Jump to content


Early War Films and why I hate them


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
17 replies to this topic

Grand_Moff_Tano #1 Posted 27 March 2013 - 02:51 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1765 battles
  • 10,734
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011
OK, this is perhaps the strangest topic to be put on here but it is off topic so who cares :D

Well, were all aware of war films, films set in a war (usually WWII) and made to entertain people more than give them a lecture. I like war films just as much as anyone, but I hate allot of the earlier ones, why? Well that's simple. After WWII allot of the machinery used during the war had been destroyed (talking about the Axis here) and most of the time the war films of that period usually involve a couple if not a battalion of Japanese Sherman tanks (which are supposed to represent Japanese tanks) or German T-34/85s (which are supposed to represent German Tanks).

It's those things I kind of hate. But it's not just tanks but planes (and possibly ships too) that are used to "try" and represent the enemy.

Now who else get's annoyed by these minor details?

Pichu_Trainer

Edited by Pichu_Trainer, 27 March 2013 - 02:53 PM.


still_guns #2 Posted 27 March 2013 - 02:55 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6715 battles
  • 408
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-20-2011
Don't diss WAR FILMS!

Grand_Moff_Tano #3 Posted 27 March 2013 - 02:57 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1765 battles
  • 10,734
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View Poststill_guns, on 27 March 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

Don't diss WAR FILMS!
I don't diss them, I seem to have the ability to home in on detail, that;s why I hate early war films

Xeonos #4 Posted 27 March 2013 - 02:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6131 battles
  • 660
  • Member since:
    05-31-2011
What about Das Boot?

Edited by Xeonos, 27 March 2013 - 02:59 PM.


still_guns #5 Posted 27 March 2013 - 03:04 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6715 battles
  • 408
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-20-2011
How can you hate them though? You know the makers of those films did their best to represent Axis vehicles. Battle of Britain for example. No flying Messerschmitt Bf109E's or Heinkel He-111H aircraft. What did the makers do? Bought a ton of Spanish licence built 109's and 111's and even went as far to modify Percival Proctors to represent Stuka's.

Battle of the River Plate. Pocket Battleship Graf Spee was long sunk, no other panzerschiff's existed, so the US cruiser Salem.

Saving Private Ryan. No Tiger tanks running on own power back then. So two T-34-85's were converted into Tiger's.

Can you blame any old war film makers for not using historical vehicles? It's not their fault for not using real Panzers and battleships. They did what they could, even today.

Edited by still_guns, 27 March 2013 - 03:05 PM.


Grand_Moff_Tano #6 Posted 27 March 2013 - 03:06 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1765 battles
  • 10,734
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View Poststill_guns, on 27 March 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

How can you hate them though? You know the makers of those films did their best to represent Axis vehicles. Battle of Britain for example. No flying Messerschmitt Bf109E's or Heinkel He-111H aircraft. What did the makers do? Bought a ton of Spanish licence built 109's and 111's and even went as far to modify Percival Proctors to represent Stuka's.

Battle of the River Plate. Pocket Battleship Graf Spee was long sunk, no other panzerschiff's existed, so the US cruiser Salem.

Saving Private Ryan. No Tiger tanks running on own power back then. So two T-34-85's were converted into Tiger's.

Can you blame any old war film makers for not using historical vehicles?
I don't blame em, I know they had the lack of vehicles but hey, attention to detail is I like lol

HarryStotle #7 Posted 27 March 2013 - 03:06 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 23656 battles
  • 1,050
  • Member since:
    09-16-2010
Oh god......you've found me out  :hiding:

I grew up playing with airfix troops and tanks etc and it used to bug the shiz out of me that they didn't use PROPER tanks in US made warfilms. Being a kid it didn't occur to me that most of the stuff that survived WW2 was busily being blown to smithereens in the middle east so getting the coreect tanks was kind of....difficult.

Still loved the films and i'm educating my boy in the old ways of sticks as sten guns and pine cones as grenades.

Cross of Iron got it right though :great:

Arkhell #8 Posted 27 March 2013 - 03:09 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Beta Tester
  • 16942 battles
  • 6,748
  • Member since:
    09-20-2010
Wasn't the tiger in saving pvt ryan actually a T-34 dressed up as a tiger?

jagdcommander #9 Posted 27 March 2013 - 03:23 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 40342 battles
  • 860
  • Member since:
    03-18-2011
Me too .... but I nitpick details in any film! Those films from probably the late 60's onwards where you just know they are not realistic tanks (especially German tanks as there were relatively few left - I think WoT had a hand in that too and OP'd the Russians!) lose a lot of credibility, but some just about remain watchable.

