Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Ben on August 04, 2019, 07:15:10 PM
-
This looks pretty good. I'd like to see more modern movies about WW1.
https://youtu.be/UcmZN0Mbl04
-
It definitely shows promise.
I noticed similarities to Dunkirk in terms of style
-
I just watched an old Howard Hughes' made movie, HELL'S ANGELS, produced and directed by Howard Hughes (and a few others ... production problems++++) made in 1930. It's a strange film .... mostly B&W, some tinted, and maybe 8 minutes of color. Inspired by William Wellman's 1927 film WINGS, the first Academy Award winner, HELL'S ANGELS featured some great dogfights between WW1 aircraft, and what can only be described as a bizarre, spooky air raid on London by a German zeppelin which did not end well for the dastardly dirigible. Part of its crew tried to save the thing by plummeting to their deaths ..... I sort of wonder if the Krauts had fallschirms in 1917 ....
Check it out. It's on DVD.
-
Part of its crew tried to save the thing by plummeting to their deaths ..... I sort of wonder if the Krauts had fallschirms in 1917 ....
That was usually because they had a choice between a burning death or a falling death. Many chose the falling death. Sucks either way but I guess one sucked less than the other.
-
That was usually because they had a choice between a burning death or a falling death. Many chose the falling death. Sucks either way but I guess one sucked less than the other.
Ok .... but the zeppelin wasn't on fire when those guys jumped ....that came later ---- and boy did it come!
-
Ok .... but the zeppelin wasn't on fire when those guys jumped ....that came later ---- and boy did it come!
Okay, been decades since I've seen it.
-
At 14:49 is the part you're taking about.
May need to rewatch this some day
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTAuT6ZMZXM
-
Thanks- just added Hell's Angels to my Netflix queue. I've never seen it.
I saw some comment on Netflix that the Decrappio movie "The Aviator" (never seen it) is based on this movie?
-
Thanks- just added Hell's Angels to my Netflix queue. I've never seen it.
I saw some comment on Netflix that the Decrappio movie "The Aviator" (never seen it) is based on this movie?
The Aviator is about Howard Hughes. HH made Hell's Angels.
IIRC HH filmed much of HAs twice. First time as a silent film then when he realized people were now wanting sound movies he refilmed much of it with sound.
-
..... IIRC HH filmed much of HAs twice. First time as a silent film then when he realized people were now wanting sound movies he refilmed much of it with sound.
Yup. The aerial scenes didn't need refilming, just the addition of sound effects. The only use of models (aside from the zeppelin) was a head on collision between two planes. Hughes insisted on there being clouds to give the dogfight scenes depth, and while I think he was right, it caused additional problems to the already problem plagued production.
Most of the refilmed scenes were on the ground, the early part with Jean Harlow .... and others, as the story was set up.
-
I noticed similarities to Dunkirk in terms of style
So it's something to avoid . . .
-
So, Saving Private Ryan in the Great War...
"so it's something to avoid"
Absolutely disagree. I liked Dunkirk very much. Very well done for such an ambitious movie and pretty faithful to Walter Lord's book.
-
So, Saving Private Ryan in the Great War...
"so it's something to avoid"
Absolutely disagree. I liked Dunkirk very much. Very well done for such an ambitious movie and pretty faithful to Walter Lord's book.
We differ on Dunkirk. Profoundly. Horribly done movie - empty beaches filled with 400,000 nonexistent Brits awaiting evacuation, soldiers lounging in a grounded boat that was an aiming point for Germans taking target practice, a civilian boater who covers for the panicky Brit soldier who murdered his son, an out-of-fuel Spitfire gliding forever . . . all presented in the most boring manner possible. Didn't hold a candle to old Brit war movies like ZULU, The Dam Busters, Sink the Bismarck, The Battle of Britain, or even the documentary series Victory at Sea.
-
You're correct we differ on that.
So, you decry the "historical accuracy" of Dunkirk yet you laud Zulu?
How many Lee-Enfield bolt action rifles would it take to get you to change your mind? There should be more than enough for you in Zulu... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Oh, and Victory at Sea was an American production...
-
And regarding gliding Spitfires, interesting information on it.
