Saving Private Ryan

Discussions on WW2 and pre-WW2 related movies, games, military art and other fiction.
User avatar
Wolfkin
Member
Posts: 773
Joined: 25 May 2002 18:23
Location: Calgary,AB,Canada

Post by Wolfkin » 25 Sep 2002 20:21

Dude, what do you mean that "the Germans were mainly German soldiers doing their military sevice"?

The soldiers in the movie were re-enactors from The Second Battle Group. Look at the several links I provided.

POW is totally correct. The actors hair was cut in an incorrect way for some unknown reason. Was it ignorance of the facts? Was it an incorrect association between Nazis of WWII and the modern Neo-Nazi movement? Or was it the fact that Hollywood just knew that the uneducated and illiterate general public would make the incorrect connection themselves using their own ignorance?

Cheers,

Wolfkin

User avatar
Daniel L
Member
Posts: 9119
Joined: 07 Sep 2002 00:46
Location: Sweden

Post by Daniel L » 25 Sep 2002 20:56

from what I've read many of them were doing their military service. anyway- many ssunits in normandy had been on the eastern front, mybe that's the way the thought...

jwong
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 12:43
Location: Wheaton, MD

Post by jwong » 25 Sep 2002 23:39

Danse Macabre wrote:SPR one of the better warmovies?

I'm sure RAF only saw SPR in that case. Are 'Stalingrad', 'Die Brücke' and 'Das Boot' already forgotten?

RAF seems to think SPR is accurate. I would like him to show me all Waffen-SS (the troops the brave Yankees gunned down by the bushes, as I'm sure you know) who fought in the American sector on June 7, together with all the armour units which had Tigers under their command. Raf, can you show me any REAL account of a battle where a handful of G.I.'s knocked out Tigers and other armoured vehicles with dynamite stuffed in their socks, machinegun elite troops by the dozens, and die in a 101 heroic ways?

SPR = cheap Hollywood patriottic rubbish. 'Mysteriously', one of them is Jewish and gets brutally killed. Boring, RAF, boring as hell. I can't believe I am even wasting words on that piece of trash movie.


Actually there was an attack during the Battle of the Bulge that is almost similar to what you see at the end of the movie SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.

If you go to the website http://www.angelfire.com/va2/worldwar2f ... ddie4.html,

you will see the account of the US 94th infantry division being attacked by the 11th Panzer division.

On 1/17/1945, the US 94th infantry in the town of Tettingen were hit by an artillery barrage, then the 11th Panzer division attacked the Americans with Panthers and after several hours of intense fighting the Americans manage to force the Germans to retreat. The Americans were able to destroy some Panther tanks with bazookas and satchel charges.

The director Steven Spielberg probably based the ending of the movie on that incident at Tettington.

I just don’t understand why people would say that the Germans in the movie are "stupid." I thought that the German soldiers in this movie were pretty tough and aggressive. Is it not possible for German soldiers to make even ONE mistake every now and then?

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 25 Sep 2002 23:48

Mainly because it is made in the US Lwong so it sucks... Das Boat we will never hear the end of. :roll: Yeah the movie was ok but was cheesy in some parts to say the least, the ending sucked ten times the ending of SPR. All just happen to get back and get blown up in an air raid. Little Shakespeare there for you. Stalingrad was made on what appears to be a 10 dollar budget.

At any rate if it had been made in Europe SPR would be all the rave. I am sure they will come back and say if made in Europe it would be correct. Yeah if you believe in the Euro-Centric view of the world.
Last edited by Caldric on 25 Sep 2002 23:48, edited 1 time in total.

jwong
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 12:43
Location: Wheaton, MD

Website error correction:

Post by jwong » 25 Sep 2002 23:48

9/25/02

6:44 PM

I am sorry; the correct website address for the above battle
is


http://www.angelfire.com/va2/worldwar2f ... ddie4.html

The comma at the end is a typo.

User avatar
Wolfkin
Member
Posts: 773
Joined: 25 May 2002 18:23
Location: Calgary,AB,Canada

Post by Wolfkin » 26 Sep 2002 06:00

Cool link Jwong!

