A movie question

[mapuc]

I have seen Gods & General and Gettysburg. But it said that those two movies are a part of trilogy.

Where's the 3rd part?? I can't find it.

Markus

[TLAM Strike]

The 3rd film was canceled. It was to be called The Last Full Measure. The triligy was based on a trio of novels written by Jeff and Michael Shaara: Gods and Generals, The Killer Angles (the film was called Gettysburg) and The Last Full Measure.

[mapuc]

The 3rd film was canceled. It was to be called The Last Full Measure. The triligy was based on a trio of novels written by Jeff and Michael Shaara: Gods and Generals, The Killer Angles (the film was called Gettysburg) and The Last Full Measure.

I googled the internet and I came to a civilwar forum.

It was because the first two movies was ot going well at the cinemas.

Some say it, was because there was to much religious in the movies.

Markus

[nikimcbee]

So what did you think about Gods and Generals?

[nikimcbee]

I googled the internet and I came to a civilwar forum.

It was because the first two movies was ot going well at the cinemas.

Some say it, was because there was to much religious in the movies.

Markus


No, GaG:haha: recieved horrible reviews. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gods_and_generals/

I had more fun reading the reviews than watching the movie.

[mapuc]

So what did you think about Gods and Generals?

That's a three parts answer

1. The Actor played their roll very well

2. If all the scenes was 100 % historical correct? That's up to others to decide. I didn't go into details

3. Battle scenes- Same as number 2, but some of them was really fantastic made.

It is a fantastic civil war movies and so is Gettysburg.

It sadned me that thise 3 trilogy books, is not in Danish or Swedish

I'am about to order both movies. Gods & General and Gettysburg.

Markus

[nikimcbee]

Most of the criticism was about showing the South in a positive light. (meaning winning the battles). I don't think they (the movie critics) know that the South totally dominated the North up to Gettysburg. (I'm talking Eastern Theater):D

If you like Civil War stuff, regarding early War, try this out.

http://www.amazon.com/Stonewall-Jackson-Man-Soldier-Legend/dp/0028650646

It's a great book.

[mapuc]

Most of the criticism was about showing the South in a positive light. (meaning winning the battles). I don't think they (the movie critics) know that the South totally dominated the North up to Gettysburg. (I'm talking Eastern Theater):D

If you like Civil War stuff, regarding early War, try this out.

http://www.amazon.com/Stonewall-Jackson-Man-Soldier-Legend/dp/0028650646

It's a great book.

Thank you for the link.

They won a lots of battles in the beginning of the civil war. Those critics may have forgot that the Southern, was just a stonethrow from Washington when their luck turned against them(the battle at Gettysburg)

But it's more to that than I want to write about.(my english is to blame)

I love history(had A? in school) my primary areas is WWII(mostly military), 1900 century and the civil War in USA.

Markus

[nikimcbee]

Here's the best book about the Civil War.

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Oxford-History/dp/019516895X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316479660&sr=1-1

It might be a bit beyond your English abilities (university level reading:dead:), but you'll understand everything about the CW.

[mapuc]

Here's the best book about the Civil War.

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Oxford-History/dp/019516895X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316479660&sr=1-1

It might be a bit beyond your English abilities (university level reading:dead:), but you'll understand everything about the CW.

Thank you

My english is much better, when it comes to read.

So i'm gonna order this book.
And maybe those three trilogy books.

Markus

[the_tyrant]

what i hated about gods and generals was the dialogue

it was literally the blandest thing i have ever heard

[Osmium Steele]

So what did you think about Gods and Generals?

Gettysburg is in my top 3 fav movies. Wonderfully written, cast, acted, directed. The production was very well done.

Terrific action scenes, interspersed with poignant moments. Jeff Daniels deserved an oscar nod for his portrayal of Joshua Chamberlain.

Gods and Generals turned the poignant prose into pontification. Stephen Lang was fantastic as Gen. Pickett, not so much as Gen. Jackson. He was a distraction.

The Killer Angels is a wonderful read. His son's novels, while completely readable, (I own them all) do not rise to the level of his father's masterwork.

IMHO of course.

[mapuc]

Gettysburg is in my top 3 fav movies. Wonderfully written, cast, acted, directed. The production was very well done.

Terrific action scenes, interspersed with poignant moments. Jeff Daniels deserved an oscar nod for his portrayal of Joshua Chamberlain.

Gods and Generals turned the poignant prose into pontification. Stephen Lang was fantastic as Gen. Pickett, not so much as Gen. Jackson. He was a distraction.

The Killer Angels is a wonderful read. His son's novels, while completely readable, (I own them all) do not rise to the level of his father's masterwork.

IMHO of course.

They are not exactly on my top 3 list. however, those two movies is a must see. Their are, what we call "a whole evenings matiné movie"

Great acting yes, but was the battlescenes, the clothes a.s.o, in every detail, historical correct?

