are usually non-American. I've checked other war movies like Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down, and even Enemy At The Gates and most everyone enjoy those films.

Is there any reason why this series gets so much hate?

Actually I kinda liked that one for the simple reason that it is pretty much the first thing Americans did on WW2 that is at least attempting to be realistic, instead of being like usual American flicks where all American soldiers are great heros who never miss their target while all Germans are evil monsters who can't aim for shit. However, the show did have some huge problems:

1) All characters looked almost exactly the same when they had their helmets on. Pissed me off that I couldn't tell who's who most of the time.
2) Every episode was FAR TOO LONG. They were just drawn out and one could find oneself bored to tears for a large amount of the duration.
3) And yes, as you said in your opening post, while it TRIES to be more realistic than other American flicks, the jingoism is still far too far on the excessive side.

An American might not notice into what extent the American soldiers are potrayed as perfect heroes, even in Band of Brothers. To its honor I must say that at least not every character was that way.

The amount of those merciless monsters these American heroes slay with no effort in most films is not only unrealistic, but also disrespectful. We Were Soldiers is a horrible flick in my opinion, even for an American war movie, especially because of the parts that attempt at being emotionally involving, but fail because of how ridiculous, black & white and plain unrealistic they are. I regard it as complete fiction, and rather bad at that aswell.

The good thing about American war movies is that they usually show the human side of soldiers well, but they fail to depict the enemies as anything other than trash.

What was wrong with We Were Soldiers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ia_Drang

1,000 United States soldiers fighting off a force of 4,000+ Vietcong while being ambushed and cut off. Sounds pretty damn heroic to me.

Reading about that battle is inspiring to say the least.


Edit: Also while we are on the topic of Ia Dragn, Crandalls wiki page is worth a read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_P._Crandall

"Bruce P. Crandall (born 1933) is a retired U.S. Army officer who was awarded the Medal of Honor on February 26, 2007 for his heroic actions during the Battle of Ia Drang on November 14, 1965, in which he repeatedly flew an unarmed helicopter into enemy fire to bring in ammunition and supplies and evacuate the wounded. Crandall flew 22 flights that day, most of them under intense enemy fire, and a total of over 900 combat missions during the Vietnam War."


Either way I hardly see how the film was bad in terms of making Americans appear invincible. They are slaughtered in the movie and it even shows human error on some part (the guy accidentally calling in napalm on fellow soldiers).

What exactly was your beef with the film?

I will point out that We Were Soldiers at least had some scenes that depicted the NVA as people, rather than faceless evil killbots full of blood.

However, I am also quite sick of American war movies, and World War 2 shooters as well. I'd like to see less of these flag-draped, pie-scoffing eagle warriors and perhaps have a film or game that depicts the indivuals on both sides a bit more accurately.

Check out Letters from Iwo Jima, I thought that it was a great film to show the Japanese side of the story. For those that don't know, it is the sister movie to Flags of our Fathers, both by Clint Eastwood.
For the record I really like Band of Brothers.

Yes it did, especially that little side story they had going on with the NVA soldier who was writing his girlfriend. After he dies they mail the diary back to her and it shows her crying over it.

The movie (as well as the book) was actually dedicated not only to the American soldiers who died there but the North Vietnamese our soldiers killed in the battle.

As was said in the movie thread on this topic, I see no reason what so ever with America being glorified in battles/war as long as they do not twist history an incredible extent (out right lying) to do so.
I have noticed on several other forums I frequent there are people who HATE when America is shown in a positive light during any war. I have a few theories on why this is but for now I will not get into that.

Out of curiosity, what are some of the movies that paint America as an invincible champion of the light and demonize the enemy they are fighting against?

I am going to wager most of them are WW2 considering the Nazis are easy targets.

I didn't mean to belittle their achievements by any means. What I'm saying is that the events or the soldiers are not potrayed realistically in the movie.

My beef with the movie? It's either Mel Gibson's face or the fact that I just can't feel involved when watching it.
You're right, I forgot about that part. I haven't seen the movie in a while.

