PDA

View Full Version : Top gun 1944....



Heliopause
07-26-2007, 03:03 AM
tom cruise as Von Stauffenberg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

How low can an industry go??
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/PauseHelio/fs_471339_1.jpg

Heliopause
07-26-2007, 03:03 AM
tom cruise as Von Stauffenberg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

How low can an industry go??
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/PauseHelio/fs_471339_1.jpg

Phas3e
07-26-2007, 03:11 AM
Von Mavrick eh

stansdds
07-26-2007, 04:08 AM
Wonder just how well he speaks German? Or even a decent German accent?

Stuntie
07-26-2007, 04:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Heliopause:
tom cruise as Von Stauffenberg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

How low can an industry go??
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/PauseHelio/fs_471339_1.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Much much lower unfortuantely.

Although they do seem to have dropped the rumoured BoB movie with Tom Cruise as an Eagle Squadron pilot.
Although that would have been interesting to see how Hollywood could twist BoB into an all American victory...

BBB_Hyperion
07-26-2007, 04:15 AM
Clearly needs patching ! Look shoulder indicate general staff but the color is missing on the jacket collar it is just black. After all why they should get it right .)

leitmotiv
07-26-2007, 04:44 AM
A Scientologist as a Prussian... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
07-26-2007, 04:47 AM
Yeah, funny he got the role, being in a totalitarian organization himself, that covers itself as a religious group...

At least he didn't get the clearance to end the movie at the original place where von Stauffenberg was executed.


AFAIK the collar is right, but the cap and shoulderbadges need red boundaries and the color of the uniform just looks odd. The medals are missing, too.

Stuntie
07-26-2007, 05:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Yeah, funny he got the role, being in a totalitarian organization himself, that covers itself as a religious group...

At least he didn't get the clearance to end the movie at the original place where von Stauffenberg was executed.


AFAIK the collar is right, but the cap and shoulderbadges need red boundaries and the color of the uniform just looks odd. The medals are missing, too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Needs more skulls to be a convincing German office uniform.
"Are we the baddies?.."

Bearcat99
07-26-2007, 05:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stuntie:

Although they do seem to have dropped the rumoured BoB movie with Tom Cruise as an Eagle Squadron pilot.
Although that would have been interesting to see how Hollywood could twist BoB into an all American victory... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wish some of these other countries would get their acts together and start making their own movies so some of you can finally STHU about it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
07-26-2007, 05:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stuntie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Yeah, funny he got the role, being in a totalitarian organization himself, that covers itself as a religious group...

At least he didn't get the clearance to end the movie at the original place where von Stauffenberg was executed.


AFAIK the collar is right, but the cap and shoulderbadges need red boundaries and the color of the uniform just looks odd. The medals are missing, too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Needs more skulls to be a convincing German office uniform.
"Are we the baddies?.." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

mattinen
07-26-2007, 05:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Heliopause:
tom cruise as Von Stauffenberg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

How low can an industry go??
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/PauseHelio/fs_471339_1.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom(ppa) will need hidden heels in the movie, because he is such a short man compared to Stauffenberg.

And I really agree with Bearcat. It is indeed a sad thing that Europeans (in this case Germans) don't make these films themselves. So bad are the films made in the US.

PB0_shadow
07-26-2007, 06:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mattinen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Heliopause:
tom cruise as Von Stauffenberg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

How low can an industry go??
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/PauseHelio/fs_471339_1.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom(ppa) will need hidden heels in the movie, because he is such a short man compared to Stauffenberg.

And I really agree with Bearcat. It is indeed a sad thing that Europeans (in this case Germans) don't make these films themselves. So bad are the films made in the US. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's been done. It's just that you ignore it:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388437/

http://www.cinemotions.com/modules/Films/fiche/21507/Operation-Walkyrie.html

Viper2005_
07-26-2007, 06:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stuntie:

Although they do seem to have dropped the rumoured BoB movie with Tom Cruise as an Eagle Squadron pilot.
Although that would have been interesting to see how Hollywood could twist BoB into an all American victory... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wish some of these other countries would get their acts together and start making their own movies so some of you can finally STHU about it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain_%28film%29

Personally I'm just glad that Hollywood has resisted the urge to make a sequel (They're back, and this time the Nazis have massive robots!), or a retcon set in the present replacing the Nazis with Terrorists of one kind or another... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ernst_Rohr
07-26-2007, 06:59 AM
Hollywood has in the past been able to make a convincing war movie.

Sadly, these days there is only a few folks that even attempt to get it right (Hanks/Spielberg & Eastwood). The rest of Hollywood is stuck on the idea that every movie needs special effects and a love story to make it work. Making sure it appeals to the mouth breathing masses is far more important that realism, a plot, or and serious look at a historical subject. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

DmdSeeker
07-26-2007, 07:02 AM
Why can't Hollywood simply keep it's hands off other people's history?

Blue-summers
07-26-2007, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I wish some of these other countries would get their acts together and start making their own movies so some of you can finally STHU about it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes because the US is clearly the only country in the world that makes movies. I wish some of these americans would get their act together and stop being so ignorant. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Bo_Nidle
07-26-2007, 07:17 AM
I personally don't have a problem with Cruise in the role. He isn't a bad actor and obviously has an interest in WW2 (I believe he owns 2 P-51's).

I notice there is a considerable British acting presence in the film-Kenneth Brannagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, Stephen Fry and even Eddie Izard!

I think its got a lot of potential for an interesting film.

VVS-Manuc
07-26-2007, 07:58 AM
historical airplanes which will take part in this movie

2 x Ju 52 from Ju-Air Switzerland (HB-HOT and HB-HOP painted as Lufthansa and Luftwaffe)
1 x Bf 109 G-6 (FM+BB) from Messerschmitt-Stiftung Germany
1 x Hispano HA-1112-M1L "Bouchon" as a Bf 109
1 x Nord 1002 "Pingouin" as a Bf 108

Plunkertx
07-26-2007, 08:15 AM
Awesome! Looking forward to it. Hey guys, as much as you all may hate it, I welcome ANY WWII films in an era that is saturated with junk like SKINWALKERS, BORAT, TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, etc.

HayateAce
07-26-2007, 08:18 AM
Poor nancies.

Why don't you geniuses make your own movies?

Jaste07
07-26-2007, 08:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why can't Hollywood simply keep it's hands off other people's history? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because if they only made movies about America's contribution people would complain even more.

Yeah America has produced some pretty terrible movies, but it's also produced some pretty good ones. Why can't everybody at least wait to see the movie before trashing it?

waffen-79
07-26-2007, 08:22 AM
the uniform appears to be for an Oberst? is that correct?

Daiichidoku
07-26-2007, 08:51 AM
Titor...John Titor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/531...311087965#5311087965 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5311087965?r=5311087965#5311087965)


"In an interview for Süddeutsche Zeitung Stauffenberg's eldest son Berthold advised Cruise to leave his father alone and rather climb a mountain or go surfing in the Caribbean"

Blood_Splat
07-26-2007, 09:06 AM
I would just like to apologize to our German forum viewers.

Bewolf
07-26-2007, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
I would just like to apologize to our German forum viewers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very much appreciated, thank you

MrMojok
07-26-2007, 10:19 AM
Yes, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE that this film will be good. There is no chance whatsoever.

I'm glad so many here are blessed with the gift of foresight.

Bewolf
07-26-2007, 10:28 AM
What was the last "good" Tom Cruise flick?

They use a Buchon and a 109G at the same time. If that is any indicator for how serious they take this movie, I won't be impressed.

Blutarski2004
07-26-2007, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
What was the last "good" Tom Cruise flick?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... That would probably be "Risky Business". But IMO Rebecca de Mornay stole that film out from under Cruise.

BTW, doesn't Cruise have one too many arms for the role of Stauffenberg?

R_Target
07-26-2007, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
What was the last "good" Tom Cruise flick? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't know there were any good Tom Cruise movies. Actually, "Collateral" wasn't bad for what it was.

Daiichidoku
07-26-2007, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
BTW, doesn't Cruise have one too many arms for the role of Stauffenberg? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes..and too many fingers and eyes

lets hope tom is a "method" actor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Jaste07
07-26-2007, 11:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by Bewolf:
What was the last "good" Tom Cruise flick? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Days of thunder, thats about the only good one. Then again, it's about Nascar, so I guess it's really not very good. Top Gun is okay until you realize all of the gay innuendos.

Boandlgramer
07-26-2007, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
A Scientologist as a Prussian... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stauffenberg wasn´t a Prussian.
He was a " Schwabe". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

HayateAce
07-26-2007, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
What was the last "good" Tom Cruise flick?

They use a Buchon and a 109G at the same time. If that is any indicator for how serious they take this movie, I won't be impressed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got a secret for you, 99% of this world couldn't care less. Besides, the 109 will go down in history as losing every single campaign it was involved in.

Here's a shot of a winner for ya.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

http://www.warbirdphotos.net/aviapix/Fighters/P51/HM-vert.jpg

FluffyDucks2
07-26-2007, 12:50 PM
LOL @ HateAce, the more of this **** he posts the more it confirms him as an idiot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif more to be pitied for his ignorance than laughed at for being an idiot. However I'll just laugh AT him http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Don't think anyone will be daft enough to actually take him serious anymore http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Von_Rat
07-26-2007, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PB0_shadow:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mattinen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Heliopause:
tom cruise as Von Stauffenberg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

How low can an industry go??
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/PauseHelio/fs_471339_1.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom(ppa) will need hidden heels in the movie, because he is such a short man compared to Stauffenberg.

And I really agree with Bearcat. It is indeed a sad thing that Europeans (in this case Germans) don't make these films themselves. So bad are the films made in the US. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's been done. It's just that you ignore it:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388437/

http://www.cinemotions.com/modules/Films/fiche/21507/Operation-Walkyrie.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


the rest of the world ignores "it" as well. at least compared to a hollywood movie.

im with bearcat, we would hear alot less whining about hollywood if other countrys had film industries that could make films that are as popular as hollywood movies.

Warrington_Wolf
07-26-2007, 01:01 PM
Top Hun.

ploughman
07-26-2007, 01:04 PM
Mwuahahahahaha.

Von_Rat
07-26-2007, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blue-summers:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I wish some of these other countries would get their acts together and start making their own movies so some of you can finally STHU about it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes because the US is clearly the only country in the world that makes movies. I wish some of these americans would get their act together and stop being so ignorant. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the us is the only country that makes movies that usually,, THE WHOLE WORLD SEE'S.

its a very rare occurance for a film from any other country to get a world wide audiance.



i guess some are to ignorant to see that was what bearcat was refering to.

Bewolf
07-26-2007, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
What was the last "good" Tom Cruise flick?

They use a Buchon and a 109G at the same time. If that is any indicator for how serious they take this movie, I won't be impressed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got a secret for you, 99% of this world couldn't care less. Besides, the 109 will go down in history as losing every single campaign it was involved in.

Here's a shot of a winner for ya.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

http://www.warbirdphotos.net/aviapix/Fighters/P51/HM-vert.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

try again.

JG53Frankyboy
07-26-2007, 01:16 PM
let me ad something about Philipp Freiherr von Boeselager (89 age) , the last survivor of this resistance.
this man looks forward positiv about this film.
he hopes that this film, espacially as Tom Cruise (he is calling him a good and succesfull actor) is featering a mayor role in it, give the resistance of 1944 a chance to become better kown in the world.

and most propably he is right in this - as the already mentioned movies don about this (more than one the last 50 years in germany !) are not very well known !
and also i doubt that the german resistance of 1944 is a popular knowlegde worldwide so far - even a lot of Germans would learn something ( just ask now germans about this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

give that film a chance i would say !

btw, the screenplay author is an "Oscar" honored man !

crucislancer
07-26-2007, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
I personally don't have a problem with Cruise in the role. He isn't a bad actor and obviously has an interest in WW2 (I believe he owns 2 P-51's).

I notice there is a considerable British acting presence in the film-Kenneth Brannagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, Stephen Fry and even Eddie Izard!

I think its got a lot of potential for an interesting film. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

David Bamber as well (Cicero from Rome). He played a convincing whimpy politician in Rome, I wonder how he'll do as Hitler?

Doolittle81
07-26-2007, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
They use a Bouchon and a 109G at the same time. If that is any indicator for how serious they take this movie, I won't be impressed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That was exactly my reaction...you beat me to it. I think that there are, these days, a couple of flying 109's that do the airshow rounds, which I do not believe are Bouchon's. Also, the state of the art with CGI is such that one could create all the 109's of any/many series with relative ease...using just one or two real aircraft only for the close-shots. A single 109G, re-painted between film shots, could be used/edited to represent many "different" individual aircraft. Buchons were necessary back when the Battle of Britain movie was made, I think, because that's all that were available, especially if one wanted a formation of several/many aircraft. The rules/technology have changed, but the bad habits of Hollywood persist.
Some info on flyable 109's:
http://www.adlertag.de/heute/airworthy.htm


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
.....
I notice there is a considerable British acting presence in the film-Kenneth Brannagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, Stephen Fry and even Eddie Izard!
... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In many Hollywood films, Germans are protrayed by British actors, complete with British accents. [ALL Romans in hollywood movies speak with Britsh accents!] Kenneth Branagh played Reinhard Heydrich in a TV movie called "Conspiracy" about the Wannsee conference....he did quite well, in my opinion... However, personally, I'd rather see a movie such as this one about von Stauffenburg done in German with subtitles....or dubbed in English....or use actors like Jurgen Prochnow(Das Boot) who could at least speak English with a German, not British, accent.

