Can't imagine those who went through this were able to withstand the horror once more.
Myself, didn't have the guts to complete this flick the first time with my finishing it 7 years later.
I rate this as a 10, but don't want to suggest anyone to see it. Weird I Know, but..it is what it is.
Nuff said.
It was very hard to sit through, but I think it's a masterpiece. I would only suggest people see it if they were serious about art. If they're the average movie viewer who expects movies to be a fantasy world they can escape into and must end on a happy note, then I wouldn't suggest it.
shareWhy would you not suggest anyone see it? I feel the exact opposite. People (Especially young people) should have an idea of what those great men went through in Humanities ultimate fight of good vs evil. Teachers should show it in school. My US history teacher played it for us as soon as it came on DVD. It was my first time watching it and I was blown away. After seeing the horrors in such amazing detail for the first time as opposed to learning of WW2 in books and documentaries, I couldn't believe men actually went through such horrors. It breaks my heart every time.
My friends grand father served in Africa during WW2 and he said the film was the most realistic war movie he'd ever saw.
I do wish they had more of our allies present within the movie. I don't think I heard one British accent in the whole movie.
Good post. However, you could have done without this bit:
I do wish they had more of our allies present within the movie. I don't think I heard one British accent in the whole movie.
British personnel in reality did drive the landing craft the Rangers went in on.
Some Brits around here have been complaining about this for years. Some have gone as far as to complain that the British destroyers supporting the Rangers with naval gunfire close offshore weren't shown. But, you must understand. This isn't The Longest Day. It is not about the whole of operation Overlord. It is about one American unit on one small section of a very large battlefield. It wasn't in a British-staffed area. It wasn't about any British soldiers at all.
Oh give it a rest you boob.
TNSTAAFL
Awww not in the mood for humour you miserable boring old git?
Didn't see the "har har har" and the big smiley?
I reckon you need glasses you old sod. Or need to get laid. One or the other.
Oh, that was humor? Sorry I missed it. It looked more like the ramblings of a bitter, dour, impotent, old fanboy who is incensed that his fantasies aren't taken as fact by everyone else. But, I guess not everyone can be a Robin Williams. Here's some free advice. If you want to be funny, try instead being serious. Your serious comments are usually far funnier than your lame attempts at humor are anyway.
TNSTAAFL
[deleted]
This is not history! It is a film! If there is any excuse to show a film in history classes then show The Longest Day. Nothing in this film happened to the same group of soldiers (it was an amalgamation of the experiences of a much larger group) and a lot of what appeared to happen didn't happen in real life.
SPR is a great film but it's a film, to be enjoyed as such and not as a documentary. It very cleverly manipulates your emotions to make it seem realistic but it isn't. Go and read several different books and make your own mind up from the facts.
This had nothing to do with the Brits. This was Omaha Beach, American Rangers and Airborne. The Brits were down on the easy beaches.
shareThis had nothing to do with the Brits
If you consider gnawing your way thru hedgerow country 'easy'. Beside we'd have our opportunities later.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
hedgerows not easy to outwit in a battle situation?
shareYou said 'took the easy way out'; I said 'gnawing thru the hedgrows was easy';
Did you misread? You know I never denigrate the efforts of ANY of the Allies during 'Dubya Dubya Too'=ESPECIALLY The British Commonwealth, Canada or The USSR.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
I agree. Gnawing through hedgerows is presumably relatively easy.
You know I never denigrate the efforts of ANY of the Allies during 'Dubya Dubya Too'=ESPECIALLY The British Commonwealth, Canada or The USSR.
Really? I don't recall any yanks fighting SS panzers in Normandy. I think you'll find that Americans took the easy way out.
Yeah, really. In terms of this movie, and the people it portrays,
Also, "the Americans took the easy way out"? Do you mean to imply
Get over it already.
Yeah, really. It portrays the hero yank boys battling the SS panzers. This has nothing to do with the yanks - and everything to do with the Brits and Canadians.
The Americans took the easy way out while the Brits etc were bogged down fighting the panzers. Or do you subscribe to the view that Monty was just taking his time.
