"Spielbergs two upcoming projects? Yes please!" Topic

Anyone else see the news about the two new projects from the guy who did Lincoln, Saving Private Ryan, and BoB?

link

So excited!

that would be WW2 and the Kubrick Napoleon script, for those of you playing the game at home

I'm still waiting on a British version of Band of Brothers, there are plenty of formations that would qualify for the boot camp to victory treatment.

Pacific was good but failed to bond the charactors to the audience . Spielberg 'sred tails was a joke . One hopesm this will be as good as Band of brothers and Pacific

Yeah, "The Pacific" suffered from A) too much non-war related "home" stuff, B) combat that was almost too brutal and inhuman to "enjoy" as a show, and C) characters that were just not as bonded and didn't draw you in the way the boys from Easy did, partially because it was three relatively unconnected stories. That one guy from Louisiana came off more like a sociopath than someone you could root for!

And come on, Fritz! I did a blog post about it and wanted to draw folks in! That's what the blog board is for, you old spoilsport you! That's the last time I drool at your miniature bakery, darn it!

Okay… maybe once more. And I love the pioneers.

Mikasa I agree with you. You cannot tell me that there is not a riveting story about some branch of the British army or navy etc that would do well.

As for the Pacific I agree that it was simply too disjointed.

Ming31 — "Red Tails" was Lucas, not Speilberg.

"Red Tails" was SO so SO very bad that, when I first caught a minute of it on TV, I thought it was an old "In Living Color" sketch… and a bad one at that. Turns out… no, it was just bad. Even the font of the credits was terrible!

Doubt very much if Speilberg would ever make a picture about the British

"Doubt very much if Speilberg would ever make a picture about the British"

I'm sure you're right, maybe we should ask Mel Gibson :-)

Seriously though, surely there would be mileage in a British version of BoB, we have the actors (half of BoB were British), we have the directors, but I suppose what we don't have is a network to back it.

All UK doemstic film production is tax-payer funded via the Arts Council or by lottery receipts. That means bureaucrats control it and any WW2 project would have to fit bureacratic rather than dramtic criteria. So you might get a film about lesbian conscientious objectors or how upper class people are snobby toffs or how intrisically awesome non-caucasian people are. What you will never, ever get is a film or TV series about battlefield virtues like courage, honour, comradeship etc because such things don't matter to bureaucrats. They also disperse pitifully small amounts of money by Hollywood standards, nothing like the budget required for a big-ass war film.

Anyway, BoB has been done and it was over ten years ago. I say if some enterprising UK film producer manages to cobble together money to make a WW2 film he should try something new.

I wonder if Speilbug will cast Dicaprio as the naughty Corsican and Tom Hanks as Wellington. Oscars all round!

Don't half of all British movies made in the 50s qualify, Alex?

And weren't half of the cast of Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan and Blackhawk Down British?

Looking forward to both projects. The pair work well together and produce high quality entertainment.

"All UK doemstic film production is tax-payer funded via the Arts Council or by lottery receipts. That means bureaucrats control it and any WW2 project would have to fit bureacratic rather than dramtic criteria"

utter nonesense.

British cast, John, often British crew. American money paying them all.

My bad on Red Tails …should have known better .

Anyone seen all of this?

stormingjuno.com

From what I've seen on Youtube, it's much better than I would have expected.

And come on, Fritz! I did a blog post about it and wanted to draw folks in! That's what the blog board is for, you old spoilsport you! That's the last time I drool at your miniature bakery, darn it!

Doh! Sorry about that. I wasn't thinking when I wrote that.

Your blog is one of my favorites and I encourage everyone to stop in for a look see today.

Actually Ming, Red Tails is just a Lucasfilm production. It was directed by Anthony Hemmingway. Not Lucas.

There you go, thanks Fritz:)

And I was kidding… I'll spend all day drooling over the bakery. Same with all the lovely extras for the artillery.

Oh come on. For decades, the Brits were in all the.cool WWII movies: Where Eagles Dare, Night Train To Munich, Guns of Navarone, Desert Rats, ect. I don't need Spielberg messing up the Brits as well with his political correctness .

And then there are those of us sick to death of films, books, documentaries, video games, etc. of that blasted 'Hitlerwar'.

Napoleon project might be more my taste, though. Hopefully they can do a better job than the French mini-series with a highly comparable goal.

And then there are those of us sick to death of films, books, documentaries, video games, etc. of that blasted 'Hitlerwar'.

