Preparedness & self-sufficiency community
Does it bring anything new to the table or is it aping the other two movies
yes, politics. but it's alright, i just wish it was less of that and more of stuff that was actually in the book
we're allowed to talk about military related movies on PrepHole, fuck off. go and discuss wokeness and trannies in the movie on PrepHole with all the perverts and degenerates if you want
>we're allowed to talk about military related movies on PrepHole, fuck off
Interesting, could you point out where it says that?
Right under the part where it tells you you will never be a woman. Check again, and then suckstart a shotgun.
I accept your concession, tourist
Good for you, the thread is still up and there is nothing you can do about it.
you're such a stupid gay, i raped your mother lol
Thanks for the list anon
>no Africa Addio
Shit list. The most PrepHole footage of the oldschool mercs in Congo and elsewhere is in that documentary. Everyone should watch it, it is incredible work of cinematography.
Pretty eye opening on the funny shit they used to do in colonial Africa.
>here mumbubu, take this dead fox and run as fast and as far as you can with it and we'll use dogs to hunt you as we larp as fox hunters in Britain
Also the mass murder of the muslims by the christians in that one seen was crazy.
The sheer scope of it is what's really impressive. Most of the time when you get footage of genocide and ethnic cleansing these days it's a selfie of some goober posing with a corpse or whatever and is basically "evidence" as opposed to the act itself but in Africa Addio you get fucking birds-eye footage of an active genocide. Absolutely wild.
>Also the mass murder of the muslims by the christians in that one seen was crazy.
That was blacks killing Indians, Arabs and Whites, I’m not sure where you pulled the religious angle from
>no Uknown Soldier
Enemy at the fucking Gates? ENEMY AT THE FUCKING GATES?!?!?!
>tourists calling other people tourists
it’s like the law of gravity at this point
>tourists calling other people tourists
not him but:
you are and have always been the gays whining about the rules not being perfectly followed according to YOUR interpretation.
the board has always talked about anything and everything related to weapons and the usage of weapons.
cry about it while you guzzle down my (you) you cockhungry whore
imagine being so new that you don't know that military movie and video game threads have been a thing on here since forever
you are a plebbit-tier newfag
What do you mean politics? Are there black soldiers in the film? That aspect of 1917 really pulled me out of the movie.
that's not what i meant with "politics", 1/3 of the movie is about negotiations and literal politics
Most of the book was germans sitting in a hole feeling sad so.
>uhm war is le bad
>Ernst Juenger didn't mind the war so war good!
it's not like he didn't mind it, he literally wrote in storms of steel that he wanted this "fucking war" to finally end. he just also saw a lot of good and opportunities for young men coming from it
this whole "remarque vs jünger" thing that retards make up on PrepHole is retarded, the two books aren't in any opposition or anything like that. they complement each other
>remarque v junger is for retards
Implying anyone who posts that image has read either book
>he literally wrote in storms of steel that he wanted this "fucking war" to finally end.
He kept on editing the book to fit the current regime over decades so that doesn't mean much without mentioning an edition.
>he just also saw a lot of good and opportunities for young men coming from it
The only good to come out of WW1 was the destruction of the European monarchy
That's the bad thing
Ernst Junger tried to kill Hitler.
So yeah, he was pretty based.
Hitler was a gay retard and 4chantards who worship him don't have dads
He actually didn't he just didn't rat out the people who confided in him
>Yesterday the attack became known. I learned the details from the President when I returned from Saint-Cloud in the evening. The highly dangerous situation thus gains a special aggravation. The assassin is said to be Count Stauffenberg. I have already heard the name from Hofacker. This would confirm my opinion that at such turns the oldest aristocracy enters the meeting. In all probability, this deed will initiate terrible slaughter. It is also becoming more and more difficult to keep up the mask - so this morning I got into an exchange of words with a comrade who called the event an "outrageous disgrace". I have long been convinced that assassinations change little and, above all, improve nothing. I already hinted at this in the description of Sunmyra in the "Marble Cliffs".
I just started to read Storm of Steel, I'm already at the battle of the Somme, so far it has been too kino
>that rear officer that had a pile of unexplode shells just for the lolz
>the retard who put a lighted cigar inside of an unexplode shell and was killed
>the arthurian warlords of supply depots
Neither did Guderian or Rommel or million other veterans that fought again after ww1.