BaronUnderpants
07-26-2007, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PB0_shadow:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mattinen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Heliopause:
tom cruise as Von Stauffenberg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

How low can an industry go??
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/PauseHelio/fs_471339_1.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom(ppa) will need hidden heels in the movie, because he is such a short man compared to Stauffenberg.

And I really agree with Bearcat. It is indeed a sad thing that Europeans (in this case Germans) don't make these films themselves. So bad are the films made in the US. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's been done. It's just that you ignore it:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388437/

http://www.cinemotions.com/modules/Films/fiche/21507/Operation-Walkyrie.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


the rest of the world ignores "it" as well. at least compared to a hollywood movie.

im with bearcat, we would hear alot less whining about hollywood if other countrys had film industries that could make films that are as popular as hollywood movies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


With all due respect to u and Bearcat and others, just because a large majorety of the english speaking world ( us ) dont bother with movies with subtitles doesnt mean the rest of the world does.

A movie can actually be famouse without "hollywood" knowing about it. Just because a sertain country doesnt make a gazillion hero movies about its history doesnt mean Hollywood has carte blanch to rewrite the true story at will. ( that sub trash movie about Enigma is a perfect example )

BTW, US of A isnt the biggest movie producer in the world, India is. ( I know, totaly beside the point, but a intresting tidbit anyways http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif )


As for Tom Cruise...i for one think he is a very good actor wether hes a fruitcake in private or not.


With all due respect of course. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


P.S. And people are taking a wiss at Hollywood...not US. There is a differance u know. If u think about it u know that people complaining about Hollywood has a valid point 8 times out of 10...at least when it comes to "true" storys and u have to admitt, we have seen 1 pic of the upcoming movie with Tom and allredy theres so many errors its scary, i mean seriously, how many things can u get wrong in ONE pic?? It realy doesnt bode well for the movie itselfe, does it ( True, we dont know when the movie begin its story, but still )http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Doolittle81
07-26-2007, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VVS-Manuc:
historical airplanes which will take part in this movie

2 x Ju 52 from Ju-Air Switzerland (HB-HOT and HB-HOP painted as Lufthansa and Luftwaffe)
1 x Bf 109 G-6 (FM+BB) from Messerschmitt-Stiftung Germany
1 x Hispano HA-1112-M1L "Bouchon" as a Bf 109
1 x Nord 1002 "Pingouin" as a Bf 108 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interestingly enough, the Noord 1002 "Pengouin" is, in fact, a real authentic WWII Bf108:


"Messerschmitt Bf108 Taifun
Background
The Bf108 first flew in June 1934. The aircraft was quite advanced for its time - being all metal with retractable undercarriage, and innovative features such as Handley-Page slats. The aircraft was used for a number of record attempts, and one of these record breaking aircraft was named 'Taifun'. The name was subsequently applied to the type.

New Zealand's sole example of the Bf108 is registered as a Noord 1002 Pinguin. However, the aircraft was built in 1943, prior to the manufacturing plant being moved to France (June 1944), and can be considered a real Messerschmitt. During its wartime service, the aircraft was shot down twice. Rebuilt in March 1945, it was given the Noord c/n 103. The Luftwaffe aircraft was surrendered in Belgium in June 1945.

The aircraft entered the civil register as OO-NET. Exported to the USA in 1968, the Bf108 became N108H in 1973. It then passed through a succession of owners in New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada and Texas before reaching R.L. van Buskirk in Vero Beach Florida. Rebuilt by Piper Aircraft the aircraft received a 300hp Lycoming in place of the original inverted V4 Argus engine. This along with the installation of butane guns, and a Bf108 style paint scheme allowed the aircraft to be employed in film work.

In March 1989, the Bf108 was exported to South Africa. There it was registered ZS-WFI to C. van der Walt of Wonderboom, near Pretoria. Maurice Hayes and Colin Henderson travelled to South Africa to check the aircraft out before importing it to New Zealand in March 1996. They registered the aircraft as ZK-WFI with their company 'Fighter Trainers ltd'. The aircraft is now registered to 'In Touch Travel Limited'.
Last Update:- 6 March, 2002"

Phas3e
07-26-2007, 01:54 PM
A few kiwis have taken this 'make your own damn film' attitude to heart.

At the moment most will know of dambusters,
but also 'Mark of the lion' is in the works.
Based on the biograpghy of Sir Charles upham, only combat soldier to twice win the Victoria cross.

ultraHun
07-26-2007, 01:58 PM
Actually the only problem I have with Tom Cruise is that Graf Stauffenberg was MUCH more athletic.

Nevertheless I will for sure see the movie, for I am curious what story they will make out of it.

The execution of Valkyrie was a failure and made the conspirers look like procrastinate loosers (no moral judgement intended). I wonder how that will fit to main-line cinema, which lives from a strong protagonist and a positive plot.

Rjel
07-26-2007, 02:07 PM
I am consistently amazed how much the rest of the world (most of whom apparently post here) knows about the United States, what all of our citizens know and don't know, how we all are alike in our views of history and how little we know about the rest of the world. The greatest attribute the U.S. has, IMO, is that most of our ancestry comes from the very countries and peoples that despise us so today.
I think Bearcat's point is valid, if you don't like Hollywood's version of <span class="ev_code_RED">your</span> history, make your own damn movies. Maybe the day will come when it will be viewed as mankind's history without territorial restrictions and prejudices.

Kongo Otto
07-26-2007, 02:08 PM
I hope he plays a good role as von Stauffenberg
and not a mix from MI-III meets Pearl Harbor.


btw,
Iam German and i like Hollywood Movies very much.
But mostly i like the old Hoolywood Giants
as Steve McQueen etc.
Bullitt is my al time Favorite.
Best car Chase ever.
just saying:"Bad Boys always drive Charger" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

huggy87
07-26-2007, 02:18 PM
...[/QUOTE]
In many Hollywood films, Germans are protrayed by British actors, complete with British accents. [ALL Romans in hollywood movies speak with Britsh accents!] [/QUOTE]


I don't think this is necessarily true anymore. I like the current trend of using a native language with subtitles. Mel Gibson, despite what the media thinks of him, is a gifted filmmaker and I hope he makes more movies using a native tongue.

ploughman
07-26-2007, 02:33 PM
That's a curious cinematic tradition isn't it? Olly Stone came a cropper with this one when he had Macedonians speaking in broad Oirish, presumabley in an effort to distinguish them from English accented Athenians and in keeping with a literary tradition of having Greek rustics speaking in provincial accents. The result was a farce. And yet it seemed to work in the recent Rome series, with the captains of the Collegiums speaking in cockney accents and saying rude words alot.

The centurion in The Greatest Story Ever Told, he was definately a Yank.

Luke5skywalker4
07-26-2007, 03:02 PM
I heard the descendants of Stauffenberg petitioned against Tom Cruise being cast as Von Stauffenberg. Personally, I'd rather see a German actor playing that role as it would be much more authentic (like other WW2 films about Germans, I.E., Downfall, Das Boot, Stalingrad, etc). Otherwise this film is simply going to be Mission Impossible 4: Valkyrie with ******ed fake accents.

VVS-Manuc
07-26-2007, 03:44 PM
for the aircraft enthusiasts...the current registrations of the planes mentioned above:

Junkers Ju 52 HB-HOT
Junkers Ju 52 HB-HOP
Bf 109 G-6 D-FMBB
Hispano HA-1112-M1L Buchon G-BWUE
Nord 1002 Pingouin G-ETME

Von_Rat
07-26-2007, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PB0_shadow:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mattinen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Heliopause:
tom cruise as Von Stauffenberg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

How low can an industry go??
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/PauseHelio/fs_471339_1.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom(ppa) will need hidden heels in the movie, because he is such a short man compared to Stauffenberg.

And I really agree with Bearcat. It is indeed a sad thing that Europeans (in this case Germans) don't make these films themselves. So bad are the films made in the US. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's been done. It's just that you ignore it:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388437/

http://www.cinemotions.com/modules/Films/fiche/21507/Operation-Walkyrie.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


the rest of the world ignores "it" as well. at least compared to a hollywood movie.

im with bearcat, we would hear alot less whining about hollywood if other countrys had film industries that could make films that are as popular as hollywood movies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


With all due respect to u and Bearcat and others, just because a large majorety of the english speaking world ( us ) dont bother with movies with subtitles doesnt mean the rest of the world does.

A movie can actually be famouse without "hollywood" knowing about it. Just because a sertain country doesnt make a gazillion hero movies about its history doesnt mean Hollywood has carte blanch to rewrite the true story at will. ( that sub trash movie about Enigma is a perfect example )

BTW, US of A isnt the biggest movie producer in the world, India is. ( I know, totaly beside the point, but a intresting tidbit anyways http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif )


As for Tom Cruise...i for one think he is a very good actor wether hes a fruitcake in private or not.


With all due respect of course. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


P.S. And people are taking a wiss at Hollywood...not US. There is a differance u know. If u think about it u know that people complaining about Hollywood has a valid point 8 times out of 10...at least when it comes to "true" storys and u have to admitt, we have seen 1 pic of the upcoming movie with Tom and allredy theres so many errors its scary, i mean seriously, how many things can u get wrong in ONE pic?? It realy doesnt bode well for the movie itselfe, does it ( True, we dont know when the movie begin its story, but still )http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

with all due respect, i stand by my point.

no other country in the world makes movies that are consistantly popular with a world wide audience.

btw all of indias movies probaly gross a small fraction of hollywoods, and they don't have a worldwide audience either.

Von_Rat
07-26-2007, 04:20 PM
was there this much *****ing from americans when a brit actor played col. winters in band of brothers?

DmdSeeker
07-26-2007, 04:21 PM
"making our own film" isn't the point.

Hollywood lying is.

Von_Rat
07-26-2007, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
"making our own film" isn't the point.

Hollywood lying is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if your country is tired of "Hollywood lying" they should make their own films that are good enough to have a worldwide audience, and quit whining about hollywoods lying.

Copperhead310th
07-26-2007, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
was there this much *****ing from americans when a brit actor played col. winters in band of brothers? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What that guy was a brit? no way. you're kidding. I liked that guy, i thought he did a hell of a job playing Col. Winters. now i'm even more convenced he did a good job cause he droped his cheerio accent so well he had even me fooled.

JG53Frankyboy
07-26-2007, 05:20 PM
he even is an Eton-"boy" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Lewis

Low_Flyer_MkVb
07-26-2007, 05:25 PM
Here you go Mr Copperhead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/people/damian_lewis_person_page.shtml

Rare indeed is the actor who can vocally cross the Atlantic. D*ck Van ****'s attempt at cockney has entered British folklore. I'm sure there are British counterparts whose attempts at American accents provide as much fodder for comedians on your side of the pond.

Ah, I see Frankyboy beat me to it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

crucislancer
07-26-2007, 05:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
Here you go Mr Copperhead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/people/damian_lewis_person_page.shtml

Rare indeed is the actor who can vocally cross the Atlantic. D*ck Van ****'s attempt at cockney has entered British folklore. I'm sure there are British counterparts whose attempts at American accents provide as much fodder for comedians on your side of the pond.

Ah, I see Frankyboy beat me to it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lewis did a damn good job, I thought.

Rjel
07-26-2007, 07:46 PM
I've mentioned this in another "Hollywood steals our history" thread about two years ago, but I'll mention it again. One of the more famous examples of history skewed to tell a good story wasn't made by Hollywood, but by the British film industry.
We all know (at least I think we all know) that Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier. However, in the 1952 British film BREAKING THE SOUND BARRIER, it was a British pilot who did the feat. The film came out a full five years after Yeager had done the real thing. So convincingly was this movie portrayal done, that for years Yeager would have to convince someone he hadn't been second to the British. I don't think changing history to make a good story is unique to Hollywood. And after all, movies are nothing more than storytelling. Want history? Watch a documentary.

MrMojok
07-26-2007, 07:50 PM
Yeah, and there were other Brits besides Damien Lewis in 'Band of Brothers'.

Sgt. Martin and Pvt. Blithe were Brits, and I think Lt. Welsh may have been as well.

And check the cast of "Black Hawk Down" sometime. There were more Brit/Aussie actors than there were American.

I enjoyed every one of those performances in both movies. I didn't take it as an insult that non-Americans were cast in the roles of Americans.

huggy87
07-26-2007, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
was there this much *****ing from americans when a brit actor played col. winters in band of brothers? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right. There are a lot of Brits who play American roles very well, and a handful of Americans who play British roles OK. We, in America, may corner the market on worldwide movies, but the UK and commonwealth have some damn fine talent out of proportion to their population.

