Jump to content


So I just saw the "Fury" movie and...


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

Purzelbaer #21 Posted 27 October 2014 - 08:19 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 7261 battles
  • 40
  • [TPKS] TPKS
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011
Its nice how similar are the old soviet war movies and the american war movies. Each allied soldier (american or soviet) is a hero, each german soldier is an incompetent coward. 5 american heros are enough to stop 300 german soldiers. Wow! If it would have been true, why the US Army needed so long to defeat NaziGermany? For me this movie is at the same level like "Red Tails" made by Spielberg in 2012. Good effects, good for american proud, but if you look on the technical and tactical side then it is a ridiculous tale.

IH8MEDS #22 Posted 27 October 2014 - 10:22 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 87 battles
  • 2,944
  • Member since:
    10-14-2013

Quote

My beef is that whenever Brits, or other Europeans are featured, they are either a token toff, or incompetent and needing to be rescued.

 

Show me a Brit/European that is shown in Fury as token, incompetent or needs rescuing.

 

Perhaps you and I didn't see the same movie.



Ubertoaster #23 Posted 27 October 2014 - 11:57 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16334 battles
  • 824
  • [TAHK] TAHK
  • Member since:
    05-12-2011

View PostIH8MEDS, on 27 October 2014 - 09:22 PM, said:

Quote

My beef is that whenever Brits, or other Europeans are featured, they are either a token toff, or incompetent and needing to be rescued.

 

Show me a Brit/European that is shown in Fury as token, incompetent or needs rescuing.

 

Perhaps you and I didn't see the same movie.

 

I bet it is a trick question. There are no competent europeans, because there are only yanks saving Europe yet again from the clutches of general professor dr.Dreiffusmengeleredskullheadünterbeiht.

Gonna see it this weekend though.



UNARMOURED #24 Posted 28 October 2014 - 09:45 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 36185 battles
  • 1,642
  • Member since:
    11-20-2012

View PostIH8MEDS, on 27 October 2014 - 10:22 PM, said:

Quote

My beef is that whenever Brits, or other Europeans are featured, they are either a token toff, or incompetent and needing to be rescued.

 

Show me a Brit/European that is shown in Fury as token, incompetent or needs rescuing.

 

Perhaps you and I didn't see the same movie.

 

I've not seen it, and I won't be watching it. I was making a general point. I tend to watch films based upon whether they would interest me, the trailer looks good and whether I think it will be any good. The interests me because it is a tankie film predominantly, but it fails on the other two counts.

 


Edited by The_Foolio, 28 October 2014 - 09:53 AM.


Manu #25 Posted 28 October 2014 - 05:04 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 23944 battles
  • 91
  • Member since:
    07-11-2010

I saw it last saturday.

It's well played, realistic.

 

The first half is the best, other one is too classical ( hollywood hero,...)

Like the battle with the Tiger, good until the end ( why this tiger move forward when it just need to wait the sherman...)

 

I feel the same for the last battle. A static tank would not last 20min with infantry.

 

Anyway, it's a good movie.

 



IH8MEDS #26 Posted 28 October 2014 - 06:04 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 87 battles
  • 2,944
  • Member since:
    10-14-2013

Quote

- I've not seen it

- it fails on the other two counts.

 

How exactly do you know that "it fails on the other two counts"... if you haven't even SEEN the bloody flick?!

 

l.e.: As for the finale... I bet that there would have been much less controversy if they haven't shown about 10 (at least) troopers with Panzerfausts at the ready... and if they would have implied that they were taking out the few, precious Panzerfaust projectiles that they had as a worst case scenario.


Edited by IH8MEDS, 28 October 2014 - 06:05 PM.


PzHeinZ #27 Posted 28 October 2014 - 09:23 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 13657 battles
  • 21
  • Member since:
    10-20-2014

View PostThe_Foolio, on 27 October 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

 

 

Exactly!

 

I have no problem with film only featuring Americans, if that is what the story is about. My beef is that whenever Brits, or other Europeans are featured, they are either a token toff, or incompetent and needing to be rescued.

 

 

 

I'd love to see a real representation of being a tankie, similar to Das Boot. Not this one tank/platoon against the world - i.e. Fury it Saving Private Ryan. It would never get made though. Fury is the film equivalent of CoD. Enjoyable for the kiddies, no doubt.

