The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
As you begin to read this discussion, you'll probably be thinking to yourself "Oh no, here Hunky Funky Monkey goes again about American war movies bla bla bla, just what exactly is his problem?!"
Well, here it is:
For starters I'd just like to point out that I am a huge fan of 'good' American made war classics such as 'Platoon', 'Full Metal Jacket' and the brilliant 'Apocolypse Now' which I was lucky enough to be able to see again a couple of weeks ago. These three titles are War masterpieces which portray the harshness and realness of War, in which we see the Americans as we would most probably like to, distraught and fatigued soldiers fighting against an enemy who has passion and an element of proudness for it's country, survivg by the spirit and courage of every individual involved in the battle.
What I am not a great fan of is films like 'U-571' and 'The Patriot'. In 'U-571', the heroes are American, when in real life it was us British who captured the Enigma machine and managed to de-code all those secret German messages. This film is perhaps the main culprit in changing the nationality of the good guys!
In 'The Patriot', the British are portrayed as the ruthless killers who have no sense of mercy inside them. But, although we see how badly the English treated the American soldiers when they were captured, what we don't see is how the English soldiers were treated by the Americans when they were taken prisoner. This is done to make the audience sympathise with the 'goodies'.
Films like this are told from an entirely American perspective,(but I suppose you would hardly expect a Hollywood film to be anything different!!) mainly for an entirely American audience. These films bend the truth and indulge in flag-waving American Nationalism!
So, the question we have to ask is,
"Is it completely unrealistic to expect a War movie to be entirely truthful?"
I feel the answer is 'Yes'.
All films are fiction whether they are based on fact or not. Films based on actual events are a re-working of those events and necessarily simplify complex matters to make a watchable film. The only way a film can be classed as 'real' is if it is a recording taken of the events that actually took place on that day. They're just one version of the truth. It's easy to forgive changing characters around and changing real events if it's done for the dramatic purposes of the film, but certainly not if it's to satisfy Americanism.
With more War films scheduled for release soon, I can only hope that they will follow the paths laid down by Platoon, Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now, and not the fake paths laid down by the 'rubbish' American war films such as U-571 which take British pride away from our nation and claim that they were the ones who succeeded where we did, that they were the worthy winners, when we were.
Thanks for taking time to read my discussion. I look forward to reading your replies.
Well, here it is:
For starters I'd just like to point out that I am a huge fan of 'good' American made war classics such as 'Platoon', 'Full Metal Jacket' and the brilliant 'Apocolypse Now' which I was lucky enough to be able to see again a couple of weeks ago. These three titles are War masterpieces which portray the harshness and realness of War, in which we see the Americans as we would most probably like to, distraught and fatigued soldiers fighting against an enemy who has passion and an element of proudness for it's country, survivg by the spirit and courage of every individual involved in the battle.
What I am not a great fan of is films like 'U-571' and 'The Patriot'. In 'U-571', the heroes are American, when in real life it was us British who captured the Enigma machine and managed to de-code all those secret German messages. This film is perhaps the main culprit in changing the nationality of the good guys!
In 'The Patriot', the British are portrayed as the ruthless killers who have no sense of mercy inside them. But, although we see how badly the English treated the American soldiers when they were captured, what we don't see is how the English soldiers were treated by the Americans when they were taken prisoner. This is done to make the audience sympathise with the 'goodies'.
Films like this are told from an entirely American perspective,(but I suppose you would hardly expect a Hollywood film to be anything different!!) mainly for an entirely American audience. These films bend the truth and indulge in flag-waving American Nationalism!
So, the question we have to ask is,
"Is it completely unrealistic to expect a War movie to be entirely truthful?"
I feel the answer is 'Yes'.
All films are fiction whether they are based on fact or not. Films based on actual events are a re-working of those events and necessarily simplify complex matters to make a watchable film. The only way a film can be classed as 'real' is if it is a recording taken of the events that actually took place on that day. They're just one version of the truth. It's easy to forgive changing characters around and changing real events if it's done for the dramatic purposes of the film, but certainly not if it's to satisfy Americanism.
With more War films scheduled for release soon, I can only hope that they will follow the paths laid down by Platoon, Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now, and not the fake paths laid down by the 'rubbish' American war films such as U-571 which take British pride away from our nation and claim that they were the ones who succeeded where we did, that they were the worthy winners, when we were.
