Personal Boycott of Hollywood Military Films

[The 502nd SS]

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.

The M1A1C 76mm gun using the M62 round would struggle to penetrate the 100mm of frontal armor of the Pz VI Tiger at 1000m. If the tiger was angled at anything other 90 degrees the round bounce off or fail to penetrate, most tanks carried little to no HVAP rounds because doctrine has the tank destroyers engaging enemy armor.

[Napkiraly]

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.

Yeah, Fury shouldn't be on here tbh. Overall it was quite good and not as "Fuck yeah, MURICA" as people are making it out to seem.

[The Huskar Social Union]

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.

Yeah, Fury shouldn't be on here tbh. Overall it was quite good and not as "Fuck yeah, MURICA" as people are making it out to seem.

Yeah there is no way it is one of those films, like come on, every American tank gets knocked out, all but one of the main characters die fighting. Yeah the final battle does seep into traditional hollywood territory a bit with the germans kind of just running around and losing the sense they had in final battles, but that can be excused for the necessity of the climax. Wouldnt be much of a good ending if they just stopped and flung a rocket down the road at Fury and marched past its burning wreck. Also, it was disguised to make it look like it was destroyed, tracks were knocked out, burning bodies around it and on it as well as some fire on top of it.]


Would the battle have lasted as long as it did in real life? No probably not, but the whole thing was that the Fury was basically a lucky tank, or doomed tank, what ever way you want to look at it. When i was watching the film i was expecting atleast half of them to die anyway.

[USS Monitor]

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



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/

Did I make a comparison or say anything bad about John Brown?

There are fewer dramatic stories to be told that involve personal appearances by John Brown. Not that John Brown's rebellion or his terrorist activities in Kansas would be a bad subject for a movie, but they're much smaller events involving fewer people than the Civil War. There aren't as many different stories to tell about them. Lincoln turns up a lot of in movies that are essentially telling other people's stories. John Brown's only going to turn up if the movie's actually about him or his personal acquaintances.

[Novorden]

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

The M1A1C 76mm gun using the M62 round would struggle to penetrate the 100mm of frontal armor of the Pz VI Tiger at 1000m. If the tiger was angled at anything other 90 degrees the round bounce off or fail to penetrate, most tanks carried little to no HVAP rounds because doctrine has the tank destroyers engaging enemy armor.

M62 is estimated to have 101mm of penetration at 1250m. Even putting the tiger at a 30 degree angle (increasing the LOS armour thickness to ~116mm), the M62 can still pen from ~500m

[Salus Maior]

Movies are movies. You can't expect them to get everything on the nose accurate.

[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.

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.

You do realise that technically ''based on history'' or ''based on a real life event'' is a pretty vague phrase right?

I mean, it could be 99% fictional and still technically be based on some real life event or piece of history

[The Lone Alliance]

You mean like in Fury where all the American tanks are destroyed and they lose the fight in the end and everyone but the rookie die? That invincibility?

The fact one tank crew holds against pretty much an entire, if I remember right, armored brigade (of the SS no less) is pretty overblown and American brovado-chestbeating-esque

It was an SS infantry brigade.

And from the way the SS unit had been marching it was clear the weren't a crack unit either, if they hadn't decided to sing in the middle of what was supposed to be a secret mobilization they wouldn't have been spotted.

Most likely a reserve unit with a handful of elites mixed in with fanatical untrained reserve units.

[Imperializt Russia]

The fact one tank crew holds against pretty much an entire, if I remember right, armored brigade (of the SS no less) is pretty overblown and American brovado-chestbeating-esque

It was an SS infantry brigade.

And from the way the SS unit had been marching it was clear the weren't a crack unit either, if they hadn't decided to sing in the middle of what was supposed to be a secret mobilization they wouldn't have been spotted.

Most likely a reserve unit with a handful of elites mixed in with fanatical untrained reserve units.

It wasn't a brigade, it was a "reinforced company". And they don't defeat the unit either, they simply hold it up for several hours. Remember that the unit marches on past the knocked-out Fury after the battle and is presumably completely smashed by American forces behind.

[The Lone Alliance]

It wasn't a brigade, it was a "reinforced company". And they don't defeat the unit either, they simply hold it up for several hours. Remember that the unit marches on past the knocked-out Fury after the battle and is presumably completely smashed by American forces behind.

Did I say that the unit was defeated?
I was just correcting the idea that it was an armored unit and that it was some super elite force.
It's pretty much a given that they were nothing more than a speed bump..

[Zeinbrad]

The fact one tank crew holds against pretty much an entire, if I remember right, armored brigade (of the SS no less) is pretty overblown and American brovado-chestbeating-esque

It was an SS infantry brigade.

And from the way the SS unit had been marching it was clear the weren't a crack unit either, if they hadn't decided to sing in the middle of what was supposed to be a secret mobilization they wouldn't have been spotted.

Most likely a reserve unit with a handful of elites mixed in with fanatical untrained reserve units.

