Bad Hollywood Idea

pzrmeyer2 · Post by **pzrmeyer2** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:50 pm

Are you just as sensitive about the Russians killed in Rambo III?

whoa!!! lay off America's greatest Super-soldier! Lest we sick him on the Dutch....

I thought Rambo III was a brilliant piece of film-making...

Rajin Cajun · Post by **Rajin Cajun** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:29 pm

Dear Lord...I hope your joking.

pzrmeyer2 · Post by **pzrmeyer2** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:32 pm

c'mon dude, the way He and Troutman took out all those Spetznaz wussies? You're talkin' about a MOH winner, there. That scene put "Patton", "Battle of the Bulge", and all those other flicks to shame...

Rajin Cajun · Post by **Rajin Cajun** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:37 pm

I don't think I would ever call a Spetsnaz trooper a "wussie" I mean the regular Army are mean as snakes I can't imagine what the Spetsnaz are like. I disagree that Rambo puts anything to shame other then it became part of propaganda in the USSR to show how militaristic the West was.

Helmut Von Moltke · Post by **Helmut Von Moltke** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:58 am

oh yes, just to add to the topic. Even in some "acceptable" war movies like "Patton" and "Battle of the Bulge", where the German side is not portrayed with too much sterortype, they still get the tanks wrong, for example, in Battle of the bulge, the film production used modern US tanks to portray Shermans and King Tigers. And in "Battle of the Bulge", it is just plain made up Hollywood propaganda about a Heer Panzer spearhead of King Tigers leading the Battle of the Bulge. They copied it out of Kampfgruppe Peiper, and the unit did not look late war, nor did the surroundings. And Timo, Rambo could hardly be realted to since it is not based on any actual historical event, while WWII movies are.

Kevin

Cott Tiger · Post by **Cott Tiger** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:14 am

Rambo: First Blood (the first one), is a classic film and well done.

The sequels are utter rubbish and a rather pathetic attempt at anti-Soviet propaganda.

Can’t just be coincidence that Rocky (the original) is a classic movie yet the sequels are dire and again move into anti-Soviet stereotype with the nasty Ivan Drago.

TimoWr · Post by **TimoWr** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:40 am

Helmut Von Moltke wrote:oh yes, just to add to the topic. Even in some "acceptable" war movies like "Patton" and "Battle of the Bulge", where the German side is not portrayed with too much sterortype,

"Battle of the Bulge" without German stereotype???

Helmut Von Moltke wrote:they still get the tanks wrong, for example, in Battle of the bulge, the film production used modern US tanks to portray Shermans and King Tigers.

What do you expect? Real Tigers? They don't "get it wrong", they simply had no alternative.

Helmut Von Moltke wrote:And Timo, Rambo could hardly be realted to since it is not based on any actual historical event, while WWII movies are.

Were Eagles Dare is WW2 fiction is based on an actual historical event? Please, enlighten me. The movie is fiction set in WW2 Germany, Rambo III is fiction set in Afghanistan. What's the difference?

Helmut Von Moltke · Post by **Helmut Von Moltke** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:49 am

"Battle of the Bulge" without German stereotype???

at least that movie, does not show the Germans as barbarians, etc.

What do you expect? Real Tigers? They don't "get it wrong", they simply had no alternative.

yes I agree about the Tigers, but they could have at least did better with the Shermans. And about the Tigers, couldn't they put on a wooden frame, just like in the movie named "Kelly's heroes".

Were Eagles Dare is WW2 fiction is based on an actual historical event?

well... as long as they try to get everything realistic without sterotypes, its ok. And I have only seen the first Rambo, so I can't answer your question about Rambo III.

Kevin

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:00 am

Hi HvM,

If any of the films you complain about were masquerading as documentaries, you would have a stronger point, but they are not.

It is certainly true that German troops are often portrayed as tactically inept dolts walking into massive casualties, when by and large they were rather more proficient than their opponents. However, if the commando team in "Where Eagles Dare" all get taken out in their first action there isn't going to be much of a film, is there?

You have to recognise that they are fiction and hamstrung by budgetary and other constraints. When "The Battle of the Bulge" was made in the 1960s there probably wasn't a working German WWII tank available for use, models would be a poor substitute and CGI had even been thought of. The choice was essentially to use Pattons or not show any moving tanks at all.

Besides, if film makers didn't keep making these mistakes, what occasion would we military anoraks have to show off our in-depth knowledge of the correct length of draw-string on the M1938 Waffen-SS swimming trunks for other ranks, or the right number of tufts in the fallschirmjaeger folding-butt, M1943 toothbrush, or the real positioning of the cup-holder in the turret of the PzKpfw.VII Ausf.Q Emperor Hippopotamos.............

Cheers,

Sid.

