|
Author
|
Topic: What was Speilbergs point?.
|
BurkeyMK2
Pilot
|
posted 11-21- 07:39 PM
  
In Band of brothers episode 4 men of Easy company cross the Rhine to rescue british paras. There is no mention of this action in the book and I watched a documentary today that stated that British and Canadian troops made the crossing. Why oh why did Speilberg et al feel the need to do this? Was it necessary? I'm sure good drama could have been acheived with facts....IP: Logged |
3dp
Pilot
|
posted 11-22- 09:10 AM
Good drama can be achieved with facts. Hollywood just doesn't seem to know this. In a discussion on the movie 'Pearl Harbor', I saw someone comment that the problem is so bad now in part because so few of the people in the industry have any military experience, or even a solid knowledge of history. Historical advisors often have to fight the powers that be, often having to choose their battles, leaving other stuff to slip by. It's very sad.I haven't seen 'Band of Brothers' yet, but my suspicion is that it was driven by a disturbing trend which seems to say that we alone (the US) rescued the world during the Second World War, effectively ignoring or at least mimimizing the contributions of other like the British (who were in it from beginning to end) or the Soviets (who deserve the lion's share of the credit for the defeat of Hitler). I posted either here in 'Off Topic' or over in 'Flame Wars' a while back about this subject asking about Steven Ambrose's writing. I've never read his books, but I sure can't stand to see him interviewed because of the attitude I described above. It's an interesting post if you can find it with several good responses from those who have read his books. ------------------
Be seeing you,
3dp
Visit RAF Harkness! IP: Logged |
Diego Lozano
Pilot
|
posted 11-22- 11:17 AM
Ask yourself how many accurate movies were made of any war. They are always made from some screenwriters point of view. Even then, that script gets tore up to shreds in order to guarantee that it sees production. Once there, the same 3 military advisers give their point of view. It all becomes a hodge-podge of facts and ideas. The movies are now made to sell seats, not recreate history as acuratly as possible. Even though BoB was shown on HBO, dont think that they didnt have a huge say in what they wanted to have America see either. IP: Logged |
Sunray
Pilot
|
posted 11-22- 11:20 AM
When your major market is American TV you have to feed the lie. As I recall there weren't any Yanks anywhere near the Canadian Para crossing. As usual, Canadian Paras led the way and were chopped to pieces. No Yanks anywhere near though. Speilberg just makes stuff up to make his Yank bankers happy.
Oh, and IT'S A TV MOVIE! NOTHING IS REAL.IP: Logged |
BurkeyMK2
Pilot
|
posted 11-22- 11:23 AM
Overall, I'm impressed by BoB, And I've no gripe with a series about an American company dealing with American centred actions. But Easy company did enough in fact to fill 20 episodes, so why claim this action? To me, it makes no sense....IP: Logged |
darthbob
Pilot
|
posted 11-22- 02:42 PM
it pisses me off when british moan about how America only makes films about how america won the war. Saving private ryan and band of brothers are both about individual men, not nations as a whole. Any way, why would an american company want to make a show about a british company etc. IP: Logged |
Smokey
Pilot
|
posted 11-22- 03:19 PM
I think part of it is Hollywood types are
so egotistic that they think they have to
put their "stamp" on their work. One way of
doing it is to put their own version of history
into what they are creating.IP: Logged |
3dp
Pilot
|
posted 11-22- 03:29 PM
I don't know the nationalities of the people posting here, but I'm American. I've never heard of Brit's moaning like darthbob suggests. I don't think anyone has a problem with the American entertainment industry cranking out works predominantly about America's role in the war. It's when they deviate from the facts that people get up in arms. Anglophile that I am, the last thing I want is a US produced show about British troops! You bring up an important distinction though. As I see it, non-fantasy films/shows fall into two categories: Docudramas and Fiction.'Saving Private Ryan' falls into the latter category. It was a fictional story set in Normandy. Its prime purpose was to say something about the human condition. I for one therefore am more forgiving of certain things in it. For instance, really, any troops given the task Tom Hank's guys were would likely have come off Utah beach. However, the artistic desire to show the carnage of Omaha saw them coming of that beach. Even if unlikely, this might have happened, so it's OK. The piece was effectively a novel which got the vast majority of the history it chose to portray right. An excellent film. 'Band of Brothers', 'Tora, Tora, Tora', and, among others, my personal favorite, 'A Bridge Too Far' fall into the former category. As films intended to show us real events (and saying something about life in doing so), we can judge their history harsher. There are always time constraints ('A Bridge Too Far' could have been twice as long but only I would have gone to see it!) so things being left out or condensed are just par for the course. When they deviate from the historical for other reasons such as someone's agenda, we are entirely justified in criticizing them for it. Now for my pet peave (if anyone's still reading!). Films in the 'Fiction' category I describe above should stick to very limited portrayals of specific historical figures and events. They should also be named better. 