>25 year later
>this scene and basically the entire movie has not been surpassed
why?
>25 year later. >this scene and basically the entire movie has not been surpassed
>25 year later
>this scene and basically the entire movie has not been surpassed
why?
MythBusters totally ruined it for me by showing bullets don't go through water as in the movie.
For me it was learning that the beach and defenses in real life looked nothing like what was shown in the movie.
another good example of the movies being less scary than real life
irl most machine gun fire came in sideways from the far ends of the beach, from positions that would've been invisible
Do either of you or anyone in this thread have a good source on how the beaches ACTUALLY looked?
I have seen docus and watch vidya footage, that doesn't do it for me. the docus never seem to create anything but high-school tier reenacments of it, and simply having some old fart describe shit while walking through the beach doesn't do it.
is there any better media to show me how it really was on d-day?
The scale is hard to convey in a movie sry mate
Yeah, I was on roadtrip as a kid in france. We stopped there, nobody told me where I was untill I recognized some bunker, and was like omfg this where d-day happened?
a few hundred yards back like the real positions instead of 3 feet away into a pool and they do go further underwater instead. Some goldilocks thing with speed and weight
Actually, there's an episode of mythbusterss showng the slower one goes farther now that I remember
They've got disproven many times by reality.
?
I think it's a fact that because bullets are going so fast they just shatter or even deflect on contact with water. The water is basically a solid at those speeds.
It's not a documentary. If you cannot "suspend your disbelief" at something as a film, then you shouldn't bother watching it.
Apparently vets who were there that day claim that the bullets did indeed curve when in the water.
>LotR trilogy
>20 year later
>still the best fantasy movie
1990-2010 were the last kino years of movies
Before "cinematic universes" ruined movies.
IIRC it was the rise of streaming services in particular. Because prior to them the DvD release could provide a lot of money for a LONG time. So "hidden gems" could become popular later on and make money.
But in Streaming and the huge amount of choice leading to choice paralysis actually leads to people preferring even more "watching what I already know since it's also so easily accessible. This heavily favors franchises over original creations.
?t=842 Matt Damon talks about that point on Hot Ones.
>But in Streaming and the huge amount of choice leading to choice paralysis actually leads to people preferring even more "watching what I already know since it's also so easily accessible. This heavily favors franchises over original creations.
I see this in myself and it sucks.
a policy of all piracy, all the time is more about cognitive freedom from platform bullshit than anything else.
>But in Streaming and the huge amount of choice leading to choice paralysis actually leads to people preferring even more "watching what I already know since it's also so easily accessible. This heavily favors franchises over original creations.
I actually find it to be quite the opposite, I've watched many new things I wouldn't have given a chance before because I don't have to pay for them on their own.
Same, but I imagine we're the exception.
Same here, I've watched a shit ton of old 70s and 80s sci-fi and fantasy movies I would have never watched previously. Streaming also got me into the Stargate universe a few years ago, despite me growing up with it on literally every single hour of every single day on the SciFi channel.
>Before "cinematic universes" ruined movies.
Death of mid budget movies ruined cinema.
>IIRC it was the rise of streaming services in particular. Because prior to them the DvD release could provide a lot of money for a LONG time. So "hidden gems" could become popular later on and make money.
Hollywood killed medium budget movies before rise of streaming services. Big event movies with massive budgets, massive marketing campaigns and that also might be a part of franchise provide better return of investment. As result young creatives have no creative freedom as there is nothing between studio mandated products and low budget indie movies. As result they have no professional development path that involves creative freedom and taking risks. Due to young under 50 year old writers and directors started flocking into high budget tv-shows somewhere around 2005 or so and bit later on streaming services caught on. Hollywood naturally ignored what happened on internet and for most parts were caught pants down when streaming services came along bit over decade ago.
Franchises are all about reaping benefits of selling next product with marketing of previous product. Jaws and Star Wars stared the blockbuster era, Titanic and LotR trilogy perfected the marketing effort of turning blockbuster movies into events. Final form that shit has been capeshit of last decade.
>How does that make any sense for a streaming service like Netflix? (thankfully I torrented)
Gotta have own content if established Hollywood studios are setting up their own streaming platforms. All investor money.
You're right but the person you're replying to isn't wrong either. Both streaming and the death of mid budget cinema were part of the same trend, which is consolidation of the industry.
This is just the shootout from Heat only instead of professional looking thieves, it's a bunch of unintimidating punchable faced frickboys.