Now, I'm not the one to open threads on the subject or even argue that this was on purpose. But if some dimwits are going to claim that this had nothing to do with the Brits and somehow the Brits had it easy - then I'll certainly be here to correct them.
Buddy was under the sad delusion that the placement of SS panzers was an intentional slur, slight (?) by Spielberg and the whole film was made to disrespect and discredit the Brits (Monty etc).
You clearly have learned nothing from your many years here. You are under the sad delusion that this film has nothing to do with the Brits. You should at least know by now that it was the Brits and Canadians (and Poles) who fought the SS panzers and not the US in Normandy. You should also be aware the Brits actually get a mention (or rather the blame) so I would say that you and your buddy Barran are simply wrong to say that the film has nothing to do with the Brits.
Again, the Americans didn't CHOOSE that there would be no panzers in their sector at that time. Therefore, they didn't TAKE the easy way out. That's the lot they drew, just like the Brits and Canadians didn't CHOOSE that their beachheads wouldn't be as heavily defended as Omaha, and Utah.
And I said NOTHING about Monty. Don't put words in my mouth.
You clearly have learned nothing from your many years here. You are under the sad delusion that this film has nothing to do with the Brits.
You should at least know by now that it was the Brits and Canadians (and Poles) who fought the SS panzers and not the US in Normandy.
You should also be aware the Brits actually get a mention (or rather the blame) so I would say that you and your buddy Barran are simply wrong to say that the film has nothing to do with the Brits.
Strawman - choice has nothing to do with it, you are simply playing word games. The US took the easy way out just as the Brits etc took the easy way in. Though perhaps you believe that the US had it as hard as the Brits and Monty was just taking his time.
Except your delusion is that one throw away comment by one actor is a main theme of the film. It's not.
However, now that I've written that, and reviewed your last line (which I will address in a moment), I can see that you are (in your own words) "playing word games". To wit: You apparently opt to take the word "nothing" in the phrase, "nothing to do with" hyper-literally to mean the British weren't EVER mentioned, or portrayed. While the Monty comment does make that phrase void in the hyper-literal mode, it is NOT a true reading of the meaning of the phrase, and you know it. The Monty comment was such an infinitesimally small, and insignificant part of the movie that one can safely say the movie was not about the Brits.
And you should know by now that that fact has nothing to do with ANY of the characters, or the plot of this film.
Does "it" refer to the entire battle, including the landings? Does it refer to only those days when the British were fighting the panzers?
I won't even dignify the Monty comment with an answer again. You know better.
unintentional, better left out and silly - the dialogue is still there and therefore it's obviously not correct to say that the film had nothing to do with the Brits (etc).
I don't believe the comment was meant to insult and that most probably Spielberg was just making a ham fisted reference to the film Patton.
Fighting SS panzers- part of the plot wasn't it?
Took the easy way out of Normandy as opposed to the hard way towards Caen. Why are you talking about choice?
Perhaps you don't.
It had an infinitesimally small, insignificant, bit to do with the Brits?
Agreed. In fact you've used the same verbiage I've used regarding it several times.
But it was insignificant to all but the hyper-sensitive.
No. It actually wasn't. I would characterize it as set dressing. It would have been the same story if it had been any kind of armor, staffed by any Germans. It was only SS Panzers because the intended audiences were at least passingly familiar with both the SS, and panzers, nothing more.It certainly wasn't meant as a sligh6t against the British. This has been confirmed by the (British) man who built, and painted the tanks.
That's been explained to you already. It's because of YOUR words. Pay attention.
Agreed that Omaha was the hardest beach to take with the highest casualties but the other beaches weren't exactly easy either and Utah suffered less casualties than either of the British beaches and definitely less than Juno, the Canadian beach.
They have recorded the names of individual Allied personnel killed on 6 June 1944 in Operation Overlord, and so far they have verified 2499 American D-Day fatalities and 1915 from the other Allied nations, a total of 4414 dead (much higher than the traditional figure of 2500 dead)...
...Casualties on the British beaches were roughly 1000 on Gold Beach and the same number on Sword Beach. The remainder of the British losses were amongst the airborne troops: some 600 were killed or wounded, and 600 more were missing; 100 glider pilots also became casualties. The losses of 3rd Canadian Division at Juno Beach have been given as 340 killed, 574 wounded and 47 taken prisoner.