R_Target
07-26-2007, 08:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
And check the cast of "Black Hawk Down" sometime. There were more Brit/Aussie actors than there were American.

I enjoyed every one of those performances in both movies. I didn't take it as an insult that non-Americans were cast in the roles of Americans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't bother me much either. But Jason Isaacs' generic Cowboy Movie accent in BHD was terrible. Eric Bana was good. Ewan McGregor does alright.

Von_Rat
07-26-2007, 08:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
Yeah, and there were other Brits besides Damien Lewis in 'Band of Brothers'.

Sgt. Martin and Pvt. Blithe were Brits, and I think Lt. Welsh may have been as well.

And check the cast of "Black Hawk Down" sometime. There were more Brit/Aussie actors than there were American.

I enjoyed every one of those performances in both movies. I didn't take it as an insult that non-Americans were cast in the roles of Americans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i havent heard of anyone who felt insulted that non americans played americans in those movies. or any movie in fact.

but it seems every time a american plays somebody from another country, somebody starts mouthing off about it.

EiZ0N
07-26-2007, 08:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rjel:
I've mentioned this in another "Hollywood steals our history" thread about two years ago, but I'll mention it again. One of the more famous examples of history skewed to tell a good story wasn't made by Hollywood, but by the British film industry.
We all know (at least I think we all know) that Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier. However, in the 1952 British film BREAKING THE SOUND BARRIER, it was a British pilot who did the feat. The film came out a full five years after Yeager had done the real thing. So convincingly was this movie portrayal done, that for years Yeager would have to convince someone he hadn't been second to the British. I don't think changing history to make a good story is unique to Hollywood. And after all, movies are nothing more than storytelling. Want history? Watch a documentary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
From wikipedia:

In 1942 the United Kingdom's Ministry of Aviation began a top secret project with Miles Aircraft to develop the world's first aircraft capable of breaking the sound barrier. The project resulted in the development of the prototype Miles M.52 jet aircraft, which was designed to reach 1,000 mph (417 m/s; 1,600 km/h) at 36,000 feet (11 km) in 1 minute 30 sec.

The aircraft's design introduced many innovations which are still used on today's supersonic aircraft. The single most important development was the all-moving tailplane, giving extra control to counteract the Mach tuck which allowed control to be maintained at supersonic speeds. In the immediate post-war era new data from captured German records suggested that major savings in drag could be had through a variety of means such as swept wings, and Director of Scientific Research, Sir Ben Lockspeiser, decided to cancel the project in light of this new information. Later experimentation on the Miles M.52 design proved that the aircraft would indeed have broken the sound barrier, with an unpiloted 3/10 scale replica of the M.52 achieving Mach 1.5 in October 1948.

US efforts started soon after Britain had naively disclosed all its research and designs to the US government, on the promise that US information would be shared the other way. The US failed to disclose any information in return, stating the Pentagon had deemed the project Top Secret. They took the technological information kindly provided by the British and began work on the Bell XS-1. The final version of the Bell XS-1 has many design similarities to the original Miles version. Also featuring the all-moving tail, the XS-1, later known as the X-1. It was in the X-1 that Chuck Yeager was the first person to break the sound barrier in level flight on October 14, 1947, flying at an altitude of 45,000 ft (13.7 km).

George Welch made a plausible but officially unverified claim to have broken the sound barrier on October 1, 1947, while flying an XP-86 Sabre. He also claimed to have repeated his supersonic flight on October 14, 1947, 30 minutes before Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier in the Bell X-1 using the adjustable tail concept. Although evidence from witnesses and instruments strongly imply that Welch achieved supersonic speed, the flights were not properly monitored and cannot be officially recognized. (The XP-86 officially achieved supersonic speed on April 26, 1948.)

Feathered_IV
07-26-2007, 08:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Warrington_Wolf:
Top Hun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Top pun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

MrMojok
07-26-2007, 09:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Warrington_Wolf:
Top Hun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Top pun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

CONCUR! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MrMojok
07-26-2007, 09:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
And check the cast of "Black Hawk Down" sometime. There were more Brit/Aussie actors than there were American.

I enjoyed every one of those performances in both movies. I didn't take it as an insult that non-Americans were cast in the roles of Americans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't bother me much either. But Jason Isaacs' generic Cowboy Movie accent in BHD was terrible. Eric Bana was good. Ewan McGregor does alright. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, Isaacs' accent was kind of bad.

On the other hand, I had *no* idea Damien Lewis was a Brits until I watched some of the extras on the 'Band of Brothers' dvd. My mind was totally blown.

A bit OT, and not from England, but I would never have guessed where Naomi Watts was from after seeing her for the first time in 'The Ring'. Her accent was immaculate! She is one of the very best at doing an American accent IMO.

So for Brit forumgoers, have you ever seen an American do a good, or even passable English accent? I'm not from there, so I am sure I lack the ear for it, but most of the examples I can think of are pretty bad.

R_Target
07-26-2007, 09:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
A bit OT, and not from England, but I would never have guessed where Naomi Watts was from after seeing her for the first time in 'The Ring'. Her accent was immaculate! She is one of the very best at doing an American accent IMO.

So for Brit forumgoers, have you ever seen an American do a good, or even passable English accent? I'm not from there, so I am sure I lack the ear for it, but most of the examples I can think of are pretty bad. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There may be some good ones, but I don't think I could tell good from bad the way a native speaker can.

I knew Damien Lewis was British, but just recently learned that Naomi Watts is not American. She does a fine job though. And a hottie to boot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

HayateAce
07-26-2007, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
What was the last "good" Tom Cruise flick?

They use a Buchon and a 109G at the same time. If that is any indicator for how serious they take this movie, I won't be impressed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got a secret for you, 99% of this world couldn't care less. Besides, the 109 will go down in history as losing every single campaign it was involved in.

Here's a shot of a winner for ya.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

http://www.warbirdphotos.net/aviapix/Fighters/P51/HM-vert.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

try again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor nancie?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

BoCfuss
07-26-2007, 10:32 PM
Sure other countries make movies, of course they all look like they were made in 1973, have no budget, and are all talk. I might as well read the book thank you. Snoozefest.

These movies are not made for you. So don't watch them. You know all this yet you have nothing better to do then complain how they suck. No really?

I just wish that there was another superpower in this world we Americans could complain against.

Bewolf
07-27-2007, 12:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
What was the last "good" Tom Cruise flick?

They use a Buchon and a 109G at the same time. If that is any indicator for how serious they take this movie, I won't be impressed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got a secret for you, 99% of this world couldn't care less. Besides, the 109 will go down in history as losing every single campaign it was involved in.

Here's a shot of a winner for ya.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

http://www.warbirdphotos.net/aviapix/Fighters/P51/HM-vert.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

try again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor nancie?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

maybe next time

ViktorViktor
07-27-2007, 01:20 AM
Doesn't this film sound like it will have alot in common with 'The Last Samurai' ? I can see that the 'Is he a Judas or is he a hero' dilemma will probably be addressed in the film.

MEGILE
07-27-2007, 01:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
Yeah, and there were other Brits besides Damien Lewis in 'Band of Brothers'.

Sgt. Martin and Pvt. Blithe were Brits, and I think Lt. Welsh may have been as well.

And check the cast of "Black Hawk Down" sometime. There were more Brit/Aussie actors than there were American.

I enjoyed every one of those performances in both movies. I didn't take it as an insult that non-Americans were cast in the roles of Americans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Stuntie
07-27-2007, 01:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
"making our own film" isn't the point.

Hollywood lying is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if your country is tired of "Hollywood lying" they should make their own films that are good enough to have a worldwide audience, and quit whining about hollywoods lying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So as long as it sells well it is ok to lie, distort and misappropritate history?

In my opinion the worst Hollywood distortion of history is "Pearl Harbour".
Half history and half made up clap trap.

Did US pilots actually get airborne and fight the Japanese?
Where any of them Battle of Britain veterens?
Did any of them go on to participate in the Doolottle raid?
Did black servicemen, who were not allowed in combat roles, shoot down japanese planes or was it just the obligatory 'ethnic minority hero' role Hollywood puts in films to appear pc?

What is true here and what is false?
Yes, you and me are likely to know, but what about the average joe?

Not only is it appaling history but when you mix fact and fantasy to such an extent the true stories of courage and valour become lost or marginalised. And fiction becomes fact by the brain drained MTV generation.

Phas3e
07-27-2007, 02:12 AM
COMING SUMMER 2008

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v164/Phas3e/IwoJima.jpg

Badsight-
07-27-2007, 02:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
I personally don't have a problem with Cruise in the role. He isn't a bad actor and obviously has an interest in WW2 (I believe he owns 2 P-51's).

I notice there is a considerable British acting presence in the film-Kenneth Brannagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, Stephen Fry and even Eddie Izard!

I think its got a lot of potential for an interesting film. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>^ is what my impression of it is

Badsight-
07-27-2007, 02:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stuntie:
Did black servicemen, who were not allowed in combat roles, shoot down japanese planes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>actually - there is a strong case for one of the Zeros shot down that day being hit by that same serviceman

joeap
07-27-2007, 04:07 AM
Doris Miller (http://www.topblacks.com/government/doris-miller.htm)

ploughman
07-27-2007, 04:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:

So for Brit forumgoers, have you ever seen an American do a good, or even passable English accent? I'm not from there, so I am sure I lack the ear for it, but most of the examples I can think of are pretty bad. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Renee Zellweger, who I believe is from Texas, does a flawless English accent, or so my OH tells me. I, er, don't watch girl films.

Von_Rat
07-27-2007, 04:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stuntie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
"making our own film" isn't the point.

Hollywood lying is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if your country is tired of "Hollywood lying" they should make their own films that are good enough to have a worldwide audience, and quit whining about hollywoods lying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So as long as it sells well it is ok to lie, distort and misappropritate history?

In my opinion the worst Hollywood distortion of history is "Pearl Harbour".
Half history and half made up clap trap.

Did US pilots actually get airborne and fight the Japanese?
Where any of them Battle of Britain veterens?
Did any of them go on to participate in the Doolottle raid?
Did black servicemen, who were not allowed in combat roles, shoot down japanese planes or was it just the obligatory 'ethnic minority hero' role Hollywood puts in films to appear pc?

What is true here and what is false?
Yes, you and me are likely to know, but what about the average joe?

Not only is it appaling history but when you mix fact and fantasy to such an extent the true stories of courage and valour become lost or marginalised. And fiction becomes fact by the brain drained MTV generation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you obviously have a problem with the concept of FICTION. maybe you should look it up.

as for your pearl harbour questions.

yes 2 us fighters got airbourne after the pilots were out drinking all night. and they shot down 2 enemy planes i believe, it could be more or less however.

i doubt any were bob vets or dolittle vets, but there is such a thing as artistic liscence, another term you seem unfamilar with. something else for you to look up i guess.

yes a black serviceman did man a gun and shoot at the attackers. he was awarded a medal for his actions later.



as for your average joe, or jane. they don't give a ratsasss whether its true or not. they go to the movies to be entertained, not for a freaking history lesson.

leitmotiv
07-27-2007, 04:35 AM
Cruise isn't a bad actor (See MAGNOLIA or Kubrick's valedictory EYES WIDE SHUT), but I would not have cast him as von Stauffenberg. On the other hand, maybe he'll surprise everybody like he did in MAGNOLIA and really do some acting. Much will depend on what kind of film it is. If it is just a formula Hollywood drama, forget it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/

stanford-ukded
07-27-2007, 04:41 AM
Sod Tom Cruise, it's all about Red Baron!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365675/


Trailer: Uber and hi-res:

http://www.pixomondo.com/web/showreel/index.htm

leitmotiv
07-27-2007, 04:45 AM
I thought Zellweger was a bizarre choice for the Bridget Jones series, but my former London English female goilfriend thought she was perfect. After watching both, I had to admit she was incredibly good. Not surprising. A really superb actor can mimic just about anybody---look at Lawrence Olivier---he could do Yanks, Germans, Shakespeare, you name it. Cruise, alas, is not Olivier.

Von_Rat
07-27-2007, 04:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv: A really superb actor can mimic just about anybody---look at Lawrence Olivier---he could do Yanks, Germans, Shakespeare, you name it. Cruise, alas, is not Olivier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


benny hill could do a great american accent too.

cruise, alas, is no benny hill either.

WTE_Ibis
07-27-2007, 05:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Poor nancies.

Why don't you geniuses make your own movies?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------------------------------

Because we have you for entertainment.


.

stanford-ukded
07-27-2007, 05:09 AM
We make Harry Potter.

How do you like THOSE apples? Eh? Eh?

HuninMunin
07-27-2007, 05:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stuntie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
"making our own film" isn't the point.

Hollywood lying is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if your country is tired of "Hollywood lying" they should make their own films that are good enough to have a worldwide audience, and quit whining about hollywoods lying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So as long as it sells well it is ok to lie, distort and misappropritate history?

In my opinion the worst Hollywood distortion of history is "Pearl Harbour".
Half history and half made up clap trap.