Considering it was a bunch of pissed off WW1 veterans that started WW2 and led it. The War must have been good. Old officers from the time of the Spanish-American War/Franco-Prussian and such would be over it. But that's what is wrong with the young generation of WW1 and adults of WW2 and beyond.
Once the war was over, it was over. But noo these gays have to have guerrilla campaigns and revenge wars with gay ass ideologies about communism, fascism, or democracy.
That war was pretty fucking pointless
Was there a war that had a point? Other than the final solution, that one made sense actually.
>Was there a war that had a point? Other than the final solution, that one made sense actually.
Holy shit bruh, why did you post a sketch of yourself, you know you could be doxxed here, right?
>literally "no u"
its about as much as a retarded basedjak deserves
Most wars have some sort of ideological or existential reason for happening that both sides can rally around. WW1 really didn't have that.
WW1 was the result of major powers trying to reduce the chances of war with webs of alliances and guarantees to each other. The idea being no one would go to war because it would spiral out if control too quickly and this would keep the peace.
In practice, it was retarded and as soon as Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia the whole thing fell apart.
Maybe the Revolutionary War? You fuckin tard
putting down the rabid dogs in germany had a point, especially once they started calling for the destruction of america
NA Education at it's finest
it wasnt, it may have turned out to be a slog, but every nation had its war goals, and for many of the victor countries, those were fulfilled. just because the war was brutal doesnt mean it was pointless, otherwise you really can say that no war ever has a point.
>and for many of the victor countries, those were fulfilled
But they were stupid and pointless goals that had no meaning. They sacrificed millions of men and their empires and for what? It was all erased within ten years.
Eastern Europe will disagree
Eastern Europeans aren't people so nobody cares.
Resources, Land & future prosperity is not pointless.
>a war starting because of Austro-Serbian
>offering resources, land, and prosperity to the rest of the civilised world
I don’t think so. Should have just left the discount Germans and discount Russians to fight each other
I mean, this is one of the first widely popular books with the "war is bad" narrative, and it makes sense, ww1 was a meatgrinder and both the brits and germans came out the other end disenchanted with war, as neither side's people believed that they went to war for a good reason
like, the french went to war for revenge, and for their land, the austrians went to war for revenge, the russians went to war to protect their slavic brothers
the british went to war to... protect the territorial integrety of belgium? the germans went to war to... prop up thier austrian allies?
"war is bad" is the default narrative nowadays, but not back then
Yeah, it's mostly pointless death.
WW1 was a completely worthless, enormous waste of resources. Nobody who was involved in it benefited in any way, shape or form, in fact it was the opposite. Tremendous loss of young men who would have been engineers, workers, artists, scientists, teachers and contributed greatly to their countries and the world. Instead they died the most horrific and pointless deaths, in hopeless human wave attacks or smothered by gas or torn apart by artillery in mud-clogged, rat-infested trenches. Then russian revolutions created communist regimes. Hitler the retard coming into power in Germany to fuck it up forever with his equally retarded, equally unwinnable war. State encroaching on people's rights in the US and UK like never before in modern history. The creation of the Middle East as it is today. All direct consequences of WW1. Yes, what a wonderful war. Let's try that again.
halfway through and it's a lot more brutal than I expected, just saw the french tanks and flamethrowers storm the trenches
it's pretty decent
Just watch the 1979 one you assholes. This new one is way too fucking grey. The 1979 looked all natural and so its better. Netflix can suck my 5.4 inch dick.
>79 tv movie
Watch the pre Code 1930 one
>pre code 1930 one
Absolutely pathetic, just fight in WWI
The 1979 one is the best of the three.
You're wrong, but it's still damn good
The 1930 one has its moments, but everything the 1930 did well the 1979 did better. The 1930 film doesn't really do much for character development and the acting is corny at times. The 1979 film was the only one where I actually got to know the characters and felt their loss. 1930 and 2022 have the problem of being pretty much just about Bauman and Kat.
>my 5.4 inch dick
lol Hispaniclets and their undeserved lilliputian king attitude
The war scenes were impressive, but its thematic presentation doesn’t really bring anything new to the table
Pretty much how I felt too, conveyed what the book tried to despite being a departure from the source material.
I enjoyed the fact that they used G98 and St. Chamond tanks. The props and effects were bretty nice and I enjoyed the trench combat scenes.
do you guys watch movies with your guns?
I usually watch them with my eyes.
My guns watch me when I watch movies.