Even as an American, I'm very annoyed by the skewed portrayal of war in 99% of American war movies. I wouldn't call American patriotism 'jingoistic' in this regard, but Americans indubitably exaggerate their own military accomplishments. I think that the worst example, even if it is a decent movie, is Saving Private Ryan, which distorts history beyond belief. Hell, even Letters from Iwo Jima has a noticeable pro-American bias, although it is overall a fantastic movie. It seems, though, that any war movie that Americans are involved in always seems to glorify the U.S.

Even so, it's too much to say that American portrayals of its past wars are jingoistic. I'd say that the phenomenon is better described as the modern form of American exceptionalism. When I was growing up, elementary school taught me that the United States had saved democracy in both World Wars. Obviously, this is a gross exaggeration, but I don't think it's necessarily jingoistic or imperialistic in nature. War stories strike a chord in Americans, who want to believe that the U.S. is a steadfast defender of democracy and liberty. Many, if not most, understand this idea by analogy with the Roman citizen-soldier. For example, at VMI, a statue of Cincinnatus seems to provide a model for the cadets (although VMI is FAR more jingoistic than most American institutions). Most Americans, I think, would love to think of their country as behaving like simple militiamen, defending democracy when necessary and trying to live peacefully when possible. Obviously, the U.S. hasn't really behaved that way, but that's what Americans envision when they think of the "American soldier."

In short, I think that most Americans are well-intentioned and much less imperialistic than they are given credit by other countries. Their government is another matter. Furthermore, Americans have very specific, culturally-transmitted ideas about democratic values that are more open to debate in other parts of the world, which means that Americans often 'step on other countries' toes' unintentionally, contributing to the perception of American imperialism. For all of America's flaws, I still love my country as I think that it still has great potential. I have to say that I loved Band of Brothers for that reason; the balance of American patriotism and realism is reasonably well-executed in the series.

I have the tin-box set that most everyone has... it's entertaining but not outstanding or anything.

No worries, I just get touchy on issues like this because my rabid right-wing Captain America patriotism kicks in

I do not recall which scenes in particular you thought the events were not portrayed realistically. I agree Mel Gibson movies are sometimes criticized for historical inaccuracies (The Patriot and Braveheart come to mind). But I have not heard much argument that this movie strayed away from the book/real events.

The only scene I would say I might somewhat agree with you is near the end when they are charging the hill and in slow motion as they come up over the top several dozen Vietnamese are waiting weapons drawn but right as Mel Gibsons face appears the helicopters appear and tear all the NVA to pieces.

Obviously that was way overdone but I can excuse it because it is a movie after all. It is the only thing I can recall.

Mel Gibson is also my favorite actor and I have every movie he starred in on the top two shelf's of my dvd rack. So that also helps me enjoy it quite a bit.

I don't necessarily have a problem with movies that skew the history behind historic wars, provided they are put forth as works of historical fiction and they make it blatantly obvious, which in the case of the American movies I've seen, the latter is basically always true. I don't get a whole lot of entertainment out of shows or movies like Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, et cetera because I don't get any entertainment out of watching people shoot each other with automatic weapons or blow each other up with explosives. I'm more of a fan of movies like The Patriot, The Last Samurai, and pre-gun powder war movies where you have more hand to hand combat.

The only movies that really piss me off are ones portraying American Indians through the stereotype of a scalp hunting savage in dire need of a set of chains or a bullet through the heart, and that's more personal historical bias than anything else.

"I'm more of a fan of movies like The Patriot, The Last Samurai, and pre-gun powder war movies where you have more hand to hand combat.
"

Something that I get confused about in movies like The Patriot and other movies where they show battles with soldiers just slowly marching like morons while their enemies slaughter them with bullets and cannonballs; why the fuck didn't they run and get involved in fighting instead of just getting massacred?

Maybe I'm not a huge fan of movies combining historical battles and action elements, not necessarily because of historical inaccuracies, but because battles that took place in the real war wouldn't have been that exciting in a movie, the director had to add drama to make it more interesting, and something about that extra drama bothers me. Go figure.

Anyhow, I might have a wrong picture of the movie. I recall that scene you described, and I remember how I felt like when I saw it, but when I think about it, there weren't that many overly dramatic scenes like that.

From what I understand, that was the way regular armies in Europe conducted battles at that time, I don't know if it was simply a matter of being brave/manly or simply due to the terrain in most battlefields at the time not being conducive to guerrilla warfare. They may have still been adapting out of the sort of fighting they did before they had guns, where they'd simply run out in the middle of an open field and try to hack each other to pieces.

