Personal Boycott of Hollywood Military Films

[The Huskar Social Union]

Ive seen that Korean movie, it is my favourite war film of all time, so well made and i still get teared upat the end of it years later.

And yes that is the one, set in Guadalcanal iirc.

Its definetly up there for me, but just how the front portrays the war almost objectively is what i enjoy about it, like just how shitty the situation was in...53 i think? And how it doesnt really villify the North all that much.

Flu still has the ending that makes me cry everytime. Not really a war movie but still.

Yeah the end of the film is in 53. And yeah for the country it comes from, i was very surprised at the lack of demonization of the Northern Army, in fact some of the worst things you see getting done in the film is at the hands of Southern soldiers or militias/vigilante police.

It shows them as normal soldiers like the Souths.

[Rhyfelnydd]

Its definetly up there for me, but just how the front portrays the war almost objectively is what i enjoy about it, like just how shitty the situation was in...53 i think? And how it doesnt really villify the North all that much.

Flu still has the ending that makes me cry everytime. Not really a war movie but still.

Yeah the end of the film is in 53. And yeah for the country it comes from, i was very surprised at the lack of demonization of the Northern Army, in fact some of the worst things you see getting done in the film is at the hands of Southern soldiers or militias/vigilante police.

It shows them as normal soldiers like the Souths.

Exactly. That is most of the war movies I've seen actually from the South, especially since most have to do with the Korean War. I mean, My Way probably demonizes the Japanese a bit here and there, but it is not necessarily that far removed from reality. Korean conscripts were treated absolutely atrocious and Korea in general. I suppose The Admiral is pretty overblown as well, but again, historically, not too far removed from what happened.

[Israeli Defense Force]

Again...never said it was a good movie . At all. I used it as an example that American distributors have used Soviet war history and kept Soviet characters in the past, so I do not see why they couldn't do the same here. And yes, piddley. The Sherman (well, early models anyway, later models less so) were completely outmatched by Tiger I and Panther tanks. Maybe it saved it by it's ability to be mass produced and thus overwhelm, but it certainly was not a superior tank in any way.

Again? No one said you did the first time. And yes, a medium tank design in 1940 was going to be outmatched by a heavy tank deployed in 1942 and another heavy called a medium deployed in 1943. No one said otherwise. Still good enough to save Britain and get the job done.

You would actually. At least it would not be an impossibility. Some SS units tended to be the last to surrender and still maintain morale and discipline.

You really wouldn't. Fanaticism doesn't make you the A-Team, and given the suicidal attacks by some towards the end because of said fanaticism, my point holds there too. lol

[Trumpostan]

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.

There are cases when historical fiction can be entertaining, I saw Kelly's Heroes mentioned and I agree that it is a fun movie to watch. True, not every movie needs historical accuracy.

But lets compare Das Boot and U571 (I think it was called). In the case of such movies, historical accuracy is called for, and not some fabrication about American heroes that never were and a nearly anonymous mention that it was really the British that did it.

I feel too many movies over glorify American armed services (and also FBI/CIA and such). Where some FBI dude kills a bunch of people supposedly in the line of duty and its OK, but some supposed 'foreign terrorist' maybe kills only one and that very same FBI agent uses that against him. The USA's major contribution in WW II was war production. For every man the US lost, the Soviets lost 56 and that is too often forgotten.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Does anyone here actually watches Indian or Russian movies?

Russian, yes.

Maybe if more people diversified their film experience, then Hollywood would feel pressured to make a wider selection of film types. But hey, Bollywood, amirite?

Yes, there's lot's of good European cinema and Iranian films (Jafar Panahi films in particular - latest film Taxi Tehran ) and a good Russian film I saw recently was Leviathan, 2014.

[USS Monitor]

That's a problem with Hollywood in general, not specifically war movies.

Portraying him as some kind of man without sin or saint comes to mind.

lots of movies about martin luther king or lincoln come to mind...
but clint didn't do that with chris. he was shown as being remorseful and implied he didn't support the war...i thought it was a good movie but chris didn't do any of that shit.

Lincoln is portrayed as a great man in the movies because he was a great man in real life. I miss him.

[The Alexanderians]

Isn't that the movie where three American tanks try to take on one German tank, and barely manage to pull out a win with 2/3 losses?

Four, well three did the actual fighting.. one got blown up by the Tiger at the very start of the battle then two were killed advancing across the field.

Which is fairly accurate considering American tanks could go toe to toe with light and medium tanks but needed swarm tactics for Tigers. M4's were no match one on one with a Tiger tank.