Essentially, in the right conditions, it was possible...
https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/film/2017/08/how-realistic-are-dunkirks-spitfire-flight-scenes
But shooting down the Stuka after a hard turn?
Yeah... no.
-
You're correct we differ on that.
So, you decry the "historical accuracy" of Dunkirk yet you laud Zulu?
How many Lee-Enfield bolt action rifles would it take to get you to change your mind? There should be more than enough for you in Zulu... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Oh, and Victory at Sea was an American production...
Stand corrected on Victory at Sea not being British (How'd I make that slip? :facepalm: ) But it was still better than Dunkirk.
I reread my post, and couldn't find the term "historical accuracy" - it MUST be there because you put it in quotes, right? ;)
And the bolt action rifles in ZULU weren't quite as anachronistic as the wristwatches some of the Zulus were wearing - their payment for their roles in the movie. But ZULU was still a damn sight more entertaining than Dunkirk.
-
"But ZULU was still a damn sight more entertaining than Dunkirk."
You were just watching it for the nekkid native wimminz at the beginning and you know it, you pervo! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
"I reread my post, and couldn't find the term "historical accuracy""
Your commentary about the gliding Spitfire seemed to me to be a comment on historical accuracy, as in "you can't glide a Spit!", which I know not to be the case. Of the aircraft in operation at that time, the Spit had probably the best glide characteristics of them all.
Not saying much, really, but that large elliptical wing provided lift that nothing else at the time had.
-
Well... Back to the original topic...
That looks great and I agree about wanting more movies/TV about the Great War. Personally, I think it's more important in terms of historical magnitude that WWII and I think the period and the impact of the war, both on the battlegrounds and for those at home, provides a depth of possible drama that has been neglected.
-
Well... Back to the original topic...
That looks great and I agree about wanting more movies/TV about the Great War. Personally, I think it's more important in terms of historical magnitude that WWII and I think the period and the impact of the war, both on the battlegrounds and for those at home, provides a depth of possible drama that has been neglected.
The archive footage from "They Shall Not Grow Old" was really powerful (to me) in portraying some of the hell WW1 soldiers (on both sides) went through. Kinda made footage I've seen, and thought was rough going, from WW2, look like a picnic.
-
The archive footage from "They Shall Not Grow Old" was really powerful (to me) in portraying some of the hell WW1 soldiers (on both sides) went through. Kinda made footage I've seen, and thought was rough going, from WW2, look like a picnic.
WW-I didn't have WW-II's wholesale mass exterminations and whole cities fire bombed flat.
WW-I 8-10 million or so dead.
WW-II 60 million
If that's a picnic count me out. In the end both F sucked.
Note: numbers are disputed for both
-
Your commentary about the gliding Spitfire seemed to me to be a comment on historical accuracy, as in "you can't glide a Spit!", which I know not to be the case. Of the aircraft in operation at that time, the Spit had probably the best glide characteristics of them all.
Not saying much, really, but that large elliptical wing provided lift that nothing else at the time had.
Lift to drag ratio. Not just lift. Plenty of planes (eg B-17, B-29, P-38 just to name a few) that produced more lift. But the elliptical shape of the wing produced less drag than other shapes for the given amount of lift.
-
WW-I didn't have WW-II's wholesale mass exterminations and whole cities fire bombed flat.
WW-I 8-10 million or so dead.
WW-II 60 million
If that's a picnic count me out.
Note: numbers are disputed for both
Wouldn't have WWII without WWI to begin with.
WWI was a war and warfare the likes of which had never been seen before. Historical impact isn't about the numbers. It's about the affect on the world. WWI was the war that began the 20th century and all that follows. It was the radical change from the grand calvery charges and neat lines of infantry that dominated war since the invention of the firearm to what we know today. That kind of change in warfare hadn't been seen *since* the firearm was brought reliably into the battlefields.
In terms of magnitude, yes, WWII was bigger, but in terms of relevance to history, I maintain that WWI was more significant.
-
Wouldn't have WWII without WWI to begin with.
