Saving Private Ryan
Jim Kimes
movie that I have ever seen that portrays WWII in such a gritty,
frightening, gory fashion. As you watch, you wonder how the infantry
soldier did it. Storming the beach at Omaha was as intense a battle scene
that I've ever witnessed in a movie. If you're a strategy, wargamer, or
WWII history buff - GO SEE IT!
Ksu93
Agreed, but you don't have to be a strategy, wargamer, or WWII history buff to
see it. I think everyone should see it so they can appreciate their freedom a
little more.
------------
There are two secrets to life:
1. Never tell people everything you know
Jim Kimes
Ksu93 wrote in message <199807251246...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
W Jake Faust
as I'm concerned at this point in time.
Until SPR, I thought "When Trumpets Fade" was the best close combat recreation
effort to ever be immortalized in celluloid, for our contemporary society to
ponder over and to hopefully never forget what really takes place behind all the
Hollywood and political bullshit! Followed closely by Hamburger Hill and Platoon
-IMHO
SPR is the best reason I have ever seen to give (show) to a child to teach them
a lesson about playing with guns, get into violent practices or become a menace
to society. Jeez, a few members of the audience where I watched it had to leave
as it was simply too much for them and they were adults.
On the positive side, (if there is one) It also teaches about heroism, devotion,
motivation, dedication, sacrifice and purpose of being as well as the true cost
liberty and freedom and those who paid for it with their life's blood.
If only this movie was released on the 50th anniversary of the battle. I cannot
think of a more fitting testament to the gallant people who participated.
-Least we forget
-
Peace; Love & Joy,
Bill Faust
Citizen of the World
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
"The ability to realize one's goals does not depend solely on technical
knowledge or factual accuracy. A great part relies on the strength of one's
vision and the courage and determination to solidify dreams." - Wm Faust
"He who conquers others is strong, He who conquers himself is mighty." -Lao Tzu
"Evil must be in order to allow for the heroic." - Wm Faust
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Email - fa...@hula.net
Web - http://hula.net/~faust/bill.html
UIN - 3464668
Phone/fax - 808.848.5111
WebPager - http://wwp.mirabilis.com/3464668
Redwing009
disturbing. The utter insanity and chaos of combat was IMO captured perfectly.
I keep asking myself why people who are rational would ever allow their
leaders to get them involved in such an irrational act as warfare?
For those of you who "play" games such as paintball please see this to
understand what all of those fake paint splats represent in real combat. I'm
not trying to be melodramatic here.
This movie really got to me, and I'm not squeamish, or insulated from violence.
My only concern here is that the younger crowd that sees this film is so
insensitve to violence these days tha they may actually find this film somehow
"fun".
I saw it last night and the crowd was for the most part very young. I'm really
not sure how they took it. The audience was for the most part in dead silence
following the movie. No claps, no discussion, no smart remarks. There were some
laughs during the movie ( some moments were meant to evoke laughter), but by in
large I have never seen people react quite this way.
I certainly understand the bravery and dedication of the men who fight battles,
but I still come back to the nightmare i saw on screen and ask myself "why?"
How can we allow ourselves to become what I saw portrayed on the screen?
Richard Manning
great. Tom Sizemore might get a "best supporting Actor" nod too. This
movie will make Edward Burns a household name too. BY FAR...the best..yet
very very sad movie I have ever seen!!!! I consider myself a mans man...and
I cried like a baby at end of the movie. It really affected me deeply. I
mean...when I walked out of the theater...I couldn't talk for twenty
minutes. MUST SEE!!!!
Richard
Redwing009 wrote in message
<199807251508...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Terry A. McKelvey
Jim Kimes wrote:
I totally agree too. If after viewing that film, you don't leave very
emotional, you are built of stone.
I am going back to play Close Combat II some more. I think that I will have a
greater appreciation for the men that I command there :).
Terry
Tirpitz
best movie to reflect the realisum of combat. I have been playing combat
simulations and strategy games for close to 20 years. I studied and read
about most combat engagments across history. I have visited many parks and
museums, examining the tools of combat. But even with all this information i
was not prepeared for the truly horrible, confusing, scary, disorienting,
and awe of this movie. I belive this movie to give sombody a insight to the
horrors and war without being there. During the starting combat scenes at
the beach i was overcome with shock and awe, i actualy felt the hoplessness
of the tropps as they made their assault. I belive this movie will be the
top movie of the year, and for anybody interested in the history of wwII it
will be the movie of the century. I reflects in many ways the different
aspects of combat. Being german i also was touched to see that spielburg
displayed the germans and americans as equals on the field. This is one of
the few movies that displayes the german soldier as another human been, not
as the evil nazi. (The avarage grunt was just a grunt) It brought tears to
my eyes on many ocations. The most sadening part of the movie was not the
movie itself, but the effect it had on the audience. I watched it in the
afternoon and about 30 percent of the audience was over the age of 50. After
the movie ended the tears and weaps from many of theme soon took over the
whole movie theater. I have never seen a movie have such an effect on me or
a complete audience. Most of us remainded in the theater for another 15
minutes just sitting there, trying to regain get a handle on things. This is
a very powerfull movie and i can only recommend seing it.
Andreas Hauschild aka Tirpitz
Dean Mitchell
Jim Kimes wrote in message <6pcnqt$c...@examiner.concentric.net>...
jsm...@tiny.net
>I keep asking myself why people who are rational would ever allow their
>leaders to get them involved in such an irrational act as warfare?
>I certainly understand the bravery and dedication of the men who fight battles,
>but I still come back to the nightmare i saw on screen and ask myself "why?"
>How can we allow ourselves to become what I saw portrayed on the screen?
Because not fighting Hitler would have left us with a far, far
worse world. Ask any Jew, gypsy, Pole, Ukrainian, Czech, etc. who
survived the concentration camps if WWII was necessary.
--
Jim Smilanich | "A man should be able to pilot a
jsm...@tiny.net | starship, plan an invasion, diaper
Tiny (not) is my access | a baby.... specialization is
provider, so don't blame| for insects!" -- Lazarus Long
them for my opinions! | SgtRock[Wolf] for Quake and Close Combat
An...@my-dejanews.com
jsm...@tiny.net wrote:
> Redwing009 <redwi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >I keep asking myself why people who are rational would ever allow their
> >leaders to get them involved in such an irrational act as warfare?
>
> >I certainly understand the bravery and dedication of the men who fight
battles,
> >but I still come back to the nightmare i saw on screen and ask myself "why?"
> >How can we allow ourselves to become what I saw portrayed on the screen?
>
> Because not fighting Hitler would have left us with a far, far
> worse world. Ask any Jew, gypsy, Pole, Ukrainian, Czech, etc. who
> survived the concentration camps if WWII was necessary.
>
I fully agree. Warfare is horrible but it is not necessarily irrational.
Self defense is a perfectly legitimate reason to go to war.
Andy S.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Michael Bay
>
> Redwing009 <redwi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >I keep asking myself why people who are rational would ever allow their
> >leaders to get them involved in such an irrational act as warfare?
>
> >I certainly understand the bravery and dedication of the men who fight battles,
> >but I still come back to the nightmare i saw on screen and ask myself "why?"
> >How can we allow ourselves to become what I saw portrayed on the screen?
>
> Because not fighting Hitler would have left us with a far, far
> worse world. Ask any Jew, gypsy, Pole, Ukrainian, Czech, etc. who
> survived the concentration camps if WWII was necessary.
Further more, ask any citizen of France, Belgium, the Netherlands,
Denmark, Norway, Austria, Czechloslovakia, Greece, and other countries
invaded and conquered by Hitler's armies. Ask the armies and people of
the Soviet Union and Britain who fought valiantly and at times alone to
protect their sovereignty.
The question of how normal, rational people end up in totally
irrational, surreal situations like war, and how those situations change
us, is one of the most important questions we can ask, of ourselves and
of each other. Do we want our children to be trapped on the next Omaha
beach? Can we do anything to prevent that nightmare?
Daniel Lemberg
a "no fault" (or rather an "everyones fault") war; in which two overly rigid
and militaristic alliances used an assassination of a minor leader as an
excuse to bash heads. Germany lost, and under the name of "reparations" was
crushed economically to the point of mass desperation. Hitler promised, and
provided, a solution to their despair, albeit a temporary one. WWI was also
responsible for the fall of the Russian tsars (although it might have
happened a later date anyway), and so was indirectly responsible for the
cold war. Instead of asking, "why did we fight WWII?", ask yourself, "why
did WWI errupt in the first place?". The only answer I can see is that
humans can be the dumbest of animals; Europe caused its own problems, and no
country was blameless.
I can't spread the blame for the war in the Pacific, however. The Japanese
were militaristic simply because they had a militaristic society; their
people believed in their own divine right to rule the world. They attacked
China to gain raw materials, and attacked the U.S. when the U.S. stopped
selling scrap iron (which they turned into planes and battleships) to them.
They were a relic in the 20th century; a product of their own isolationism.
Asia and the U.S. paid the price of their irrationalism.
DrummGuy13
perfect job of illustrating the randomness of combat, not knowing if you will
be alive in 5 seconds. It seems like you might as well flip a coin and have
that decide whether you will live or die.
Louis J.M
>I know this is kinda off-topic, but wow, what a movie. This is the first
>movie that I have ever seen that portrays WWII in such a gritty,
>frightening, gory fashion.
You must not see a lot of movies.
>As you watch, you wonder how the infantry
>soldier did it. Storming the beach at Omaha was as intense a battle scene
>that I've ever witnessed in a movie. If you're a strategy, wargamer, or
>WWII history buff - GO SEE IT!
Thanks Steven. Hopefully it's ratings will go higher this week, and
you won't have to resort to promoting it yourself.
--
Louis J.M
"I feel great! Smarter! More agressive!" - Purple Tentacle
Jim Kimes
Hey Steamboat Willie (toot,toot)
Wish I was Mr. Speilberg. I sure wouldn't be sitting here replying to posts
like yours. I'd probably be making another movie masterpiece or at least
sitting on my yacht enjoying a dry martinin.
Louis J.M wrote in message <5EMu1.540$S_3.7...@news2.jacksonville.net>...
Louis J.M
>
>Hey Steamboat Willie (toot,toot)
>
>Wish I was Mr. Speilberg. I sure wouldn't be sitting here replying to posts
>like yours. I'd probably be making another movie masterpiece or at least
>sitting on my yacht enjoying a dry martinin.
Someday I will be (Notice the genuine DS likeness in my personality) the
greatest movie director in the world! It's one of my biggest goals. That and
inventing the Repulsor Lift (tm).
James Gassaway
alot for the movie. When I saw it, the theatre was about 90% full.
Usually when the theatre is that full there is a lot of talking as people
leave when the film is over. Especially for films with as much FX as
this one, people are going "Ya, that was neat", "This character was
really dumb", "They should have done this not that", etc. etc. Not this
time. _Everyone_ was quiet as they left. No one said anything, just
slowly and quietly left.
--
Dimensional Traveler
Commander, WarForce Omega (the Star Killers), Multiversal Mercenaries.
