worst historical movie

[nokhor]

i recently saw a movie called 'genghis khan' with omar sharif from his younger years and this movie surpasses anything i have yet seen in taking liberties with the truth.

-jamukha kills temujin's father [which i could accept if they just want one villain]

-bortay [temujin's wife], subedai, and jebe are all siblings.

-most of the mongols are caucasian, and i don't mean caucasians with makeup having asiatic features. for example, bortay is a redhead, and jebe is blond.

-when the mongols fight, they are mounted swordsmen, not mounted bowman [which though difficult, i could also accept; since it would have been extremely difficult to train these actors to become horse archers.]

-at one point in time, temujin and his tribe are interred in china by the emperor for a number of years. they manage to escape by holding a fireworks display for the emperor which blows up and kills him as well as punching a hole in the wall for them to ride through.

-jamukha at one point ends up in a kang.

-jamukha rapes bortay, not the merkits.

-in the final epic battle, temujin annihilates jamukha's army but then decides to fight it out in a duel in which temujin kills his opponent but is himself mortally wounded and dies soon after.

the movie was like they just took some names and locales of a distinct era, and then just randomized everything and made sure it confirmed to some hollywood epic hero template.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

God that is awful but have you seen the one with John Wayne as old Genghis? That is really bad http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Leet Eriksson]

I've seen a really bad historical egyptian movie were the ptolmeys and romans fought at actium,the ptolmeys are your stereotypical pharoanic egyptians,while the romans all had leather armour(the ones used by roman auxillaries),and Octavius probably took a tan before acting....

[Cebei]

Every Turkish movie depicting Seljuk/Ottoman versus Byzantians is extremely awful. Most of them were shot during Aegan Sea and Cyprus conflicts between Turkey and Greece and thus they are unbelieveably ahistorical, one sided and funny.

One Ottoman hero (who is usually a Turkish actor called Cuneyt Arkin) -probably they were trying to depict him as a turcoman horseman- charges a group of kataphraktoi and defeats them..

Here is a pic to give you a glimpse of how terrible these movies were.

http://www.kameraarkasi.org/sinema/yonetmen/dir_turk/n/natukbaytan/hacimurat.jpg

[Spino]

I don't know. Movies about war and naked Turkish chicks seems like a winning combination to me... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[DeadRunner]

i saw two that i dont like one was the Attila(so bad and was recent),the other was about Celts with Cristhpher Lambert was Vergentorix .

[Dead Moroz]

Quote[/b] (DeadRunner @ April 23 2004,18:24)]i saw two one that i dont like one was the Attila(so bad and was recent),the other was about Celts with Cristhpher Lambert was Vergentorix .
I saw these films too. The real bullshit. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif
But the girl played Attila's wife/killer was good. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-kiss2.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-mad.gif

[DeadRunner]

That was nice but in celts there is one scen that is nice to is when the romans are preparing for assault of a castle ,in the walls apears the womens of that place with naked breast http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif that is a nice way to take trhe romans atenttion form the enemy army

[Plantagenet]

Well recently, I'd say it has to be "Gods and Generals". I loved "Gettysburg", so I was eager to see this one...but...

The entire movie is one long propaganda speech by Gen. Jackson about why the poor innocent South is being picked on by the wicked Union, and how God is on their side, etc. Every slave in the movie fights beside or willingly serves the Confederates, and criticizes the Union for invading their homeland and trying to destroy their "way of life". Please. It must have been written by one of those "South will rise again" reenactors who know nothing about history but love to romanticize the Confederacy and try to justify slavery.

I have nothing against either the South or most reenactors, but let's at least be honest; even if you believe the North was wrong to try to forcibly preserve the Union, slavery is just indefensible.

[Beirut]

Top Gun. When I heard the line about the Soviet Mig-28 carrying Exocet missles I almost fell out of my chair laughing.

And not really in topic, but Die hard 2, where Bruce Willis tells a cop about crooks carrying Glock 7s, and the guns are made out of porcelain. What a rube http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Leet Eriksson]

I remember a movie about the Arab Conquests,during Yarmuk i think,man thats one of the worst historical movies,the byzantines are depicted as roman legionnares(full with lorica segmentata and the tower sheild and gladius),Herakles is a copy of Julius Ceasar+the olive branch crown(or whatever).In Yarmuk khalid asks herakles(although i'm sure herakles never was commander in battle)to present his bravest warrior to one of his warriors,one roman approaches and he duels an arab swordsman,the arab swordsman kills him,and 3 other duelers,later he reveals himself as Khalids wife(he was a she)Later Khalids cavalry charges herakles cavalry,though miraculously both cavalry stopped cold when they were near each other and made a sorry attempt for a sword fight(its not even a fight,the riders were swinging their swords in the air),weirdly enough the byzantines suddenly started falling from their horses(as if tired from all their swinging).Later on both armies charged at each other with no sense of organisation or formation,just a fanatical charge,complete with sword in the air swinging action from previous scenes,in the end the arabs won and returned to mecca to celebrate(wow i did'nt know they were fighting to win,becuase that year was marked as a rapid advance for arab forces,not going back after every battle to celebrate).

Another bad movie is the Baybars Vs Katabgha battle,its not really that bad though,as arabs,mamelukes,mongols,turks(both mongolian and mameluke side)and crusaders are well depicted,armour,weapons(except of course the heroes sword and the antagonists sword,Baybars carried a nice scimitar with nice etchings,katabgha carried a menacing sword with branches or whatever making it look evil).everything was going fine in the movie with the mongols winning,though suddenly Baybars wife comes up on a hill and shouts some sort of warcry,all the dead muslims suddenly wake up and go on a rampage that repels the mongolian force,then Katabgha duels with baybars and gets himself killed.miraculously the credits start rolling with no real epilouge,just some scenes of mongols retreating and such,man talk about ruining a very good movie http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Hurin_Rules]

I saw the thread name and was going to offer the John Wayne Ghengis Khan, but you beat me to it. You also beat me to the recent Attila (at one point, if I remember correctly, the Roman commander says that they should strike West-- into Pannonia Pannonia is in the northeast of the Roman Empire, BTW.)

