Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Any reason why you can't actually debate properly and just prefer to attack?
Yamamoto was just an example of a movie quote which people take as real. I posted a link of some people doing this and a wiki article which debunks it. A perfectly reasonable and valid point to make in the context of this argument about whether some people get their info from the movies. And I think your comprehension is severely lacking if you truly believe Easthome and myself are doing the same considering what we've posted. You actually attacked him for having an "unhealthy obsession with movies" after he, rightfully, came down on Thinkalot! Clearly missing the point massively. Have a read of the thread since p85 and try to understand. Then cool down a bit.
Any reason why you can't actually debate properly and just prefer to attack?
Yamamoto was just an example of a movie quote which people take as real. I posted a link of some people doing this and a wiki article which debunks it. A perfectly reasonable and valid point to make in the context of this argument about whether some people get their info from the movies. And I think your comprehension is severely lacking if you truly believe Easthome and myself are doing the same considering what we've posted. You actually attacked him for having an "unhealthy obsession with movies" after he, rightfully, came down on Thinkalot! Clearly missing the point massively. Have a read of the thread since p85 and try to understand. Then cool down a bit.
Because you were using SPR as an example and when your statements were challenged, you all of sudden switched to a different movie.
Using a bait and switch and then playing the victim is not going to work on me, John Bull. If you and Easthome are going to inject Hollywood of all things into an ostensibly serious discussion, you should not be surprised if your respective statements are derided as childish rubbish.
Or should I cite The Italian Job, Oxford Blues, and A Hard Days Night as sources for British life and perspectives?
Oh really? Is that your comeback? I could have used a number of examples of films (and not just WW2 films) which willingly distort, embellish or tailor historical events for people with no ability to think, lap up without question. Do you think my Yamamoto example wasn't warranted? Then argue your point instead of ad-hominen attacks on me.
You seem to have a real problem with understanding that attacking someone for appearing to have no knowledge of history outside of hollywood doesn't mean they have an "unhealthy obsession with movies". Does. Not. Make. Sense.
Oh and your examples of British films are rubbish given that they are not based on true events. Duh.
Oh really? Is that your comeback? I could have used a number of examples of films (and not just WW2 films) which willingly distort, embellish or tailor historical events for people with no ability to think, lap up without question. Do you think my Yamamoto example wasn't warranted? Then argue your point instead of ad-hominen attacks on me.
You seem to have a real problem with understanding that attacking someone for appearing to have no knowledge of history outside of hollywood doesn't mean they have an "unhealthy obsession with movies". Does. Not. Make. Sense.
Oh and your examples of British films are rubbish given that they are not based on true events. Duh.
No, that was my explanation/answer to your question.
Of course the British film examples are rubbish- that's the point.I though the English invented Irony. Amazing they never get it when its thrown at them.
Films, even those that purport to depict historical events, inevitably stray from the subject, distort the subject, and inject outright falsehoods.
Films are for entertainment, not studying history. And that is why I deride and will always deride anyone who inserts them. I knew very well what you were trying to do with SPR. I have been on many a forum and after a while, one notices patterns amongst certain groups. You lot always throw hissy fits about that movie. You should not. It is a work of fiction.
As for Yamamoto, I have no idea. Does that mean he did not partake in the attack on Pearl Harbor?
If you want to start a thread that dissects the accuracy of war movies or just SPR, I will happily join in.
No, that was my explanation/answer to your question.
Of course the British film examples are rubbish- that's the point.I though the English invented Irony. Amazing they never get it when its thrown at them.
I don't think you conveyed irony particularly well in that case. You're saying that SPR is as much fiction as The Italian Job or Oxford Blues? Well, yes and no. The difference is the way these stories is presented. SPR with it's verité-style cinematography seems to aim for a degree of verisimilitude in order to seem as if we're seeing something real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
Films, even those that purport to depict historical events, inevitably stray from the subject, distort the subject, and inject outright falsehoods.
