1917

I3BrigPvSk

The Viking
There is a new war movie in theaters right now. It might be something to watch. There aren't many WWI movies, there are a lot of WWII movies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZjQROMAh_s

I have only watched a handful WWI movies

All Quiet on the Western Front
Lost Battalion
Passchendaele
Gallipoli
A movie about the Red baron
A movie about American volunteers in the French air force
A TV series about Australian soldiers during the war (Paul Hogan was in this series)
 
There is a new war movie in theaters right now. It might be something to watch. There aren't many WWI movies, there are a lot of WWII movies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZjQROMAh_s

I have only watched a handful WWI movies

All Quiet on the Western Front
Lost Battalion
Passchendaele
Gallipoli
A movie about the Red baron
A movie about American volunteers in the French air force
A TV series about Australian soldiers during the war (Paul Hogan was in this series)

To be honest as a movie it was good, as a historic document it was terrible.
At it's best it is your bog standard "war" movie, lots of near misses and based on a premise that expects you to believe lots of different things have gone wrong so that a rather unrealistic series of events could take place.
 
To be honest as a movie it was good, as a historic document it was terrible.
At it's best it is your bog standard "war" movie, lots of near misses and based on a premise that expects you to believe lots of different things have gone wrong so that a rather unrealistic series of events could take place.

I never view movies as good sources, movies are made to entertain. I think both of us find pleasure in reading empirical facts or watching interesting documentaries. I try to turn off the critical thinking when I watch a movie.
 
I never view movies as good sources, movies are made to entertain. I think both of us find pleasure in reading empirical facts or watching interesting documentaries. I try to turn off the critical thinking when I watch a movie.

I wish I could but as long as the movie is based on real events I can't.
Movies like the Avengers series I can watch because there is nothing factual about them but movies such as U-571, Saving Private Ryan or 1917 I just can't watch.
 
I wish I could but as long as the movie is based on real events I can't.
Movies like the Avengers series I can watch because there is nothing factual about them but movies such as U-571, Saving Private Ryan or 1917 I just can't watch.

I haven't seen the 1917 yet but from what I have read, the story is loosely based on a real event. I usually don't have any problems when movies depict a real person or an event. Movies tend to add and remove parts to make the movie more entertaining. I have a bigger problem when Hollywood make sequels
 
Yes and no, U-571 is probably my biggest issue.
The real story of the capture of German naval enigma codes and equipment was far more interesting and action filled than the abortion of a movie they came up with and worst of all there are mentally challenged Muppets who think the Hollywood version is how it really happened which is just plain insulting to those actually did get it.

I won't get into inglorious bastards as that in my opinion is as bad if not worse than U-571.

It really annoys me that I have to sit down and try and beat actual history into morons who are quoting movies as fact.
 
Yes and no, U-571 is probably my biggest issue.
The real story of the capture of German naval enigma codes and equipment was far more interesting and action filled than the abortion of a movie they came up with and worst of all there are mentally challenged Muppets who think the Hollywood version is how it really happened which is just plain insulting to those actually did get it.

I won't get into inglorious bastards as that in my opinion is as bad if not worse than U-571.

It really annoys me that I have to sit down and try and beat actual history into morons who are quoting movies as fact.

Haha, you are mentioning the two worst war movies ever. I can recommend a good war movie, the Unknown Soldier. A story about a Finnish machine gun company during the Finnish-Russian war 1941-1944. The movie is based on the novel by the Finnish author Vienno Linna. The Finns have made three versions of it, the first one was made in the 1950s, and then two remakes, one in the 1980s and the latest one in 2017 when Finland celebrated its 100 years as an independent country

The trailer (2017)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOPTno2xVqY
 
The movie ZULU was full of errors and so called poetic licence,

Firstly the 24th Regiment of foot was not a Welsh regiment, it was an English Regiment, it was the 2nd Warwickshire 24th Regiment of foot. The 24th Regiment of foot became the South Wales Borderers in 1881, two years after the battle of Rorkes Drift

Secondly the garrison did not sing Men of Harlech.

Thirdly the Zulu chief did not salute the Garrison, Lord Chelmsford was seen approaching with the rest of his command, the Zulu were exhausted so a retreat was considered prudent.

Fourthly the Zulu snipers firing down on the Garrison did not use Martini Henrys taken from Isandlwana, the Zulu that attacked Rorkes Drift did not take part in the Battle at Isandlwana. Instead they were using muzzle loaders.

Fifthly, the redoubt shown in the movie was massive, when in fact it was only 6 to 8 feet in diameter.

Its interesting to note that the Zulu that crossed the Buffalo River, sat on the bank smoking weed, pot, cannabis whatever you want to call it, to bolster up their courage.