Can anyone remember the name of the Christopher Lambert as Vercingetorix film? I'd love to see it

Some other groaners:

Richard Burton's Alexander the Great (as soon as the battle starts, the Macedonian phalangists forget all group tactics and instantly start individual duels with their enemies).

Braveheart (The Battle of Stirling Bridge-- without a bridge).

I'm sure I'll think of more-- fun thread

[Hurin_Rules]

Oh remembered another one: A crazy Sidney Poitier film from the 60s that I saw over the holidays. He plays a Moor who has a group of Vikings come to his kingdom. It was both hilarious and disturbing. There's a scene where the vikings make it into his harem and go about molesting all the women, while the music in the background and the mood of the scene is of lighthearted playfulness. Only in the 60s

[Basileus]

Quote[/b] (Hurin_Rules @ April 23 2004,14:30)]Oh remembered another one: A crazy Sidney Poitier film from the 60s that I saw over the holidays. He plays a Moor who has a group of Vikings come to his kingdom. It was both hilarious and disturbing. There's a scene where the vikings make it into his harem and go about molesting all the women, while the music in the background and the mood of the scene is of lighthearted playfulness. Only in the 60s
The Longships?

Thats the one right? with Richard Widmark & Sydney Poitier

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I will give alexander the great one thing, most of the horsemen don't use stirups unlike most films doing the ancient film thing.
The fall of the Roman Empire is good for a laugh http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Hurin_Rules]

Quote[/b] (Basileus @ April 23 2004,14:37)]
Quote[/b] (Hurin_Rules @ April 23 2004,14:30)]Oh remembered another one: A crazy Sidney Poitier film from the 60s that I saw over the holidays. He plays a Moor who has a group of Vikings come to his kingdom. It was both hilarious and disturbing. There's a scene where the vikings make it into his harem and go about molesting all the women, while the music in the background and the mood of the scene is of lighthearted playfulness. Only in the 60s
The Longships?

Thats the one right? with Richard Widmark & Sydney Poitier
Yep, that's it. Was great fun to watch.

[Longshanks]

Windtalkers

The Thin Red Line

Full Metal Jacket

[Hurin_Rules]

I'll agree with you on windtalkers, and I'll give you Thin Red Line (I liked it, but it could be seen as badly done), but what do you have against Full Metal Jacket? I though FMJ was great-- were there historical inaccuracies in it?

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (Hurin_Rules @ April 23 2004,16:09)]I'll agree with you on windtalkers, and I'll give you Thin Red Line (I liked it, but it could be seen as badly done), but what do you have against Full Metal Jacket? I though FMJ was great-- were there historical inaccuracies in it?
Who cares? It was hilarious enough to compensate for any inaccuracies. My favorite part is when the Colonel sees that Joker's got both a Peace sign and "Born to Kill" on his helmet and launches into a tirade...

"...or you're going to be standing tall before the Man" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

"This is my rifle, there are many like it but this one is mine" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Lazul]

erhm, whats wrong with Thind Red Line?

well heres a list of movies:
-Braveheart
-Attila
-The celt movie with Lambert
-The Patriot
-We where soldiers, ok maybe its accurate but i hate the movie
-Top Gun
-Windtalkers
-Prince Valiant... by god what a stupid movie


For more historical viking movies, or atleast not hollywoodiced movies: erhm i dont know the english name... well something like The Crow Flies and In the Shadow of the Crow... Islandic movies

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I still love the speech in braveheart and although its not historically accurate, i really love it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

La reine margot is a good film which shows the St Barthelomew days massacre in the religious wars in France. I like it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[jkaney55]

actually, Full Metal Jacket is a fairly accurate portrayal. Of course there are some cinematical effects, but when compared to pretty much any other movie out there, it is very accurate. The whole Marine boot camp thing was not in the least over done...

Some of these movies seem to have been unfairly named... especially since the tread clearly state the
worst.

I agree with the Gods and Generals thing... I love American Civil War topics (Glory, Gettysberg), but I really was disappointed in GaG. There were so many beefy, super thick and suffocating speeches I was really bored watching it...

[Auxilia]

Well for me it's Kenneth Branaugh's Henry V. Anyone would think ol' king Hal is invading France with about 30 men Gimme Laurence Olivier's effort any day http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
Anything from the "classical Hollywood era"...well, almost anything.

Anything Turkish (with or without old Fahreddin Cüreklibatur http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif).

Most of anything recent... Braveheart (good movie but total fantasy), Attila (bad movie and ultimate fantasy)...

What's left? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif

OK. British productions are usually better. Remember "A Man for All Seasons"?

What do you think about Eisenstein's stuff? "Alexandr Nevskiy" and "Ivan Grozni" in particular?
_

[Hurin_Rules]

For its age, Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky is actually very good. They try to depict the movement of troops and the strategy, rather than the Braveheart approach, which has everyone running at each other topspeed and not worrying about annoying things like discipline, formation or group tactics.

Some scenes are overacted, but for 1938 that was just standard practice. I love the scene where the catholic cardinal is tossing Russian babies on the bonfire-- just so over the top

[Forward Observer]

Two movies that have to be on the list for historical inaccuracy are both John Wayne's Alamo and The Green Berets.

The Alamo was entertaining but was full of so much over the top "give em Hell" John Wayne Hollywood crap it was woefully inaccurate.

But "The Green Berets" has to take the cake as one of the worst. I was in Vietnam when I saw it and it was so laughable, we thought it was a comedy. To top it off the movie reverses the universe and ends with the sun setting in the East.

