War Movies in general

A Can of Man

Je suis aware
Okay so here it is.
Well on continuation of the other thread, I think war movies will get better because there hasn't been any dramatic improvements in special effects that would make audiences ignore poor plot, characters etc. as of late.
So there is some hope.
Speaking of which, there have been good war movies from the US as of late.
 
hhhhmmmmmmmmmm

This is what I posted in other thread and here it is now:

Black Adder........what a corker of a TV show that was!!!!

Dad's Army was another.

No offense, but America with war films has lost its way with all this technology graphics etc. It looks like they focus more on the settings etc than the characters. I mean don't get me wrong got some corker films but lets face it we are losing to graphic enhancement

I still stand by that. I mean the heart of the film is war not computer graphics. Yeah ok Special effects are good but i think they look more real when low budgeted than top of the art flippy flappy
 
The heart and soul of a good movie, as in a good book, are the characters the plot and the interaction between the two.

I've actually made a movie with some of my mates from Bath and Banbury. Naturally it's about football :lol: ... and other things lol.
 
have to say

FOOTBALL FACTORY......................now thats an evil yet good film. Beware america the real meaning of football hooligans is in UK
 
I seen a bit of that.
Hooligans piss me off though. Ruins it for everyone who's going to the stadium for the right reasons. But yeah the movie got it right on something everyone knew for a long time. The trouble makers aren't there for the football. They're there for the trouble.
 
I agree... Band of Brothers (Mini-Series) is good because it combines both an in-depth look at the characters and amazing graphics, plots, etc. However if we are talking movies in general (I prefer WWII) then I definately agree...

... for example; I prefer the 1949 movie Battleground (101st Airborne in the Battle of the Bulge... great movie that actually has an actor that served in WWII in it and has been long since over-looked) over the 1998 release of Saving Private Ryan

Very well said 13th_redneck - couldn't agree with you more.



Another comparison you could look closely at is the Star Wars genre. The first 3... now formally known as episodes 4,5,6 went deep into the characters emotions and plot.

The new ones... title episodes 1 and 2 (3 soon to be released) has been scrutinized by many because it has taken itself away from the characters emotions and interactions and focused more on graphics and new technology... which in many opinions has made the new Star Wars outcomes terrible.
 
The IV V and VI Star Wars were fine, but the driving force of those movies were the special effects which were just a generation ahead of everyone else when they were first released. It wasn't bad in terms of character and plot though not the best of such things I think.
I and II... Jar Jar was a disaster. Anakin was a disaster (basically reminds you of the most annoying kids you've ever come across). The Princess blasting away at combat robots was a hard sell. She's either a princess or a commando. Let's not mix both. Like Iron Eagle did. Air Force pilots going out and doing PJ stuff.

Band of Brothers was great and I think one of the biggest reasons why it was, was not only was it a true story, but it had 10 hours to tell it. I think a lot of presentations, if released in this sort of way can be successful. The only issue is the big screen... as with the current system it's guaranteed to not do well there. It's the perfect compromise of a full series (which can drag on a bit too long) and a movie (which will compress incredibly complex things that happened over several years into 2 hours).
 
have to say

war films etc are being lost in computer graphics same as us horror. Take "Dog Soldiers" for example, damn that film is jumpy and scary but yet still has a good humour side. I found this horror more scary than any american horro film in the last 6 yrs. Same with "28 Days Later"

These were done on a low budget scale and the effects were so much better and more creepy.

I think with american films they cater more for exspense than quality.

Saving private ryan was and still is a good film and the effects are still great as ever.

But are film Directors too caught up in the Fad of Computer Graphics these days?
 
I think we're going past the computer graphics craze.
It came about mostly with the Matrix. But War movies in general have grown up. I think things will be okay.
Plus there are some war movies coming out of Korea which are pretty good. The Korean film industry has improved like mad since the old times. The good ones no longer get caught up in corny romance themes, rather stick to what the movie's about.

Does anyone know any upcoming war movies?
I hear Rainbow Six is actually really in the proccess of being made.. .but probably won't see that thing come out for the next 5 years seeing how things are going.
 
haha no.
But we kind of do ;)
We made a football movie but we did have scenes where we were dressed up in camouflage fatigues, sneaking into homes and ironing their clothing.
 
let me think

I got a good idea for a film...............

1 Night with a london lass:

scene setting...west london friday night, girls getting ready, naked shower scenes and bedroom changing scenes. Maybe an odd slip of a hand or a tongue girl to girl.

Moving on to town, the rights of a night out and the whole ways of going wrong.

Sex, booze, lies, partying

Ah on second thoughts. Throw this all in on an army town and hey presto got a good old film there
 
Well we had 3 sexually deprived bastards running around Bath. No that doesn't count :lol:
But we did have shooting, killing etc. What do u expect from a film by 3 blokes?
War movies are hard to make, especially for the small groups because you have to get the gear and kit even close to right for it to be good. Of course you can be guerillas, but who would u be fighting? etc.
 
A good ol' pal lives there and he had just come back from Mallorca and so couldn't afford much of anything. So Leuven was ruled out, and the Banbury bloke didn't want to make an arse of himself in front of people he knew.
 
I think we're seeing a dropoff in war movies because we are at war. People generally like to go to the movies to escape reality and war is a hot topic at the moment. I'll bet we'll see a resurgence of war movies starting in ~2006.

Especially after the horrendous disaster that was Alexander, I think the general consensus around the studios is the ancient-warfare genre is dead... and if history is any guide it will stay that way for another 30 years before it pops up again :-/

I think a better subject is what war is going to be the next war movie. Is WW2 played out? Is it time to explore Vietnam and Korea? Will someone step up to the plate and make an Iraq/Terrorism film? Or will uncharted land be picked up with Napolean or something? Ideas?
 
ha ha ha ha

I heard Mel Gibson is thinking of doing a film based on islam/muslim and maybe about 9/11 or the events and terroisim leading up to it
 
Uhhh, not a good idea at this time Mel.
Dropoff of Ancient War Movies. First of all, I think the problem with those movies is that they're too "grand." As in they DRIP with heroism. If you look at "King Arthur," practically every frame of that movie could have been a screen poster and looked really good. Now that's what I mean. And plus the dialogue... (from Gladiator) "Markus Aurelius trusted you, his daughter trusts you... I shall trust you."
I think that there is more demand for recreations of actual recent events or movies based on them (Tears of the Sun was based on actual happenings from around Africa's trouble spots... but the Navy SEALs were just put in to have a reason for Americans to be there... fortunately were given a realistic enough mission).
Movies are under pressure to be more realistic and many audiences seem to turn to them now to give them a better picture on happenings in the world.
 
oi

King Athur was good, but wasn't galahad..........gwenivier and Lancelot's son lol

Seems they ruined the story by bunching every 1 up together.

I say get more origin and less computer graphics and fancy things etc
 
Problem with King Arthur is that there seems to be no concrete ANYTHING about the story to begin with. There's the original story and even added chapters, spinoffs etc of old... makes the whole thing confusing.
King Arthur was a bit silly with the accents. You had that Freddie Ljungberg look alike with some kind of Scandinavian thing going, then the guy who was I think his father who had an American Hells Angels accent. :lol:
 
Back
Top