I sort of agree with you, but sort of not. I'm sick to death of films about the "Hitlerwar" that glorify every obscure aspect of the US participation but ignore pretty much everything else. It gets even worse when they make a movie about the US contribution that was in reality a British contribution (e.g., U-571). And the Soviet or Chinese contributions may as well have happened in another galaxy. There are so many stories in WW2, but only the American ones get told.

There have been plenty of movies about other counties' involvement in WWII. Just a few examples:

China: nankingthefilm.com
Russia: link
Philipines: imdb.com/title/tt0326905
Germany: link
Finland: link

Honestly, just look. You'll find plenty of films. Why does Hollywood need to make a film about YOUR country? Plenty of countries have great film studios that make great films. Maybe, I don't know, make one less Dr. Who film and make one about something other than dam busting? Just a thought. America made a very good Battle of Britain film. I guess some of you missed it when it was on TV about a million times in the last 3 decades.

U-571 is a great example of why no one should rely upon Hollywood to make a movie. I was just as offended as anyone else concerning how atrocious and honor-stealing it was.

"Doubt very much if Speilberg would ever make a picture about the British"

What about "War Horse" can't get much more British than that movie. Nominated for best picture too. It may be WWI but it is about the British.

imdb.com/title/tt1568911

If the Brits want more movies about the British contribution to the war then why don't they make them? Who's stopping them? My gosh the British made a bunch of them back in 1960s.

Maybe you could contract Bollywood to make a war movie.

They will look amazing and be unwatchable at the same time (See: War Horse, Saving Private Ryan, et. al.)

It's a very old film, but just as compelling now as it must have been when it was released: "The Cruel Sea", about Britain's North Atlantic War, is one of the best war movies I've ever seen. Jack Hawkins, Stanley Baker (from Zulu), Virginia McKenna, and Denholm Elliot all put in magnificent performances. I used to have the book too, and read it at least twice. If you have the chance to watch it, get it, you won't be disappointed.

Cheers

And weren't half of the cast of Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan and Blackhawk Down British?

Indeed they were, as was the 16th President of the United States.

There have been plenty of movies about other counties' involvement in WWII. Just a few examples:

China: nankingthefilm.com

Hate to tell you but this wasn't part of World War 2 it was over the winter of 1937/38

Extra Crispy,

They will look amazing and be unwatchable at the same time (See: War Horse, Saving Private Ryan, et. al.)

War Horse was never going to work for a lot of wargames/history folk, particularly those who went along for the action and were not aware it was really a children's novel.

But what was "unwatchable" about SPR?

As always – "Hollywood" doesn't make films for TMP members it makes them for 'average' people.

If you want "unwatchable" try Flags of our Fathers!

Forget British WW2. When I read Wellingtons Rifles it was like a Napoleonic Band of Brothers. Script is half there already. Alas wrong war for public interest even though it s a great story.

Never forget the scene where the 95th was retreating as the rear guard and lacked provisions. One soldier from a gentry family fell out and cried. Earlier he joined the rifles to be where 'the action' was. A veteran from a poor family gave him one of his last pieces of crusty bread and went on marching. Talk about social commentary and the reality of war. You can put that one in a Hollywood script; and it is a true story.

Trajanus, it depends upon whose WW2 you're talking about. For the Japanese and Chinese the war they were fighting in 1937 became part of "our" WW2, so it was indeed part of WW2.

Warhorse was dreadful, it's only merit would be as a study for 18 year olds on perceptions of WW1.

"Hate to tell you but this wasn't part of World War 2 it was over the winter of 1937/38"

I'm guessing that, for the people involved, the subtle distiction as to it's being WWII or not…is lost.

"If you want "unwatchable" try Flags of our Fathers!"

The only thing unwatchable to me about this was how hard it hit me emotionally. Very close to my own experiances in several ways.

"combat that was almost too brutal and inhuman to "enjoy" as a show"

Darn those war movies that don't depict war as a fun adventure!

Hollywood is going to make WWII movies that focus on the American experience because Hollywood is in the United States.

Uhmmm… I don't know if maybe you are just poking fun, but obviously a major point of film making and film watching is entertainment. There does come a point when violence in film can be so overwhelming as to not be entertaining in any way and in fact may repulse a viewer. I would say The Pacific hit that note far more often than BoB.

Go to archive.org and look up "We Dive At Dawn," and "The Way Ahead."

Two great British WWII films made during the war.