WWI was a war and warfare the likes of which had never been seen before. Historical impact isn't about the numbers. It's about the affect on the world. WWI was the war that began the 20th century and all that follows. It was the radical change from the grand calvery charges and neat lines of infantry that dominated war since the invention of the firearm to what we know today. That kind of change in warfare hadn't been seen *since* the firearm was brought reliably into the battlefields.
In terms of magnitude, yes, WWII was bigger, but in terms of relevance to history, I maintain that WWI was more significant.
My post was in regards to the picnic comment.
In many ways I consider WW-II as being The Great War Part II: Unfinished Business
-
My post was in regards to the picnic comment.
To be clear I didn't say WW2 was actually a picnic, as in an easy war. Quite the opposite in fact, to make my point that the trench warfare of WW1 was absolutely horrendous. I was also specifically talking to battle conditions, not overall military and civilian deaths.
-
Lift to drag ratio. Not just lift. Plenty of planes (eg B-17, B-29, P-38 just to name a few) that produced more lift. But the elliptical shape of the wing produced less drag than other shapes for the given amount of lift.
Drag?
How DARE you question the Spitfire's life choices, you cisnormal privileged raciofascist! :rofl:
-
"In terms of magnitude, yes, WWII was bigger, but in terms of relevance to history, I maintain that WWI was more significant."
That's an interesting, and thought provoking, statement.
-
On the subject of WW I movies...
Have there been any movies about the American experience in WW I? There have been a number from the British experience, but right now the only American focused WW I movie that I can think of is The Lost Battalion with Rick Schroeder, and I think that one was a made for TV picture.
Oh, wait. Sgt. York. That's another one.
I know there were a couple of silent movies, such as Wings, but I'm thinking talkies.
-
On the subject of WW I movies...
Have there been any movies about the American experience in WW I? There have been a number from the British experience, but right now the only American focused WW I movie that I can think of is The Lost Battalion with Rick Schroeder, and I think that one was a made for TV picture.
Oh, wait. Sgt. York. That's another one.
I know there were a couple of silent movies, such as Wings, but I'm thinking talkies.
THE FIGHTING 69TH come to mind ....
-
In many ways I consider WW-II as being The Great War Part II: Unfinished Business
^this. It was basically a 20 year intermission.
-
Seems like America largely forgot The Great War after The Great War Part II
-
^this. It was basically a 20 year intermission.
Enough time to get a new crop of 18-20 year olds up and running.
-
I think WWII was felt more on the home front than WWI in the US, which is why we don't remember it as well. The sinking of the Lusitania didn't have the same impact as Pearl Harbor. We didn't go into the war recovering from a major depression. Life was pretty good in the US at the time. Our soldiers went off and fought a war. Some came home, some didn't, but it wasn't the same level of mobilization of industry and patriotic fever at home.
The Brits, OTOH, got slammed by WWI. Villages were populated by woman, children, very old men and, as time passed, those too injured to return to the front. Almost no healthy man of average age didn't end up in that war. Nobody escaped the impact of the war. Their whole world changed, almost over night.
Plus, they were basically lied too and they knew it. "It'll will all be over by Christmas." The truth of the conditions of the war was covered up very badly by those in power for a long time. It wasn't really until the wounded started coming home and talking (or not talking, as was often the case) that the truth of how badly mismanaged and misguided by the people running things was known.
So it's not surprising that the Brits have spent more time on the subject. It holds a relevance to them that it just doesn't have over here.
-
Thanks- just added Hell's Angels to my Netflix queue. I've never seen it.
I saw some comment on Netflix that the Decrappio movie "The Aviator" (never seen it) is based on this movie?
The Aviator is a good movie, with the exception of Decaprio's buttocks.
-
Saw 1917 last night, glad I saw it in the theatre. It deserved a big screen.
Most people may not like the one camera point of view, but I enjoyed the story. Gave a pretty good feel of what trench war was like and how screwed up WWI was.
-
Saw 1917 last night, glad I saw it in the theatre. It deserved a big screen.
Most people may not like the one camera point of view, but I enjoyed the story. Gave a pretty good feel of what trench war was like and how screwed up WWI was.
I saw it recently as well and definitely found it worth my time and money to see.
-
"I think WWII was felt more on the home front than WWI in the US, which is why we don't remember it as well."
