Aller au contenu

Photo

Fury


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
29 réponses à ce sujet

#1
Riven326

Riven326
  • Members
  • 1 284 messages

fsFapQH.png

 

So, I would first like to say that I have no real world combat experience myself. However, I have studied the history and combat scenarios, including tank battles, of WWII that really did happen, as well as the specifications of the vehicles in question. I think it's safe for me to say that I know what I'm talking about, but if you disagree or want to discuss something further, please just say so.

 

Now that I have that out of the way, let's talk about Fury. This movie had incredible sound design, a lackluster story, acting that was rather poor by just about everybody involved, and like almost every WWII film, American propaganda. Setting all of that aside however, I want to focus on this one scene that I thought started off strong and then just sort of ruined the rest of the experience for me. This is a very exciting scene and one that people have wanted to see for a long time. This is the scene in question. Here we see a Sherman tank go head to head with a German Tiger I.

 

The Tiger is able to engage targets from a much greater distance than the U.S. Sherman and it has the advantage of having much stronger armor in addition to it's more powerful main gun. By their own admission, the people involved in the making of this film even say that a Sherman stands little chance against a Tiger on it's own. Yet, here we see just that. More specifically, we see the Tiger fire a direct hit into the side of the Sherman, which is a weak spot on the machine, and it just bounces off and the effect is an oil spill in the turret. Hmm. It's very unlike this would happen, but okay, I can roll with that. Then we see a second direct hit from the Tiger and it just bounces off again.

 

This is where I start shaking my head and telling Hollywood to **** off. Mind you, all the other Sherman tanks in the column go down with one shot, which is realistic. But Brad Pitt's tank survives two direct shots from an 88mm main gun. This is the equivalent of plot armor in a video game. In a real world scenario, the Tiger commander would not order his driver to move forward to close the distance between Pitt's tank and their own. The reason for this is because it would allow the Sherman to engage, but would otherwise be out of range unlike the Tiger that can engage and destroy (as proven by the earlier tanks going up in flames and Pitt's tank not being able to return fire) from a greater distance.

 

So, what was a promising scene that actually included a real Tiger I, and in fact, is the only one still in operation today, turned out to be another Hollywood blunder that spoils the entire movie. It's not like the rest of the movie was much better though, and the ending was really stupid and made little sense in the context of the war being almost over with Germany losing. The ending in this movie was straight up "**** yeah, America!" combined with "American soldiers die, now feel bad" propaganda that was so obvious, Joseph Goebbels would be turning in his grave if he still had one.

 

Overall, this had the potential to be a great film that focused on a single tank crew during late WWII and the experiences they had during that time. As someone who was enthusiastic going into the film, and as someone who knows a thing or two about the subject matter that the film attempts to cover, I was sorely disappointed that it was yet just another Hollywood interpretation of WWII. To see so much detail go into the visuals and sound design to make it look and sound authentic, and then fail on every other front, is just so bizarre to say the least.



#2
Guest_Puddi III_*

Guest_Puddi III_*
  • Guests

Not about Nick Fury, I am also disappointed by this film.


  • Some Geth aime ceci

#3
Guest_E-Ro_*

Guest_E-Ro_*
  • Guests

https://medium.com/w...lm-6029981e0da4

 

Ayer took slavish pains to make Fury as authentic as possible. Three military consultants worked on the film. The actors went through a World War II-era boot camp. Pitt and company interviewed surviving members of America’s armored division. The crew used real Tiger and Sherman tanks.

The historical details are not perfect, by any means, but it’s much better than most of what Hollywood puts out.

https://medium.com/w...ic-59afc67ebf11

 

The job required compromise. “You can’t be 100-percent tactics-correct in a film,” Rae said. “It doesn’t allow for that, because of distance between vehicles or because a turret’s position cuts off an actor’s face. There’s a lot of practical concerns.”
 
Raid said the movie’s inaccuracies are minor—stuff that only someone who is already an expert in tank warfare will even notice. “The tactics employed in the film are pretty spot on,” he said. “The director has really done his homework.”
 
Ayer even cast the world’s last functional German Tiger tank.
 
The Tiger is an impressive machine. It’s heavily armored and packs a powerful 88-millimeter cannon. One Tiger could lay waste to several American Sherman tanks—and frequently did.

  • Dreadstruck aime ceci

#4
Fidite Nemini

Fidite Nemini
  • Members
  • 5 739 messages

It's from the same guy that made U-571, what did you expect?



