QT does WW2

Filmmaking, especially good filmmaking, can be incredibly powerful, especially because for every person that reads a book about Pearl Harbor, for example, many thousands will watch the film. (I don’t actually regard Pearl Harbor as being that bad, historically, it’s not my cup-of-tea but I can see its popular appeal.)

I agree. PH wasn’t supposed to be any more than it was:a romance set against an actual event. Hardly new, it’s been done many, many times before. Even the overly revered Battle of Britain had a romance of sorts…but the WAAF would rather watch the bombing than go to bed with her husband (and I thought English women were a bit more romantic than that.. 🙂 ).
I do get tired of people complaing about it…yes, it wasn’t The World at War, (and Yes, the Spits were mis-marked, etc, etc. ) but it hopefully taught some people something about the war that otherwise they wouldn’t have known. No harm in that.

I do worry a bit about films like JFK, and the people (especially outside the U.S.) who don’t do the research… It’s one thing to make a honest mistake (or necessary technical error…Merlin powered Bf-109s) but to go out of your way to twist facts and not give any other viewpoints or lable it as “one wackjob’s theory” goes a bit too far.
But then again…it’s a free country. 😀

And I gave up waiting on a UK, French or USSR/Russian version of Dr. Strangelove a long time ago…it seems most countries don’t go out of their way to bash their government and policies on film like Hollywood does.…

It does annoy me a bit when so called experts wade into to WWII films as being innaccurate, especially when it’s obviously intended just as a piece of ‘entertainment’ loosely based upon a certain event.

But that’s the problem as I see it; in isn’t obvious that it is ‘just a piece of entertainment’ to a large section of the audience…

…it’s only obvious if you know something about the real events, and most people don’t.

Filmmaking, especially good filmmaking, can be incredibly powerful, especially because for every person that reads a book about Pearl Harbor, for example, many thousands will watch the film. (I don’t actually regard Pearl Harbor as being that bad, historically, it’s not my cup-of-tea but I can see its popular appeal.)

One of my favourite pieces of filmmaking is JFK, it is a masterful piece of storytelling, but it deliberately skews the ‘facts’ to serve its own ends. Now I took the trouble to check the actual events because my interest had been sparked by the film but what percentage of the audience did?

I’m not against fictional dramatisations but I think it’s a shame that an opportunity to tell some really important history is being lost, and it doesn’t need to be, from the examples I and others have given. History, real history, can be both entertaining and factually accurate, even if some elements are dramatised.

The trailer for Tarantino’s film is clearly selling the film on its violent content, I don’t think it will do his career any favours, or for Brad Pitt, it surely won’t do anything but skew ‘history’ and I don’t predict any Oscar nominations…..so what has been achieved?

Tarantino and Pitt are talented, they could do better…..easily. Again just my opinion…..time will tell. 🙂

It does annoy me a bit when so called experts wade into to WWII films as being innaccurate, especially when it’s obviously intended just as a piece of ‘entertainment’ loosely based upon a certain event.

Like Pearl Harbor?! :diablo:

To a large extent all we have of ‘The War’ is the facts, and you can either make a movie based strictly on the facts or you make a documentary. I also think that fiction is part of the fact as well. I mean, who really knows what the ‘ordinary men’ did, said or discussed in the course of battle or elsewhere during that period of history.

Who’s to know the stories, the day to to day business, and the private or personal affairs of the everyday characters that played their part in World War II or any other event in history that’s being historically documented ? So why not make something up, it’s called dramatisation and adds colour to the linear ‘black & white’ framework of history.

It does annoy me a bit when so called experts wade into to WWII films as being innaccurate, especially when it’s obviously intended just as a piece of ‘entertainment’ loosely based upon a certain event.

Of course, but I wasn’t suggesting that war films should be documentaries or that fictional characters and events couldn’t be portrayed. I suppose what I am trying to say is that there is a big difference between war-fiction and war-fantasy.

I agree with your assessment of Das Boot, possibly the perfect illustration of my point, it is historically accurate in its portrayal of the Battle of the Atlantic and therefore educational, extremely entertaining, but the characters and events portrayed are fictional.

The other stand-out mini-series for me is Band of Brothers, the perfect illustration of how to do a ‘documentary’ war film. On the other hand Saving Private Ryan after a demonstration of its ability to entertain and educate descends into an utter fantasy.

I fear that Tarantino’s effort will be similarly fanciful and it will use fighting the Nazis as an excuse for the ‘heroes’ (or anti-heroes) to behave in an otherwise inexcusable way – two wrongs don’t make a right!