[Parti Ouvrier]

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.

When they purposefully advertise that it is based on history, yeah, then it kind of makes them obligated. Otherwise, you are correct.

Try The Longest Day, Battle of the Bulge (with Nazi Quint from Jaws ), or Battle of Britain, older movies that are light years better than modern Hollywood schlock.

I'd include Apocalypse Now too. Anyway, at least the Coen Brothers are still doing half-decent movies at the moment.

[Parti Ouvrier]

That's a problem with Hollywood in general, not specifically war movies.

lots of movies about martin luther king or lincoln come to mind...
but clint didn't do that with chris. he was shown as being remorseful and implied he didn't support the war...i thought it was a good movie but chris didn't do any of that shit.

Lincoln is portrayed as a great man in the movies because he was a great man in real life. I miss him.

"John Brown sowed, and the harvesters are we." Any mention of John Brown (also a American history hero of Tarantino's apparently)? I suspect not.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/02/j ... ry-legacy/

[The Florence Union]

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.

Actually it's less that they are historically inaccurate than the tone of them and what the historical issues say. What you said about invincibility is a case in point. Over the last twenty years or so it has seemed like EVERY American WWII drama is about triumphalism, America as the ONLY worthy nation on the planet worth respecting, and that American victory is inevitable. This goes beyond respecting your nation's history and playing with details a bit for drama to being ridiculous.

And having said that, I like American history. I enjoyed studying the Civil War, I have extensively studied and watched things about WWII and about WWII and other conflicts.

Like most people, I used to try to find the gems in movies I watched or try to not get too distracted by the irritating elements, but I've noticed it seems to be the rule rather than the exception now,so I'm boycotting and encouraging others to do the same. The only way to change something put on the market is customer response being so negative those producing the product have to respond, so that's what i'm doing.

Of course I'm a fair person so I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I've put a lot of thought into this, and decided life is too short to be irritated by movies. They're meant to be entertaining and on some level enjoyable even if this subject matter is dark or disturbing. So if people love the way such movies are being made, great, this thread doesn't speak to you. If you do find them frustrating as I do, then I encourage you: boycott them and vocally tell others you are doing the same.

History is written by the victor my friend. American, Russian, British, French and Chinese movies on the Second World War are most of the time going to be about them winning in some capacity. Movies in Germany and Japan are going to about their messed up fucking leader and his last days of messing up Germany or how brutal it was fighting in the Pacific and all the suicide the Japanese did to themselves.

[Val Verde Grande]

Well the problem you're having is that you're watching relatively recent Hollywood war films. The old ones from the mid 20th century or older are fairly good, in my view anyways. The more recent ones are almost always going to have silly things like a romance that never happened or a liberal bias injected into it.

For example, that lame Pearl Harbor movie by Michael Bay. It can never beat Tora! Tora! Tora!

Tora was a great film. If you want some realistic war films, check out Hamburger Hill, We Were Soldiers, The Boys in Company C, the Siege of Firebase Gloria, and the other classics. I recognize that there have not been an especially high number of quality films about the various campaigns of the War on Terror, but unfortunately that is just how Hollywood works. Bear in mind, their purpose is to sell tickets and entertain, not educate. One cannot blame them for that, and it is far easier to accept when you recognize them for what they are.

In my mind, the best 'modern' war movie may be Northern Limit Line, about the 2002 battle of the Yellow Sea. Excellent, excellent film. I don't know how accurate it is, but it was certainly an enjoyable movie to watch.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Actually it's less that they are historically inaccurate than the tone of them and what the historical issues say. What you said about invincibility is a case in point. Over the last twenty years or so it has seemed like EVERY American WWII drama is about triumphalism, America as the ONLY worthy nation on the planet worth respecting, and that American victory is inevitable. This goes beyond respecting your nation's history and playing with details a bit for drama to being ridiculous.

And having said that, I like American history. I enjoyed studying the Civil War, I have extensively studied and watched things about WWII and about WWII and other conflicts.

Like most people, I used to try to find the gems in movies I watched or try to not get too distracted by the irritating elements, but I've noticed it seems to be the rule rather than the exception now,so I'm boycotting and encouraging others to do the same. The only way to change something put on the market is customer response being so negative those producing the product have to respond, so that's what i'm doing.

Of course I'm a fair person so I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I've put a lot of thought into this, and decided life is too short to be irritated by movies. They're meant to be entertaining and on some level enjoyable even if this subject matter is dark or disturbing. So if people love the way such movies are being made, great, this thread doesn't speak to you. If you do find them frustrating as I do, then I encourage you: boycott them and vocally tell others you are doing the same.

