Help support TMP


"Serious discrepancies with the performance of the " Topic


33 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board



1,331 hits since 6 Feb 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP06 Feb 2018 2:53 p.m. PST

…. Sherman tank in Fury

Read them here….

link


Maybe he is right?….

Amicalement
Armand

RudyNelson06 Feb 2018 3:50 p.m. PST

I was not a fan of the movie.
The Germans are seen on the road with dozens of At-weapons but they a employed poorly for it being a Crack Waffen SS unit.

Prior to the last battle they had plenty of time to haul extra belts into the tank without leaving them outside.
They should have engaged at a distance, if a delay was the purpose. Waiting until they were so close reduced time of target with the guns. and the main gun was not used enough.

Legion 406 Feb 2018 3:56 p.m. PST

I have to agree with the article and Rudy … But once again … that's Hollywood. Like that old saying from Texas. "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story!"

Now did I find them movie entertaining ? Yeah … somewhat. But I find sci-fi and some horror movies entertaining too … so … evil grin

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP06 Feb 2018 7:02 p.m. PST

I was intrigued by how often the link said SURELY the Waffen SS would have done this, that or the other clever thing. Maybe. But I'm remembering someone from Task Force Baum describing a nicely coordinated attack--all German arms working together--and this veteran of everything since Operation COBRA commenting that it was the first time he'd ever seen them do that. The link lays great stress on the good Krupp steel, too. But there are other stories of late war German metallurgy.

I hold no brief for Hollywood. But the man who thinks late war Germans weren't prone to errors, bad training and the sort of tanks you get with declining resources and slave labor has a very interesting take on the last parts of WWII.

Fred Cartwright07 Feb 2018 5:22 a.m. PST

I hold no brief for Hollywood. But the man who thinks late war Germans weren't prone to errors, bad training and the sort of tanks you get with declining resources and slave labor has a very interesting take on the last parts of WWII.

Agreed, but I think his point was that the Germans in Fury did everything wrong, not just one or two things. It is an extension of the "bad guys can't shoot straight" you see in Hollywood movies.

Rdfraf Supporting Member of TMP07 Feb 2018 6:30 a.m. PST

First off, I liked the movie but as most wargamers I wondered about the ineffectiveness of the Germans being held up so long by a single disabled tank but then I thought didn't Audie Murphy hold up an entire German infantry company for an hour with the MG on a burning AFV and survived?

mkenny07 Feb 2018 7:11 a.m. PST

Its a film. However we had stories like this about German 'aces' in Russia for over 50 years and nobody complained much about them. I believe 'The Last knight of Flanders' book has a lone German manning an AT gun and beating off dozens of tanks and a couple of Soviet Infantry Regiments (with a kill-count in the 1000's) all by himself. Must be true as he got a medal for it…….

Monty the cat07 Feb 2018 7:24 a.m. PST

Guardsman Edward Charlton VC.

Wolfhag07 Feb 2018 7:52 a.m. PST

Based on a true story ……

Wolfhag

Choctaw07 Feb 2018 8:06 a.m. PST

It's a story about a tank. A tank! What's not to like? If you are seeking realism in a Hollywood production you have come to the wrong shop, brother.

Again, it was a film about a tank. That alone makes it cool.

Mobius07 Feb 2018 9:17 a.m. PST

Experienced troops do stupid things when they are led by stupid officers. If some green officer was put in charge of the German troops they might do stupid things. Late in the war there were many unexplainable fubars made by the Germans. It may be because their officers didn't care any more.

One example I read was that the German units in the south of France were ordered to abandon their positions and pull back to the north. Later as they were on foot marching north on one side the Rhone the Americans passed them on the other side the Rhone as they drove north.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP07 Feb 2018 9:49 a.m. PST

When I saw the movie… (that I liked) my last question was… at the end part of the German unit cross the point and march to the big defenseless Allied hospital/rearguard position… avoid that was the mission for Fury and the other tanks… to stop them… they made harm without dude.. but they could't stop the germans… so… what real damage the geman did at the end to the indefense Allied?…


Wasn't at the end a failed mission?.


Amicalement
Armand


Amicalement
Armand

Zinkala07 Feb 2018 9:50 a.m. PST

Based on a true story ……

Wolfhag

Words that make me cringe every time I see them. I don't mind a bit of artistic license, especially in the details we can't really know about, but wholesale changing of characters and plots when we have historical facts upsets me.

Choctaw, I agree in general but would so love to see something closer to accurate at times. But then I guess we get into the discussion of who's version of accurate. LOL

Fred Cartwright07 Feb 2018 10:19 a.m. PST

Choctaw, I agree in general but would so love to see something closer to accurate at times. But then I guess we get into the discussion of who's version of accurate. LOL

We have had accurate films in the past. I would say films like the Battle of Britain managed to achieve that. I am sure it would be possible to do the same with a film like Fury.

redmist112207 Feb 2018 10:39 a.m. PST

A movie is supposed to be entertaining…I was entertained. Nuff said!