Did US pilots actually get airborne and fight the Japanese?
Where any of them Battle of Britain veterens?
Did any of them go on to participate in the Doolottle raid?
Did black servicemen, who were not allowed in combat roles, shoot down japanese planes or was it just the obligatory 'ethnic minority hero' role Hollywood puts in films to appear pc?

What is true here and what is false?
Yes, you and me are likely to know, but what about the average joe?

Not only is it appaling history but when you mix fact and fantasy to such an extent the true stories of courage and valour become lost or marginalised. And fiction becomes fact by the brain drained MTV generation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you obviously have a problem with the concept of FICTION. maybe you should look it up.

as for your pearl harbour questions.

yes 2 us fighters got airbourne after the pilots were out drinking all night. and they shot down 2 enemy planes i believe, it could be more or less however.

i doubt any were bob vets or dolittle vets, but there is such a thing as artistic liscence, another term you seem unfamilar with. something else for you to look up i guess.

yes a black serviceman did man a gun and shoot at the attackers. he was awarded a medal for his actions later.



as for your average joe, or jane. they don't give a ratsasss whether its true or not. they go to the movies to be entertained, not for a freaking history lesson. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Again: Do you think it is just and absolutely legitimate to alter historical fact ( wich are parts of a culture and history foreign from you)
and add fictional ( it is the right word, wonder why you tried to wordpick above ) parts to please "the average Joe or Jane who don't give a ratsasss"?

The reason why you neverd heard about the german movie about Walküre is because it is done with historical detail and accuracy in mind.

I'm really interested in your answer to the question above.

ploughman
07-27-2007, 05:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
We make Harry Potter.

How do you like THOSE apples? Eh? Eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good god man, next you'll be telling them Darth Vader's Welsh.

The Queen loves it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=artOXVZxECA)

JG53Frankyboy
07-27-2007, 05:26 AM
the concerns, at least here in Germany, about that Cruise is playing Stauffenberg is about that he is a Scientologist.
it has nothing to do that he is "no german" or that it is a "Hollywood production" !

Scientology has a very bad reputation here in Germany , its even not accepted as a church here.

actually nothing better could happen to the 1944 Resistance that such a mayor Production will show it - and will it make much better known worldwide, even here in Germany !

and about "Hollywood" cant make movies about this time - just think about "Shindlers List" , as an example.

that also movies like this "strange "U-Boat thing where the USN captured the enigame can happen - well, its still an industrie that wants eran money.

as i already said, im looking forward positiv to this movie !

K_Freddie
07-27-2007, 05:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blue-summers:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I wish some of these other countries would get their acts together and start making their own movies so some of you can finally STHU about it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes because the US is clearly the only country in the world that makes movies. I wish some of these americans would get their act together and stop being so ignorant. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm... It may come as a surprise to a few of you, that..

BOLLYWOOD is a lot 'bigger' than Hollywood. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WTE_Googly
07-27-2007, 05:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:

as for your average joe, or jane. they don't give a ratsasss whether its true or not. they go to the movies to be entertained, not for a freaking history lesson. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While what you say is correct, I fail to see why a good war movie wouldn't entertain people as opposed to a soap opera with a couple of bangs in it.

The problem occurs when the film-maker themselves have the 'couldn't give a rats arse' attitude.

Good shot Ibis http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

stanford-ukded
07-27-2007, 05:42 AM
Hang on, are you guys telling me that there wasn't _enough_ action in WW2 that Hollywood has to... make it up?

No way.

mattinen
07-27-2007, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:

With all due respect to u and Bearcat and others, just because a large majorety of the english speaking world ( us ) dont bother with movies with subtitles doesnt mean the rest of the world does.

A movie can actually be famouse without "hollywood" knowing about it. Just because a sertain country doesnt make a gazillion hero movies about its history doesnt mean Hollywood has carte blanch to rewrite the true story at will. ( that sub trash movie about Enigma is a perfect example )

P.S. And people are taking a wiss at Hollywood...not US. There is a differance u know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Hear, hear!

K_Freddie
07-27-2007, 06:12 AM
Girls.. the USA is large enought to be a self-contained market (or it should be), so as before Hollywood makes movies mainly for the USA market. This is where they make their money back from the investment.

Now the movie content, if it were not all american hero stuff, bang bang boom - it wouldn't sell that well in the great US of A.
I'm off these type of films but occasionally there are good ones

Take Flags of our Fathers.. great for the US morale boost of justification, in the current times. It's all about timing!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Then there was Letters from Iwo Jima (Tho).. A great movie. But did anyone watch the extras on the disc. The general theme was that they were scared sh.tless about making a Non-American movie. Thumbs up for Clint going ahead with it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

EiZ0N
07-27-2007, 06:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
A bit OT, and not from England, but I would never have guessed where Naomi Watts was from after seeing her for the first time in 'The Ring'. Her accent was immaculate! She is one of the very best at doing an American accent IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fyi she was born in Kent, so she IS English.

Von_Rat
07-27-2007, 06:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stuntie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
"making our own film" isn't the point.

Hollywood lying is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if your country is tired of "Hollywood lying" they should make their own films that are good enough to have a worldwide audience, and quit whining about hollywoods lying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So as long as it sells well it is ok to lie, distort and misappropritate history?

In my opinion the worst Hollywood distortion of history is "Pearl Harbour".
Half history and half made up clap trap.

Did US pilots actually get airborne and fight the Japanese?
Where any of them Battle of Britain veterens?
Did any of them go on to participate in the Doolottle raid?
Did black servicemen, who were not allowed in combat roles, shoot down japanese planes or was it just the obligatory 'ethnic minority hero' role Hollywood puts in films to appear pc?

What is true here and what is false?
Yes, you and me are likely to know, but what about the average joe?

Not only is it appaling history but when you mix fact and fantasy to such an extent the true stories of courage and valour become lost or marginalised. And fiction becomes fact by the brain drained MTV generation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you obviously have a problem with the concept of FICTION. maybe you should look it up.

as for your pearl harbour questions.

yes 2 us fighters got airbourne after the pilots were out drinking all night. and they shot down 2 enemy planes i believe, it could be more or less however.

i doubt any were bob vets or dolittle vets, but there is such a thing as artistic liscence, another term you seem unfamilar with. something else for you to look up i guess.

yes a black serviceman did man a gun and shoot at the attackers. he was awarded a medal for his actions later.



as for your average joe, or jane. they don't give a ratsasss whether its true or not. they go to the movies to be entertained, not for a freaking history lesson. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Again: Do you think it is just and absolutely legitimate to alter historical fact ( wich are parts of a culture and history foreign from you)
and add fictional ( it is the right word, wonder why you tried to wordpick above ) parts to please "the average Joe or Jane who don't give a ratsasss"?

The reason why you neverd heard about the german movie about Walküre is because it is done with historical detail and accuracy in mind.

I'm really interested in your answer to the question above. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


FICTION is not about historical facts, its about telling a story. the story may be in a historical setting, but its just a STORY.
IT IS NOT HISTORY. so historical facts don't enter into it.

if you want historical facts, watch a documentry.

if you want a entertaining story, watch a movie.


it frankly amazes me that people don't understand the concept of story telling. i learned as a small child from my parents that nearly everything on tv or in the movies was just story telling and that it wasnt real.

it seems to me that some peoples parents have failed to point that out to their children.

EiZ0N
07-27-2007, 06:46 AM
Some of us to not share your viewpoint Von Rat.

In my view major historical events should be portrayed accurately, not twisted into some ego-fest to sell cinema tickets and DVDs.

The fact is, these stories don't NEED spicing up.

It frankly amazes ME that people don't understand the concept that it's wrong to have fiction under the name of fact. Pearl harbour WAS real, and that's the difference.

Von_Rat
07-27-2007, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
Some of us to not share your viewpoint Von Rat.

In my view major historical events should be portrayed accurately, not twisted into some ego-fest to sell cinema tickets and DVDs.

The fact is, these stories don't NEED spicing up.

It frankly amazes ME that people don't understand the concept that it's wrong to have fiction under the name of fact. Pearl harbour WAS real, and that's the difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

how is under the name of fact. its not a documentary, its a movie. and even small children know that movies arent real.

theres hundreds if not thousands of differant fictional books in historical settings sold every year. its funny that nobodys sqawking about them.

if you dont like hollywood movies, dont watch them. problem solved.

leitmotiv
07-27-2007, 06:54 AM
As a matter of fact, Hollywood, even before WWI had a world-wide market, and to this day makes most of its money from the world market. Many films bomb in the USA, but are saved from being write-offs by the world market. In the mid-'90's approximately 95 pence of every pound spent on cinema in the UK went to Hollywood---that's why the English film industry was kaput. To think Hollywood films are made without consideration of the world market is naive. The Hollywood brand sells because the world likes it, as unpalatable as that is. Frankly, Hollywood makes me gag, but facts are facts.

stanford-ukded
07-27-2007, 07:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
ow is under the name of fact. its not a documentary, its a movie. and even small children know movies arent real.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do they?

No offence, but that's complete tosh, Rat. Adults who don't know a lot about the war, Pearl Harbour, U-571 or Fly Boys will and are drawn in to believing what they see. They have no other basis of knowing. Not only that, it sometimes comes down to smearing the reputations of brave men who died for their country.

Sure, adults (should) expect a cinematic element to it. However, I've had a number of conversations where people swear blind they are right and their facts are solid. The source of their information? Cinema.

As that's the case, I despair for kids. Should I ever be fortunate enough to have them, no Peter Rabbit for them. They'll get read war books from day one!

Heliopause
07-27-2007, 07:00 AM
wow, a lot of reactions I see!! Top Hun...lol

About Pearl Harbour: a number of fliers got airborn, George Welch, Ken Taylor, John Dains, Harry Brown (P-36), Bob Rogers (P-36), Gordon Sterling (P-36/MIA)...to name a few.

Von_Rat
07-27-2007, 07:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
ow is under the name of fact. its not a documentary, its a movie. and even small children know movies arent real.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do they?

No offence, but that's complete tosh, Rat. Adults who don't know a lot about the war, Pearl Harbour, U-571 or Fly Boys will and are drawn in to believing what they see. They have no other basis of knowing. Not only that, it sometimes comes down to smearing the reputations of brave men who died for their country.

Sure, adults (should) expect a cinematic element to it. However, I've had a number of conversations where people swear blind they are right and their facts are solid. The source of their information? Cinema.

As that's the case, I despair for kids. Should I ever be fortunate enough to have them, no Peter Rabbit for them. They'll get read war books from day one! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you must associate with some weird people who think they are watching history when they see a movie.

i hear these stories from you guys all the time on this forum, that people are dumb, and they cant tell its not history up there on the big screen. well all i can say is ive never in my 50 years on this planet ever ran into a adult who thought everything they saw in a movie was true or accurate.

in truth most dont care at all if its historically accurate or not, they watch it for entertainment.

Whirlin_merlin
07-27-2007, 07:17 AM
The way I see it everything for mass comsumption is duffenszhite (my new word). Movies, beer, food etc. It's always ruled by the law of 'the lowest common denominator'. I believe this is because most of the people in the World are as thick as a pig excrement milkshake. Given the choice they will choose to watch Pearl Harbour, eat MackyDs, drink Bud' (ps yes these examples are US but I chose them for global recognition, this is an almost universal problem).
Unfortunatly this also extends to politics, democracy sucks, people are just to stupid.
Now obviously none of this applies to me, I'm much cleverer than that, and I most definatly wont be going to see the Transformers movie.

P.S I leave you all to decide how serious I'm being.

crucislancer
07-27-2007, 07:23 AM
Like a few have said before, if you don't like it, don't watch it. Don't argue about it here.

Yup, U-571, Pearl Harbor, and Flyboys are inaccurate. Guess what? They weren't box office favorites. The first and last bombed, and while Pearl Harbor made a good deal of money, it didn't do very well here in the U.S. upon release. The funny thing about that movie is that it made more money on the Foreign Box Office.

I don't care for some of these pictures. But the only thing I can do is not see them at the box office, and maybe borrow it from a friend on DVD later if I'm that curious. Hollywood only listens to the sound of change, and when that changes falls light, and into an empty purse, then maybe they will get the hint.

Actually arguing about it, however, is pretty silly. Actually, down right lame. I see two different opinions on how movies should be made with regards to historical subjects. Great. You've said your piece. Now, move along now and find a new subject to complain about.

Regarding the Tom Cruise movie, some of his movies aren't bad. He's got some acting chops when he uses them. Let's see how the movie turns out before we dismiss it, eh?

Lastly, the best British actor doing an American accent, IMHO, was Peter Sellers. That guy was gifted.

Von_Rat
07-27-2007, 07:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually arguing about it, however, is pretty silly. Actually, down right lame. I see two different opinions on how movies should be made with regards to historical subjects. Great. You've said your piece. Now, move along now and find a new subject to complain about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

to paraphrase what i said about hollywood movies.

if you dont like it, dont read it. problem solved.

stanford-ukded
07-27-2007, 07:35 AM
The point is there is no corporate responsibility when films are made. And no, not going to the cinema and not giving your money is not all you can do. When U-571 was released, I wrote a letter (which unfortunately went unanswered) to the producers explaining my disgust at what they had created.