While streaming has killed the secondary market as dvd/bluray sales have cratered, budget explosion started well before relatively recent media corporation mergers. As medium budget cinema has almost died, Hollywood makes less movies. Now we are at the point where directors under 50 are considered young, that is absolutely bizarre situation. Compare that to 70's to 90's where 20 something fresh film school graduates made couple indie/low budget movies and were making major studio productions in their 30's. As new film makers have less opportunities to prove themselves capable of delivering good and profitable films, there is far less innovation with current cinema. People in Hollywood that have actual creative freedom and good chance of getting their films funded are all getting damn old.
Budget explosion is one main reasons driving the consolidation of film industry.
Jesus Christ ninjas were the coolest fricking shit growing up
Ninjas make everything at least 150% cooler.
Similar thing's happened across many industries, not just entertainment. Stagnant power structure and ossification.
>ruined movies
They were always ruined.
The 80s was a coke fueled wild west of fun and often original movies t.b.h.
Music and movies started going shit late-90s onward, with some exceptions.
The 90s had some god tier licensed soundtracks. But film scores started to go to shit around the 00s.
Mad Max: Fury Road came out in 2015
Mindless moronic action movie pandering to zoomers
Get your head out of your cynical contrarian ass. Fury Road was kino and everyone knows it.
No, it's crap.
>dude what if mad max but a girl is better at everything and madder and maxxer
frick off
boring, shit movie
I liked it but at the time I thought it wasn't really about Max, that was my major criticism of it. Why make a post-apoc movie and slap the "Mad Max" title on it without actually focusing on him?
Now they're making a sequel and it's about the chick so I think I was justified in my opinion.
>Black Hawk Down
>Heat
>True Lies
>the first Taken
Yeah.
We have shit like Lord of the Rings all the time.
>zoomer coworker says he likes fantasy settings
>ask if he's watched LotR
>he says he's seen The Hobbit trilogy
kids these days
it sure was
>he hasn't seen the longest day
>>he hasn't seen the longest day
That ariel shot of the free french command assault on the casino though. Pure fricking kino incredible all in a single shot
thanks for that, I'm going to watch that movie just because of that shot, holy shit, imagine the coordination and practical effects that had to go into that. These days the whole thing would be just CGI on a greenscreen.
damn this is awesome, totally forgotten this scene. i've seen this movie when i was like 7, i only remember the german saying "Le débarquement, ils arrivent !" and the scene in the night with paratrooper falling in the german trap of "click click"
Band of Brothers
>this and The Pacific
10/10
>The Pacific
Parts of The Pacific seemed grafted in for length.
But the parts about "Manilla" John Basilone still get me.
> machine gunner on Guadalcanal, defending Henderson Field
> ferocious fight, 3,000 japanese troops storm his position
> survives the fight, many in his platoon don't
> earns The Medal
> goes home, gets married to Lena
> goes on War Bond drives
> could have sat the war out doing bond drives
> misses his buddies
> goes back to the fleet
> dies on Iwo Jima, earns Navy Cross posthumously
> wife Lena never remarries
> he's buried in Arlington
> she's buried in Riverside, still wearing her wedding ring
> USMC offered her a spot in Arlington next to John
> she declined because she didn't want to raise a fuss
I took this pic in Arlington earlier this year.
> USMC offered her a spot in Arlington next to John
> she declined because she didn't want to raise a fuss
?? my great great grandpa is buried in arlington with both of his wives
weird tbqh. i wonder what her rationale was but hey more power to her i guess
Mormon are remarried after death of the first?
well we sure as frick aint mormon so i assume it was a remarraige
still spielberg so does it count?
And frankly Tom Hanks too. He just didn't star in BoB.
spieljew
A israelitevie is being talked about on /k/. Frick off Black person lover
burn alive
Frick. Now I want to reinstall C&C Generals Z:H
Wow clever
Please leave
It already gotten surpassed by some yuro low budget gang flick lmao
actually decent
>Black person POV
>broccoli head zoomers
>iphone lock screen
>shaky cam
I'm gonna hurl
Shaky cam can be done well to show that a situation is chaotic, you just gotta do more than -just- that. Let the cameraman get creative with his shots.
?t=50
bigger firepower/budget ratio
Complete rip off of the shooting scene from heat.
lame
fricking blattefilm
>Heat for zoomers
>average day in paris
yawn
I thought you were done shilling this on PrepHole years ago
I liked the beach landing. I didn't like the tiger commander chasing the guy on the kettenkrad for no reason. For a moment I thought the tiger was going to start eating the paratroopers like a t rex.
Since this thread is now just PrepHole, I watched The Gray Man the other night and holy frick what a pile of generic forgettable shit and utterly baffling waste of money. By appearances at least that movie must have cost some insane amount of money. How does that make any sense for a streaming service like Netflix? (thankfully I torrented)
>what a pile of generic forgettable shit
ironically very fitting for a movie about a gray man kek
The Ryan Gosling character wasn't in any way a gray man though. Title had nothing at all to do with the movie, which was basically Borne for Marvel-addled zoomers.