Just one thing, actually that is not the Battle Of The Bulge, that is the tail-end of Operation Nordwind. It was launched in the Alsace region, between France and Germany.

Heehee, everyone probably thinks I hate that movie but I actually did not mind SPR. It's just the details like haircuts, wrong units at wrong time, certain tactics and such. These incorrect details do bother me a bit, but the movie was done well and it was a good watch, so I can live with a few mistakes.

The good thing is that these movies, wether they are good or not, bring more attention to WWII and encourage people to be interested. They are good for entertainment and awareness, then it will be up to us, who are more educated on the subject than most, to educate them properly! :)

Cheers,

Wolfkin

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 26 Sep 2002 06:12

Those are some fantastic photos on that link, I love thos perfect one of the M18.

Image

jwong
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 12:43
Location: Wheaton, MD

Americans are not perfect, either.

Post by jwong » 26 Sep 2002 11:49

Wolfkin wrote:Cool link Jwong!

Just one thing, actually that is not the Battle Of The Bulge, that is the tail-end of Operation Nordwind. It was launched in the Alsace region, between France and Germany.

Heehee, everyone probably thinks I hate that movie but I actually did not mind SPR. It's just the details like haircuts, wrong units at wrong time, certain tactics and such. These incorrect details do bother me a bit, but the movie was done well and it was a good watch, so I can live with a few mistakes.

The good thing is that these movies, wether they are good or not, bring more attention to WWII and encourage people to be interested. They are good for entertainment and awareness, then it will be up to us, who are more educated on the subject than most, to educate them properly! :)

Cheers,

Wolfkin



Yes, that is a good thing. I just notice that all these other critics keep pointing that Germans are really good soldiers ( and I won't doubt that ) and that they would not make all those mistakes.

However, they don't point out the mistakes that the Americans made in this movie:

1. Omaha Beach: The US Air Force and Navy really should done a better job of eliminating the German defense, which cause to many American casualties.

2. The American soldier who took his helment off and gets shot though the head. Ouch!

3. The metal plates placed in the glider, which caused it to crash and killed all those American soldiers and general.

3. Private Adrian Caparzo who stands out in the open and gets shot by the sniper. A really bad move!

4. Medic Irwin Wade who is mortally wounded after the attack on that machine gun nest. Don't most medics stay in the safe place during an attack ?

5. The soldier who tries to place that bomb on the Tiger Tank and gets blown up. Why didn't he run to the tank FIRST, and THEN light the fuse on the bomb !

6. Why use a sticky bomb in the first place ! The have a bazooka and could have used it to knock off the treads on the Tiger tank.

7. All those American soldiers bunch up together near the disabled Tiger tank, which made it TOO easy for the German 20 mm crew to mow them down.

8. Why didn't Corporal Upham and other 2 Americans carry the machine gun ammunition with them! Upham almost gets kill will he runs down the staircase and the disabled Tiger tank opens fire on him.

Maybe there are some other mistakes that Americans made in this movie. Some people say that the Americans looked TOO good in this movie, but if they had noticed the above mistakes, they would see that Americans are not that perfect either. I think Steven Spielberg was just trying to show how dangerous and unpredictable war is; he was not trying to show that soldiers are DUMB !

POW
Banned
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Mar 2002 11:35
Location: Germany

Re: Americans are not perfect, either.

Post by POW » 26 Sep 2002 12:47

jwong wrote:I think Steven Spielberg was just trying to show how dangerous and unpredictable war is; he was not trying to show that soldiers are DUMB !

No. Spielberg was just trying to entertain people. SPR came along with the message: This movie is based on a true story and shows the reality. As few the movie "Titanic" (with Kate Winslet etc.) tried to show the sinking of that ship, SPR tried to show the war. Both just good stories to fill the cinemas'.

