Jump to content

Fury


daskal

Recommended Posts

Don't think they will ever make a truly accurate War/armour movie.

Even though they hire retired officers and historians as consultants.

Production time costs money and why bother with details the majority of your audience

Will not realise the inaccuracies anyway.

Hope I am wrong though. Really looking forward to thunder run.

Not only that, but a 'truly realistic' movie might be appreciated by a tiny, knowledgeable minority, but the vast majority wouldn't know the difference. So it doesn't make sense to go for authenticity if it adds to the cost. But if it doesn't cost any more to get it right than to get it wrong, why not get it right? Answer: because the director is almost certainly among the ignorant minority and has his own firm ideas of what makes 'good footage'.

P.S I have flown helicopters in two documentaries (one about the construction of the Brent oil field in the North Sea) and had to really fight with the director on both occasions to persuade him that what he wanted bore no relation to the way it was done in real life. I won the North Sea one 'cos I was Chief Pilot of the operation and got on the blower to the PR dept at Shell, who told the director that when it came to the flying I called the shots.

On the other one, I told the director that if I attempted to approach from the direction he asked ('It's all to do with the lighting dear boy') I would end up crashing. I saw his eyes positively light up at that prospect. :mad3: I wasn't surprised when the whole thing was scrapped during post-production. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Other weird stuff:

Roomiest tank turret I've seen since "Lebanon" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1483831/)

But not as roomy.

The track runs off the top of the return rollers after the mine strike as if it was broken at the top (less than 10 link) not the bottom.

Yeah I thought that as well.

The bottom run of track was A OK but the road wheels were knackered.

:cul:

A lone AT mine? No APERS ones with it for when everybody jumps off to look at the damage?

Pfft. Noobs.

The sole Panzerfaust hit kills one guy in the "super crew" compared to the earlier scene where one completely incinerates a vehicle.

Ah! But he's the "Spall Liner!"

It needs a sniper to kill the guy outside the turret standing up on the rear deck using the AA 0.50". I guess because the remainder of the Company can't hit the side of a barn?

They could hit a barn, but a tank is smaller than a barn. :men_ani:

The grenades that go off inside cause no visible damage to the guys in the turret (yet the initial scene has the FNG washing out the remains of the previous assistant driver).

And miracoulously missed the ammo, oh no wait they'd expended their ammo by then.

A nice shade of arterial red would've been nice and accurate.

Oh and the crew deliberately start a FIRE using a dead Nazi on the outside as kindling.

And are smoking, inside the tank, from the beginning.

So, technically this movie should've been over before it even begun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice visuals, very nice sounds. Few small details that make you happy, like the green tracers and the bucket. The movie starts OK, but after the encounter with the Tiger it looses it. The end scene is silly.

My advice?

Get a sixpack of beer. Consume it quickly during the movie. By the time you get to the end, you won't mind the sillynes - your mind is syncronized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice visuals, very nice sounds. Few small details that make you happy, like the green tracers and the bucket. The movie starts OK, but after the encounter with the Tiger it looses it. The end scene is silly.

My advice?

Get a sixpack of beer. Consume it quickly during the movie. By the time you get to the end, you won't mind the sillynes - your mind is syncronized.

Beer? I thought the finnish solution would be vodka? Well, just from my observation after our meeting with the guys from Wärtsilä.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shermans were designed to be medium tanks on purpose so many more could be mass produced, borrowing from the Soviet philosophy that quantity has it own quality.

Well, not in the sense that the idea is to use quantity to offset 'quality.' When they were first designed, they weren't behind the curve- often better than Axis tanks, either as good or better than the early war German armor or on the other hand not suitable for the Pacific campaigns, or else, the Japanese still did not have better tanks at any rate. Moreover, the US initially conceived of the tank destroyer to fill the role of tank vs. tank combat.

The Germans benefitted from naturally defensive, close quarter terrain in France and Italy, but if the Shermans broke out of that, their use as open country tanks probably outweighed the benefits of the better mid-late war German tanks.

Finally, the philosophy that quantity has a quality all its own means more than just producing a bunch of medium grade equipment. It means that experience has taught that massed formations tend to be more effective than units spread out or sent in piecemeal. They tend to suffer fewer casualties and inflict more pain. So, 50 tanks sent in all at once on the attack has a different effect than 50 tanks sent in one at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
14319_10205790560712936_8623556103870320277_n.jpg

LMFAO! Pretty much sums it up. I hated the movie. When I saw the Tiger-Sherman's battle I said to myself; "You got to be shitting me!" When I saw the last battle, I just laughed and told my wife I didn't realize this was to be a comedy. :luxhello:

Somebody in the upper echelons of Hollywood got lazy. :mad3:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much sums it up. I hated the movie. When I saw the Tiger-Sherman's battle I said to myself; "You got to be shitting me!" When I saw the last battle, I just laughed and told my wife I didn't realize this was to be a comedy. :luxhello:

Somebody in the upper echelons of Hollywood got lazy. :mad3:

Still going to rent it when the movie goes to DVD, just to see 131.

Got to sit in that tiger once so I feel an attachment to it. LoL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
It's ok until tiger shows up, after that its hilarious comedy :c:

Actually, I found it still good up to the point where they reach the tree line, having fired the smoke grenades to conceal their retreat. THEN it turns into WoT.

That "Last Stand" chapter - well, maybe they wanted to bring Audie Murphy to the screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I found it still good up to the point where they reach the tree line, having fired the smoke grenades to conceal their retreat. THEN it turns into WoT.

That "Last Stand" chapter - well, maybe they wanted to bring Audie Murphy to the screen.

Yeah well,

Audie Murphy never stepped inside the Tank Destroyer,

He used the bolted on fifty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still going to rent it when the movie goes to DVD, just to see 131.

That's the thing, overlooking everything else, there is still the opportunity to see the tanks and to see the working Tiger- except not much. There's just not much screen time for the tanks at all, the Tiger is onscreen for one short scene, just a couple minutes, and the camera is constantly cutting back and forth between viewpoints during that scene. I found that technique to be a bit clumsy.

Philosophically, the filmmakers do not use a lot of tension for the tank scenes, there's not much sense of being cloistered up in a tank, at least 90 percent of the action is outside of the tanks, which has a different effect than if they balanced the time between inside and outside.

Not to spoil it, but I don't think I am revealing plot points here but explaining how they show you the Tiger: even during the Tiger scene, I don't remember showing any shots inside the Tiger, what you get are very quick external shots, and if the TC is giving orders, they show the Tiger from the outside viewpoint, and you just hear the TC's voice over the mic from this external view.

This is a bit of an abstract way to convey these scenes, but I found a lot of Fury to be abstract- the camera work is abstract in this way, often using 'impossible' angles to shoot scenes from high above like a bird's eye view, or the theme music abstracts the battle scenes. The conversations are abstract when they reveal things that happen in the past, but don't show the audience anything about those events. The film in one word is abstract- it's not the technical inaccuracies, it's not the final scene which you might have heard about by now so much that I think removes the audience from the film, it's the artistic direction it takes over all- it's abstract. It seems not to make me care what happens at all one way or the other, I don't relate to what's happening a whole lot, don't really care what the characters are doing or talking about. It's like a lot of any other films- I just don't really care, during any given crop of films from any genre there's a rare gem or two that gets released every year which I think have all the ingredients, but Fury isn't one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...