The whole world is going mad. There's talk of removing Churchill from some school history books so "more relevant" subjects can be studied.

I don't make my point here for a laugh, I don't do it to get a thrill out of trying to prove someone else wrong; I do it because I find it impossible not to to speak up about something I strongly believe in.

Thanks for calling me lame.

Von_Rat
07-27-2007, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
The point is there is no corporate responsibility when films are made. And no, not going to the cinema and not giving your money is not all you can do. When U-571 was released, I wrote a letter (which unfortunately went unanswered) to the producers explaining my disgust at what they had created.

The whole world is going mad. There's talk of removing Churchill from some school history books so "more relevant" subjects can be studied.

I don't make my point here for a laugh, I don't do it to get a thrill out of trying to prove someone else wrong; I do it because I find it impossible not to to speak up about something I strongly believe in.

Thanks for calling me lame. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

school books are a whole differant story from movies.

how in the heck can they remove churchill from school history books without ommiting ww2 entirely.

crucislancer
07-27-2007, 07:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
Thanks for calling me lame. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arguing about it is lame. Not you personally.

EiZ0N
07-27-2007, 07:45 AM
They're not removing Churchill.

Fact is Von_Rat your point about movies being fiction and that people expect them to be incorrect is without merit.

Any film that is "Based on a true story" is "trusted" by the general viewing populace, even though so many of them are so fictional it's unreal.

If you're going to base something on a true story, it should be the truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you dog, etc.

PS arguing that arguing about it is lame, is lame.

crucislancer
07-27-2007, 07:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
PS arguing that arguing about it is lame, is lame. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. Sorry.

stanford-ukded
07-27-2007, 08:13 AM
Churchill:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1865231/posts

I say there's talk, because there is. I don't know first hand as I'm not a teacher.

Von_Rat
07-27-2007, 08:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
They're not removing Churchill.

Fact is Von_Rat your point about movies being fiction and that people expect them to be incorrect is without merit.

Any film that is "Based on a true story" is "trusted" by the general viewing populace, even though so many of them are so fictional it's unreal.

If you're going to base something on a true story, it should be the truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you dog, etc.

PS arguing that arguing about it is lame, is lame. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


the general viewing populace doesnt care, so "trusted" never enters into it for them.

do you people really have friends who believe all the tripe they see in movies? or are you just making it up to support your argument. if your friends do believe movies are really accurate, you gotta find some more mature friends.

stanford-ukded
07-27-2007, 08:28 AM
I said people, adults, not friends.

You'd be amazed the conviction people have after a few beers. They'd believe Frank Lampard wasn't fat and didn't eat all the pies if they saw it on TV.

Von_Rat
07-27-2007, 08:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
I said people, adults, not friends.

You'd be amazed the conviction people have after a few beers. They'd believe Frank Lampard wasn't fat and didn't eat all the pies if they saw it on TV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if your just going by what strangers say when theyre drunk in a bar, you dont have much of a argument.

if you could talk to them sober and as a friend, they'd probaly admit that they dont know and even more important, that they dont care either.

whiteladder
07-27-2007, 09:04 AM
Art has never been very good at history because facts get in the way of a good story. Its been the same from Homer through Shakespeare to the modern day.

The Illiad is a good story but doesn`t make great history. City states quarrelling over trade rights in the Aegean is a pretty boring, Hero`s fighting over the love of a women makes a better story.


Modern film is the same, U-571 is good example. If they had stuck to the actual facts of the capture of the enigma machine they wouldn`t have had 2 hours of story( not one people would of paid to see anyway).

BSS_AIJO
07-27-2007, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
As a matter of fact, Hollywood, even before WWI had a world-wide market, and to this day makes most of its money from the world market. Many films bomb in the USA, but are saved from being write-offs by the world market. In the mid-'90's approximately 95 pence of every pound spent on cinema in the UK went to Hollywood---that's why the English film industry was kaput. To think Hollywood films are made without consideration of the world market is naive. The Hollywood brand sells because the world likes it, as unpalatable as that is. Frankly, Hollywood makes me gag, but facts are facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Good point and more or less accurate.. Hollywood does well more because they are good at making movies that appeal to the lowest common denominator, and have fantastically skilled well funded marketing departments. I really don't have much problem with this. Every once in a while Hollywood does something right.. Very often, they make what folks call trash because they stick closely to using a very broad brush to paint pictures with now overly recognizable archetypes. this is why I don't watch much TV anymore. I got tired of seeing different people playing the same character over and over with slightly different words each time. As for American folks claiming that Hollywood is making the best stuff around they should watch out or our film industry could turn into our auto industry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Fact is there is no shortage of good stuff coming out of places like Europe and Asia. Heck if there had been no Kurowsawa a huge chunk of Hollywood's catalog would have never been, and the hugely reused 7 samurai story line would not be getting reused every other year in Hollywood.

AS for German, they have proven time and again that they are quite capable of making movies about the war and making them not suck. I am just left with the feeling that when someone pitches a WWII movie to the money folks in Germany they have to really work hard to get the project off the ground, as the whole thing is still a bit touchy.

But lets see..

Das Boot, Downfall, Europa Europa all good stuff, all German all worth seeing

In the end Hollywood is only a part of a much bigger thing, Americas number 1 export is American Culture, as embarrassing as that occasionally is. America has very good brand recognition and that helps it sell worldwide. Its too bad we kind of suck at exporting the truly good things about ourselves..

In the meantime, I generally am not too supportive of Hollywood trying to do History.. Hollywood sucks at it.. I am more or less ok with Hollywood doing American history, if they want to help us remain misinformed on what actually happened then fine.. But don't go messing with other folks stuff. Granted if they can find a part for Kate Beckinsale I will be there on opening night. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

BSS_AIJO

ploughman
07-27-2007, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Granted if they can find a part for Kate Beckinsale I will be there on opening night. In Love </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I have a part for Kate Beckingsale. Ole'! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

stanford-ukded
07-27-2007, 10:08 AM
You know her 'old man was in Porridge?

Type Kate Beckinsale Naked in google. I dare you.

ploughman
07-27-2007, 10:16 AM
Ay KarUmbA!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

MrMojok
07-27-2007, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
A bit OT, and not from England, but I would never have guessed where Naomi Watts was from after seeing her for the first time in 'The Ring'. Her accent was immaculate! She is one of the very best at doing an American accent IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fyi she was born in Kent, so she IS English. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh, point taken. I know she was born there, but I always think of her as an Australian since she moved away fairly early on. I wonder if she has dual citizenship?

Whirlin_merlin
07-27-2007, 10:38 AM
You see Bearcat nothing to worry about. No sooner does 'yet another thread' start bad-mouthing Hollywood than we all get distracted by the thought of 'actress totty'.

So is the way of the world.

MrMojok
07-27-2007, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv: A really superb actor can mimic just about anybody---look at Lawrence Olivier---he could do Yanks, Germans, Shakespeare, you name it. Cruise, alas, is not Olivier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly why I asked the question. In my opinion there are a lot of good English actors who cannot do a very good Yank accent, and a lot of good American ones who do horrid British accents. I just think it's an incredibly difficult thing to do, at least to the point where you could fool a native.

What about Thora Birch in 'The Hole'? That always struck me as a great example of a fake British accent, but like I said, I'm not from there, so I really am not qualified to judge.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
07-27-2007, 10:46 AM
Johnny Depp does good English...apart from Jack Sparrow, his Cockney policeman in that Jack the Ripper film was very well done. Bloody awful film, though. Anyone remember the title?

Might be time for another 'best war movie ever' thread - would be lots of non-Hollywood in there, methinks.

MEGILE
07-27-2007, 10:47 AM
Scarlett Johansons accent in the prestige was pretty damn good.. and she is hot as sin.

Christian bale as a cockney geezer.. lal.

Jermemy Irons and alan rickman as Ze germans were top class.

I am willing to bet 2 whole $, that Tom speaks with his normal accent in the film.

MEGILE
07-27-2007, 10:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
Anyone remember the title?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From hell iIRC

JG53Frankyboy
07-27-2007, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
.............
I am willing to bet 2 whole $, that Tom speaks with his normal accent in the film. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and why should he not , as all germans will speak english in this movie http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

something "funny":
some years ago there was a very succsessfull geman movie , a "western". to simulate english spoken in the more southern part of the USA , some spoke bavarian accent http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (as you all know bavaria is in the south of Germany http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

cawimmer430
07-27-2007, 10:54 AM
Wasn't THOMAS KRETSCHMANN supposed to play the main role, but got dumped in favor of Tom Cruise??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://www.germanhollywood.com/images/TKretschm_pianistSm.jpg

^Look at that, the PERFECT Von Stauffenberg!^

Low_Flyer_MkVb
07-27-2007, 10:55 AM
From Hell. That's the one, thanks, Megile.

MEGILE
07-27-2007, 10:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:


and why should he not , as all germans will speak english in this movie http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I bet another $2 that everyone else speaks with ze german accent

JG53Frankyboy
07-27-2007, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:


and why should he not , as all germans will speak english in this movie http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I bet another $2 that everyone else speaks with ze german accent </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


btw, this one "was" the Stauffenberg in the 2004 Walküre TV-movie
http://www.fansforsebastiankoch.com/film_stauff.asp

R_Target
07-27-2007, 11:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cawimmer430:
^Look at that, the PERFECT Von Stauffenberg!^ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. He was in U-571 too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

cawimmer430
07-27-2007, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cawimmer430:
^Look at that, the PERFECT Von Stauffenberg!^ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. He was in U-571 too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was also in this submarine movie. Much better than U-571. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316824/

And helooks a bit like Stauffenberg too. Just color his hair black and boom, you have your man! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Stauffenberg-signature-head.jpg

R_Target
07-27-2007, 11:20 AM
That looks pretty good, might check it out. Kretschmann was in Untergang, The Pianist, and Stalingrad too, yes?

cawimmer430
07-27-2007, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
That looks pretty good, might check it out. Kretschmann was in Untergang, The Pianist, and Stalingrad too, yes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All correct. And all good movies too! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

carguy_
07-27-2007, 11:31 AM
Tom Cruise is IMO a very good actor thought he looks quite silly in the uniform.

Other than that I cannot help but feel thankful to hollywood for making WWII movies.Even the lying Uboat movie was quite good.Bottom line Hollywood has many very good actors and hell of good screen workers.

Many many times I go to see those movies for just oooh aaah type of fun.

Even if Hollywood WWII movies show US Army as the world saviour, they have top of the line showcase.

As long as they make WWII movies I`m all for it.I have the feeling that the Europe does not want to remember (for the obvious reasons) whereas I have the opportunities to see very well equipment based scenes.I think that the Saving Private Ryan Normandy beach scene is the proof that Yanks should continue making WWII movies.

cawimmer430
07-27-2007, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:

As long as they make WWII movies I`m all for it.I have the feeling that the Europe does not want to remember (for the obvious reasons) whereas I have the opportunities to see very well equipment based scenes.I think that the Saving Private Ryan Normandy beach scene is the proof that Yanks should continue making WWII movies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, that was it. The rest of SPR was bad. It was one of the most overrated war movies ever. Everyone said it was "good" and never really backed it up WHY?

I saw SPR and didn't like it at all. It was "too Hollywood". The opening D-Day scene was well done, excellent, but the rest of the movie was just....terrible. There were just so many things wrong with the movie. German soldiers with Russian Army style shaved heads for example? Oh come on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I also didn't like the fact that the "SS veterans from the Eastern Front" they were up against attacked without cover and were easily picked off. Come on! That's something you see in every Hollywood movie. Bad guys attacking in the city without looking for cover....yeah yeah yeah...


And us Europeans have made a lot of World War II movies, especially the Germans.

EiZ0N
07-27-2007, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
I said people, adults, not friends.

You'd be amazed the conviction people have after a few beers. They'd believe Frank Lampard wasn't fat and didn't eat all the pies if they saw it on TV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if your just going by what strangers say when theyre drunk in a bar, you dont have much of a argument.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And what exactly are you going by? People you've met don't believe the films. How is that any better an argument? Neither argument has proof either way.

carguy_
07-27-2007, 12:10 PM
Aye,as long as Kretscmann gets to play the roles, WWII Germans are being look-authentic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

MEGILE
07-27-2007, 12:43 PM
carguy agree 100%

Im a big fan of the cinema.. love the sounds, sights and whole fan fare of it all.

I dont go for a history lesson, but I do like history pieces.

Films are americas best export IMO, cuz its beers suck donkey shlong.
Another cool thing is.. its full of Limey actors too.

Will be seeing transformers and the simpsons over the next week http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

DmdSeeker
07-27-2007, 01:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:

So for Brit forumgoers, have you ever seen an American do a good, or even passable English accent? I'm not from there, so I am sure I lack the ear for it, but most of the examples I can think of are pretty bad. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Renee Zwigler (sp?)

Her dialect and vernacular are exemplary.

And for the record.. it's not American actors that irritate. It's the directors/script writers.

There was nothing wrong with the acting in that awfull U-what_ever_the_number was.

If it was down to merely acting; I'd be more than happy to see Tom Cruise play Billy Fish (or Staffenberg for that matter). He's a believable actor and his name ensures big bucks production.

It's not the acting.

It's the twisting/theft of other peoples' history.

And even worse; the way the general public swallow hollywood as documentary. I wonder how many people now believe that the enigma machine was actually captured by an American sub captain and use it as "proof" how once again America "saved our asses".

Von_Rat
07-27-2007, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
I said people, adults, not friends.

You'd be amazed the conviction people have after a few beers. They'd believe Frank Lampard wasn't fat and didn't eat all the pies if they saw it on TV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if your just going by what strangers say when theyre drunk in a bar, you dont have much of a argument.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And what exactly are you going by? People you've met don't believe the films. How is that any better an argument? Neither argument has proof either way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

im basing my statments on the opinions of friends and people i know. your basing your statments on the opinions of drunks in bars.

you dont see a differance there?

ploughman
07-27-2007, 01:26 PM
Best place for 'em if you ask me.

DmdSeeker
07-27-2007, 01:26 PM
Riiiihgt....

So movies are just fiction (largely agreed, by the way) and have no effect on the thinking population. If you don't like 'em; don't watch 'em.

Riiiight.

So we'll hear no complaints about the next Michael Moore movie m'kay?

Von_Rat
07-27-2007, 01:41 PM
i notice alot of elitist attitudes on this forum.

things like statments that "people" are stupid, they are so dumb they'll believe anything they see in a movie, they are sheep, that their minds are easily influenced etc, etc, etc.

then the poster will try to show how much smarter he is than these "people" he calls stupid.

i have news for you all.

your not as smart as you think you are.

the vast majority of "people" aren't stupid, they just don't care about the same things you do.

Rjel
07-27-2007, 02:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i notice alot of elitist attitudes on this forum....
....the vast majority of "people" aren't stupid, they just don't care about the same things you do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aside from people like us who hang out on forums like this one, what is the one subject most students hate in school? History. Why? Because it's as dull as dirt to most. It happened before their time. They just don't care. Does anyone think many of these same people somehow become history buffs? They don't. They also wouldn't give a care about a historically accurate account of any major WWII event. They go to a movie for entertainment, to forget about their real life for a couple of hours. That's what movies have always done and will continue to do in the future. Movies aren't made as teaching tools. Only entertainment

HuninMunin
07-27-2007, 02:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stuntie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
"making our own film" isn't the point.

Hollywood lying is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if your country is tired of "Hollywood lying" they should make their own films that are good enough to have a worldwide audience, and quit whining about hollywoods lying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So as long as it sells well it is ok to lie, distort and misappropritate history?

In my opinion the worst Hollywood distortion of history is "Pearl Harbour".
Half history and half made up clap trap.

Did US pilots actually get airborne and fight the Japanese?
Where any of them Battle of Britain veterens?
Did any of them go on to participate in the Doolottle raid?
Did black servicemen, who were not allowed in combat roles, shoot down japanese planes or was it just the obligatory 'ethnic minority hero' role Hollywood puts in films to appear pc?

What is true here and what is false?
Yes, you and me are likely to know, but what about the average joe?

Not only is it appaling history but when you mix fact and fantasy to such an extent the true stories of courage and valour become lost or marginalised. And fiction becomes fact by the brain drained MTV generation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you obviously have a problem with the concept of FICTION. maybe you should look it up.

as for your pearl harbour questions.

yes 2 us fighters got airbourne after the pilots were out drinking all night. and they shot down 2 enemy planes i believe, it could be more or less however.

i doubt any were bob vets or dolittle vets, but there is such a thing as artistic liscence, another term you seem unfamilar with. something else for you to look up i guess.

yes a black serviceman did man a gun and shoot at the attackers. he was awarded a medal for his actions later.



as for your average joe, or jane. they don't give a ratsasss whether its true or not. they go to the movies to be entertained, not for a freaking history lesson. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Again: Do you think it is just and absolutely legitimate to alter historical fact ( wich are parts of a culture and history foreign from you)
and add fictional ( it is the right word, wonder why you tried to wordpick above ) parts to please "the average Joe or Jane who don't give a ratsasss"?

The reason why you neverd heard about the german movie about Walküre is because it is done with historical detail and accuracy in mind.

I'm really interested in your answer to the question above. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


FICTION is not about historical facts, its about telling a story. the story may be in a historical setting, but its just a STORY.
IT IS NOT HISTORY. so historical facts don't enter into it.

if you want historical facts, watch a documentry.

if you want a entertaining story, watch a movie.


it frankly amazes me that people don't understand the concept of story telling. i learned as a small child from my parents that nearly everything on tv or in the movies was just story telling and that it wasnt real.

it seems to me that some peoples parents have failed to point that out to their children. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm amazed there is still no answer from you.

Get one thing straight: A movie, book or any other form of art based on an actual event should try to portray it's subject at least with a minimum level of concience towards it.
As soon as the setting of a "story" is or was real it becomes imoral to change and twist it in a way that disturbs the real experience people have been through.

What about me making a film about your grandfather and portray him as an perverted, homosexual mass murderer?
Sounds cool to you as long as it entertains the average Joe?

In the end I can't really see why you brough that fiction point up in the first place - as the discussed movie is hardly fictive in any way; at least it should not be.

carguy_
07-27-2007, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
What about me making a film about your grandfather and portray him as an perverted, homosexual mass murderer? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about making a film about your grandfather and portray him as a nice young and peace loving guy?

Bewolf
07-27-2007, 04:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
What about me making a film about your grandfather and portray him as an perverted, homosexual mass murderer? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about making a film about your grandfather and portray him as a nice young and peace loving guy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, like these guys?

http://www.racematters.org/polesjewsdeepguilt.htm

Von_Rat
07-27-2007, 05:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stuntie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
"making our own film" isn't the point.

Hollywood lying is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if your country is tired of "Hollywood lying" they should make their own films that are good enough to have a worldwide audience, and quit whining about hollywoods lying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So as long as it sells well it is ok to lie, distort and misappropritate history?

In my opinion the worst Hollywood distortion of history is "Pearl Harbour".
Half history and half made up clap trap.

Did US pilots actually get airborne and fight the Japanese?
Where any of them Battle of Britain veterens?
Did any of them go on to participate in the Doolottle raid?
Did black servicemen, who were not allowed in combat roles, shoot down japanese planes or was it just the obligatory 'ethnic minority hero' role Hollywood puts in films to appear pc?

What is true here and what is false?
Yes, you and me are likely to know, but what about the average joe?

Not only is it appaling history but when you mix fact and fantasy to such an extent the true stories of courage and valour become lost or marginalised. And fiction becomes fact by the brain drained MTV generation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you obviously have a problem with the concept of FICTION. maybe you should look it up.

as for your pearl harbour questions.

yes 2 us fighters got airbourne after the pilots were out drinking all night. and they shot down 2 enemy planes i believe, it could be more or less however.

i doubt any were bob vets or dolittle vets, but there is such a thing as artistic liscence, another term you seem unfamilar with. something else for you to look up i guess.

yes a black serviceman did man a gun and shoot at the attackers. he was awarded a medal for his actions later.



as for your average joe, or jane. they don't give a ratsasss whether its true or not. they go to the movies to be entertained, not for a freaking history lesson. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Again: Do you think it is just and absolutely legitimate to alter historical fact ( wich are parts of a culture and history foreign from you)
and add fictional ( it is the right word, wonder why you tried to wordpick above ) parts to please "the average Joe or Jane who don't give a ratsasss"?

The reason why you neverd heard about the german movie about Walküre is because it is done with historical detail and accuracy in mind.

I'm really interested in your answer to the question above. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


FICTION is not about historical facts, its about telling a story. the story may be in a historical setting, but its just a STORY.
IT IS NOT HISTORY. so historical facts don't enter into it.

if you want historical facts, watch a documentry.

if you want a entertaining story, watch a movie.


it frankly amazes me that people don't understand the concept of story telling. i learned as a small child from my parents that nearly everything on tv or in the movies was just story telling and that it wasnt real.

it seems to me that some peoples parents have failed to point that out to their children. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm amazed there is still no answer from you.

Get one thing straight: A movie, book or any other form of art based on an actual event should try to portray it's subject at least with a minimum level of concience towards it.
As soon as the setting of a "story" is or was real it becomes imoral to change and twist it in a way that disturbs the real experience people have been through.

What about me making a film about your grandfather and portray him as an perverted, homosexual mass murderer?
Sounds cool to you as long as it entertains the average Joe?

In the end I can't really see why you brough that fiction point up in the first place - as the discussed movie is hardly fictive in any way; at least it should not be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ive already answered you. your just ignoring it. that really doesnt amaze me at all.


you have no understanding of the concept of fiction or of artistic liscence. or that movies are just storys, not meant to be taken as truth. under your definition every movie ever made that uses historical charactors is immoral, because despite what you may think, no movie of them ever get it right, they always take libertys with the story.

if my grandfather was a famous figure i would expect liberties would be taken if a movie was made about him.

unlike you and small children, i understand the concept of fiction.


all movies are FICTION to one degree or another, if they werent then they'd be documentarys. thats why i use the term fiction.

carguy_
07-27-2007, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Oh, like these guys?

http://www.racematters.org/polesjewsdeepguilt.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


How about those (http://www.datasync.com/%7Edavidg59/einsatz.html)?

EiZ0N
07-27-2007, 06:13 PM
Von_Rat there is physically no way you can prove that huge films don't influence people's opinions of history.

If some guy knows nothing about a piece of history then sees a film titled such that it's supposedly about that time, and with some jingoistic jazz thrown in, he's going to have a false viewpoint of that event, even if he knows it's exaggerated/altered, because it still has a psychological effect.

Your personal friends are irrelevant to this.

JG4_Helofly
07-27-2007, 06:17 PM
IMO if you choose to base your story on a real event it should be represented correctly. Otherwise tell your own story and make what you want with it.

Bewolf
07-27-2007, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Oh, like these guys?

http://www.racematters.org/polesjewsdeepguilt.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


How about those (http://www.datasync.com/%7Edavidg59/einsatz.html)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, brothers in soul.

Von_Rat
07-27-2007, 06:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
Von_Rat there is physically no way you can prove that huge films don't influence people's opinions of history.

If some guy knows nothing about a piece of history then sees a film titled such that it's supposedly about that time, and with some jingoistic jazz thrown in, he's going to have a false viewpoint of that event, even if he knows it's exaggerated/altered, because it still has a psychological effect.

Your personal friends are irrelevant to this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you guys are the ones making claims that movies have influence on peoples opinions of history.

since its you guys that are making the claim, its you who have to present evidence to back it up, not me. so far the only evidence ive seen posted is what was heard from some drunks.

im detecting more elitist bs as this thread gets longer.

carguy_
07-27-2007, 06:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Ah, brothers in soul. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not by a long shot I`m afraid.

Bewolf
07-27-2007, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Ah, brothers in soul. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not by a long shot I`m afraid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ah yes, the blessing of ignorance.

carguy_
07-27-2007, 06:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
ah yes, the blessing of ignorance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

which is far less dangerous than cynicism.

Bewolf
07-27-2007, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
ah yes, the blessing of ignorance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

which is far less dangerous than cynicism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
What about making a film about your grandfather and portray him as a nice young and peace loving guy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I rest my case.

carguy_
07-27-2007, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
I rest my case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As it should be.

Rjel
07-27-2007, 07:16 PM
Ever read the credits at the end of a movie? Especially the very end where most films based on real events say something like this -
"This motion picture is based on actual events, but certain characters. organizations and/or events have been created and/or fictionalized."

I think any movie I've ever seen has a disclaimer like this or one of a similar nature. This one, BTW, was taken word for word from the end credits of a movie called MIRACLE. A great Hollywood made movie based on the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team. All I can say about it is USA!, USA!, USA!, USA!, USA!,USA! Nuff said.

Luke5skywalker4
07-27-2007, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
the concerns, at least here in Germany, about that Cruise is playing Stauffenberg is about that he is a Scientologist.
it has nothing to do that he is "no german" or that it is a "Hollywood production" !

Scientology has a very bad reputation here in Germany , its even not accepted as a church here.

actually nothing better could happen to the 1944 Resistance that such a mayor Production will show it - and will it make much better known worldwide, even here in Germany !

and about "Hollywood" cant make movies about this time - just think about "Shindlers List" , as an example.

that also movies like this "strange "U-Boat thing where the USN captured the enigame can happen - well, its still an industrie that wants eran money.

as i already said, im looking forward positiv to this movie ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, exactly. This was the point I was trying to raise.

If Cruise does good in this role than there won't be a problem. I just worry that this film will be entirely in English. I'm the type of person that likes to listen to an actual language being spoken while reading subtitles, plus I do know at least 3 years worth of German. I can at least look forward to the background of the film as Von Stauffenberg is a hero.

Plus, I enjoy films that stick with history and do not add creative license, such as with many German film productions. Here, in the U.S., there are also several good productions, but not very often. Pearl Harbor or U-571, for example, were quite terrible, IMO.