The breakdown of US casualties was 1465 dead, 3184 wounded, 1928 missing and 26 captured. Of the total US figure, 2499 casualties were from the US airborne troops (238 of them being deaths). The casualties at Utah Beach were relatively light: 197, including 60 missing. However, the US 1st and 29th Divisions together suffered around 2000 casualties at Omaha Beach.
No. Montgomery was not insignificant was he? Neither were the Panzers.
Unintentional ham fisted reference, I agree. But not insignificant - in fact in the story of the discrediting of Montgomery (and arguably the British) the film Patton was a pretty outrageous attack and SPR just keeps it alive.
You seem to assume the people you discuss with are stupid. You lecture me on choice - you seem to think that I believe the US had a choice and got to pick where and who they fought. Have you considered that they "took the easy way out" is used literally? Or do you prefer to assume that I am stupid?
I am sure that the film makers intentions were good and no slights were meant. However, they choose the notorious enemy that the 'Brits' fought in Normandy and thus made it about the 'Brits'.
Anyone can reasonably say on watching the film - hang about - not even one British voice?
Choosing Tiger tanks and the Waffen SS rather disproves the claims that the movie is realistic though, Bill, as US forces didn't encounter Tiger Is at all in Normandy. The only armour the Germans had in the American sector were a few French tanks and some Stug III and IV assault guns. Having a Renault or Hotchkiss puttering up the main street of Ramelle would't have been quite so impressive so I agree the Tigers (and SS troops)were pure theatre. As I've said before SPR is actually rather old fashioned, the only real difference to old war movies is the violence and blood level. Otherwise it's pure Hollywood cliche.
Surprisingly according to US armour historian Steve Zaloga US forces only encountered the Tiger I about six times in the campaign in NW Europe, although they did encounter more Tiger IIs.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.๎
Other than perhaps some artillery fire from one American division (35th?) adjacent to the British/Canadian sector, the first encounter between the US Army and Tigers in France was after the breakout. In August 1944, Shermans advancing toward Paris ran into the 2 or 3 early Tiger IIs that were left behind by Panzer Lehr division 2 months earlier. The Germans destroyed a few US tanks, the US forces backed up and took another road toward Paris after minor delay. I believe those Tigers never escaped France.
๎ Entropy ain't what it used to be.
Choosing Tiger tanks and the Waffen SS rather disproves the claims that the movie is realistic though, Bill, as US forces didn't encounter Tiger Is at all in Normandy.
I know you didn't, Bill, but lots of other people do. I think SPR is superb at times and yes does give probably the best impression of real war in its noise confusion and terror. Flaws aside it is a decent representation of war and the same can be said for its stablemate Band Of Brothers. But they are still movies.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.๎
Choosing Tiger tanks and the Waffen SS rather disproves the claims that the movie is realistic though, Bill, as US forces didn't encounter Tiger Is at all in Normandy.
But both were insignificant to the plot of this film, which you well know is what I was talking about.
OK, lets try this from a different tack. Do you believe the elimination of these two factors would have had a significant impact on the plot of the movie?
No, Lyndhen, I don't think you are stupid, just ridiculously pedantic, and partisan. You know (or should) that the phrase, "took the easy way out" implies choice, especially in the context of your reply to the other poster saying the British had it easy (which I remind you I DID NOT SAY).
The "they" you cite is a BRITISH MAN! NO ONE but HIM picked a known enemy that fought the British rather than the Americans. Unless you believe the mere selection of tiger tanks is a slight against the British ( a ridiculous and hyper-sensitive assertion), the inclusion of tiger tanks is nothing more than set dressing. Rather, they picked the biggest, baddest enemy they could (that their audience was likely to recognize) to enhance the sense of peril the squad was in. THEY knew is was theater, not history
No. And that's the crux of the matter. That is NOT a reasonable reaction.
Plot is irrelevant. No one is talking about plot except you, now.
We are all talking about the film and the events therein.
You've been here for years and you still haven't understood that it's perfectly reasonable to think that the treatment of the 'brits' (while unintentional) is regrettable.