But for all the errors, I still love the movie and watch it whenever it comes on TV.
 
Not exactly a war movie, however, I watched The Darkest Hour last night, the portrayal of Churchill by Gary Oldman was superb, I highly recommend this film. ;)
 
Haha, you are mentioning the two worst war movies ever. I can recommend a good war movie, the Unknown Soldier. A story about a Finnish machine gun company during the Finnish-Russian war 1941-1944. The movie is based on the novel by the Finnish author Vienno Linna. The Finns have made three versions of it, the first one was made in the 1950s, and then two remakes, one in the 1980s and the latest one in 2017 when Finland celebrated its 100 years as an independent country

The trailer (2017)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOPTno2xVqY

I haven't seen the movie, but I'll keep an eye out for it.

Its interesting to note that the British were considering helping the Finns in their fight with Soviet Russia, I wonder what the outcome would have been as the Finns became allies of Germany.

Its is often quoted that Soviet Russia were allied with the west, in my opinion it was the western allies versus Germany versus USSR. There was massive mistrust between the western allies and the USSR, Churchill wasnt a fan of Stalin whatsoever. When British troops evacuated from Dunkirk, Stalin sent a telegram to Hitler congratulating him on his victory.
 
Haha, you are mentioning the two worst war movies ever. I can recommend a good war movie, the Unknown Soldier. A story about a Finnish machine gun company during the Finnish-Russian war 1941-1944. The movie is based on the novel by the Finnish author Vienno Linna. The Finns have made three versions of it, the first one was made in the 1950s, and then two remakes, one in the 1980s and the latest one in 2017 when Finland celebrated its 100 years as an independent country

The trailer (2017)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOPTno2xVqY

I am pretty sure I have seen the 80s version of that movie, it seemed ok.
 
I am pretty sure I have seen the 80s version of that movie, it seemed ok.

The latest version of it is shorter than the one from the 80s, which is about 4 hours long if I remember correctly.

I have seen 1917 now and I'm not impressed.
 
The latest version of it is shorter than the one from the 80s, which is about 4 hours long if I remember correctly.

I have seen 1917 now and I'm not impressed.

I will bite, what is wrong with it?

I didn't like it either primarily because the plot was the same as every other movie just set during WW1, it had little realism.
 
I will bite, what is wrong with it?

I didn't like it either primarily because the plot was the same as every other movie just set during WW1, it had little realism.

I did a rookie mistake and had too high expectations of it when I read reviews of the movie. The depictions of the trenches and the waste of war in the no man's land were well done. I didn't like the story, I know they used runners to send messages between different units or between commanders. I don't have any problems with it, but I expected to see something more of the carnage we know happened during the First World War when soldiers went over the top and into the eternity.

I expected to see something similar as the beach landing in the Saving Private Ryan, when many reviews compared the 1917 with the Saving Private Ryan (I liked the beginning of the SPR, but even that one crashed, but that is my opinion) I think the Lost Battalion is a better WWI movie than 1917. There is one WWI movie which I haven't seen yet, the Hill and a number.

I would like to see a new take on the TV series ANZAC or something similar as the movie Bloody Foreigner, a movie about the Polish fighter pilots during the WWII
 
I did a rookie mistake and had too high expectations of it when I read reviews of the movie. The depictions of the trenches and the waste of war in the no man's land were well done. I didn't like the story, I know they used runners to send messages between different units or between commanders. I don't have any problems with it, but I expected to see something more of the carnage we know happened during the First World War when soldiers went over the top and into the eternity.

I expected to see something similar as the beach landing in the Saving Private Ryan, when many reviews compared the 1917 with the Saving Private Ryan (I liked the beginning of the SPR, but even that one crashed, but that is my opinion) I think the Lost Battalion is a better WWI movie than 1917. There is one WWI movie which I haven't seen yet, the Hill and a number.

I would like to see a new take on the TV series ANZAC or something similar as the movie Bloody Foreigner, a movie about the Polish fighter pilots during the WWII

My Granddad was on the Somme with the Middlesex Regiment, he was there when Hill 60 blew up. Quite frankly I am surprised he survived. I have booked to see the movie tomorrow evening, I'm not expecting anything historically accurate, I just want to be entertained.
 
My Granddad was on the Somme with the Middlesex Regiment, he was there when Hill 60 blew up. Quite frankly I am surprised he survived. I have booked to see the movie tomorrow evening, I'm not expecting anything historically accurate, I just want to be entertained.

It is amazing the things people can survive, I have looked back over my father's families military history since they arrived in NZ and all I can say is that they are damned lucky.

Two served in WW1 at both Gallipoli and on the Western front as riflemen and neither suffered so much as a scratch although one was hospitalized with pneumonia.
Seven of them served in the 2nd Division during WW2 (6 from the beginning, my father arrived in late 1943) not one of them received a single wound.

