I am! It looks like Saving Private Ryan but the WW1 version, I’m sure it will be a great movie and definitely gonna have to see it in IMAX to hear all the explosions and bullets flying.
Pretty specific question you’re asking.
I don’t think an exact, definitive figure would be ever obtainable but BF1 has certainly popularised WW1 for mainstream audiences so I think it would be safe to say that it will have an impact on the performance of this film. Now how large or small that impact will be is anyone’s guess. This is all just conjecture of course.
Anyway, enjoy your film!
I certainly have gained a greater interest in WW1 since getting BF1 and I’m sure it has piqued the interest of many, because it is such a good, immersive experience.
It looks fairly accurate unlike Saving Private Ryan. Have yet to see their portrayals of the Central Powers soldiers yet, hopefully they are not head shaved monsters for no other reason than they’re getting shot on screen. God Spielberg is a hack…
I do like the mud, lots of WW1 movies don’t get the budget to properly remake no man’s land and it hurts the immersiveness. It isn’t as grimy as Passchendaele but it is there. Being shot in a single take sounds extremely interesting.
I think, considering some other Hollywood movies out there, that you’re being a bit harsh on Spielberg. Saving Private Ryan is pretty damn decent, apart from the haircuts. The german soldier isn’t portrayed as a monster, a bit ungrateful perhaps.
Your entitled to your opnion, obviously, but if your threshold starts at haircuts, well then you’ll have a hard time finding movies up to your standards.
Saving Private Ryan is a great movie! Spielberg a hack!? Ha, his box office record says otherwise.
I thought 1917 looked pretty imteresting from the trailers . Playing BF1 has definitely made me more interested in WW1.
I love war movies saw windtalkers in the theater with my grandfather may he RIP…And I love Saving Private Ryan, Thin Red Line, Platoon, Patton, Full Metal Jacket, We Were Soldiers, Apocalypse Now, Hurt Locket and etc.
I would have seen this regardless if I ever played BF1 or not but having played it I’m even more interested in seeing it, and yeah BF1 for me is the most immersive Battlefield game in the franchise for me, BFV is probably at the bottom and it’s sad that a game with WW2 weapons and vehicles doesn’t feel like a WW2 game at all to me.
The only instance where the Germans aren’t aggressive or disrespecting the laws of war is when they find the radio team in that town and the Americans shoot first. The entire rest of the movie and all the rest of the German soldiers are shaved monsters.
How many scenes are we even talking about? That is; non-combat scenes with Germans doing “monster” things.
And if your mindset is, “aggressive/shoot first equals being portrayed negatively” then, like the haircut thing, your standards are impossible. Are the American “monsters“ when they shoot first?!
I get that you perhaps(?) have some issues with how non-allied soldiers are portrayed by Hollywood, but it really seems like you’re nitpicking and intent on finding faults.
I literally cannot remember a scene where I thought “those monster germans!”. Even the scene where Hanks is killed is about a good deed punished. Not what the released german did in an intense combat moment.
No it goes through the entire movie. We get no perspective of the Germans as anything but targets or faceless killers gunning down the Americans. They expect us to feel sympathy for the dying Americans but feel like the Germans burning to death from flames or wily Pete deserve it. They try to justify this with the anachronistic insert of American knowledge of death camps in 1944. The few we see without helmets are all coincidentally shaved heads. The 2 that surrender at the start of the movie that are killed are Czechs.
It’s not like the majority of movies that remember that war is a phenomenon involving 2 parties and that there really isn’t a right side of history in any discourse. No men are more or less deserving of death on screen than the other. Even movies that totally lack a perspective of the other side (like Hacksaw Ridge) still portray the Japanese and their customs/grim fighting conditions well. Spielberg made his own war movie where you’re supposed to encourage bloodshed on one side and feel bad about when it happens to the other. Hackish.
Well, it’s a story about an American squad looking for another American. I’m not sure why you would expect to see it from the German perspective?? How long would these war movies be, if every sides story needed to be told, the opposing soldiers needed backstories, monolog scenes, names etc etc??
-The Americans shot down surrendering enemies at the beach.
-The captain (Hanks) has to stop his squad from killing a POW German because he killed (in regular combat, being attacked) a popular medic.
-Upham is portrayed as lacking courage in the village.
-Upham guns down the released German when he has his hands up, while letting the rest go.
I can’t for the life of me see how you get “Americans good/Germans bad” from this movie. It’s much more nuanced than that.
I’ve seen German war movies, Italian, and even Turkish. I don’t expect them to have backstories and names for the Russian, American and Australian soldiers they fight.
But I suspect we watch movies a different way, and that is fine.
I have seen lots of war movies and I remember many of them showing empathy for the German people and the German soldiers, but not so much the high command and the camp commandants… Hollywood/American war movies do tend to be a bit more gung-ho and blasé about the realities of ‘the enemy’, but even those are hardly a majority of glorification pieces. They may show things from the American perspective, but, they are often very harrowing. Anyway, they are made by Americans and film, books, etc are better if you go with what you know.
I wonder why there aren’t more WW2 films from Germany?.. Hmm. Yeah.