No, as I said, there are exceptions but there has also been a tradition of ‘war stories’ (as opposed to dramatisations of historical events) that have shaped the popular view of warfare (especially WW2) and left many actual acts of military daring and bravery in the shadows.

I thought Hollywood was making steps in the right direction with Valkyrie but from the trailer Inglorious B******s seems to be going back to the bad old days of the 1970’s and I suspect it owes as much to Tarantino’s directing style as any other consideration.

Just my opinion of course. 🙂

The great film, 12 O’Clock High wasn’t based on a certain historical event, but rather what was going on at the time and it’s generally credited with being one of the finest war films made.
It certainly could have happened. Likewise, forum favorites like Dark Blue World, Piece of Cake, and probably some characters in Battle of Britain were fictional.

In fact, some of these are probably better films (both artistically and in getting the meaning of war acrosss to a new generation) than some “by the book” films. Das Boot (based on real occurances but not a specific event, IIRC) vs. Sink the Bismark comes to mind as an example of how a drama can make a more intense film than a history lesson.
Tora, Tora, Tora was a great film for accuracy, but no one ever accused it of being a dramatic tour de force. You’d have a tough time getting the date to that one.

A fictional story can still get be very honest and true to the situation.
Not everything needs to be a documentary or to teach people about the war.

As far as Hollywood “…making steps in the right direction with Valkyrie”
just this week we hear that Lucas’ Red Tails is finally nearing production as the new Dambusters is underway…we think. 😀 (I can’t believe no photos have surfaced yet).
So both styles of story telling are alive and well.

I wouldn’t say that’s true of some, especially the likes of The Guns of Navarone or the films of the 1960s and early 70s.

No, as I said, there are exceptions but there has also been a tradition of ‘war stories’ (as opposed to dramatisations of historical events) that have shaped the popular view of warfare (especially WW2) and left many actual acts of military daring and bravery in the shadows.

In my opinion, The Guns of Navarone, The Dirty Dozen, The Eagle Has Landed and Where Eagles Dare all fall into this category. They are undoubtedly entertaining and feature some of the great actors of a generation but because of that the effect on the popular view of ‘history’ is magnified.

Even when a film goes to great lengths to portray history accurately, such as in the Great Escape, it seems to be the non-factual parts, featuring the biggest stars and the greatest stunts that people remember.

How about bringing (or bringing back) some genuine daring and heroism to the big screen; Operation Jericho instead of 633 Squadron, the Bruneval Raid instead of The Red Beret or the Saint-Nazaire Raid instead of Attack on the Iron Coast?

I thought Hollywood was making steps in the right direction with Valkyrie but from the trailer Inglorious B******s seems to be going back to the bad old days of the 1970’s and I suspect it owes as much to Tarantino’s directing style as any other consideration.

Just my opinion of course. 🙂

Tarantino is one of those directors that are a bit like Marmite love em or hate em.
Personally i have liked everything he has done even Deathproof and Jackie Brown, neither of which colud be deemed box office hit’s.
But who cares, his films appeal to a certain group and i am one of them.
He entertains and amuses me and i look forward to everything he does.
Horses for courses like everything .:D

Fictional ‘war stories’ set during factual conflict are usually pointless…..typically they lack credibility, pathos, intelligence and courage.

I wouldn’t say that’s true of some, especially the likes of The Guns of Navarone or the films of the 1960s and early 70s. OK, there was a lot of emphasis on action, which is fine, but there was an underlying seriousness to them which made you wonder of the possibility of such things happening.

They’re not meant to be documentaries.

Cant wait QT is the master

I’d have thought Spielberg was the Master!!!

Discuss…..

Fictional ‘war stories’ set during factual conflict are usually pointless…..typically they lack credibility, pathos, intelligence and courage.

There are of course exceptions but I don’t hold out much hope for Tarantino’s effort here (especially after watching the trailer) but I have enjoyed some of his previous work.

Cant wait QT is the master

That’s a matter of opinion. Tarantino’s last effort (Death Proof) seemed like a good idea… to him, and to the fans of “grindhouse” cinema. But, what happened? It flopped. It flopped because people didn’t get what he was trying to do.

He’s too wrapped up in making movies that basically recycle tricks and styles from other film-makers (the Kill Bill films being a prime example – even though they were good) because he likes them, and he knows that fans of a certain genre will like them. But the point is, not everyone gets them!!!

While I think Tarantino would make a decent genre film, I just don’t like the idea of him tackling a film about the Second World War. It just seems… wrong??

When is due for release ?

August 21 2009 according to the trailer not sure if that is worldwide.

Cant wait QT is the master

When is due for release ?