The only recorded injury in the entire family was my father getting stabbed in the leg by an angry farmer in Austria after the war before he went to Japan.
 
It is amazing the things people can survive, I have looked back over my father's families military history since they arrived in NZ and all I can say is that they are damned lucky.

Two served in WW1 at both Gallipoli and on the Western front as riflemen and neither suffered so much as a scratch although one was hospitalized with pneumonia.
Seven of them served in the 2nd Division during WW2 (6 from the beginning, my father arrived in late 1943) not one of them received a single wound.

The only recorded injury in the entire family was my father getting stabbed in the leg by an angry farmer in Austria after the war before he went to Japan.

Do you know exactly when he got pneumonia?
 
Do you know exactly when he got pneumonia?

It would most likely have been early in the winter of 1915 as he recovered and returned to Gallipoli before the evacuation and being shipped to France, I know very little about either of them but I have both of their medal sets which unlike WW2 had their name and ranks engraved on them.
 
It would most likely have been early in the winter of 1915 as he recovered and returned to Gallipoli before the evacuation and being shipped to France, I know very little about either of them but I have both of their medal sets which unlike WW2 had their name and ranks engraved on them.

I'm asking because I been working on what is called the Spanish Flu. It was a strange pandemic, mostly unknown to the public. People know mush more about the Black Death than they do about the worst pandemic in our history. The pathogen was the H1N1 virus, a flu virus. There are strange things about the disease. It killed a lot of people between 20-35 years old. H-strain viruses and corona viruses don't normally do that. The flu pandemic seems to have three epicenters, that is also unusual. One in Kansas, one in northern France and one in southeast Asia. There was an outbreak of a flu epidemic in France among British/Commonwealth soldiers in 1916-1917, which seem to have been a swine flu type A virus. But something happened in the summer of 1918, I think I know what happened. These three different type of H-viruses meet and exchange genes and mutate to a more lethal type. The Spanish flu killed about 50-100 million people world wide and mostly those in their prime of their lives. Why did it do that and what can we learn from it? The virus attacked the lungs and caused their immune system to go in an overdrive so basically. Their own defense killed them. The reason was, these generations had never been exposed to similar flu viruses. The war caused the recipe for a disaster when huge amount of people were moving around in the world. Now we can move between continent in hours instead of weeks. if or rather when a similar pathogen mutate and became equally lethal as the Spanish flu, we will have a problem. There are two different H viruses that may can cause a huge problem. The H5 and the H7 strains, which are both swine flu and avian flu viruses (most diseases are zoonotic, they transmit from animals to humans) and these two can be dangerous when they have mortality rate of 75%, the Spanish flu had a mortality rate of 20%. The corona virus now isn't a major concern, unless it mutate and the risk for a mutation increases a lot for every person getting infected.
 
I'm asking because I been working on what is called the Spanish Flu. It was a strange pandemic, mostly unknown to the public. People know mush more about the Black Death than they do about the worst pandemic in our history. The pathogen was the H1N1 virus, a flu virus. There are strange things about the disease. It killed a lot of people between 20-35 years old. H-strain viruses and corona viruses don't normally do that. The flu pandemic seems to have three epicenters, that is also unusual. One in Kansas, one in northern France and one in southeast Asia. There was an outbreak of a flu epidemic in France among British/Commonwealth soldiers in 1916-1917, which seem to have been a swine flu type A virus. But something happened in the summer of 1918, I think I know what happened. These three different type of H-viruses meet and exchange genes and mutate to a more lethal type. The Spanish flu killed about 50-100 million people world wide and mostly those in their prime of their lives. Why did it do that and what can we learn from it? The virus attacked the lungs and caused their immune system to go in an overdrive so basically. Their own defense killed them. The reason was, these generations had never been exposed to similar flu viruses. The war caused the recipe for a disaster when huge amount of people were moving around in the world. Now we can move between continent in hours instead of weeks. if or rather when a similar pathogen mutate and became equally lethal as the Spanish flu, we will have a problem. There are two different H viruses that may can cause a huge problem. The H5 and the H7 strains, which are both swine flu and avian flu viruses (most diseases are zoonotic, they transmit from animals to humans) and these two can be dangerous when they have mortality rate of 75%, the Spanish flu had a mortality rate of 20%. The corona virus now isn't a major concern, unless it mutate and the risk for a mutation increases a lot for every person getting infected.

Much of what I have read indicates that the 1918 pandemic started as a fairly standard virus which mutated into a more lethal one, I have always assumed that the reason it was so bad amongst that age group and seemed prevalent in military camps is that you had troops coming home from the war who's immune systems were severly comprised by life in the trenches.
 
Back
Top