'Titanic' was a fine film, but naming it 'Titanic' implied a docudrama sort of film. This was doubly harmed by it showing things like the 1st officer shooting himself, which is an unconfirmed event at best. Such films should stick primarily to what they're really about, the character of Rose and her relationships in 'Titanic's case. 'JFK' and 'Pearl Harbor' are two more examples of historical sounding misleading names. 'JFK' was essentially Oliver Stone's conspiracy fantasy, and from what I've heard about 'Pearl Harbor', it's primarily a romance which makes the catastrophic error of including (and butchering in many cases) historical figures and events. If it weren't for Alec Baldwin using his clout to back up the historical advisors on the film, Doolittle (who Baldwin played) would have been portrayed as a swaggering sterotype when in fact he had a PhD from MIT! ------------------
Be seeing you,
3dp
Visit RAF Harkness! [This message has been edited by 3dp (edited 11-22-2001).] IP: Logged |
BurkeyMK2
Pilot
|
posted 11-22- 05:30 PM
Your so right 3dp. Make the movie either fact or fiction and don't try and mix both. As for DarthBob, he is right, although I've never really heard anyone get upset about it ojn this board, the british do have a tendancy of late to moan about this issue, sometimes, of course, with good reason. The problem is, as this issue has got so much press coverage, everytime an American film is released about WW2 you here every newsreader, celebrity and intellectual in uproar. We will hear it again with Windtalkers, 'Where are the British?'. This is not anything to get annoyed about in itself, but it gives people false beliefs, as half the time there is no fact to their argument. Take Private Ryan, every man and his dog in britain dismisses this film with 'where were the british?' Try and explain the british weren't at this beach in Normandy and they won't believe you because the newspaper said different. Ask them where were the French and Canadians and they will look at you bemused  You see, if respected celebrities are giving false info on this, people with no other knowledge of the subject may take it as fact. A few weeks ago I heard Germaine Greer giving off about Band Of Brothers for christ sake. What she said was 100% incorrect but shes a respected intellectual and many people will believe what she said.IP: Logged |
Jerry
Pilot
|
posted 11-22- 07:01 PM
In the next Rambo movie, Rambo returns to Afghanistan to find OBL. Honestly, Stallone is working on the script! Don't know if there are any Brits in it. Look, Band of Brothers is about 90% accurate which is more than a lot of so-called documentaries. The scene you refer to was about 5 minutes out of 10 hours as I recall so cut some slack. Next time you Brits get an extra $100 million dollars make your own ten hour movie covering 11 months of WWII with no exaggerated British heroics. Bet you can't do it. IP: Logged |
Smokey
Pilot
|
posted 11-22- 07:09 PM
Let's see, 11 months of WWII. You could have
a movie about Monty taking Caen.  IP: Logged |
BurkeyMK2
Pilot
|
posted 11-22- 08:06 PM
Sigh, always on the defensive! Look I agree it is 90% accurate, I think it is superb, I'll definately buy it on Dvd nad I have alot of Ambrose books so I guess that means I like him I also agree SEE LAST POST that the the uproar in Britain is over the top. But why was it necessary to make this scene up? Did they not think it may offend? Why not, as 3dp suggests, make it entirely fictitous and do something that doesnt offend anybody? As for Monty taking Caen, maybe the guy was a little wary after 11+11+11+11+some more months of war, hmm? [This message has been edited by BurkeyMK2 (edited 11-22-2001).] IP: Logged |
3dp
Pilot
|
posted 11-23- 12:52 AM
In an amusing twist, this post appears to have proved a point it's been trying to make. The comment about Monty and Caen always seems to come up as a way to generally trash Montgomery, when he was a commander who actually had a lot going for him. He had his flaws and made his errors for sure, but due to the bad light he has been cast in in so many American films (Patton for instance) and, I'm sorry to say, documentaries, many mock him unfairly.Many Americans I know who specialize in ground warfare and are much better read on the subject than I have often commented about liking him very much. I'm not starting a Monty/Patton debate here, I'm just pointing out that the skewed American perception of Montgomery is a prime example of the mass media's influence on our outlook on history. ------------------
Be seeing you,
3dp
Visit RAF Harkness! IP: Logged |
Jerry
Pilot
|
posted 11-23- 12:58 AM
Then there was his brilliant Market Garden plan, to say nothing of Dieppe. The man was a bloody genius. [This message has been edited by Jerry (edited 11-23-2001).] IP: Logged |
Maury Markowitz
Pilot
|
posted 11-24- 11:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Diego Lozano:
Ask yourself how many accurate movies were made of any war.
Tora, tora tora! is possibly the best ever made. It is very accurate, complete, and shows the real story. Did you know that the Japanese wanted to declare war, but delivered it late because they guy they had couldn't type? Laurence is also an excellent movie. It concentrates on the man rather than the war, but nevertheless gets most details right. Maury IP: Logged | |
FSIC Messageboard
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
