...do people find it necessary to nitpick war movies so much? Most war movies are entertainment not historical documents. Obviously there are exceptions (Band of Brothers) that are percieved to be historical fact when they are not. They are there to give somewhat of an idea what war is about, or just to entertain. Another "why?" is whay do people nitpick the tarnation out of equipment especially vehicles and aircraft? Example: "I just watched Saving Private Ryan and those Tigers at the end of the movie were NOT Tigers, but T-34s doctored up to look like Tigers." Well, no kidding!!! There aren't exactly Tigers waiting to be snapped up at the surplus store or used car lot. What else are they going to use. Same goes with aircraft. The movie people have to use what they can. There is definatley things that bug me about war movies, but I take them for what they are. I enjoy them for one reason or another. The "Stitch Nazis" (of the reenactor world) pick the heck out of movies all the time. They can point out every single inaccuracy there is. I admire their attention to detail, but come on, they are movies, not documentaries.
Well, I guess that it takes a certain passion to be knowledgable about a subject, and once you are, it gets hard to accept people cutting corners. I mean, there are Treckies that nitpick details of Star Trek movies and episodes..."that's not historically accurate! Kirk said in episode 35438767 that the inverse plasma inductor can never have its tachyon-field reversed!!!!" Or somesuch. Personally I don't have a problem with, for example, Bf-109s in "The Battle of Britain" not looking entirely like the actual issue that fought in the battle. Technical details take a lot of work to get excactly right. I get more riled up about uneccessary or downright silly details tacked on for some obscure reason. Like the Japanese fighters in Pearl Harbor that took time off to hunt nurses down a street, just to prove how evil they were. Okay, we get it already. That sort of thing, even if I know its just entertainment.
Why indeed sdkfz181? Here is why: First of all it's because we can. Anytime a period piece is made, it will be subject to 'review' from historical scrutinizers. Many historical films, such as Saving Private Ryan are touted to be a very accurate historically as well as being a great stories. As soon as one makes such a claim, it will be subject to heavier 'review'. A non-historical film such as The Matrix or Star Wars cannot be attacked because they are hypothetical environments; we have nothing to compare them to. Other period pieces, such as Life is Beautiful, are more story based films, and while there are numerous inaccuracies in the film, they are less of an issue since the focus is more on the story. Roberto Benini, (the film's Director) never stated he was attempting to create a perfect period piece, while Spielberg' publicly stated he had an emphasis on accuracy in SPR. As well, there are a great many people who nitpick historical films to test their knowledge of the past. You may watch a film and enjoy the story alone, but others enjoy testing their knowledge of history by seeing if they can identify errors; people just enjoy films in different ways. I think SPR is a phenomenal film; no other film has ever captured the confusion and terror of combat so vividly. But that won't stop me from trying to nitpick, and nitpicking won't stop me from enjoying a film. When people look for mistakes it doesn't mean they are tearing down a film and denigrating it, it just means they are enjoying it differently. In many ways SPR is the target of many nit picking viewers because it is such an accurate portrayal of the period. The more accurate a film, the harder to find errors and the better a "test" it is to a viewer. I’m no “stitch nazi” but I will always look for errors in films, I can’t help it! Besides, I like to believe that nitpicking keeps film makers honest, and more likely to create true history movies, instead of more B.S. "Hollywood" history movies. That’s my two cents anyways… Oh, and by the way, did you get a load of Adolf Hitler in Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade? When Hitler autographs Indiana's grail diary, he does so with his right hand; in reality, everyone knows Hitler was left-handed!!!! Can you believe they did that?!!!
What they said and another 2 cents. To me, it depends if the movie is fiction or non-fiction.Heartland mentioned the Japs strafing nurses...it's also shown in Tora,Tora. Watch 'Enemy at Gates' then 'Stalingrad'....EAG seems like the whole battle was about 2 snipers, while Stalingrad showed what really happened. I had no problem with the 'tanks' in SPR or BOB, especially after watching years of German 'Patton' tanks and the like...Battle of Bulge.
Don't be making fun of Battle of the Bulge FramerT! It is one of my favorite movies as you can tell by my name. As for my 2 cents. Who cares. I don't watch war movies to learn about war. I read a book or watch the history channel. Movies are made for entertainment. That is why they were invented and that is how it will remain. I don't care how "accurate" a movie is supposed to be because it will never be perfect.
Monty, Yeah I did catch the Hitler thing. That was pretty funny. Hessler, "Bulge" is one of my favs too probably because it was one of the first war movies I can actually remember seeing that had lots of tanks. When I was younger I had a real obsession with them (check my screen name ) I nitpick too: I guess it can't be helped. I agree on the historical aspect. If you are going to promote it as a historical document, make it historically correct. My biggest gripe is the nitpickers who want the impossible, i.e., my Tiger tank example. And films such as Band of Brothers don't need modifying. Their story was exiting and interesting enough without modification. There have been plenty of war movies that are sometimes ridiculous in their innacuracy and lack of realism that I will watch over and over. One last thing, I never thought of the "testing one's self" aspect of it. After reading that it gave me a new perspective on the whole thing... And as for Star Trek...well, that could never happen. That show is about as unrealistic as they come...
I don´t mind the minor detail mistakes but when you have a T-34 playing a Tiger tank or a Mustang as a FW190 then I must say the movie is almost ruined....
Well, I do like nit-picking films, but I enjoy watching them, no matter how inaccurate they can be historically. However, if they are bad as films (bad script, bad acting, bad editing) then I will simply rant about it and say how awful it was. By example, Braveheart (1995) is one of the most historically unaccurate films ever. But it's a heck of a film. Who cares having the Battle of Stirling Bridge without the bridge if it's the best mediæval action scene ever filmed? Now, if we have a film like U-571, which is unaccurate and absolutely idiotic historically speaking, and also crowded with 2nd rate actors, a really bad story, bad production, lousy music… then it is our moral duty to throw sh*t on it!
For a moment there I thought he was talking about The English Patient .... ( ! ) </font>[/QUOTE]That is NOT a war film! Besides, it is no longer my # 1 favourite.
You think I'm that of a queen? Here's my new top-5: 1) Braveheart (1995) by Mel Gibson 2) Alexander (2004) by Oliver Stone 3) Death in Venice (1971) by Luchino Visconti 4) The Trip (2003) by Miles Swain 5) The Thin Red Line (1998) by Terrence Mallick; The Godfather (1975?) by Francis Ford Copolla; and The English Patient (1996) by Anthony Minghella.
I saw Braveheart a couple months ago on the TV, never saw it before. Tuned in at the 'mooning'scene on the battlefield. Can say that I could'nt change the channel...this is a good movie.
I like the Godfather: Part II a lot better than the first. "There are many things my father taught me here in this room. He taught me: keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"