I watched Apocalypse Now and started drinking grain alcohol and during the end when Kurtz is getting hacked to death with a machete and The End by The Doors is playing super loud, I broke off all my fingernails playing air guitar on my M16A1 clone. I was also buck naked with the heater cranked up to 85 degrees.
lol it sounds like the movie ended for you the same way it began for Martin Sheen
I dryfire during any movies I watch, so yes, I suppose you can say my guns watch movies with me. They like Wong Kar Wai, and simulating the destruction of French New Wave protagonists is good character-building
I watched it on LSD and at the end I just kept changing “KILL! KILL! KILL!” With my M1A in my hand lmao. That movie may be a brainwashing tool
Apocalypse Now is really fucking boring.
I tend to watch the opening and then just shut it off. No, i don't care how much cocaine the cast was on, because its fucking BORING. How do you have half the cast be on the cusp of psychotic breaks but make a war film BORING?
Coppola is incapable of making a film that isn't 3 hours of semi-rambling dogshit.
>Coppola is incapable of making a film that isn't 3 hours of semi-rambling dogshit.
Based opinion, but the beginning of Apocalypse Now isn't boring, literally the first thing you see is an explosion, followed by Martin Sheen dancing naked and punching mirrors
>he doesn't consume all visual media from the sight picture of his gun
>watch Band of Brothers with my Garand
>watch Stalingrad with my 98k
>watch platoon with my m16a1
>watch River Kwai with my lee enfield
>"Look little buddy thats you on the screen"
>watch Beatles documentary with a snubnose .38
good to know im not the only one
I literally cried when the black french soldiers appeared on screen. This is why we needed this remake. So powerful.
well we should remind the french they are the degenerating influence on the continent
Well they were there that’s not a new thing
I wonder if D-Day Dawson ever survived the war
Scheiße, Kurt! Negerüberfall!
That comic rocks, but I can't find it anywhere
I just get Charlie Wilson's War
There was 1 black soldier to every 50 white in the French army in the trenches and the units were segregated so you had the same chance of picking a card at random from a deck of 52 and guessing correctly as sitting in a trench across from blacks.
Remaking the movie and putting this in is clearly not an accident. I find it very distasteful that they're trying to milk more money off one of the most tragic periods in human history and using a piece of art like AQOTWF as their vehicle but the pandering for modern politics is the worst part.
Anon I think you are reaching too damn hard. Out of every inaccurate things movies do this is the one that makes you whine about it? Get over it already this is tame when compared to others
I do this silly thing where I watch a movie until an out-of-context woke cast member appears. I then yell `NOPE' and off she goes! I saw 2 minutes of Raymond and Ray until a black woman walked out of a cabin in the woods...
nobody cares. but thanks for sharing.
They conveniently left the part out of the movie from the book where the Germans couldn't see the black soldiers in the dark because of their skin but the blacks were so stupid they would smoke cigarettes out in the field so the Germans would aim for the cherries.
>A parachute star-shell opens out. The ground lies stark in the pale light, and then the darkness shuts down again blacker than ever. In the trenches we were told there were black troops in front of us. That is nasty, it is hard to see them; they are very good at patrolling, too. And oddly enough they are often quite stupid; for instance, both Kat and Kropp were once able to shoot down a black enemy patrol because the fellows in their enthusiasm for cigarettes smoked while they were creeping about. Kat and Albert had simply to aim at the glowing ends of the cigarettes.
what I also noticed is how their mysteriously all gone during and after the final battle
I think they chickened out of showing black men dieing
Yes? The French used Africans in WW1.
I dont want to see morons in my media, simple as. Now i know that i wont even be pirating this shit. Fuck garden gnomed pozzed media.
In their own segregated battalions, not alongside the French.
In the trench skin color doesn't matter
1:13 ratio of nigs in this single example with plenty of other entirely white units
6:14 ratio of nigs shown in that tiny little scene. Ok throw in a nig or two, but implying that half the French army was composed of nigs is absurd.
>sperging out like this because there was a scene with black people in it
It's maybe two regiments, one white and one African, sharing a trench. I hate woke shit too but having some Black folks among the french army is not out of ordinary. It would have been weird if it was the brits, the americans or the germs.
You gotta learn to pick your battles, man
Serious question. Could it be a colonial unit? Were there any African units that were that white, especially considering NCOs and officers?
