1917 (WWI movie)
Discussion
borcy said:
I think the time most units spent in the most forward of trenches was about 3 days. They were rotated through quite quickly.
I think 5-8 days each leg and then rotated out to the rear for a couple of weeks. Rinse and repeat. The idea they were in the trenches all the time is very much a modern idea.
Reading some accounts there were some soldiers who preferred being in the trenches then to be rotated out to the rear as when in the rear they were kept pretty busy on various general labouring duties. Not a lot of r and r occurred.
Well, made the extra effort to Cardiff for the IMAX experience - looked nice, didn't connect with it at all. Zero feeling of peril for the guy, having seen a trailer once, knowing that scenes had yet to be shown. Minor 'oh' when the other guy was stabbed, more annoyed that a mechanised unit rocked up without him noticing. A number of not right historical/soldier stuff but I've given up on that sort of thing nowadays.
Looked nice though.
Starting checking the phone during the girl/baby scene - not that it was bad, I just didn't care.
Did I say it looked nice?
Looked nice though.
Starting checking the phone during the girl/baby scene - not that it was bad, I just didn't care.
Did I say it looked nice?
dvb70 said:
borcy said:
I think the time most units spent in the most forward of trenches was about 3 days. They were rotated through quite quickly.
I think 5-8 days each leg and then rotated out to the rear for a couple of weeks. Rinse and repeat. The idea they were in the trenches all the time is very much a modern idea.
Reading some accounts there were some soldiers who preferred being in the trenches then to be rotated out to the rear as when in the rear they were kept pretty busy on various general labouring duties. Not a lot of r and r occurred.
Just got home from seeing it. Absolutely superb. The level of detail in the trenches and the trek across no mans land was brilliant. Aside from the plot holes and waterfall plus the pointless scene with the baby it was a fantastic film.
We are all different and like different things however so can see why not everyone liked it. Some of those feelings are what i thought about Dunkirk, I turned off half way through. 8.5 for 1917 from me.
We are all different and like different things however so can see why not everyone liked it. Some of those feelings are what i thought about Dunkirk, I turned off half way through. 8.5 for 1917 from me.
Saw it yesterday, technically very interesting with the illusion of a single tracking shot (you can see the breaks clearly), but I felt the film was weaker for having to accommodate this approach. In particular, it failed on the most basic function of a film- making you care about the characters. It was all just a bit meh, even when that big thing happened half way through.
I was surprised that germans can't shoot straight (at all), but we can nail a sniper in a window with no problems; important documents survive a total soaking and remain immaculate; the British army used mixed race Battalions in 1917; unauthorised and unknown soldiers can wander around assault start lines with no questions asked; explosives take 10 minutes to collapse an underground bunker; I could go on.....
I actually liked the baby scene, as I thought it was one of the few scenes that allowed the characters to be people, and not soldiers, but I can see how others would think it jarred a bit.
Overall, 6/10. Wouldn't see it it again, but a good evening out. Not a patch on Dunkirk though. Even if the train seats were wrong, I just didn't care because I cared who lived and who died.
I was surprised that germans can't shoot straight (at all), but we can nail a sniper in a window with no problems; important documents survive a total soaking and remain immaculate; the British army used mixed race Battalions in 1917; unauthorised and unknown soldiers can wander around assault start lines with no questions asked; explosives take 10 minutes to collapse an underground bunker; I could go on.....
I actually liked the baby scene, as I thought it was one of the few scenes that allowed the characters to be people, and not soldiers, but I can see how others would think it jarred a bit.
Overall, 6/10. Wouldn't see it it again, but a good evening out. Not a patch on Dunkirk though. Even if the train seats were wrong, I just didn't care because I cared who lived and who died.
9/10
Piginapoke said:
I was surprised that germans can't shoot straight (at all), .
According to The Oxford Companion to Military History over 60% of the casualties on the western front in WW1 were caused by artillery, which is not untypical. In WW2 a British infantry officer after D-Day, to paraphrase, described his main job as being to advance to protect the artillery spotters. If you deduct those killed by machine gunners I imagine the proportion killed by riflemen blazing away at each other were probably not that high and would probably therefore be scores of rounds fired for every target hit.
While getting some throthing at the mouth for its inclusion the lone empire troop shown is really another cop out.
They could have shown a whole troop of Sikh soldiers but they didn't want to do that did they.
