right next to them... blow their heads off."

                    BoRG

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Paul Mann III View Post
                      "It's hard to find people who enjoy movies past the 2-hour mark..."
                      Yeah, that's quite true. I'm probably out of the mainstream as I really enjoy longer movies (3-4 hours) if they are on certain types of military/historical subjects and they are well done. Some things just can't be done justice in 90-120 minutes.
                      "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                      Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by panther3485 View Post

                        Yeah, that's quite true. I'm probably out of the mainstream as I really enjoy longer movies (3-4 hours) if they are on certain types of military/historical subjects and they are well done. Some things just can't be done justice in 90-120 minutes.
                        I'm in the minority as well. It's too bad, but in my experience there's always less people in the theater for an "epic film."

                        With the exception of blockbuster nonsense like the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars of course...
                        "This life..., you know, "the life." Youíre not gonna get any medals, kid. This is not a hero business; you donít shoot people from a mile a way. You gotta stand right next to them... blow their heads off."

                        BoRG

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Battle of the Bulge

                          Was there actually anything historical in it?

                          Of ALL the ****-poor bits (not the acting though) in this movie, it was the tank battle that did my brain in.

                          Forgetting the sudden change in weather and topography, the all american tank fleets and the course of the battle itself... the fact that a 'tank range control tower' (with chequered markings) is often visible during the action should have been more than enough to consign ALL of this move to the cutting room floor!

                          Regards

                          Gaz

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Colonel Hessler vs. Joachim Peiper

                            Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post
                            Battle of the Bulge

                            Was there actually anything historical in it?

                            Of ALL the ****-poor bits (not the acting though) in this movie, it was the tank battle that did my brain in.

                            Forgetting the sudden change in weather and topography, the all american tank fleets and the course of the battle itself... the fact that a 'tank range control tower' (with chequered markings) is often visible during the action should have been more than enough to consign ALL of this move to the cutting room floor!

                            Regards

                            Gaz
                            Battle of the Bulge takes a beating on all fronts.

                            However, how many of us own this film? I bought it for the cast, and for in particular for Colonel Hessler. I found his character to be fascinating, and despite the lack of historical accuracy, I enjoy the film from time to time.

                            It qualifies as historically inaccurate, and may be one of the worst, but it's also fun to watch.

                            Am I alone on this?
                            "This life..., you know, "the life." Youíre not gonna get any medals, kid. This is not a hero business; you donít shoot people from a mile a way. You gotta stand right next to them... blow their heads off."

                            BoRG

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                              Yeah, that's quite true. I'm probably out of the mainstream as I really enjoy longer movies (3-4 hours) if they are on certain types of military/historical subjects and they are well done. Some things just can't be done justice in 90-120 minutes.
                              I totally agree with you on this.
                              Best regards, Hufflepuff

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Paul Mann III View Post
                                Battle of the Bulge takes a beating on all fronts.

                                However, how many of us own this film? I bought it for the cast, and for in particular for Colonel Hessler. I found his character to be fascinating, and despite the lack of historical accuracy, I enjoy the film from time to time.

                                It qualifies as historically inaccurate, and may be one of the worst, but it's also fun to watch.

                                Am I alone on this?
                                I like the cast as well, and some moments bring back good memories for me, even though I know much more about the battle now.

                                The same thing happens to me when I watch "The Longest Day" and "Patton," although both of these are more accurate than "Battle of the Bulge."

                                Plus Ken Annakin is an awesome director.
                                Best regards, Hufflepuff

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X