'Passchendaele", the movie.

[MikeP]

Truth is that 2% of movie goers notice or even care what kind of helmet those guys are wearing.
Artistic lisence withstanding.

[Douglas Jr.]

Here is a good site about guns in movies:

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Main_Page

Those guys do a good job identifying and pointing anacronisms.

I'm with Alan here. I can't understand producers spending millions with some big breast actres for a couple of romantic scenes instead of having a decent reasearching team to work with militaria and guns. Of course, I'm not talking about movies made until the 70s... that was another story.

It really bothers me.

Douglas.

[marshombre]

BTW alanint, his name is Dale Dye, not Dale Die. MR

[alanint]

I'm just mortified by the typo!

[Jack Lawman]

For those into WWII historical accuracy:
DO NOT WATCH INGLORIOUS BASTERDS

If you like to stretch the boundaries of sensibility (and don't mind a little political incorrectness):
WATCH INGLORIOUS BASTERDS

Jack

[alanint]

Again, this is not a movie that is asking to be taken seriously. Hell, they can't even spell "Bastards".....

[hgreer2]

Originally Posted by alanint

Again, this is not a movie that is asking to be taken seriously. Hell, they can't even spell "Bastards".....

Oh crap, you mean Hitler wasn't killed..........

Harry

[marshombre]

Mr. McQueen,
I guess irony is lost on you. To err is human, pal. Whether you're making a film or pontificating on a minor technical mistake.
MR

[Jack Lawman]

It's matter of personal preference. I'm perfectly willing to trade period correctness for six more explosions! But if you want total immersion... you just can't get there with the wrong helmet.

Jack

[alanint]

Originally Posted by marshombre

Mr. McQueen,
I guess irony is lost on you. To err is human, pal. Whether you're making a film or pontificating on a minor technical mistake.
MR

The only irony I see here is the ludicrous comparison between a minor typo and a major error in wardrobe by highly paid professional filmmakers who are asking you to take their production seriously, (and asking you to PAY to see it!).
Was that your point?
And I don't "pontificate" Throughout my statement I made certain to always state that these errors were a problem for me, not necesarily for anybody else. I'm not looking to win anybody over. What is more, many others on the board agree with me. Feel free to watch all the low budget crap you want.

[marshombre]

I will. I used to bitch about every technical mistake and all movies have 'em. Movies are entertainment, no more, no less. Lighten up, comrade.

[George Anderson]

Really gentlemen you should back-off a bit. Alanint is certainly justified in his criticism of the film's technical accuracy but movies are movies and most of the actors are air-heads and the producers businessmen. Nevertheless for those among us who are avid collectors errors in historical accuracy, that most would never recognize, do tend to stick in the craw.

In "Passchendaele" I found the story line much more bothersome than the technical detail. As I recall the 1970s remake of "All Quiet on the Western Front" had the Germans armed with Enfield 303s or some such thing but the producers did stick close to Remarque's intent. Look at most history-based modern movies and you realize that the effort is not to please the historian but the paying masses.

If you want to know about Passchendaele read Jack Sheldon's work of that title.

[alanint]

I will. I used to bitch about every technical mistake and all movies have 'em. Movies are entertainment, no more, no less. Lighten up, comrade.
__________________
Tempus edax rerum


I'm glad you are so enlightened, oh zen master. I enjoy movies as much as anybody. Its only the major errors which makes them not worth a second look FOR ME. In five years of lurking with only 52 posts, is this really what you place importance on?

[Olle]

I have still to see a movie that is 100% accurate. I used to get upset about the wrong model of cars, wrong guns, wrong type of buildings etc. but I don't care anymore. I just look at movies as entertainment, and if it doesn't entertain me I'll just switch to another channel.

What upsets me though is that History Channel seems to care even less than the film producers. It doesn't matter which battle they're talking about, they will still recycle the same dramatic WWII footage over and over again, regardless of time and location. I'm just waiting to see Spitfires and Messersmitts dogfight over a pacific island.

[Jack Lawman]

Originally Posted by Olle

I'm just waiting to see Spitfires and Messersmitts dogfight over a pacific island.

Oh... I guess you thought it was over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI

Jack

[sheepherder]

I have to snicker whenever I see *anyone* in a WW II movie pull out a ball point pen and jot down a note...

(Nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed "Where Eagles Dare")

[alanint]

Reminds me of Howard Cunningham with his digital watch throughout "Happy Days"

I am a huge fan of "Were Eagles Dare". The editing is superb. They are able to tell a very complex story without you ever asking about continuity or missing connections in the story's logic.
I have visited the castle were it was filmed. Interestingly, the Castle's history is one of Birding and Falconry, so it really is a "Schloss Adler".
Also of interest is a bridge not far from the castle where Otto Skorzeny descended from the mountains and surrendered himself to US forces shortly after the end of hostilities. The courtyard where the helicopter landed is now a Beer Garden and the room who's door they beat down to get to the cablecar is now a gift shop.

[Olle]

Originally Posted by postino

I have to snicker whenever I see *anyone* in a WW II movie pull out a ball point pen and jot down a note...

That's nothing... I have seen a movie where German soldiers where walking around with MP40's without magazines troughout the movie. Needless to say, there were no battle scenes in that movie. In another masterpiece, Russian soldiers were using Swedish K's, complete with blank adapters. Not to mention that they were driving Swedish Raptgb 915 vehicles with Russian stars painted on them. I guess the director found it cheaper to buy Swedish surplus, rather than authentic equipment.

In other words: My taste is not limited to Academy Award winning movies. Whatever looks good after a sixpack will do.

[marshombre]

Mr Bullitt,
I'm a lurker? Oh, the shame! I'll have to run to the RX and purchase some hemlock. How could I possibly ever post here again?
Were Eagles Dare?? Nuff said.
Seriously, the cheapest war movie ever has to be "Battle of the Last Panzer", 1969 Spanish production. The tank is definitely not WW11 issue, and CETMEs are used along with some of the worst acting ever filmed. Watch it and laugh.
Zaijian,
MR

[alanint]

Originally Posted by marshombre

Mr Bullitt,
I'm a lurker? Oh, the shame! I'll have to run to the RX and purchase some hemlock. How could I possibly ever post here again?
Were Eagles Dare?? Nuff said.
Seriously, the cheapest war movie ever has to be "Battle of the Last Panzer", 1969 Spanish production. The tank is definitely not WW11 issue, and CETMEs are used along with some of the worst acting ever filmed. Watch it and laugh.
Zaijian,
MR

PM:
Pfftttttttt.........
Ya know, (although you probably don't) Abraham Lincoln once said, " It is better to remain silient and be thought the fool, then to speak up and leave no doubt"
Keep speaking, genius.
__________________
Tempus edax rerum



Between this and your PM to me, I think you've proved to the entire board what a child you are....I know I can expect a response. The insecure always have to have the last word, even if its a rasberry PM....