Personal Boycott of Hollywood Military Films

[The Rich Port]

I do wish there were more films that portrayed Canada's military, though. A high production tv show about the Canadian Corps in WWI would be dank. Or a film about, say, Billy Bishop or Tommy Prince.

I'd say someone other then Bishop. between his questionable flying habits (like specifically hunting for training flights) and the doubt about his VC winning action, even amongst British and Canadian historians, its going to be hard not to dwell into American sniper-esk chest beating.

Honestly, I think American Sniper can be interpreted either way and conservatives just see what they want to see in the movie.

The movie shows Kyle was clearly affected by his experiences and disillusioned with his naive view of himself as a "crusader", dumb tattoo and everything. That's what the whole scene of him shooting the woman and the kid were about. Who was the wolf, and who was the sheepdog now?

His true pride and joy was helping veterans readjust to civilian life.

And well... Then there's the whole thing of him loosing a court case against Jesse Ventura and loosing about $2 million due to "unjust enrichment"...

And then the fact his family kept 98% of the proceeds of his autobiography, which claimed more than 2% of proceeds were to be donated to veterans' charities...

[Ayreonia]

"On the way" is a warning to all crew that the gun is firing.

The stabiliser was never accurate on the move. No tank had appreciable accuracy on the move until the 1980s. To the point that the Swedish S-103 main battle tank featured a turretless design with a completely fixed gun aimed by steering the tank and depressing/elevating its suspension, because the thinking was that a tank would have to come to a full stop to fire anyway.

I just rewatched the battle scenes on YouTube and yeah, they don't hit shit on the move. Not just thr Shermen, but the Tiger and the Stuarts too.

[Lydenburg]

Something I've never understood is why the U.S. has produced more war and military-themed films in history than any other country, including such militarised states as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

It looks to be some sort of fetish peculiar to Hollywood or American audiences in general.

[Ayreonia]

Something I've never understood is why the U.S. has produced more war and military-themed films in history than any other country, including such militarised states as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

It looks to be some sort of fetish peculiar to Hollywood or American audiences in general.

It's been around for a longer time. I'm sure if you'd compare the percentage of war movies in relation to other movies, Nazi Germany would come on top.

Someone should research that.

[British Prussia]

"On the way" is a warning to all crew that the gun is firing.

The stabiliser was never accurate on the move. No tank had appreciable accuracy on the move until the 1980s. To the point that the Swedish S-103 main battle tank featured a turretless design with a completely fixed gun aimed by steering the tank and depressing/elevating its suspension, because the thinking was that a tank would have to come to a full stop to fire anyway.

I just rewatched the battle scenes on YouTube and yeah, they don't hit shit on the move. Not just thr Shermen, but the Tiger and the Stuarts too.

British pre and early WWII tank doctrine was to get your light fast tank, with a gun not too massive, drive right up to the enemy and spam rounds. The Cromwell and Crusader were good examples of this. Exception was the Matilda. Which was, slowly drive up to the enemy and laugh at their attempts to penetrate your armour.

Whereas the Germans preferred to park, unleash a massive shell from a massive gun, and worry about the next time you need fuel or repairs. Well, that's what their late Tank doctrine was, with their mediums, heavies, and tank destroyers.

[Frank Zipper]

Something I've never understood is why the U.S. has produced more war and military-themed films in history than any other country, including such militarised states as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

It looks to be some sort of fetish peculiar to Hollywood or American audiences in general.

Surely it just produces a lot more films on any subject than most other countries? What are the percentages of war films produced by different countries?

[Napkiraly]

I do wish there were more films that portrayed Canada's military, though. A high production tv show about the Canadian Corps in WWI would be dank. Or a film about, say, Billy Bishop or Tommy Prince.

I'd say someone other then Bishop. between his questionable flying habits (like specifically hunting for training flights) and the doubt about his VC winning action, even amongst British and Canadian historians, its going to be hard not to dwell into American sniper-esk chest beating.