YES!! I KNOW!! But the point I've been trying to make is some people don't. Do you not comprehend that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
Films are for entertainment, not studying history.
Agree! Although they can in some cases act as a gateway to discovering what really happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
And that is why I deride and will always deride anyone who inserts them. I knew very well what you were trying to do with SPR. I have been on many a forum and after a while, one notices patterns amongst certain groups. You lot always throw hissy fits about that movie. You should not. It is a work of fiction.
Again *sigh*. I brought it up as an example where I've encountered people who take it at face value. And my response to them is pretty much what I'd written here earlier and seems to be the consensus among people with any interest and knowledge in subject whether you're British or American.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
As for Yamamoto, I have no idea. Does that mean he did not partake in the attack on Pearl Harbor?
No, it means the famous quote attributed to him was taken from a movie (Tora! Tora! Tora!). It's even repeated in that bastion of historical truth, Pearl Harbour!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
If you want to start a thread that dissects the accuracy of war movies or just SPR, I will happily join in.
SPR with it's verité-style cinematography seems to aim for a degree of verisimilitude in order to seem as if we're seeing something real.
<Sigh>
You really want to dissect SPR. I mean you just want to have a row about this movie. You just have to do it and with a Yank, correct?
Fine.
In a nutshell, Moth's POV of SPR:
As mentioned, I think the main premise is implausible. It is very doubtful Marshall would have sent a bunch of guys behind enemy lines to fish out one guy, no matter his situation. But its Hollywood and they needed something to make it different than The Longest Day.
The battle scenes were quite graphic and gripping. A number of vets who were there (including some in my family) said it was portrayed as realistically as a film could hope.
The plot was certainly interesting as it moved from encounter to encounter. The actors did a competent job.
The Monty Line: A fictional grunt flapping his gums. Nothing more, nothing less. One can easily imagine a British Tommie saying the same about Bradley, Ike, Patton, etc. Hell, American GIs said worse about Patton. Who cares? Well I guess you lot. You Brits are a proud people and tend to get bent out shape over these things.
The jingoism (you've been drooling for that). Hey, that's Speilberg. WWII is the only war America can "feel good" about. Speilberg's movies are always dripping with sentimental this or that and characterized by uplifting, grandiose endings. It tends to annoy me until I remember that its HOLLYWOOD.
<drum roll>
And now the much hackneyed charge that it depicts "America as Having Won WWII Alone". The Piece de Resistance:
I do not see it.
I cannot recall any line in the script or anything else that makes that claim, implies it, or suggests it.
Therefore, it can only originate from the fact that the movie only shows American soldiers. Well, that is quite simple to understand. If you have studied D-Day/Overlord, you should know that the majority of forces were from the UK, Canada, and the US (plus a smattering of others). The were each assigned 3 areas to attack. Therefore, American soldiers would not have encountered British or Canadian soldiers unless their sector overlapped. The one in SPR (Dog Green) did not overlap. Your absence is accuracy, ironically enough.
Not to mention, the movie is about an American platoon on a specific mission. They don't encounter any Brits but they do meet a lot of Germans. You could make numerous films that only showed Brits and stay within plausible bounds.
To be fair, I have read that unit was transported by British ships. Well ok, the two lines by the American coxswain should have gone to a Brit. You got me. Not the most egregious omission although you will have to ask the director if it was intentional.
So there it is. An interesting sometimes gripping movie with an implausible plot, one omitted Brit, and a lot o Hollywood.
If you need to see Brits, check out The Longest Day. There you get Peter Lawford in his white turtleneck with his *piper while Richard Burton does his best John Wayne. And John Wayne is in it too!
But I would recommend some Stephen Ambrose.
* Love that bloke. Still have his obit from The Economist somewhere.
But at the end of the day it was just a bloody movie.
You really want to dissect SPR. I mean you just want to have a row about this movie. You just have to do it and with a Yank, correct?