You name it, we kill it, any time, any reality.
Allan Parent
first
>movie that I have ever seen that portrays WWII in such a gritty,
>frightening, gory fashion.
You must not see a lot of movies.>>
It is the best representaion of WWII.....period. I have seen most all of
the WWII movies and this is by far the most realistic.
<<As you watch, you wonder how the infantry
>soldier did it. Storming the beach at Omaha was as intense a battle
scene
>that I've ever witnessed in a movie. If you're a strategy, wargamer,
or
>WWII history buff - GO SEE IT!
Thanks Steven. Hopefully it's ratings will go higher this week, and>>
you won't have to resort to promoting it yourself.>>
It is a great movie and this guy, like almost everbody that has seen it
is deeply moved.
Allan
Kman
> Thanks Steven. Hopefully it's ratings will go higher this week, and
> you won't have to resort to promoting it yourself.
>
Does it help you out personally when you dump sarcasm all over a friendly
post? Just wondered. I always like to get to the root of another's angst,
you know.
----------------
KMan
rotting corpse
>
> Hopefully someone else out there will understand why I think this says
> alot for the movie. When I saw it, the theatre was about 90% full.
> Usually when the theatre is that full there is a lot of talking as people
> leave when the film is over. Especially for films with as much FX as
> this one, people are going "Ya, that was neat", "This character was
> really dumb", "They should have done this not that", etc. etc. Not this
> time. _Everyone_ was quiet as they left. No one said anything, just
> slowly and quietly left.
>
Really? When I saw it, some guy pulled down his pants and screamed
"I'm PEE-WEE HERMAN!!!!! AAAGHHH!!!!"
Reza John Khakbaz-Nejad
Allan Parent wrote:
> <<>I know this is kinda off-topic, but wow, what a movie. This is the
> first
> >movie that I have ever seen that portrays WWII in such a gritty,
> >frightening, gory fashion.
>
> You must not see a lot of movies.>>
>
> It is the best representaion of WWII.....period. I have seen most all of
> the WWII movies and this is by far the most realistic.
>
> <<As you watch, you wonder how the infantry
> >soldier did it. Storming the beach at Omaha was as intense a battle
> scene
> >that I've ever witnessed in a movie. If you're a strategy, wargamer,
> or
> >WWII history buff - GO SEE IT!
>
> Thanks Steven. Hopefully it's ratings will go higher this week, and>>
> you won't have to resort to promoting it yourself.>>
>
> It is a great movie and this guy, like almost everbody that has seen it
> is deeply moved.
>
> Allan
If this type of gore whould have been allowed at the time (and the
technology was
there to support it), I think "All Quiet on the Western Front" would have
been
a very similar movie.
Louis J.M
><<>I know this is kinda off-topic, but wow, what a movie. This is the
>first
>>movie that I have ever seen that portrays WWII in such a gritty,
>>frightening, gory fashion.
>
>You must not see a lot of movies.>>
>
>It is the best representaion of WWII.....period. I have seen most all of
>the WWII movies and this is by far the most realistic.
Really, and I suppose you were opening a can of whoop ass on Hitler
alongside other French and Englishmen in the 1940's?
I have some respect for Steven Spielberg - he is a great director, but only
because his movies are his thoughts on the world, his imagination. Not
McDonalds or Nokia endorsements. He thinks like the observer - rather
than the observed. This psycological mind-set starts out at a very young
age, and increases.
><<As you watch, you wonder how the infantry
>>soldier did it.
So did Speilberg - that's what we call an accurate "painting of thought" as
you will, of the director's thoughts - feelings, and ideas. Speilberg has a
uinqure - but not quite exclusive talent like being a genius. He's spent all
his life thinking about the world around him - wondering about this and that.
Movies are an outlet for that. I remember at 10 - the first time I saw Back
To The Future - it clicked so well with me and was so fun to watch. It still
is. There was just so much depth to it. So many thought-provoking little
things in it that culminated into one big movie. Especially the music.
The point is: great director's are born, not made.
Jag
>Well I must say SPR is without a doubt the next best thing to being there as far
>as I'm concerned at this point in time.
>
>Until SPR, I thought "When Trumpets Fade" was the best close combat recreation
>effort to ever be immortalized in celluloid, for our contemporary society to
>ponder over and to hopefully never forget what really takes place behind all the
>Hollywood and political bullshit! Followed closely by Hamburger Hill and Platoon
>-IMHO
I just saw that tonight for the first time a few minutes ago matter of
fact. Very good movie indeed. Seems alot more realistic than
Hollywoods years of portrayal. My wife saw SPR first night of release.
I plan on seeing it asap. Good to see that everyone seems to agree on
how good a movie it is and that it's life changing so to speak.
[snip a very nice post]
Jag
>Peace; Love & Joy,
>Bill Faust
>Citizen of the World
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-
>"The ability to realize one's goals does not depend solely on technical
>knowledge or factual accuracy. A great part relies on the strength of one's
>vision and the courage and determination to solidify dreams." - Wm Faust
>
>"He who conquers others is strong, He who conquers himself is mighty." -Lao Tzu
>
>"Evil must be in order to allow for the heroic." - Wm Faust
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-
>Email - fa...@hula.net
>Web - http://hula.net/~faust/bill.html
>UIN - 3464668
>Phone/fax - 808.848.5111
>WebPager - http://wwp.mirabilis.com/3464668
-
Tim Hall
>Well I must say SPR is without a doubt the next best thing to being there as far
>as I'm concerned at this point in time.
>
>Until SPR, I thought "When Trumpets Fade" was the best close combat recreation
>effort to ever be immortalized in celluloid, for our contemporary society to
>ponder over and to hopefully never forget what really takes place behind all the
>Hollywood and political bullshit! Followed closely by Hamburger Hill and Platoon
>-IMHO
>
I liked "When Trumpets Fade" a lot too. I guess these two movies are
the beginning of the 'unromanticizing' of WWII.
Tim
W Jake Faust
>
> I liked "When Trumpets Fade" a lot too. I guess these two movies are
> the beginning of the 'unromanticizing' of WWII.
>
> Tim
>
Greetings!
I tend to agree with you but I don't necessary confine it to WW2 genera though.
I think as our society ages the dominate views well get more pragmatic and less
glamorous.
--
-
john...@takethisout.direct.ca
>I have just seen the movie and must say it is one of the best, if not the
>best movie to reflect the realisum of combat. I have been playing combat
>simulations and strategy games for close to 20 years. I studied and read
>about most combat engagments across history. I have visited many parks and
>museums, examining the tools of combat. But even with all this information i
>was not prepeared for the truly horrible, confusing, scary, disorienting,
>and awe of this movie. I belive this movie to give sombody a insight to the
>horrors and war without being there.
The movie turned out to be everything that I hoped it would be. When
I heard that the opening scene was intense, I was pretty confindent
that Spielberg would live up to his name. I find that too often,
people have really no idea what combat is about and what those
soldiers went through. I think that this movie will be a real
eye-opener for a lot of people...and especially for young adults and
teens who look at Rememberance Day (or Veteran's day for those below
the 49th) as just a day off of scool to sleep in on.
>During the starting combat scenes at
>the beach i was overcome with shock and awe, i actualy felt the hoplessness
>of the tropps as they made their assault.
The D Day landing really turned into a shit sandwich on a number of
beaches. One matter that this movie delt with better than I've ever
seen done were shock waves (The only other movie where I've seen them
was Heat.). You frequently saw people who were completely
stunned...tone deaf and unable to function. Others were totally
confused and just standing around.
The Bangalor torpedo scene was extremely well done...they even showed
some guys digging a tunnel to place the tube (without needlessly
explaining to the audience what was going on). Then, when they lit
the thing, it threw a half ton of dirt and wire into the air. A few
years back I was on an exercise where a small Bangalor was used to
breach a wire obstacle. Despite being abour 50 metres away, I swear
the ground shook so hard it lifted me into the air a fraction of an
inch.
All in all, I have to say that whoever they used as historical and
technical advisors should have Oscars in about a year.
>This is one of
>the few movies that displayes the german soldier as another human been, not
>as the evil nazi. (The avarage grunt was just a grunt) It brought tears to
>my eyes on many ocations.
I noticed that as well. One point that surprised my girlfriend was
the number of war attrocities committed. During one scene, one German
in a line of soldiers get shot, despite having thrown down his weapon
and having his hands up. Events such as this were frequent and
happened on all sides. Not every German in the military was a Nazi,
nor was every Allied soldier John Wayne.
The movie really touched on a number of moral issues.
BUT, don't expect to be taken prisoner and treated with respect if
you throw down your weapon 3 seconds after using it to shoot somebody.
Allan Parent
alongside other French and Englishmen in the 1940's?>>
No, but my father did. He flew 33 combat missions over the reich. He was
very proud of what he did but the stress and destruction of the war also
made him very quiet on the subject. He encouraged me to read up on the
subject and then ask him questions. He rarely told "war stories". He
also said he had the greatest respect for the German people. He said he
did not hate Germans, but he had a job to do, then he could go home. And
if that meant bombing an oil refinery or ball bearings plant then so be
it. He felt that every bombed dropped saved allied lives and brought the
war a little closer to the end. He was sure innocent civilians were
probably killed during his missions but that is something you just can't
think about. You just have to do the best job you can.
<<but only
because his movies are his thoughts on the world, his imagination.>>
Hmmm....I do not think D-day was a product of anyone's imagination. The
movie's consultant was Stephen Ambrose, a noted historian. His books are
based on actual accounts of the war form both sides. Speilberg and
technology just allowed us a glimpse into that world.
<<Movies are an outlet for that. I remember at 10 - the first time I saw
Back
To The Future - it clicked so well with me and was so fun to watch. It
still
is. There was just so much depth to it. So many thought-provoking little
things in it that culminated into one big movie. Especially the music.>>
Gee, I liked " back to the future" also but I would not call it a deep
or thought provoking movie, especially in the context of SPR. SPR was
not fun to watch. It was thought provoking and very emotional. Have you
even seen SPR?
<<The point is: great director's are born, not made.>>
No argument there.
Allan
Ken Mechail
of it!!!" now...
-Ken
Kman wrote in message ...
>>
>> Thanks Steven. Hopefully it's ratings will go higher this week, and
>> you won't have to resort to promoting it yourself.
>>
Michael Bay
[major snippage]
>
> All in all, I have to say that whoever they used as historical and
> technical advisors should have Oscars in about a year.
Captain Dale Dye actually trained the lead actors for five days in a
boot camp style situation. The actual technical advisor was Stephen
Ambrose. They simply read his books (D-Day, Band of Brothers, Citizen
Soldiers) and used them for inspiration when writing the script. He
didn't know he was the advisor until after the film was made. I highly
recommend those books to anyone who wants to read detailed, extremely
well written accounts of the lives of common soldiers in the Western
Front of World War II.
David
think the movie needs promoting but it is nice to see others loved it as
well. Didn't you like it Louis? Do you think anyone has done better? I
don't.
