War movies, how accurate should they be?

This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Just think about the latest Pearl Harbor thingy....why have a dogfight over Pearl Harbor when it never happened in reality?

Actually the 46th and 47th Squadrons engaged and shot down at least 10 a/c (Welch 4; Rasmussen 2; Brown, Sanders Sterling and Taylor one each

No encounter reports so I have no idea whether any actually were shot down over Pearl Harbor. Welch was the US's first ace shortly afterwards (before O'Hare)

Horrible movie.

I want them real. 12 O Clock High was the closest for me in the air - Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan for ground.
I got a good laugh when I heard the real story of U-57 compared to the movie as in which people actually took part in it.

Theres not very many movies from the Eastern Front is there? I don't think Enemy at the Gates was entirely accurate, in many parts.
looking at it on IMDb, it's from the German point of veiw to, so it's bound to be happy!!!
I'm deffinitely going to buy it.

Hopefully the upcoming movie about the Dr. guy who tried to blow up Hitler is accurate and not all jazzed ip with explosively random gunfights. And as a German Lutheran I hope someone else besides Tom Cruise get's the part :twisted:
Personally I think war movies should be as accurate as realistically possible (I know there are some things that can be replicated as accurately as would be liked). Those movies that change the course of history to the uneducated masses (U-571/Pearl Harbour - Battle of Britain scenes in a way) I find annoying although sometimes they are enjoyable to watch (if you ignore the inaccuracies). Band of Brothers and SPR I like for their portray of the infantry whereas as regards to the air war I haven't watched any movies that I would say have been realistic although most have been fairly accurate.
" A Bridge Too Far" was about as accurate as any I've seen, and it didn't leave out the Free Poles, they were integral to the story. It's perhaps dolted down with some of the character-fill-out (Elliot Gould's Bob Sink, in particular) but the rest was pretty straight up. It never gets mentioned, but it's a pretty good film, a LOT better than "The Longest Day" IMHO, then again, I was Airborne................
All war films are for entertainment first and foremost yes they tell stories some more accurately than others but none are very accurate B.O.B some good flying sequences agreed but the pilots were not flying for their lives so the planes never got push way beyond their limits as in relality.
The Battle of Midway real war footage but intermixed with Charlton Heston and his son arguing among other triva .
Even Private Ryan some good scenes but a fictious story to make it more saleable.

Most American war films (but not all) deal, as would be expected with US involvment, as they are first and foremost for the domestic market.
No war film is ever accurate as we all know that in nearly all scenes they are of actors, who next week we see in the Da Vinci code or some comedy film or another.
Its a fancy version of "bang bang you're dead now what shall we play".

The accuracy of war is that these deaths are real with real violence and real blood gore the dead dont get up for the next battle and the physically and mentally maimed are not suddenly cured.
The movies cannot reproduce that.
SPR certainly is realistic, but how is it "slanted"?

To many people accurate means slanted, because it disagrees with their personal prejudices. Certainly, examples like this would include Holocaust deniers, whose idea of truth is in direct contradiction to fact, including nazi records.

Fictional movies, like historical novels, are allowed some leeway to play with the truth for dramatic effect. You can put Hornblower on HMS Victory during Trafalgar, or have Aubrey & Maturin on board USS Argus the Battle of Derne, but you can't have HMS Bellerophon there.
Much of the Monty-slagging has come from the pen of Stephen E Ambrose who was involved in SPR, his agenda is obvious and possibly unfair.

Ambrose managed to slag his own reputation (plagiarism and appropriation of others' work), so it's not surprising he's performed that sort of thing on others.

Similarly, a lot of the positive reputation of Rommel has come from the pen of BH Liddel-Hart; even his heirs have complained about his portrayal of him.
Unfortunately I believe if a truly accurate war film was made within the limits of the Certification system it would not put "bums on seats" which ultimately is what studios require to pay the bills.
Reactions to movies are strange, most people believe most movies are fiction however I have met an alarming number of Scots who think Braveheart is the best historical documentary ever made while dismissing any Robin Hood movie as ridiculous.

Users who are viewing this thread