Well, I was being lighthearted but film does not have to entertain. I don't consider Requiem for a Dream, Sybil or Schindler's List entertainment, yet they are good. The subject of the Pacific war is really quite grim and to convey that so effectively was an achievement of that series.

What made Private Ryan unwatchable ? The excessive gore. I get it that war is violent and that death can be sudden and that being in combat is a horrible experience. I don't need all the graphic details to make the point.

I couldn't watch SPR on the big screen. I waited until it came out on video so that I could watch it at home ( and be free to leave the room if needed).

Band of Brothers conveyed the brutality of war without showing all the gore. Sometimes just suggesting it is more effective than going all Sam Peckinpah in the film.

Trajanus, it depends upon whose WW2 you're talking about. For the Japanese and Chinese the war they were fighting in 1937 became part of "our" WW2, so it was indeed part of WW2

To be honest I don't expect the Chinese care what it was called but historians tend to look at as the Second Sino-Japanese War (July 7, 1937 – September 2, 1945)

The only difference being that after 1941 the Western allies were fighting on the side of the Chinese and we called it WW2.

Fact is though the destruction of Nanking took place prior to 1941 and was an event in the Sino-Japanese War before Allied hostilities with Japan and thus not part of the accepted 1939-1945 or indeed 1941-1945 conflict.

What made Private Ryan unwatchable ? The excessive gore

Ah right! I'm guessing you didn't watch The Pacific then?

I have to confess I only found one part of SPR excessive and that was the knifing of the Jewish GI by the Waffen SS man who had previously been released by the patrol. Not because of the gore but because it was a very clumsy plot device to smack home an anti-semitic message which didn't fit the film.

That's not a "Waffen SS were just soldiers" comment by the way.

I agree there is more than one way of illustrating the gore of war but its a long debate about should those who have never experienced the actuality be given what will always be a small and artificial dose of it, compared to reality, or will they shrug even that off as "just a movie".

Forgot to say I found The Pacific very disappointing after BoB the separate plot lines and the way they were handled made it confused and un-involving as a drama.

If anyone is curious about how difficult war movies are to put together nowadays

YouTube link

'spose I'll wander off again now.

Ah, okay Ceaser, I thought you were poking fun but the darn Internet is SO tone deaf I wasn't sure.

And of course, entertaining is only part of why films exist. Woof, when I was much younger and foolish I rented Requiem for a Dream with a girl who I wanted to have a romantic night with. We may or may not have smoked some wacky tobacco beforehand. Clearly we did NOT know what it was about. Understandably the night did not end romantically. Yikes.

And yeah… fritz, if you couldn't watch SPY, you definitely absolutely don't want to see The Pacific. I thought BoB was fairly gorey too, although not at the level of Ryan obviously.

"Hate to tell you but this wasn't part of World War 2 it was over the winter of 1937/38"

is all depends on how you define world war two.

for a lot of folks it started in 36 with Abyssinia and the Spanish Civil war, continued through China from 37 and didn't stop until all of the Axis was defeated in 45.

I see your war films list, and raise you 'The Desert Rats', 'Battle of the River Plate' and 'the Life and Death of Colonel Blimp'.

I have to confess I only found one part of SPR excessive and that was the knifing of the Jewish GI by the Waffen SS man who had previously been released by the patrol. Not because of the gore but because it was a very clumsy plot device to smack home an anti-semitic message which didn't fit the film.

Not the same guy. "Steamboat Willie" isn't the SS trooper who stabs Mellish, he's the guy who shoots Miller on the bridge. He's still wearing his Heer tunic when Upham shoots him.

OK if you say so. I can see the 'that's what you get for playing fair' sub text, so it not only makes sense but in my minds eye I seem to recall him taking aim now you point it out.

Just to be clear, are you saying the guy who stabs Mellish isn't an SS man at all?

Not that I'm going to rush off to examine the film one way or the other. The Jewish guy get a slow brutal end is the real device, if his killer is not in SS uniform, so be it.

Hate to tell you but this wasn't part of World War 2 it was over the winter of 1937/38

I'd argue that it was World War II, primarily because it was the reason why the United States got involved. Japanese atrocities in China triggers the oil embargo, and needing to circumvent the oil embargo triggered the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Just to be clear, are you saying the guy who stabs Mellish isn't an SS man at all?

No, I'm saying he isn't Steamboat Willie, who was Wehrmacht.

The Jewish guy get a slow brutal end is the real device

Well, yes, obviously.