Good analysis. I think you're on to something.
I think it also has a lot to do with how America entered the war... it was largely a political exercise based on a series of events over time and most of which simply didn't affect the average American.
I think some of the not remembering was willful not wanting to remember. After WW I American viewpoints turned strongly internal. A lot of Americans felt that the US had been co-opted into the war (again, largely through political maneuvers) and didn't want to go through anything like that again.
As the situation deteriorated through the 1930s those feelings gelled into movements like the America First movement.
US entry into WW II was, unlike the first war, sudden, shocking, and absolutely enraged America. In 1939/1940, Franklin Roosevelt had lot resistance to programs like the Two Ocean Navy and the draft, and he had to paint them in terms of ensuring that America could keep out of the war. Lend-Lease was also similarly promoted.
All of those programs were resisted by strong groups of legislators who felt that Roosevelt was trying to covertly drag the US into the War.
All of that resistance evaporated overnight.
The Congressional vote to go to war with Japan was unanimous save the lone dissenting vote in the house, cast by staunch pacifist Jeanette Rankin, who had also voted against war with Germany in 1917.
Rankin abstained 3 days later, making the declaration of war against Germany and Italy unanimous.
-
I think it also has a lot to do with how America entered the war... it was largely a political exercise based on a series of events over time and most of which simply didn't affect the average American.
I think some of the not remembering was willful not wanting to remember. After WW I American viewpoints turned strongly internal. A lot of Americans felt that the US had been co-opted into the war (again, largely through political maneuvers) and didn't want to go through anything like that again.
As the situation deteriorated through the 1930s those feelings gelled into movements like the America First movement.
US entry into WW II was, unlike the first war, sudden, shocking, and absolutely enraged America. In 1939/1940, Franklin Roosevelt had lot resistance to programs like the Two Ocean Navy and the draft, and he had to paint them in terms of ensuring that America could keep out of the war. Lend-Lease was also similarly promoted.
American intervention into WWI probably guaranteed WWII.
By 1917, the Germans were looking for a ceasefire, the French and Brits were pretty much depleted... The Germans pressed on harder for fear of the US entering the war, the Brits/French held out with the hope the US would join their side. The Germans agreed to armistice with the bait of Wilson's 14 points, then proceeded to have their country financially and territorially raped by the Treaty of Versailles.
-
My wife and I really enjoyed '1917' on the big screen. A good sense of how trench warfare was just a meatgrinder. If you are looking at the actor who portrayed Lance Corporal Blake and trying to figure out where you have seen him before, he was Tommen Baratheon on Game of Thrones.
-
I just finished reading a very interesting history of the Treaty of Versailles... It was, in a lot of ways, a HUGE cluster fluck from the get go.
There was, however, a LOT more going on behind the scenes... In September Ludendorf said the war was lost and Germany needed to work towards an immediate cease fire...
Yet a month later he said initial terms from the Allies were unacceptable and began making plans to restart the spring offensive.
In late October/early November 1918 the German Navy mutinied, refusing an order to go to sea against the English to hopefully isolate the British Army and reinvigorate the spring offensive that had started off well, but had gone significantly wrong by summer.
In large part due to the mutiny the Kaiser abdicated on 9 November.
Through it all, it really amazes me that such a pervasive legend grew up in the German military that the war was lost by the politicians, NOT the military. That was a huge contributing factor toward the rise of militarism in Germany in the post war era.
I don't think America entering the war would have changed that at all, to be honest; I think Britain and France would have prevailed even had America not entered as a combatant. The German economic position simply wasn't tenable for continuing the War.
-
Finally watched it last night on the big screen. Great film. The long takes and single-camera POV were reminiscent of Children of Men, in a good way.
*SPOILERS*
The plot twist where Blake gets killed and Schofield has to carry on without him was particularly well done. Up to that point, Blake had been front and center and the audience presumed the whole story would be told through his eyes.
Those lads sure had a run of bad luck, though. Rat sets off a tripwire, then a German plane practically crashes on top of them, then the pilot they rescued kills Blake. Yeesh.
-
Those lads sure had a run of bad luck, though.