Just a question of getting 20-30 extras for a day so no strain on the budget is it?
So the typical get out is to show just one person.
All the pseudo liberal types think phew got through another day with my bull$hit lol.
A really good film I would recommend is days of glory. Went down like a lead ballon and events since have made it easier to dismiss.
They could have shown a whole troop of Sikh soldiers but they didn't want to do that did they.
Just a question of getting 20-30 extras for a day so no strain on the budget is it?
So the typical get out is to show just one person.
All the pseudo liberal types think phew got through another day with my bull$hit lol.
A really good film I would recommend is days of glory. Went down like a lead ballon and events since have made it easier to dismiss.
Piginapoke said:
the British army used mixed race Battalions in 1917;.
At one point, the officer who allocates Scofield a place in the truck, says its the 'casuals' truck... i.e. a truck full of transient, unattached men, such as Schofield, that they have picked up along the way and are displaced from their original battalion. So, no not a mixed race battalion.JagLover said:
According to The Oxford Companion to Military History over 60% of the casualties on the western front in WW1 were caused by artillery, which is not untypical. In WW2 a British infantry officer after D-Day, to paraphrase, described his main job as being to advance to protect the artillery spotters.
If you deduct those killed by machine gunners I imagine the proportion killed by riflemen blazing away at each other were probably not that high and would probably therefore be scores of rounds fired for every target hit.
This "why did they miss him thing" is odd to me. It seems very plausible they'd have missed him.If you deduct those killed by machine gunners I imagine the proportion killed by riflemen blazing away at each other were probably not that high and would probably therefore be scores of rounds fired for every target hit.
A)Apart from the sniper (who did appear to be rubbish), I seem to recall all the other shooters were moving/running or recently had been. Shooting on the move while trying to hit a moving target without an automatic weapon...not accurate
B)Most soldiers would not have been shooting to hit anything:
"S.L.A. Marshall did a study on the firing rates of soldiers in World War II. He found that the ratio of rounds fired vs. hits was low; he also noted that the majority of soldiers were not aiming to hit their targets. This is attributable to the inherent humanity inside the soldiers who grew in a peaceful, equitable society." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killology#The_proble...
As people have been mentioning the German sniper, my thoughts on this are why would a soldier on an important mission hang around to clear out a sniper from a building, particularly with the risk of getting killed and failing in his mission? Surely he would have bi-passed the sniper (e.g creep round the back of the building) and got on with his journey.
Also in the baby scene how did a clock in a clock tower survive in working order to signal that it was midnight (or whatever) when the rest of the area was in complete ruins and burning?
Also in the baby scene how did a clock in a clock tower survive in working order to signal that it was midnight (or whatever) when the rest of the area was in complete ruins and burning?
Seems to be a lot of talk about the Sniper, I think people are unaware of how designated marksmen have evolved over the years. The Sniper as we know it today really started in the realms of WWII and even then, depending on where you came from depended on whether being a sniper meant you were an expert in marksmanship or field craft, rarely both (down to an individual level, not trained). The young chap in the scene appears to just be another soldier, the rifle on the floor doesn't even have optics.
I built a lot of the trench network down at Halton while on a holding flight there some years ago and personally found the whole thing very realistic. Scarily so, in fact. The cinema was as quiet as a church at the end, and after the credits rolled there were genuinely groups of people sat around discussing it.
One of the most involving war films I think I've ever seen. The use of pyro was very well done, especially lighting the scene with illumi-flares in the town and the rounds hitting the stonework. I'd definitely go see it again. Makes you wonder what it would be like if they remade Saving Private Ryan today with modern techniques. I don't think many people would be able to stomach that first ten minutes!
I built a lot of the trench network down at Halton while on a holding flight there some years ago and personally found the whole thing very realistic. Scarily so, in fact. The cinema was as quiet as a church at the end, and after the credits rolled there were genuinely groups of people sat around discussing it.
One of the most involving war films I think I've ever seen. The use of pyro was very well done, especially lighting the scene with illumi-flares in the town and the rounds hitting the stonework. I'd definitely go see it again. Makes you wonder what it would be like if they remade Saving Private Ryan today with modern techniques. I don't think many people would be able to stomach that first ten minutes!
Edited by Rogue86 on Saturday 25th January 09:52
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff