Spielberg's '1917'

[stevem49]

18 hours ago, AlanCurragh said:

 

I wonder would you mind editing your post - there is a rather huge spoiler in the second sentence

Done - I think

The cinema was nearly empty, although there were a large proportion of young folk which hopefully helps get the WW1 message out  

 

Edited 16 January , 2020 by stevem49

[jonbem]

54 minutes ago, Black Maria said:

all we need to do is use a bit of imagination

That is why, IMHO, War Horse the theatre show is better than the film.

[Steven Broomfield]

1 hour ago, stevem49 said:

there were a large proportion of young folk which hopefully helps get the WW1 message out  

 

 

One of the comments made - repeatedly - in this thread seems to be along the lines that even a poor GW film 'might bring young people to the Great War'

 

I would be interested to know if there is any empirical evidence to support this. For example, after War Horse, was there an upsurge in new members to the Forum or increased sales of books on the GW? Did that dreadful Canadian thing about Passchendaele a few years ago result in lots of young Canadians flying over to France and Belgium?

 

For myself, cynic that I am, I suspect most of these young people will finish their popcorn, make a few mawkish and uninformed comments on FB, Twitter, Snapchat, etc, and then carry on as if nothing had happened. I would hazard a guess that this is as likely to bring people to the GW as a T20 match is to inculcate a love of Test Cricket.

 

But then, I'm a cynic.

[Rob Comber]

20 minutes ago, Steven Broomfield said:

 

One of the comments made - repeatedly - in this thread seems to be along the lines that even a poor GW film 'might bring young people to the Great War'

 

I would be interested to know if there is any empirical evidence to support this. For example, after War Horse, was there an upsurge in new members to the Forum or increased sales of books on the GW? Did that dreadful Canadian thing about Passchendaele a few years ago result in lots of young Canadians flying over to France and Belgium?

 

For myself, cynic that I am, I suspect most of these young people will finish their popcorn, make a few mawkish and uninformed comments on FB, Twitter, Snapchat, etc, and then carry on as if nothing had happened. I would hazard a guess that this is as likely to bring people to the GW as a T20 match is to inculcate a love of Test Cricket.

 

But then, I'm a cynic.

There’s no doubt about that! 😊

[tocemma]

I went to see this yesterday evening, in IMAX cinema which was virtually empty, about 20 people.

Accuracy was good as regards the uniforms, certainly by far the best of any recent WW1 film I have seen. The oversize tin hats were a particularly good call, and avoided the 'pimple on an elephant's bum' look of so many other productions using WW2 helmets on chubby modern faces. It did slightly feel as though the art department had a tick box list of groovy WW1 kit to include, there seemed to be rather too many chain mail fitted Cruise helmets to me. What was going on with L/Cpl Blake's leather equipment? His 'nipple pouches' were really annoying me, halfway up his chest all the way through.... at least until his untimely demise at the hands of a bayonet wearing Hun pilot. Maybe 55 rds of .303 in each one or tightening his belt would have solved that.

Yes the plot was completely barking, the characters paper thin, and the cameos from Bumblethatch & co were predictable. I expect Cucumberpatch's fee accounted for most of the budget.

It was good in places, though I felt it did seem like a Call of Duty video game in others. My son, an afficienado of a all war film genres and computer games, who watched it with me, agreed. The Bond style escape into rapids from the dastardly, poor shot, pursuing Boches was particularly hilarious.

In all it looked good but felt like a completely emotionally empty project made by talented people. 

I did think the sound was good, though the crash of heavy handed clichés and scenarios arriving was unfortunately particularly well done....

As others have said, a more convincing story, less fantastical, derivative and clichéd, would have made this a truly memorable film. An opportunity missed.

[Bart150]

The film starts on 6 April 1917, the day the USA entered the War. It may be that the film-makers expected that many Americans who saw the film would think: ‘6 April 1917. So the Brits had been enduring all that stuff for three years before we even entered the war. Wow!’

 

I don’t know if the film-makers did expect that. But if they did, was it a realistic expectation or a naïve one? Do a substantial number of Americans recognise the significance of 6 April 1917 in the way that British people recognise, say, 1 July 1916 or 11 November 1918 or 6 June 1944?

 

I have just put this question to some well-educated Americans I know. Their answer was this: ‘Most Americans will not know a particular date for the U.S. entry into the war. Many may know 1914-1918; some of those will know that the U.S. joined late.’

 

[Heid the Ba]

19 minutes ago, tocemma said:

. What was going on with L/Cpl Blake's leather equipment? His 'nipple pouches' were really annoying me, halfway up his chest all the way through.... at least until his untimely demise at the hands of a bayonet wearing Hun pilot.

I'll be sure to watch out for that bit.

[Gunner Bailey]

I'm going to see it tomorrow afternoon but now know some of the key plot bits thanks to forum members spoiler reviews. 

 

Thanks a lot. 

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

19 minutes ago, Gunner Bailey said:

I'm going to see it tomorrow afternoon but now know some of the key plot bits thanks to forum members spoiler reviews. 

 

Thanks a lot. 

Remember to look out for the German flying saucer squadron.

 

[stevem49]

4 hours ago, Steven Broomfield said:

 

 

 

I would be interested to know if there is any empirical evidence to support this. For example, after War Horse, was there an upsurge in new members to the Forum or increased sales of books on the GW? Did that dreadful Canadian thing about Passchendaele a few years ago result in lots of young Canadians flying over to France and Belgium?

 

 

After War Horse, I nearly gave up on WW1 and on the Forum, considered burning all of my Library of WW1 books and taking up knitting. As for 1917, well no doubt 1914,15,16 and 18 will follow shortly  

 On Passchendaele (Did not watch it), many young Canadians did fly over to France as they do every year to volunteer at Vimy and Newfoundland Park   

[Nick Beale]

1 hour ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

Remember to look out for the German flying saucer squadron.