Dave
Dean ODonnell
<john...@takethisout.direct.ca> wrote:
>
>The Bangalor torpedo scene was extremely well done...they even showed
>some guys digging a tunnel to place the tube (without needlessly
>explaining to the audience what was going on). Then, when they lit
>the thing, it threw a half ton of dirt and wire into the air. A few
>years back I was on an exercise where a small Bangalor was used to
>breach a wire obstacle. Despite being abour 50 metres away, I swear
>the ground shook so hard it lifted me into the air a fraction of an
>inch.
I've been wondering about this for awhile now, what exactly is a Bangalor
torpedo and what's it used for? In SPR it seemed to be a long pipe filled
with explosive used to clear sections of barbed wire. In _The Longest Day_
there is a scene where the engineers used a number of them to open up a
concrete wall. In that case they wedged the bt's up against the wall and I
got the impression that some sort of explosive projectile was traveling
through the pipe to impact on/explode the concrete.
Dean
James Dusek
> Jim Kimes wrote:
> > I totally agree.
> > Ksu93 wrote in message <199807251246...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> > >>that I've ever witnessed in a movie. If you're a strategy, wargamer, or
> > >>WWII history buff - GO SEE IT!
> > to
> > >see it. I think everyone should see it so they can appreciate their freedom
> > a
> > >little more.
> emotional, you are built of stone.
That part that really did it for me was right at the beginning,
row upon row, upon row of tombstones at the U.S. Military cemetary in
France. Knowing that each one was a soldier that gave his life to defeat
Germany, and the scores of them laying there really bought home the sence
of loss. I now have a better under standing of the "pieces" in these
games.
A word of warning, Don't see this movie if you are squimish or if
you are depressed. This is no pick me up feel good movie. This movie is
REALLY REALLY REALLY gory. At one part there is a guy laying on the beach
with his intesties oozing out. Be forwarned, there is worse than that in
the movie!
James Dusek
James Dusek
> I liked "When Trumpets Fade" a lot too. I guess these two movies are
> the beginning of the 'unromanticizing' of WWII.
I wouldn't call it 'unromanticizing'. This movie strived for
realism, and the tecnology exist today to do it. The "hollywood" movies
of the past were done and toned down for a mass appeal. I would not want
to take any kid under the age of 16 to see this movie.
James Dusek
Nai-Chi Lee
Bear in mind that I have not seen the movie yet, and my only experience
playing with a Bangalor torpedo was over twenty year ago. But here it
goes...
If I remembered correctly, a Bangalor torpedo is a long pipe (about two
meters long) filled with explosive. Each pipe may be detonated from
either ends. Usually, multiple pipes are joined together from end to
end to form a longer Bangalor torpedo, such that you can clear a long
path at once. To deploy a Bangalor torpedo, you have to push the pipes
underneath the obstacle (e.g., barbed wire fence) and then set off the
explosive remotely.
--
Nai-Chi
Kasey Chang
Few movies made me physically flinch, but this one did.
Two slight nitpicking.
At the beginning, I questioned the LST driver's wisdom in parking his "boat"
right in front of a German bunker, but I guess that's dramatic necessity.
;-)
The ending was poignant enough, though I'm not sure I liked the end on the
bridge, where the P-51's saved the day by making a direct hit on the
Panther? (I'm a little rusty on my German vehicle recognition?) It was a
bit too deus ex machina for me.
Okay, enough about that. :-) There was some applause at the end at the flag
and credits.
When I got home, the local news reported that the Department of Veterans
have set up a special hotline for Veterans who watched this movie and are
having nightmares. Pretty amazing for a movie to have this much effect,
isn't it?
Then Siskel and Ebert gave it both thumbs up, but one of their comments
caught my ear... And it made a lot of sense...
SPR is really an ANTI-WAR film.
By portraying the war at near the full intensity and gory without having
been physically there, and poking fun at all the "war myths" like
"brotherhood of soldiers", SPR let you see that a war is NOT something you
wish to join, but in war, soldiers do the best they can, be they alive or
dead, brave or coward. War is madness, and those who survive it will never
again be the same.
And Spielberg accomplished something very hard to do: he was able to make a
war film withOUT glorifying war.
--
Kuo-Sheng "Kasey" Chang / MIS Developer / DisCopyLabs / Fremont, CA
K S Y @ I C P . O Address coded
A E C D S O Y C M to foil spam
David wrote in message ...
W Jake Faust
> Gee, whare are all the whiners who always scream "OFF-TOPIC!!!!!!! Get rid
> of it!!!" now...
Greetings!
IF you are talking about the entire SPR thread you my friend need to seriously
reassess your ethos, pathos and value system. There are some things even the
most lowly looser will not try to mess with for the sake of nothing more then
something to do to try to get attention and what not. Apparently you are trying
to set new standards for lowness. As such you need to contemplate your
contributions to the gene pool and may want to take action to correct this
possible error.
I feel the vast majority of folks who post to this news group are reasonable and
fairly intelligent persons and have a considerable degree of respect for the
combat veterans of this world. As such they will not try to turn a serious
topical digression into a pissing contest regarding the semantics of a header
element. Further if you cannot truly see how SPR is "On Topic" given that the
vast majority of strategic games are wargames. I'm not sure you are worth any
more of my time and I hope nobody else replies to your infantile comment.
Louis J.M
>I do see a lot of movies and I also enjoyed Saving Private Ryan. I don't
>think the movie needs promoting but it is nice to see others loved it as
>well. Didn't you like it Louis? Do you think anyone has done better? I
>don't.
Niether do I - except I don't think anyone really ever tries anymore at making
a good film. Armageddon seemed to be made around the special effects like
ID4 - which *was* special effects.
Louis.
Ken Mechail
Last week someone brought up how the special-interest group were telling
congress how evil video games are because the promote violence. Well, you
know our congress, they just say, gee, people are talking about it, it must
be banned!
We had a topic that dealt with gaming and possible future problems in the
computer gaming field, and people sat there whining that is was off-topic.
Well this is about a MOVIE! And while wargaming is relevant to this thread
"This movie is a great social message" crap is NOT! So I want to know where
all the "Off-Topic" whiners are.
I'm not whining about it being off-topic, just about how aparently only some
off-topic posts get attacked but not others...
-Ken
W Jake Faust wrote in message ...
Michael Bay
>
> I watched Saving Private Ryan last Sunday.
>
> Few movies made me physically flinch, but this one did.
>
> Two slight nitpicking.
>
> At the beginning, I questioned the LST driver's wisdom in parking his "boat"
> right in front of a German bunker, but I guess that's dramatic necessity.
> ;-)
Just to nitpick your nitpicking, landing craft drivers didn't have the
option to pick where they were going. You couldn't clearly see it in
the movie, but the fact is that there hundreds of those boats going
ashore all up and down the beach in a nice neat row. There wasn't any
room to manuever to the right or the left, unless you wanted to crash
into the boat next to you, which did happen. Also, allied bombers had
been assigned to knock out all of the coastal bunkers and gun
emplacements, a mission that in most cases was a failure. I'd suggest
reading the Longest Day by Cornelius Ryan or D-Day by Stephen Ambrose if
you want to read the accounts of the soldiers who waded ashore on Ohama,
Utah, Juno, Sword and Gold beaches on June 6, 1944. And remember that
the veterans of that day who've seen Ryan say its either right on or not
hellish enough.
Michael W. Bay
Jeff Heidman
> I watched Saving Private Ryan last Sunday.
>
> Few movies made me physically flinch, but this one did.
>
> Two slight nitpicking.
>
> At the beginning, I questioned the LST driver's wisdom in parking his "boat"
> right in front of a German bunker, but I guess that's dramatic necessity.
> ;-)
>
> The ending was poignant enough, though I'm not sure I liked the end on the
> bridge, where the P-51's saved the day by making a direct hit on the
> Panther? (I'm a little rusty on my German vehicle recognition?) It was a
> bit too deus ex machina for me.
>
> Okay, enough about that. :-) There was some applause at the end at the flag
> and credits.
>
> When I got home, the local news reported that the Department of Veterans
> have set up a special hotline for Veterans who watched this movie and are
> having nightmares. Pretty amazing for a movie to have this much effect,
> isn't it?
>
> Then Siskel and Ebert gave it both thumbs up, but one of their comments
> caught my ear... And it made a lot of sense...
>
> SPR is really an ANTI-WAR film.
>
> By portraying the war at near the full intensity and gory without having
> been physically there, and poking fun at all the "war myths" like
> "brotherhood of soldiers", SPR let you see that a war is NOT something you
> wish to join, but in war, soldiers do the best they can, be they alive or
> dead, brave or coward. War is madness, and those who survive it will never
> again be the same.
>
> And Spielberg accomplished something very hard to do: he was able to make a
> war film withOUT glorifying war.
Actually, I would argue that ALL good war movies are anti-war movies. How could
it be otherwise?
Can anyone think of a war movie that was not a gunned up action flick that
portrayed war as anything but a complete mess?
Jeff
Allan Parent
the veterans of that day who've seen Ryan say its either right on or not
hellish enough.>>
I watched a program on the history channel last Friday called "movies in
time". It usually takes some classic movie like "Ben Hur" or "Tora Tora
Tora" and analyzes it from an historical perspective. In other words
separated out what was "Hollywood" and what was fact about the movie.
Well, Friday they did "Saving Private Ryan". They had a few of the
actors (Hanks included) and some vets who actually participated in
D-day. One vet was in the 116th and the other was a ranger. Both men
said the movie was right on and plausible except on two occasions. The
first was when the squad was traveling cross- country. Both men said
that in the movie, the squad talked far too much while in open country.
Of course some of this dialog was needed to progress the plot of the
movie, so that was "Hollywood". The second was that the rangers bitched
too much about the mission. The vet that was a ranger said that they
(rangers) were an elite volunteer group and that bitching to that extent
about a mission just did not occur. He said that since they were
volunteers they basically gave up their right to bitch and knew they
would pull hazardous duty. But once again this bitching was integral to
the plot of the movie. But all in all the vets said it was very
realistic and a good representation of D-day.
Allan
JOE J KUSSEY
James Dusek wrote in message ...
>I would not want
>to take any kid under the age of 16 to see this movie.
>
>James Dusek
James,
As a father and a veteran, I don't know if I necessarily agree with you.
I think the majority of kids in 7 grade and up have seen quite a bit of
violence already, both in movies and on television. Perhaps some of these
kids could use a wake-up call to the sacrifices that there Grandfathers or
Fathers went through to preserve their freedom. I think this movie could be
just the ticket to show kids what it was really like....all the glamour and
Hollywood removed...At least they might respect what these guys did for
their country. Frankly, I don't like the way some kids are moving in
regards to this respect that is due to the thousands of men who layed it on
the line.
Joe
JOE J KUSSEY
Kasey Chang wrote in message <6pijjt$i...@masters0.InterNex.Net>...
>"... poking fun at all the "war myths" like "brotherhood of soldiers",
Kasey,
Sorry, I don't agree with you at all on this particular point. I was in the
military, and I think if you really get into the movie, you can also
understand that the "brotherhood of soldiers" is something very serious
indeed. Can you explain why else men would give their lives for someone
they've only known for a week?
