Saving Private Ryan




 
--
 
October 31st, 2004  
warshark42
 

Topic: Saving Private Ryan


Do you think Saving Private Ryan is Historically Accurate?
October 31st, 2004  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
Well, I'm not sure if the story is, but everything in it is pretty dern' authentic.
November 1st, 2004  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
Saving PVT Ryan is like a historical novel. The story might be made up but everything else in the book is pretty darn accurate.
--
November 1st, 2004  
USAOwnz
 
Probably is. However, I bet Band of Brothers is more accurate.
November 1st, 2004  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
Band of Brothers is a true story. I had the honor of chatting with 2 guys from E Company, 506 INF REG. They told me that there were extensive interviews with all of the survivors before there was any filming. They said Hanks and Spielberg wanted to get things as accurate as possible. It was good to hear the stories of WW2 from the actual people who fought it.
November 1st, 2004  
Imrael
 
Theres a passing mention in one of the Stephen Ambrose books to the central idea - a soldier being pulled from combat because two of his brothers had been killed on the same day. The name wasnt Ryan though, and theres no mention of any dramatic searches.

There's also mention in "citizen soldiers" by the same author of a lieutenant who might be the prototype of the Tom Hanks character - exceptional performance getting men off the beach at Omaha.
November 1st, 2004  
Rufus Excalibur
 
SPR is accurate in terms of it being the most technologically advanced WW2 film made. The battle at the end when you can hear the Tigers rumbling in the distance is scary. Having visited the Normandy beaches and the American and British cemetries the appreciation of the film is greatly enhanced.

However those in Britain who take an interest in the historical accuracy of the film and its veterans were irate (and that is putting it politely) that the only mention of the British on D-Day (40% land forces, 35% airborne troops, 50% aircraft and 75% of naval forces + the three main operational commanders 1. Land = Monty 2. Air = Lee-Mallory 3. Naval = Ramsay) get one mention in the whole film 'I think that Montgomery is overated'

Such 'inaccuracy' does a great diservice to the effort of all concerned. Why? The Yanks thing it was just them liberating Europe not GB and Canada to. The Canadians and the Brits then react by talking down the sacrifice of thousands of young Americans at Omaha and across Normandy.

Conclusion, = realistic is not the same as accurate. Battle scenes helped by disgital sound, computors etc, historically accurate in the narrow sense, not in the broader perspective

Finally - I think that games such as Medal of Honour on PS2 and so on although fantastic in their realism and gameplay profit from those horrendous days. Children and the youth of today do not see it as 'learning' about the horrors of war but shoot em up entertainment.

Spielberg should hang his head in shame
November 1st, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
I really don't believe it was an intended slight towards the British or the Canadians. The movie was about a U.S. Army Ranger detachment (fictional) searching for a 101st private (fictional).
The primary battle scenes were on Omaha beach (American Sector).
The comment concerning Monty unfortunately was a pretty common assement of him by American troops.

I doubt that had the film been made in the UK concerning a group of Commandos searching for a Para the makers of the film would have delved the total invasion. It would have been a little part of the UK forces total operation just as SPR was a small part of big war theme.

Spielberg and Hanks did not set out to make a sweeping docu-drama of the entire operation.
November 1st, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rufus Excalibur
However those in Britain who take an interest in the historical accuracy of the film and its veterans were irate (and that is putting it politely) that the only mention of the British on D-Day (40% land forces, 35% airborne troops, 50% aircraft and 75% of naval forces + the three main operational commanders 1. Land = Monty 2. Air = Lee-Mallory 3. Naval = Ramsay) get one mention in the whole film 'I think that Montgomery is overated'

Such 'inaccuracy' does a great diservice to the effort of all concerned. Why? The Yanks thing it was just them liberating Europe not GB and Canada to. The Canadians and the Brits then react by talking down the sacrifice of thousands of young Americans at Omaha and across Normandy.

I believe this self-pity is a waste of time (not you specifically, Rufus, but those who get "irate" as you put it about things like this move). As 03USMC said, the movie had nothing to do with the British or Canadians because it took place in units and sectors where the other Allies were not operating. It takes nothing away from the technical accuracy of the movie, and does a "disservice" to none of the men who were involved.

As for that accuracy, the only specific thing I have heard that was technically inaccurate in the movie was that instead of plastic bags to protect the rifles from the elements, condoms were used.
November 2nd, 2004  
Rufus Excalibur
 
You will note that I compliment SPR on aspects of its accuracy and so on, my great fear is that the youth of today who take Hollywood films as exact historical retellings believe D-Day was an all American Show.

I note the comment on Monty, why though did Spielberg need to throw it in?

It is an awesome film (bit slow in the middle) just feel Hollywood is rewriting History as never before