Fine.
In a nutshell, Moth's POV of SPR:
As mentioned, I think the main premise is implausible. It is very doubtful Marshall would have sent a bunch of guys behind enemy lines to fish out one guy, no matter his situation. But its Hollywood and they needed something to make it different than The Longest Day.
The battle scenes were quite graphic and gripping. A number of vets who were there (including some in my family) said it was portrayed as realistically as a film could hope.
The plot was certainly interesting as it moved from encounter to encounter. The actors did a competent job.
The Monty Line: A fictional grunt flapping his gums. Nothing more, nothing less. One can easily imagine a British Tommie saying the same about Bradley, Ike, Patton, etc. Hell, American GIs said worse about Patton. Who cares? Well I guess you lot. You Brits are a proud people and tend to get bent out shape over these things.
The jingoism (you've been drooling for that). Hey, that's Speilberg. WWII is the only war America can "feel good" about. Speilberg's movies are always dripping with sentimental this or that and characterized by uplifting, grandiose endings. It tends to annoy me until I remember that its HOLLYWOOD.
Pretty much agree with most of that. The Monty line is probably quite an accurate depiction of the viewpoint of some US military of the time, although it would probably have been a little later in the war. The problem is that it is the *only* mention of anything to do with any of the other allied forces and it's negative. You mentioned you went to the Imperial War Museum an example of a case where you didn't notice any mention of the US, which is probably fair enough considering it's about British war history. But imagine the only mention you saw of the US was a put down of Patten? Or derogatory to the US somehow? It probably would irk some Americans somewhat!
Further to that dialogue, we also have Tom Hanks' group encounter crack SS divisions complete with Tiger tanks which were only in the British/Commonwealth sector at the time, and along with Monty's caution, were the reason they didn't break through as quickly as the US which faced lighter opposition.
It seems obvious that Speilberg and Rodat chose to change things around to make the Americans seem more heroic, although they really didn't need to change anything. But after Rodat wrote The Patriot, which has among other inaccuracies, the British burning people alive in a church(!), you get a feel for his agenda.
To be honest, this really doesn't annoy me as much as you think it does, although I've seen a few Brits get very impassioned about the whole thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
<drum roll>
And now the much hackneyed charge that it depicts "America as Having Won WWII Alone". The Piece de Resistance:
I do not see it.
I cannot recall any line in the script or anything else that makes that claim, implies it, or suggests it.
I agree with that too and I never actually said that it did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
If you need to see Brits, check out The Longest Day. There you get Peter Lawford in his white turtleneck with his *piper while Richard Burton does his best John Wayne. And John Wayne is in it too!
It's on my list
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
But at the end of the day it was just a bloody movie.
I don't care what the Brits say. Without US they would of gotten stomped. It would of just taken a bit more time but make no bones the German war machine would of whooped them. Without our war ego fort of supplies and food and ammo and ranks and planes and parts and guns and everything else that was needed to fight a war they would of lost. You think New Zealand or Australia would of has the resources to send equipment from the bottom of the world? Hardly.
Nobody likes to say they would of lost or they lost. They would of held out a bit more. Hitters big mistake was to try and fight two war fronts and the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor. If they would of waited On the Pearl Harbor attack, kicked the snot out of GB then hit the Russians front and back the rest of the Asiatic countries would of folded pretty quick.
At that point I firmly believe we could be fighting on our soil.
Difficult to take anyone too seriously who is too dumb to to know that it is would HAVE, not would of, and repeats that dumbass error ad nauseam.
Pretty much agree with most of that. The Monty line is probably quite an accurate depiction of the viewpoint of some US military of the time, although it would probably have been a little later in the war. The problem is that it is the *only* mention of anything to do with any of the other allied forces and it's negative. You mentioned you went to the Imperial War Museum an example of a case where you didn't notice any mention of the US, which is probably fair enough considering it's about British war history. But imagine the only mention you saw of the US was a put down of Patten? Or derogatory to the US somehow? It probably would irk some Americans somewhat!