Thanks for taking time to read my discussion. I look forward to reading your replies.
Page:
As you begin to read this discussion, you'll probably be thinking to yourself "Oh no, here Hunky Funky Monkey goes again about American war movies bla bla bla, just what exactly is his problem?!"
Well, here it is:
For starters I'd just like to point out that I am a huge fan of 'good' American made war classics such as 'Platoon', 'Full Metal Jacket' and the brilliant 'Apocolypse Now' which I was lucky enough to be able to see again a couple of weeks ago. These three titles are War masterpieces which portray the harshness and realness of War, in which we see the Americans as we would most probably like to, distraught and fatigued soldiers fighting against an enemy who has passion and an element of proudness for it's country, survivg by the spirit and courage of every individual involved in the battle.
What I am not a great fan of is films like 'U-571' and 'The Patriot'. In 'U-571', the heroes are American, when in real life it was us British who captured the Enigma machine and managed to de-code all those secret German messages. This film is perhaps the main culprit in changing the nationality of the good guys!
In 'The Patriot', the British are portrayed as the ruthless killers who have no sense of mercy inside them. But, although we see how badly the English treated the American soldiers when they were captured, what we don't see is how the English soldiers were treated by the Americans when they were taken prisoner. This is done to make the audience sympathise with the 'goodies'.
Films like this are told from an entirely American perspective,(but I suppose you would hardly expect a Hollywood film to be anything different!!) mainly for an entirely American audience. These films bend the truth and indulge in flag-waving American Nationalism!
So, the question we have to ask is,
"Is it completely unrealistic to expect a War movie to be entirely truthful?"
I feel the answer is 'Yes'.
All films are fiction whether they are based on fact or not. Films based on actual events are a re-working of those events and necessarily simplify complex matters to make a watchable film. The only way a film can be classed as 'real' is if it is a recording taken of the events that actually took place on that day. They're just one version of the truth. It's easy to forgive changing characters around and changing real events if it's done for the dramatic purposes of the film, but certainly not if it's to satisfy Americanism.
With more War films scheduled for release soon, I can only hope that they will follow the paths laid down by Platoon, Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now, and not the fake paths laid down by the 'rubbish' American war films such as U-571 which take British pride away from our nation and claim that they were the ones who succeeded where we did, that they were the worthy winners, when we were.
Thanks for taking time to read my discussion. I look forward to reading your replies.
Well, here it is:
For starters I'd just like to point out that I am a huge fan of 'good' American made war classics such as 'Platoon', 'Full Metal Jacket' and the brilliant 'Apocolypse Now' which I was lucky enough to be able to see again a couple of weeks ago. These three titles are War masterpieces which portray the harshness and realness of War, in which we see the Americans as we would most probably like to, distraught and fatigued soldiers fighting against an enemy who has passion and an element of proudness for it's country, survivg by the spirit and courage of every individual involved in the battle.
What I am not a great fan of is films like 'U-571' and 'The Patriot'. In 'U-571', the heroes are American, when in real life it was us British who captured the Enigma machine and managed to de-code all those secret German messages. This film is perhaps the main culprit in changing the nationality of the good guys!
In 'The Patriot', the British are portrayed as the ruthless killers who have no sense of mercy inside them. But, although we see how badly the English treated the American soldiers when they were captured, what we don't see is how the English soldiers were treated by the Americans when they were taken prisoner. This is done to make the audience sympathise with the 'goodies'.
Films like this are told from an entirely American perspective,(but I suppose you would hardly expect a Hollywood film to be anything different!!) mainly for an entirely American audience. These films bend the truth and indulge in flag-waving American Nationalism!
So, the question we have to ask is,
"Is it completely unrealistic to expect a War movie to be entirely truthful?"
I feel the answer is 'Yes'.
All films are fiction whether they are based on fact or not. Films based on actual events are a re-working of those events and necessarily simplify complex matters to make a watchable film. The only way a film can be classed as 'real' is if it is a recording taken of the events that actually took place on that day. They're just one version of the truth. It's easy to forgive changing characters around and changing real events if it's done for the dramatic purposes of the film, but certainly not if it's to satisfy Americanism.
With more War films scheduled for release soon, I can only hope that they will follow the paths laid down by Platoon, Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now, and not the fake paths laid down by the 'rubbish' American war films such as U-571 which take British pride away from our nation and claim that they were the ones who succeeded where we did, that they were the worthy winners, when we were.