Don't get me wrong, I grew up watching the Duke and always loved most of his westerns. It's just that when he did something slightly historical, he never seemed let the facts get in the way of a cheesy story.

Pearl Harbor was another flick that got tons of stuff wrong and not for any particular cinematic reason. Stuff like IJN planes painted in army colors, or not depicting 1/10 of the US aircraft that was at Pearl during the attack.

The worst part though was having an American pilot join the Eagle squadron. (This is commonly known as desertion) and next showing up on Pearl as an American fighter pilot again. (On December 7th no less) Then a few months later suddenly he and his buddy become bomber pilots for the Doolittle raid. I guess if the movie had gone on, Ben Afflicted would have next been appointed as a submarine commander followed by being made the Queen mother.
Give me a break.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Forward Observer @ April 24 2004,11:54)]Pearl Harbor was another flick that got tons of stuff wrong and not for any particular cinematic reason. Stuff like IJN planes painted in army colors, or not depicting 1/10 of the US aircraft that was at Pearl during the attack.

The worst part though was having an American pilot join the Eagle squadron. (This is commonly known as desertion) and mext showing up on Pearl as an American fighter pilot again. (On December 7th no less) Then a few months later suddenly he and his buddy become bomber pilots for the Doolittle raid. I guess if the movie had gone on, Ben Afflicted would have next been appointed as a submarine commander followed by being made the Queen mother.
Give me a break.
I guess they just didn't had the time... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink3.gif


I really think that the number of awfully Ahistorical movies far surpasses Historical ones. There are sooooo many of them... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-cry.gif

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
Awfully ahistorical Hollywood productions are the main reason that we're now troubling with game devs for a bit of accuracy. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif They set the ground for the market and the game devs are just following the path. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
_

[Cazbol]

Quote[/b] (Auxilia @ April 23 2004,17:48)]Well for me it's Kenneth Branaugh's Henry V. Anyone would think ol' king Hal is invading France with about 30 men
This film was very ambitious indeed, in that it tried to turn a play into a grand motion picture with fewer actors than would be required for a stage production. I'm surprised they even bothered to show some real horses. Just horrible.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Braveheart. Battle of Stirling Bridge without the Bridge, or the River. 'nuff said,
The Patriot. (Bad role for Gibson, Colonists are NOT invincible.)
-Capo

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Quote[/b] ]Quote (Hurin_Rules @ April 23 2004,14:30)
Oh remembered another one: A crazy Sidney Poitier film from the 60s that if saw over the holidays. He plays a Moor who has a group of Vikings come to his kingdom. It was both hilarious and disturbing. There's a scene where the vikings make it into his harem and go about molesting all the women, while the music in the background and the mood of the scene is of lighthearted playfulness. Only in the 60s

The Longships?

Thats the one right? with Richard Widmark & Sydney Poitier



No the name of the movie is the vikings and the main stars are Tony Curtis and Kirk Douglas. If you think it is so far fetched I think you should check out who the Vagarian guards are in this game.

Is this about the worst movie or the least historical in fact?
If its the worst I have to go with the John Wayne Genghis Khan one.

Full metal jacket was pretty accurate and Gods and Generals if looked at as being told from a southern point of view is extremely accurate. Plus the battle scenes more than made up for the speeches. Braveheart while not historically accurate is extremely entertaining.

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] (jkaney55 @ April 23 2004,17:29)]actually, Full Metal Jacket is a fairly accurate portrayal. Of course there are some cinematical effects, but when compared to pretty much any other movie out there, it is very accurate. The whole Marine boot camp thing was not in the least over done...
The first half of FMJ was for the most part a spot on portrayal of Marine bootcamp in the 60s. And yes I know that R. Lee Ermey's performance wasn't over the top. I was once a recruit at Parris Island. The only innaccuracies in the first half were that Pyle was both too fat and too dumb to make it through bootcamp. Someone who can't lace up their own boots is a retard, and isn't going to pass the prerequisite intelligence test, let alone not get sent home fromt bootcamp. The final scene is also a little innaccurate in that Pyle couldn't have gotten ammunition. It's all accounted for at the range. Since it is also their last night at bootcamp they wouldn't even have rifles. They would have already been turned in to the armory. They are minor complaints though as I liked the first half. My beef with FMJ isn't with the first half, it's with the 2nd.

The 2nd half was filled with inaccurcies. My father fought at Hue with the 1st Bn, 5th Marine Regiment and he didn't think much of the 2nd half either. There were too many Hollywood moments. The scene with the doorgunner, though funny, was far from being realistic. My Lai was the exception rather than the rule. There is another scene where one of the Marines (I think Cowboy) steps in front of a large hole in a wall, and is killed by a sniper across the street (who they know is there) and who has a clear line of sight through that hole. That is such an amatuerish move, and would require that someone was either untrained or bereft of any common sense. The same applies to the Marines who rush out to to help a wounded comrade while a sniper is still there. Both scenes may have made for good drama, but neither was very realistic.

Finally FMJ suffers from the same innaccuracies most Vietnam movies suffer from. In most Vietnam movies its usually small numbers of Vietnamese guerillas fighting against the US, and most of the people who get killed in the movie are Americans. In reality the VC & NVA usually had numerical superiority, and lost far more many men. The Vietnamese government admitted in the 90s to losing 1,100,000 million KIA in that war.

Occupying Hue were 4 full strength NVA regiments as well as a couple NVA sapper battalions detached from another regiment outside Hue and 2 mortar battalions. There were also small numbers of VC. (all together about 10,000 men)
Facing off against them were 2 understrength battalions of US Marines and 11 ARVN battalions, though the US Marines bore the brunt of retaking the city. The NVA had numerical superiority in Hue and its casualties were much higher. The movie didn't really reflect that, and the battle scenes didn't really reflect the intensity of the fighting in Hue. The scenes should have been more like Black Hawk Down style house to house street battles, than skirmishes with small isolated pockets of enemy in a seemingly deserted industrial area.