I think the only active German tank in the film was the Tiger.

[The Two Jerseys]

Can you refresh my memory and tell me the nationality of the troops the Americans don't salute? They're not Japanese and Iraqi, right?

First: yeah they're Japanese and Iraqi. So what? It's a courtesy.

The Japanese Army didn't exist during the Allied occupation, so the Americans wouldn't be saluting anyone in the first place.

As for the Iraqis, the movie takes place in the field, and the US military doesn't salute in the field.

[New Edom]

First: yeah they're Japanese and Iraqi. So what? It's a courtesy.

The Japanese Army didn't exist during the Allied occupation, so the Americans wouldn't be saluting anyone in the first place.

As for the Iraqis, the movie takes place in the field, and the US military doesn't salute in the field.

There's a scene where a guards officer at the Imperial Palace salutes an American officer, who doesn't return it.

[The Two Jerseys]

The Japanese Army didn't exist during the Allied occupation, so the Americans wouldn't be saluting anyone in the first place.

As for the Iraqis, the movie takes place in the field, and the US military doesn't salute in the field.

There's a scene where a guards officer at the Imperial Palace salutes an American officer, who doesn't return it.

If the Japanese officer isn't considered a member of a "friendly" armed force (which he likely wouldn't be given the time period), he's not entitled to a salute.

Also, American military personnel generally aren't supposed to salute indoors.

[New Edom]

There's a scene where a guards officer at the Imperial Palace salutes an American officer, who doesn't return it.

If the Japanese officer isn't considered a member of a "friendly" armed force (which he likely wouldn't be given the time period), he's not entitled to a salute.

Also, American military personnel generally aren't supposed to salute indoors.

So the Japanese officer salutes him, he's entitled to receive the salute, but isn't going to return it eh? Charming.

[Saiwania]

I've been trying to vet whether the protocol for meeting with the Emperor of Japan is accurate or not, or if it has changed a lot since 1945.

"You may not shake his majesty's hand or touch him. You must never look his majesty directly in the eyes. You may not step on his shadow. When you sit down with his majesty, you have to sit on his left."

These points, accurate or made up?

[Lady Scylla]

I understand why you want to boycott these, and you're free to do what you want, but this thread kind of feels like you're throwing a fit.
change the thread up a bit to encourage some discussion.

This. It reads like a whiny blog post.

Which, call me a cunt, I don't really care, but it's Hollywood. I'm not saying historically accurate movies or shows aren't entertaining, but they've a very specific audience that gives history nerds (like me) a stiffy. Out of all the people I run into day-to-day, maybe about 3-4 share in my history nerdom. It's not so much lazy or a shallow approach, but the fact that they're movies, and they can have creative license if they'd like. Fury was a damn good movie.

As far as not giving other countries the respect they apparently deserve, Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers directed by Clint Eastwood are two movies that focus on the battle of Iwo Jima from the Japanese perspective, and the American perspective and both did nothing but tug at my heart-strings. They were both amazing. Furthermore, it's Hollywood which rests in the United States. The majority of their audience are American, they don't have to pamper to other nations if they don't want to.

You're also talking about a film industry that exists in a world post-9/11 with American Nationalism. Which, this isn't anything new. The Stars over America campaign was a massive project done by Hollywood during the onset of WWII to get warbonds, which included propaganda. So, it's not anything new, bemoaning it now just seems odd. As such, I'm not going to stop watching them, which, even as Brit, the Americans make some damn good movies. If I want a historical documentary, I'll look for one, it's not that difficult.

[Lady Scylla]

First: yeah they're Japanese and Iraqi. So what? It's a courtesy.

The Japanese Army didn't exist during the Allied occupation, so the Americans wouldn't be saluting anyone in the first place.

As for the Iraqis, the movie takes place in the field, and the US military doesn't salute in the field.

This. Perfect way to get your CO shot.

I've been trying to vet whether the protocol for meeting with the Emperor of Japan is accurate or not, or if it has changed a lot since 1945.

"You may not shake his majesty's hand or touch him. You must never look his majesty directly in the eyes. You may not step on his shadow. When you sit down with his majesty, you have to sit on his left."

These points, accurate or made up?

Accurate. You have to understand what role the Emperor served in Japan. The Japanese viewed him as a person of deification, and this level of formality was extremely important. This is also why, if you delve into the history, that the Emperor coming over the radio to order a surrender was such a massive deal to the people, and the military. Many in the war factions felt that the Emperor had forsaken them, and IIRC there was some major concerns about a potential coup of his position, afterwards.

If the Japanese officer isn't considered a member of a "friendly" armed force (which he likely wouldn't be given the time period), he's not entitled to a salute.

Also, American military personnel generally aren't supposed to salute indoors.

So the Japanese officer salutes him, he's entitled to receive the salute, but isn't going to return it eh? Charming.

He's not inherently entitled to a salute, no. The Japanese Army was defunct by then, and the US was occupying the country, as an occupying force. They didn't have to recognise whatever role the officer served. Out of respect or courtesy, they could've returned it, sure, but entitled to it is a stretch, especially given the context.

