World War 2 in movies

Quite a few, but by no means all, WW2 movies follow this formula: A small Allied unit, which usually consists of several WASPs, one Token Brit and one
Token_Black.png
* guy use superior tactics, skills and wits to destroy a much larger German force that sometimes has superior technology.

This is a very distorted image of WW2.

The main reasons of Germany's defeat were the overwhelming numbers of Allied troops, more resources the Allies had at their disposal and - to a lesser extent - superior technology (mainly in the Bomber and Radar department I think).

Discuss!



*To those of you not familiar with South Park: The name of this character is Token Black.
 
This is a very good point, Mohmar Deathstrike. I was confused by the meaningless posts of MightyMacbeth & Fox.

But can you give us some examples of such films to back up your theory?

I will try to reply then.
 
Let me name some off the top of my head.

A Bridge to Far. Kelly's Heroes, Dirty Dozen, Bridge Over the River Kwai (opposite front but same formula.) Saving Private Ryan, Thin Red Line (never seen it but I assume it is the same).

And yes, they are pretty much as Mohmar said, except in most movies I believe it is a Ranger or other specialized force going deep behind enemy lines with the advantage of surprise.

lol, Token.
 
tomtom22 said:
This is a very good point, Mohmar Deathstrike. I was confused by the meaningless posts of MightyMacbeth & Fox.

Me too. :p

I think this is a good point but one which always happens when movies are made by the victors. One thing I will say is the vast majority of WW2 movies made in the US or UK is about the Western Front; The Longest Day, The Battle of the Bulge, Kelly's Heroes, A Bridge Too Far, and so on. The German Army faced by the Western Allies was weakened, gutted and had virtually no air cover or mobility. Many of the German soldiers the Western Allies faced were infirm, green, support or training troops and overage and underage recruits. Given that, perhaps these small group of Allied commandoes ought to have done as well as they did in the movies but the makers tend to make out the that 'cream' of the Wehrmacht faced them, when the total opposite was often the case.
 
The problem with most of this film list is, some of it is pure fiction, while other films have been made for the box office with scant attention to the historical facts of the battles. Most of these should be treated just as entertainment.
 
Damien435 said:
Let me name some off the top of my head.

A Bridge to Far. Kelly's Heroes, Dirty Dozen, Bridge Over the River Kwai (opposite front but same formula.) Saving Private Ryan, Thin Red Line (never seen it but I assume it is the same).

And yes, they are pretty much as Mohmar said, except in most movies I believe it is a Ranger or other specialized force going deep behind enemy lines with the advantage of surprise.

lol, Token.

8)

Of those movies you listed, I think I've seen only Saving Private Ryan. Other movies are Force 10 From Navarone (which I think is about Special Forces), 2 of the Indiana Jones movies (though they're technically not war movies. I've listed them anyway because they are mainly a single guy killing a whole battallion or something, but I think it's meant to be a self-satire to some extent), Where Eagles Dare (I've only seen part of this film). Then there's a movie whose name I can't remember. It's set partly in Yugoslavia, partly in Greece and it's about American special forces who, with the help of some local partisans kill a shitload of German troops. I forgot the main plot however. Although all the dialog was English, I think it may have been a Yugoslav movie because the names of the cast seemed mainly slavic.

So, you're right. The Allies are special forces who have the element of surprise. However, the conflict in these movies seems to last for a couple of days and the element of surprise should only last for several minutes up to perhaps a couple of hours.

LeEnfield 2 said:
The problem with most of this film list is, some of it is pure fiction, while other films have been made for the box office with scant attention to the historical facts of the battles. Most of these should be treated just as entertainment.

You're perfeclty right. Of course I'm not advocating that these movies should be banned or anything. But people should somehow be made aware that they are made mainly for entertainment purpose and not for historical accuracy.

Apparently, from what I hear in the German media, until today British people obtain the most "knowledge" about Germany from WW2 movies and from their GCSE history course about Nazi Germany.

This cannot however be applied to the British people I met at a British University I went to for 3 years. I'm not sure how much they really knew about contemporaryGermany but they assumed that it's a lot like Britain or other western European countries.

Sorry folks, I've gone a bit off-topic here :lol:
 
Mohmar.....I have never suggested that these films should be banned, but just put in the right context, and that is entertainment
 
I've never suggested that you suggested they should be banned. I just wanted to be on the safe side and make sure that nobody gets any weird ideas about me being someone who wants everything I don't like to be banned.

Oh another movie: The Bridge of Remagen. I've seen it several years ago. I have a vague memory that it was about numerically superior American forces though.
 
"A Bridge to Far. Kelly's Heroes, Dirty Dozen, Bridge Over the River Kwai (opposite front but same formula.) Saving Private Ryan, Thin Red Line (never seen it but I assume it is the same)"


all of those do follow the formula that was pointed out, except for Thin Red Line. it follows an Army company in the fighting on guadalcanal.
 
One of the Better films that stay ed closed to the truth was the 1960's film about the Battle Of Britain. Another good film that you never see much of these days is called " Theirs Is Glory" this was made by the troops that fought in Arnhem just after the battle and the reconstructed the battle in Arnhem its self.
 
As I have said here on the forums before, it is almost impossible to portray a whole battle in one film. You are always going to be leaving something out. Hollywood doesn't make movies so you can learn something. They are worried about lining their own pockets. They make these movies based on what they think will bring in the big bucks. The American public would rather see Clint Eastwood take out a whole German divison with 2 MP-40s than see a movie about the Japanese invasion of China. Look at the recent WWII movie "The Great Raid". It was released in about 800 theaters while Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo was released in 3,000 theaters that same weekend. People don't want to see movies like "The Great Raid" so Hollywood doesn't make them.
 
CanadianCombat said:
simple solution....DON'T BELIEVE HOLLYWOOD

We who have some knowledge don't. It's Joe Sixpack who does. A great many people will believe what's put in front of them without questioning it. That's why it's disturbing.
 
If you want to learn something about history read a book, watch a documentury, or look on the internet. Hollywood is never even 80% right when it comes to making a movie based on real events, because they change the stories to make it more interesting for ppl so they make more money. And when it comes to war films Hollywood is always going to be american bias. No offence america
 
I can't see one of the all time greats, and I already started a post on that one: The Cross of Iron. Made by Sam Peckinpah from the perspictive of a German recon unit on the eastern front. For you who haven't seen it, go out right now and rent/buy/download it rightnow. This will balance the post a bit!
 
what about Band Of Brothers?

is that an unrealistic film considering that its build upon eye witnesses... ? :eek:
 
Back
Top