There were millions who had a run of bad luck of being under poor leadership.
-
There were millions who had a run of bad luck of being under poor leadership.
No argument there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rblfKREj50o
;)
-
There were millions who had a run of bad luck of being under poor leadership.
I have heard that. I have also heard the British and French lost a whole lot of high level officers to enemy fire who were at the front. I have also heard it said that infantry and artillery tactics were changing rapidly through the war and no one prior to this had imagined that the entire nation would be crossed with trenches.
One item I heard was the British and French militaries refused to improve their trenches on the excuse that there were going on the offensive and wouldn't be there long. That contributed to the poor conditions. Have any of you heard something similar? Might be completely wrong.
-
One item I heard was the British and French militaries refused to improve their trenches on the excuse that there were going on the offensive and wouldn't be there long. That contributed to the poor conditions. Have any of you heard something similar? Might be completely wrong.
You are correct. The Germans put a lot more effort into make the their trenches livable.
-
You are correct. The Germans put a lot more effort into make the their trenches livable.
*spoiler alert*
*In the movie, the runners were shocked when they search an abandoned German trench/bunker complex.
-
I have heard that. I have also heard the British and French lost a whole lot of high level officers to enemy fire who were at the front. I have also heard it said that infantry and artillery tactics were changing rapidly through the war and no one prior to this had imagined that the entire nation would be crossed with trenches.
Its pretty uninspired leadership though, when the best solution they could come up with is "Company A is going to run across 1/2 mile of artillery blasted mud covered with razor wire, mines, bone shards, and corpses directly at a dug in line of enemies manning machine guns, pillboxes, and artillery, Company B will follow a few minutes later, followed by Company C. If you somehow survive today, we are going to do the same thing over again tomorrow."
-
As the trench lines developed in a lot of cases the Germans managed to hold higher, dryer land. This made their trenches a lot more livable over time.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
-
An excellent book on WW1 is "The Last of the Doughboys, The Forgotten Generation and Their Forgotten War" by Richard Rubin. The author interviewed many centenarians who were involved in combat theaters, home front operations, etc. Focus is on personal experiences and attitudes rather than big picture stuff.
-
Bumping because I just saw it at the Alamo.
*Spoilers*
It's not going to out rank my favorite war movies, but it was really good. I'd say my biggest fault is when he's running up to the sniper nest I was trying not to yell "You need to reload." Other than that, really good.
"Even their rats are bigger than ours!"
The twist midway through was totally unexpected and I liked the way they dealt with the French girl he stumbles across. But I think the best part was the filming and how they contrasted the beauty of the French countryside with the miserable horror of the war literally cutting through it.
Side note: For future reference, don't go to what is going to be a somewhat gruesome movie at a place where you want to also enjoy a meal. I've got a strong stomach for that sort of thing but the dead horses at the beginning and the floaters in the river were slightly stomach turning.
Oh and when he put a hand in a body. [barf]
-
I would give a non-vital organ of my body in exchange for having Alamo Drafthouse up here. I have been to several while doing consulting in other parts of the country, and I like the concept. There are a very few local theaters doing the same concept, but not as well as Alamo, and the nearest such theater is 35 miles from me.
-
I would give a non-vital organ of my body in exchange for having Alamo Drafthouse up here. I have been to several while doing consulting in other parts of the country, and I like the concept. There are a very few local theaters doing the same concept, but not as well as Alamo, and the nearest such theater is 35 miles from me.
I've been twice now and I don't think I'll go to a regular movie theater again. Between streaming services and my huge DVD collection, the idea of going out to see a movie at a regular theater just to see if first thing is ridiculous. I'd just rather wait at be able to watch it at home where I can kick back, eat whatever and not pay a fortune. The Alamo actually provides an experience you don't get at home and it's worth the price tag. I lounged back in a recliner, had an Irish Coffee milkshake, fish and chips and fried pickles all delivered to me by silent wait staff.
-
I lounged back in a recliner, had an Irish Coffee milkshake, fish and chips and fried pickles all delivered to me by silent wait staff.
Exactly. What is not to like?
-
Ooohhh...
Fried pickles with fish and chips?
Never thought of that combo before.