>Since this thread is now just PrepHole
>>>PrepHole but whatever
The Gray Man was such shit. I "enjoyed" it but your right, it was empty carbs, pure background distraction. Actually I only liked it because Chris Evans was making such an effort to trash his Captain America image in it so he won't be so type-cast in the future.
why is a captain leading a squad?
He was leading an entire platoon but most of them dieded. He was leading the squad on the mission afterwards because it was "high priority".
that's the least stupid thing about this movie
That actually makes a lot of sense given that this was a special mission. There's actually nothing in the handbook that says you have to move out with your entire company for every mission. If a small squad or section is all you need to accomplish something a CPT can absolutely move out with less and oversee that his intent is carried out.
For something like this you would want an officer on ground to make decisions about the overall mission.
Not even the best wwii movie from that year
I like both films.
You can make a strong case that TTRL is the better ‘complete’ film, but SPR absolutely blows it away on the sheer technical merits.
A Spielberg-helmed TTRL would have been something to see.
>sheer technical merits
may we see them?
I'll start with the sound since that SPR's strongest aspect and doesn't require any screengrabs to explain:
First things first
>SPR was released with full 7.1 mix while TRL only had a 5.1. better surround mixing aside, even if you wanted to compare SPR's 5.1/stereo downmixes to TRL's full 5.1 mix or 2.0 stereo downmix - just to be fair-SPR still blows TRL out of the water - both from the standpoint of FX sound editing as well as spatial panning
>SPR's weapon sound FX:
>pre/post field recording/capture of weapon sounds actually done properly; SFX captures are then EQ'd and layered in the main mix far better.
end result is not only do the weapons SFX sit in the overall mix with more visceral OOPMH (which enhances the rest of the film without being cluttered or overpowering), but net effect is that the weapon sounds are far more accurate to what they're like in real life (both in what firing them sounds like and feels like - i can only vouch for the Garand, 1903A3, M1A1, and 1911 as my family had these growing up and I've got a lot of range time firing them myself. SPR by far the best depiction of any of those).
>and to expand on the above point: SPR is the ONLY war film that even comes REMOTELY close to getting the M1A1 Thompson firing sound/feel right. Seeing production after production frick this one up pisses me off but whatever
All this is not to say TRL doesn't also have great sound as well. I'm not shitting on it. SPR is just a level above.
I wonder if he meticulously pushed for the sound design. He's bros with Lucas and Lucas made THX.
Fricking Jurassic Park and Saving Private Ryan were incredible in theaters. Zoomers don't even know.
>He's bros with Lucas and Lucas made THX.
Tomlinson Holman actually invented/developed THX (the letters in 'THX' refer to 'Tomlinson Holman Crossover) while he was working at LucasFilm. However, George Lucas is have a significant hand in designing it as well, not least because it was because of recurring theater sound mixing problems during post-production work on Return of the Jedi that spurred Lucas and Holman into developing THX in the first place.
>I wonder if he meticulously pushed for the sound design.
Not all directors do believe it or not. To as a director, Spielberg has always taken care to prioritize good sound (at least for his films that def require it) and he has the good sense to hire good people to handle it. Gary Rydstrom has been one of his go-to guys and has worked on a lot of Spielberg projects.
>Fricking Jurassic Park and Saving Private Ryan were incredible in theaters.
kek Rydstrom did the sound for both of those & won both sound academy awards that year respectively (sound FX editing/mixing & sound design) for his work on each one. He's got seven oscars total.
It baffles me how often good sound is overlooked by otherwise competent production teams. It sucks the viewer into the film and provides a level of immersion that otherwise feels completely shallow if not done properly. When I watched Dune, I was completely blown away by how real and authentic every scene with an ornithopter in it was.
90's THX standard didn't take size of theater into account properly. Jurassic Park was painfully loud in slightly too small theater with THX sound. Damn screams. That being said, I don't give a frick about sound. DVD/Bluray soundtrack remasters of old movies are cancer, gotta make dialogue barely audible and explosions louder. Why the frick classic movies can't have original mono soundtracks with simple clean up? Its fricking funny that there are fan edits of old movies around, with mono soundtracks often taken from Japanese Laser Discs.
>putt putt putt putt PING
I will grant that SPR has a more consistent look and feel, but it's riddled with inaccuracies, illogical movement and physics, and hamstrung by all the emotionally manipulative character drama that is Spielberg's calling card.
