Saving Private Ryan

Discussions on WW2 and pre-WW2 related movies, games, military art and other fiction.
Pantherblaster
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 04 Sep 2002 18:51
Location: Bilthoven, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Post by Pantherblaster » 06 Oct 2002 12:09

Oh c'mon!!!!!!!!! Saying a movie is cheesy, because of the haircuts of the Germans sounds like looking for an excuse to brand this movie "non-historic" or something.
That said I think Stalingrad IS a better movie, but that doesn't mean SPR wasn't a good movie either or the Thin Red Line, We were soldiers once, Hamburger Hill, etc.

Regards,

Pantherblaster 8)

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

Post by Tiwaz » 07 Oct 2002 17:33

jwong wrote:
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."



How much it would have cost to have those guys have realistic haircuts? Or do little background research and have Germans wear insignia of unit that actually was there at the time? Latter one being something that should come naturally and first one is clear fuckup since SBF guys were ordered to get a haircut to certain fashion.

Those are little things that cost little and would improve realism of the movie.

walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 01:17
Location: Houston, Texas

Post by walterkaschner » 08 Oct 2002 05:47

With lice as a problem, you can't really blame people for nitpicking! And for once :wink:.

Regards, Kaschner

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

Post by jwong » 08 Oct 2002 09:39

Tiwaz wrote:
jwong wrote:
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."



How much it would have cost to have those guys have realistic haircuts? Or do little background research and have Germans wear insignia of unit that actually was there at the time? Latter one being something that should come naturally and first one is clear fuckup since SBF guys were ordered to get a haircut to certain fashion.

Those are little things that cost little and would improve realism of the movie.


There will always be "little things" in a war movie that bother people.

For example, I like the movie CROSS OF IRON (made by the American director Sam Peckinpah, who also made THE WILD BUNCH).

It is a good movie about Germans serving on the Russian front, and it gave a very sympathetic and human view of German soldiers.

But, of course, the director did not please EVERYONE.

If you go to a website like amazon.com and read customer reviews of this movie, you would see the following:

The movie didn't follow the same plot as the book it is based on.

Russian T-34/85 tanks are used instead of T-34/76.

The sets are cheap and shaking-looking ( Wow, can you imagine seeing shaky-looking buildings on the Russian front! )

Some of the actors are too old to be soldiers.

Some of the soldiers wear their hair too long and look like quote: "Most of the German soldiers look like former extras from the musical Hair."


Everyone will always have their own opinion of what is a good or bad war movie.

It is like that joke about lawyers. If you ask 10 lawyers for their opinion, you get 10 different opinions.

If you ask people what is the BEST or WORST war movie, you will get the same random results.

User avatar
Phil V
Financial supporter
Posts: 1635
Joined: 21 May 2002 12:18
Location: Australia (usually)

Post by Phil V » 08 Oct 2002 12:16

I paid my $10 to see the movie.

I, at all times was able to remember that it was a movie.

I enjoyed it.

The haircuts of the Germans, little inacurracies or apparent underlying messages etc. did not concern me.

After all :

IT'S JUST A MOVIE!

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Post by tonyh » 08 Oct 2002 14:57

>>With lice as a problem, you can't really blame people for nitpicking! And for once<<

Boom Boom...............

Briliant Walter. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Tony

Phaethon
Member
Posts: 935
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 21:14

Post by Phaethon » 20 Nov 2002 18:17

Last week there was a "Sixty Second Interview" in the Metro newspaper with Richard Todd, best known for his portrayal of wing Commander Guy Gibson in the film "The Dambusters". The interview is a series of questions and brief answers.

Todd was a paratrooper in 1944 and his battalion was dropped on D-Day tasked to take Pegasus Bridge. Later, in 1962, he featured in the film "The Longest Day" - The producer originally wanted Todd to play himself, but Todd says " I really did nothing special" and so he ended up playing his friend Major John Howard, commander of the glider party that first took Pegasus.

Anyway, that's just to establish that Todd has some idea of what he is talking about and here is the question pertinent to this thread (at last :wink: ):

What did you think of Saving Private Ryan?
Rubbish. Overdone.

K.
--
Ken Cocker, London

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

Post by jwong » 24 Nov 2002 13:44

Phaethon wrote:Last week there was a "Sixty Second Interview" in the Metro newspaper with Richard Todd, best known for his portrayal of wing Commander Guy Gibson in the film "The Dambusters". The interview is a series of questions and brief answers.

Todd was a paratrooper in 1944 and his battalion was dropped on D-Day tasked to take Pegasus Bridge. Later, in 1962, he featured in the film "The Longest Day" - The producer originally wanted Todd to play himself, but Todd says " I really did nothing special" and so he ended up playing his friend Major John Howard, commander of the glider party that first took Pegasus.

Anyway, that's just to establish that Todd has some idea of what he is talking about and here is the question pertinent to this thread (at last :wink: ):

What did you think of Saving Private Ryan?
Rubbish. Overdone.

K.
--
Ken Cocker, London



Richard Todd is a war veteran, so he does have the right to criticize the film. Even I thought the movie is not exactly perfect; the movie does not give a whole lot of info/details about the Americans for example, so some of the characters in the movie look like sterotypes.

But I think the main point the movie was trying to make is still pretty valid. World War II was hell, but it was a necessary hell in which decent people were forced to give up some part of their humanity in order to stop an enemy that was really determined to wipe out the free world. This film is about showing respect to those who risk their lives in order to make this a better and more peaceful world.

The movie does show how unpredictable, chaotic, and dangerous warfare is, and how the GREATEST reward for any soldier is trying to survive all of that.

In his biography, Max Hastings, the acclaimed British war correspondent writes, "I was among many fans of Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, because for all that film's flaws its central character is exactly the sort of understated, decent officer struggling to do a tough job against the odds whom I have met on battlefields all over the world."

So I regard the Americans, British, Canadians, Russians and other Allied soldiers as heroes since they all risk their lives and did everything possible to defeat the Germans and liberate countries from their occupation.

User avatar
Empiricist
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 03 Jun 2021 11:22
Location: European Union

Re: Americans are not perfect, either.

Post by Empiricist » 04 Jun 2021 08:02

jwong wrote:
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
3. The metal plates placed in the glider, which caused it to crash and killed all those American soldiers and general.
Myth. Lt.Col. Mike Murphy was not a fool to pilot an uncertified cargo glider with unknown centre of gravity, badly balanced etc. So many people explained that it is myth, but people of Hollywood are closed-minded and arrogant "besserwissers". I know one of SPR historical consultants specializing in the US WWII airborne forces and he told me "Never more!" - he meant his possible cooperation with movie industry.

rcocean
Member
Posts: 515
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 00:48

Re: Saving Private Ryan

Post by rcocean » 04 Jun 2021 15:35

That Max Hastings like SPR, is just one more reason to dislike it.
"In his biography, Max Hastings, the acclaimed British war correspondent writes, "I was among many fans of Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, because for all that film's flaws its central character is exactly the sort of understated, decent officer struggling to do a tough job against the odds whom I have met on battlefields all over the world."
BTW, "acclaimed by who? Max Hastings and his friend?

Return to “Movies, games & other fiction”