Such a shame that there will never be any Schutztruppenkino
A realistic mini series about von Lettow-Vorbeck and his exploits would be fucking awesome, seriously
>A realistic mini series about von Lettow-Vorbeck and his exploits would be fucking awesome
I see you are PrepHoleommandos of culture as well
Damn the whole east Africa campaign is fucking underrated and has a lot kino moments like the zeppelin ride or the wine bottle toss
The hat makes me think of pre-ripped jeans.
Such a shame that there will never be any Schutztruppenkino
>LGS has an original Schutztruppe Gewehr 98 from German South West Africa
>asking $2500 for it
Life is suffering. Pic related, the Kaiserliche Schutztruppe unit disk
>In the trench skin color doesn't matter
It absolutely matters if you are the regiment's bike messenger
The french even use black american because the us army didn't want to have morons in their army while the french are willing to take anyone.
You stupid little man the French had African colonies and colonial troop's the French had zouave troops in the early 19th century. Anyone who can read a book hates commies and poltards for good reasons
By 1853, the French Army included three regiments of zouaves. Each of the three line regiments of zouaves was allocated to a different province of Algeria, where their depots and peace-time garrisons were located. The Crimean War was the first service which the regiments saw outside Algeria.
Are you stupid? Can you point in my post where I said the french don't use morons?
On the Regimental flag of the Bat' d'Af' were embroidered those battle honours :
Maison du Passeur 1914
La Suippe 1918
Anon please look up the Harlem Hellfighters
It is historically accurate.
The French Army had many units that had black people in it during WW1. The Légion Étrangère, the Spahi, the Tirailleurs Sénégalais, the Zouaves, the Chasseurs d'Afrique, ... At the time, most of these units (with an exception for the Légion Étrangère, which was mixed) were entirely composed of black people and arabs, with white COs and NCOs.
In comparison, I was baffled with the campaign of Battlefield 1 that had its only american unit being a black one, and seeing the french not even appearing in the game.
But still, I hate morons.
>historical accuracy in Battlefield games
>saving a thumbnail
I'm not devoting any more disc space to that shit franchise than necessary
Feels like there’s way too many. Maybe one per 1,000 Frenchman would’ve been accurate
Colonies were a big strength that the Entente had over the Germs. 84,000 Pajeets died in WW1 serving in the British army. Out of 8 million troops, 450,000 came from North Africa so the vid doesn't seem that inaccurate.
>In comparison, I was baffled with the campaign of Battlefield 1 that had its only american unit being a black one, and seeing the french not even appearing in the game.
I remember people being mad, especially in France, that somehow a game about the WW1 Western Front had no fucking French in it. But still found the way to have american in it.
didn't they use the african american unit that was under the control of the french army because they volunteered before the US joined the war? or am I remembering wrong.
>In comparison, I was baffled with the campaign of Battlefield 1 that had its only american unit being a black one, and seeing the french not even appearing in the game.
Don't forget the German officer was a Black. I don't think there is even one example of such a thing.
>The Légion Étrangère, the Spahi, the Tirailleurs Sénégalais, the Zouaves, the Chasseurs d'Afrique, ... At the time, most of these units (with an exception for the Légion Étrangère, which was mixed) were entirely composed of black people and arabs, with white COs and NCOs.
Yeah and they all either fought in Africa or the Middle-East not on the Western Fucking Front. It's like how British WW1 movies have poos at the Somme when in reality pajeet units were limited exclusively to being used as cannon fodder against the Ottoman Empire in Arabia.
Wrong. The french use african regiments in the wester front because they needed body to throw at the germs.
Also the Turks would capture them and rape them to death
Anyone have the pasta of Anon's gf giving him a bell to ding every time a black person came on screen, cause she was tired of him ranting every time they watch a movie?
Lmao holy shit I forgot about that. Is it a form of autism?
>anytime I see morons I HAVE to say something!
For me, at this point it’s like seeing Shitbulls. I just avoid and move on, not seethe impotently
Early 20th century France already was a moron shithole
What are african colonies?
The production team probably did this for the same reason that the Dunkirk team did. If you want to be eligible for an Oscar, you need to meet certain requirements for “representation”. It’s gay but I think they’re just trying to do the bare minimum to hit the Oscar’s bar.