The reason why (from my experience) is that when men share in a common
hardship, especially life-threatening, a bond grows between the men which
becomes stronger than family. For example, the USMC motto, Semper Fidelis,
means "always faithful" (to each other). Any veteran will testify to this
fact, and goes a long way to explain why men throw themselves on hand
grenades....No, Speilburg doesn't poke fun at this, he brings it to the
forefront. He did an excellent job with this in regards to the corporal, as
he became accepted when he shared in the men's common hardships...
Joe Kussey
Winston Shu
>All in all, I have to say that whoever they used as historical and
>technical advisors should have Oscars in about a year.
Agreed... but all in all, I'd have to say that this movie should have Best
Picture in a year. It's set a pretty high standard for any other candidate
for BP to surpass... and I'm actually going to be very *angry* if another
Titanic-ish (all fluff and no substance) event beats SPR for Best Picture.
I was really, *really* impressed by the amount of effort that went into
recreating German armor, down to zimmerit. Wow. This is the first movie I've
seen where Tigers look like Tigers and Panthers (in the 5 seconds that there
was one on scene) looked like Panthers.
Just an incredible, intense movie in every way possible... and to whoever
mentioned that everyone who left the theater after the movie was dead
silent, yeah, I noticed that too. Incredible. Just incredible...
>I noticed that as well. One point that surprised my girlfriend was
>the number of war attrocities committed. During one scene, one German
>in a line of soldiers get shot, despite having thrown down his weapon
>and having his hands up. Events such as this were frequent and
>happened on all sides. Not every German in the military was a Nazi,
>nor was every Allied soldier John Wayne.
>
>The movie really touched on a number of moral issues.
>
> BUT, don't expect to be taken prisoner and treated with respect if
>you throw down your weapon 3 seconds after using it to shoot somebody.
>
>
If you're talking about the scene that I think you're talking about, isn't
this when Upham shoots a German soldier at the very end of the movie (the
one and only German he kills)?
In that case, I would have shot the German too - multiple times. I'm pretty
sure it was the German whose butt Upham saved from summary execution way
back when - he recognized Upham.
--
Winston Shu
To reply by email, replace 'spam.bite.me.com' with 'email.msn.com'
Winston Shu
****If you haven't noticed already, this thread is spoilers galore. Go away
unless you want to have the movie ruined for you...****
JOE J KUSSEY wrote in message
<6pj5bg$5eo2$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
I agree entirely with Joe Kussey on this point.
I don't understand how you (Kasey Chang, that is) can think that Spielberg
was mocking the concept of a "brotherhood of soldiers" - sure, they poked
fun at the idea while they were walking cross-country, when it was said out
loud, but did they have to actually verbalize the "brotherhood"? Various
little things in the movie really really bring out the "brotherhood"
concept - Wade taking the letter (and rewriting it) from Capazzo (sp?),
Miller taking it from Wade, and Reiben taking it from Miller, for one. I can
go on and on about this, but I think you get my point.
Have to agree about the P-51 killing the Panther though - when did P-51s
become tank-busters? The dinky .50 cals a P-51 carried is unlikely to do
much more than make a Panther angry, and IIRC P-51s weren't rigged to tote
bombs... can someone enlighten me?
Winston
John Fuesting
somewhere saying it was an even better "real" depiction of warfare that
Hamburger Hill. I saw Hamburger hill about 2 years before I went into the
Army, and subsequently, The Gulf War. In retrospect, the cinematics and
sound effects and actor portrayals were finely done. The question I have to
any people who haven't been in any kind of combat, nor had any relatives
close enough to relate it accurately to you, what did you think war was? I
mean, what did you think bullets, bombs and grenades do to people? I realise
Hollywood has usually candycoated it, but movies are supposed to be
entertainment. People are walking out silent? That must mean that what they
saw was "violently" contrary to what they believed to be true. So I say
again, what do you think happens to a person when a bomb goes off near them?><<>I know this is kinda off-topic, but wow, what a movie. This is the
>first
>>movie that I have ever seen that portrays WWII in such a gritty,
>>frightening, gory fashion.
>
>You must not see a lot of movies.>>
>
>It is the best representaion of WWII.....period. I have seen most all of
>the WWII movies and this is by far the most realistic.
>
>scene
>>that I've ever witnessed in a movie. If you're a strategy, wargamer,
>or
>>WWII history buff - GO SEE IT!
>
>
>you won't have to resort to promoting it yourself.>>
>
Allan Parent
entertainment. People are walking out silent? That must mean that what
they
saw was "violently" contrary to what they believed to be true.>>
No, I do not think so. It is not the violence that silenced them but
rather the emotion generated by the film.
<<So I say
again, what do you think happens to a person when a bomb goes off near
them?>>
Is this a trick question? Let's see...probably something very similar to
when an 88mm AA shell explodes in the nose of your B-24 as it did my
father's. I do not know why you are lecturing me. Most of those quotes
in your post are not even mine!
Allan
Sean Kennedy
Allan Parent wrote in message <35BC6F18...@flash.net>...
><<Really, and I suppose you were opening a can of whoop ass on Hitler
>alongside other French and Englishmen in the 1940's?>>
>
>No, but my father did. He flew 33 combat missions over the reich. He was
>very proud of what he did but the stress and destruction of the war also
>made him very quiet on the subject. He encouraged me to read up on the
>subject and then ask him questions. He rarely told "war stories". He
>also said he had the greatest respect for the German people. He said he
>did not hate Germans, but he had a job to do, then he could go home. And
>if that meant bombing an oil refinery or ball bearings plant then so be
>it. He felt that every bombed dropped saved allied lives and brought the
>war a little closer to the end. He was sure innocent civilians were
>probably killed during his missions but that is something you just can't
>think about. You just have to do the best job you can.
>
My great uncle was a company commander (I,J and L companies
of the 33rd infantry) in the phillipines. It's interesting, when you get
him (or my grandfather, who was an engineer in the philipines in the
last months of the war) talking about it, it's always about the people
they knew, and too often, how they died. I know how much it
still affects him, because he refuses to have surgery on the artificial
knee that's failing, because under anesthetic he has severe flashbacks.
I didn't even know he'd been awarded the silver star until I happened
on a book about the 33rd that had a short blurb about him in the
back.
sdk
Jason Levine
<ws...@spam.bite.me.com> wrote:
>Have to agree about the P-51 killing the Panther though - when did P-51s
>become tank-busters? The dinky .50 cals a P-51 carried is unlikely to do
>much more than make a Panther angry, and IIRC P-51s weren't rigged to tote
>bombs... can someone enlighten me?
>
They probably became tank busters for the movie because P-51s are one
of the few flyable WW2 fighters available in any reasonable quantity.
The P-47 Thunderbolt was the primary American fighter-bomber, but I
suspect that there aren't a whole lot of flyable P-47s around. It's a
lot easier to trick up authentic looking tanks for a movie (even
though that had to be really expensive too) than to trick up another
airplane to look like a P-47.
This discussion reminds me of the PBS Masterpiece Theater series "A
Piece of Cake" from a few years back. In the book, the squadron flew
Hawker Hurricanes. But there are no longer any flyable Hurricanes
available, so for the TV series they changed the planes to Spitfires.
Jason Levine
Ass't Editor & Strategy Therapist
GamePen
http://www.gamepen.com/
E-Mail: ja...@gamepen.com
Mustang 6
said Mustangs were used for ground attacks before during and after DDay,
there was footage of P51's rocketing rail yards and other target of
opportunity.
Jason Levine <ja...@gamepen.com> wrote in article
<35bd3707...@news.idt.net>...
Dan B
>that in the movie, the squad talked far too much while in open country.
>Of course some of this dialog was needed to progress the plot of the
>movie, so that was "Hollywood".
Well said. I wondered if what I had learned in post Viet Nam basic training
in that you always maintain 5 mtrs. x 5 mtrs. distance minimum from the next
soldier moving in an area of possible enemy contact. To get close enough to
a buddy to get chatty with him was an invitation to having a drill Sargent
tear you a new one. And all of my drills had seen combat in 'Nam. I'm sure
things haven't changed that much since '44. One would think that to have
lived through the hell of Omaha would keep one's eyes wide open and your ass
not far from cover. Otherwise a _remarkable_ effort.
Reza John Khakbaz-Nejad
Louis J.M wrote:
What I thought was the absolute and most realistic, not to mention cool part
of the movie:
The scene: 6-8 guys on a Panther...trying to finish it off....
The Germans bring up a 20mm AA gun, yes not solid rounds, but
HE filled, just like the ones on the BF-109.
MEN on tank stupid, not paying attention, having to much fun shooting
germans in the face.
BAM_BAM_BAM Explosive rounds on flesh.
LEGS ARMS HEADS go everywhere, some men VAPORIZED.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN THE PROPER TREATMENT OF EXPLOSIVE
AMMO ON FLESH IN ANY WAR MOVIE!
Realistic why?
1. This scene clearly shows what happens when you get "STUPID" on
the field of battle. When you don't pay attention people DIE! Even
the "heroes" of the situation.
2. No-one has ever treated the use of AA guns on infantry (A very common
practice)
John C Knapp
jsm...@tiny.net wrote in message ...
>Redwing009 <redwi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I keep asking myself why people who are rational would ever allow their
>>leaders to get them involved in such an irrational act as warfare?
>
Is this asking why the German, Japanese and Italian people didn't stop their
leaders from leading their countries into war, or is it asking why the
people of every other country would get involved in war???
I guess a citizen of (place favorite country here ) would be very
irrational to expect his government to go to war just to protect his land
from an invading army.
>>I certainly understand the bravery and dedication of the men who fight
battles,
>>but I still come back to the nightmare i saw on screen and ask myself
"why?"
>>How can we allow ourselves to become what I saw portrayed on the screen?
I would guess you're refering to the shooting of surrendering soldiers?
There are probably many answers to what would lead a person to do this.
First off, just as not every German soldier acted like the SS, there were
American, British, French ect. soldiers that did. Second, and I think this
applied the most, was that the soldiers state of mind at the time was
saying, "Hey, this guy just killed hundreds of my buddies, and if he thinks
he's going to spend the rest of the war in some POW camp while tomorrow I
get killed by his buddy...", well I think you get the picture. This could
also be considered the revenge factor that rises in the heat of battle.
The situation at the radar site brings up a third and probably the
hardest situation a soldier could find himself in, what to do with an enemy
soldier when you're behind enemy lines and you're mission simply precludes
the draging along of prisoners.
Also, when one is trained as a soldier, he is expected to 'become' a
person who can kill. And MOST vet's back from war un-'become' killers, and
go back home being their normal selves except for maybe the scars of the
horrors of war (this includes memories and wounds).
>
> Because not fighting Hitler would have left us with a far, far
>worse world. Ask any Jew, gypsy, Pole, Ukrainian, Czech, etc. who
>survived the concentration camps if WWII was necessary.
>
John C Knapp
jck...@incom.net
DrummGuy13
>portrayed war as anything but a complete mess?
>
>
Apocalypse Now
Platoon
Full Metal Jacket
----> Trent
Alpern
And my very favorite WW II movie, The Big Red One.