Not really. In Fury and Hacksaw Ridge (Hollywood af war movies) there is not a deliberate effort to portray the deaths of the Allied soldiers as somehow more gruesome and terrible than the others. It’s clearly observable in the movie that the intent of the filming style is to encourage the death of the enemy on screen. It’s a pretty stark contrast to movies that capitalize on the drama of the dehumanization of violence by all sides. Fury also explores the desensitization and detachment from the carnage and the hatred for your enemy that enables it, but it doesn’t simply gun the Germans down but ham up every American death.
It’s literally it’s own style of war movie and as much a propaganda piece as the propaganda being made at the time its portraying.
Saving Private Ryan is my favorite war movie. Tom Hanks is such a great actor. Wilson!!!
World War 2 is one of the rare wars where one side, the Germans, were truly evil in their actions. Adolf H, their leader was a crazed racist Meglomaniac. The Germans were the aggressors and attacked first on Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, Britain, Russia and the USA. They performed horrible ethnic cleansing of Jews, and maintained deathcamps.
In World War 2, Germans were considered by many to be on the side of evil. The political correctness of today has gone too far when people whine about the depiction of Germans as shave headed monsters in a World War 2 movie.
Please first remember what (and the Germans) did in World War 2. It was terrible.
Whilst “The Germans” were the aggressors in WW2, German soldiers did not decide to attack. The political leader(s) and the high command did that. Soldiers just did their jobs like soldiers always do. They are perhaps generally the most blinded by propaganda of any section of society. They couldn’t be soldiers without that, though. I doubt many people become soldiers because they are looking for an excuse to do evil and murder people. Especially back then it was all about notions of national pride, honour and glory. Of course some were involved in atrocities, but were a tiny minority and some of those coerced by fear of punishment, death and retribution to their families. Even in the high command there will have been generals horrified by the situation, but knowing to cross the man at the top meant death for you and possibly your family. Yes, AH was a crazed megalomaniac and so were a few of his leaders. Does that mean “The Germans” were evil monsters? Cowardly? Maybe. Wilfully ignorant? Possibly. Blinded by patriotism? Maybe. Shamefully indifferent? Who knows. Self-centred and selfish? Could be. Evil, though?
I like to wonder how the soldiers involved in the Arab nations over recent decades feel about effectively being told to kill people in order to secure the western world’s oil supply. Is that a good enough reason to kill people? Is that evil? Would an arab film maker depict an American/British/NATO soldier as a monster? Would that be fair? I am being devil’s advocate, here, by the way, not depicting my beliefs at all.
I don’t excuse or deny what happened in WW2, but to depict the average German soldier as some kind of monster is at best a white-washing of the truth. Career soldiers (in general) do amazing and horrible things on our behalf and I feel bad for all of them. I’m sure some delight in the violence and gladly suck up the propaganda. I’m also sure that it’s a minority that are like that and a further minority of that minority that aren’t disavowed of that opinion once things get real.
A lot of ‘old’ war movies really ham it up and do dismiss the Axis forces at best as fodder and at worst as monsters. They portray the Allied forces as heroes and martyrs. This is utterly understandable in the wake of the war when its effects were still being felt. The people wanted to feel good about what the Allies did and wanted to feel it was a glorious victory over an evil empire, not an horrific ordeal for both sides. No one wants to look at their grandfather and think about the fatherless families he made back in Germany or the terrible suffering he inflicted on Axis soldiers.
I’m aware that this subject is very likely to cause arguments and might get me some grief, so I’m going to leave it, just lastly saying that, yes political correctness can go over the top these days, but I think war movies, if they present themselves as anything like ‘realistic’, have a duty to not glorify things and to represent the facts where possible. I don’t think presenting German soldiers as monstrous does that. Even glossing over the ‘enemy’ deaths and hamming up the ‘friendly’ deaths is a bit off. War is hell on both sides and the moral ‘right’ is rarely a simple matter.
I am far from being a pacifist, but I like to think a healthy respect for human life and rights is a good thing. Enjoying Battlefield is a somewhat guilty pleasure sometimes, especially with how effectively BF1 portrays it.
I liked “Flyboys” It was a bit glossy in plot, but was amazed that the Escadrilles was a real thing all the way down to the pet tigers. The coolest part was seeing the planes of course. Made me appreciate them more in the game…especially the bombers.
I also wiki’ed Eddie Rickenbacker after reading an article on him in Motor Trend. Seems not only was he a WW1 Flying Ace, but prewar raced the Indy 500 4 times, and post war owned the Indianapolis Speedway, as well as founded Eastern Airlines. Post War he also survived two horrific plane crashes. Crashed in a B17 at sea and survived 24 days on fish and rainwater! Crashed in a DC-3 and almost left for dead. Yet he still went on to live to 82! His bio was amazing…especially since WW1 was such a small part of the amazing stuff he did.
Wouldn’t use Battlefield 1 as an accurate source of information on WW1, the movie looks good but will be much more realistic than BF1, uniforms are better for a start
Germans will be evil Monsters Like every Brit/American movie. Just Take the one Scene from the Trailer where dead civillians are in a River. I Bet my Money on it that the Germans excetuted them or killed them atleast.
Well no kidding…I’m just saying I’m more interested in seeing it after having played BF1 seeing with the weapons and vehicles and everything in BF1.