Saving Private Ryan

lets all drop it.
classic case of patriotism messing with you. lets just say that taking either beach was not fun and be done with it, eh
 
Locke said:
lets all drop it.
classic case of patriotism messing with you. lets just say that taking either beach was not fun and be done with it, eh
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me. Anyone can always check my sources if I start a thread like this one and there they are.

By the way, ask any veteran from any allied country if they ever knew a hero and they will tell you they are still at Normandy.
 
Yeah, all those guys from Easy Company lied about their experiences...suuurrrree.

Theres quite a few accounts of members of Easy Company who were utterly horrified and embarrassed at Band Of Brothers which pretty much just took every major event they could think off and put this one company at the centre of it all.

Both that series, Saving Private Ryan and so on took elements from WW2 and used them to create a story. Most war movies are like that where they dramatise events. Its to be taken that way much like the movies of many historical events. There not the worse, not the best.
 
Limeyfellow said:
Yeah, all those guys from Easy Company lied about their experiences...suuurrrree.

Theres quite a few accounts of members of Easy Company who were utterly horrified and embarrassed at Band Of Brothers which pretty much just took every major event they could think off and put this one company at the centre of it all.

Both that series, Saving Private Ryan and so on took elements from WW2 and used them to create a story. Most war movies are like that where they dramatise events. Its to be taken that way much like the movies of many historical events. There not the worse, not the best.
Click to expand...

Exactly, never use a movie or hearsay as Historically accurate. Check sources which have nothing to do with Tom Hanks.
 
Why didn't they show the British at Gold and Sword? And if you show the British then you have to show the Canadians at Juno. And why show only the army? If you show the army then you should show the navy and the air force, coastgaurd, and marines. And what about the French resistance? They provided the allies with vital information and sabotaged the German war effort? Why show only the allied point of view? You should show the Germans too. And if you show the Germans, you might as well throw in the Japanese too. What about the Russians? And if you are showing the Russians, Americans, British, Germans, Japanese, and Canadians that is not fair to the Brazilians, Chinese, Australian, Belgian, Dutch, French, Italians, Finnish, and Croatians. I could go on for days. You can't include every group or every detail into a 2-3 hour movie. Someone is always left out no matter what. Give it a break guys. This movie wasn't about the whole Normandy campaign. It was a fictional story about a group of rangers who saved a paratrooper. Why does Hollywood make movies? So you could learn something? They make movies so they can line their pockets. Hollywood twists and changes everything to appeal to the general American public because that is where the money is at. How many Americans do you know would go to a movie about the British and Canadian raid on Dieppe? The millions of teenagers in America would have nothing to do with that movie. But if Hollywood twisted it a little and focused on the couple American Rangers that participated in the raid, a lot more people would go. What are movies for anyway? They are for enjoyment. You don't watch a movie to learn something. Just because I saw the Godfather, does that make me an expert on the mafia? Of course not. If you want to learn something pick up a book. If you want to sit back and enjoy yourself for 2 hours watch a movie.
 
The Cooler King hit the nail right on the head.

Enough said on this topic as far as I'm concerned.
 
I guess you could say it is a Historical fiction. I have not found any thing that is false in that movie. The invasion was caputured prety acuratley.
 
I have not found any thing that is false in that movie.
Click to expand...

You could nit pick that they reversed "Flash" and "Thunder", the Tigers were T-34s, they landed at the wrong sector, yada yada yada. That stuff doesn't bother me though.
 
The Cooler King said:
I have not found any thing that is false in that movie.
Click to expand...

You could nit pick that they reversed "Flash" and "Thunder", the Tigers were T-34s, they landed at the wrong sector, yada yada yada. That stuff doesn't bother me though.
Click to expand...

The Tigers were T-34s? I never knew that. I read or saw somewhere that the Tiger tank was actually a real Tiger tank, and not a prop or anything else.
 
It was a mock-up turret on the chassis of T-34. It was very convincing. Operational Tiger I's are extremely rare. That is why you never see "the real deal" in movies.

One thing that gave it away was when Capt. Miller takes his submachine gun a sprays the inside of the vehicle through the driver's viewport (rectangle opening on the front of the tank). A real Tiger had 6 layers of armored glass there making the Captian's actions impossible.
tiger0ip.jpg
 
Okay, then it was a T-34 that no longer looked like one. Not the same thing as using a T-34 as is and saying it's a Tiger like they used M-47s in The Battle of the Bulge and just painted them field grey and put a German cross on them.
 
The easiest way to tell the difference is in the tracks. The Tiger I has an overlapping wheel design. Were as the T-34 does not.

tiger7fv.jpg

Tiger I

t344vo.jpg

T-34
 
well, you have to realize that your average movie goer wouldn't have realized that it was a T-34 with a different turret instead of a Tiger I. The way they did it was very convincing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top