 

View PostPurzelbaer, on 27 October 2014 - 09:19 PM, said:

Its nice how similar are the old soviet war movies and the american war movies. Each allied soldier (american or soviet) is a hero, each german soldier is an incompetent coward. 5 american heros are enough to stop 300 german soldiers. Wow! If it would have been true, why the US Army needed so long to defeat NaziGermany? For me this movie is at the same level like "Red Tails" made by Spielberg in 2012. Good effects, good for american proud, but if you look on the technical and tactical side then it is a ridiculous tale.

 

Right. The Germans are so often depicted as total twats who cannot fight, are retreating easily and usually end up surrendering/dead in the end. Funny how it actually took the rest of the world to beat them...on the other hand things for the Americans turn out right with few exceptions...think if "Pearl Harbor" would have ended with the US Pacific fleet being sunk. But alas, it ends with Doolittle raids on Japan months later X(

 

What is even more strange is how Germans themselves make war movies. They almost always end with the whole German cast dead (Das Boot, Stalingrad, Die Brücke). For some reason the Germans cannot make movies "Hollywood style" with a happy ending for the Germans themselves :) ...I´m sure events reagarding historical accuracy during the WW2 would be plentiful.

 

 



IH8MEDS #28 Posted 28 October 2014 - 10:34 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 87 battles
  • 2,944
  • Member since:
    10-14-2013

Quote

What is even more strange is how Germans themselves make war movies. They almost always end with the whole German cast dead (Das Boot, Stalingrad, Die Brücke). For some reason the Germans cannot make movies "Hollywood style" with a happy ending for the Germans themselves :) ...I´m sure events reagarding historical accuracy during the WW2 would be plentiful.

 

Well, this may be a huge shock to you, but... NAZI GERMANY LOST THE FREAKING SECOND WORLD WAR!

 

You are literally implying that WW2 movies should depict Germans as the victors, just so that they would be different from the rest of the WW2 movies!

 

Jesus H Christ, and I thought a person like Snooki was dense...



PzHeinZ #29 Posted 29 October 2014 - 12:49 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 13657 battles
  • 21
  • Member since:
    10-20-2014

View PostIH8MEDS, on 28 October 2014 - 11:34 PM, said:

Quote

What is even more strange is how Germans themselves make war movies. They almost always end with the whole German cast dead (Das Boot, Stalingrad, Die Brücke). For some reason the Germans cannot make movies "Hollywood style" with a happy ending for the Germans themselves :) ...I´m sure events reagarding historical accuracy during the WW2 would be plentiful.

 

Well, this may be a huge shock to you, but... NAZI GERMANY LOST THE FREAKING SECOND WORLD WAR!

 

You are literally implying that WW2 movies should depict Germans as the victors, just so that they would be different from the rest of the WW2 movies!

 

Jesus H Christ, and I thought a person like Snooki was dense...

 

I´m not implying anything. This may be a huge shock to you, but the Germans wiped the floor with the Poles, the Danes, the Norwegians, the benelux nations, the Greeks, the French, the Brits in France, Crete and North Africa and at first with the Russians too. One might also make a film out of the battle of Kasserine pass :)...

Surely some of those German victories would deserve a film made notwithstanding the outcome of the war. Hollywood style if you like LOL.

 

Am I not right?


Edited by PzHeinZ, 29 October 2014 - 12:53 AM.


Ubertoaster #30 Posted 29 October 2014 - 01:34 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16334 battles
  • 824
  • [TAHK] TAHK
  • Member since:
    05-12-2011

View PostPzHeinZ, on 28 October 2014 - 11:49 PM, said:

 

I´m not implying anything. This may be a huge shock to you, but the Germans wiped the floor with the Poles, the Danes, the Norwegians, the benelux nations, the Greeks, the French, the Brits in France, Crete and North Africa and at first with the Russians too. One might also make a film out of the battle of Kasserine pass :)...

Surely some of those German victories would deserve a film made notwithstanding the outcome of the war. Hollywood style if you like LOL.

 

Am I not right?

 

An angry israeli/pole/frenchman/breton/yank/german politician/holocaust survivor walked pass your window, delivering his/her angry stare.

IH8MEDS #31 Posted 29 October 2014 - 04:59 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 87 battles
  • 2,944
  • Member since:
    10-14-2013

View PostPzHeinZ, on 29 October 2014 - 12:49 AM, said:

 

I´m not implying anything. This may be a huge shock to you, but the Germans wiped the floor with the Poles, the Danes, the Norwegians, the benelux nations, the Greeks, the French, the Brits in France, Crete and North Africa and at first with the Russians too. One might also make a film out of the battle of Kasserine pass :)...

Surely some of those German victories would deserve a film made notwithstanding the outcome of the war. Hollywood style if you like LOL.

 

Am I not right?