Actually, I wouldn't mind a film that portrayed him as somewhat flawed and not always noble.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'd say someone other then Bishop. between his questionable flying habits (like specifically hunting for training flights) and the doubt about his VC winning action, even amongst British and Canadian historians, its going to be hard not to dwell into American sniper-esk chest beating.

Actually, I wouldn't mind a film that portrayed him as somewhat flawed and not always noble.

Well yeah, that's a character type that doesn't exist in mainstream media.

Something I've never understood is why the U.S. has produced more war and military-themed films in history than any other country, including such militarised states as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

It looks to be some sort of fetish peculiar to Hollywood or American audiences in general.

Surely it just produces a lot more films on any subject than most other countries? What are the percentages of war films produced by different countries?

Because America won one war convincingly and the rest were pretty in Cinemax.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

isn't that the one about the insane EOD tech

That's the one, though he wasn't exactly insane, just sort of addicted to his job I suppose.

And I'm not quite seeing what the OP's problem with Hollywood military films are. Sure, there have been shit films but they've made some fairly decent ones like Good Kill.

[Infected Mushroom]

War movies are fine. Not sure why historical accuracy is important in movies. Movies have no obligation to be historically accurate.

That said, many war movies (such as Fury) are fairly ridiculous and the propaganda of the invincible American can get on my nerve a bit.

Yeah, scenes like the Tiger fight and the last engagement were painful to watch as a WWII Armor enthusiast.

It felt like the Germans were blind and just plain stupid

Why shoot at a tank at all if your bullets can't penetrate the weapon?

[Imperializt Russia]

Suppressing fire; a tank's frontal armour is far from uniform (one method of engaging tanks suggested to allied crews was to "skip" AP shells off the ground in front of the tank, so they would bounce up and strike the tank in its poorly-protected underbelly); you might heavily damage components.

Tiger 131 was captured because 6pdr (57mm) anti-tank guns jammed its turret gear and gun elevation mechanism, making the gun impossible to aim. Its crew abandoned it otherwise intact.

[Ghuraba Al-Khorusani]

I've always said Hollywood military films are just propaganda.

[Seraven]

I've always said Hollywood military films are just propaganda.

Not all. But the ones made during Cold War, are. And the ones made during WW2, too.

[Napkiraly]

I've always said Hollywood military films are just propaganda.

Not all. But the ones made during Cold War, are. And the ones made during WW2, too.

Well obviously the ones during WWII were going to be propaganda. Kinda goes without saying. But hey, we got some decent films out of that.

[The Rich Port]

I've always said Hollywood military films are just propaganda.

No fucking duh?

Except, oh, I dunno, the ones not funded by the military because they criticize aspects of the military.

[Hollorous]

Not all. But the ones made during Cold War, are. And the ones made during WW2, too.

Well obviously the ones during WWII were going to be propaganda. Kinda goes without saying. But hey, we got some decent films out of that.

Bogart's "Sahara" comes to mind, even if the plot was kinda ridiculous.

The really good one is "A Walk in the Sun". Actually really gritty by 1945 standards.

[Ganos Lao]

I "boycott" Hollywood in general myself to be honest.

I opt instead for retro, independent and foreign films.

It was one of those "it's not you, it's me" moments.

[Minoa]

I don't follow Hollywood military films but for a different reason: there are so many of them that over time it becomes the same old thing.

[Napkiraly]

Well obviously the ones during WWII were going to be propaganda. Kinda goes without saying. But hey, we got some decent films out of that.

Bogart's "Sahara" comes to mind, even if the plot was kinda ridiculous.

The really good one is "A Walk in the Sun". Actually really gritty by 1945 standards.

49th Parallel is also another decent film from that period.

[The Two Jerseys]

Bogart's "Sahara" comes to mind, even if the plot was kinda ridiculous.

The really good one is "A Walk in the Sun". Actually really gritty by 1945 standards.

49th Parallel is also another decent film from that period.

It always pissed me off how Eric Portman owns the movie, but Leslie Howard, Laurence Olivier, and Raymond Massey get top billing for cameo appearances.

If we're sticking to Hollywood movies made during the war, I recommend Edge of Darkness.