No it’s a requirement for Netfix (created by the great nephew of ~~*(Edward Bernays*~~) they’re even pushing it for the streetshitter bollywood titles
frogs should be reminded of the fact at every turn that they used moron colonials in the European theater. take a look at the moron-infested banlieues today and weep. the French don't deserve it, but they sure as hell brought it upon themselves
Going to sound lame but actual had to turn it off as it felt to much like things I saw especially the French tanks going in. Never had that happen before. Still feel pretty weird. I guess that's the first war film that actually looks a bit like war
I'm sure even then people wanted to stab whining pedo 'don;t talk about Ukraine if Russia is loosing" vatmorons like you in the face
>The Crimean War was the first service which the regiments saw outside Algeria.
One of my favorite books.
They remade it?
Man, nobody tells me fucking anything.
Can't blame you it's from Netflix.
It's pretty good tbqdesu. 1917 it ain't, and the 1930 movie it also ain't. But one of the finer WW1 movies out there it very certainly is.
Also probably the first movie to show a St. Chamond
1917 was shit though. It was a drama set around WW1, not a war film. All the excellent sets were just a back drop.
That shit isnt kino. Fuck that War-Guilt propaganda crap.
Go back to PrepHole.
>pic saved from the PrepHole thread
Maybe Reddit is more your speed?
Do you feel guilty for WWI? The fuck did you do?
Made sandwiches in June, 1914.
>Saved his own brother during the hight of the flandern battle
>Got awarded with a fucking Pour le Merite
We get it, you haven't read nor watched anything based on Remark or Jünger books.
Everyone says it isn't as good as 1917 but I thought 1917 wasn't that great.
1917 could have been a great film, but they shot themselves in the foot with the "one take" gimmick, which basically means that they couldn't add or remove scenes in editing. It's like publishing the first draft of a novel.
1917 for me at least was immersive and the one take gimmick made it feel unique. Dunkirk is in the same boat.
When will we be getting eastern front depression kino?
I've just watched it. It's been years since I've read the novel but I remember it being more intelligent and just overall more grounded than the movie. The movie adds stupid hollywood villains. Fuck it completely misses the point of the title.
Just watched it. Fantastic movie.
nothing special 6/10
I can't help but feel that all of his issues were caused by people going to war expecting it to be like a boy scouts adventure. If you went in knowing that it was gonna be rough but you'll pull through if you keep your head down and survive then you wouldn't have the problem of being so traumatized you can't do shit.
They went in expecting old line battles, cavalry charges, pride and honor like the good ol days. Not to sit amongst mud and corpses, constant artillery preventing peace of mind until you were told to charge over the top, only to die choking to death in chemical clouds or ripped apart in hails of bullets and shrapnel as you see your childhood friends all around dying as miserably as you.
Nobody was prepared for what industrialized war looked like.
>pride and honor like the good ol days
lmao what the fuck are you talking about, Solferino in 1859 was so brutal it led to the establishment of the red cross.
It's what they were taught and raised on, war was heavily romanticized prior to WWI, despite the increasingly grim realities.
There was some movie about Rudyard Kipling sending his kid off to WWI, pulling strings and shit to get him in even though his kid was blind as shit, then the kid dies and Rudyard Kipling is sad
Daniel Radcliffe was in it, it was okay.
War was incredibly romanticized in the 19th century
>it hurt me
The tears came from nowhere.
I actually went to see it in theaters with a couple of my buds, and every single one of us was shedding tears at that scene.
Should be required watching imo (I think it actually was added to the curriculum in UK schools)
>"It hurt me."
>meanwhile some neverserved NEET: "ummmm Ernst Junger said the war was BASED actually, only libtard cucks thing it was bad"
>Nobody was prepared for what industrialized war looked like.
The Boer War was a good indication of how bad it was going to get but seems everybody ignored it for some reason.
Same reason everyone ignored all the fieldworks and sieges in the latter half of the US Civil War.
>"That's different and won't happen in Europe because Reasons."
>the Boers? Those savages fought dirty, and had time to dig in! Why in Europe our calvary would be in Berlin within the month!
ngl but war never sounded gloruous. Is there any mention of shellshock/PTSD pre WW1? I find it hard to believe it would bother a person stabbing or cutting another person in half wouldn't lose sleep over it.