P.

Wolfhag07 Feb 2018 11:46 a.m. PST

Hollywood movies are made by people putting up money to invest in the project and get a cast of characters, directors, etc. It's designed to make money. I know people in the business. It's designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of historical knowledge, not to introduce new knowledge or educate the audience. Reality generally sucks and does not sell. People want to be entertained, not told what's right or wrong. Freak shows always appeal to humans.

Anyone is free to write a screenplay and submit it to a group of investors. The people you'll be trying to sell it to will most likely have no idea what you are talking about. Making a historical documentary is not the same as a movie.

Good luck.

Wolfhag

Legion 407 Feb 2018 12:56 p.m. PST

You mean Hollywood is only out to make money !!??!? huh?

Fred Cartwright07 Feb 2018 1:16 p.m. PST

Reality generally sucks and does not sell.

Judging by the number of reality TV shows that can't be right! :-) Seriously real stories are often better than fiction.

People want to be entertained, not told what's right or wrong. Freak shows always appeal to humans.

You don't think it is possible to entertain and depict a story in a realistic way? I would suggest that if that is what the Hollywood movers and shakers think it reflects more a lack of originality and innovation in the industry rather than a problem with the audience.

Jubilation T Cornpone07 Feb 2018 1:58 p.m. PST

Fred is correct. It could have been so much more given the vehicles, uniforms and set design they had. It was however criminally written. Appallingly. It contained some Terrible moments of fantasy, the worst of which (notwithstanding the breathtakingly bad ending) was having Sherman's advancing over an open field front on to an AT screen dug into a tree line. This contained several AT guns which had not too long before taken out several half tracks but which now, all of a sudden, had no sights and couldn't hit the proverbial barn door. Unbelievable.

Wolfhag07 Feb 2018 2:03 p.m. PST

Fred,
Reality shows have nothing to do with reality. It's a freak show.

Overall I thought Fury was entertaining and they did use a real Sherman. One of my friends was an extra as a Sherman crew member. He said they did try to get a lot of technical issues right.

You don't think it is possible to entertain and depict a story in a realistic way?

That's a documentary which is different than an entertaining movie (hence, based on a true story) but a documentary can also be entertaining but I don't think that's the goal. I'll agree, there are a few exceptions.

Ken Burns and a few others do great work but you won't see Brad Pitt or Madonna in one of his movies.

I used to live in Hollywood and hung out with people in the industry. They'll always believe their "creative interpretation" is going to be better than reality. Their reality is different than ours, believe me.

Wolfhag

Fred Cartwright07 Feb 2018 2:23 p.m. PST

Reality shows have nothing to do with reality. It's a freak show.

I was being ironic! Hence the :-)

That's a documentary which is different than an entertai9nment movie.

I disagree. I think it is possible to tell a real story in a realistic manner that is primarily for entertainment. This is what films like "Darkest Hour" attempt to do, some more successfully than others. To say it can't be done is a cop out IMHO. A documentary, on the other hand, is primarily to inform, it might also entertain.

Wolfhag07 Feb 2018 3:42 p.m. PST

Fred,
I said there were few exceptions. However, I'm not a paid film critic. Write some realistic scripts and submit them to Hollywood. I'd like to see one of those movies too.

Wolfhag

Blutarski07 Feb 2018 8:10 p.m. PST

Brad Pitt was a total wuss.

Humphrey Bogart ("Sahara") forced the cowed survivors of an entire battalion of DAK to surrender to his single tank after having littered the North African desert with the countless corpses of their comrades.

B

Fred Cartwright08 Feb 2018 3:55 a.m. PST

I think there is a difference between editing what you show for dramatic effect, by leaving out the boring bits and showing some of the action incorrectly. No one is going to watch a medical or a police drama where the characters spend most of the episode doing admin and stuff on computers. Although films like "The Cruel Sea" and "All Quiet on the Western Front" do depict some of the tediousness of war. Generally shows that do depict some of the backroon stuff like NCIS and the CSI series keep the segments short and are often accompanied by banter between the characters to keep the interest for the viewers. I wouldn't criticise a show for leaving that out, but if they got the action wrong that is a different matter. I am not convinced that real action is less exciting than fake action.

Murvihill08 Feb 2018 10:23 a.m. PST

Warfare isn't really that photogenic. In films people and things are clustered together because otherwise all you'd see is the top of one guy's head at most. Hours are spent waiting and marking time.

Wolfhag08 Feb 2018 1:04 p.m. PST

When my son was about 10 years old he was into the macho shoot-em-up military stuff and video games and wanted to join the Marines. I showed him "All Quiet on the Western Front". At the end of the movie, he kind of changed his mind as a war was not as "cool" as he thought it was.