On a side note the "this is my rifle" speech is called the Rifleman's Creed. Recruits do recite that, it wasn't invented for the movie.

[Longshanks]

Ugh...someone mentioned the Patriot. What a piece of crap that was. The real colonial militia wasn't anywhere near as heroic as the one portrayed in the movie. In reality they were just about worthless, the only soldiers capable of going toe to toe with the Redcoats were the Continentals. (after being trained by Von Stueben)

More often than not the undisciplined militia fled the field after a volley or two and abandoned the Continentals to fight alone. It cost Washington some battles too, like Brandywine. He despised them.

Then of course you have Mel's character, who is very 21st Century and only hires freed blacks. (and treats them decently I might add) If the main character was going to be a plantation owner, he should have owned slaves. If the powers that be thought movie audiences couldn't stomach that, they should have made his character poor or had him come from a different part of the country.

And the British were not as "evil" as portrayed in the movie. Cornwallis was even sympathetic to the rebel gripes, though his loyalty to his country superceded personal beliefs. He had in fact opposed much of the acts taken by the British government that led to the American Revolution.

[Tricky Lady]

what about U-572 (or whichever number) where the americans break the german enigma-code?

[Accounting Troll]

The Vikings was just so bad that I laughed all the way through it. The entire budget must have gone on hiring Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis, which meant that it was a very small Viking army that invaded Northumbria and stormed a castle which would not be built for another 500 years. The opening credits give you some idea what to expect because they use Baeaux Tapestry style graphics. The combination of pathetic historical accuracy and all round ineptitude makes it my favourite.

I'd also like to nominate Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves for Kevin Costner's accent. I ended up cheering on the Sheriff.

[Auxilia]

Right then:

Braveheart - no Mel, not all Scotsmen wear kilts - mind you Patrick McGoohan was quite good as Edward I http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

Henry V (Branagh version) - anyone would think King Harry is attacking France with about 40 men - I mean I know the English had been decimated by disease but honestly....dear old Larry Olivier did it so much better http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

Anzio (starring, of all people Peter Falk IIRC) - for some reason all the American GI's where armed with World War One Lee Enfield rifles http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif

A Bridge too Far - now I didn't think this was too bad - but I understand that the veterans of the Market Garden campaign invited to the premier actually walked out half way through, so the makers must have gotten something badly wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif


Taras Bulba - Tony Curtis as a Cossack?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

Oliver Cromwell - a rare error of judgement for Richard Harris

Wasn't Chuck Heston or Burt Lancaster in something similar to the Vikings except the good guys were the Normans, or some such nonsense??

[Hurin_Rules]

Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ April 24 2004,21:08)]
Quote[/b] ]Quote (Hurin_Rules @ April 23 2004,14:30)
Oh remembered another one: A crazy Sidney Poitier film from the 60s that if saw over the holidays. He plays a Moor who has a group of Vikings come to his kingdom. It was both hilarious and disturbing. There's a scene where the vikings make it into his harem and go about molesting all the women, while the music in the background and the mood of the scene is of lighthearted playfulness. Only in the 60s

The Longships?

Thats the one right? with Richard Widmark & Sydney Poitier



No the name of the movie is the vikings and the main stars are Tony Curtis and Kirk Douglas. If you think it is so far fetched I think you should check out who the Vagarian guards are in this game.
No, I think you're confusing that with another one. I'm not talking about The Vikings with Tony Curtis and Kirk Douglas; I'm talking about The Longships with Sidney Poitier. Both are very, very bad though, so maybe that's not all that important...

[Auxilia]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ April 25 2004,04:53)]FMJ suffers from the same innaccuracies most Vietnam movies suffer from.
Very interesting comments, Longshanks - tell me, what did you and your father make of 'We were Soldiers'?

[Dead Moroz]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ April 25 2004,13:53)]Finally FMJ suffers from the same innaccuracies most Vietnam movies suffer from. In most Vietnam movies its usually small numbers of Vietnamese guerillas fighting against the US, and most of the people who get killed in the movie are Americans. In reality the VC & NVA usually had numerical superiority, and lost far more many men. The Vietnamese government admitted in the 90s to losing 1,100,000 million KIA in that war.
Whata??? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif Did you ever see any Vietnam movies? There is always small number of Americans fighting against hordes of Vietnamese. Americans are killing and killing and killing enemies. And only few Americans can be killed by Vietnameses. Accidentally. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

[Crimson Castle]

The sad fact is that most of the public doesn't care. And so movies like Bruk's grossly inaccurate stupid Pearl Harbor movie or Last Samurai can make a bigger profit than an accurate well made film like Weir's Master and Commander.

Therefore, I do not make a habit of watching films or buy DVDs - until I can certain that it is well made etc..

If we vote with our wallets and refuse to watch or rent crappy films - and get our friends to do likewise- Hollywood may stop making such travesties. But if we adopt a what the heck attitude and watch them anyhow - why are we so surprised and shocked that Hollywood keeps on churning such crap?

[frogbeastegg]

Any Hollywood 'epic' swords and sandles film must be placed on a large pyre and burned for badness. Spartacus, Fall of the Roman empire, that Alexander the Great film, Cleopatra, you get my drift. Bad acting, bad directing, too long, bad costuming, bad accuracy, bad music (especially Sparacus), bad fight scenes, bad forced romances, just really bad.

What was that film with 'Norman' in the title, where a load of men worse fake fur and ran about with axes yelling "raaaggsaaahhaa" and building a stone tower castle out of polystyrene while raping people every 10 minutes? That film was so dire words fail me.

Braveheart is so bad someone should invent a time machine so they can go back and prevent it from ever existing.

I do have to admit to having a soft spot for those old 'historically accurate' myth films like Jason and the Argonauts. They are all wildly inaccurate, but since Zeus never wandered Greece in the first place it matters less. More importantly they are good films in the first place, without the bad acting etc. I also like A Knight's Tale, because it doesn't even try to be accurate.