Yes, the movies I have seen were having plain battlefields. But I have always wondered why they never charged, because I remember watching a movie on TV that had the guy playing Boromir in LoTR. It showed the British soldiers fighting the French, and the battles were just marching and getting shot down. It is clear that the troops could have charged and engaged the enemy without problem, but still they just slowly marched and died. They must have been idiots during that time...

There were no battle strategies for firefights at the time. The nature of warfare had just changed drastically due to improved firearms. Also, it was practical for the strategians and leaders: troops could be controlled and moved easily, bigger army meant victory (so I guess there was a sense of honor there; no guerilla tactics) and because the weapons were still hard to fire while moving. It was simple, effective and didn't involve any sneaky tactics that would cause headaches to the strategians.

As to why individual soldiers didn't revolt against this mindless seeming practice out of common sense was likely because they would've been shot by their officers for lack of discipline. Officers were naturally punished if they couldn't keep their troops in a formation during the battle.

Ah I see. Did not think about problems caused when trying to fire a rifle when running.

The British Army was still employing the wonderful tactic of marching toward the enemy in World War 1. Our boys were ordered over the trenches and forced to advance upon German machine gun positions.

Not to mention the fact that if a well-disciplined formation of troops encountered a bunch of charging savages of the field, they usually triumphed easily. The battles with two such forces against each other might seem like senseless slaughter, but it was still better than no tactics at all.

Actually, there are ancient military manuals that teach that the formation that fires after the other side usually wins. There's a wicked logic and some truth to that, because advancing 20 meters more meant a lot more accuracy when firing, and since the other side needed two minutes or something to reload, the loss of men in the enemy's initial volley was more than balanced by the fact that more than 10% of your guys might hit their targets if they got 30 paces closer to the enemy before wasting their only shot in the war. A nice platoon to find yourself in, isn't it?

There's never been a war movie that didn't portray it's team as being heroic at least as much as band of brothers. Let's face it, it's what the entire genre is based off of. It's like complaining that a horror movie has senseless deaths, or that you can't understand a BM band's vocals. There's a question of degree certainly, but I feel Band of Brothers in particular did a good job of showing that the heroes die too. Obviously you can't develop all of the dying characters though because it would take up too much time, law of conservation of detail and all that, so they end up as redshirts.

That seems to be a problem with alot of combat films, so it's not really much of a criticism just for BoBs. As a matter of fact, director Ridley Scott had all of the actor's characters in Blackhawk Down wearing name tags on their helmets even though that is not how it is really done just so the audience wouldn't feel too confused about who was who.

The cliched image of the British redcoat out in the open, getting sniped by an enemy hiding behind cover, has its origins in the very real problems that the Brits faced when initially fighting in the French and Indian War. The Brits corrected those problems, and by the time of the American Revolution, the only battles that still evoked that image were King's Mountain, and part of the action at Concord and Lexington. American regulars fought in set-piece field battles in the exact same manner as their European opponents--by marching in lines, giving off vollies of musketry, and eventually closing with the bayonet.

That should not be confused with the close-order tactics practiced by 18th centuries armies armed with single-shot, muzzleloading weapons.

How exactly did Saving Private Ryan "distort history beyond all belief"?

Never knew there was so much "hate" for Band of Brothers.

Everyone I know loves it.

That was dependent on several factors, the most obvious being that formation had to be maintained. This was obvious even in battles where gundpowder weapons were not in the majority--eg., Cortez's campaign against the Aztecs. The vast majority of Cortez's troops did not have guns--his "grunts" were the rodeleros, who were troops armed with sword-and-shield. These men had to maintain formation in order to fight off the vastly superior numbers of Tlaxcaltecs and Aztecs that they faced in Mexico.







18th century troops did not need "two minutes to reload".

A 1768 military treatise plainly states that a soldier had to be able to "fire fifteen times in three minutes and three quarters". That's one shot every 15 seconds.

I think We Were Soldiers was much worse really, maybe not in factual distortion as much as living up to 'jingoism'.
SPR at least had a relevance re. the landing and its depiction thereof, where you could disregard the nationality of the involved (for the sake of 'artistic freedom'). The rest of the movie is more or less standard fare. As for BoB I haven't seen much of it.