Thin Red Line is more neutrally shot and feels superficially more staged and theatrical at times, and also a bit more cut and paste in its sequences (it shares the visual style of all Malick's films). However, everything that happens is rational and builds into a frightening vision. It particularly excels in macabre imagery (that fricking snake) and very deep shots showing both fighting forces on the screen at once. There are dozens of relatively quick sequences that surpass anything in SPR, for instance the artillery fire raining on the bunkers, sweeping shots of the hills where you see GIs firing at muzzle flashes across the valley, the close air support at the end of vid related. The visual techanicality is insane, it's just not as slick and up front as in SPR.
>but it's riddled with inaccuracies, illogical movement and physics, and hamstrung by all the emotionally manipulative character drama that is Spielberg's calling card.
i don't disagree with you at all here actually.
as i stated at the beginning of the thread my assessment really only looks at execution of specific technical elements in isolation and didnt really seek to rate either film in its totality. i readily conceded that TRL could be considered the best "whole film" out of the two when everything is taken together and viewed from above. I was merely pointing out that SPR is far more technically impressive on an invidividual nuts and bolts level.
a film can make superior use of certain technical elements and yet still fall far short as an assembled end product and judged as such.
to use another set of spielberg films as an analogy to explain my thought process:
>Temple of Doom is arguably the most technically impressive of the original Indy trilogy; or at the very least highly and unfairly underrrated
>despite this everyone generally agrees that Raiders of the Lost Ark is the best Indy film with Temple being the worst of the original trilogy (and they're not at all wrong)
(personally i think Last Crusade wins both categories but i realize i'm outside the critical consensus here so whatever)
Last Crusade is perfect ending for trilogy, you automatically associate both previous movies with it.
Personally I can't really consider Spielberg auteur. Too much melodrama and mere entertainment for that kind of tittle.
He practically invented the summer blockbuster. You might look down on him, but he singlehandedly reshaped cinema on his own terms.
He makes well crafted entertainment for most parts, he is populist film maker. When it comes to blockbuster, he is one of central figures in how we got into current sad state of affairs in Hollywood. New Hollywood guys who made few cheap movies in 70's as practically just out of film school and then got actual budgets for making stuff in less than decade.
>When it comes to blockbuster, he is one of central figures in how we got into current sad state of affairs in Hollywood.
It's not his fault the studios want his glory
Hollywood going all in for blockbuster products is the cancer that is chocking cinema. James Cameron with T2 and Titanic is probably just as guilty as Spielberg when it comes to production and marketing budgets finding the perfect return of investment. Honestly best thing that could happen to cinema would be Cleopatra moment shaking up or even breaking up studio system as it is today.
There are probably hundreds of people you could point to who are more to blame than Spielberg is for inflated budgets and studio overreliance on blockbusters squeezing out the middle of the film market.
Cameron certainly can be pointed to as a modern precedent for the absurd budgets, but you forget that before Marvel showed up and studio promptly lost what little sense they had, it was a luxury that was really only extended to Cameron - mostly because even when he went off the deep end financially more often than not he still ended up delivering something that more than recouped what he spent, which is why he's been to get away with it.
Neither guy is really someone at whose feet you can lay the current state of things. The only thing they are really guilty of is being good at what they do and generating enough success that others looked at them, got brazenly and unjustifiably greedy and thought they could replicate the fruits of that success without having to take the actual effort of producing quality product by just hoarding the right IPs/franchises until there was a vaccuum in the market and then hyping the shit out of it regardless if the actual film sucked or not.
I wouldn't say Cameron was only one that had access to the limitless budget when the current very high budget blockbusters came around in early 2000's. He was certainly the trend setter with T2 and Titanic. T2 pushed budget limits above 100 million and Titanic past 200 million, decade later those numbers were pretty normal for major Hollywood pictures. It is kinda surprising what kind of directors have gotten access to that kind of money and how fast it happened in early 2000's 100 to 200 millions became just another blockbuster budget. Marvel movies surely have continued the trend.
Hollywood on different eras have had different business trends, one thing is certain, just back in 90's or even early 2000's when budgets were more reasonable, they made movies with more risks, both artistic/critical and business risks. When it comes to artists and hacks, both have always existed. When there were more movies around, you got your not so ambitious entertainment and all kinds of movies that had more artistic value mixed into it. As you said some things never change. Quite ironically a lot of films that are now considered some of the greatest of all time, weren't considered that high value artistically when those came out and makers weren't exactly considered great either. From studio perspective, it is all about making money, there are risks involved. Art coming out of Hollywood is from business perspective always accidental. Last time Hollywood got a reset was with New Hollywood.
Surrounding media is probably even worse than film industry itself these days. Polarized as frick, always shilling for new product. It was hilarious when a veteran film critic merely pointed out that Black Panther had pacing issues and action sequences aren't perfect, dude got death threats.