[confused description of half remembered film] What was that film with a historical bent but as a comedy, it's very old now...probably made in the 70's. There was a jester who was supposed to be a spy (or something) but he was really a bungling idiot. Um, he ended up doing things that were funny, and was chased about by one princess (or other rich noble) while trying to romance some other um, woman of whom I remember no details but I think she was disguised as a man. There was this long scene about "the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true. The flagon with the dragon [something, something]". Then there was this big sword fight thing and the jester did something to win I think, because he had been put under a spell by the nurse of that princess to make him a dashing hero when he heard a bell ring, but then when the bell rung again he turned back into an idiot. He was swapping from prat to hero and back again endlessly through this sword fight. [/confused description of half remembered film] That one was quite good.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (frogbeastegg @ April 26 2004,06:06)]Any Hollywood 'epic' swords and sandles film must be placed on a large pyre and burned for badness. Spartacus, Fall of the Roman empire, that Alexander the Great film, Cleopatra, you get my drift. Bad acting, bad directing, too long, bad costuming, bad accuracy, bad music (especially Sparacus), bad fight scenes, bad forced romances, just really bad.
Motion aproved. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif



Quote[/b] ]What was that film with 'Norman' in the title, where a load of men worse fake fur and ran about with axes yelling "raaaggsaaahhaa" and building a stone tower castle out of polystyrene while raping people every 10 minutes? That film was so dire words fail me.
Haven't seen it, but I'm not too inclined to see it now.



Quote[/b] ]Braveheart is so bad someone should invent a time machine so they can go back and prevent it from ever existing.
LOLhttp://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

Late 14th century AD Scots with 2nd century BC visuals? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif

Battle of Stirling Bridge: Where is the bridge? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif

The wife of Edward II having William Wallace's child? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif

[Axeknight]

Quote[/b] (Tricky Lady @ April 25 2004,13:00)]what about U-572 (or whichever number) where the americans break the german enigma-code?
I despised that film. Stealing the thunder of those brave Royal Navy guys who did find the enigma? Makes me sick. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Beirut @ April 23 2004,13:54)]Top Gun. When I heard the line about the Soviet Mig-28 carrying Exocet missles I almost fell out of my chair laughing.
I had a different reaction. Rage... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

The idiots didn't know that soviet fighters only have uneven numbers and that the Exocet is a french missile.



Quote[/b] ]And not really in topic, but Die hard 2, where Bruce Willis tells a cop about crooks carrying Glock 7s, and the guns are made out of porcelain. What a rube http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
Why do filmmakers confuse polymer with ceramic? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif

It has nothing to do with one another

Another ridiculous quote was that they weren't detected by airport security (being made of ceramic). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

Did they know that only the stucture is made of polymer? And that the rest is metal like any other handgun? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]Oliver Cromwell - a rare error of judgement for Richard Harris

Heh, Harris thought of that was as one of his best roles


Quote[/b] ]Taras Bulba - Tony Curtis as a Cossack?

Hah I loved that movie when I was a kid I remember recreating the movie's climactic cavalry charge with my legos I'm afraid to see it again for fear that it will sully my childhood memories.


Quote[/b] ]Henry V (Branagh version) - anyone would think King Harry is attacking France with about 40 men - I mean I know the English had been decimated by disease but honestly....dear old Larry Olivier did it so much better

Yes, Sir Larry is an extremely hard act to follow but I did think Branaugh did an excellent job with his Henry V.


Quote[/b] ]The Vikings was just so bad that I laughed all the way through it. The entire budget must have gone on hiring Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis, which meant that it was a very small Viking army that invaded Northumbria and stormed a castle which would not be built for another 500 years. The opening credits give you some idea what to expect because they use Baeaux Tapestry style graphics. The combination of pathetic historical accuracy and all round ineptitude makes it my favourite.

I find it impossible not to laugh anytime Tony Curtis opens his mouth in this picture. That Brooklyn accent is shameless I also crack up every time Kirk Douglas screams "OOOOODDDIIIIIINNN" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

Did anyone mention Gladiator? What a shameless, overbloated piece of tripe that was. The movie's only good points were it's effects and the 15 minutes of carnage in the arenas and the Coliseum.

For shame Hollyweird For shame http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Leo]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ April 26 2004,19:03)]
Quote[/b] ]And not really in topic, but Die hard 2, where Bruce Willis tells a cop about crooks carrying Glock 7s, and the guns are made out of porcelain. What a rube http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
Why do filmmakers confuse polymer with ceramic? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif

It has nothing to do with one another

Another ridiculous quote was that they weren't detected by airport security (being made of ceramic). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

Did they know that only the stucture is made of polymer? The rest is metal like any other handgun? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif
Most important it's an austrian weapon, not a german one

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Leo @ April 26 2004,16:27)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ April 26 2004,19:03)]
Quote[/b] ]And not really in topic, but Die hard 2, where Bruce Willis tells a cop about crooks carrying Glock 7s, and the guns are made out of porcelain. What a rube http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
Why do filmmakers confuse polymer with ceramic? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif

It has nothing to do with one another

Another ridiculous quote was that they weren't detected by airport security (being made of ceramic). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

Did they know that only the stucture is made of polymer? The rest is metal like any other handgun? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif
Most important it's an austrian weapon, not a german one
Yeap. Just like the awesome Steyr AUG.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Indeed,

worst of all: U-571. It is on my blacklist, and I'll never forgive Hollywood for that one. Hollywood did prove right then and there that it is all about the glorification of the US at the moment.

Same goes with Last Samurai; It were the Prussians who trained the Japanese army, not the Americans.

Another one: The battle of the Bulge movie (akin to Longest Day and A bridge too far). This time they try to pass Pershings for a Tiger or Panther tank. It was a pain to watch that.