Thanks for taking time to read my discussion. I look forward to reading your replies.
If my dream comes true and I get to be a big time director when I'm older, one of my first projects will be a WW2 film based on BRITISH SOLDIERS! Didn't see that coming did you?
MoJoJoJo wrote:
> If my dream comes true and I get to be a big time director when I'm older, one
> of my first projects will be a WW2 film based on BRITISH SOLDIERS! Didn't see
> that coming did you?
Nope, but good luck finding a battle to do. Any such film would fall exactly into the same pitfalls as the original poster described.
Many are missing the point here. Films AREN'T REAL. They're entertainment, not history. Until some DECENT british war films are made then it's high time a lot of people found a new hobby other than blasting anything made in America, because the arguments are getting a bit tired by now ! Considering the British film industry is the biggest joke in recent times, clinging to every mediocre success and claiming every other film to be a "cult" one, then few in this country is in any position to criticise to the degree most do.
Once again this is a fine example of the Americans doing what the English talk about, I mean England has to be the most moaning country on the planet, it's practically a national sport !
> If my dream comes true and I get to be a big time director when I'm older, one
> of my first projects will be a WW2 film based on BRITISH SOLDIERS! Didn't see
> that coming did you?
Nope, but good luck finding a battle to do. Any such film would fall exactly into the same pitfalls as the original poster described.
Many are missing the point here. Films AREN'T REAL. They're entertainment, not history. Until some DECENT british war films are made then it's high time a lot of people found a new hobby other than blasting anything made in America, because the arguments are getting a bit tired by now ! Considering the British film industry is the biggest joke in recent times, clinging to every mediocre success and claiming every other film to be a "cult" one, then few in this country is in any position to criticise to the degree most do.
Once again this is a fine example of the Americans doing what the English talk about, I mean England has to be the most moaning country on the planet, it's practically a national sport !
Congratulations Jon on a great win!
What we need to establish here is what a 'film' aims to do.
Films, like games and TV, are sources of entertainment. A director sitting in his directors chair, wants to make money. He does this by filling his war film with plenty of action, and if he is a better director, a good plot and characters too. It is a film, it's entertainment, so he can bend the truth a little.
If this means replacing British soldiers with Americans to appeal to a wider audience (The US accounts for the largest grosses on box - office hits) then so be it. The hopelessly (and possibly excessively) Patriotic Americans will enjoy the film all the more, and the majority of the British public (many of which, especially the younger generation, are often not loyal to Queen and Country) won't care what Nationality the soldiers are, as long as the plot, characters, and action sequences are enjoyable.
Now for the few either interested in war (me and HFM), or those that feel our war dead need to be remembered and respected (myself also), would prefer films to be
true-to-life, and, in the case of U-571, it be the British who recover the Enigma machine.
However, for Mr. Director a film like this could be a serious mal-investment. You see, all Hollywood films are released in the States first, and only if it is successful there will it move on to other countries, e.g. Britain. So a film showing the British as heroes, where other popular films have shown Americans, may not generate a high profit in the US, and therefore, never even make it to the UK!
On the other hand, a British made film would be different. Made, funded and filmed in Britain, a film fitting this description may be released in the UK first. But because the UK's economy is far smaller, less profit is made this way. So what we end up with is a lower budget film, with second grade actors and poor effects. Far less people will want to see this movie, and it will fade out of existence. That is why we may never see a box-office smash starring the British as war heroes.
But films not only REPLACE British soldiers, some even DEGRADE them! The example mentioned in the original topic was 'The Patriot'. I have not seen this film personally, but Hunky Funky Monkey describes it as:
"In 'The Patriot', the British are portrayed as the ruthless killers who have no sense of mercy inside them. But, although we see how badly the English treated the American soldiers when they were captured, what we don't see is how the English soldiers were treated by the Americans when they were taken prisoner"
Lets discuss this point a moment. I don't know if this is a war being made the subject of a film, or completely fictional events, but I find no evidence of British Troops ever behaving in this way. No soldiers or political leaders from the UK have ever stood against serious war crime charges. In fact, during World War II, while Americans tortured and killed captured German's, especially those apprehended at the concentration camps, the British treated them [almost] kindly, and even as fellow citizens. The Americans have no right to dehumanise the British. What have we ever done to them?