I always chuckle when I hear people throw around terms like "populist" and "blockbuster" with negative connotations as if every auteur that pretentiously considers himself "one of the real artists" doesn't also crave the exact same widespread acclaim and financial success for his own films - if only so more of the ignorant masses they look down upon can finally bask in his underappreciated artistic genius.
Blockbusters have turned into products, tasteless trash made by commission backed by market research. For me blockbuster absolutely has negative connotation and that has gotten much more negative in last decade. The issue with modern day Hollywood isn't really Spielberg, but all the 2nd rate wannabe Spielbergs like JJ Abrams. There is a fine line between art and entertainment, in past Hollywood could combine the two. Usually it takes more than while to actually assess artistic value of films. Good chunk of the best movies ever to come out of Hollywood are b-movies.
>Blockbusters have turned into products, tasteless trash made by commission backed by market research
You're not wrong, but if you think the "golden age" or whatever era of the film business was operated/run any differently then well....i don't really know what to tell you.
Only difference between the current era and "the good old days when the best stuff came out" was that the amorphous all-consuming blob of global mass media hadn't come into existence yet to absorb the film industry and frick up the system of incentives that previously allowed the minority of earnest talented creators an avenue to put out good stuff at a rate that at least kept pace with the multitude of shit that was always being mass produced and shoved out - because at least back then both the talents and the hacks were focused on making the same fricking thing (actual films).
Being an "auteur" is just preemptive cope for being unable to make popular films
Auteur is a euphemism for schizo with money
>Being an "auteur" is just preemptive cope for being unable to make popular films
basically yes
>as if every auteur that pretentiously considers himself "one of the real artists" doesn't also crave the exact same widespread acclaim and financial success for his own films
so you know every auteur, and you are sure that they all they feel this way?
>so you know every auteur, and you are sure that they all they feel this way?
Yes.
t.non-filmgay that out of boredom and curiousity spent enough of his senior year at USC embedded in the film school’s graduate program that by the end i would be regularly bossing around MFA candidates twice my age because their own professors didn’t even trust them not to be wankers and would thus often put me in charge of stuff.
Trust me, I’ve already met all of you.
I just watched the half track scene again and yeah, the camerawork is damn immersive as hell; the bazooka hit causes the camera to immediately jerk up from the flash and heat as your natural reaction would. Malick is a lot more measured generally with his pans and liberal with his cuts, the result feeling like a cinematic work rather than actually being there. Both films could have really benefitted from long takes during key moments, like in Children of Men.
One thing they share, axis soldiers cannot aim for shit and tend to charge directly into gunfire/their death.
I would say TRL has many moments of visual superiority but they are probably more aesthetical than technical as you noted.
correct
rekt
Now as far as visual elements are concerned, I will admit to being a sound/audio guy first and foremost so i won't claim to markedly higher insight into the other technical stuff, but nonetheless I think when stacked up side by side on a more granular level SPR arguably wins out on a few things:
>both films have gorgeous cinematography, but Malick relies heavily on pristine nature shots and landscapes to flood the mise en scene, but when he inevitably has to transition over to actually shooting the scenes involving the actors or otherise concerned with advancing the plot, limited by the surroundings and different lighting and space required he obviously can't maintain the same visual congruity.
>in contrast, SPR thru the creative use of color desaturation and manipulating camera shutter, creates a very unique 'look' for the film that is quite beautiful in its own right despite the objective being to create a visual style that highlights and focuses on/draws attention to the 'filth' and 'smell' and 'grime' of war - which is an impressive achievement. SPR also establishes this visual theme pretty much from the start of the film and maintains it with perfect consistency until the very end, which is less jarring and makes the overall film far better balanced as every scene/set piece seems visually congruent and equally appropriate relative to any other.
(if i think of some others, i post more)
IIRC, they manually bleached the film to give it a washed out look. Everyone copied it afterwards.
>Everyone copied it afterwards.
ture, but the thing that everyone copied to death (and subsequently ruined thru amateurish overuse) was the whole shaky "camera shot thru the frist person eyes of a person participating in the action onscreen") technique.
Classic case of hacks thinking "THAT'S AWESOME so let's do even more of that. if one is good then ten is better right?"
Go back and watch SPR again: yeah Spielberb basically made that shooting angle/style famous, but if you actually pay attention Spielberg was actually smart and knew that it was something/a novelty that was best used in limited doses as too much took away all the impact of the technique and quickly made everything nauseating. Thus he was very verrrrrrrry restrained in his use of it - far more than the people copying him realized.
If you go back and rewatch SPR, you'll see that he only uses it a handful of times and each instance probably for not more than a few seconds before pulling back out to a more conventional camera shot.