 

What part of US movie, about a US crew in a US tank are you seriously struggling to comprehend?!

 

Seriously, I have the strong feeling that the majority of people that saw this movie did not understand anything from it, perhaps expecting to see a documentary-movie about Rommel vs Patton or something.

 

Want a Hollywood movie about a non-US solider, that is barely a good B-movie? Go watch enemy at the gates, a STRONGLY romanticized & cliched flick about the famous Soviet sniper, Vasily Zaitsev

 

No, you are not right. It's like me going to see "Fury" and being mad because the movie was not about the famous actions of Simo Hayha



UNARMOURED #32 Posted 29 October 2014 - 08:32 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 36185 battles
  • 1,642
  • Member since:
    11-20-2012

View PostIH8MEDS, on 28 October 2014 - 06:04 PM, said:

Quote

- I've not seen it

- it fails on the other two counts.

 

How exactly do you know that "it fails on the other two counts"... if you haven't even SEEN the bloody flick?!

 

l.e.: As for the finale... I bet that there would have been much less controversy if they haven't shown about 10 (at least) troopers with Panzerfausts at the ready... and if they would have implied that they were taking out the few, precious Panzerfaust projectiles that they had as a worst case scenario.

 

 

If you read my post I said that:

 

"I tend to watch films based upon whether they would interest me, the trailer looks good and whether I think it will be any good."

 

So on the basis that I thought the trailer looked like typical Hollywood navel gazing, followed by a CoD style action finale. AND that I personally don't think I would enjoy the film, then I won't be watching it.



IH8MEDS #33 Posted 29 October 2014 - 08:53 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 87 battles
  • 2,944
  • Member since:
    10-14-2013

What if I told you

 

That war movies are not necessarily about the action itself, but the action being just a mean to tell a story?

(and no, the finale is NOT a CoD style action or whatever you think it is)


Edited by IH8MEDS, 29 October 2014 - 08:53 AM.


UNARMOURED #34 Posted 29 October 2014 - 09:55 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 36185 battles
  • 1,642
  • Member since:
    11-20-2012

View PostIH8MEDS, on 29 October 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

What if I told you

 

That war movies are not necessarily about the action itself, but the action being just a mean to tell a story?

(and no, the finale is NOT a CoD style action or whatever you think it is)

 

Not wanting to sound condescending, but I understand the concept of a film as a medium. If it was purely action - e.g. Transformers - then I definitely wouldn't watch it. To be fair though, the film does look very slick and very well made, production-wise, but so do most nowadays

 

Regarding the realism of the action, then there are several posts on this forum from people who have watched it, stating that much of the action is highly unrealistic - e.g. not being able to hit a barn door from 10feet away, one tank behind enemy lines v 300 infantry etc. I find Brad Pitt in the trailer totally unconvincing and slightly annoying. A little like a watered down version of his character in Inglorious Basterds.

 

So in summary, I would not be able to suspend my disbelief long enough to watch it, and definitely would not enjoy it. In fact if it didn't have a tank in it, it would not even have registered on my consciousness.



IH8MEDS #35 Posted 29 October 2014 - 10:00 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 87 battles
  • 2,944
  • Member since:
    10-14-2013

Quote

one tank behind enemy lines v 300 infantry etc

 

Once again...

 

1) There were supposed to be 4 tanks, not just 1, to guard that crossroad (out of the requested 10!)

2) The crew of the Fury DID NOT WIN the engagement, they were eventually wiped out, after fighting tooth & nail and using every trick in the sleeve. The 300-400 Waffen-SS DID WIN, albeit with heavy casualties that allowed later on the Allied forces to resist their attack

3) To be perfectly honest, it's as if there were never any actual, historical last stands against the enemy, personal sacrifice made for the greater good

 

Quote

 I find Brad Pitt in the trailer totally unconvincing and slightly annoying. A little like a watered down version of his character in Inglorious Basterds

 

He is anything but. To be honest, his character makes more than 50% of the movie.



UNARMOURED #36 Posted 29 October 2014 - 11:31 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 36185 battles
  • 1,642
  • Member since:
    11-20-2012

View PostIH8MEDS, on 29 October 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

Quote

one tank behind enemy lines v 300 infantry etc

 

Once again...

 

1) There were supposed to be 4 tanks, not just 1, to guard that crossroad (out of the requested 10!)