There's a scene where a guards officer at the Imperial Palace salutes an American officer, who doesn't return it.

If the Japanese officer isn't considered a member of a "friendly" armed force (which he likely wouldn't be given the time period), he's not entitled to a salute.

Also, American military personnel generally aren't supposed to salute indoors.

They can salute indoors if they're formally reporting to a superior officer.

[Pope Joan]

WE gave up trying to be scientifically factual a century ago. Every attempt proved ton be just another guise for parading the culture, the ethos, the values, even the prejudices of the author as "historical fact".

So now historiographers make it a key point to first and last be brutally honest, in their writings, about their potential bias. Then, they try to be careful with the documents, and disclose their sources.

But with enough money and ill will, clever men can still create convincing but false histories.

Of course they do that with "hard" science as well.

[Lady Scylla]

WE gave up trying to be scientifically factual a century ago. Every attempt proved ton be just another guise for parading the culture, the ethos, the values, even the prejudices of the author as "historical fact".

So now historiographers make it a key point to first and last be brutally honest, in their writings, about their potential bias. Then, they try to be careful with the documents, and disclose their sources.

But with enough money and ill will, clever men can still create convincing but false histories.

Of course they do that with "hard" science as well.

Actually, the mentality involving war has taken a significantly macabre turn socially in the past century.

[The Two Jerseys]

WE gave up trying to be scientifically factual a century ago. Every attempt proved ton be just another guise for parading the culture, the ethos, the values, even the prejudices of the author as "historical fact".

So now historiographers make it a key point to first and last be brutally honest, in their writings, about their potential bias. Then, they try to be careful with the documents, and disclose their sources.

But with enough money and ill will, clever men can still create convincing but false histories.

Of course they do that with "hard" science as well.

Actually, the mentality involving war has taken a significantly macabre turn socially in the past century.

Yeah, war used to be glorious. But then they invented high explosives and automatic weapons.

[Lady Scylla]

Actually, the mentality involving war has taken a significantly macabre turn socially in the past century.

Yeah, war used to be glorious. But then they invented high explosives and automatic weapons.

Up until World War I, it was. It was seen as an amazing and national duty to serve. World War I is such a major example because of how fast war advanced, and how great we got at killing people in some of the most horrid and creative ways possible. By Vietnam, society's shift on war was readily apparent, especially when Media coverage became a thing.

[Kubra]

I remember being a kid and renting jarhead cuz i wanted to watch a war movie
man, what a letdown, at least i was able to skip around the artsy parts of thin red line

[New Edom]

I understand why you want to boycott these, and you're free to do what you want, but this thread kind of feels like you're throwing a fit.
change the thread up a bit to encourage some discussion.

This. It reads like a whiny blog post.

Which, call me a cunt, I don't really care, but it's Hollywood. I'm not saying historically accurate movies or shows aren't entertaining, but they've a very specific audience that gives history nerds (like me) a stiffy. Out of all the people I run into day-to-day, maybe about 3-4 share in my history nerdom. It's not so much lazy or a shallow approach, but the fact that they're movies, and they can have creative license if they'd like. Fury was a damn good movie.

As far as not giving other countries the respect they apparently deserve, Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers directed by Clint Eastwood are two movies that focus on the battle of Iwo Jima from the Japanese perspective, and the American perspective and both did nothing but tug at my heart-strings. They were both amazing. Furthermore, it's Hollywood which rests in the United States. The majority of their audience are American, they don't have to pamper to other nations if they don't want to.

You're also talking about a film industry that exists in a world post-9/11 with American Nationalism. Which, this isn't anything new. The Stars over America campaign was a massive project done by Hollywood during the onset of WWII to get warbonds, which included propaganda. So, it's not anything new, bemoaning it now just seems odd. As such, I'm not going to stop watching them, which, even as Brit, the Americans make some damn good movies. If I want a historical documentary, I'll look for one, it's not that difficult.

Hey look, it's like this: if I say "I don't like going to McDonald's" I'm not trying to make people feel bad for going to McDonald's. I'm advising people who have also say regularly gotten sick or frustrated going there to not go until they feel either more satisfied with the products or indeed ever. I'm being a customer. For people who love Hollywood, great, go watch more movies. I'm tired of what I perceive as a trend.

So yeah they don't have to do a damned thing to please me, but I'm not giving them my money when it comes to films about military historical events until I see there's been some kind of change in the way that they commonly portray things. If as a Brit you don't care if they treat your country's history with contempt, good for you.

[Keyboard Warriors]

"Blackhawk Down" which I thought was good. After seeing "Fury" "Emperor" "U-571"

This part confuses me. The enemy in Black Hawk Down didn't even seem to be portrayed as human beings. How is that any different, or worse, than the other three movies you've mentioned? Where was the American military returning salutes in Black Hawk Down? If I remember correctly, it painted the Pakistanis and Malays in a particularly scathing light.