Another thing I would like to discuss, and you may notice me drawing further and further away from American Made war films, is ITV's latest controversial film, Bloody Sunday.
Now, nobody knows exactly what happened on that terrible day, and The Saville Inquest is still taking place (and some believe that this films total one-sidedness will affect the evidence given, and therefore the final outcome of this hearing) trying to determine what actually happened.
What we do know is that a Civil Rights march on January 30th, 1972, ended in bloodshed and 14 deaths. The Royal Paras, responsible for the deaths, maintain that the first shot was fired by an IRA terrorist, while other accounts tell of the Paras opening fire first.
The director of the film, Paul Greengrass said that the film was based on 'information already in the public domain' - i.e. evidence already heard at the enquiry. However, evidence has yet to be given by: The Royal Ulster Constabulary, the media, the IRA, and most importantly, the soldier in action that day. The result is a completely one-sided anti-British film.
The British paratroopers are shown as cold-blooded murderers - opening fire on unarmed protestors. It shows Squaddies itching to 'teach protestors a lesson' and British soldiers already wounded men in the back. Paratroopers in action that day have condemned the film, saying that many flaws are present, and none of the facts are presented.
This is another example of films alienating British servicemen and women, leaving out the facts, and bending the truth. And this film was not even American - the film was partly funded by Lottery cash - our own money being used to make a film degrading our own soldiers. I for one think this is wrong.
In conclusion, the only way to know what happened is to read books, watch documentaries or research facts. Although I understand Directors bending the truth to earn a dime, I am sickened by the way men and women who fought and died for this country being disgraced in such a way.
I look forward to comments, and further discussion of these issues.
Films, like games and TV, are sources of entertainment. A director sitting in his directors chair, wants to make money. He does this by filling his war film with plenty of action, and if he is a better director, a good plot and characters too. It is a film, it's entertainment, so he can bend the truth a little.
If this means replacing British soldiers with Americans to appeal to a wider audience (The US accounts for the largest grosses on box - office hits) then so be it. The hopelessly (and possibly excessively) Patriotic Americans will enjoy the film all the more, and the majority of the British public (many of which, especially the younger generation, are often not loyal to Queen and Country) won't care what Nationality the soldiers are, as long as the plot, characters, and action sequences are enjoyable.
Now for the few either interested in war (me and HFM), or those that feel our war dead need to be remembered and respected (myself also), would prefer films to be
true-to-life, and, in the case of U-571, it be the British who recover the Enigma machine.
However, for Mr. Director a film like this could be a serious mal-investment. You see, all Hollywood films are released in the States first, and only if it is successful there will it move on to other countries, e.g. Britain. So a film showing the British as heroes, where other popular films have shown Americans, may not generate a high profit in the US, and therefore, never even make it to the UK!
On the other hand, a British made film would be different. Made, funded and filmed in Britain, a film fitting this description may be released in the UK first. But because the UK's economy is far smaller, less profit is made this way. So what we end up with is a lower budget film, with second grade actors and poor effects. Far less people will want to see this movie, and it will fade out of existence. That is why we may never see a box-office smash starring the British as war heroes.
But films not only REPLACE British soldiers, some even DEGRADE them! The example mentioned in the original topic was 'The Patriot'. I have not seen this film personally, but Hunky Funky Monkey describes it as:
"In 'The Patriot', the British are portrayed as the ruthless killers who have no sense of mercy inside them. But, although we see how badly the English treated the American soldiers when they were captured, what we don't see is how the English soldiers were treated by the Americans when they were taken prisoner"
Lets discuss this point a moment. I don't know if this is a war being made the subject of a film, or completely fictional events, but I find no evidence of British Troops ever behaving in this way. No soldiers or political leaders from the UK have ever stood against serious war crime charges. In fact, during World War II, while Americans tortured and killed captured German's, especially those apprehended at the concentration camps, the British treated them [almost] kindly, and even as fellow citizens. The Americans have no right to dehumanise the British. What have we ever done to them?
Another thing I would like to discuss, and you may notice me drawing further and further away from American Made war films, is ITV's latest controversial film, Bloody Sunday.
Now, nobody knows exactly what happened on that terrible day, and The Saville Inquest is still taking place (and some believe that this films total one-sidedness will affect the evidence given, and therefore the final outcome of this hearing) trying to determine what actually happened.