All I took from the filmatography was the fast, sharp, and few slides of film that made everything really impactful. The same thing that Ridley Scott used in Gladiator.
my last opinion on SPR/TTRL, is that i personally think Spielberg has a much better talent for structuring, pacing, and choreographing/orchestrating action sequences - especially ones that are enormously complex in both terms of what they are trying to convey and what they are trying to (visually) depict in the kinetic sense.
Malick, for all his talents, is not a director I generally associate with "pulse-pounding action scenes and edge of your seat excitement." Just comparing the battle scenes in SPR to those in TRL (though they are competently shot) is a juxtaposition that immediately makes the difference in level of execution obvious.
There's a reason everyone has tried to copy SPR over the last 25 years and TRL far less so, though that isn't really a knock on TRL since i tend to view SPR as a genre "war movie" and TRL as a bit less of a war film and more of a contemplative drama that just happens to take place in a historical war setting, with the 'twist' being that it opts to include the commensurate levels of violence/blood/gore that befit a war film but are often omitted or minimized in a drama since it's not a strictly 'necessary' component of that genre
Too boring
Total snoozefest
Oh a few reasons:
>film VFX/tech capabilities had made a huge evolutionary leap forward in the 90s; SPR first major war film production made post-leap
>fortunate enough to be helmed by a competent director with a huge budget to work with as well as a willingness to use it
>said director also determined from the outset that given what could now possible given the new VFX tech and the unlimited money he had to blow that he wanted to depict unprecedented levels of gore and carnage compared to past war films for the sake of realism.
>make the unorthodox (but brilliant) creative choice to have all combat scenes zero feature zero musical score/backround music
>hire Gary Rystrom to do the sound, who proceeds to deliver arguably the best final film mix of all time
I’m sure there are more but those are off the top of my head
No diversity roles
The squad had wops.
>Jurassic park was released 30 years ago
Man, one of my best memories of my life was that day. It was magical for any kid obsessed with dinosaurs. And a few years later saving private Ryan.
What do kids these day watch? Cape shit clone movies every 3 months?
Youtube video essays and tik tok clips.
I know Jurassic Park came out June 11 because I went to see it for my birthday on release as a 10 year old. Fricking amazing experience.
admit it, you rubbed your pepe to her
You can literally commission artwork from her
https://galleryariana.com/
I have always found her absolutely not hot, even climbing around in those shorts. Would probably cuddle and spoil with ice cream or whatever kids do these days.
I can't believe the grandson played Eugene Sledge in The Pacific.
Kids with above median IQ dont watch movies at all, they play video games and watch some constantly yelling "young adult" youtubers. Like, i wish PewDiePie was in his prime now, it got much much worth.
>father
Frick, I remember every half year we would get THAT movie. A movie that you just had to watch and you would read about it every day on the newspaper and get excited whenever they played trailers in the TV. Then you went to the movie theater and it felt like you were having the best sex you’ve ever had for two hours straight. Nowadays we have so many dogshit movies being shoveled out on a constant basis. Every time I talk to my brother he’s getting excited over some new Marvel trash, there’s no one big movie to get excited about, it’s all just a desperate rat race from one dopamine hit to the next in the form of garbage movies and shows being shat out by morons incapable of being creative and original
>What do kids these day watch?
This is the new capeshit summer crap
CGI outsourced to india please understand
jesus christ
That was actually a pretty fun popcorn flick. Went in expecting some up your ass lore or dark gritty nolan-esque crap, but I got lighthearted campy batman.
I'd recommend seeing it once in a theatre that serves alcohol, and then just never watching it again.
Dont watch any movies that come out in theaters. Last movie i went to see was They shall not grow old
>zoomers will never know how insane it was to see Jurassic Park in the theater at age 8-13
>Hollywood shit
Before the war HistoryLegends reviewed war movies, and his playlist is still a gem of them.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLyrWXxpwLyWrOKHW3ngjTbuzSt6a4VRC
You Anglos don't even know what you are missing out by the European movie scene simply not being on your radar (which is of course expected, since they are made for a domestic audience).
For example, recently I have seen this and this scene is glorious
Someone get these people a fricking steadycam.
>Stalingrad (the good one)
>Das Boot
>The Winter War
Yeah, Euros had some good war kino
The thin red line is one of the best war movies
How exaggerated is that scene? It got a lot of praise for realism but it shows 10 minutes of impossible-to-survive slaughter at point blank range. Same for the Pacific series.
The actual beach was about 180 meters of sand between the LZ and the defensive line. The Beach they used (in Ireland) was closer to 50 meters. The vast majority of destruction and death in reality was caused by the immense barrage of artillery rather than machine-gun fire.
There's also the more pedantic criticisms such as the bunkers mostly being dissimilar to the ones actually built by the krauts and the wooden brace pillars facing the wrong way, making them useless.