 

I hope they are painted red all over, like every German aircraft of the period was (as I learned from films and TV).

[squirrel]

6 hours ago, Steven Broomfield said:

 

One of the comments made - repeatedly - in this thread seems to be along the lines that even a poor GW film 'might bring young people to the Great War'

 

I would be interested to know if there is any empirical evidence to support this. For example, after War Horse, was there an upsurge in new members to the Forum or increased sales of books on the GW? Did that dreadful Canadian thing about Passchendaele a few years ago result in lots of young Canadians flying over to France and Belgium?

 

For myself, cynic that I am, I suspect most of these young people will finish their popcorn, make a few mawkish and uninformed comments on FB, Twitter, Snapchat, etc, and then carry on as if nothing had happened. I would hazard a guess that this is as likely to bring people to the GW as a T20 match is to inculcate a love of Test Cricket.

 

But then, I'm a cynic.

All  the above agreed.

Cynic also.

[Myrtle]

6 hours ago, Steven Broomfield said:

But then, I'm a cynic.

Never ! 

[trajan]

9 hours ago, squirrel said:

Visiting a WW1 battlefield in January in the snow , biting wind and mud then realising that apart from spending your time in a hole in the ground where you exist, eat and sleep in that lot and where there was an enemy to trying to kill you with all sorts of nastiness gives a pretty fair idea as well.

 

Leave out the enemy trying to kill you bit and you are describing life as an 'itinerant archaeologist' in the UK in the 1960's-1980's... Camping at places such as Mucking Thurrock in the winter 1968-1969 and elsewhere weren't much fun although Thucking Murrock being gravel it weren't that muddy... An amazing contrast with the Luneberger Heide in 1970-71, where them Germans had MUCH better 'dug-outs' to go to at the end of the day (oh, and a tot of the 'Gute Pott' Rum at morning fruhstuck!).

[trajan]

7 hours ago, Steven Broomfield said:

 

One of the comments made - repeatedly - in this thread seems to be along the lines that even a poor GW film 'might bring young people to the Great War'

 

I would be interested to know if there is any empirical evidence to support this. For example, after War Horse, was there an upsurge in new members to the Forum or increased sales of books on the GW? Did that dreadful Canadian thing about Passchendaele a few years ago result in lots of young Canadians flying over to France and Belgium?

 

For myself, cynic that I am, I suspect most of these young people will finish their popcorn, make a few mawkish and uninformed comments on FB, Twitter, Snapchat, etc, and then carry on as if nothing had happened. I would hazard a guess that this is as likely to bring people to the GW as a T20 match is to inculcate a love of Test Cricket.

 

But then, I'm a cynic.

 

Well, War Horse the book and the film did make my older son and now my younger one also take an interest in all my bits and bobs relating to WW1. I know they would like to see 1917, but I doubt if it will get to Turkey. I am presently in the UK and I'll see it at some point - my ex-wife (not a WW1 buff by any means, but with a grandfather there) has seen it and has not made any comment on it as yet (I'll ask her tonight!)

[suesalter1]

On the subject of 'gumboots', which I admit I failed to spot in the film (I was enjoying it too much), I've just been going through my great-uncle's war memoirs (now thankfully translated from Welsh to English!) and he mentions wearing them in the trenches. Although he did lose them when he loaned to a mate, who then got himself killed, so uncle didn't get them back!

 

 

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

34 minutes ago, suesalter1 said:

I've just been going through my great-uncle's war memoirs (now thankfully translated from Welsh to English

Would love to read them!

[jay dubaya]

Just now, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

Would love to read them!

 

and I bet you could read them in both

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

26 minutes ago, jay dubaya said:

 

and I bet you could read them in both

 

[JeffMcN]

On 13/01/2020 at 01:21, Norrette said:

 

Very good.

 

So when is it set?  When I saw no snow in the trailer I presumed it would be summer battles and not Arras/Vimy.

 

No wonder my local flicks are mostly empty, nothing less than £9.75 in West London.

Might wait for the DVD.

See my earlier posts - an early spring battle (6 April stated in the film) fought in late July it rather seems!  The actual stats show average night temperature was about -1.C.  oh well. 

[JeffMcN]

On 15/01/2020 at 22:16, Heid the Ba said:

Because then the film would have been a single two minute scene.

Because it was Bloody April and all the British planes were shot out of the sky. Wait. But then....   hmmm.  The trouble with history is that it all gets in the way of the story.

[trajan]

16 hours ago, tocemma said:

... a bayonet wearing Hun pilot....

 

What kind? An S.98/05 or S.98 would be unlikely as these were not normally issued to Flieger units but a kS.98 or S.84/98 is possible as those were...

[Rob Comber]

1 hour ago, JeffMcN said:

Because it was Bloody April and all the British planes were shot out of the sky. Wait. But then....   hmmm.  The trouble with history is that it all gets in the way of the story.

Well maybe the RFC just got lucky on this occasion 😁 

[Heid the Ba]

4 hours ago, JeffMcN said:

Because it was Bloody April and all the British planes were shot out of the sky. Wait. But then....   hmmm.  The trouble with history is that it all gets in the way of the story.

All shot down?  Behind British lines? 

[MikeyH]

7 hours ago, trajan said:

 

What kind? An S.98/05 or S.98 would be unlikely as these were not normally issued to Flieger units but a kS.98 or S.84/98 is possible as those were...

 

It looked like a dress bayonet, but only visible for a second or so, short so an S.84/98 a posibillity.

 

Mike.

Edited 17 January , 2020 by MikeyH