Don't fob me off. You lecture me on 'choice' as if I think the US troops had a choice about who they would fight and which direction they would take out of Normandy.
But anyone, who knew that there were Brits in Normandy could very fairly say - hang about - why isn't there even a single 'Brit'. And even be annoyed when they found out they actual historical truth.
Well if you have read my posts "for years" then if you were honest you would know that I HAVE ALWAYS AGREED WITH THIS. Any comment to the contrary is disingenuous, and you know it.
The simple fact, whether you choose to recognize it or not is that using the phrase "took the easy way out" implies choice,
Not likely.
They would rather probably say, "Look at that, they chose tiger tanks in the final battle. The Americans didn't fight tigers in Normandy. Oh well, it's theatrical license I guess", and leave it at that.
No matter how many times it is apologized for,
So why do you feel that the treatment of 'Brits' is 'regrettable'?
Complaints about the treatment of the 'Brits' have never had anything to do with 'plot' iirc. Complaints are about events and personalities that are depicted and the impression that the film gives people.
If you believe that is what I meant then you also believe it is reasonable for someone to assume that the yanks could dictate to Monty (the planner) where and who they were supposed to fight in Normandy. Strange.
It's kind of self evident that there are a lot of people who say and said - "hang about - why isn't there a single 'Brit'". Look at this thread / board / the internet.
Really? I have never heard an apology from anyone. All I've heard is "Brits are always complaining" and Brits had nothing to do with this film and they had the easy beach anyway.
While you recognise the treatment of Monty as historically wrong and insensitive you don't actually seem to have a problem with it - ie it was just a 'throwaway comment' and unintentional and it has nothing to do with the plot of the film anyway. Pinching the Panzers is also something you have no problem with whatsoever.
Which is kind of why I ask what is regrettable about the treatment of the Brits - what is it exactly that you regret and why? Rather than, "I regret the treatment of the Brits because it was unfair and they deserved at least a positive mention (ie a British voice)". Your opinion seems to be (and I'm sure you'll correct me) "I regret the treatment of the Brits (only the Monty comment because there is no other) because all the Brits do is whine on about it and I can't stop their whining and I wish the damn scene wasn't in the film!".
Sincerely, I just find your attitude surprising. What's so offensive about suggesting there should be a least a positive 'Brit' voice in it (not whining about drinking tea) all things considered.
As I've said before, "events" in a film ARE a part of the plot! Some are more central and important to the story, and some are not. The Monty comment (why are we STILL talking about this ?) was an infinitesimally small part of the plot. The plot wouldn't have suffered at all had it not been there.
Let's call a spade, a spade here, shall we? Your complaints, and the complaints the earlier poster (not the OP) was talking about are more about why WEREN'T the Brits mentioned, not how they were mentioned.(My emphasis)
I believe you were angered by the other poster's comment about the British having it easy, and chose that phrase to lash out in retaliation. So, you can try and adhere to pedantic reading of your comment, or alternately try to mis-direct all you want. It simply won't change the meaning of the phrase, "took the easy way out".
I'm not seeing "a lot" of people taking that stance. Furthermore, even if I had, that wouldn't make them correct, just loud.
Then you are either not paying attention, or are seeing only what you wish to see.
While you recognise the treatment of Monty as historically wrong and insensitive you don't actually seem to have a problem with it -
Pinching the Panzers is also something you have no problem with whatsoever.
Which is kind of why I ask what is regrettable about the treatment of the Brits - what is it exactly that you regret and why?
Your opinion seems to be (and I'm sure you'll correct me) "I regret the treatment of the Brits (only the Monty comment because there is no other) because all the Brits do is whine on about it and I can't stop their whining and I wish the damn scene wasn't in the film!".
Sincerely, I just find your attitude surprising. What's so offensive about suggesting there should be a least a positive 'Brit' voice in it (not whining about drinking tea) all things considered.
The 'Brit' criticisms have always talked about the historical background. And of course, the historical background is extremely important because that tends to inform people about the history.
it can lead people to make conclusions like -'oh Omaha was so hardcore, the Brits must have had it easy'. Or for example, that the Americans liberated Europe - after all, the 'Brits' were useless etc etc.
Wouldn't it have been nice to have had a positive mention?