However, there were a lot of Omaha Beach survivors who were still alive to ask about it and they all seemed to agree it was as close to what the real assault was like as a movie could get.
Soviet War and Peace adaptation beats it in terms of sheer insanity and scale, but it's not the same type of war at all so I'm not sure it counts.
?t=3626
They got the *feeling* of Omaha Beach right, rather than the reality. Probably the correct decision.
>Probably the correct decision.
It's always the correct decision. People are defined by their memories and their memories are defined by their feelings.
Also known as "fake, but accurate"
>However, there were a lot of Omaha Beach survivors who were still alive to ask about it and they all seemed to agree it was as close to what the real assault was like as a movie could get.
Probably because they didn't care how it looked, or if the bunkers where correct or the ramps went the right way. They saw something that was brutal on screen they haven't seen before and went "Yeah, it was like that."
It was also 50 years later, they were long pass giving a shit if the uniforms were correct or the actors looked young enough.
Spielberg and his buddies had plans to make more WWII centered films and mini series. So they went all out for the first film and then reused a lot of the equipment gathered and made for things like BoB and The Pacific. We lucked out, the original script was a much more generic WWII film more akin to a John Wayne movie than the SPR we got.
>why?
the subhumans signing off on movies think its a good idea to save 100k out of 100 million budget production from script writing
Because Spielberg is the last of the great auters who can do what he likes and has the talent to pull it off. His bread and butter was always spectacle and action anyway.
Its a modernism vs post modernism problem.
Nolan is literally better, boomer
Nolan?
It was surpassed retrospectively by Waterloo
AHEM....
Kubrick did realistic combat first in 1964.
Try 1957
The overused as frick short bullet ricochet sound, bew bew bew, being used as machine gun fire will always be a distraction in any movie
For me it's the assault scene in Dr Strangelove
Frick me kek you beat me to it
>watch that piece of shit movie about corsairs in korea a few months back
>its about poor dindu nuffins and related gay shit
>corsairs have maybe 5 minutes of screen time
i guess ill just keep rewatching a bridge too far and kellys heroes till the end of time
There were no massive concrete bunkers at Omaha Beach.
>There were no massive concrete bunkers at Omaha Beach.
Not anymore 🙂
HALF-TRACK! COVER!
SPR falls apart with a deluge of stupidity right after the beach scene.
Also, the rangers and decimated first wave were stuck on Omaha beach for like 7 hours.
Same reason the original Jurassic park and jaws hold up.. sometimes everyone gets it right.
>25 years later
>I can't find a copy or version that doesn't have this defect/artifacts
>even the version shown on cable TV has is
why?
>that massive pillbox
Ahahahahahaha Amerimutt history revisionism. This wasn't Pas De Calais you israelite rats.
>Ahahahahahaha Amerimutt history revisionism. This wasn't Pas De Calais you israelite rats.
Loser says what?
>superior übermensch 300 IQ thinker interpreting it as a documentary
>not familiar with the basics of art, metaphors and visual story-telling
No one expected anything of you to be honest. Consider your moronation and rethink your life. You are objectively stupid.
>No one expected anything of you to be honest. Consider your moronation and rethink your life. You are objectively stupid.
People that unironically follow NATSOC shit are often the same type of non introspective follower NPCs that fall for other totalitarian ideologies like Communism or parking meters.
Horseshoe
this, always get a chuckle seeing state-worshipping, boot licking, government dependent cuckolds standing in the street with US Flags, communist flags, nazi flags or confederate flags, all of them thinking theyre polar opposite enemies of eachother, all thinking theyre fighting against totalitarian government, and all helping to empower the same totalitarian regime.
I'm close to dead center and prefer people also like myself but am pretty open minded to anyone else doing their own thing as long as they don't mind me doing my own thing. Still think there should be safety nets though which is why I can't find myself believing more in libertarianism.
truth
Achshually it's centrists like you who are the biggest NPC's thoughbeit
It was deliberately filmed that way.
https://theasc.com/articles/saving-private-ryan-the-last-great-war
>“I also used another technique that Doug Milsome [ASC, BSC] utilized on Full Metal Jacket [see AC Sept. 1987] where you throw the camera’s shutter out of sync to create a streaking effect from the top to the bottom of the frame. It’s a very interesting effect, but it’s also scary because there’s no way back [once you shoot with it]. It looked great when there were highlights on the soldier’s helmets or epaulets because they streaked just a little bit. The amount of streaking depended on the lighting contrast. If it was really sunny, for instance, the streaking became too much. However, if it was overcast with some little highlights, it looked really beautiful. The streaking also looks fantastic with fire, and that’s what Milsome primarily used it for in Full Metal Jacket.”