**************************************************************************
*****************************
Alp...@aol.com
Check out the John Steakley fan page!
Http://members.aol.com/Alpern/steakley.htm
James Dusek
KUS...@prodigy.net says...
> James Dusek wrote in message ...
> >In article <35bc2dd1...@nntp.cts.com>, ti...@cts.com says...
> >I would not want
> >to take any kid under the age of 16 to see this movie.
> As a father and a veteran, I don't know if I necessarily agree with you.
> I think the majority of kids in 7 grade and up have seen quite a bit of
> violence already, both in movies and on television. Perhaps some of these
There is a big differance between the violence in other movies and
on television and what happens in SPR. I have seen grown adults visable
shaken by what transpires in the movie, and the question on weither or
not a 15 year old kid can handle it, is up to that kids parents. While
some can, most (IMHO) may not.
Furthermore, next year the movie will be out on tape, so there
will be plenty of oppertunity to see this movie. It's not like it'll
vanish from the face of the earth.
James Dusek
James Dusek
spoilers for the movie Saving Private Ryan below....
> The scene: 6-8 guys on a Panther...trying to finish it off....
Tiger!!!!!!
> MEN on tank stupid, not paying attention, having to much fun shooting
> germans in the face.
>
Actually, if you watch carefully there is a goof when this
happens. When the Germans bring up the AA gun and open fire, the dummy (
no really, it's a dummy filled with explosives, blood and gore) in the
middle of the live actors stands out like a sore thumb. the sequence was
off, as a round impacts to the right of the dummy, than the left, than
the dummy explodes. The dummy was supposed to exploded before round to
it's left exploded.
James Dusek
James Dusek
says...
> SPR is really an ANTI-WAR film.
There was an interview of the director and some of the people
involved last night on nightline. SPR is not an ANTI-WAR film, it's a
movie to show what these guys went through so we can enjoy the freedoms
we have today. It's made so we do not forget what happened before.
While they did not want to glorify war, they didn't want to make
people feel it's wrong to go to war at all. The war aginst Germany was
nessary, and while tragic, had to be fought.
James Dusek
Allan Parent
lived through the hell of Omaha would keep one's eyes wide open and your
ass
not far from cover. Otherwise a _remarkable_ effort.>>
No kidding! They did seem to be a bit casual while being on patrol in
hostile country.
Allan
James Dusek
> entertainment. People are walking out silent? That must mean that what they
> again, what do you think happens to a person when a bomb goes off near them?
No, I won't spoil it for you, but people aren't silent because of
the violence, they are silent because it is deeply moving and make you
feel for the thousands of guys who died over there.
James Dusek
Winston Shu
>
>on television and what happens in SPR. I have seen grown adults visable
>shaken by what transpires in the movie, and the question on weither or
>not a 15 year old kid can handle it, is up to that kids parents. While
>some can, most (IMHO) may not.
>
And that (the fact that SPR shakes even grown adults) is why I think teens
should see SPR.
I'd rather make the case that having a 15 yr old see SPR is a good thing. It
definitely shows that gore, people being blown apart, dismembered, and the
like are NOT fun(ny), the way that most retarded (oh, sorry, this isn't PC -
"developmentally challenged" mayhap?) films like to portray violence.
Y'know, the way Scream (for instance) has people being stabbed repeatedly,
the various other moronic B horror flicks (the Elm Streets, Halloweens, etc
etc etc). I agree that having a 10yo see SPR would be a bit... premature.
However, I seriously think that exposing smart-ass teens to SPR would be a
good thing.
> Furthermore, next year the movie will be out on tape, so there
>will be plenty of oppertunity to see this movie. It's not like it'll
>vanish from the face of the earth.
>
>James Dusek
Heheh agreed.
Jeff Heidman
> >Can anyone think of a war movie that was not a gunned up action flick that
> >portrayed war as anything but a complete mess?
> >
> >
>
> Apocalypse Now
> Platoon
> Full Metal Jacket
>
> ----> Trent
And you are saying those movies portray war as somwthing other than a
complete mess? I think I am confused... I would consider all three of those
movies as definitely anti-war movies.
Jeff
Kasey Chang
What I meant by "SPR is really Anti-war film" is that war is madness and
death, and it is NOT something you wish to experience. Those who did will
never again be the same, and those who did NOT should make sure that NO ONE
ELSE will ever experience war again. In that way, it discourages future
wars, and thus, "anti-war".
I do NOT mean anti-war as in the Vietnam-era protests.
--
Kuo-Sheng "Kasey" Chang / MIS Developer / DisCopyLabs / Fremont, CA
K S Y @ I C P . O Address coded
A E C D S O Y C M to foil spam
James Dusek wrote in message ...
bp
>
> I saw it last night and the crowd was for the most part very young. I'm really
>not sure how they took it. The audience was for the most part in dead silence
>following the movie. No claps, no discussion, no smart remarks. There were some
>laughs during the movie ( some moments were meant to evoke laughter), but by in
>large I have never seen people react quite this way.
Got that right ! After the movie you kind of want to clap but it just
somehow didnt seem right. The place was so quite
>
>I certainly understand the bravery and dedication of the men who fight battles,
>but I still come back to the nightmare i saw on screen and ask myself "why?"
>How can we allow ourselves to become what I saw portrayed on the screen?
Did you notice the little wimpy chicken shit guy and how he finally
changed in the end. That's how.
bp
<ws...@spam.bite.me.com> wrote:
>
>If you're talking about the scene that I think you're talking about, isn't
>this when Upham shoots a German soldier at the very end of the movie (the
>one and only German he kills)?
No probably the scenes right after they take the beach and germans are
trying to surrender, or the scene with two germans with their hands up
and the GI says what did you say ? and shots them. Then his buddy says
I think they said look I washed my hands.
>
>In that case, I would have shot the German too - multiple times. I'm pretty
>sure it was the German whose butt Upham saved from summary execution way
>back when - he recognized Upham.
Yes that was him.
bp
<KUS...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>The reason why (from my experience) is that when men share in a common
>hardship, especially life-threatening, a bond grows between the men which
>becomes stronger than family.
Actually this happens every where in the world to men women and
children. Have you seen how ppl band togeather in times of extrme
hardship ?
Taki Kogoma
message <#PNvyLcu9GA.265@upnetnews03> to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic:
>*WARNING*
>
>****If you haven't noticed already, this thread is spoilers galore. Go away
>unless you want to have the movie ruined for you...****
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>become tank-busters? The dinky .50 cals a P-51 carried is unlikely to do
>much more than make a Panther angry, and IIRC P-51s weren't rigged to tote
>bombs... can someone enlighten me?
ISTR seeing several P-51 photos where they had a couple of underwing
500 lb bombs. I also built a model of one with underwing rocket
tubes. Other options were bombs and extra fuel tanks.
The Mustang wasn't particularly well-suited for the ground attack
role, but it was employed there when needed.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
quirk @ swcp.com | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
Don Marsh
>
> >Can anyone think of a war movie that was not a gunned up action flick that
> >portrayed war as anything but a complete mess?
> >
> >
>
> Apocalypse Now
> Platoon
> Full Metal Jacket
>
> ----> Trent
Oh yeah...Full Metal Jacket had some VERY intense, and saddening
boot-camp scenes! That's what made that movie so scary. I wonder if
that was portrayed pretty accurately, or had a touch of "Hollywood" in
it? Either way, it was a very gripping reality of a movie (BTW, havent
seen SPR yet).
Don Marsh
--
"Giddi-yup!" -- Kramer
Bill Porter
> >I noticed that as well. One point that surprised my girlfriend was
> >the number of war attrocities committed. During one scene, one German
> >in a line of soldiers get shot, despite having thrown down his weapon
> >and having his hands up. Events such as this were frequent and
> >happened on all sides. Not every German in the military was a Nazi,
> >nor was every Allied soldier John Wayne.
> >
> >The movie really touched on a number of moral issues.
> >
> > BUT, don't expect to be taken prisoner and treated with respect if
> >you throw down your weapon 3 seconds after using it to shoot somebody.
> >
> >
>
> If you're talking about the scene that I think you're talking about, isn't
> this when Upham shoots a German soldier at the very end of the movie (the
> one and only German he kills)?
>
> In that case, I would have shot the German too - multiple times. I'm pretty
> sure it was the German whose butt Upham saved from summary execution way
> back when - he recognized Upham.
>
SPOILER WARNING!!
Yes he was. He also was the one who shot Tom Hank's character just a few minutes
before. Savor the irony....
John Fuesting
why people get so blown away by "realistic" war movies. I just wonder if
people really think it's all hoo-rah John Wayne stuff. There's no "neat" or
"heroic" way to kill thousands of people.
Allan Parent wrote in message <35BD4F07...@flash.net>...
><<but movies are supposed to be
>they
>saw was "violently" contrary to what they believed to be true.>>
>
>rather the emotion generated by the film.
>
>again, what do you think happens to a person when a bomb goes off near
>them?>>
>
Carl Parlagreco
>
> I would guess you're refering to the shooting of surrendering soldiers?
>There are probably many answers to what would lead a person to do this.
>First off, just as not every German soldier acted like the SS, there were
>American, British, French ect. soldiers that did. Second, and I think this
>applied the most, was that the soldiers state of mind at the time was
>saying, "Hey, this guy just killed hundreds of my buddies, and if he thinks
>he's going to spend the rest of the war in some POW camp while tomorrow I
>get killed by his buddy...", well I think you get the picture. This could
and there are lots of guys in German uniforms trying to kill you, if a
guy in a German uniform stands up in front of you, you might not
notice that he's surrendering until *after* you shoot him dead. That's
sort of the impression I got when that line of Germans stood up in the
trench. The first one to try to surrender was shot, but then the
Americans stopped and took them prisoner. I remember playing laser tag
and shooting a person on my own team because I mis-identified him, and
when he moved to wave at me, I thought he was about to shoot me. I
imagine the stress of possible death would make this sort of thing
more likely.
Carl Parlagreco
ground attack aircraft. That could have done the job, too.
"Mustang 6" <ey...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>I have seen P51's with some bombs and rockets. On an episode of wings they
>said Mustangs were used for ground attacks before during and after DDay,
>there was footage of P51's rocketing rail yards and other target of
>opportunity.
>
>Jason Levine <ja...@gamepen.com> wrote in article
><35bd3707...@news.idt.net>...
>> On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 20:56:35 -0400, "Winston Shu"
>> <ws...@spam.bite.me.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Have to agree about the P-51 killing the Panther though - when did P-51s
>> >become tank-busters? The dinky .50 cals a P-51 carried is unlikely to do
>> >much more than make a Panther angry, and IIRC P-51s weren't rigged to
>tote
>> >bombs... can someone enlighten me?
>> >
Allan Parent
about
why people get so blown away by "realistic" war movies. I just wonder if
people really think it's all hoo-rah John Wayne stuff. There's no "neat"
or
"heroic" way to kill thousands of people.>>
That is for sure. I think we were spoiled by the "heroic" stuff
Hollywood has put out in the past.