History is written by the victor my friend. American, Russian, British, French and Chinese movies on the Second World War are most of the time going to be about them winning in some capacity. Movies in Germany and Japan are going to about their messed up fucking leader and his last days of messing up Germany or how brutal it was fighting in the Pacific and all the suicide the Japanese did to themselves.

I can't think of any recent movies, but The Battle of Algiers certainly didn't put a positive spin on French state.

[Hittanryan]

Hollywood writers today don't know how the military actually works and are too lazy to research it. Furthermore, they or possibly the marketers assume even if they did, audiences are too stupid to understand it or will be bored by it.

Then you have the problem that ever since the 1980's American soldiers are portrayed as invincible supermen. Our guys are worth 10 of the enemy, personally scoring dozens of kills and only losing to dirty tricks or being completely overwhelmed. Whether or not this is the result of a bruised collective ego from Vietnam or growing US nationalism during the Reagan era (or both), I can only speculate.

The result is that we don't get to see the ingenuity and determination it really took to achieve victory. Victory in World War II was anything but inevitable. The US at its outset was thoroughly unprepared for war with strong isolationist sentiments prevailing even after Pearl Harbor. Throughout the war at various points American forces were beaten fair and square or failed to achieve key objectives (Kasserine Pass, the Philippines, Operation Market Garden, the first phase of the Battle of the Bulge, even the D-Day landings didn't achieve all of the Allies' objectives in the timeframe they wanted). It's not only more accurate but more impressive from a dramatic standpoint to show that we weren't inherently superior to the enemy and that they had skilled commanders who got the better of us, but we still managed to come through in the end.

Instead we don't get a sense that it's a desperate struggle but just an inevitable slog towards victory, and that victory means making a John Wayne speech before leading what should be a suicidal charge against a fortified position or superior forces and winning anyway.

And how about giving our allies a bit of credit? Please?

[New Edom]

Well the problem you're having is that you're watching relatively recent Hollywood war films. The old ones from the mid 20th century or older are fairly good, in my view anyways. The more recent ones are almost always going to have silly things like a romance that never happened or a liberal bias injected into it.

For example, that lame Pearl Harbor movie by Michael Bay. It can never beat Tora! Tora! Tora!

Tora was a great film. If you want some realistic war films, check out Hamburger Hill, We Were Soldiers, The Boys in Company C, the Siege of Firebase Gloria, and the other classics. I recognize that there have not been an especially high number of quality films about the various campaigns of the War on Terror, but unfortunately that is just how Hollywood works. Bear in mind, their purpose is to sell tickets and entertain, not educate. One cannot blame them for that, and it is far easier to accept when you recognize them for what they are.

In my mind, the best 'modern' war movie may be Northern Limit Line, about the 2002 battle of the Yellow Sea. Excellent, excellent film. I don't know how accurate it is, but it was certainly an enjoyable movie to watch.

Yeah I saw that advertised on netflix and I wondered if it was any good. I may check it out now. The only problem is I'm not any good with subtitles because of vision issues--I have trouble reading them without constantly pausing and magnifying the screen.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

Like 90% of named characters in Fury die.

[New Edom]

Hollywood writers today don't know how the military actually works and are too lazy to research it. Furthermore, they or possibly the marketers assume even if they did, audiences are too stupid to understand it or will be bored by it.

Then you have the problem that ever since the 1980's American soldiers are portrayed as invincible supermen. Our guys are worth 10 of the enemy, personally scoring dozens of kills and only losing to dirty tricks or being completely overwhelmed. Whether or not this is the result of a bruised collective ego from Vietnam or growing US nationalism during the Reagan era (or both), I can only speculate.

The result is that we don't get to see the ingenuity and determination it really took to achieve victory. Victory in World War II was anything but inevitable. The US at its outset was thoroughly unprepared for war with strong isolationist sentiments prevailing even after Pearl Harbor. Throughout the war at various points American forces were beaten fair and square or failed to achieve key objectives (Kasserine Pass, the Philippines, Operation Market Garden, the first phase of the Battle of the Bulge, even the D-Day landings didn't achieve all of the Allies' objectives in the timeframe they wanted). It's not only more accurate but more impressive from a dramatic standpoint to show that we weren't inherently superior to the enemy and that they had skilled commanders who got the better of us, but we still managed to come through in the end.