There’s an ancient Greek writer who talked about a soldier breaking down and going blind mid battle, can’t remember if it was permanent or temporary
WW1 was not a war where
>you keep your head down and survive
That's not real- and in many ways Russo-Ukraine is similar in that way. You can't just "keep your head down and survive" your survival is based on a combination of your training, inching along in experience, intelligence gathering, the consolidated training of your fellow squad mates, your weapon systems, the capabilities of the weapon systems you're operating- the macro happenings on the front that you're fighting, the intelligence of your betters, the quick thinking of yourself and those around you. You can still get turning into pink paste just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, where no amount of any of the shit I just mentioned will save you from embracing the void.
Don't romanticize battle, it's not like that.
Netflix doesn't produce PrepHoleino
>foreigners take over your country
>kidnap an entire generation of young men and force them to march into machine gun fire
>a hundred years later people say its woke and unrelistic to think those men participated at all
very bleak. being colonized must be so humilitating.
Just finished it. It wasn't a very cohesive story IMO. They really cut a lot of from he book and barely developed any of the characters at all, including the main two. In fact most characters were omitted outright. Sort of disappointing.
This movie had little to do with the book it’s based on.
Even the title makes zero fucking sense considering the end of the movie was essentially the END of the war.
The general sending soldiers to their certain death 15 MINUTES before the peace treaty was in effect served no purpose other than cheap drama
>look at this LE EBIL general!!
I don’t remember the book that well, but I’m pretty sure the word „socialdemocrat” doesn’t appear there even once, while in the movie it was repeated like 3-4 times
>look, bad general bad, social democracy good!!
The combat was done extremely well for a netflix film, I liked the cast, the music was a bit much with that repeating BZZZZRZR sound, but whatever.
The movie would have easily been an 7/10 in my book had it not been for the disastrously retarded last 20 minutes or so.
Here's a strange historical factoid.
>American commanders refused to call off their attacks to liberate French territory that the Germans already agreed to relinquish. “Commanders were told to keep fighting all the way to 11 a.m. Some did and some didn’t based on their personal appraisals of whether it was really worth it,” Casey says. “From an American point of view there was a mixed reaction, and the Germans were surprised that the Americans were still fighting so vigorously. They thought things would be quiet. The Allies, though, wanted to show the Germans that they were going to press until the final hour so they knew they were serious about the armistice terms.”
The last American died in the literal last minute before the war ended.
>The Germans kept watch on the American soldier who suddenly rose to his feet and charged toward the machine-gun nest with his fixed bayonet. Gunther’s comrades yelled at him to stop as did the bewildered Germans in broken English. Didn’t he know the war was minutes from its end? If he heard the pleas, Gunther ignored them. A five-round burst from a German gun struck Gunther in the left temple. He died instantly. His body collapsed in the mud. The time was 10:59 a.m.
You’re missing the context of that. The entente commanders want to militarily defeat Germany. Pershing even said that Germany would not accept the fact they lost militarily because the cease fire ended the war before Germany’s front was about to collapse.
>Pershing even said that Germany would not accept the fact they lost militarily
and he was right
if US marines were marching down Unter den Linden after burning down Frankfurt to the ground, there wouldn't be any WWI: Part 2 based around "stab in the back"
No there would have been a WWI sequel based around the fact that germany is exceptional and took half of euro last time while fighting on two fronts. We can do it this time by taking them on separately!
The root cause of the world wars was german imperialism. Not DA JOOS, not the hecking big meanie peace agreement, not the lack of nog enriched clay on the other side of the planet.
Same reason WW2 was in part and the current Ukraine war is caused by vatnik imperialism. Everything else is cope to justify the aggressor domination urges.
>t. raised by single mother and now pretends Hitler is his daddy
What German imperialism? Imperialism was French and English and what else, Germany's imperialism was too late, too litte. You could blame the German Empire of being so retarded not to learn from destructions of the American Civil War and the power of communication, clubs and the media. That was the true error, not some second hand Jingo and Chauvinists imperialism
during ww1 germany had colonies and brutally repressed them, just like france and the UK. also, you don't need colonies to be imperialist - the german empire going after alsace-lorraine certainly was imperialist.
if you tell me that the 3rd reich wasn't imperalist you're retarded
>the German empire going after German land certainly was Imperialist.
>The root cause of the world wars was german imperialism.
Correct, well said
>What German imperialism? Imperialism was French and English and what else, Germany's imperialism was too late, too litte.
Germany was the loser of the previous imperialist wars. It had not won a real comparable overseas empire/colonies to feed their industry and population and was sandwitched between other powers like France and Russia. WW1, like WW2 was about conquering a land empire for them.