Allan
Allan Parent
and there are lots of guys in German uniforms trying to kill you, if a
guy in a German uniform stands up in front of you, you might not
notice that he's surrendering until *after* you shoot him dead. That's
sort of the impression I got when that line of Germans stood up in the
trench. >>
This was a scene taken directly from one of Ambrose's books. And yes,
that is exactly what happened according to Ambrose.
Allan
Grifman
>For me, this movie was the ultimate example of a nightmare. Very, very
>disturbing. The utter insanity and chaos of combat was IMO captured perfectly.
>I keep asking myself why people who are rational would ever allow their
>leaders to get them involved in such an irrational act as warfare?
>
(snip)
Could it be because the only thing _more_ irrational would have been
to let the Nazi's and Imperial Japan conquer the world? War is hell -
but not more hellish than living a society under the control of der
Fuhrer.
Grifman
Grifman
wrote:
>The way I see it, the war in Europe was a direct extension of WWI, which was
>a "no fault" (or rather an "everyones fault") war; in which two overly rigid
>and militaristic alliances used an assassination of a minor leader as an
>excuse to bash heads. Germany lost, and under the name of "reparations" was
>crushed economically to the point of mass desperation.
(snip) Sorry, but German propaganda. Germany was not "crushed" by
reparations. The vast majority of reparations were _never_ repaid by
Germany. And what was repaid was repaid in greatly devalued German
marks, as the German government deliberately devalued the mark after
the war.
Germany suffered after WW1 for the same reason as every other nation
on earth - the Great Depression - not because of reparations. Again,
if Germany was so "crushed" by reparations, it seems hardly likely
that without any economic aid from other nations, that they could rise
again to threaten the world in just a short 20 years.
The "crushing" reparations is just German/Nazi apologetics . . .
Grifman
Taki Kogoma
message <35bf4f69.1220087@wingate> to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic:
>There was also a variant, I believe it was the A-20?, that was a
>ground attack aircraft. That could have done the job, too.
Oh, right. A-36A "Apache"/"Invader"/"Mustang", dive bomber variant of the
P-51. However, I've read that it only served in the Med and CBI theaters.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.
Jason Levine
wrote:
>There was also a variant, I believe it was the A-20?, that was a
>ground attack aircraft. That could have done the job, too.
>
>"Mustang 6" <ey...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>
>>I have seen P51's with some bombs and rockets. On an episode of wings they
>>said Mustangs were used for ground attacks before during and after DDay,
>>there was footage of P51's rocketing rail yards and other target of
>>opportunity.
>>
The A-20 Havoc was, indeed, an excellent ground attack aircraft, but
it was a twin-engine light bomber, not a single-engine fighter like
the P-51. The Mustang was indeed used in the fighter-bomber role, but
it's liquid-cooled Merlin Engine made it much more vulnerable to
ground fire than the P-47, which was was powered by an air-cooled
radial engine. You're right, however, that the Mustang's use in that
role in the movie is historically accurate.
Anyway, as far as a new movie like Saving Private Ryan goes, I'd
imagine that flyable A-20s, if they exist at all, are even harder to
come by than P-47s. The P-51 is much easier to find, since several are
still maintained as unlimited air racers. However, I'd bet you can
count the number of flyable P-47s in the world on one hand.
KEENEDDER
But you have to admit, Hitler did use the reparations to stir up anger in the
German people so, whether directly or indirectly reparations WERE a cause
(though maybe not a primary one) of WW2.
G. Ned Anderson III
"Steel and speed, boys, steel and speed" Col. F. Rikenberg, 17th Mounted
Fusileers, Royal Paravian Army (First Secession War, 1949)
TacOps: The world's greatest modern combat simulation available from:
http://www.avalonhill.com
Emperor Palpatine
really about - and about the unthinkably enormous sacrifices made by
previous generations for their benefit - I'm afraid the impact of
"Saving Private Ryan" is lost on today's pointless kids. This may not
ring true in every part of the country, but in washed up urban areas
such as mine, I don't have much use for the "next generation".
I finally saw the film tonight and enjoyed it immensely. However, after
hearing stories of dumbfounded audiences leaving the theatre in shock, I
was dismayed that my viewing experience was marred by the typical crew
of Brooklyn slobs. Few of the audience seemed particularly moved by the
events depicted, and one white trash icon sitting several rows behind
seemed particularly (and loudly) amused by the slew of gruesome
dismemberings and disembowelments depicted. (To be fair, there were some
lighthearted moments that drew laughs from the audience, but I fault
that as being out of place in the film, and I don't place the blame on
the audience's shoulders. Some of the humor, thought I, was uncalled
for. How can anything be funny after that Omaha scene?) Others found the
film to be a brief and lighthearted diversion between cell phone
conversations.
Honestly, I don't think *anything* will impact today's kids other than
a good hard smack in the mouth - this movie sure won't do it, excellent
as it is. Perhaps when Daddy's car, beeper bills they don't have to pay
for, laughable "fashion", and other "necessities" of life are taken
away, reality will start to slowly permeate the concrete. Worst of all,
and what struck me as the saddest part about the movie, is that the
sacrifices those men made seem to be totally in vain now that this next
wave of geniuses is here to help squander and spoil our nation. A trip
to the mall, anyone? The Gap's having a sale.
Winston Shu wrote:
>
> James Dusek wrote in message ...
> >
> --
> Winston Shu
> To reply by email, replace 'spam.bite.me.com' with 'email.msn.com'
--
C:\DOS
C:\DOS\RUN
C:\RUN\DOS\RUN
C:\WINDOWS
C:\WINDOWS\CRASH
C:\PC\CRAWL
Henri H. Arsenault
have the impression that shooting prisoners was a frequent occurence in
WWII (whether fropm the movie or not). I have read much on WWII, and
although the shooting of prisoners DID happen, it was not by any means a
regular occurence.
If the contrary were true, why would Americans make such a big deal out of
the 20 or so US prisoners that were killed by some Germans in the battle
of the Bulge, followed by a similar act of revenge on the part of the
Americans?
Specific cases of prisoners being executed in WWII Western Front are
fairly well documented, and they were rather scattered incidents (for
example the case of Canadian prisoners executed and buried in the garden
of a convent - I forget where). Biographies of Von Luck and Von Mellinthin
claim that they know of NO incident where their soldiers carried out
atrocities, which may be a slight exaggeration, but does anyone have
knowledge of any atrocities committed by the 21st Panzer Division, who
faught in Poland, Africa and Russia?
A friend of mine who is has done two tours in Vietnam and who is a Colonel
in the US Army today told me that he has never personally observed any
atrocities while he was in Vietnam. He claims that soldiers are trained to
think in terms of making the enemy unable to fight, which includes killing
them if nececessary. This allows them to maintain their sanity. The film
Apocalypse Now (based on the novel Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad)
depicts well how thinking in terms of "no holds barred" leads only to
madness.
If the result of the SPR movie will be to convince people that war is hell
and so atrocities are OK, it will be a sad statement indeed, and the
opposite of what the producers probably intended...
Henri
Henri H. Arsenault
(Grifman) wrote:
>
> The "crushing" reparations is just German/Nazi apologetics . . .
>
Henri
Nai-Chi Lee
Saving Private Ryan is grossly over-hyped and over-rated.
This is not to say that it is bad movie. It is quite good. In fact, it
has "Oscar" written all over it, because:
- The movie is nearly three hours long
- It is a big-budget production with tons of impressive special effects
- It is a R-rated version of Forest Gump, which demonstrates good old
fashion American value-system in Hollywood style.
The special effects and computer graphics are good. Very good. You get
to see people get shot through the eye, people with their limbs blown
off. People (or rather dummies) with their brains and intestines
splattered all over, etc, etc, etc. Okay, very impressive. So what?
Many people here seems to love the movie because it shows, for example,
"realistic effect of 88 AA rounds on human bodies". I guess this is the
same reason others like "Nightmeres on Elm Street, part 8" because it
shows realistic effect of kitchen knifes on human bodies. Some claim
that this is an anti-war movie because it shows how ugly and horrible
war can be. By the same token, perhaps we should also call "Friday the
13, part 23" an anti-violent movie?
Face it! The special effects are in there to sell more movie tickets.
By the way, question for war-historians out there:
1. Why nobody carries any smoke grenade when storming Normandy beach?
2. Why would a 7-man section rush a machine gun post in broad daylight?
3. How many 50-gallon tanks of blood do you need in order to dye the
sea water complete red?
The movie attempts to present some moral delimmas, such as whether it
is right to risk life of many to save the life of one, or whether it
is right to shoot a war prisoner. But then again, just like in any
typical Hollywood movie, you kown exactly what the director wants you
to choose as the story unfolds.
In any disaster movie, there may be hundreds of people dying left and
right, but nobody will shred a tear for them. As long as in the end,
a cute little girl and her puppy are saved, the audience will feel
good about it and go home happy. Same Hollywood formula here, except
that this time the cute little girl is replaced by a 6'6" man.
Another case in point: the scene near the end where that (cowardly)
American soldier shot the German soldier. Its clear purpose is just
to make the audience feel good -- "Ah! Justice is finally served".
Okay, so maybe I'm being too cynical. It is actually a good movie,
just that my expectation was raised too high from reading all those
hypes in this news group.
--
Nai-Chi
Charles A Smith
>john...@takethisout.direct.ca wrote:
>[major snippage]
>>
>> All in all, I have to say that whoever they used as historical and
>> technical advisors should have Oscars in about a year.
> Captain Dale Dye actually trained the lead actors for five days in a
>boot camp style situation. The actual technical advisor was Stephen
>Ambrose. They simply read his books (D-Day, Band of Brothers, Citizen
>Soldiers) and used them for inspiration when writing the script. He
>didn't know he was the advisor until after the film was made. I highly
>recommend those books to anyone who wants to read detailed, extremely
>well written accounts of the lives of common soldiers in the Western
>Front of World War II.
I highly recommend reading Citizen Soldiers *before* seeing the movie. What an
amazing and disturbing book that is. Rememember the scene where the more
experienced men would not talk with or want to be near the new guy? Very, very
true. New guys were poison. You could become friends with your buddies only
after you could prove that you could survive and not get them killed.
That must have been horrible--to find yourself in a terrifying situation
and then be avoided by others in your own unit. How lonely and terrifying
that must have been. Knowledge of this made me more sympathetic to the
weakest character in the group in the movie.
Chuck Smith
DrummGuy13
>Saving Private Ryan is grossly over-hyped and over-rated.
>
>This is not to say that it is bad movie. It is quite good. In fact, it
>has "Oscar" written all over it, because:
>- The movie is nearly three hours long
>- It is a big-budget production with tons of impressive special effects
Actually, it cost $65 mill, which isn't really considered big budget.
>- It is a R-rated version of Forest Gump, which demonstrates good old
> fashion American value-system in Hollywood style.
>
Like what? Pride in one's country? This is hardly a concept devised by
Hollywood. And the film is FAR superior to Forrest Gump (I still don't see the
connection you are trying to make). This movie is anti-Hollywood style. There
are few long and glorious pans of scenic battlefields, or men running around
planting American flags everywhere.