Personally I just want to see the scenes with the jeep.
i didnt know there were supposed to have a jeep scene. any context ?
The screenplay originally had them covering the first leg of the journey to fetch ryan in a jeep before being having to ditch it. The scene was eventually cut but you can still see a continuity reference to it that the editor either missed or determined wasn’t enough of a confusing discrepancy/problem to warrant warrant further work in post
(where they are about to be introduced to the “wrong” ryan by ted danson miller and horvath are talking w/ each other)
>we’ve alrwady lost two of our guys
>and not to mention most of our ammo
the ammo line makes more sense when u have the original context: that the jeep they were using was also packed with all they extra ammo/supplies they planned on needing for an extended mission behind german lines which they subsequently lost when they were forced to ditch the jeep
>artifacts
Film grain
Saving private ryan is a shitty movie and the landing scene is totally overrated. I have never understood why people cream over it so hard.
my grandpa wasn't in WWII, but he landed at the beaches in Inchon, South Korea during the korean war. When he watched this it moved him to tears because of how realistic the portrayal was. He also fought at Chosin reservoir and was shot in the leg there, he lost a lot of his friends in that battle and had a lot of PTSD because of it.
My favorite are the hodge podge war scenes they filmed back in the early 1920's films where everyone runs around like they're untrained civilians trying to figure out what the frick to do. It looks so stupid to the point that considering the skull frickery happening in Ukraine, scenes like this probably happened in real life due to idiotic commanders trying to one up each other for brownie points with X political figure head.
It's kinda sad that this movie is more remembered for Clint Eastwood wearing a Nazi uniform instead of the kickass proto-Wolfenstein spy thriller that it is.
>BROADSWORD CALLING DANNY BOY
>a Saving Private Ryan thread that isn't just autistic screeching about israelites
Why can't we have this on PrepHole?
>Why can't we have this on PrepHole?
for the same reason musical instrument threads here far surpass anything you can find on PrepHole
Trying to discuss movies on PrepHole is like trying to discuss vidya on PrepHole, just endless idpol/culture war bullshit for drooling morons
/k/ bullies the resident Putin shills a lot harder than PrepHole does
Was a v tard and was shocked by how they would be ran out of threads once Ukraine started.
>this scene was going to push the movie rating up to X therefore killing the movie
>producers argued it was crucial to the movies plot and got away with it
You can easily cut out the landing until it pans over to Ryan's brother's body and it would have been the exact same movie and just as understandable.
Frick Hollywood greed.
I still stand by The Longest Day being the best D-Day movie
Why didn't they send in special forces at night to take out all the German defenses first
Strictly speaking the battle scenes from waterloo are the best ever made, and will likely never be surpassed unless like China makes the pla serve as extras for a 1:1 scale battle reenactment.
Letters from Iwo Jima
Sea without exit
Jarhead
Also master and commander, the Pacific if we count TV
The israelites needed to get the goy pumped up for 9/11. The next time that will happen is a year or two prior to when they Need you for China.
thanks for visiting you know where to go now
>DA JOOZ needed to get the goyim ready to fight a Middle Eastern war...
>...by making a WWII movie
namedropping Battle:LA for scifi mil flickino
https://imdb.com/title/tt1217613/
I wish more movies would take the “black hawk down but with aliens(or whatever other fantastical enemy)” route tbh
We will never get a sequel to this and it kills me. The characters and story were totally forgettable but there's just something about the premise of "aliens invade Earth using conventional infantry" that really warms my wienerles. Maybe it's because the aliens in literally every other alien invasion movie are so impersonal in their tactics? They never fight on foot, face to face, they're always hiding inside giant mechs or just glassing cities from orbit. Watching it I found myself pausing at random points to see how the aliens in B:LA moved, behaved, I loved how they looked.
I liked it back when I was a teenager. After I started started reading up on the war, and rewatched it a few years later, I thought it was shit, aside from the opening scene.
Most of the movie is just melodramatic fantasy.
dday never happened and germany won
this is just cia green screen on the moon
>propaganda film with hanks and spielberg
>trash bin
If you are looking for a realistic war movie, I'd recommend watching The Unknown Soldier (2017) based on the Continuation war between Finland and the Soviet Union. It's in Finnish but I believe English subtitles exist. The focus is more on the soldiers than the action scenes compared to SPR but it has some good battle scenes too. I won't comment whether it surpasses SPR or not.
Example clip that doesn't have significant spoilers:
I hope these aren't the official subtitles because they are quite poor.
There is also 1955 and 1985 versions of the Unknown Soldier if you aren't strictly looking for modern films but I don't know whether there are English subtitles for them. 1955 version is regarded to be better than 1985 version.