Saving Private Ryan: No SS-troops were even close time-line wise, and if stretched those that could be there did not have armor like the Marders portrayed, let alone Tiger tanks. As some others pointed out, scope changing in the field for a sniper is not that smart either. No selfrespecting tank driver would drive into a battle with his armored glass raised. Strictly speaking teh Tigers were not real either (converted T-34's, look at running gear, and turret is too far forward, but as there is only one running Tiger in existence today that is understandable). I found the sole rocket-hit on the Tiger by that P-51 at the end at the bridge quite unbelievable as well.

[Tribesman]

frogbeastegg ; I think that film sounds like "up the chastity belt " starring Frankie Howard , he also did a Roman one called "A funny thing happened on the way to the Forum"

[Mouzafphaerre]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ April 26 2004,13:30)]If we vote with our wallets and refuse to watch or rent crappy films - and get our friends to do likewise- Hollywood may stop making such travesties. But if we adopt a what the heck attitude and watch them anyhow - why are we so surprised and shocked that Hollywood keeps on churning such crap?
-
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif
_

[Forward Observer]

Quote[/b] (frogbeastegg @ April 26 2004,03:06)][confused description of half remembered film] What was that film with a historical bent but as a comedy, it's very old now...probably made in the 70's. There was a jester who was supposed to be a spy (or something) but he was really a bungling idiot. Um, he ended up doing things that were funny, and was chased about by one princess (or other rich noble) while trying to romance some other um, woman of whom I remember no details but I think she was disguised as a man. There was this long scene about "the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true. The flagon with the dragon [something, something]". Then there was this big sword fight thing and the jester did something to win I think, because he had been put under a spell by the nurse of that princess to make him a dashing hero when he heard a bell ring, but then when the bell rung again he turned back into an idiot. He was swapping from prat to hero and back again endlessly through this sword fight. [/confused description of half remembered film] That one was quite good.
Frogbeastegg:

You are thinking of the "Court Jester" starring Danny Kaye.

He was one of my favorite comedic actors when I was young.
Verbal tongue twisting bits like the Chalice in the palace routine were a big part of his shtick.

I saw this movie at the theater when it came out in 1956, so it is quite a bit older that you think. I was 11 years old at the time.

Anyway it was a fun movie and is just as good as you remember.

Cheers

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ April 27 2004,12:03)]Indeed,

worst of all: U-571. It is on my blacklist, and I'll never forgive Hollywood for that one. Hollywood did prove right then and there that it is all about the glorification of the US at the moment.

Same goes with Last Samurai; It were the Prussians who trained the Japanese army, not the Americans.

Another one: The battle of the Bulge movie (akin to Longest Day and A bridge too far). This time they try to pass Pershings for a Tiger or Panther tank. It was a pain to watch that.
Hell yeh, the plot of the U-571 was dreamed up by the same people who did the Guns of Narevone. But as for discrepencies like modern tanks being used in the Battle of the Bulge or Bridge too Far, US Union officers training Meji peasant troops in Last Samurai etc.. I consider them quite minor - technical errors - imho. Its a bit like complaining about the bi-pods used by the German MG gunners in SPR.

I would strongly object to major ahistorical plot errors - ie Last Samurai - which was a gross glorification of the samurai class. Then there was the matter of Tom Cruise who got captured by the Samurai rebels, then fought with them, and then when captured - Crusie got to present the rebel sword to the Emperor and to preach to him about the samurai ethos.

[PanzerJaeger]

Windtalkers... hmm actually let me think hard on this one... yep still windtalkers... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

Last samurai might have been hokey, but it was at least an enjoyable movie.. with the good action scenes. I look at it as fiction, like LOTR, not reality. Windtalkers just sucked... horribly.

[Crimson Castle]

I'm a WW2 buff and have never seen Bruck's Pearl Harbor or Woo's Wind Talkers; I saw the trailers and they looked too odd. Help me out here - I don't want to see it but what was wrong with Wind Talkers?

[Hetman]

Most of so called 'adventure films' from 60 - 70s especially are really horrible
But don't worry Hollywood is just a part of the cinema industry and I can assure You everywhere was similar everywhere.
Especially all those propaganda 'historical' film in Nai Germany, Soviet Union and so on, these were completely inaccurate but intentionally - especially Eisenstein's films.

But back to the topic.
My 'favorite' 3 films

1. Pearl Harbor.
Japanese history and millitary ( esp. 1941-45) is my favorite so I simply regard this film a comedy, actually a bad one.
I like main characters fighting in the Battle of Britain in a... Polish Fighter Squadron without noticing the fact - somebody should told the film producers that the letters and numbers on planes actually mean something.
I really do like when they shoot down ALL the fighter planes ( 9) lost by the Japanese in the attack - especially when they cause them to crash.
I just love the sight of the base during the attack, especially MODERN
( from the 90s ) American ships attacked by the Japanese.
This film is so stupid How much money do they need to have to make this accurate
2. Italian (60-70s) film titled "With fire and sword". It was based on the Polish historical novel which was quite accurate, but unfortunatelly the Italian producers lacked even a basic knowledge of on the subject.
The novel is placed during the mid-XVIIth century Polish vs Cossack rebells. The military, local customs, outfits - all was diffrent than in western Europe at that time.
BUT the producers left only steppes, Poles and Cossacks.
The main polish character was a Winged Hussar ( Husarz, winged knight), but not in the film where he is a hussar, XIXth century hussar
The battles which are really important in the novel or in the later Polish film ( based the same novel) of course are small or completely non-existent.
Many ways the film was similar to the turkish ones (hacimurat and so on) or the "Genghis Khan", simply horrible, but very funny I can add.
3. "Alexander the Great" with Richard Burton.
The Macedonian phalangites fighting in a loose formation are relly funny.

