Something about BoB and SPR

[ccmax]

I love the movie and the series, but both have something about it that is unconvincing. What I mean is that the actors' performances lack a true feeling of the 40's (with the exception perhaps of the character Mellish, played by Adam Goldberg who has a definite 40's feeling to his performance).

 

If you've been around WWII vets long enough you'll know what I mean. People had different manneirisms, different body language and manners of speech.

 

Does anyone agree or I'm not making any sense?

 

What modern films do you think best capture the most accurate behavior of soldiers of the past?

[normaninvasion]

Das Boot :thumbsup:

[ccmax]

Yes, of course, as well as Stalingrad, from 1993. But both are German filmes. Any US made one?

[FNG]

Why does it have to be modern?

Look at Battleground (1949) that has actual WW2 vets in it as extras and was written by one as well.

Much more convincing than SPR in terms of what it actually was like even with censorship.

[Captainofthe7th]

The immediate post war movies are always good...I can give up the modern effects and 'realism' for true performance and accuracy.

 

Rob

[GIKyle]

I think the best portrayl of GIs in terms of mannerisms and language is 'The Best Years of Our Lives' Granted being made in 1946 probably helped this.

 

Kyle

[Teamski]

I still think both are really, really good. However, I see what you mean. For example, Carl Lipton of 1944 is definately way different than he is being shown in BoB. No similarities whatsoever.

 

-Ski

[Sabrejet]

It's all down to the scripwriters. They write late 20th > early 21st century dialogue/speech patterns which are inappropriate for the 40s. But it's not just war movies. Many Hollywood "period dramas" ascribe modern speech patterns to historical characters. The actors are only as good as the scripts they're given. As a previous poster said, some of the better WW2 movies are from that immediate post-war decade. Just my humble opinion.

 

Sabrejet

[Blake_E]

Yeah i would agree with that. Also, people change from when they are 20 years old to 75+, in the way they carry themselves and act. The whole world in general changes from the times, i mean, even the way they wrote and acted back then in movies, was with alot of different inspiration and techniques to what alot of actors and writers are doing today. I have always felt SPR is just a modern hollywood movie, that happens to be set in WWII, and another point for one, is that alot of guys you see look way too old to be portraying the age groups of common soldiers back then etc. However, i felt Band, nicely captured the young, easy going, boy next door, all american 40s kids feel quite well.

[Tommymonkey192]

In my opinion Memphis Belle (1990) really captured the look, personalities and mannerisms of the era, especially the two who played the waist gunners. The cast which included Matthew Modine (Full Metal Jacket), Billy Zane (Titanic), D.B. Sweeney, Eric Stolz, Harry Connick, Jr., Courtney Gains* (Children of the Corn) and Sean Astin (Encino Man) was superb -- I even liked John Lithgow's portrayal of the smarmy PR man from Washington.

 

Though the movie was highly fictionalized it's still one of my favorites. The attention to detail is excellent, especially the scenes of the squadron dance and the ground crews readying the planes for the mission -- in fact the B-17s used in Memphis Belle are just as much the stars of the movie as it's cast.

 

*Courtney Gains was one of the waist gunners, unfortunately I don't know who played the other one.

[Blake_E]

I LOVE that movie, i agree, another very good portrayal of the time

[M1Marksman]

In my opinion Memphis Belle (1990) really captured the look, personalities and mannerisms of the era, especially the two who played the waist gunners. The cast which included Matthew Modine (Full Metal Jacket), Billy Zane (Titanic), D.B. Sweeney, Eric Stolz, Harry Connick, Jr., Courtney Gains* (Children of the Corn) and Sean Astin (Encino Man) was superb -- I even liked John Lithgow's portrayal of the smarmy PR man from Washington.

 

Though the movie was highly fictionalized it's still one of my favorites. The attention to detail is excellent, especially the scenes of the squadron dance and the ground crews readying the planes for the mission -- in fact the B-17s used in Memphis Belle are just as much the stars of the movie as it's cast.

 

*Courtney Gains was one of the waist gunners, unfortunately I don't know who played the other one.

 

...Neil Giuntoli (I looked it up).

[ccmax]

Here's the full cast. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100133/

 

Indeed some of the guys in that film look like they came right out of the 40's. I also think Flags of our Fathers had good portrays of the 40's youth.