I have orded those two movies
Later on I'm gonna order thise 3 book(in english)

Markus

[nikimcbee]

GaG is the perfect movie to watch at home on DVD, because you can skip through the boring parts. Believe it or not, I saw GaG twice:o in the theaters.

Hands down, the worst scene in GaG, was the Confederate "USO" show:haha:. Its the scene with Turner in it, so that scene will not be edited out.:shifty::nope::down:.
I did like the Battle of Chansellorsville though. I need to rent it again and watch it.

[mapuc]

I did like the Battle of Chansellorsville though. I need to rent it again and watch it.

I searched for the "Battel of Chans.." and I found this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaoKUj_fUeo

I was trying to see if there was a movie with that name. then I saw it was from one of those two C.W movies

Markus

[nikimcbee]

I searched for the "Battel of Chans.." and I found this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaoKUj_fUeo

I was trying to see if there was a movie with that name. then I saw it was from one of those two C.W movies

Markus

My bad, The Battle of Chancellorsville part of GaG, not a seperate movie.

On a side note, GaG was a very friendly portrayal of Jackson. He was one weird dude. (hyper-religious)

[mapuc]

My bad, The Battle of Chancellorsville part of GaG, not a seperate movie.

On a side note, GaG was a very friendly portrayal of Jackson. He was one weird dude. (hyper-religious)

Lets stay in this CW-war and discuss their generals.

I say that some of the generals from the Confederacy, was somehow better that their opposite, on the other side.


Markus

[nikimcbee]

Lets stay in this CW-war and discuss their generals.

I say that some of the generals from the Confederacy, was somehow better that their opposite, on the other side.


Markus

You are absolutely correct. Early to mid war, the Southern generals in the Eastern Theater were way better.

[nikimcbee]

When I get off work, I can post more info. (give me an hour or so, and I'll be home:woot:)

[mapuc]

When I get off work, I can post more info. (give me an hour or so, and I'll be home:woot:)

Take your time, no need to stress.:up:

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

On a side note, GaG was a very friendly portrayal of Jackson. He was one weird dude. (hyper-religious)
"Old Blue-Light".

[Torplexed]

Lets stay in this CW-war and discuss their generals.

I say that some of the generals from the Confederacy, was somehow better that their opposite, on the other side.


Markus

Cavalry generals in particular. Men like Jeb Stuart, Wade Hampton and Nathan Forrest. Was an area the Union never quite caught up in although as the war dragged on the importance of cavalry began to diminish.

[nikimcbee]

Cavalry generals in particular. Men like Jeb Stuart, Wade Hampton and Nathan Forrest. Was an area the Union never quite caught up in although as the war dragged on the importance of cavalry began to diminish.

The dashing John Pelham, Stuart's Horse Artillery:yeah:.
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg86/scaled.php?server=86&filename=infrontoftentpy6.jpg&res=medium

[Torplexed]

The dashing John Pelham, Stuart's Horse Artillery:yeah:.
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg86/scaled.php?server=86&filename=infrontoftentpy6.jpg&res=medium


Making life miserable for the Army of the Potomac at Fredericksburg with enfilade fire. Although Gen. Burnside gets most of the credit for misery there.:O:

[Torplexed]

Speaking of dashing....

http://pyxis.homestead.com/Dashing.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

Jeb Stuart
Got his hat handed to him at Gettysburg, by...George Armstrong Custer.

And don't forget John Buford's contribution to the opening stages of that battle, holding Reynolds' I Corp to the ground of his choosing and creating the situation that led to the Union victory in that battle.

[TLAM Strike]

Got his hat handed to him at Gettysburg, by...George Armstrong Custer.

And don't forget John Buford's contribution to the opening stages of that battle, holding Reynolds' I Corp to the ground of his choosing and creating the situation that led to the Union victory in that battle.
Moral of the story is: never debate the Civil War with Sailor Steve... he was there...

:O:

[Osmium Steele]

And don't forget John Buford's contribution to the opening stages of that battle, holding Reynolds' I Corp to the ground of his choosing and creating the situation that led to the Union victory in that battle.

Just a nit to pick.

Buford held the ground, waiting for for Gen. Reynolds I Corps against confederate Gen. Heth.

[mapuc]

Moral of the story is: never debate the Civil War with Sailor Steve... he was there...

I would...Mostly I would just listen to what he have to say. It could be that he knows thing I didn't know of.

And the way you are saying it, it seems that he has a very high knowledge about the Civil war.

By the way, tonight I'm gonna see a documentary about another civil war:

The english civil war- I have very little knowledge about this, but I live to learn.

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

No. Lots of folks know as much or more than I do. It's just fun to look stuff up and talk about it.

As for the English Civil War, I know a little, but am much more interested in Mr. Cromwell's great grand-uncle Thomas and his "service" to Henry VIII.

[mapuc]

No. Lots of folks know as much or more than I do. It's just fun to look stuff up and talk about it.