Mike Higgins · Post by **Mike Higgins** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:58 pm

sid guttridge wrote:Hi HvM,

If any of the films you complain about were masquerading as documentaries, you would have a stronger point, but they are not.

It is certainly true that German troops are often portrayed as tactically inept dolts walking into massive casualties, when by and large they were rather more proficient than their opponents. However, if the commando team in "Where Eagles Dare" all get taken out in their first action there isn't going to be much of a film, is there?

You have to recognise that they are fiction and hamstrung by budgetary and other constraints. When "The Battle of the Bulge" was made in the 1960s there probably wasn't a working German WWII tank available for use, models would be a poor substitute and CGI had even been thought of. The choice was essentially to use Pattons or not show any moving tanks at all.

Besides, if film makers didn't keep making these mistakes, what occasion would we military anoraks have to show off our in-depth knowledge of the correct length of draw-string on the M1938 Waffen-SS swimming trunks for other ranks, or the right number of tufts in the fallschirmjaeger folding-butt, M1943 toothbrush, or the real positioning of the cup-holder in the turret of the PzKpfw.VII Ausf.Q Emperor Hippopotamos.............

Cheers,

Sid.

Bravo

Sid you're absolutly right, They're stories not documentaries. They're entertainment, not historical fact.

Michael N. Ryan · Post by **Michael N. Ryan** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:03 am

I think Where Eagles Dare isn't that bad for a thriller. They used authentic weapons and unifroms. They used a real Ju 52. And though the Luftwaffe airfield had T-6 Texans instead of authentic German aircraft it wasn't that bad. Of course the Luftwaffe did use T-6s to train pilots including Erich Hartmann.

I certainly do agree with you on SS Doomtrooper. It is a Comic Book. The SS uniforms were authentic but that is the only good point I have to say for it. Other than that I wouldn't rate it a B film. A lot of Has Been actors. Ben Cross who used to do good work. The guy who played Duncan McCloud in the TV series Highlander. But they were awful in this one. I wonder if they just stopped and didn't care about the quality of their work.

Another awful film I will mention is Hallmark Channel's BLACKBEARD. A lot of has been actors you might recognmize. Stacy Keach and Richard Chamberlain among them. No Plot. No story. No acting worth mentioning. Diolog leaves a lot to be desired. Fighting scenes shoddy or pathetic. Royal navy uniforms wrong period. Romance looked contrived perhaps forced.

Blackbeard was a cunning psycopath who would not think twice about shooting his own friends. The guy who played him made him out to be a pathetic brutish jerk with a scottish accent. Stacy Keech was even worse.

Overall I wonder if these guys did this just so they could go visit the Caribbean, have a little fun in the sun and produce something to palm their activities off as business activity so they could deduct their expenses.

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:15 am

Nope is all about that other horror story, The Taxman Cometh. Actors have to act or they dont pay their taxs and they plain dont eat. Sometimes they have to eat crow in order to just eat. Hey its a job, have you always enjoyed EVERYTHING youve ever done at work?

phylo

Michael N. Ryan · Post by **Michael N. Ryan** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:53 am

Another awful turkey produced by Hollywood is Brothers of the Frontier. It was directed and stars the guy who played RIKER on Star Trek Next Generation.

I have not seen it in a long time. Good thing. It is awful.

It is about a fronteir family in maybe upper New York fleeing Big Bad Landowner who feels they owe him something. They're seperated in a river crossing. The boys are washed far downstream and are captured by natives. The oldest falls in love with with a squaw while Big Bad Landowner sends bounty hunters after them.

Diolog is awful. In one scene the oldest brother notices his love interest speaks pretty good English. She asks him 'why doesn't he learn to speak Indian'. It would be equivelent to asking somebody why don't they learn to speak European. Drama scenes really awful. Some of them look forced and two dimensional. The plot is pathetic.

Scenery is good but that is the only good thing running in its favor. The native village and costuming are 1720s and are pretty good to look at for historical accuracy. The whites are dressed in cloths of the 1820s and the shoes the boys wear look modern.

It stinks.

Bittrich · Post by **Bittrich** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:27 pm

Tom,

Sorry for responding a few weeks late. Two jobs have me rather busy. At any rate I posted my comments to warn others as well as stimulate an interesting post. Seems like it was successfull on both counts.

Tom Houlihan · Post by **Tom Houlihan** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 5:04 am

Were Eagles Dare is WW2 fiction is based on an actual historical event? Please, enlighten me. The movie is fiction set in WW2 Germany, Rambo III is fiction set in Afghanistan. What's the difference?

No, WED was real!! Right in the beginning, it says that the hero saw the graves of the Germans!!

Feldgrau.net

Bad Hollywood Idea

Hollywood gone bad