2) The crew of the Fury DID NOT WIN the engagement, they were eventually wiped out, after fighting tooth & nail and using every trick in the sleeve. The 300-400 Waffen-SS DID WIN, albeit with heavy casualties that allowed later on the Allied forces to resist their attack

3) To be perfectly honest, it's as if there were never any actual, historical last stands against the enemy, personal sacrifice made for the greater good

 

Quote

 I find Brad Pitt in the trailer totally unconvincing and slightly annoying. A little like a watered down version of his character in Inglorious Basterds

 

He is anything but. To be honest, his character makes more than 50% of the movie.

 

You'll not win me over. Regardless of how they go into the situation - I'm not saying that the intention was to have one tank against the world - it's the action as represented on screen I find unappealing and also the concept. One man/tank/something against the world has been overdone.

 

Your point about Pitt is a matter of opinion. I find him to be an actor of very limited ability.

 

I'll wait a few years until it is on ITV4 +1.


Edited by The_Foolio, 29 October 2014 - 11:35 AM.


IH8MEDS #37 Posted 29 October 2014 - 11:45 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 87 battles
  • 2,944
  • Member since:
    10-14-2013

Quote

Your point about Pitt is a matter of opinion. I find him to be an actor of very limited ability.

 

Don't hide behind the "opinion" crap.

 

"very limited ability" - as opposed to whom?!

I'm nowhere near a Brad Pitt fan, but calling a man that has brought at least half the contribution (if not more) in movies like "Fight Club" or "Se7en" is just being bloody ignorant.



AncestralIce #38 Posted 29 October 2014 - 02:30 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 10500 battles
  • 39
  • Member since:
    03-01-2014

View PostSpek_en_Bonen, on 25 October 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:

Molten jets of copper are a myth.

It is the shape of the explosive power that does the damage.

The first shaped charge was a cooking pot with sticks of dynamite tied to it...

 

Burning all the oxygen will result in what? A constant vacuum?

If it even did burn all the oxygen (which I'm sure it doesn't...), the lack of oxygen would last a fraction of a second.....

Using a fosfor grenade and filling the enemy tank with smoke is more effective in that purpose (not allowing a crew to work inside the crewcompartment)

In fact, that is how some Tiger tanks got taken out of action. By weapons that couldn't penetrate the armour.

 

 

Molten jets of copper exists. Maybe you don't trust Wikipedia, but here is Encyclopedia Britannica's article: http://www.britannic...losive-antitank

Burning all the oxygen in the tank would result in a non functioning crew. I agree that the ventilators will send in fresh air - but you use something else to burn the oxygen, and this something else creates heat, making the inside of the tank a tad uncomfortable (like "toasted crew" uncomfortable)

And the only effective Soviet guns that worked against the Tiger (initially) were the 152mm assault guns (bunker busters) firing low velocity high explosive ammo in SU-152. In many cases, the Tiger crew died but the tanks were fixed in hours or less. As such, the 152 mm assault gun batteries were instructed to fire until the targets were on fire, exploded or had the turret blown out. The Soviets in the end had armour-piercing ammo for the 152mm guns, but even if they penetrate, it didn't significantly improve their lethality compared to high explosive rounds.

   Ironically enough, the German makeshift tank destroyers were anti aircraft guns (very high velocity, very high penetration).



AncestralIce #39 Posted 29 October 2014 - 02:53 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 10500 battles
  • 39
  • Member since:
    03-01-2014

View PostManu, on 28 October 2014 - 06:04 PM, said:

Like the battle with the Tiger, good until the end ( why this tiger move forward when it just need to wait the sherman...)

 

Artillery support? Fighter-bombers (ground attack planes)? Danger of encirclement in a while? Low fuel situation, so it doesn't have fuel to idle that engine for long and then retreat?

UNARMOURED #40 Posted 29 October 2014 - 02:56 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 36185 battles
  • 1,642
  • Member since:
    11-20-2012

View PostIH8MEDS, on 29 October 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

Quote

Your point about Pitt is a matter of opinion. I find him to be an actor of very limited ability.

 

Don't hide behind the "opinion" crap.

 

"very limited ability" - as opposed to whom?!

I'm nowhere near a Brad Pitt fan, but calling a man that has brought at least half the contribution (if not more) in movies like "Fight Club" or "Se7en" is just being bloody ignorant.

 

Opinion crap? So everything you spout on here is 100%, proven by scientific method, fact?! None of it is your opinion?

 

"Very limited ability" is my opinion of his acting. It doesn't need to be in comparison to someone else to be valid, because it's my opinion. I could list people who I feel to be better, or worse, actors but what would it prove? I just don't find him a believable serious character actor, with anything resembling a decent range, unless portraying an off-the-wall type or in a less serious film; Therefore, he fitted the Fight Club role perfectly and was good in it.

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users