Regards Cegorach

[Kaatar]

Yeah, Braveheart and Stirling Bridge. Classic :) But at least it had Sophie Marceau. She made it all better :)

[frogbeastegg]

Quote[/b] (Forward Observer @ April 27 2004,05:01)]
Quote[/b] (frogbeastegg @ April 26 2004,03:06)][confused description of half remembered film] What was that film with a historical bent but as a comedy, it's very old now...probably made in the 70's. There was a jester who was supposed to be a spy (or something) but he was really a bungling idiot. Um, he ended up doing things that were funny, and was chased about by one princess (or other rich noble) while trying to romance some other um, woman of whom I remember no details but I think she was disguised as a man. There was this long scene about "the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true. The flagon with the dragon [something, something]". Then there was this big sword fight thing and the jester did something to win I think, because he had been put under a spell by the nurse of that princess to make him a dashing hero when he heard a bell ring, but then when the bell rung again he turned back into an idiot. He was swapping from prat to hero and back again endlessly through this sword fight. [/confused description of half remembered film] That one was quite good.
Frogbeastegg:

You are thinking of the "Court Jester" starring Danny Kaye.

He was one of my favorite comedic actors when I was young.
Verbal tongue twisting bits like the Chalice in the palace routine were a big part of his shtick.

I saw this movie at the theater when it came out in 1956, so it is quite a bit older that you think. I was 11 years old at the time.

Anyway it was a fun movie and is just as good as you remember.

Cheers
That's it Thanks, now to see about a DVD rental...

Do TV films count? If so I'd like to add in that Boudica mess recently shown in the UK - so bad I didn't even watch it, the trailers said everything you needed to know. The comments here from those who did watch it were not favourable.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ April 26 2004,18:03)]Saving Private Ryan: No SS-troops were even close time-line wise, and if stretched those that could be there did not have armor like the Marders portrayed, let alone Tiger tanks.
No. There were several SS Panzer units in action, in France, during the invasion. Most of them were gathered in Calais. You're right in saying that they weren't near the action in Normandy, but the SS did have Tiger tank units. Remember Coronel Whitman (WWII Tiger tank ace)?



Quote[/b] ]As some others pointed out, scope changing in the field for a sniper is not that smart either.
True.



Quote[/b] ]No selfrespecting tank driver would drive into a battle with his armored glass raised.
Also true.



Quote[/b] ]Strictly speaking teh Tigers were not real either (converted T-34's, look at running gear, and turret is too far forward, but as there is only one running Tiger in existence today that is understandable).
Yes, unless Spielberg found the funds to make an exact replica... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif



Quote[/b] ]I found the sole rocket-hit on the Tiger by that P-51 at the end at the bridge quite unbelievable as well.
Allied fighter bombers (called Jabos (Jagdbomber abreviation) by the Germans) released two rockets in each shot. Nevertheless, you're right. Allied pilots almost always targeted the top, back or side armour of tanks because it was more vulnerable than the massive frontal armour. But, since Spielberg wanted to save poor Tom... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink3.gif

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ April 27 2004,15:00)]
Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ April 26 2004,18:03)]Saving Private Ryan: No SS-troops were even close time-line wise, and if stretched those that could be there did not have armor like the Marders portrayed, let alone Tiger tanks.

No. There were several SS Panzer units in action, in France, during the invasion. Most of them were gathered in Calais. You're right in saying that they weren't near the action in Normandy, but the SS did have Tiger tank units. Remember Coronel Whitman (WWII Tiger tank ace)?



Aymar,

I know there were armored SS units around in Normandy... And I know of Michael Wittman.

Right now I am playing the invasion of Normandy in a wargame, and have destroyed so far 21st Pz, 12th SS, 17th SS, and sSS-Pz. Abt 101; No sign yet of 1st, 2nd, 9th or 10th SS. Next units up for destruction: 2 Pz, Pz Lehr and elements of 2nd Fallschirmjäger. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

What I gripe about is that there were no Waffen-SS tank units around in the area of the American troops (or rangers) especially not around the Merderet river. The sole Tiger unit that would fit time-frame wise would be the 101st sSS-Panzer Abteilung (with Wittman among it's ranks). By June 12th Wittman fough his action at Villers-Bocage. Still a good 20k or more away. The armored Waffen-SS units that went into action initially fought the British and were armed with Panthers or Pz IV; and the first unit encountered was the 12th Waffen-SS, the Hitlerjugend division. IIRC the first Waffen-SS units were encountered by the Americans a week after the landings...

The sole Waffen-SS unit that would be close to the action of SPR time-frame wise are the recon elements of the 17th Waffen-SS Panzer-Grenadier Division. A unit which posessed no tanks, and recon elements AFAIK do not possess Marders either. The armored units around were units using obsolete French tanks.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ April 27 2004,14:33)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ April 27 2004,15:00)]
Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ April 26 2004,18:03)]Saving Private Ryan: No SS-troops were even close time-line wise, and if stretched those that could be there did not have armor like the Marders portrayed, let alone Tiger tanks.

No. There were several SS Panzer units in action, in France, during the invasion. Most of them were gathered in Calais. You're right in saying that they weren't near the action in Normandy, but the SS did have Tiger tank units. Remember Coronel Whitman (WWII Tiger tank ace)?



Aymar,

I know there were armored SS units around in Normandy... And I know of Michael Wittman.