[ItemCo16527]

Memphis Belle is one of my all-time favorite WWII films. Ever since I first saw it, I have been obsessed with B-17s - they did that good of a job making this movie D.B. Sweeney was excellent in this, but was even better in Gardens of Stone. I'm surprised he didn't wind up becoming a major star.

 

...Neil Giuntoli (I looked it up).

"These powdered eggs could gag a buzzard"

[willysmb44]

In my opinion Memphis Belle (1990) really captured the look, personalities and mannerisms of the era, especially the two who played the waist gunners. The cast which included Matthew Modine (Full Metal Jacket), Billy Zane (Titanic), D.B. Sweeney, Eric Stolz, Harry Connick, Jr., Courtney Gains* (Children of the Corn) and Sean Astin (Encino Man) was superb -- I even liked John Lithgow's portrayal of the smarmy PR man from Washington.

 

Though the movie was highly fictionalized it's still one of my favorites. The attention to detail is excellent, especially the scenes of the squadron dance and the ground crews readying the planes for the mission -- in fact the B-17s used in Memphis Belle are just as much the stars of the movie as it's cast.

 

*Courtney Gains was one of the waist gunners, unfortunately I don't know who played the other one.

I agree, even though it did poorly in the box office and people today like to talk smack about it. Other than the ‘Nam era trousers and boots worn at the football game at the beginning of the movie, it’s one of the most accurate movies of the modern era ever made about the AAF (which really doesn’t say too much when you compare it to any other movie of its type). In that pre-digital era, their efforts in making it look like they had dozens of planes on the ground were nothing short of amazing. I spent a lot of time with Dave Tallichet’s B-17, which was the main bird they used in that movie. Here’s a shot I took of her still in the movie paint:

 

 

“After the Battle” had an amazing article on the filming of the movie written by 8th AF guru, the late Roger Freeman. It’s the best thing ever put into print on the movie. I also found some shots of the filming here and other info here.

[ItemCo16527]

Thanks for the links, Lee. I've never seen pictures of the German and American fighter planes before. The article was great, too. I'd forgotten one of the '17s had crashed and been destroyed :crying:

[THAT GUY]

Hell is for Heroes is not too bad with portraying the guys back then....

 

Sam

[J_Andrews]

A notably BAD one was the recent version of The Thin Red Line......a lot of Kalifornia babblespeak moralizing and overacting. Another one that partially or mostly did not "track" was Pearl Harbor. The there was Burt Lancaster's castle Keep....pretty bizarre.

[Custermen]

In my opinion Memphis Belle (1990) really captured the look, personalities and mannerisms of the era, especially the two who played the waist gunners. The cast which included Matthew Modine (Full Metal Jacket), Billy Zane (Titanic), D.B. Sweeney, Eric Stolz, Harry Connick, Jr., Courtney Gains* (Children of the Corn) and Sean Astin (Encino Man) was superb -- I even liked John Lithgow's portrayal of the smarmy PR man from Washington.

 

Though the movie was highly fictionalized it's still one of my favorites. The attention to detail is excellent, especially the scenes of the squadron dance and the ground crews readying the planes for the mission -- in fact the B-17s used in Memphis Belle are just as much the stars of the movie as it's cast.

 

 

Very Fictionalized and not very accurate. As seen in the photo posted on this forum, they didn't get the Nose Art of the MEMPHIS BELLE correct. The Name on the movie bird was the wrong Text Font than on the real one. And they missed the fact that the bathing suite on the left(PORT) side was painted Blue and the one on the right(Starboard) side was painted Red. Small detail, true. But the story also had a lot of imagination of Hollywood writers.

 

Take the dance scene. Really! A dance with civilians in the hanger with the bombers?!?! Can you imagine a squadron today throwing a party and having it in the hanger with a B-2?? I'd rather watch a documentary that is closer to the real thing.

 

Steve

[FNG]

Very Fictionalized and not very accurate. As seen in the photo posted on this forum, they didn't get the Nose Art of the MEMPHIS BELLE correct. The Name on the movie bird was the wrong Text Font than on the real one. And they missed the fact that the bathing suite on the left(PORT) side was painted Blue and the one on the right(Starboard) side was painted Red. Small detail, true. But the story also had a lot of imagination of Hollywood writers.