What we do know is that a Civil Rights march on January 30th, 1972, ended in bloodshed and 14 deaths. The Royal Paras, responsible for the deaths, maintain that the first shot was fired by an IRA terrorist, while other accounts tell of the Paras opening fire first.
The director of the film, Paul Greengrass said that the film was based on 'information already in the public domain' - i.e. evidence already heard at the enquiry. However, evidence has yet to be given by: The Royal Ulster Constabulary, the media, the IRA, and most importantly, the soldier in action that day. The result is a completely one-sided anti-British film.
The British paratroopers are shown as cold-blooded murderers - opening fire on unarmed protestors. It shows Squaddies itching to 'teach protestors a lesson' and British soldiers already wounded men in the back. Paratroopers in action that day have condemned the film, saying that many flaws are present, and none of the facts are presented.
This is another example of films alienating British servicemen and women, leaving out the facts, and bending the truth. And this film was not even American - the film was partly funded by Lottery cash - our own money being used to make a film degrading our own soldiers. I for one think this is wrong.
In conclusion, the only way to know what happened is to read books, watch documentaries or research facts. Although I understand Directors bending the truth to earn a dime, I am sickened by the way men and women who fought and died for this country being disgraced in such a way.
I look forward to comments, and further discussion of these issues.
Because Americans believe they're Irish (as if being American wasn't bad enough, heh) they see the IRA as heroes
They never see the REALITY of the IRA, which is that of cold blooded murderers, fighting for a cause long forgotten.
As for the Patriot, it shows British soldiers burning a church full of civilions. In real life, if anyone was going to do that, it would've been the AMERICANS! The militia were well know for killing anyone who refused to join them. They shot, stabbed and hung many civilians. We did not.
But of course, you talk to an American, and they believe it because they've seen it on TV
Perfect example is an American kid I know called Dave, who I talk to on AIM
He believes :-
USA came in and defeated Germany for us, winning WW1
USA came in and defeated Germany for us again, winning WW2, while we sat and watched
The Americans discovered the Enigma machine (he actually asked me for proof that British sailors got it and not them)
America won their War Of Independance single handedly. He didn't even know France, Spain and Holland were all fighting alongside them to bring us down.
America won the French/Indian war. This war happened BEFORE we left America. Britain almost bankrupt herself defending the colonies from France and the Native Americans they had helping them. They raised taxes to help pay, and the Americans revolted.
Braveheart was a historically accurate film, and was almost 100% correct in every way.
America did not lose Vietnam, it was "a draw"
And that the IRA are the goodguys.
All this just goes to show what Hollywood is doing to the general public. Soon even the British will start believing the American version of events.
They never see the REALITY of the IRA, which is that of cold blooded murderers, fighting for a cause long forgotten.
As for the Patriot, it shows British soldiers burning a church full of civilions. In real life, if anyone was going to do that, it would've been the AMERICANS! The militia were well know for killing anyone who refused to join them. They shot, stabbed and hung many civilians. We did not.
But of course, you talk to an American, and they believe it because they've seen it on TV
Perfect example is an American kid I know called Dave, who I talk to on AIM
He believes :-
USA came in and defeated Germany for us, winning WW1
USA came in and defeated Germany for us again, winning WW2, while we sat and watched
The Americans discovered the Enigma machine (he actually asked me for proof that British sailors got it and not them)
America won their War Of Independance single handedly. He didn't even know France, Spain and Holland were all fighting alongside them to bring us down.
America won the French/Indian war. This war happened BEFORE we left America. Britain almost bankrupt herself defending the colonies from France and the Native Americans they had helping them. They raised taxes to help pay, and the Americans revolted.
Braveheart was a historically accurate film, and was almost 100% correct in every way.
America did not lose Vietnam, it was "a draw"
And that the IRA are the goodguys.
All this just goes to show what Hollywood is doing to the general public. Soon even the British will start believing the American version of events.
MoJoJoJo wrote:
All this just goes to show what Hollywood is doing to
the general public. Soon even the British will start believing the American version of events.
Or is it just the poor way in which americans are educated?
All this just goes to show what Hollywood is doing to
the general public. Soon even the British will start believing the American version of events.
Or is it just the poor way in which americans are educated?
No war films can't because truely correct because if an american made it.The americans would win or lose with honour they would never make out that america sucks.
Page: