Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Started watching Gettysburg yesterday. At a whopping 4 and a half hours long I still have the final hour left to go. Awesome movie in my opinion.

However watching the movie made me realize something. Current movies are far too perfect.

Zulu, Zulu Dawn, Waterloo, Gettysburg etc all have something in common. They use real looking people and the things they do look real.

Sticking with Gettysburg for the examples:

Men messing up in battle. Plenty of times I saw stumbling and bumbling. At one point I saw a guy accidentally discharge his shot wastefully in the air. Uniforms sometimes fell apart as people ran. Although the battles are wonderfully orchestrated by who I assume were a collection of America's reinactors they still made human mistakes that I felt are likely on the battle field. It clearly was not shot to perfection. One scene a horse is refusing to co operate with his rider and ends up sort of running sideways while the rest of the formation was normal. The list goes on. Added to this is the fact that these people look normal. Sort, tall, fat skinny and old and young. Like they actually grabbed people out at random and chucked them into a battle scene (kinda like real life I suppose).

How often have you run for your life and looked gorgeous while doing so? According to Jurassic Park you look really dashing while running from giant Dinosaurs wanting your flesh for sport only. In Gettysburg you look like a mess falling apart and stumbling like a fool.

When watching Fury or the Avengers and even the latest Terminator movie it really hit me how everything on screen is "perfect". Every scene has perfect people doing things perfectly. The only screw ups appear to be orchestrated screw ups built into the plot. Take fury for example, all the actors in that tank stood out to me as more than perfect fit men (except the kid, but it was obvious this was done by design). The new terminator movie was an army of very photogenic men (and some women) looking awesome while doing these very perfectly orchestrated fight scenes and then once you end up in the past everything is perfect unless by choice they are not (like the homeless man).

I'm not too sure if I am the only one who has noticed it, but movies feel like everything, from the noises (most sounds on the big screen are fake, but this has been true for a long time), the colouring, the backgrounds and heck even the people in the background are all perfect and it gets to the point where it feels fake because of its perfection. None of it feels normal or relatable.

I think one of the best examples would be Jurassic Park. If you look at the people in the background everyone is clean, trendy, tidy and immaculate:



No dirtiness, no dustiness and everyone looks perfectly selected and so on. It is like this the entire movie.



Why is this? Is it because we would rather see perfection over normalcy on screen now? Is it because of the obvious CGI effects present on even the most mundane things (see Wolf of Wall street or Mad Max etc)?

Gettysburg is a pretty cool movie, while not as visually impressive as say Waterloo it features what I think a real army would look like doing things I would expect. Just a bunch of normal men put into a mad situation.

Opinions?

im against supporting anything to do with the civil war. I have lived in the south for about 15 years now and these people don't need any more reminders that they once fought a war and lost. Its getting kind of old....about 150 years old to be accurate.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
im against supporting anything to do with the civil war. I have lived in the south for about 15 years now and these people don't need any more reminders that they once fought a war and lost. Its getting kind of old....about 150 years old to be accurate.

I think you misread my entire post.

I also treat the civil war as any other war. Because all wars are important. I think American civil war is considered the first industrial war? Not too knowledgeable but that alone means the war is worth remembering.

There is something in what you say. I had some great uncles in the Civil War(Union), and I have stacks of letters from them. One wrote of a charge against a Confederate position that turned into, what he termed, a disgraceful route, leaving him lying up against the wall the Confederates were sheltering behind. He watched as the Confederates would be shooting and noticed that for the most part, they were excited and would fire their weapons while they were still pointed high. He timed the volleys between firing and reloading and took his chance to run back to his own lines, counting as he ran the seconds it took to reload and then diving to the ground.
He did this twice and made it back to his unit.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
im against supporting anything to do with the civil war. I have lived in the south for about 15 years now and these people don't need any more reminders that they once fought a war and lost. Its getting kind of old....about 150 years old to be accurate.

I think you misread my entire post.

I also treat the civil war as any other war. Because all wars are important. I think American civil war is considered the first industrial war? Not too knowledgeable but that alone means the war is worth remembering.