With the greatest of respect, you are the kind of guy to lose your temper quite frequently and lash out at first comments. I myself don't tend to do that.
My comment was to contrast with the poster I was responding to that if (as he said) the Brits "took the easy beach"
The odd American here has said that the Monty scene shouldn't have been in the film - That's never struck me as apology. ie - it's not -
"I'm sorry we portrayed you in a negative light, we should have portrayed you in a positive light"
it's more like - "I'm sorry , we shouldn't have portrayed you at all".
Y'know Bill? A bazillion years ago, when SPR first came out on DVD, I was reading the reviews on Amazon-and a surprising number of folks rated 'Ryan' one star because the Polish code breakers who hacked the German Enigma code were not mentioned some way/some how.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
๎ฆ๎ฆ๎ฆ๎ฆ
TNSTAAFL
They got surprisingly 'foamy mouthed' about it too.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
The last time you brought this up was a couple of years ago on the BOB board about BOB (not SPR) - and I couldn't find the offending reviews on Amazon at the time.
Are you sure you're not thinking of the Enigma film? or just having a go at Poles?
Well if you want to wade thru 17++ years of reviews for SPR-Movie, Videotape, DVD & Blu Ray-feel free.
Never said the poster was Polish...just that the guy complaining that SPR never credited Poland for breaking Enigma-and THAT was why he gave SPR one star.
In any case I'd never badmouth the Poles. Not just for their role during dubya dubya too, but for their saving Europe at 'The Gates of Vienna'.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
Then I don't get your point. Someone makes an absurd criticism about SPR therefore all criticisms of SPR are absurd?
btw, it's very easy to check the amazon reviews.
That's quite a conclusion you're jumping to;
I wonder if amazon reviewers have 'trolls' too.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
That's quite a conclusion you're jumping to;
It wasn't a conclusion I jumped to - it was a question I asked because I still don't understand the relevance of your anecdote.
You are missing the point - which incidentally is an actual and favoured tactic of Roadkillbill's.
Lemmie see...
I said, 'some guy bombed SPR for not crediting the folks who cracked the Enigma code'
and you replied
"SO ANY CRITICISM OF SPR IS UNWARRANTED?"
I'd say you're 'reaching'...oh and does Amazon allow trolls?
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
"SO ANY CRITICISM OF SPR IS UNWARRANTED?"
I'd say you're 'reaching'
oh and does Amazon allow trolls?
It's clearly a question - it's got a question mark at the end. I'm asking if this is what you mean - I am not concluding that that is what you mean or reaching.
This is a discussion on treatment of the 'brits' and whether it's a fair criticism that they should have been in the film (positively).
You posted your anecdote about some crank giving SPR one star for failing to comment on the Pole's contribution to dubya dubya too.
What's the relevance to criticism that the film failed to comment on the 'Brits' contribution to dubya dubya too?
I don't get the troll on amazon thing either.
Ah...so you're off on a tangent of your own. Very well. Carry on.
OK; I'm just sayin' cranks & malcontent nitpickers will always find something. And yeah...I was wonderin' if trolls exist on Amazon, like they do here.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
I said, 'some guy bombed SPR for not crediting the folks who cracked the Enigma code'
and you replied
"SO ANY CRITICISM OF SPR IS UNWARRANTED?"
@ Nickm2 and Roadragebill ;)
love you guys - you just can't answer a straight question or stick to the point can you.
oh by the way Bill (this is quite funny)
"SO ANY CRITICISM OF SPR IS UNWARRANTED?"
So what's the point? Some people get foamy mouthed over the smallest thing. Is it 'for real'? Is it a troll? I don't know. Do I think SPR is a flawless movie? Of course not-only Aliens & T2 are flawless.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
some people get foamy mouthed over the smallest thing.
That's your beef, pal...there were no Brits in SPR.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
and a perfectly reasonable beef too.
shareWhy?
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
Because, as you well know, there were an awful lot of 'brits' in Normandy.
shareAnd this story took place in areas where they weren't, and involved people who weren't British. So, there was no reason to include them.
TNSTAAFL
The British sort of were at Omaha, Bill, just not on the beach. Many of the supporting naval vessels were British and the landing craft that took the Rangers to the shore were British too, piloted by British cox'ns. But I do take your point.