#5
General TSAR

General TSAR
  • Members
  • 4 385 messages

Didn't the movie have Brad Pitt making the newbie execute a Hitlerjugend POW in the opening? That was pretty cool and a nice change of pace from the typical pure heroism stories.


  • mybudgee aime ceci

#6
Riven326

Riven326
  • Members
  • 1 284 messages

Didn't the movie have Brad Pitt making the newbie execute a Hitlerjugend in the opening?

Yes, which seemed to serve no purpose in the film other than to convey "War is hell" to the audience. As if the audience wasn't already aware of this going into the film... lol.

 

It certainly didn't do anything for character development.



#7
General TSAR

General TSAR
  • Members
  • 4 385 messages

It certainly didn't do anything for character development.

That's a shame (only saw the execution clip), not that interested in seeing the film despite the authentic Tiger. 



#8
Riven326

Riven326
  • Members
  • 1 284 messages

That's a shame (only saw the execution clip), not that interested in seeing the film despite the authentic Tiger. 

It was great seeing a real Tiger on film. I would say it's worth renting if only to see that.



#9
Sully13

Sully13
  • Members
  • 8 759 messages

I tend to fantisise about killing E-R... oh its about the brad pitt movie..awwwe i wanted to vent.



#10
Dreadstruck

Dreadstruck
  • Members
  • 2 326 messages

I liked the movie. Went to see it with my friend who is a huge military buff and a re-enactor and he seemed rather content as well, even though I expected the opposite.



#11
KingTony

KingTony
  • Banned
  • 1 603 messages

I tend to fantisise about killing E-R... oh its about the brad pitt movie..awwwe i wanted to vent.


I thought I was the only one with that fantasy...

#12
KingTony

KingTony
  • Banned
  • 1 603 messages

I liked the movie. Went to see it with my friend who is a huge military buff and a re-enactor and he seemed rather content as well, even though I expected the opposite.


You friend probably wasn't a tank nerd then. Tank nerds are weird and never, ever, under any circumstances happy when a movie or game includes tanks.
  • mybudgee et Sully13 aiment ceci

#13
mybudgee

mybudgee
  • Members
  • 23 051 messages

Any mainstream film that emphasizes the horrors and brutality of war over some deluded notion of "patriotism" or "morality" deserves some accolades...



#14
L. Han

L. Han
  • Members
  • 1 878 messages

I think the weirdest thing about that scene is how there is a lone tiger without any infantry or other armored units. Despite Tigers being a powerful tank, it was mainly to support advancing infantry.



#15
Dreadstruck

Dreadstruck
  • Members
  • 2 326 messages

I think the weirdest thing about that scene is how there is a lone tiger without any infantry or other armored units. Despite Tigers being a powerful tank, it was mainly to support advancing infantry.

 

You know, in the last days of the war lots of standard practices went out the window.

 

A prime example of a lone Tiger moving without any infantry or supporting vehicles (although that was more confusion than anything else) occurred in early April 1945 (the same time period Fury is set). A lone Tiger I tank of the ad hoc Tiger Gruppe Fehrmann advanced on it's own with zero covering support and was knocked out by a flank shot from a British Comet of 3rd Royal Tank Regiment near Ostenholz.

Pictures of this knocked out Tiger can be seen here.

http://i.imgur.com/dikaNBX.jpg

Also, Michael Wittmanm moved without infantry cover and was all alone when he advanced into Villers Bocage on 13th June 1944.



#16
L. Han

L. Han
  • Members
  • 1 878 messages

^I guess so, but that's my point exactly. Late in the war no one was really able to keep up to protocol. Hence the Tiger being a support tank rather than a spearhead tank.

 

The other odd thing is how the Tiger tank decides to drive forward when there was clearly a tank trying to flank it?



#17
Riven326

Riven326
  • Members
  • 1 284 messages

You friend probably wasn't a tank nerd then. Tank nerds are weird and never, ever, under any circumstances happy when a movie or game includes tanks.

That's because they always get it wrong.



#18
Fidite Nemini

Fidite Nemini
  • Members
  • 5 739 messages

That's because they always get it wrong.

 

Still, there's a difference between getting it wrong, say because you didn't bother with details or couldn't get a life tank for your show so you went with a substitute (self propelled artillery are a very popular tank substitute) ... and then there's getting it wrong after you made such a fuzz about being authentic, only to end up being unauthentic.