My end all war movie would still be Come & See, with Catch 22 coming in a close second.

What does that even mean?

Please elaborate.

They were not "idiots"--they were simply using the tactics that worked best for the kind of weapons they had (single-shot, smoothbore, muzzloading muskets). Those guns weren't accurate, so emphasis was placed on volume of fire, and to do that, you had to fight with close-order tactics.

Warfare before gunpowder was not like bad Hollywood war movies make it seem. There were complex tactics and formations involved. No General would have his men run around in a mob trying to hack people and expect to win.

That simply is not true.


There were sophisticated tactics for the employment of firearms as early as the 1500s. The English soldier of fortune, Sir John Smythe, commented on how good the Spanish were with their guns--no big surprise there, considering that the Spanish were the first army to employ matchlock shoulder arms on an extensive scale.






Yet more nonsense on your part.


The early use of guns most certainly made use of "sneaky tactics" when applicable (eg., the Spanish giving a single volley at extremely long range, in order to coax the enemy to fire back at ineffective ranges, & heat up their pieces). Nor were "guerrilla tactics" ignored. Keep in mind that not all fighting was done in set-piece field battles; soldiers also fought at sieges, in small-unit actions (skirmishes), etc. You're evidently attempting to "dumb down" early firearms use to a point that never actually existed, historically.

1) Well, what are you going to do? I'm sure that's the way it was on the battlefield. Maybe a cast of Michael Berryman, Gary Coleman, Ron Pearlman, and the Elephant Man would be easier to differentiate.
2) A standard hour.
3) That depends on who you talk to.

Well, Dreadnaught's here. He'll answer just about any question you have on military history.

1) Don't be retarded. It doesn't take such extreme measures to cast actors that don't look all alike.
2) A standard hour with fifteen to twenty minutes worth of story in it.
3) Don't be retarded. It's obvious to everyone.

EDIT: In addition to point 1):

In every other war movie I have seen I could easily tell the characters apart. Not because Gary Coleman or the Elephant Man were in it, but simply because the filmmakers put some actual EFFORT into the casting.

The way you describe this one incident is misleading. The idea behind the Somme offensive was that the artillery barrage would kill the Germans in their underground barracks before they could rise for the fight, allowing the British to charge in unharmed and begin a rapid offensive before reinforcements could arrive. Unfortunately, the shells were not powerful enough (fail) and only served to warn the defenders of what was to come. It wasn't the tactics that failed but the equiptment. Don't forget that the entire Somme offensive also cost the Germans half a million men.

What are non-American's views of the movie Platoon? From what i remember it depicted many Americans as monsters (of course there were the heroes, but still).

I for one love Band of Brothers. While most war movies are cheesey, BoB isn't 'as' cheesey i feel. It does depict the Germans as cruel and terrible for the most part, but there are times where they show them as innocent boys who were thrown into a war (the scene where Winters executes them, there's a bunch of scenes that humanize the Germans if i remember correctly). The one at the end to, where they are working the gate and the American and German soldier shoot the shit.

Yeah, tin boxes are enjoyable in correct moderation.

It means clumsy, alcoholinduced rambling.

What I meant was, that despite the pompous flagwaving in the opening of the movie, the depiction of the actual landing did not have an emphasis on the nationality of the troops; they could just as well be aussies or british or whatever. In other words, the emphasis was the nitty-gritty of storming a fortified beach, not whether the troops were american, russian or maori.
Which is why its my favorite part of the movie, however inaccurate some details might be.
Hope that clarifies it.




The two films I mentioned are pretty much devoid of heroics.

One thing that has always annoyed me about the landing scene is how they charge up there and take the German fortifications in a matter of minutes. The real battle took all day.

I personally find that there are far too many films/games/books dedicated to rehashing the story of the airborne and the d day landing's. Maybe its because it was one of few conflicts where America was fighting someone that posed a real threat to the liberty's of the free world. I still find it amusing that these films make out the American's to be major hero's and defender's of freedom(fuck yea!) when in reality they were more than happy to supply arm's to anyone and everyone before pearl harbour.