If the "...taking time to take Caen" line had be replaced by "the British are having a hard time taking Caen" no one would have cause for complaint, oh, and omitting the idiotic
"You gotta take Caen before you can take St Lo" dialogue which was all, frankly, total bollocks.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.๎
Please, PLEASE, PLEASE! We are way beyond that. That has all been agreed to, many times over. All we are talking about now is Lyndhen's insistence that the British should have been in this movie. With the exception of the coxswain (which has also been already agreed to) there was no reason the British needed to be in this movie.
TNSTAAFL
And how many of them were at Omaha Dog Red?
Seriously, tell your film industry to stop making 'tiny' films with Colin Firth, Hugh Grant & Keira Knightly (well maybe keep her) & spend some coin making a film about the British effort at Normandy.
Either that or be happy with 'War Horse'.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
And how many of them were at Omaha Dog Red?
Additionally, the British make damn good movies. They always have.
TNSTAAFL
And honestly if The British Film Industry did something about WW2 (without being too PC) I would watch it like I did 'Sink the Bismark', 'Battle of Britain', 'A Hill in Korea' or 'The Cruel Sea'...and yeah, the American film industry has a lot of the same people in it too.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
Apparently there are two major British films coming out on WWII. One is Dunkirk http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5013056/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 directed by Christopher Nolan. The other is Pegasus Bridge http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5349998/?ref_=nv_sr_1, about a unit of the British 1st Airborne Division on D-Day. I hope Nolan gives full credit to the French troops there at the time and do not expect he will spend much time on Commonwealth and Allied forces as they played no significant role in real life. Similarly, I don't expect an American or Russian presence in Pegasus Bridge
shareGreat news, Dave, thanks for the notification!
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
Forgive the tardy reply
And this story took place in areas where they weren't, and involved people who weren't British. So, there was no reason to include them.
They were also involved in the very significant operation that occurred in Normandy.
I really don't get the over sensitivity of you people.
I never cared that much because it's a US film because I'm not American.
Yes, I'm very familiar with the excuses that the Spielberg and film lovers give for not including 'brits' in the film. The point is that they are ignorant of history. Anyone who is aware of the history (presumably yourself) should find it a reasonable criticism that non americans aren't included.
This is not The Longest Day
Yet you can't seem to stop bitching about it. Very strange.
Well your upcoming chance to 'do right' with 'Dunkirk' is waiting...
Say didn't another American poster here used to talk about growing up as a 'service brat' in England because his dad was stationed there & was surprised to see 'Dubya Dubya Too', movies, TV series, Service comedies that always portrayed 'The Yanks' as obese 'jam stealers';
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
to see 'Dubya Dubya Too', movies, TV series, Service comedies that always portrayed 'The Yanks' as obese 'jam stealers';
How about 'Dad's Army'? Anyway those movies are all late 1960s productions so they're probably products of their time. I cannot remember who the other poster was, by the way.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
"Zonk, zonk, zonk!"
Marlon, Claudia & Dimby the cats 1989-2010. Clio the cat, July 1997 - 1 May 2016.
The point is that they are ignorant of history. Anyone who is aware of the history (presumably yourself) should find it a reasonable criticism that non americans aren't included.
Spielberg says the same thing. He goes on to say that this is the story of 6.30 on Omaha beach.
...it is shockingly arrogant to think that he could take something as significantly important and multinational as the Normandy landing and think he can only tell it from the american perspective
Certainly, beach landings on Northern France were not a specifically american thing.Correct. Good thing this movie WASN'T about the rest of the landings. If it were, THEN you would have a case. As it is, though, you don't.
In my experience, SPR has given a misleading impression of the role of the US on D-Day.
I'm more than willing to continue for many years though.
I'm curious - are you just a film fan who is ignorant about history, do you worship this film that much or alternatively, are you so arrogant that you are fully aware about the history yet think that the non Americans can be ignored in this retelling of 6th of June.
Perhaps a couple of officers could remark to each other that the Americans are being very slow at changing their isolationist stance when Hitler is walking all over Europe?
shareNope. It's only a reasonable criticism if the movie were TRYING to tell the history of the ENTIRE operation. As you know, they weren't.