Instead we don't get a sense that it's a desperate struggle but just an inevitable slog towards victory, and that victory means making a John Wayne speech before leading what should be a suicidal charge against a fortified position or superior forces and winning anyway.

And how about giving our allies a bit of credit? Please?

Yeah ironically a real film starring John Wayne among others "The Longest Day" pays good respect to the Allies and the Germans in general (though it leaves out the Canadians at D-Day except for showing them getting strafed by the Luftwaffe--and admittedly is true to the book it's based on in that). I think this is a part of what my issue is.

What I would prefer is for instance how "Patton" presented things. It presents the idea of the Allies, and admittedly while somewhat triumphalist it is also the story of an American iconic hero. Yet it doesn't shy away from things like stating that often strategic decisions were made by senior British and American commanders, or having the Americans in North Africa need British air cover. It presents Patton as the best army commander the western Allies had, which is arguable but it doesn't suggest that he's the only erason why WWII was won or that the Americans are the only such reason.

[Teemant]

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.

Like 90% of named characters in Fury die.

Only 1 main character survived to be more precise.

[Teemant]

I absolutely love Hollywood movies and see no reason to boycott them. I don't see what's wrong with Michael Bay for example. He's movies are great if you want entertainment.

Some people in this forum don't seem to realize that tragedy is something that not all people want (probably most of them). Eventhough American Sniper was a good movie and the ending was quite sad, had to hold back tears myself.

[Ancient Pluto]

I recommend boycotting the Call of Duty franchise too. Though given the decline in sales between installments, I have a feeling you're doing that already.

[Occupied Deutschland]

It presents Patton as the best army commander the western Allies had, which is arguable...

...
In any case, Hollywood does have a poor record of leaving out vital historical information or tweaking it to unrecognizable degrees in order to dramatize a situation one would think wouldn't need all that much dramatization. About the only thing to be done is what you are doing and wait for a good one to come along and reward it with your business.

Which pretty much automatically excludes any Michael Bay production. Pearl Harbor can never be forgiven.

[Novorden]

Four, well three did the actual fighting.. one got blown up by the Tiger at the very start of the battle then two were killed advancing across the field.

Which is fairly accurate considering American tanks could go toe to toe with light and medium tanks but needed swarm tactics for Tigers. M4's were no match one on one with a Tiger tank.

Well fury was an M4A3E8 with a 76mm, so should have been able to penetrate the tiger frontally from +1km.

[Teemant]

It presents Patton as the best army commander the western Allies had, which is arguable...

...
In any case, Hollywood does have a poor record of leaving out vital historical information or tweaking it to unrecognizable degrees in order to dramatize a situation one would think wouldn't need all that much dramatization. About the only thing to be done is what you are doing and wait for a good one to come along and reward it with your business.

Which pretty much automatically excludes any Michael Bay production. Pearl Harbor can never be forgiven.

I'm sure that it happens in every movie industry unless we're talking about documentaries which hollywood movies seem not to be.
I don't understand the dislike of Michael Bay movies. It's a pity that 13 hours will be not showed in Estonian cinemas.

[Zeinbrad]

I'm pretty sure Hollywood military films have always been like this, we just remember the good ones, not the standard 'meh' ones.

[New Edom]

...
In any case, Hollywood does have a poor record of leaving out vital historical information or tweaking it to unrecognizable degrees in order to dramatize a situation one would think wouldn't need all that much dramatization. About the only thing to be done is what you are doing and wait for a good one to come along and reward it with your business.

Which pretty much automatically excludes any Michael Bay production. Pearl Harbor can never be forgiven.

I'm sure that it happens in every movie industry unless we're talking about documentaries which hollywood movies seem not to be.
I don't understand the dislike of Michael Bay movies. It's a pity that 13 hours will be not showed in Estonian cinemas.

Michael Bay is good at what he does, whiich is making movies that are exciting and fun if you don't take them seriously at all. What I'm talking bout here is when historical events are presented as serious drama and an actual historical point of view.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Which is fairly accurate considering American tanks could go toe to toe with light and medium tanks but needed swarm tactics for Tigers. M4's were no match one on one with a Tiger tank.

Well fury was an M4A3E8 with a 76mm, so should have been able to penetrate the tiger frontally from +1km.

Yeah, funny enough when people complain about the unrealistic aspects of the tiger scene they never bring up that little bit of information, mainly instead screaming about the tiger being killed in the first place as "Unrealistic" or it having to advance across the field, despite it being obvious that it could not fire on the US tanks after being hit by smoke and was a sitting duck, thus it had to move in order to avoid being flanked.