No. Monty was subordinate to Ike. Ike could have fired Monty anytime. He did not. All generals- ALL of them- are subject to criticisms, second guessing, micromanaging and worse. Had it been a line from George Marshall, you might have a gripe. But it was a solitary line from a grunt. Get over it already.
I was using the Imperial War Museum to illustrate a different point to someone else. I think it a fine museum and cannot imagine it would ever have anything petty and aimed at a man who so assisted the war effort. Suffice it to say, comparing a serious, dignified museum to a Spielberg film strikes me as ludicrous.
Our Air & Space Museum here has a many RAF fighters. I show them to my son.
Quote:
Further to that dialogue, we also have Tom Hanks' group encounter crack SS divisions complete with Tiger tanks which were only in the British/Commonwealth sector at the time, and along with Monty's caution, were the reason they didn't break through as quickly as the US which faced lighter opposition.
Do you really think the average person anywhere can tell the difference? Set designers use what tanks are available. Kelly's Heroes has Soviet tanks standing in for Tigers because it was filmed in Yugoslavia. Come on...it is a work of fiction and you are what we call a nitpicker.
Quote:
It seems obvious that Speilberg and Rodat chose to change things around to make the Americans seem more heroic, although they really didn't need to change anything. But after Rodat wrote The Patriot, which has among other inaccuracies, the British burning people alive in a church(!), you get a feel for his agenda.
The Americans were heroic, as were all others.
Quote:
To be honest, this really doesn't annoy me as much as you think it does, although I've seen a few Brits get very impassioned about the whole thing.
It appears to annoy you a great deal. I don't understand why the Brits get their knickers in twist over it. But there is clearly more to it than nitpicking.
No. Monty was subordinate to Ike. Ike could have fired Monty anytime. He did not. All generals- ALL of them- are subject to criticisms, second guessing, micromanaging and worse. Had it been a line from George Marshall, you might have a gripe. But it was a solitary line from a grunt. Get over it already.
Not sure what that has to do with anything but it doesn't matter who said it. And why do you imagine I need to get over it? It's just a discussion! You seem far more wound-up than I am! Cool down, you'll have a heart attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
I was using the Imperial War Museum to illustrate a different point to someone else. I think it a fine museum and cannot imagine it would ever have anything petty and aimed at a man who so assisted the war effort. Suffice it to say, comparing a serious, dignified museum to a Spielberg film strikes me as ludicrous.
It was just a hypothetical scenario, don't take it so literally. I could have used a different example. And the comment about the IWM was just to highlight the difference. Again your comprehension and ability to follow a conversation is somewhat lacking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
Do you really think the average person anywhere can tell the difference? Set designers use what tanks are available. Kelly's Heroes has Soviet tanks standing in for Tigers because it was filmed in Yugoslavia. Come on...it is a work of fiction and you are what we call a nitpicker.
They do it all the time but usually because they don't have the props available. In this case though it's for narrative reasons, so it's worth questioning is it not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
The Americans were heroic, as were all others.
Yes, hence my line about them not needing to make stuff up!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
It appears to annoy you a great deal. I don't understand why the Brits get their knickers in twist over it. But there is clearly more to it than nitpicking.
Again, personally, it's just a discussion. You have it in your head that I'm some fall-waving nationalist (John Bull? come-on) but - believe it or not - I'm married to an American and have visited and enjoyed the US over ten times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, yes and no. The difference is the way these stories is presented. SPR with it's verité-style cinematography seems to aim for a degree of verisimilitude in order to seem as if we're seeing something real. 
). Hey, that's Speilberg. WWII is the only war America can "feel good" about. Speilberg's movies are always dripping with sentimental this or that and characterized by uplifting, grandiose endings. It tends to annoy me until I remember that its HOLLYWOOD.