WTF is "6.30"?
Except he wasn't "taking on" the ENTIRE operation, but rather a VERY SMALL part of it that WAS from the American perspective. But, again, you already know this.
Then again, why let accuracy get in the way of a perfectly good paranoid rant right?
Correct. Good thing this movie WASN'T about the rest of the landings. If it were, THEN you would have a case. As it is, though, you don't.
It's only misleading for those who are either ignorant of the full history, or (as in your case) choose to be mis-led.
Yes, I'm sure you are. You seem to be quite willing to post the same lame argument repeatedly, only re-phrasing every now and then, without ever actually addressing the counter arguments themselves. Impotent, and silly.
No, you're not "curious". You are just frustrated that your "arguments' don't hold water, so like many other internet denizens, when confronted with the fact that they have no real arguments, resort to the ad hominems. And, again, this is NOT of the "6th of June". It is a FICTIONAL STORY set in a VERY SMALL AND SPECIFIC part of a much larger event.
BTW... I noticed that you declined to capitalize the word "American" (yet did so for every other mention of a nationality or place name) throughout this your latest rant until the last sentence. I wonder if this has any significance, and might betray your rather obvious bias?
Your turn. Repeat/re-phrase your lame non-argument again.
The film is recognisable as the telling of the entire operation -
Watch the beginning of the film.
So Spielberg tries to argue.
Actually Bill. I'm not the one who is paranoid here, Bill. I think you'll find it is you.
All I'm saying is that it's a perfectly reasonably criticism to expect a positive mention of the non americans.
straw man.I think you should look up the definition of strawman, as you failed here. My comment was in direct response to your comments.
Everyone is ignorant of something Bill. You'd best be aware of that.
I think you are evidently the one who is willing to hang around this board and parrot Spielberg's lame defence of the film. Hey, he's just an ignorant filmmaker.
True. I'm probably not that curious because I already know the answer. But your answer is interesting.
What are you on about?
says the man who's been on this board for years repeating the same thing.
The film is recognisable as the telling of the entire operation...
Oh, I agree there, Spock, the use of Tigers is just a way of providing a big monster for the story. Everyone has heard of a Tiger tank and it's just a classic screenwriters trick to provide an antagonist that is immensely powerful to make the odds against the heroes seem even more daunting.
Another reason that while SPR is an excellent war movie, realistic it ain't in many ways, but just Hollywood at it's usual. The whole thing is very old fashioned in so many ways.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.๎
@ Roadkillbill, Vulcansrule and Hotrodder.
The film is recognisable as the telling of the entire operation -
You'll forgive if I don't reply to all Bill's points...
That's a long waffle which completely avoids the point.
Of course it is recognisable as the telling of the entire operation. I think you will find that the opinion of three people on a message board is outweighed by the vast number of people who were offended by the retelling of D-day as some kind of US thing. If I recall correctly, a US veteran of D-day also expressed sympathies that the other allies were completely ignored. Now of course, you must understand that I don't actually particularly care. I'm far more offended by the delusions and fantasies of my own compatriots when they try to rewrite history; I find the American rewriting of history fascinating, exceedingly effective (in my own wide and personal experience) and somewhat amusing.
That's a long waffle which completely avoids the point.
I think you will find that the opinion of three people on a message board is outweighed by the vast number of people who were offended by the retelling of D-day as some kind of US thing.
more irrelevant waffle. I think what really comes across here Bill is your (and some of your compatriots) immense over-sensitivity. In fact, you're kind of like a US version of Buddylove or Hotrodder: your never ending whining about criticisms of this film is similar to their whining about slights and criticisms of the British forces.
Now, of course the non US forces should have had more of a mention, for the reasons I have given above. The fact that they didn't is merely a reflection of Hollywood attitudes at the time; attitudes I'm surprised to see you so desperately trying to defend.
^^Butthurt troll whining about whining about whining. No actual points to make, just whining.
TNSTAAFL
Call me a troll if you like, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to make more of a reference to the non US force in a film about something as iconic as D Day. I understand though, that Americans might not see it that way.
shareI think it's perfectly reasonable to make more of a reference to the non US force in a film about something as iconic as D Day.