EiZ0N
07-27-2007, 08:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
Von_Rat there is physically no way you can prove that huge films don't influence people's opinions of history.

If some guy knows nothing about a piece of history then sees a film titled such that it's supposedly about that time, and with some jingoistic jazz thrown in, he's going to have a false viewpoint of that event, even if he knows it's exaggerated/altered, because it still has a psychological effect.

Your personal friends are irrelevant to this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you guys are the ones making claims that movies have influence on peoples opinions of history.

since its you guys that are making the claim, its you who have to present evidence to back it up, not me. so far the only evidence ive seen posted is what was heard from some drunks.

im detecting more elitist bs as this thread gets longer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh please.

You're also making a claim that movies with historical pretences don't influence some people's understandings of history, without proof.

The "you're making a claim so it's your job to provide evidence" line is the oldest one in the "How to argue badly on the internet" book, and can be applied to anything, including your own claims.

So just drop it, you can't prove it either way.

Though, you yourself state that "some drunks" (not a good way to go about an argument btw) would be influenced by this bstardisation of history, thus you could go on to say that...
some children
some naive adults
some adults with disadvantaged upbringing
some adults with certain political views
etc. could be influenced.

Ever heard of the slippery slope?

Point is, when an industry has enough clout to reach the eyes of so many people, it has a responsibility.

Von_Rat
07-27-2007, 08:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
Von_Rat there is physically no way you can prove that huge films don't influence people's opinions of history.

If some guy knows nothing about a piece of history then sees a film titled such that it's supposedly about that time, and with some jingoistic jazz thrown in, he's going to have a false viewpoint of that event, even if he knows it's exaggerated/altered, because it still has a psychological effect.

Your personal friends are irrelevant to this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you guys are the ones making claims that movies have influence on peoples opinions of history.

since its you guys that are making the claim, its you who have to present evidence to back it up, not me. so far the only evidence ive seen posted is what was heard from some drunks.

im detecting more elitist bs as this thread gets longer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh please.

You're also making a claim that movies with historical pretences don't influence some people's understandings of history, without proof.

The "you're making a claim so it's your job to provide evidence" line is the oldest one in the "How to argue badly on the internet" book, and can be applied to anything, including your own claims.

So just drop it, you can't prove it either way.

Though, you yourself state that "some drunks" (not a good way to go about an argument btw) would be influenced by this bstardisation of history, thus you could go on to say that...
some children
some naive adults
some adults with disadvantaged upbringing
some adults with certain political views
etc. could be influenced.

Ever heard of the slippery slope?

Point is, when an industry has enough clout to reach the eyes of so many people, it has a responsibility. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


the person making the claim has the responsibility to present statments supporting his claims. that goes back to basic debating rules if i remember correctly. it applied long before the internet. its not up to me to prove a negative.

it was one of your buddys who presented the drunks evidence, not me. i also stated to him that if your just going by what strangers say when theyre drunk in a bar, you dont have much of a argument. i also stated that if you could talk to them sober and as a friend, they'd probaly admit that they dont know and even more important, that they dont care either.

EiZ0N
07-27-2007, 08:38 PM
You're making a claim too, and you haven't provided any evidence, so quit *****ing about a lack of evidence.

It's a moot point.

At the end of the day, it simply shows a sad state of affairs for both consumer and the industry, when things such as ww2 are sexed up so that dumb action-obsessed goons can sit and clap their hands in a cinema.

Tell the story right, because it's an insult to the people involved to sex up a history.

Von_Rat
07-27-2007, 08:41 PM
i wasnt making a claim, i was refuting yours.



face it, your just another elitist who thinks ordinary people, not himself of course, are easily influnced sheep, or should i say "goons".

its bs and i think you know it.

BfHeFwMe
07-28-2007, 12:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kongo Otto:
I hope he plays a good role as von Stauffenberg
and not a mix from MI-III meets Pearl Harbor.


btw,
Iam German and i like Hollywood Movies very much.
But mostly i like the old Hoolywood Giants
as Steve McQueen etc.
Bullitt is my al time Favorite.
Best car Chase ever.
just saying:"Bad Boys always drive Charger" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

McQueen drove Mustang, the best Dodge Challenger movie is Vanishing Point. Check it out, shot in 71, great camera work, the Turbocharged Challenger sounds are bloody awsume. No seatbelts in those beauties, not even the Fuzz are wearing them.

For the bashers, here's a simple idea, you don't like em, don't watch! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

csThor
07-28-2007, 12:44 AM
The fuss about this movie in Germany is - as Frankyboy said - based on Cruise's membership with Scientology. If he kept that one private noone would have raised a hair and I bet the movie set would have been allowed to use the Bendlerblock, but:

Cruise has always used his popularity to advertize for Scientology (the "information tent" was already mentioned) and he tried to use it to influence US politicians to exert political pressure on Germany where Scientology is considered a fascistic and totalitarian organisation with a pseudo-religious facade and is being monitored by the state's intelligence service. He even dared to make a comparison between the situation of Scientology in modern Germany and the Jews during the 3rd Reich - and that was what angered a lot of people here. Scientology is so obviously a psycho sect with just financial interests and dreams of total control and domination that many folks think of Cruise as the worst possible cast for a man who stood up against a tyrant (even though Stauffenberg was by no means a democrat as modern historians would like to portray him).

MrMojok
07-28-2007, 12:57 AM
Yep. The Germans don't take kindly to moneymaking schemes attempting to masquerade as organized religions, and I support them 100% in that point of view. More power to 'em.

Feathered_IV
07-28-2007, 04:38 AM
Okay, say someone made a movie called, VON RAT - "based on a true story". Say for "artistic licence" this particular von rat was portrayed completely differently to the real V_R. Maybe as a world saving hero. Maybe a psychotic murderer. Do you think the movie would influence the way people would judge you when meeting you for the first time?

Answer truthfully.

Blood_Splat
07-28-2007, 04:48 AM
I wonder how they will model the FM. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

carguy_
07-28-2007, 05:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
Yep. The Germans don't take kindly to moneymaking schemes attempting to masquerade as organized religions, and I support them 100% in that point of view. More power to 'em. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The German society don`t take any kind of religious interference into the state`s souvereignity kindly. A good model to be learned from IMO.

HuninMunin
07-28-2007, 06:40 AM
@ Carguy

What was that question about? ( asking honestly - no sarcasm)

@ von Rat

You keep mentioning artistic license ( wich no one here neglects) but my question is about the measure of this license and wether it should be allowed to alter truth in a way that paints an overall wrong picture of the real thing.

And to wether the "masses" are influenced - just visit the IMDB forums for an hour and see.

EiZ0N
07-28-2007, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i wasnt making a claim, i was refuting yours.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
To refute something you need evidence or proof.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">face it, your just another elitist who thinks ordinary people, not himself of course, are easily influnced sheep, or should i say "goons".

its bs and i think you know it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not an elitist I'm a realist.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And to wether the "masses" are influenced - just visit the IMDB forums for an hour and see. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Haha, so true.

Besides, you're repeatedly avoiding the other more important point, that thousands of people were involved in historical events portrayed in film, and many sacrificed everything, and there's a responsibility to the memory of these people to keep the events accurate. Otherwise, it's an INSULT, and I think you know it.

Dtools4fools
07-28-2007, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I wish some of these other countries would get their acts together and start making their own movies so some of you can finally STHU about it. Roll Eyes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some do.

There's an movie made in Germany called 'Das Boot'.

Then look at the cr@p Hollywood made, with Bon Jovi....arrrghhh...
----

Daiichidoku
07-28-2007, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
McQueen drove Mustang, the best Dodge Challenger movie is Vanishing Point. Check it out, shot in 71, great camera work, the Turbocharged Challenger sounds are bloody awsume. No seatbelts in those beauties, not even the Fuzz are wearing them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

340 six-pack (triple carb) challenger..not turbo, or supercharged

the challenger used in movie is still around...they used a 68 camaro in the end "dozer death" sequence

the challenger, and all cryco cop cars in movie had two-piece seatbelts, the shoulder belts then were mounted separate of the lap belts, on the ceiling

US and canadian law allowed for optional use of shoulder belts in this config, lap belts were still mandatory though

Von_Rat
07-28-2007, 12:11 PM
To refute something you need evidence or proof.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

not true, all you have to do to refute a claim by someone is to show that they did not present any evidence to support their claim,,,which you didnt. unless you count the drunks.



__________________________________________________ _______________________
I'm not an elitist I'm a realist.
__________________________________________________ ________

your an elistest because you think your smarter than ordinary people. you called them goons i believe.

your not as smart as you think you are.



there is no responsablity for accuracy in movies. its been that way for 100 years. before that the same thing applied to lititure, which goes back to the beginning of civilisation. you guys are ranting about somthing that has been settled since the dawn of history. its not going to change now because it offends a few elitist.


if you want accuracy watch a documentary, only little children believe movies are accurate.

Von_Rat
07-28-2007, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Okay, say someone made a movie called, VON RAT - "based on a true story". Say for "artistic licence" this particular von rat was portrayed completely differently to the real V_R. Maybe as a world saving hero. Maybe a psychotic murderer. Do you think the movie would influence the way people would judge you when meeting you for the first time?

Answer truthfully. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


hmmm since im not a public figure i could sue them for libel, or is it slander. of course there's always that"living or dead" thing. but then it wouldnt really be about me would it.


the rules are differant if the person is a public figure..

BigC208
07-28-2007, 01:54 PM
Hey look at this way. The movie with Cruise will get a lot of attention. This film, with Helmut von Shweine Brot in the lead (or a younger Rutger Hauer) would not get the light of day. Now more people will have a chance to see that not all Germans where brainwashed, follow the leader, puppets. Most guys on this forum allready knew that but it might be enlightening for he general population at large.

EiZ0N
07-28-2007, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
To refute something you need evidence or proof.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

not true, all you have to do to refute a claim by someone is to show that they did not present any evidence to support their claim,,,which you didnt. unless you count the drunks.



__________________________________________________ _______________________
I'm not an elitist I'm a realist.
__________________________________________________ ________

your an elistest because you think your smarter than ordinary people. you called them goons i believe.

your not as smart as you think you are.



there is no responsablity for accuracy in movies. its been that way for 100 years. before that the same thing applied to lititure, which goes back to the beginning of civilisation. you guys are ranting about somthing that has been settled since the dawn of history. its not going to change now because it offends a few elitist.


if you want accuracy watch a documentary, only little children believe movies are accurate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you even know what an elitist is?

And stop going on about drunks, you're not making a strong argument.

You haven't refuted anything. Saying "I disagree" isn't a refutal.

Fact is, there are many ongoing studies into how media affects society, so how you can sit there and declare that YOU know the answer is frankly stupid (do you think you're smarter than everyone else or something?).

Von_Rat
07-28-2007, 05:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
To refute something you need evidence or proof.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

not true, all you have to do to refute a claim by someone is to show that they did not present any evidence to support their claim,,,which you didnt. unless you count the drunks.



__________________________________________________ _______________________
I'm not an elitist I'm a realist.
__________________________________________________ ________

your an elistest because you think your smarter than ordinary people. you called them goons i believe.

your not as smart as you think you are.



there is no responsablity for accuracy in movies. its been that way for 100 years. before that the same thing applied to lititure, which goes back to the beginning of civilisation. you guys are ranting about somthing that has been settled since the dawn of history. its not going to change now because it offends a few elitist.


if you want accuracy watch a documentary, only little children believe movies are accurate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you even know what an elitist is?

And stop going on about drunks, you're not making a strong argument.

You haven't refuted anything. Saying "I disagree" isn't a refutal.

Fact is, there are many ongoing studies into how media affects society, so how you can sit there and declare that YOU know the answer is frankly stupid (do you think you're smarter than everyone else or something?). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


heres a definition of elitist from the dictionary,,,,,,

consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.

yep that sounds like you.


it was your buddy who brought up the drunks as proof, not me. i told him it wasnt a strong argument. now this is the second time i had to point that out to you.

i can refute you just by pointing out you havent posted proof to backup your claim. i have no claim to make except that you havent posted any proof for your statments.

if there are studies backing up your claim why dont you cite them instead of making claims with no proof. then i might listen.

its you who are the declaring you know the answer, i was just pointing out to you that you need proof.

its pretty clear that its YOU who think they are smarter than every one else.
i wasnt the one calling ordinary people goons, you were. shall i quote you again.
__________________________________________________ _______
EiZ0N
when things such as ww2 are sexed up so that dumb action-obsessed goons can sit and clap their hands in a cinema.
__________________________________________________ ___________


it doesnt matter anyway because,,,, to repeat....

there is no responsablity for accuracy in movies. its been that way for 100 years. before that the same thing applied to lititure, which goes back to the beginning of civilisation. you guys are ranting about somthing that has been settled since the dawn of history. its not going to change now because it offends a few elitist.

Xiolablu3
07-28-2007, 05:46 PM
Top Gun is a fricking great movie.

I must have seen it about 50 times.