Wolfhag

catavar08 Feb 2018 5:59 p.m. PST

I've read that much of the actual close quarter fighting was done by only a few individuals in a formation. There are numerous stories of medals being won by individuals who took on a larger force and won while the rest of their formation looked on. Didn't tank formations have their ace crew that did most of the damage?

I originally found the ending of Fury hard to believe, but if you consider the German unit to be full of green recruits it's at least possible, no?

Andy ONeill09 Feb 2018 2:49 a.m. PST

I think it could fairly easily be done.
You can have too much realism… But… I think one could produce a film with more which was even more entertaining.
Due to less frequent necessity for suspension of disbelief.

Zinkala09 Feb 2018 8:49 a.m. PST

I used to live in Hollywood and hung out with people in the industry. They'll always believe their "creative interpretation" is going to be better than reality. Their reality is different than ours, believe me.

Wolfhag

And that is what I think is wrong in general with a lot of films. Especially if it's supposed to be historically accurate. I just watched the Series Narcos so I'll use it as an example. They say right off the bat that some things were changed for dramatic effect. I enjoyed it and did some reading after watching to see how it matched the facts.

2 things stood out to me as why? They didn't ruin my enjoyment like sometimes but just made me ask why? One this was changing reporter Valeria Vallejo's name to Velez and having her killed. The real person snitched on Escobar and was granted asylum in the US. The other was Making a fictional Colonel instead of using the real Colonel and slightly tweaking the facts. Did changing those add anything to the show. IMO no but I'm not the writer.

Pretty much have to agree with (paraphrased)Fred Cartwright here.

I think there is a difference between editing what you show for dramatic effect, by leaving out the boring bits and showing some of the action incorrectly. I am not convinced that real action is less exciting than fake action.

Or Jubilation T Cornpone

It could have been so much more given the vehicles, uniforms and set design they had. It was however criminally written. Appallingly. It contained some Terrible moments of fantasy

Saving Private Ryan to me was a very well done fictional story. Fury wasn't.

Mark 109 Feb 2018 11:25 a.m. PST

I agree with Fred C's perspectives:

We have had accurate films in the past. I would say films like the Battle of Britain managed to achieve that.

Perhaps for more modern productions I would offer Band of Brothers as an example of a Hollywood production that paid attention to historical reality. Both the author of the book and the screenwriters working from the book took some liberties for the sake of "storytelling", but even as they changed the details of the historical narrative they paid attention to the reality of events they were portraying. The result was quite satisfying to me, both as entertainment and as history.

I think there is a difference between editing what you show for dramatic effect, by leaving out the boring bits and showing some of the action incorrectly.

Exactly so.

And if the storyline is to be fiction from the start, as Fury is, that does not mean that it can not be a historically reasonable fiction. SPR, as several others have mentioned, was an entirely fictional story, but was built on a very solid foundation of attention to historical accuracy.

The makers of Fury paid a LOT of attention to getting some things right. The tanks themselves, the uniforms, the crew roles and the crew communications during combat, etc. It's not like they weren't investing time, effort and money into giving their story a realistic feel. But, to me at least, they totally failed in the final scenes.

I mean, they show a random kid with a 'faust destroying a moving tanks with one shot. But an SS battalion takes hundreds of casualties and can't do better than picking off crewmen one at a time as they close-assault an immobilized tank in the dark? Oh please…

Saving Private Ryan to me was a very well done fictional story. Fury wasn't.

The ending scenes in SPR did not require me to believe in Sgt. Rock or the ghost of Jeb Stuart. The drama was gripping, the principal characters we had come to know over the course of the movie each contributed to the drama and the storyline as they died heroic deaths one-by-one. They out-foxed the Germans on several occasions, but the Germans did not just line-up to die -- they fought back, and we had to suffer as we watched "our guys" pay a high toll for their successes.

It was entertaining. It was emotionally engaging.

Fury had me going for a while, and as others have said, how can you (or if not you, me) not be entertained and engaged by a movie about a tank crew in war? But they lost me in the final scenes. After building up the story, making me care about the characters, and putting me on the edge of my seat, they moved into "well that don't make no sense" mode.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Zinkala09 Feb 2018 1:01 p.m. PST

The makers of Fury paid a LOT of attention to getting some things right. The tanks themselves, the uniforms, the crew roles and the crew communications during combat, etc. It's not like they weren't investing time, effort and money into giving their story a realistic feel. But, to me at least, they totally failed in the final scenes.

That's what bugs me the most about Fury and some other shows like it. So much effort put in, so close to being great and….. fail. I enjoyed the movie but it could have been better. I have fairly low standards for entertainment. Lol I had thought of mentioning Band of Brothers too because that was an incredibly well done series that shows it is possible.

mkenny09 Feb 2018 1:24 p.m. PST

Some of the cameos were based on real events. This for one:


picture

Legion 409 Feb 2018 2:52 p.m. PST

did not require me to believe in Sgt. Rock or the ghost of Jeb Stuart.
You don't !? huh? The allies are doomed ! Doomed I tell ya !!!

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.