 

I can always live with the former, it's just how some shows/movies operate and they picture tanks (or what they want you to believe are tanks) because "duh, tanks r c00l!" and it makes for great action. I can roll with that.

But the latter is plain insulting. It's nothing more than talking BS to hype up a show/movie and then hoping that people are too stupid to notice the BS. I don't like being taken for a fool, not by people who just do it for the quick cash on the box office anyway.

 

Because I'm no tank expert at all and I facepalm at the recounts of what happens at the movie's climatic battle ... which also insults the actual experts if the director obviously thinks so little of it.



#19
Cyonan

Cyonan
  • Members
  • 19 374 messages

To be honest I'm not sure why people don't just expect this going into any movie(even the ones that claim to want to be "authentic"). It's a case of Holywood being Holywood and wanting to make things more exciting to the people who don't know any better(who make up the majority of your audience).

 

As somebody who knows a fair bit about computers if I let inaccuracies ruin movies for me, I would hate 90% of movies. Anything involving somebody "hacking" something would immediately be thrown out the window.

 

I suppose the alternative if they still included this scene is either the Sherman becomes the James Bond of tanks and somehow manages to not get hit by a single shot, or the Tiger doesn't even get a shot off at all.


  • Dreadstruck aime ceci

#20
Guest_E-Ro_*

Guest_E-Ro_*
  • Guests

To be honest I'm not sure why people don't just expect this going into any movie(even the ones that claim to want to be "authentic"). It's a case of Holywood being Holywood and wanting to make things more exciting to the people who don't know any better(who make up the majority of your audience).

Exactly. Its not a documentary. Its an action movie. Complaining about its realism, while good for showing off some cursory knowledge of tanks, is silly.
  • Dreadstruck aime ceci

#21
Fidite Nemini

Fidite Nemini
  • Members
  • 5 739 messages

Exactly. Its not a documentary. Its an action movie. Complaining about its realism, while good for showing off some cursory knowledge of tanks, is silly.

 

Except the movie claims to be realistic. Which it isn't. Hence the complaining.



#22
Guest_E-Ro_*

Guest_E-Ro_*
  • Guests

Except the movie claims to be realistic. Which it isn't. Hence the complaining.

Are you sure the movie claimed to be realistic in its advertisement? Because I haven't seen that. I have heard it advertised as authentic, but that is different from realistic. It is authentic in so much as it uses real tanks from ww2.

Anyway, they made it as "realistic" as they cared to, and considering its much better then most of what hollywood puts out(srsly, using real tanks immediately puts it a notch above everything else) its good enough.

#23
Dreadstruck

Dreadstruck
  • Members
  • 2 326 messages

Except the movie claims to be realistic. Which it isn't. Hence the complaining.

Where have they claimed it? I have read numerous times and saw a few behind-the-scenes trailers where they (and the advisors) aimed at making the movie authentic. I only see the word "realism" mostly from reviewers or critics.
 

The other odd thing is how the Tiger tank decides to drive forward when there was clearly a tank trying to flank it?

That and the final battle would be my only gripe. Tiger commanders were usually battle hardened veterans so I was kinda confused by this as well.
 

Anyway, they made it as "realistic" as they cared to, and considering its much better then most of what hollywood puts out(srsly, using real tanks immediately puts it a notch above everything else) its good enough.


Well, I can safely say that Fury is head and shoulders above travesties such as this and this. Then again, that's not exactly the biggest hurdle to cross. :D



#24
Fidite Nemini

Fidite Nemini
  • Members
  • 5 739 messages

Are you sure the movie claimed to be realistic in its advertisement? Because I haven't seen that. I have heard it advertised as authentic, but that is different from realistic. It is authentic in so much as it uses real tanks from ww2.

Anyway, they made it as "realistic" as they cared to, and considering its much better then most of what hollywood puts out(srsly, using real tanks immediately puts it a notch above everything else) its good enough.

 

 

"Authentic" and "realistic" are not really much different.

 

I would also redirect your question about the movie's claims to authenticity where it says the practical changes are only minor and that "the movie’s inaccuracies are minor—stuff that only someone who is already an expert in tank warfare will even notice".



#25
KingTony

KingTony
  • Banned
  • 1 603 messages
Kelly's Heroes was the best movie with a tank. Obviously.