Right now I am playing the invasion of Normandy in a wargame, and have destroyed so far 21st Pz, 12th SS, 17th SS, and sSS-Pz. Abt 101; No sign yet of 1st, 2nd, 9th or 10th SS. Next units up for destruction: 2 Pz, Pz Lehr and elements of 2nd Fallschirmjäger. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif Your unit has been busy, hey? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif



Quote[/b] ]What I gripe about is that there were no Waffen-SS tank units around in the area of the American troops (or rangers) especially not around the Merderet river. The sole Tiger unit that would fit time-frame wise would be the 101st sSS-Panzer Abteilung (with Wittman among it's ranks). By June 12th Wittman fough his action at Villers-Bocage. Still a good 20k or more away. The armored Waffen-SS units that went into action initially fought the British and were armed with Panthers or Pz IV; and the first unit encountered was the 12th Waffen-SS, the Hitlerjugend division. IIRC the first Waffen-SS units were encountered by the Americans a week after the landings... The sole Waffen-SS unit that would be close to the action of SPR time-frame wise are the recon elements of the 17th Waffen-SS Panzer-Grenadier Division. A unit which posessed no tanks, and recon elements AFAIK do not possess Marders either. The armored units around were units using obsolete French tanks.
Yeap. You're right. I didn't understood. But, IMHO, that is a minor detail if we compare it with other "historical" Hollyweird films... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-cry.gif

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Aymar,

that is true, some of my units have been very busy....

well, I do have the advantage as I have at my disposal an overwhelming force; it is a computerized version of the old style wargame (otherwise the game would be unplayable)...

Complete in the field at the moment are now US VII and V Corps, and parts of VIII and XIX Corps, and Commonwealth forces being an overstrength 1st Corps, and 30th Corps, 8th Corps and right now 12th Corps is being deployed... and the overwhelming air superiority is awesome and needed... the bocage country, and area trained German artillery is a b**** though...

and in the near future I will lose the services of 82nd and 101st airborne, as they are being withdrawn.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ April 28 2004,00:35)]Aymar,

that is true, some of my units have been very busy....

well, I do have the advantage as I have at my disposal an overwhelming force; it is a computerized version of the old style wargame (otherwise the game would be unplayable)...

Complete in the field at the moment are now US VII and V Corps, and parts of VIII and XIX Corps, and Commonwealth forces being an overstrength 1st Corps, and 30th Corps, 8th Corps and right now 12th Corps is being deployed... and the overwhelming air superiority is awesome and needed... the bocage country, and area trained German artillery is a b**** though...

and in the near future I will lose the services of 82nd and 101st airborne, as they are being withdrawn.
So, you are effectivelly Eisenhower, hey? Strategic command of all the allied invasion forces, right?

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Strategic operational commander;

I can split my units up to company level (which makes for a massive game); Yup, I am playing Eisenhower http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ;

Though I should be more carefull with my men most likely; My approach to getting the last remnants of a number of units, and throught to Cherbourg was not that subtle; by now it is June 25th, 18:00 hours.

Allied casualties:

Men: 58,390
Guns: 367
Vehicles: 958
Aircraft: 43

German casualties:

Men: 102,734
Guns: 1,970
Vehicles: 2,096

Liberated are: the whole Cotentin peninsula, including Cherbourg; I am on the edge of Coutances; I am 5 miles from St.Lo; I have also captured Bayeux, Evrecy and Caen.

I am now regrouping; redeploying and mopping up; next planned offensive is the encirclement and capture of St.Lo, followed and in conjunction with an offensive aimed at Torigny-sur-Vire, and Aunay-sur-Odon; which would spell the end of Pz Lehr and 2nd Pz. Now I have 552 turns left before the scenario ends (in August '44).

I could also have been von Rundsted...

In the other games from the series I have, I could be the Russians or Germans at Smolensk (keeping your Panzers alive during the breakthrough is a pain); or being the Germans or Russians in early 1942 at Kharkov (man, I do hate T-34's and KV-1's).

[jkaney55]

Longshanks...
Very good point about the second half of FMJ, I haden't
seen it in a long time and I certainly agree with the points you
have made...

[Crimson Castle]

I didnt like the anti- British jibs. Speilberg should have made some reference to the efforts of the British and Canadian forces in D-day. They came better trained and equipped with the right equipment - ie the "funnies" - specialized invasion tanks. And the reason why the Brits had a tough time making out of their sector after D-Day+1 was due to the panzer concentration in their area. The US forces did not encounter German panzer - particularly the Tiger until much much later.

SPR and to some extent Band of Brothers harkens back to the old 1950 style comics and tv shows like GI Joe and Combat. Still good films though.

[Tribesman]

Braveheart in a bra (http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1205574,00.html)
Mel Gibson is making another historical film http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ April 28 2004,12:09)]Strategic operational commander;

I can split my units up to company level (which makes for a massive game); Yup, I am playing Eisenhower http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ;

Though I should be more carefull with my men most likely; My approach to getting the last remnants of a number of units, and throught to Cherbourg was not that subtle; by now it is June 25th, 18:00 hours.

Allied casualties:

Men: 58,390
Guns: 367
Vehicles: 958
Aircraft: 43

German casualties:

Men: 102,734
Guns: 1,970
Vehicles: 2,096

Liberated are: the whole Cotentin peninsula, including Cherbourg; I am on the edge of Coutances; I am 5 miles from St.Lo; I have also captured Bayeux, Evrecy and Caen.

I am now regrouping; redeploying and mopping up; next planned offensive is the encirclement and capture of St.Lo, followed and in conjunction with an offensive aimed at Torigny-sur-Vire, and Aunay-sur-Odon; which would spell the end of Pz Lehr and 2nd Pz. Now I have 552 turns left before the scenario ends (in August '44).

I could also have been von Rundsted...
Fun game. Historical Campaign oriented, right?



Quote[/b] ]In the other games from the series I have, I could be the Russians or Germans at Smolensk (keeping your Panzers alive during the breakthrough is a pain); or being the Germans or Russians in early 1942 at Kharkov (man, I do hate T-34's and KV-1's).
HEHEHE http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif The Germans had your exact thoughts when they first clashed with them Awesome tanks for the period(specially the T-34).

[Mouzafphaerre]

Quote[/b] (Tribesman @ April 29 2004,10:47)]Braveheart in a bra (http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1205574,00.html)
Mel Gibson is making another historical film http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
-
Lord No http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif Why won't he just make another Lethal Weapon and make everybody happy? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif
_