You make one reasonably good point - I misremembered what Baran said. Though I'm pretty sure I was referring to Patton's comparatively easy way out of Normandy compared to the difficult way in at Omaha. I don't think I'm stupid enough to mean that Patton chose that route and I think you're wrong to say I got angry - to be honest - you're the one who gets angry and seems to have the time to do so.
The rest of your post is very long and quite silly - rather trollish. I haven't the time to be trolled.
Of course, it is without question that the British and other forces should have been mentioned favourably or had a higher profile. Your excuses just come across as arrogant.
...and I think you're wrong to say I got angry...
... you're the one who gets angry and seems to have the time to do so.
The rest of your post is very long and quite silly - rather trollish. I haven't the time to be trolled.
Of course, it is without question that the British and other forces should have been mentioned favourably or had a higher profile. Your excuses just come across as arrogant.
I haven't the time to be trolled
Of course, it is without question that the British and other forces should have been mentioned favourably or had a higher profile.share
It is merely your assumption that I got angry. But if you recall my posting history on the matter I am not one to complain about this particular issue or ever get angry about American attitudes - actually the converse.
However, I think you'll have to agree that you do have a very long track record of getting angry and jumping on people - this clearly better explains your assumption.
I'm not sure if you can class this as a debate. You willfully ignore the point, insult, obfuscate, nitpick and disagree for the sake of simply disagreeing and just getting angry. (and again it appears you do have a rather impressive track record in this regard.)
For example - how can you deny that criticisms of the treatment have always been about the historical background - this is not "bullshยฃt" - such an attitude makes 'debate' difficult.
do some trolling of your own,
Since you first took that road, I'll leave it up to you.
Whatever. Sure reflect all you want. You're fooling no one but yourself. People CAN read you know.
TNSTAAFL
I'm surprised you're so defensive about this and that you refuse to see what is obvious.
To anybody who knows anything about the real history it should be self evident that the film does a disservice to the NON US forces in Normandy and they should have had a voice in the film.
You said that there is no reason for the British to be mentioned. Not sure about that, but if mentioned why did it need to be in a derogatory way, implying that the Americans are doing their job but the Brits are being "slow". That is to hardly mention that the conversation doesn't make any sense anyway, from the appraisal of the strategic situation to the idea that two Captains in the other sector would have had any idea what was going on in the British sector anyway. If they were that well informed, they would probably know where Ryan was!
share... but if mentioned why did it need to be in a derogatory way, implying that the Americans are doing their job but the Brits are being "slow". That is to hardly mention that the conversation doesn't make any sense anyway, from the appraisal of the strategic situation to the idea that two Captains in the other sector would have had any idea what was going on in the British sector anyway. If they were that well informed, they would probably know where Ryan was!
ut if mentioned why did it need to be in a derogatory way, implying that the Americans are doing their job but the Brits are being "slow".
I think you both made some good points. There is more than one way to perceive the use of Tigers in a fictional movie.
I just want to add that Spielberg's choice of Tigers was arguably a poor one because it was a bit of a slight to the American GI. By requiring Tigers, he must have decided that the many, many actual combat scenarios were not good enough for the big screen. Apparently those fighting the 77th Division, the 17th SS, and the remnants of the 352nd were not doing anything tough enough or special enough for Spielberg.
IMO, there must have been some way to hold the audience's interest with a final scene with realism approximating that of the opening scene.
๎ Entropy ain't what it used to be.
The choice of Tigers was probably down to the screenplay writer rather than Spielberg. It's a typical writers trick to make the bad guys more formidable than they need to be.
Perfectly good Stug III replicas could have been made instead as we know from the ones made for Band Of Brothers. There was IIRC even a genuine restored running Stug III in England at the time. But Tigers are the Godzillas of WW2 movies so to the writer it had to be Tigers.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.๎
I agree, but the Director approves and then interprets the screenplay. Spielberg was also a producer, so he had both business and artistic authority over this project. So whether Spielberg directly made a decision or merely approved a subordinate's decision is an academically interesting detail, but the buck still stops with Spielberg.
๎ Entropy ain't what it used to be.