No i read it, Im just saying I wont watch the movie because of the entire premise behind the movie, I do agree with your original post though that sometimes movie companies mess up and make everything look perfect instead of real.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
though, my favorite mess ups are the military ones where they clearly didn't bother to higher a retired military member to give them the actual run down on what happens and how things are done.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
im against supporting anything to do with the civil war. I have lived in the south for about 15 years now and these people don't need any more reminders that they once fought a war and lost. Its getting kind of old....about 150 years old to be accurate.

I think you misread my entire post.

I also treat the civil war as any other war. Because all wars are important. I think American civil war is considered the first industrial war? Not too knowledgeable but that alone means the war is worth remembering.

No i read it, Im just saying I wont watch the movie because of the entire premise behind the movie, I do agree with your original post though that sometimes movie companies mess up and make everything look perfect instead of real.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
though, my favorite mess ups are the military ones where they clearly didn't bother to higher a retired military member to give them the actual run down on what happens and how things are done.

I think you will be very surprised about how it handles the hot issues. It features both sides in a very humane way. This is probably the first war movie I have seen (aside from waterloo) that doesn't have evil music when a nation is shown on screen. The way the 2 sides talk to each other and about each other really made me (a non american) feel like these soldiers are the same people who happen to be fighting each other, the only difference being uniform and accents. It also focuses heavily on the events of the battle, having the generals discuss what they are planning and how they plan on doing it and how it effects them etc. I will say you are missing out by not watching it. But up to you.

I agree on your last point. Usually movies hire experts to review their movie on accurateness. I think Alexander (the movie) had the top historian of Alexander reviewing the movie as it was made. They just don;t always listen haha.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
There is something in what you say. I had some great uncles in the Civil War(Union), and I have stacks of letters from them. One wrote of a charge against a Confederate position that turned into, what he termed, a disgraceful route, leaving him lying up against the wall the Confederates were sheltering behind. He watched as the Confederates would be shooting and noticed that for the most part, they were excited and would fire their weapons while they were still pointed high. He timed the volleys between firing and reloading and took his chance to run back to his own lines, counting as he ran the seconds it took to reload and then diving to the ground.
He did this twice and made it back to his unit.

I remember you telling me that ages ago yea. You could tell the reinactors of the movie got a little excited in the heat of "battle" and did the same thing your ancestor saw. Pulled the trigger too soon.

The best part though was this clearly was not a feature in the movie, you just see things like this happen in the background.

Some of the things in his letters were amazing and sad, like the time he stood guard over a Confederate father and his dying son, who had been wounded in battle.

I thought gettysburg was a very good movie imo, and I totally get the too perfect thing. A great example is the speech Chamberlain gives to the deserters, you see a lot of men who are old, dirty or out of shape.

On a side note I don't have a super heroic story of my gg grandfather in the civil war (Union side 6th penn cavalry), but he was involved in the charge of st. james church which was called one of the most brilliant and glorious cavalry charges of the entire war. Mainly because the 6th stayed on horse back for the entire fight. He had his horse shot out from underneath him and was captured, the federal government sent him a bill for his horse .

 Ustrello wrote:
I thought gettysburg was a very good movie imo, and I totally get the too perfect thing. A great example is the speech Chamberlain gives to the deserters, you see a lot of men who are old, dirty or out of shape.

On a side note I don't have a super heroic story of my gg grandfather in the civil war (Union side 6th penn cavalry), but he was involved in the charge of st. james church which was called one of the most brilliant and glorious cavalry charges of the entire war. Mainly because the 6th stayed on horse back for the entire fight. He had his horse shot out from underneath him and was captured, the federal government sent him a bill for his horse .

While on patrol we had a fire break out in one of our tents, when we came back my buddy had lost everything he brought along for deployment, Luckily (at least from a military perspective) it was a 14 day patrol so he had basically brought all his gear with him. The Government wouldn't reimburse him for all his personal gear that was lost, but thanks to a military F up they reissued him ALL his gear, including ALL his gear that survived. So he got to basically keep a full issue of combat gear for his personal use

It’s worth pointing out that Gettysburg isn’t really an example of how films used to be made. It was a very unusual film at the time, with a strange production history (filming began with it intended to be a miniseries). The only reason it got made at all was because a very rich man who owned a lot of media companies happened to be a civil war buff.

And one way in which it stands out from other films is that outside of the main cast its almost entirely volunteers, civil war re-enactors. Without a studio casting system, this means you get short and tall, fat and skinny, great human diversity. It’s wonderful and brings both a reality and a humanity to the film, but as you say you hardly see it any other films. Even in the old epics where they’d have thousands of extras, they’d weed out the unusual ones and while there was still diversity, it was nothing like you’d see in real life.

I think there’s an idea that if we see a guy in the background of a movie who’s a bit fat or a bit goofy looking, then we might not buy in to the drama that this is a serious thing done by serious people. But personally I think that’s bs, and Gettysburg proves the case.

 sebster wrote:
It’s worth pointing out that Gettysburg isn’t really an example of how films used to be made. It was a very unusual film at the time, with a strange production history (filming began with it intended to be a miniseries). The only reason it got made at all was because a very rich man who owned a lot of media companies happened to be a civil war buff.

And one way in which it stands out from other films is that outside of the main cast its almost entirely volunteers, civil war re-enactors. Without a studio casting system, this means you get short and tall, fat and skinny, great human diversity. It’s wonderful and brings both a reality and a humanity to the film, but as you say you hardly see it any other films. Even in the old epics where they’d have thousands of extras, they’d weed out the unusual ones and while there was still diversity, it was nothing like you’d see in real life.

I think there’s an idea that if we see a guy in the background of a movie who’s a bit fat or a bit goofy looking, then we might not buy in to the drama that this is a serious thing done by serious people. But personally I think that’s bs, and Gettysburg proves the case.

I now know why it was 4 hours long. Yes I guess movies have always done this but I do think today it is worse than ever for the "normalness" aspects.

As soon as I saw the first column of marching men I new it was gonna be different. Precisely because they actually were normal people. Your last statement is exactly how feel, instead of seeing handsome, strong and ideal men die in dramatic scenes etc, we see normal every day people die in a rather undignified manner. Far more impact because the people I see dying are the same people I could see walking through my town. Makes it that much better.

But I do feel now more than ever, the people in the background (even the non CGI ones) look very pristine and magazine model style people. that combined with how the movies are written and played out gives it a... sterile (right word?) feel. At the same time a little detached from reality.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I now know why it was 4 hours long. Yes I guess movies have always done this but I do think today it is worse than ever for the "normalness" aspects.

As soon as I saw the first column of marching men I new it was gonna be different. Precisely because they actually were normal people. Your last statement is exactly how feel, instead of seeing handsome, strong and ideal men die in dramatic scenes etc, we see normal every day people die in a rather undignified manner. Far more impact because the people I see dying are the same people I could see walking through my town. Makes it that much better.

But I do feel now more than ever, the people in the background (even the non CGI ones) look very pristine and magazine model style people. that combined with how the movies are written and played out gives it a... sterile (right word?) feel. At the same time a little detached from reality.

Yeah, I do agree that it’s an issue that is worse today. I think a lot of it is because there’s so much more money poured in to films today. Directors used to have to cut corners, use things and people that weren’t quite perfect, improvise. The trick is that it was in the imperfection and the improvisation that films were so much more interesting.

And I think sterile is a near perfect way of describing it.

The one that comes to mind is the Battle of Helm’s Deep, where they show the 7 year olds and 70 year olds getting ready for war. And then when battle starts the human defenders are all healthy men in their 20s. Bland.

 sebster wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I now know why it was 4 hours long. Yes I guess movies have always done this but I do think today it is worse than ever for the "normalness" aspects.

As soon as I saw the first column of marching men I new it was gonna be different. Precisely because they actually were normal people. Your last statement is exactly how feel, instead of seeing handsome, strong and ideal men die in dramatic scenes etc, we see normal every day people die in a rather undignified manner. Far more impact because the people I see dying are the same people I could see walking through my town. Makes it that much better.

But I do feel now more than ever, the people in the background (even the non CGI ones) look very pristine and magazine model style people. that combined with how the movies are written and played out gives it a... sterile (right word?) feel. At the same time a little detached from reality.

Yeah, I do agree that it’s an issue that is worse today. I think a lot of it is because there’s so much more money poured in to films today. Directors used to have to cut corners, use things and people that weren’t quite perfect, improvise. The trick is that it was in the imperfection and the improvisation that films were so much more interesting.

And I think sterile is a near perfect way of describing it.

The one that comes to mind is the Battle of Helm’s Deep, where they show the 7 year olds and 70 year olds getting ready for war. And then when battle starts the human defenders are all healthy men in their 20s. Bland.

It's the James Caan effect. That guy would never get a career in Hollywood these days, even as an extra.

Another interesting bit in this movie is the amount of wounded you see in the battle scenes. Instead of the usual dead or alive unless special or important in movies you see the battlefields riddled with wounded men with some dead.

Another nice touch I think.

 Bromsy wrote:
It's the James Caan effect. That guy would never get a career in Hollywood these days, even as an extra.

Heh, that's a great way of putting it.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
im against supporting anything to do with the civil war. I have lived in the south for about 15 years now and these people don't need any more reminders that they once fought a war and lost. Its getting kind of old....about 150 years old to be accurate.

He's not arguing about the Civil War. He's arguing that movies are too perfect, that the people in them are perfect.
Well Fury had some really fgrimy people, I'd disagree with that, and rounds missed a lot. But overall I agree.
You don't get random glitches like humanity unless you have actual humanity on screen. You don't get that with CGI.

You need guys playing flame thrower guitars on trucks, blasting full power riffs.

I Know fraz, im just saying i refuse to watch the movie because its based on the civil war. they mentioned a lot of other movies for comparison and i have since added to discussion. I know weiner dogs cant read but come on dude

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I Know fraz, im just saying i refuse to watch the movie because its based on the civil war. they mentioned a lot of other movies for comparison and i have since added to discussion. I know weiner dogs cant read but come on dude

That seems like a pretty silly reason not to watch the movie. Its not like it glorifies slavery or anything. Its about actual events that actually happened.

Do you not watch movies about WW2 because of the Holocaust?

Denying history doesn't solve problems.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I Know fraz, im just saying i refuse to watch the movie because its based on the civil war. they mentioned a lot of other movies for comparison and i have since added to discussion. I know weiner dogs cant read but come on dude

That seems like a pretty silly reason not to watch the movie. Its not like it glorifies slavery or anything. Its about actual events that actually happened.

Do you not watch movies about WW2 because of the Holocaust?

Denying history doesn't solve problems.

Im not denying it, I just refuse to support the pop culture of it. if you ever live in the south you will understand what I mean, these guys live for this crap. I never knew/heard of or saw a civil war re-enactment until i moved to the side that LOST the civil war....kinda messed up.

In the UK we have re-enactment societies for nearly any period you mention. It started with ECW about 40 years ago and broadened out to cover Romans, vikings, mediaeval, Napoleonic, WW2, etc. A lot of these people are really good and get hired to do segments for serious TV programmes and the like.

We even have a naval re-enactment society.

https://sites.google.com/site/historicalmaritimesociety/

Back on topic, Gettysburg, Waterloo and so on of course are not dramas, they are history and dramatic enough in the reality not to need souping up with spiffy actors and catchy lines.

That is why the original Tora Tora Tora is a much better film than Pearl Harbour.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I Know fraz, im just saying i refuse to watch the movie because its based on the civil war. they mentioned a lot of other movies for comparison and i have since added to discussion. I know weiner dogs cant read but come on dude

That seems like a pretty silly reason not to watch the movie. Its not like it glorifies slavery or anything. Its about actual events that actually happened.

Do you not watch movies about WW2 because of the Holocaust?

Denying history doesn't solve problems.

Im not denying it, I just refuse to support the pop culture of it. if you ever live in the south you will understand what I mean, these guys live for this crap. I never knew/heard of or saw a civil war re-enactment until i moved to the side that LOST the civil war....kinda messed up.