>The special effects and computer graphics are good. Very good. You get
>to see people get shot through the eye, people with their limbs blown
>off. People (or rather dummies) with their brains and intestines
>splattered all over, etc, etc, etc. Okay, very impressive. So what?
>
So it makes the scenes seem more convincing. Bodies are quite disposable in
war, and the movie tries to illustrate this. Not every death is a nice clean
bullet through the heart. Most involve having your abdomen ripped open by
machine gun fire and having to lie on a wet cold beach while trying to hold
your guts in.
>Many people here seems to love the movie because it shows, for example,
>"realistic effect of 88 AA rounds on human bodies". I guess this is the
>same reason others like "Nightmeres on Elm Street, part 8" because it
>shows realistic effect of kitchen knifes on human bodies. Some claim
>that this is an anti-war movie because it shows how ugly and horrible
>war can be. By the same token, perhaps we should also call "Friday the
>13, part 23" an anti-violent movie?
>
No, because the Friday the 13th movies are not realistically violent. I've
seen enough of them to know. Dead bodies in those movies don't look anything
like dead bodies in police photos.
>Face it! The special effects are in there to sell more movie tickets.
>
Maybe, but they are also there because many veterans have been wanting to see
their stories told and understood by the citizens of the country they risked
their lives to defend (OK, that was a unwieldy sentence I admit). Spielberg's
own dad was in the war, and wanted his son to do a movie like this for years.
Spielberg admits that he could have put far more gore in the film, but that he
had a personal line he would not cross.
>By the way, question for war-historians out there:
>1. Why nobody carries any smoke grenade when storming Normandy beach?
>2. Why would a 7-man section rush a machine gun post in broad daylight?
>3. How many 50-gallon tanks of blood do you need in order to dye the
> sea water complete red?
>
>The movie attempts to present some moral delimmas, such as whether it
>is right to risk life of many to save the life of one, or whether it
>is right to shoot a war prisoner. But then again, just like in any
>typical Hollywood movie, you kown exactly what the director wants you
>to choose as the story unfolds.
Please tell me what he wants us to choose. I've seen the film twice and I
still can't find the answer.
>
>In any disaster movie, there may be hundreds of people dying left and
>right, but nobody will shred a tear for them.
I've seen war veterans say that they save their tears for their friends. And
by the way, didn't you see the people screaming and crying on the beach?
>As long as in the end,
>a cute little girl and her puppy are saved, the audience will feel
>good about it and go home happy. Same Hollywood formula here, except
>that this time the cute little girl is replaced by a 6'6" man.
Or a country with 250 million people in it. Really, you have grossly over
simplified the "formula", of which there is truly none. This movie does not
leave us feeling "happy."
>
>Another case in point: the scene near the end where that (cowardly)
>American soldier shot the German soldier. Its clear purpose is just
>to make the audience feel good -- "Ah! Justice is finally served".
That scene is not about justice, but rather about the personal transformation
that character takes.
>
>Okay, so maybe I'm being too cynical. It is actually a good movie,
>just that my expectation was raised too high from reading all those
>hypes in this news group.
>--
----> Trent
Charles A Smith
to view the movie. In all cases but one (one ol' vet thought there was too
much swearing), they were all deeply moved by the accuracy of the movie. One
wife said something like "I wish to God I had known this fifty years ago." Another
said something like, "Thank God I have a bottle of scotch at home because
I'm going to go and empty it." Plus, the military has set up a hotline for
WWII vets (and others) to call if old emotions are enflamed. What greater
tribute could there possibly be to the director and all that participated.
My father was a fighter pilot in the war and was killed on active duty a year
after it was over. I stood on Omaha Beach one year ago and was profoundly
moved by the suffering and courage that took place on that very spot. So I read
the USA Today reports and Kansas City Star (I think that was the paper) who
had the good sense to involve vets in the viewing of the movie.
Chuck Smith
Allan Parent <all...@flash.net> writes:
><<>I know this is kinda off-topic, but wow, what a movie. This is the
>first
>>movie that I have ever seen that portrays WWII in such a gritty,
>>frightening, gory fashion.
>You must not see a lot of movies.>>
>It is the best representaion of WWII.....period. I have seen most all of
>the WWII movies and this is by far the most realistic.
><<As you watch, you wonder how the infantry
>>soldier did it. Storming the beach at Omaha was as intense a battle
>scene
>>that I've ever witnessed in a movie. If you're a strategy, wargamer,
>or
>>WWII history buff - GO SEE IT!
>Thanks Steven. Hopefully it's ratings will go higher this week, and>>
>you won't have to resort to promoting it yourself.>>
>It is a great movie and this guy, like almost everbody that has seen it
>is deeply moved.
>Allan
James Dusek
> "John C Knapp" <jck...@incom.net> wrote:
> > I would guess you're refering to the shooting of surrendering soldiers?
> >There are probably many answers to what would lead a person to do this.
> >saying, "Hey, this guy just killed hundreds of my buddies, and if he thinks
> >he's going to spend the rest of the war in some POW camp while tomorrow I
> >get killed by his buddy...", well I think you get the picture. This could
> Another possibility--when the bullets are zipping around your ears,
> and there are lots of guys in German uniforms trying to kill you, if a
> guy in a German uniform stands up in front of you, you might not
> notice that he's surrendering until *after* you shoot him dead. That's
Nightline on Monday interviewed DDay vets who were there. When the
subject came up, one was kinda reluctant to answer, while another right
away admitted to shooting POWs. what he basically said is you saw all the
slaughter on the beach, mayby your best friend was killed, and when you
get to the top and finally are able to dish it back to the German, this
guy drops his gun and raises his hands, not today buddy.
He also indicated whole groups of POW's were executed at Omaha
beach, not just ones and twos showed in the movie.
James Dusek
Todd A Carter
Nai-Chi Lee <n...@philabs.research.philips.com> wrote:
>
>The movie attempts to present some moral delimmas, such as whether it
>is right to risk life of many to save the life of one, or whether it
>is right to shoot a war prisoner. But then again, just like in any
>typical Hollywood movie, you kown exactly what the director wants you
>to choose as the story unfolds.
Actually, this would be the case of any story. You are shown what the
teller of that story wants you to see/hear/know. I don't understand this
point.
>
>In any disaster movie, there may be hundreds of people dying left and
>right, but nobody will shred a tear for them. As long as in the end,
>a cute little girl and her puppy are saved, the audience will feel
>good about it and go home happy. Same Hollywood formula here, except
>that this time the cute little girl is replaced by a 6'6" man.
The audience I was part of did NOT go home happy. We left silent and
stricken. For my part, I was angry about many things. Not the least of
which that we live in a world which makes something like war a necessity.
>Another case in point: the scene near the end where that (cowardly)
>American soldier shot the German soldier. Its clear purpose is just
>to make the audience feel good -- "Ah! Justice is finally served".
I did not feel like that at all. Mainly, I still despised the coward. He
could only get up the guts to kill the German when he was utterly in the
dominant position, not hwen it could have been useful. Hell, he was
killing a man who had let him live a few minutes earlier.
>Okay, so maybe I'm being too cynical. It is actually a good movie,
>just that my expectation was raised too high from reading all those
>hypes in this news group.
>Nai-Chi
Perhaps it is overhyped, but I would not cal lit a feel-good movie. Not
even close. The puppy-dog hero who manages to survive, which makes it a
feel-good movie, then has to deal with 0 years of guilt for having to
"earn" all those deaths, something impossible to do.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Carter ...for supremely frightful would be the effects
ta...@columbia.edu of any human endeavor to mock the stupendous
mechanism of the Creator. Mary Shelley
Andrew Hardin
>On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 15:25:39 GMT, "Daniel Lemberg" <lem...@home.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The way I see it, the war in Europe was a direct extension of WWI, which was
>>a "no fault" (or rather an "everyones fault") war; in which two overly rigid
>>and militaristic alliances used an assassination of a minor leader as an
>>excuse to bash heads. Germany lost, and under the name of "reparations" was
>>crushed economically to the point of mass desperation.
>
>(snip) Sorry, but German propaganda. Germany was not "crushed" by
>reparations. The vast majority of reparations were _never_ repaid by
>Germany. And what was repaid was repaid in greatly devalued German
>marks, as the German government deliberately devalued the mark after
>the war.
>
>Germany suffered after WW1 for the same reason as every other nation
>on earth - the Great Depression - not because of reparations. Again,
>if Germany was so "crushed" by reparations, it seems hardly likely
>that without any economic aid from other nations, that they could rise
>again to threaten the world in just a short 20 years.
>
>The "crushing" reparations is just German/Nazi apologetics . . .
>
>Grifman
Interestingly, I am reading a book called 'The Gathering Storm' part
one of six-parter written by Winston Churchill (I forget the name of
the entire series). His opinion was that the it was in fact
impossible for any defeated government to pay the price of fighting a
world war. He is not a perfect man, and his material isn't always
unbiased, but it is the opinion of someone with considerable
understanding of European realities of the time. The real problem with
reperations was it caused massive inflation, which completely wiped
out most of the economic capital of Germany in one short period.
Middle class wealth disappeared, things like mortgages became
worthless, and this opened the door for the middle class uprising to
join political movements such as fascism and communism. Perhaps
things would have been fixed if the Great Depression had not occurred,
but the war reperations played a key point in the political
environment before the Second World War, even if the 'truth' was
skewered for the purposes of 'propaganda'.
- Drew
rlcc...@my-dejanews.com
Same for Paths of Glory.
I agree with Saving Private Ryan. Powerful film. I don't think it was just
the gore, but the chaos that was so well done. It's hard to be impressed
with other older war movies now. This film would have destroyed John Wayne's
career.
In article <35BCA470...@osu.edu>,
Reza John Khakbaz-Nejad <khakbaz...@osu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Allan Parent wrote:
>
> > <<>I know this is kinda off-topic, but wow, what a movie. This is the
> > first
> > >movie that I have ever seen that portrays WWII in such a gritty,
> > >frightening, gory fashion.
> >
> > You must not see a lot of movies.>>
> >
> > It is the best representaion of WWII.....period. I have seen most all of
> > the WWII movies and this is by far the most realistic.
> >
> > <<As you watch, you wonder how the infantry
> > >soldier did it. Storming the beach at Omaha was as intense a battle
> > scene
> > >that I've ever witnessed in a movie. If you're a strategy, wargamer,
> > or
> > >WWII history buff - GO SEE IT!
> >
> > Thanks Steven. Hopefully it's ratings will go higher this week, and>>
> > you won't have to resort to promoting it yourself.>>
> >
> > It is a great movie and this guy, like almost everbody that has seen it
> > is deeply moved.
> >
> > Allan
>
> If this type of gore whould have been allowed at the time (and the
> technology was
> there to support it), I think "All Quiet on the Western Front" would have
> been
> a very similar movie.
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Hedgehog
drumm...@aol.com says...