As for the English Civil War, I know a little, but am much more interested in Mr. Cromwell's great grand-uncle Thomas and his "service" to Henry VIII.

Even thou, those two wars was from two different century, they had one common thing among every civil war in the history and that's it's brutality

Markus

[nikimcbee]

Got his hat handed to him at Gettysburg, by...George Armstrong Custer.


That's because Pelham wasn't there. (Killed at Kelly's Ford March 17, 1863)

Pelham ass-whooped Custer's command (chased him personally) with his arty, leap-frogging the guns.:haha:

[Takeda Shingen]

You are absolutely correct. Early to mid war, the Southern generals in the Eastern Theater were way better.

Initiating participation in American Civil War discussion No. 3377:

I would, with the exception of Sherman, say that the Southern generals were superior to their Northern counterparts even in the later war. This includes U. S. Grant as well. What seperated Grant from earlier commanders of the Army of the Potomac was his ability to actually use his army in a basically coherent manner, which was all that was really necessary to win that war.

The term 'domination' or 'dominating' is misleading. The Southern commanders were winning the individual battles handily. I regard R. E. Lee as one of the greatest military leaders in history. However, it should be noted that the Confederacy was almost constantly on the defensive during the course of the war with the exception of the the Gettysburg campaign, which ended disasterously for the South. While the defeat of armies twice it's own size and the humiliation of numerous Union commanders was no doubt a clear demonstration of superiority in command at the tactical level, I would not label the Confederacy's strategic performance as one of dominance.

[nikimcbee]

It would have been interesting to see the outcome, if the Southern Generals in the Western Theater had been better leaders during the early War (up through Vicksburg). If they had decisive victories in the West, the Feds may have given up:hmmm:. Gettysburg and Vicksburg ended that. But the South's economic situation may have negeted their early wins. They couldn't afford a war of attrition.

[the_tyrant]

It would have been interesting to see the outcome, if the Southern Generals in the Western Theater had been better leaders during the early War (up through Vicksburg). If they had decisive victories in the West, the Feds may have given up:hmmm:. Gettysburg and Vicksburg ended that. But the South's economic situation may have negeted their early wins. They couldn't afford a war of attrition.

My opinion:
the capture of New Orleans changed everything
New Orleans was the gateway of the south to the rest of the world

and by taking New Orleans, the south lost its main harbour, and therefore lost its main channel of trade and with it its main economic base

From a different perspective, the fact that a union fleet can sail into New Orleans and take it, and that there were no major attempts to retake the biggest harbour in the south shows exactly how poorly the south's overall strategic planning is

[Torplexed]

I've come to the conclusion that one of the South's greatest liabilities in fighting the war, besides the traditional ones of lack of manpower, political infighting and not enough industry was it's own awkward geography. A bad situation for a country fighting a defensive war.

First, in square miles the Confederacy was big. Slightly larger than modern Mexico and in square miles slightly larger than the North. This would be an advantage is some cases. (Think of all the great armies swallowed up invading Russia) However, the population differential with the Union meant that the North could always conjure up more armies and move against more locations than the manpower-poor South could adequately defend. However, this had it's advantages too as the Union had a lot of territory to garrison and long Union supply lines made massive cavalry raids like the ones Forrest led a lot easier to prosecute.

Rivers. The ones in Virginia mostly run west-east, which aided the Army of Northern Virginia mightily. However, the big ones out west, the Mississippi, the Cumberland, Tennessee were all secure invasion and supply conduits for the North running as they did most south and south east. If Kentucky had solidly joined the Confederacy and they had been able to defend on the broad and mostly east-west Ohio river, it certainly would have aided AS Johnston's predicament in 1862. In reality, once Forts Henry and Donelson fell, Johnston had to pull his whole line back down south into Tennessee and Mississippi with no decent natural barriers to defend upon.

Cities. All the big important ones are near the edges and borders. New Orleans, Memphis, Nashville, all the coastal cities. Richmond was only a 100 miles from Washington and always in dire danger. Only Atlanta seems to have been secure for most of the war years tucked safely away in the heart of Georgia. New Orleans was the South's biggest city and port and was lost quite early in the war.

The coastline. As mentioned by General Banks, a front onto itself. Normally a secure area if you have a decent navy. The Confederacy, of course had none and as a consequence Union coastal enclaves like Port Royal, New Bern and Jacksonville beginning popping up with worrying regularity for the South. The American Civil War was America's most amphibious war until WW2. This situation created headaches for the government in Richmond as Southern governors were always reluctant to give up state militias for the various Southern armies as, with justification, they could always claim their state was in imminent danger.

It's interesting to note that Generals Beauregard and Johnston both hatched a plan after Bull Run to invade and divide the North at it's geographical weak point. A thrust up from the Potomac to split the North in two by seizing the strip of territory between Pittsburgh and Lake Erie. Jeff Davis squelched the plan. As always, not enough troops.