Everything else was just excuses for that, even if they were somewhat reasonable like recovering Alsace/Lorraine. That's also why the Nazis talked about "lebensraum" and developed their Generalplan Ost to get a German reich up to the Urals and the caucasus with all the resources they needed, specially oil (the blood of modern tech)
It's kinda ironic that modern anti-semitism invented by Imperial Russia, eventually used to sow divide in the West, became the root of the self-serving ideology that classified slavs as sub humans only good to be serfs.
There is a sequel to All Quiet on the Western Front called the Road Back, and the first chapters of that are the protags expecting peace any day but still being hit by attacks.
>Even the title makes zero fucking sense considering the end of the movie was essentially the END of the war.
The title is super clever in the book. It ends with the main character just sitting on a chair or something and getting blown up by an artillery shell just minutes before the end of the war. The report back to high command is "all quiet on the western front" because someone getting blown to pieces is what qualifies for "all quiet" in ww1. That's the fucking point.
Of course the retarded movie writers had to add a stupid super villain at the end with a great last battle because everything has to be like marvel. Fuck.
>The title is super clever in the book.
The original title of the book is "Im Westen nichts Neues". A literal translation of the title is: "In the West Nothing New", or "In the West no changes"
>It ends with the main character just sitting on a chair or something and getting blown up by an artillery shell just minutes before the end of the war.
No, not minutes but a month before the war ends. Paul dies in October, 1918, the whole point is he doesn't see the end of the war in his sights.
>That's the fucking point.
If you change up the facts and use a retarded translation of the title then yeah, I guess I can see how that can be seen as "the fucking point".
>The original title of the book is "Im Westen nichts Neues". A literal translation of the title is: "In the West Nothing New", or "In the West no changes"
which has the exact same meaning as "all quiet on the western front", he's right.
I would argue the western front becoming quiet is a pretty significant change to the status quo of hundreds of millions of shells being fired you absolute fucking retard.
Same goes for the signing of the Armistice after 4 years of hellish warfare.
In fact that would mean a more fitting title would be: everything changed in the western front which by your retarded logic I guess should make the translation of the title: „all loud on the western front”
No you dummy, "All quiet" typically means "Nothing to report". It doesn't literally mean things are quiet, just that nothing important is happening
>phrases only have literal meaning
talk about being an absolute fucking retard, holy shit. both titles have the same meaning. because guess what, whoever translated the title from german to english tried to do a good job
Just because your mom tried to give me a nice, no teeth blowjob doesn’t mean she didn’t tug my foreskin with her chompers.
So the armistice of 1918 is nothing to report? The end of war to end all wars is nothing to report?
Just take the L and admit: the title doesn’t reflect what happened in the movie. There is plenty to report. The book is titled fine, the title doesn’t fit the movie at all.
It’s all a retarded „muh socialdemocracy good and mustache wearing authority figure bad” shitflix propaganda piece, with some nice action sprinkled in between
Seriously anon, calm your tits. Just stop.
The title not only has the exact same meaning in both languages, it's also very fitting for the book. It's a very personal, emotional account of the war. There's little politics in it, unlike the movie. It's just the subjective account of Paul Bäumer, a young man who lives through the great war. And if you had actually read it, you'd realize why the ending is perfectly described to him by "all quiet on the western front/nothing new in the west".
You absolute fucking retard, the book’s title is fine, but the movie makes it wrong on both it’s meanings.
I haven't even finished the movie, you ABSOLUTE fucking retard. I haven't even been talking about it, I thought you were only sperging about the title being misplaced and wrongly translated. Now continue acting like an absolute fucking retard and call me an absolute fucking retard, just like an absolute fucking retard would do
>hasn’t finished movie
>butthurt about being out of his element in a thread discussing said movie
I swear, your mother couldn’t have squeezed out a bigger retard if she tried.
Okay, you’re getting paid, thanks for clarifying, had me worried there
>despite armistice and peace, Paul Bäumers life ends the same way it could have in the four years prior, senseless and slaughtered
Even if one happens to be an absolute fucking retard like yourself, how the fuck do you not understand that the title is pretty fitting for the movie as well as the book
>I haven’t seen the movie, but here’s my hot take on it
That's literally how the movie ends, retard
The movie is called all quiet on the western front because that's the make of the book you moron, obviously they added a lot in this adaption but didn't change the title because it's an extremely famous book in Germany and changing it would be just what an absolutely retarded production company would do, run by absolute fucking retards like yourself
>They didn’t change the title, they simply changed everything that made the book have that title
anon, is netflix paying you for these posts? Cause if not then I pity you
Are you autistic? Does it upset you this much that the title is misleading because there's little to no quietness in the movie? Are you unable to grasp the story behind this movie and the book it was based on?