 

Take the dance scene. Really! A dance with civilians in the hanger with the bombers?!?! Can you imagine a squadron today throwing a party and having it in the hanger with a B-2?? I'd rather watch a documentary that is closer to the real thing.

 

Steve

 

I totally agree. Very fictionalized and inaccurate. The movie script was written by someone who watched too many war movies and didn't bother to check any facts. Would a real bomber crew survive 25 missions acting like they did in the movie(fighting each other, pulling off their oxygen masks, etc)? I doubt it. Technical accuracy sucked too. A2 jackets were almost black looking. I thought the movie was really a disservice to the veterans. 12 O Clock High was a much more accurate b17 movie and didn't have to resort to ridiculous scenarios to entertain.

 

I do agree however the star of the movie were those b17s - the 5 real flying fortresses. Unfortunately it seemed like they didn't show enough of them.

One was an actual F model (registration N-17W) and the only flyable b17f in the world.

I doubt there'll ever be a movie with so many real b17s again.

[redjoshman]

A notably BAD one was the recent version of The Thin Red Line......a lot of Kalifornia babblespeak moralizing...

 

Have you read the book the movie was based on?

The book has allot of that in it as well, though it is mostly done by the narrator. I didn't like the movie as it did a poor job of hitting all the plot points(both major and minor) and it did not convey the overall feeling of the book well. I don't really blame them though as the book is an very long, dense book and it would, in my opinion, take a 3 hour long movie to do the book justice.

 

I like allot of the movies that have come out recently, the only one I had real strong feelings of dislike about is the movie "Saints and Soldiers" which has as fairly anti-semitic message, but what do you expect when the movie is made by a church.

 

-Josh

[Lee Ragan]

I totally agree. Very fictionalized and inaccurate. The movie script was written by someone who watched too many war movies and didn't bother to check any facts. Would a real bomber crew survive 25 missions acting like they did in the movie(fighting each other, pulling off their oxygen masks, etc)? I doubt it. Technical accuracy sucked too. A2 jackets were almost black looking. I thought the movie was really a disservice to the veterans. 12 O Clock High was a much more accurate b17 movie and didn't have to resort to ridiculous scenarios to entertain.

 

I do agree however the star of the movie were those b17s - the 5 real flying fortresses. Unfortunately it seemed like they didn't show enough of them.

One was an actual F model (registration N-17W) and the only flyable b17f in the world.

I doubt there'll ever be a movie with so many real b17s again.

 

I agree too. I left the theater after seeing it and was very disappointed. It could and should have been better. Maybe I was comparing it to 12 O'Clock High and the War Lover which I feel were much better. I haven't seen Memphis Belle since it came out, so I don't remember too many details, but yea, FNG is right, the dance scene in the hanger full of bombers was a bit hokey. The real pilot (Morgan), said after the movie came out that more happened in that last mission on the screen than what took place in all 25 missions the Belle actually flew. Hollyweird has to juice up any war movie to sell tickets and popcorn.

[Jim Baker]

Memphis Belle was on TV just the other day and I picked it up at the last flight. That was enough to tell me I didn't care to see the beginning. The computer graphics weren't even that good for such a modern movie.

 

Not to get off subject, but if you guys are into the B-17, check this out. It's worth every penny.

 

http://www.b17.org/

 

http://www.collingsfoundation.org/cf_schedule-wof.htm

[Jim Baker]

As far as BoB, I think Hollywood is going to be hard pressed to top it. No movie is going to be "totally" accurate, that is pretty darn good.

 

I'm ready for the Pacific.

[Target]

Have you read the book the movie was based on?

The book has allot of that in it as well, though it is mostly done by the narrator. I didn't like the movie as it did a poor job of hitting all the plot points(both major and minor) and it did not convey the overall feeling of the book well. I don't really blame them though as the book is an very long, dense book and it would, in my opinion, take a 3 hour long movie to do the book justice.

 

/quote]

 

I really prefered the book. It's a really good one and is one of my favourite.

 

I liked Memphis Belle

 

A movie about WW2 I really apriciate is Tripoli, but it was made in 42 (or 43) even if there are some errors in the uniforms. It's a propaganda movie,:"let's go to war singing" but I find it good.