Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Accuracy in military movies and TV programs

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

  • 17thfabn
    started a topic Accuracy in military movies and TV programs

    Accuracy in military movies and TV programs

    In the past,such as back in the 60's and 70's military movies where not that accurate to the history.

    For instance in the movie "Lawrence of Arabia" which came out in 1962 the Turks are shown many times with M1919a4 machine guns that didn't come out to well after World War I. Or "To Hell and Back" Audie Murphy is shown firing a machine gun from a tank, when in actuality he was on a M10 Tank Destroyer.

    Even worse where the large number of war movies churned out in the 40's.

    In the better military movies today there are experts that look at every detail from the rifles the troops are carrying to the correct boots and buttons on uniforms. For instance the series Band of Brothers is widely praised for its accuracy.

    When was the tipping point when military movies started to aim for more accuracy?

  • 17thfabn
    replied
    Originally posted by Cult Icon View Post
    the purpose of film/tv series is to tell a story, not a historical re-enactment. imagine how boring a historical reenactment would be to watch for most people? So history has to be put aside to serve the interests of story.
    I agree that producers need to balance entertainment with accuracy. And in most cases entertainment will win out over historical accuracy.

    But having said that some times it is no sacrifice to be accurate. For instance my example of Ottoman troops in World War I having a U.S. M1919a4 Machine gun. Such a glaring error.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cult Icon
    replied
    the purpose of film/tv series is to tell a story, not a historical re-enactment. imagine how boring a historical reenactment would be to watch for most people? So history has to be put aside to serve the interests of story.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cult Icon
    replied
    I think it was sometime in the 1980s, with Platoon and then the behemoth that was SPR. Actually I think the "accuracy" in films can be traced to one man's work- Dale Dye because his set the standard for others to follow

    Leave a comment:


  • OttoHarkaman
    replied
    Absolutely!! Peter Jackson has gotten the accuracy of Orcish curved swords all wrong!


    MDL_uruk.jpg

    Clearly if I'm in an elite Urk-Hai fighting unit I am going to be using something like a Greek Kopis

    h-3200.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post
    Well one only has to think of the number of times that Me 108s have masqueraded as Me 109s or Dh Tiger Moths have represented all sorts of British and German WW1 two seaters...
    But with reference to Lawrence of Arabia. it isn't just the equipment that's fake its the location. Yes it was filmed partially in Saudi but having visited some of the real sites I can confirm in locations more cinematic and/or closers to Jeddah.
    I recall a p-47 squadron movie from my childhood where the opposing Luftwaffe flew
    -re painted p-51d Mustangs.......
    OTOH, the Stalag in" Ilsa Queen of the SS" was pretty realistic....
    Last edited by marktwain; 03 Dec 18, 19:17. Reason: Dianne Thorpe fanatic......

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Originally posted by GreenTiger View Post
    WWll British Films: `37 Pattern webbing very sloppily assembled; hair of NCOīs/ORīs far too long; battle-dress too baggy and comfortable; most participants over-weight (by wartime standards) and looking too well-fed.
    "Am I hurting you laddy?"
    "Er no sergeant"
    "Well I should be, I'm standing on your 'air. GET IT CUT"

    But with regard to battledress. In some theatres in the field uniform standards often became more relaxed. This was particularly the case in the Western Desert - see Jon's Two Types cartoons and numerous photographs.

    http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/docs-p...humour-139542/
    Last edited by MarkV; 10 Oct 18, 05:50.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreenTiger
    replied
    WWll British Films: `37 Pattern webbing very sloppily assembled; hair of NCOīs/ORīs far too long; battle-dress too baggy and comfortable; most participants over-weight (by wartime standards) and looking too well-fed.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    The title of this thread is "accuracy in WWII movies and TV programs". Accuracy on the whole remains a secondary objective at best. Films like Battle of Britain are rare. More often films like Flyboys are produced, and why not? The target audiences of today know next to nothing about history and care even less. They want explosions, lots of violence and blood, and they want to be mindlessly entertained.
    In a certain way, sad (IMO) but true.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by 17thfabn View Post

    Sure their are plenty of bad modern war movies. The 2001 movie Pearl Harbor was truly awful.

    The tactics in the final battle in the 2014 World War II tank movie Fury were plain stupid.

    Still many recent war movies are far ahead of those from 30 and more years ago. Salinator makes some got points on why.
    The title of this thread is "accuracy in WWII movies and TV programs". Accuracy on the whole remains a secondary objective at best. Films like Battle of Britain are rare. More often films like Flyboys are produced, and why not? The target audiences of today know next to nothing about history and care even less. They want explosions, lots of violence and blood, and they want to be mindlessly entertained.

    Leave a comment:


  • 17thfabn
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    And in Pearly Harbor they used modern destroyers as WWII ships.

    Meanwhile in the otherwise halfway decent film Hunt For Red October they used crash footage of a Navy Panther from the Korean War to fake a Tomcat crashing on the flight deck. CGI an entire underwater war, but fake an aircraft crash?

    s:
    Sure their are plenty of bad modern war movies. The 2001 movie Pearl Harbor was truly awful.

    The tactics in the final battle in the 2014 World War II tank movie Fury were plain stupid.

    Still many recent war movies are far ahead of those from 30 and more years ago. Salinator makes some got points on why.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post
    To be fair, before CGI sourceing the right equipment would be problematic. For example there weren't loads of old Tiger 2s lying around for Battle of the Bulge so they had to make do with Patterns. Though not sure why they used Chaffes in place of Shermans.
    Likewise at River Plate they had to substitute an American cruiser for Graf Spee.
    And in Pearly Harbor they used modern destroyers as WWII ships.

    Meanwhile in the otherwise halfway decent film Hunt For Red October they used crash footage of a Navy Panther from the Korean War to fake a Tomcat crashing on the flight deck. CGI an entire underwater war, but fake an aircraft crash?

    And how many times in modern war films have we seen that same old gun cam shot of a Stuka being shot down? A STUKA?!

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by 17thfabn View Post
    In the past,such as back in the 60's and 70's military movies where not that accurate to the history.

    For instance in the movie "Lawrence of Arabia" which came out in 1962 the Turks are shown many times with M1919a4 machine guns that didn't come out to well after World War I. Or "To Hell and Back" Audie Murphy is shown firing a machine gun from a tank, when in actuality he was on a M10 Tank Destroyer.

    Even worse where the large number of war movies churned out in the 40's.

    In the better military movies today there are experts that look at every detail from the rifles the troops are carrying to the correct boots and buttons on uniforms. For instance the series Band of Brothers is widely praised for its accuracy.

    When was the tipping point when military movies started to aim for more accuracy?
    "Accuracy in military films" is one of the major oxymorons of our time, since Hollyweird is all about everything except historical accuracy, which is often boring or otherwise unsatisfactory in terms of audience titillation. Car chases with flips, explosions and other horrific occurrences are a classical case in point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    I think that earlier movies simply did not have the all layers of productions that are more common with more modern films. Some movies take two or three years after the completion of filming to be released. Many scenes are filmed in a green room and backgrounds are added later. They hold a stick to represent a sword, or a toy gun, all which will be replaced with computer graphics by techies that are guided by nerds that research that sort of historical stuff.

    The old war movies are no different than the old cheesy Sci-Fi movies with the cheap models of space ships that you can clearly see the thread that is holding it up or the guy in a garbage can pretending to be a robot.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    I can certainly enjoy accuracy of equipment etc, in war movies when I see it but I ceased to expect it a long time ago.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X