Dumb errors...

Is there a rational explanation for many dumb situations we see in WWII movies, especially those made by Hollywood? (spielberg et al)

For example, German soldiers are always running and being shot, as if they didn't care being shot... Very negligent.

 

There are good movies though:

The Iron Cross
The long days' dying
Stalingrad
The Battle of Britain (very accurate and the movie portrays a war fought with chivalry)
The longest of days...

 

yeah it is really annoying to see american tanks being dressed up as german panzers i.e. the battle of the buldge, the big red one, shermans and pattons are not mk 4s or tigers!!!!
And what about american m16 halftracks how many times have you seen them instead of hanomags or 8 and a half tons!!!!!
Or german snipers who either cant hit a thing or pick the most obvious spot to set up
or mr42s well what can i say they must have been crap all the historians are wrong hollywood makes it look easy to dodge 1400 rounds per minute and a crew that can change a barrel out in 5 seconds under battle conditions!!!!
I better shut up but its really annoying to see the germans get put down all the time after all as far as im concerned it took
eastern and western europe and the usa together to bring german dominance to an end what does that say?

 

I dont hold Hollywood to very high standards ragarding historically accurate panzer modells. But some films do a decent job in explaining their weaknesses. Well, off-hand the only one I can think of is Kelly's Heroes when Oddball kept talking about the Tigers strengths and weaknesses.

Cross of Iron was great because it showed the T-34 as it really was - a Russian tank.

Force-10 From Naverrone shows T-34's painted with crosses, which was historically accurate as well.

 

The Bridge at Remagen had accurate equipment - M24 Chaffees (though at the real battle, M26 Pershings were also used) and 251 halftracks. Can't vouch for the AA guns on the ridge. And the uniforms were the standard Hollywood double-decal helmets and jackboots.

The standard of historical research has gone up since the 1960s (the Golden Age of WW II movies). The moviegoing public is much more sophisticated today and expects much more in the way of realism.

But truth be told, how many people in the movie-going public would know an M48 from a Tiger II? Most teenagers in the US or Canada don't even know when WW II was fought. If you don't believe me, go ask some of them. And Hollywood, being frugal, didn't see the need to pursue 100 percent authenticity. They still don't.

 

Rommel, Hopefully the upcoming "Pearl Harbor" will negate movies like U-571. Slated for a Memorial Day, 2001 release, the trailer IS on the internet somewhere, but I seemed to have forgotten(a good boolean search will nab it). The roughly 40-second clip does reveal a lot, briefly showing an ARMADA of Japanese planes flying over playing children on their way to the infamous attack. Although this was not shown, rumor has it that the Doolittle raid will also be portrayed in the film. Certainly being an "existant" plot, I'm waiting with anticipation - but we'll have to see. That is a long time from now

 

I recall the new Pearl Harbor movie to actually be a love story though. The plains on the trailers at the movies and on the internet look very CG-Animated.

 

Unfortunately the Japanese planes seem to be in the wrong colour. Pick, pick.

There will also be Battle of Britain scenes as well as Doolittle Raid scenes.

And yes, the war is simply a backdrop to a love story. I don't see anything wrong with that, if it is done intelligently.

 

I noticed one thing in other forums i belong to.

People always complain about the over emphasise of Americans in World War 2 like u-571 or SPR. For that all i can say is Americans killing Nazis sells. Its simply Marketing. There are More Americans that will pay to see Nazis die then English and canadian put together lol so thats just my theory on one reason for inacuracies. Americans like to see Americans killing Nazis to get all hyped up and feel good and happy about spending our $9 for the movie.

------------------

 

Money... Everything is about money...

 

I think the WORST movie for errors is Midway. I can write for a long time about errors in that movie...but i think the WORST, most ridiculous error in the movie is in the very end Charlton Heston's character bravely tries to land his plane after being all shot up. To bad the old footage used (which looked very chiep used throughout the movie) was a JET crash landing the deck of a carrier...my guess being around the time of the Korean war!
And one more thing...i can't help it...most of the battle footage used to show the engagements in the movie were of kamakaze's?!
And they used the same carrier picture for both japanese and US carriers!
It is entertaining to watch but i find myself more and more disenchanted by it as i realize how MUCH of it is BS...hehe excuse me!
BUT
movie will be movies i guess?!?!?!

 

Torah Torah Torah was a bit more accurate.

 

Looks like nobody here has Seen Flying Leathernecks or Fighter Squadron

 

How about the 1950s tearjerker "American Commando" With Mark Bando, as the "star"

 

I am always befuddled by the phenomenon of the (in) accuracy of German soldiers. I.E. if an American soldier is running across an open field in broad daylight with no cover, the 3 MG-42's are manifestly unable to hit. Of course, when the Germans are portrayed shooting wounded men, prisoners, or civilians, their accuracy suddenly improves...

Midway reminded me of another error I see often, in books as well as films...pictures of F6F Hellcats routinely identified as F4F wildcats...

-Tim The Cynical

 

Heres another one for you...

Hollywoodlands problem is: they NEED to make ALL Germans look like bad NAZIS, while on the other hand, they make COMMUNISTS look like the good guys.

All I say is stupid @#$%^&^$ "politically (IN)-correct" Hollywood A**holes.

P.S. I cant stand the leftists at Berkeley