The director should be ashamed of himself and retire from the movie business.
If you're an atheist and 100% proud of it, put this in your signature
The screenwriter regrets distorting history:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5263164.stm
If you're an atheist and 100% proud of it, put this in your signature
Dude, it's a movie. Hollywood and history have never gone hand in hand. You want to know what really happened in some time and place in our history, don't go to a theatre. This, uh, should be common sense. Your displeasure with this is quite meaningless and useless. Not to mention pretty funny.
shareAmen, Brother!!
"Could be worse."
"Howwww?"
"Could be raining."
And kill himself, too. And then kill all the actors & technicians in the movie
as well, if just to make you happy.
"Could be worse."
"Howwww?"
"Could be raining."
I notice (not surprisingly) it's mostly American contributors to this board who defend the production of this movie, and British posters who complain.
There are two sides to every coin, so let's flip it over, shall we? Just a few suggestions, for a start:
A movie containg a scene of British marines raising the Union Jack on Iwo Jima.
A movie showing British commandos leading the way off Omaha Beach, and storming the bluffs at Pointe du Hoc.
A movie where exclusively British forces defeat the Germans during the Battle of the Bulge (though they wouldn't have been taken by surprise in the first place, of course).
"Saving Private Atkins"
A history of the first moon landing entitled "Albion 1 - the Way to the Moon".
The story of the building of the first Atomic Bomb in a Cambridge (England) laboratory.
All fair game if gross historical inaccuracy isn't important, as people here have said.
Quite apart from the other inaccuracies in this imposter of a movie, the British code-breakers at Bletchley Park didn't need to get hold of an Enigma machine, they already had been building their own for some time. What they needed was the rotors and the code-books. This isn't the only movie (or even documentary) to make this mistake.
Hey, if you can tell those stories in an engaging fashion, I'll buy a ticket. Alternate histories have been quite popular in novels for some time.
shareLets dissect your post shall we?
I notice (not surprisingly) it's mostly American contributors to this board who defend the production of this movie, and British posters who complainQuite a few of the whining complainers are American trolls as well as I have seen a Number of British who have sstated that "It's just a fictional movie"
There are two sides to every coin, so let's flip it over, shall we?The problem that you are comparing the 'flipside' of two seperate coins.
A movie containg a scene of British marines raising the Union Jack on Iwo Jima.Iwo Jima is a real battle that actually took place. On the 'flipside' no sub American or British captured an enigma by disguising their sub as a German U-boat and posed as a resupply sub
A movie showing British commandos leading the way off Omaha Beach, and storming the bluffs at Pointe du HocAgain you would be falsely portraying a real battle as opposed to an event that never happened.
A movie where exclusively British forces defeat the Germans during the Battle of the BulgeAgain, the Battle of the bulge was a real battle that took place. any film that would alter what really took place would be false. What you are trying to compare is if U-571 was about an American Escort destroyer who attacks and disables a German Uboat, forces the boat to the surface, then boards and captures the Uboat before it could be scuttled. Had THAT been the story replacing the British destroyers and sailors with American destroyers and sailor and had the film tried to claim this was a true story. THEN and ONLY THEN would you have something to bitch about and I would agree with you.
"Saving Private Atkins"
A history of the first moon landing entitled "Albion 1 - the Way to the Moon".Again, false portrayal of a real event as opposed to an event that never was real.
The story of the building of the first Atomic Bomb in a Cambridge (England) laboratoryAgain, false portrayal of a real event as opposed to an event that never was real.
All fair game if gross historical inaccuracy isn't important, as people here have said.Those people would be wrong and I would agree with you. The problem with you and other whiners about U-571 is that you cannot grasp the idea of HISTORICAL FICTION.
Let me give you another lesson is what HISTORICAL FICTION is and where Historical Fiction crosses the line and goes too far.
(Hint: Its NOT in U-571)
Titanic
Pearl Harbor
Both movies are historical fiction in that they tell the tale of fictional characters set during an historical event. Jack and Rose during the sinking of Titanic and Rafe, Evelyn and Danny during the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Jack and Rose interacted with real people. We see through their eyes, events that really happened. Thomas Andrews, the ship's architect did give tours to various first class passangers so who is to say that Rose and her party were not one of them. Molly Brown was bringing home clothes bought for her son so who is to say she didnt have a Tux to loan Jack for the Dinner Party. My point is that the fictional characters meshed with and fit in to the story of real people without changing the real events and the actions of real people.
With Pearl Harbor however things go too far.
It was one thing to have these three fictional characters set in and interacting with real characters, like with Evelyn as a nurse treating Doris "Dorrie" Miller for minor injuries suffered from his boxing.
It is another thing entirely for Rafe and Danny to supplant and replace two REAL LIFE heroes of the Pearl Harbor Battle. Lts Kenneth Taylor and George Welch were two Army Air Corps officers who did manage to get airborn and shoot down several Japs during the atack.
And then to add insult to injury, they are then taken from that battle and placed behind the controls of B-25's of Doolittle's raid, Again replacing real life heroes. Also Fighter pilots would not be flying bombers.
Back to U-571...
When you can tell me just what British Submarines and Sailors disguised thier Sub as a U-boat to attempt posing as a resupply sub and capture another uboat for their Enigma machine... THEN and ONLY then will you have a legit gripe.
until then...
STFU!
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
U-571, for the umpteenth time, is based on the capture of U-110 by HMS Aubretia in 1941. Only three subs were actually successfully boarded in the whole war. The character played by McConachey is based on RN Sub-Lieutenant David Balme (still with us) who spent two weeks consulting with the producers and David Ayer and met McConachey and Keitel AND thoroughly enjoyed himself AND saw the film twice. Although he enjoyed himself, his comrades and the inhabitants of Horsforth, who raised the money to pay for the Aubretia were not at all impressed. Understandably.
There are dozens of other historical inaccuracies and misunderstandings in U571 BUT removing the credit of an historical action from one service and handing it to another is unacceptable.
The juxtaposition, in having American sailors capture U571 to retrieve the Enigma, is no different in quality or scale to having them sink the Bismarck.
This is what U-571 screenwriter David Ayer said after the film came out:-
Ayer told BBC Radio 4's The Film Programme that he "did not feel good" about suggesting Americans captured the Enigma code rather than the British.share
"It was a distortion... a mercenary decision to create this parallel history in order to drive the movie for an American audience," he said.
US screenwriter Ayer revealed his grandparents were involved in World War Two.
"Both my grandparents were officers in World War Two, and I would be personally offended if somebody distorted their achievements," he told presenter Chris Tookey
"I met with the Royal Navy officer who actually went down into the U-boat and recovered the Enigma machine in 1941.
"He seemed OK with it, he was a great guy, but I understand how important that event is to the UK, and I won't do it again," he added.
Mostow is an addlepated, disaffiliated ass.
shareVocabulary word of the day for the mentally retarded.
Fiction:
1 a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story b : fictitious literature (as novels or short stories) c : a work of fiction; especially : novel
to not realize that U-571 never tries to claim the story plot is actual history.
It is a fictional story set in a historical period.
Get the frak over it already.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
It's ok for a movie, you really should watch a couple more semi fictional WW2 movies, Pearl Harbor is one that's worse than this.
share