"Fury" - Movie. Bollywood Boycott Time again

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Now why didn't they make a film of that? (presuming that this isn't).
It's got good drama potential, character building, and shows some of the futility of war, even in the name of a good cause.
And before someone says that it wouldn't make a good film because it was a defeat, I shall point out 'A Bridge too far'.

Still, we'll see...films can surprise, but we'll see.

While A Bridge Too Far is highly regarded today, it was something of a box office failure at the time (1977) The main complaint I recall back then was too many characters, cameos and plotlines to follow. The anti-climatic ending left people flat too.

So, Hollywood probably took it's cue. Of course being released the same year as Star Wars didn't help either.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Dowly

(Better than that silly The Longest Day)

I predict that HunterICXs face is going to be:

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

While A Bridge Too Far is highly regarded today, it was something of a box office failure at the time (1977) The main complaint I recall back then was too many characters, cameos and plotlines to follow. The anti-climatic ending left people flat too.

So, Hollywood probably took it's cue. Of course being released the same year as Star Wars didn't help either.

Aye, a pity really as it is a damn good film. More should be done to remember our mistakes, otherwise we never learn from them.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I predict that HunterICXs face is going to be:

You are a cruel man.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Aye, a pity really as it is a damn good film. More should be done to remember our mistakes, otherwise we never learn from them.

Oh, I don't think Hollywood has completely abandoned military mistakes as movie fare. But it's generally reserved for wars or interventions that were failures; Bighorn, Platoon, Hamburger Hill, Black Hawk Down, etc.

[Betonov]

Saving private Ryan does not glorify war, it shows it as it is.
These other movies glorify it. That's why they come out unrealistic, cheesy and more like a recruitment ad.

[Subnuts]

I was actually sorta interested in seeing this movie until I found out it was by directed by the same guy who wrote U-571.

In which case, screw this noise.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Dowly

That's my point. Does it have to be historically accurate? Saving Private Ryan wasnt, but I think most of us here liked it.

Geez, it's a movie, not a Disc-.. Histor-... well.. documentary.

I hated Saving Private Ryan for it's unrealisitc stereotypical potrayal of both sides and not really being sublte about it.

Originally Posted by Dowly

So very good, seen it maybe 6-7 times. Almost a perfect warmovie.
(Better than that silly The Longest Day)

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

Shermans were infamous for being easy prey to German armor.

Who could forget that order the American high command issued and that was valid for some time that American Sherman tanks should not engage German tanks as long as they would not have a numerical 7:1 superiority?!

[Skybird]

Regarding Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers was the natural and recommended evolution of SPR. Superb production, absolutely excellent.

However, while all in all BoB was far better, for the opening sequence of SPR, the storm of the beaches, you cannot give enough credit to Spielberg's masterful movie craftsmanship.

[Oberon]

We just put a bigger gun on it.

Still exploded just as well though... And it periodically set fire to the surrounding vegetation when it fired...

The Firefly tank is an ordinary Sherman but, in order to accommodate the immense breech of the 17-pounder and to store its massive shells, the co-driver has been eliminated and his little den has been used as storage space. ... The flash is so brilliant that both gunner and commander need to blink at the moment of firing. Otherwise they will be blinded for so long that they will not see the shot hit the target. The muzzle flash spurts out so much flame that, after a shot or two, the hedge or undergrowth in front of the tank is likely to start burning. When moving, the gun's overlap in front or, if traversed, to the side is so long that driver, gunner and commander have to be constantly alert to avoid wrapping the barrel around some apparently distant tree, defenceless lamp-post or inoffensive house.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Regarding Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers was the natural and recommended evolution of SPR. Superb production, absolutely excellent.

However, while all in all BoB was far better, for the opening sequence of SPR, the storm of the beaches, you cannot give enough credit to Spielberg's masterful movie craftsmanship.

When it comes to actual cinematics, SPR is top notch, but it does fall into tropes when it comes to the actual film itself.
BOB on the other hand was all over a superior article, in pacing (helped that it was a series rather than a film), in characters and in the narrative.
I mean, compare:


to

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

Oh, I don't think Hollywood has completely abandoned military mistakes as movie fare. But it's generally reserved for wars or interventions that were failures; Bighorn, Platoon, Hamburger Hill, Black Hawk Down, etc.

I do not expect Hollywood to educate a person on history I expect them to entertain.

Granted a film or show may spark interest but they only provide trival facts in most cases. In the US military acadmies as well ROTC they instructed on battles/wars that were failures. Or a book can be read idealy several on a subject this where true knowledge should be aquired. My "man cave" (to use this silly parlance) basically is a room filled mostly with military history books.

On the flip side I think history buffs can be too picky. Any main stream film has to be appealing to a large audience.

[August]

Originally Posted by Subnuts

I was actually sorta interested in seeing this movie until I found out it was by directed by the same guy who wrote U-571.

Well just remember that a director doesn't write the story.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by August

Well just remember that a director doesn't write the story.

Well he actually does this time, in Fury's case he written it and directed it.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Why is it that movies made in modern day about WWII are critisised for their inaccuracies, when stuff like "Eagles Has Landed" are considered a classic?

What's the difference?

I think the difference here is that "The Eagle Has Landed" is based off of a novel by Jack Higgins so it's already is "historically inaccurate" in a way, whereas "Fury" is supposed to be based off a true story and Hollywood manages to get the historical aspects wrong. If I do decide to see "Fury" it's going to be after some reviews are out.