User avatar
Lawrence Tandy
Member
Posts: 1738
Joined: 18 May 2002 07:41
Location: B.C, Canada

Post by Lawrence Tandy » 28 Sep 2002 22:19

I am the one who started the shaved head thing if you will read back. I read in a few books that this was done to discourage the spread of lice. I am sure that it was a soldiers perogative if he liked to shave his head or not. In the book Soldat, by Siegfried Knappe it was written that the younger soldiers laughed at this haircut. I do know that it was not standard practice to keep ones hair close cropped in the Wehrmacht, as I have seen alot of footage of German soldiers with lengthy locks. Lice are lice however and I am sure that some vets shaved their locks accordingly.
I think that it is really nothing to debate over however because it most certainly boiled down to preference on a personal level.

Regards.

Lawrence Tandy

User avatar
Wolfkin
Member
Posts: 773
Joined: 25 May 2002 18:23
Location: Calgary,AB,Canada

Post by Wolfkin » 28 Sep 2002 23:06

Well, I think it is something to discuss. If the Historical Advisors for the movie had done any research at all they would have known it was not the standard haircut. The problem is, EVERY German soldier seen without a helmet has a shaved head. They are acting as if it was the standard haircut when it was not.

Lice was common with troops who fought for long periods with no rest and no chance to wash and change clothes. This was common on the Eastern Front. These soldiers were suppossedly from Das Reich. Das Reich had been reforming in Southern France since January of 1944. They were not in front line combat and were not facing the kind of conditions that may have forced troops to shave their heads.

I have read thousands of books and own hundreds myself. I have seen many pictures of German soldiers and have never seen one with a shaved head. I have read accounts were soldiers had as much hair removed AFTER being infected with lice. I have never heard of them shaving their heads as a preventative action. At least that is what I understood when I read those accounts. I could be wrong.

The majority of troops in Das Reich at this time were fresh replacements for their heavy losses on the Eastern Front. So, the shaved heads would not be a common thing to see at this time. It is wrong, inaccurate and ignores true historical fact.

Cheers,

Wolfkin

Roland
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 16 Jul 2002 05:25
Location: Arizona

Post by Roland » 01 Oct 2002 14:00

Hallo, Wolfkin!

I have to agree with you on this one. When I mentioned that my father told me about cutting his hair very short, it definately was lice problem only. And it was on eastern front only. I seriously doubt that this practice was continued on the western front (Maybe with some exceptions). Besides, I have to repeat - I said the hair was cut very short, never shaved completely. Maybe this will help...

Best regards.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 01 Oct 2002 15:46

Wolfkin you forget that 98% of the world do not give a crap about the SS. So rather they have close cut hair or long hair most people don't care. It is nit picking to even worry about their hair I never once noticed the hair length until this thread, never cared. There were a couple of American's with shaved heads to, wonder what they were trying to tell us with that. :aliengray

User avatar
Tiwaz
Member
Posts: 1946
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 10:36
Location: Finland

Post by Tiwaz » 01 Oct 2002 20:53

But if you are planning to make movie that is based on real events and advertise it as such shouldn't you pay bit more attention to realism?

Specially if it isn't going to cost much or doesn't hurt movie experience to make it realistic. That is supposed to be what they pay experts for.

Either keep it as close to realism as possible or advertise it as "something we mostly made up".

jwong
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 12:43
Location: Wheaton, MD

Post by jwong » 05 Oct 2002 22:51

Tiwaz wrote:But if you are planning to make movie that is based on real events and advertise it as such shouldn't you pay bit more attention to realism?

Specially if it isn't going to cost much or doesn't hurt movie experience to make it realistic. That is supposed to be what they pay experts for.

Either keep it as close to realism as possible or advertise it as "something we mostly made up".


I am sure most movie directors will alway try to make war movies accurate and realistic as possible, but can you really expect the movie to be 100% accurate? After all that is why these films are called movies, not documentaries. There is a limit to the amount of time and money you can spend to make it that accurate. No matter how hard you try, someone will always point out or nitpick some flub, slip up, inaccuracy or goof in a movie.

Actually it is an oxymoron to call a dramatized movie "accurate."

Return to “Movies, games & other fiction”