As a native Texan, I've lived in the South. I don't get your argument ...at all. Note when i went to see Gettysberg of the four of us, two were from Taiwan and the other was a Yankee.
I think the last movie that showed the South in an out and out good light was Gone with the Wind.

I think the last movie that showed the South in an out and out good light was Gone with the Wind.

What about Smokey and the Bandit? I love those films

To the original poster: I think the Crimean War was the first 'industrial' war.

And finally, to Kilkrazy: Could you please address the ECW by its proper title, The War of the three kingdoms. Ireland played a huge part in it, and of course, the whole thing kicked off in Scotland YMMV

So, the English Civil War.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
So, the English Civil War.

You mean the War of the Three Kingdoms...

The Wars of the Three Kingdoms[3] formed an intertwined series of conflicts that took place in England, Ireland and Scotland between 1639 and 1651. The English Civil War has become the best-known of these conflicts and included the execution of the kingdoms' monarch, Charles I, by the English parliament in 1649.

The wars included the Bishops' Wars of 1639 and 1640, the Scottish Civil War of 1644–45; the Irish Rebellion of 1641, Confederate Ireland, 1642–49 and the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland in 1649 (collectively the Eleven Years War or Irish Confederate Wars); and the First, Second and Third English Civil Wars of 1642–46, 1648–49 and 1650–51.

So, the English Civil War.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

The Wars of the Three Kingdoms[3] formed an intertwined series of conflicts that took place in England, Ireland and Scotland between 1639 and 1651. The English Civil War has become the best-known of these conflicts and included the execution of the kingdoms' monarch, Charles I, by the English parliament in 1649.

The wars included the Bishops' Wars of 1639 and 1640, the Scottish Civil War of 1644–45; the Irish Rebellion of 1641, Confederate Ireland, 1642–49 and the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland in 1649 (collectively the Eleven Years War or Irish Confederate Wars); and the First, Second and Third English Civil Wars of 1642–46, 1648–49 and 1650–51.

So, the English Civil War.

I smell a new thread in the making

"Things that Do_I_Not_Like_That got wrong"?

I mean, if you want to make it go ahead.

Trivia fact that few people know

Mark Twain fought for the Confederacy for two whole weeks before running West

I cannot see a movie being as realistic as possible having lines of troops shooting .52 cal rounds at each other nor grape shots being fired at them.
Even Glory was not bloody at all but it was aimed at all audience

Mark Twain wrote a good story about his adventures and exploits in the ACW.

 Jihadin wrote:
Trivia fact that few people know

Mark Twain fought for the Confederacy for two whole weeks before running West

I cannot see a movie being as realistic as possible having lines of troops shooting .52 cal rounds at each other nor grape shots being fired at them.
Even Glory was not bloody at all but it was aimed at all audience

Yes they had to tone it down so that it could keep it's PG rating. They actually had the cannon fire grape shots just as the charge closed in, they also switched to canisters and so on. The dirt and damage each round threw into the air was distinctly different although obviously the grape shot did not throw dirt into the air etc.

But I did a quick read before watching the movie and they had to tone Pickets (spelling?) charge otherwise it would not be a movie for all. But it is heavily hinted about how nasty it was and even for a pg movie it is pretty gross charge. A lot of people got wounded on screen. But according to historians etc the movie is about as realistic as you can get without actually chucking them into real battle and filming it. Which to me is enough to call it realistic.

I think glory (the one with the black guys right?) was bound to be not realistic because the trailer looked really really holly wood drama like. Now while that is fine and I will watch it one day, I think what helps Gettysburg (the movie I decided on watching) realistic (finished watching it last night) was the complete lack of any forced conflict or drama. Characters did not hate each other and cause problems, no women or love triangles, no scenes showing one side as evil or one as good, in fact we aren't rooting for anyone because both sides have characters that are very likable. It is just simply watching 2 sides fight out a battle. Nothing else was thrown in to keep people interested, they took the actual event and people (because lets face it, history is already interesting) and made it a movie.

But yes I think all reinactors acknowledge that until they come under actual fire during their acts they will never be truly realistic.