> >Many people here seems to love the movie because it shows, for example,
> >"realistic effect of 88 AA rounds on human bodies". I guess this is the
> >same reason others like "Nightmeres on Elm Street, part 8" because it
> >shows realistic effect of kitchen knifes on human bodies. Some claim
> >that this is an anti-war movie because it shows how ugly and horrible
> >war can be. By the same token, perhaps we should also call "Friday the
> >13, part 23" an anti-violent movie?
> >
>
> No, because the Friday the 13th movies are not realistically violent. I've
> seen enough of them to know. Dead bodies in those movies don't look anything
> like dead bodies in police photos.
The point of those scenes were not to show realistic damage. Rather,
they were to inundate the senses with the overwhelming horror and carnage
that the average soldier had to endure in order to complete the mission.
The reason they had to storm the machine gun nest in broad daylight
was because they had to clear the beach for the transports. They had to
clear the beach as soon as possible in order to get their armor and
support facilities on continent.
> >Another case in point: the scene near the end where that (cowardly)
> >American soldier shot the German soldier. Its clear purpose is just
> >to make the audience feel good -- "Ah! Justice is finally served".
>
> That scene is not about justice, but rather about the personal transformation
> that character takes.
I read this scene completely differently. There was no moral
transformation, nor was there a building of character. The coward was
releasing his anger and his guilt on the SS soldier. In all honesty, I
respected the SS dude more for his actions than I did for the cowards.
(I of course do not condone the SS in any way, shape, or form.) He
killed the soldier in the small room, yes, but he then left the cringing
coward alone. The coward, on the other hand, couldn't live with himself
and had to try and make up for his failure (or was it *cover up* his
failure?). Either way, this scene was a glimpse into human psychology,
not a moral soapbox.
rlcc...@my-dejanews.com
> Then Siskel and Ebert gave it both thumbs up, but one of their comments
> caught my ear... And it made a lot of sense...
>
> SPR is really an ANTI-WAR film.
>
No question SPR is an anti-war film, but it also honors those who fought WWII.
Curiously enough I think Platoon and The Deer Hunter did the same for Vietnam.
<spoilers>
> The ending was poignant enough, though I'm not sure I liked the end on the
> bridge, where the P-51's saved the day by making a direct hit on the
> Panther? (I'm a little rusty on my German vehicle recognition?) It was a
> bit too deus ex machina for me.
>
There ARE a few pieces of hollywood in the movie. It is still a movie
after all ;^).
I agree the end was a little two convenient. I thought the same about
the POW at the end of the film as well. A little too pat.
Still a few nits to an excellent movie.
> At the beginning, I questioned the LST driver's wisdom in parking his "boat"
> right in front of a German bunker, but I guess that's dramatic necessity.
> ;-)
>
I guess to me it's just part of the general chaos. I wouldn't be surprised
if that kind of stuff actually happened. I heard somewhere related to this
that on Omaha beaches casualties were as high as 95%. Essentually certain
waves were wiped out without firing a shot.
rlcc...@my-dejanews.com
I think you make a good point. I saw this movie surrounded by high school
kids. Great I thought, they'll be wise-cracking through the movie. No way,
a few nervous giggles here and there, but a very serious audience.
In article <eE98G1ju9GA.211@upnetnews03>,
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Nai-Chi Lee
Hedgehog <brya...@vt.edu> wrote:
>In article <199807291443...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> The point of those scenes were not to show realistic damage. Rather,
>they were to inundate the senses with the overwhelming horror and carnage
>that the average soldier had to endure in order to complete the mission.
My perception is that those special effect scenes were designed to
_exaggerate_ horror and carnage. With the way those machine gun
bullets were ripping through the landing craft, we just can't expect
the main character to excape with a scratch. The liberate use of blood
(witness the "red sea") was also designed to shock and overwhelm the
audience.
> The reason they had to storm the machine gun nest in broad daylight
>was because they had to clear the beach for the transports. They had to
>clear the beach as soon as possible in order to get their armor and
>support facilities on continent.
Actually, I was referring to the scene much later in the movie, where
the captain decided to take out the machine gun nest underneath a radar
post. They could have waited for a better moment for the assult.
> I read this scene completely differently. There was no moral
>transformation, nor was there a building of character. The coward was
>releasing his anger and his guilt on the SS soldier.
<<Spoiler Alert>>
You did notice that this German soldier was the same prisoner they
spared at the machine gun nest, right? I mean come on, the director
even has to make this soldier ran around without a helmet, just to
ensure that you can see his face clearly. If this scene is not
designed to show "Justice is served", then I don't know what is.
--
Nai-Chi
J.J. DeSpirito
"Perhaps the worst area on the beach was Dog Green, directly in front of
strongpoints guarding the Vierville draw and under heavy flanking fire from
emplacements to the west, near Pointe de la Percee. Company A of the 116th
was due to land on this sector with Company C of the 2d Rangers on its right
flank, and both units came in on their targets. One of the six LCA's
carrying Company A foundered about a thousand yards o shore, and passing
Rangers saw men jumping overboard and being dragged down by their loads. At
H+6 minutes the remaining craft grounded in water 4 to 6 feet deep, about 30
yards short of the outward band of obstacles. Starting off the craft in
three files, center file first and the flank files peeling right and left,
the men were enveloped in accurate and intense fire from automatic weapons.
Order was quickly lost as the troops attempted to dive under water or
dropped over the sides into surf over their heads. Mortar fire scored four
direct hits on one LCA, which "disintegrated." Casualties were suffered all
the way to the sand, but when the survivors got there, some found they could
not hold and came back into the water for cover,
<snip>
The smaller Ranger company (64 men), carried in two LCA's, came in at H+15
minutes to the right of Vierville draw. Shells from an antitank gun
bracketed Capt. Ralph E. Goranson's craft, killing a dozen men and shaking
up others. An enemy machine gun ranged in on the ramps of the second LCA and
hit 15 Rangers as they debarked."
from:
American Forces in Action Series Historical Division
War Department
Facsimile Reprint, 1984
CMH Pub 100-11
Center of Military History
United States Army
Washington, D.C.
J.J. DeSpirito
(Return mail should be directed to james at cybernex dot net)
rlcc...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6pnhtk$tsd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Dean ODonnell
Charles A Smith <cas...@ksu.edu> wrote:
>I would rest my case on the vets who landed on the beach who were invited
>to view the movie. In all cases but one (one ol' vet thought there was too
>much swearing), they were all deeply moved by the accuracy of the movie. One
>wife said something like "I wish to God I had known this fifty years ago." Another
>said something like, "Thank God I have a bottle of scotch at home because
>I'm going to go and empty it." Plus, the military has set up a hotline for
>WWII vets (and others) to call if old emotions are enflamed. What greater
>tribute could there possibly be to the director and all that participated.
I think this effect on vets is a bit hyped. The Boston Globe ran a story
today where they interviewed a bunch of vets who had seen the movie and the
reaction was quite different.
To quote:
Zagol, a 101st division paratrooper remembers the beach in Normandy
vividly... Zagol went to the movie because his grandson wanted to see it.
"Actually," he recalled, "after the first 20 minutes were over, the real
part, I wanted to go home... I mean, it just wasn't realistic. They were
running around throwing hand grenades into buildings, they weren't staying
behind the tanks when they moved up. It wasn't the war I fought in."
And later in the story:
Terence Keane, a psychologist at the Boston Verterans Hospital, where he
directs the National Center for Post-Traumatic Syndrome, is not surprised
that the veterans of D-Day are taking the movie in relatively well-tempered
stride. "For one thing," he explained," the veterans that you can still
find, still get ahold of, are the lucky ones. The people who were most
severely affected by the war, well, they die earlier, you can imagine the
caues, alcoholism, heart disease, accidents. The healthier ones, that's
who's talking to you."
While films might kick up visits to the VA, they don't hold a candle to
true life. "The Gulf War," Keane recalled, "we saw a greater than doubling
of patients. That's reality for you."
Read the whole story at:
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe/globehtml/210/D_Day__real_and_recreated.htm
Dean
Patrick Kavanaugh
pretty much a waste of time. I also doubt that you will find much
"documentation" of killing prisoners. And if you are refering to the WESTERN
( sic...... a German term needless to say...... i.e. the "eastern front to
England, USA, France etc. ...... have always wondered about the liberal use
of this term ) "front"..... the Malmedy incident was much more than "20"
killed. And certainly not taking prisoners on the Russian front by both
sides is considered common ( except in larger numbers ). Also... though data
is vague, some claim that a very large number of Russian's died in German
POW camps due to disease and starvation. SPR IMO in no way "excuses" or
justifies killing prisoners, it only depicts it for what it was.... a more
common occurance than "hollywood" would have people believe. The most
powerful film I have yet seen. I don't see how any perceptive person can
ever be quite the "same" after seeing this movie.
Regards....
PK
Henri H. Arsenault wrote in message ...
Henri H. Arsenault
and...@nospam.dc-systems.com (Andrew Hardin) wrote:
> Interestingly, I am reading a book called 'The Gathering Storm' part
> one of six-parter written by Winston Churchill (I forget the name of
> the entire series). His opinion was that the it was in fact
"The Second World War", by Winston Churchill, six volumes. Excellent.
Henri
Patrick Kavanaugh
of your comments to be absurd. To attempt to compare SPR to "hack and slash"
films is preposterous, and only indicates that you have no real
comprehension of what the film is depicting.
Nai-Chi Lee wrote in message
<6pn8l1$e...@condor.philabs.research.philips.com>...
>Sorry guys, I have to go against the tide and state my honest opinion here:
>Saving Private Ryan is grossly over-hyped and over-rated.
>
>This is not to say that it is bad movie. It is quite good. In fact, it
>has "Oscar" written all over it, because:
>- The movie is nearly three hours long
>- It is a big-budget production with tons of impressive special effects
> fashion American value-system in Hollywood style.
>
>to see people get shot through the eye, people with their limbs blown
>off. People (or rather dummies) with their brains and intestines
>splattered all over, etc, etc, etc. Okay, very impressive. So what?
>
>"realistic effect of 88 AA rounds on human bodies". I guess this is the
>same reason others like "Nightmeres on Elm Street, part 8" because it
>shows realistic effect of kitchen knifes on human bodies. Some claim
>that this is an anti-war movie because it shows how ugly and horrible
>war can be. By the same token, perhaps we should also call "Friday the
>13, part 23" an anti-violent movie?
>
>
>1. Why nobody carries any smoke grenade when storming Normandy beach?
>2. Why would a 7-man section rush a machine gun post in broad daylight?
>3. How many 50-gallon tanks of blood do you need in order to dye the
> sea water complete red?
>
>is right to risk life of many to save the life of one, or whether it
>is right to shoot a war prisoner. But then again, just like in any
>typical Hollywood movie, you kown exactly what the director wants you
>to choose as the story unfolds.
>
>right, but nobody will shred a tear for them. As long as in the end,
>a cute little girl and her puppy are saved, the audience will feel
>good about it and go home happy. Same Hollywood formula here, except
>that this time the cute little girl is replaced by a 6'6" man.
>
>American soldier shot the German soldier. Its clear purpose is just
>to make the audience feel good -- "Ah! Justice is finally served".
>
>just that my expectation was raised too high from reading all those
>hypes in this news group.
>Nai-Chi