HuninMunin
07-28-2007, 05:46 PM
I can't take it anymore http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Feathered didn't ask you about if you liked the artisic license used portraying you but if you think wether it would change the public opinion about the real von Rat.
And still no answer, even though I tried to be more precise with my question...

HuninMunin
07-28-2007, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Top Gun is a fricking great movie.

I must have seen it about 50 times. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

100 %

Von_Rat
07-28-2007, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
I can't take it anymore http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Feathered didn't ask you about if you liked the artisic license used portraying you but if you think wether it would change the public opinion about the real von Rat.
And still no answer, even though I tried to be more precise with my question... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


oh i misunderstood. actually i think he has a better argument the other way.


but anyway ,,, no i dont think it would in any meaningful way. famous people especially actors or polititions, have lies or worse printed about them everyday. they even make movies about them that arent accurate and are full of lies or distortions. but people dont care. they still go to see those actors and vote for those polititions.

HuninMunin
07-28-2007, 06:01 PM
I just want to say first that this post has nill sarcasm in it ( might be taken as such).

I get that you think it is OK to paint a completely different picture in a movie (compared to the real thing) because:

a)The audience doesn't care really anyway
b)There is no harm "lieing" (because of point a)

?

Von_Rat
07-28-2007, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
I just want to say first that this post has nill sarcasm in it ( might be taken as such).

I get that you think it is OK to paint a completely different picture in a movie (compared to the real thing) because:

a)The audience doesn't care really anyway
b)There is no harm "lieing" (because of point a)

? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



thats the way the world works, theres lies and distortion even in the newspapers, but you guys go on and on that the movies have to tell the story the way YOU want it told.

cry all you want, but it aint never going to happen.

answer is,,, a, b

and (c),,,to quote myself again....

there is no responsablity for accuracy in movies. its been that way for 100 years. before that the same thing applied to lititure, which goes back to the beginning of civilisation. you guys are ranting about somthing that has been settled since the dawn of history. its not going to change now because it offends a few elitist.

HuninMunin
07-28-2007, 06:21 PM
With a mind like yours there would never have been a civilisation.
We don't want a movie the way we'd like it - some of us draw something out of movies ( call it a message for simplicity ) - but a movie that gives impression of the thing it depicts.

Your answer C is my a and b combined so I take it as a "yes".

"The world is bad - live with it?"
Great atitude mate.

Von_Rat
07-28-2007, 06:27 PM
this civilation has been built with a literary tradition that i am supporting and that movies today are merely a extention of. you are wilfully ignoring that. shakspeare for instance, distorted history and put words in the mouths of historical figures that they never said.

i didnt say the world is bad. i said ,,,,thats the way the world works.

and yes you have to live with it.

Von_Rat
07-28-2007, 06:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We don't want a movie the way we'd like it - some of us draw something out of movies ( call it a message for simplicity ) - but a movie that gives impression of the thing it depicts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


thats the rub right there,,, who decides how "a movie that gives impression of the thing it depicts" is made.

the way it always has worked, not just in movies, but lititure and art as well, is the artist or creators decide. then the audience decides if they like it or not.

do you propose that someone besides the artist or creators decide. hasnt that been tried before with bad consequences.

Von_Rat
07-28-2007, 07:10 PM
its seems certain people here have no idea how art works. and yes, movies are art. i think thats the problem, these people dont think of movies as art. they think of them as somthing special, they're not. just like a painting or a novel, a movie may or may not accuratly depict its subject matter. it all depends on the skill of the artists and their artistic vision.. after the artist creates his vision of the subject, its up to the audience to decide if its worthy or not.

HuninMunin
07-28-2007, 07:18 PM
I define the way you describe the world as bad - but that's worth a PM discussion ( I think we bore the hell out of everyone anyway ).

As for the literary tradition I think you mix two different things that are eachothers hard contrast.
Shakespeare or any other literates had absolutely no personal experience or sources to draw from - that makes their work completly artificial ( if you pardon the pun ).

The modern entertainment movie does ( as "old" plays or operas ) aim for just that : entertainment.
The difference is that the meaning beyond those works is more and more pushed aside - and the reach for an artistic meaning is absolutely the only justifiable reason for artistic license.

Films like Schindler's List or Das Boot have the meaning to show how it felt back in the hour.

Movies like Flyboys or U-571 could hardly be accused of conveying any philosophical meaning - nor do they discuss a problem or ethical conflict.
Do they succesfully try to depict a realistic picture?
The sources are widespread in those cases.
They could but do not depict past reality.
And this purposed alteration does not happen for artistic meaning.
This makes them pornography.

The whole concept of using a real setting that caused unthinkable pain in reality for entertainment could be seen as beeing imoral ( see Raaaid ).


All of that cannot bother you as you seem to be superior to moral thinking and allready dulled enough to just accept your image of reality ( no offense ment).

But to answer your question: I think that every creator of art should be aware of the responsibility they ware ( if you allow to mention that at least some members of the audience will take the seen for granted ).

EiZ0N
07-28-2007, 07:19 PM
Sod it, I've deleted this.

I'm above arguing with you on this any further.

For the record, google it yourself - effect of media on society.

Von_Rat
07-28-2007, 07:33 PM
i already eleborated. you think ordinary people are goons. and that your superior.


my point is that you have yet to post anything to support your claim. since you refuse to post any evidence, how can i refute your evidence, theres nothing to refute.

unlike you i believe ordinary people are smart enough not to be influenced in any meaningful way by a mere movie.


your last sentence just shows that your ignorant about the way art works.

perhaps this will help,,,

its seems certain people here have no idea how art works. and yes, movies are art. i think thats the problem, these people dont think of movies as art. they think of them as somthing special, they're not. just like a painting or a novel, a movie may or may not accuratly depict its subject matter. it all depends on the skill of the artists and their artistic vision.. after the artist creates his vision of the subject, its up to the audience to decide if its worthy or not.

HuninMunin
07-28-2007, 07:45 PM
Was that one adressed to me mate?

Von_Rat
07-28-2007, 07:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
I define the way you describe the world as bad - but that's worth a PM discussion ( I think we bore the hell out of everyone anyway ).

As for the literary tradition I think you mix two different things that are eachothers hard contrast.
Shakespeare or any other literates had absolutely no personal experience or sources to draw from - that makes their work completly artificial ( if you pardon the pun ).

The modern entertainment movie does ( as "old" plays or operas ) aim for just that : entertainment.
The difference is that the meaning beyond those works is more and more pushed aside - and the reach for an artistic meaning is absolutely the only justifiable reason for artistic license.

Films like Schindler's List or Das Boot have the meaning to show how it felt back in the hour.

Movies like Flyboys or U-571 could hardly be accused of conveying any philosophical meaning - nor do they discuss a problem or ethical conflict.
Do they succesfully try to depict a realistic picture?
The sources are widespread in those cases.
They could but do not depict past reality.
And this purposed alteration does not happen for artistic meaning.
This makes them pornography.

The whole concept of using a real setting that caused unthinkable pain in reality for entertainment could be seen as beeing imoral ( see Raaaid ).


All of that cannot bother you as you seem to be superior to moral thinking and allready dulled enough to just accept your image of reality ( no offense ment).

But to answer your question: I think that every creator of art should be aware of the responsibility they ware ( if you allow to mention that at least some members of the audience will take the seen for granted ). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



so we get back to who decides,,, YOU,,,or the artist and the audience.


u571 and flyboys did a poor job depicting events in your opinion.

others can say, and have, that picasso did a poor job in depicting the world in his paintings and sulpture. picasso had the real world right in front of him, yet he chose to distort it to meet his artistic vision.

your not the first to call art, that doesnt fit your criteria, pornography.


you say that you,,"think that every creator of art should be aware of the responsibility they ware".

who enforces this responsbility? you? or the audience.


the way the world works is the artist creates and the audience judges. you are not the whole audience and not everyone shares your ideas in whats important in art.


oh as far as shakspeare goes, he had quite a few historical sources. i believe he used the work of the roman author plutarch to base his anthony and cleoprata on. im sure there are otheer cases as well. the point is he still distort what history sources he did have on those events. he did it for artistic purposes, and i appluad him for it.

huggy87
07-28-2007, 07:50 PM
It's the Von_rat and Hunin Munin shoooooooooooooow!

Von_Rat
07-28-2007, 07:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Was that one adressed to me mate? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no is was meant for eizon. it was suupposed to be below his last post.

HuninMunin
07-28-2007, 07:55 PM
That's right Huggy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Picasso had a vision and wanted to compress the emotional value of the world as he saw it.

The makers of said films had no vision to show anything.
If I am wrong on that one - please give me an example from these films.

Just as a sidenote: Any ethical responsibility is free of the need for enforcement.
If I follow your logic the only reason I don't shoot my mother in law is because of the law enforcement.

It is not about the quality of the work.
It is about the intention.

HuninMunin
07-28-2007, 07:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Was that one adressed to me mate? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no is was meant for eizon. it was suupposed to be below his last post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok.
I started to worry about were I might have been unpolite. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Von_Rat
07-28-2007, 08:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
That's right Huggy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Picasso had a vision and wanted to compress the emotional value of the world as he saw it.

The makers of said films had no vision to show anything.
If I am wrong on that one - please give me an example from these films.

Just as a sidenote: Any ethical responsibility is free of the need for enforcement.
If I follow your logic the only reason I don't shoot my mother in law is because of the law enforcement.

It is not about the quality of the work.
It is about the intention. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


once again who decides. many decided picasso was a nut and his work had no artistic value.

im sure the makers of u571 and flyboys had a vision, they were just lousy at translating it into art. eastwood and spielberg take liberties to, theyre just better at translating their vision into art.

__________________________________________________ ______
Any ethical responsibility is free of the need for enforcement.
__________________________________________________ ______



once again who decides whats ethical in art.

EiZ0N
07-28-2007, 08:11 PM
You're forcing me to continue this pointless debate.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i already eleborated. you think ordinary people are goons. and that your superior. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where have I said that ordinary people are goons?

Or that I'm superior to ordinary people.

Quote please...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">unlike you i believe ordinary people are smart enough not to be influenced in any meaningful way by a mere movie.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Prove it. (Don't bother, it's not possible to prove)

It's a debate that's raged for decades for gods sake. Why do you think movie ratings exist?

BTW your spiel about art is irrelevant.

Von_Rat
07-28-2007, 08:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
You're making a claim too, and you haven't provided any evidence, so quit *****ing about a lack of evidence.

It's a moot point.

At the end of the day, it simply shows a sad state of affairs for both consumer and the industry, when things such as ww2 are sexed up so that dumb action-obsessed goons can sit and clap their hands in a cinema.

Tell the story right, because it's an insult to the people involved to sex up a history. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


here you go.

Von_Rat
07-28-2007, 08:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BTW your spiel about art is irrelevant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


i didnt think you'd be able to grasp it. every post you made shows you dont understand that movies are art.

hunnin munnin may disagree with me but at least he grasps the concept.

EiZ0N
07-28-2007, 08:18 PM
I said that people who prefer things like ww2 to be plastered over with bull**** are dumb action-obsessed goons.

Not "ordinary" people.

Address my other points (if you can)


I know movies are art. Address the real points.

Von_Rat
07-28-2007, 08:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
I said that people who prefer things like ww2 to be plastered over with bull**** are dumb action-obsessed goons.

Not "ordinary" people.

Address my other points (if you can)


I know movies are art. Address the real points. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you said,,,"when things such as ww2 are sexed up so that dumb action-obsessed goons can sit and clap their hands in a cinema."


if that doesnt show comtempt for ordinary people, i dont know what does. perhaps ordinary is the wrong word. it shows contempt for those whose prioritys in a movie arent the same as yours.

ive address your other points ad nausem.

im still waiting for proof. so is the rest of the world according to the statment you made about those studies.


bedtime goodnite all.

EiZ0N
07-28-2007, 08:32 PM
No, I'm saying people who rate those films highly are action-obsessed goons.

Most people don't like those movies, which is why they have bad reviews. Thus, not "ordinary" (that's a word you tried to pin on me)

You haven't addressed my points. Either give up and say "Ok, I'm wrong", or explain why there are movie ratings, if there is no evidence that movies influence people.

Your time starts now...

Von_Rat
07-28-2007, 08:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
No, I'm saying people who rate those films highly are action-obsessed goons.

Most people don't like those movies, which is why they have bad reviews. Thus, not "ordinary" (that's a word you tried to pin on me)

You haven't addressed my points. Either give up and say "Ok, I'm wrong", or explain why there are movie ratings, if there is no evidence that movies influence people.

Your time starts now... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol no it dont, im going to bed.

ill answer in the morning.

goodnite all.

HuninMunin
07-28-2007, 08:37 PM
Again:
It is not relevant what folks thought about Picasso. He had a vision to capture something in his paintings.
And the comparsion is a little off anyway because Picasso always painted what he found worth painting - not what would make the most cash for him.

Again:
Give an example from said films that somehow ( even if badly) tries to convey a message?

Refreshment on ethics:

An ethical value is something that the human beeing can agree upon by it's own mind - not by the domination of another human beeing.

And good night to you too.