What's new
By:
FORUMS - COASTERFORCE

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

"Now Showing"

Jordan made me want to watch Watership Down again. :P
Luckily the whole thing is on Youtube.
Great film and is one of those childhood classics that you just don't get these days (I sound old saying that).
I also shows how protective they are with film ratings now. I never had a problem with this film being a U when I was younger we used to watch it at school during breaks when it was raining outside.
Now if the film was released it would be a 12.
I was talking on MSN and explaining what was happening to Neal in nice detail.
It's a children's film that contains:
-Lots of blood
-Freaky animation in some scenes
-Rabbits getting run over by trains close up
-Roadkill
-Rabbits fighting to the death
-Rabbits getting ripped apart
-And loads more.

Great film though and it's one of those films that everyone has to see at least once in their lives. :)
 
I watched Pearl Harbour for the first time a long while.


Then realised why did I watch Pearl Harbour? Its so innacurate, haha. Again the yanks never giving the British a mention, as the Japanese took the idea from the British....

So yeah like 4/10 for effort ;)
 
nadroJ said:
furie said:
H.R. Giger
Click to expand...
Is a chauvinistic pigman with an obsession with phallic objects.
Click to expand...

And your point is? :lol:

Watched The man with two brains on Saturday night with Minor_Furie (still educating him :lol: ).

Not as funny as it was when I was 13, but still a great film in my opinion. Steve Martin used to be funny!!! Amazing.
 
[quoet]I watched Pearl Harbour for the first time a long while.


Then realised why did I watch Pearl Harbour? Its so innacurate, haha. Again the yanks never giving the British a mention, as the Japanese took the idea from the British....

[/quote]

To be honest, I don't think it was meant to be totally accurate anyways. It's a romance, not a movie for die-hard history nerds to go watch and pick apart, really. Yes I do know a lot of it is wrong because I do actually know a lot about the wars and history in general, but if you take it for what it is, it isn't terrible, though it is terribly long.

I did prefer Titanic though, I think.
 
No, if you're going to make a drama about a historical event, it should at least be a tiny bit accurate.


At least with Titanic the ship did sink! There wasn't a huge amount they could go entirely wrong with that.
 
Lol.. you guys are actually bitching about a movie not being accurate?

Lord.. don't let your panties get too wet about it. :lol:

I liked the movie, simply for the concept of the movie.. and it did what it wanted to.. a love story on the background of a tragedy. Dramatic license boys and girls.. ever heard? ;)

And Dave.. I'm pretty sure the writers for the movie could careless where the Japs got the idea from.. for a movie which is mainly focused in Hawaii, you should be happy that the Brits even got worked into the movie. :P
 
Watched Tron the other night for the 1st time in years. I can see why Disney dont really make a big deal out of it but it was way ahead of its time.

I still do not see why they want to make a 2nd one but I hope its better than the original.

It would however make a great coaster, booster bikes.
 
SnooSnoo said:
Lol.. you guys are actually bitching about a movie not being accurate?

Lord.. don't let your panties get too wet about it. :lol:

I liked the movie, simply for the concept of the movie.. and it did what it wanted to.. a love story on the background of a tragedy. Dramatic license boys and girls.. ever heard? ;)

And Dave.. I'm pretty sure the writers for the movie could careless where the Japs got the idea from.. for a movie which is mainly focused in Hawaii, you should be happy that the Brits even got worked into the movie. :P
Click to expand...

Well, I am a history student Snoo, we're supposed to get annoyed about that sort of thing, it's part of what we do :wink:
 
Ben said:
SnooSnoo said:
Lol.. you guys are actually bitching about a movie not being accurate?

Lord.. don't let your panties get too wet about it. :lol:

I liked the movie, simply for the concept of the movie.. and it did what it wanted to.. a love story on the background of a tragedy. Dramatic license boys and girls.. ever heard? ;)

And Dave.. I'm pretty sure the writers for the movie could careless where the Japs got the idea from.. for a movie which is mainly focused in Hawaii, you should be happy that the Brits even got worked into the movie. :P
Click to expand...

Well, I am a history student Snoo, we're supposed to get annoyed about that sort of thing, it's part of what we do :wink:
Click to expand...

haha well I agree.. I do wish most films would stay more to the actual truth.. but how often has factual history proved to entertain the masses?

;)
 
Yeah it does suck, granted. But the fact it tries to change history and make out the Americans won the War all by yourselves.
 
Two things!

1) Snoo is right. Balls to historical accuracy if it makes a good film (Kevin Costner Robin Hood springs to mind). Sadly, Pearl Harbour was a bad film :P

2) I hate people saying "the Americans won the war by themselves, blah blah blah". While there are obvious political impacts on the lateness of America coming into the war, their input certainly turned the tides of war. American involvement was much needed, and America lost a LOT in the battles in the Pacific (battles the Brits don't really learn much about due to the fact we weren't really massively involved). The thing is, in 1941, we were pushed out of Europe and holed up just trying to keep Germany off the shores. Without the relief of the US, who knows how long we could have held on for? While the Americans didn't single handedly win the war, they did ensure that it could be won. It's always seemed odd to me that more films are made about the European conflict with American soldiers, than the Asian conflicts. It's mainly (I think) due to the fact that most war films were made in British studios, so told our side. However, I'll bet the funding came from the US (and the biggest market was surely the US) so the British writers will have geared it towards keeping the Americans happy. It's just a tradition that has continued, but I think it's balanced by the lack of films telling about what happened in the arena the US fought hardest and lost the most in.
 
^Not exactly being an expert on the subject, but knowing my grade 9 lessons, I'd say the conflict in Europe is the most "popular" is partly because of all the parties involved - you had a lot of different countries to fight in, lots of people, local resistance movements, etc, partly becuase it all was governed there, and partly because the Pacific battles were a tad "repetive".
Basically, the fighting was done on small jungle islands, the americans taking one small island after another, and the Japanese fighing back as best as they could. There was more about bombarding, all islands were war zones, there were no "peaceful back home" to return to. No frontline, only another island to conquer.
The pacific was Hell for the soldiers. American destroyers emptying their ammo over the islands before sending soldiers in, only to find that the Japanese were hiding underground and still had all artillery intact. So full war and hell until the Japanese were defeated. Then onto next island
While in Europe, there were governments to protect, cities to conquer, freedom to fight for, conquered land to win back. A more glorious story, at least seen with Western eyes. Don't forget the spying, psychological warfare, restistance movement, etc.
 
Yeah, that's kind of what I meant Pokey! As the American "arena" couldn't be covered (but was vital and certainly the part of the war America 'owned') they kind of shoehorned the work they did there into the films covering the European war.

That way they still get the recognition for doing the hard and bloody work, without their own films about it which don't make good viewing.

If that makes sense?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top