Of course, in these days of being able to make fat actors look like 300 Spartans with a bit of CGI, there is no excuse for not using any old tank in a film shoot and then using computers to turn it into a genuine, realistic period vehicle. I imagine even old films could now be digitally remastered to replace 'fake' tanks with correct ones if it was financially viable, although I really don't think that WW2 films would attract enough paying customers these days.


Anyway, while we're on the subject, a quick shout for my favorite (I didn't say best or most realistic) war film. The Longest Day.

kodos #10 Posted 27 March 2013 - 05:19 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14431 battles
  • 2,032
  • [RENO] RENO
  • Member since:
    01-28-2011
The problem with "early" films is that most of them just want to tell a story and don't mind historical facts.

There are also older films that are better or newer that are worse.
Depends always on how much money is available and how important such things are to the producers.

For example, the Tiger in Saving Privat Ryan is an converted T-34, but it is converted to look like an Tiger.
The Panther's in "Patton" are just old US tanks (M47 & M48) in different color.

But while correct looking tanks are for the first film important, for the second one its not necessary.

Another example is "Cross of Iron" where german half trucks where US ones and T-34 where old T34-85 from Yugoslavia but for watching the film it makes no difference.


Those minor details don't bother me as long they are not in focus of the story.

A film about a tanks battle with only the wrong tanks on each side is something different like a film about a common soldier with a 30 second scene with the wrong tank/plan/car

Grand_Moff_Tano #11 Posted 27 March 2013 - 06:09 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1765 battles
  • 10,734
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011
Pearl Harbor is another film, though it's 2001 I can't help notice the Modern Warships docked and the fact the Japanese were launching from the decks of both the Essex class and Nimitz class carrier. The Doolittle Raid was the same for the US, the B-25 Mitchel Bombers launched from the deck of yet another Nimitz class.

OmaiGodman #12 Posted 27 March 2013 - 06:40 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7561 battles
  • 428
  • [KIWF] KIWF
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012
It's like you say, most of the axis material was destroyed and film makes had to work with what they had. Also, back in those days people didn't mind that much about accuracy as they do now. Nowadays you can go to IMDB and read about all the goofs they made in the film while back then, people couldn't. I'm sure for most people then (and even now), a tank is just a tank so they just didn't bother that much. If a movie did it nowadays I think that would be pretty inexcusable but I try to judge a movie based on the time it was made.

That said, May 5th is coming up (liberation day over here in the Netherlands) so I'll need to find my DVD of The Longest Day  :tongue:

still_guns #13 Posted 27 March 2013 - 07:13 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6715 battles
  • 408
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-20-2011

View PostArkhell, on 27 March 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

Wasn't the tiger in saving pvt ryan actually a T-34 dressed up as a tiger?
Er, yes I pretty much said that.

View PostPichu_Trainer, on 27 March 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

Pearl Harbor is another film, though it's 2001 I can't help notice the Modern Warships docked and the fact the Japanese were launching from the decks of both the Essex class and Nimitz class carrier. The Doolittle Raid was the same for the US, the B-25 Mitchel Bombers launched from the deck of yet another Nimitz class.
Yes, alright, that one was avoidable. In Tora Tora Tora, they at least made a mock-up of a Jap carrier. Pearl Harbour didn't even bother to turn a Nimitz into Hornet.

In Rats of Tobruk they used Sentinal AC4 tanks as Panzers.

MeetriX #14 Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:39 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 20973 battles
  • 2,839
  • [_ACE] _ACE
  • Member since:
    08-12-2012
I want to see a list of movies (any kind) where all the details are correct!
I am going to watch them all in a row. :popcorn:

Grand_Moff_Tano #15 Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:41 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1765 battles
  • 10,734
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostMeetriX, on 27 March 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

I want to see a list of movies (any kind) where all the details are correct!
I am going to watch them all in a row. :popcorn:
Band of Brothers and The Pacific

MeetriX #16 Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:47 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 20973 battles
  • 2,839
  • [_ACE] _ACE
  • Member since:
    08-12-2012

View PostPichu_Trainer, on 27 March 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:

Band of Brothers and The Pacific
Those are mini series not a movies.
I have not watch The Pacific yet, but BoB was really good.

Grand_Moff_Tano #17 Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:49 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1765 battles
  • 10,734
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostMeetriX, on 27 March 2013 - 08:47 PM, said:

Those are mini series not a movies.
I have not watch The Pacific yet, but BoB was really good.
Letters of Iwo Jima is a good war film (if you don't mind putting the English Sub-titles on (unless you understand Japanese))

kodos #18 Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:06 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14431 battles
  • 2,032
  • [RENO] RENO
  • Member since:
    01-28-2011
Das Boot
Der Untergang
Stalingrad
The Bridge on the River Kwai
The Bridge at Remagen




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users