Yeah the title doesnt really fit the movie
Yeah they should have changed it to "great war mayhem: round one" or something
Who the fuck looked at this movie and thought "all quiet on the western front" would be a good name, holy shit. It's about war, war isn't fucking quiet holy shit how fucking dumb and retarded
you motherfuckers really have no clue why the book was called like that
It should have kept the German title "Im Westen nichts Neues".
Well zoomington zoom zoom its rather absurd to debate the established meaning of a 100 year old book title
Don’t tell me, tell the movie producers who introduced the changes that completely invalidate the title they picked for their movie.
War is... le BAD!
killing millions of people over a disagreement is heccin based
watched first hour.
was it made by europeans?
because it has the exact same european inability to make me care about people in the movie.
ZERO character development.
jumps around schizophrenically with no sense of time.
Made by sour Krauts
That's why the ending is them whining about how the Treaty of Versailles was so unfair
>WAR IS... LE BAD!!!
It is though. There are no winners in war, only losers
>WAR IS... LE BAD!!! (You)
>It is though. There are no winners in war, only losers
Fuck off political tourist go censor twatter, oh...wait Elon bought it out, kys
It's no Stalingrad (which I hold as the gold standard for German War movies) but it's a well made film. Has a bunch or retarded decisions though like that BWAAH BWAAH BWAUM sound which is trying way too hard to be inception. It's been years since I've read the book so I can't fairly judge it as an adaptation but as a standalone war movie its fairly average with nothing special to say but some cool things to show. 6-7/10, if they edited out the retarded sounds and released to theaters (its objectively the best way to view a movie, I will not hear otherwise) I'd add an extra point
My mistake I thought we were talking about the title in reference to the book, not the movie. Yeah no the movie has nothing to do with the book. Shame too, with some small changes it could've been good
It’s fine bro. The english title reflects both nothing to report and paul’s death on a quiet day. The movie doubly invalidates the english title.
I too think it’s a shame because I really enjoyed the movie for the most part
I've known for years that PrepHole is somehow even more retarded than PrepHole when it comes to movie interpretation, taste and critique, but I'm still floored whenever there's a thread like this that reminds me of that fact.
It's beautiful in it's way, though
I simply lurk and enjoy the retardation from the sidelines
just watched it, certified 100% suffering kino, good watch
I watched it last night. It was good. 8/10
My favourite anti-war war series/film, maybe ever
>ALLAAAAAAAARRRMMMM!! TAUCHEN! SCHNELLLLLLEEEEEEE
I'm the garden gnomeiest garden gnome on PrepHole and even I love Das Boot
>le germains were actually pretty nice and honorable and only le bad nazi polit officers were evil
Yeah and portrayed through submarine captain of all people, who were renowned for commiting war crimes and sinking civilians and never were held accountable for any of that shit
Fuck off moron with that garbage propaganda made so post war germans can pretend that it wasnt their grandparents who voted and simped for nazis
anti military pacifist propaganda spread during the weimar republic
shut the fuck up you stupid moron
>implying your anime-simping incel NEET ass wouldn't have been sent to a labor camp or Aktion T4'd during the reich
Hot damn this movie was trash. What an utter disrespect to the book and the superior movies before it. If you like mindless war action (shit-tier at) and gore I guess it's a fine movie. It bears all the symptoms of modern film-making where the writers have to change things for the sake of change and to put their stamp on it to feed their own egos
I found myself not wanting to watch any more of it because the book was much better
Totally agree. If they had called it something else and done a better job with storytelling, character development and continuity it’d be a good film. The cinematography was decent, props were good and historicity was okay except the terribly flamethrower scene and the entire train ceasefire bullshit. 3/10 they made a far better film in 1930.
>if you like mindless war action and gore
do you not?
what's with the pussies on PrepHole lately that don't like depictions of war, military equipment, and violence just for the sake of it? do you fags even like weapons?
It’s like taking celine’s journey to the end of the night and making a movie version that’s an upbeat feelgood rom com
It’s not about liking action or not, it’s about fidelity to the source material
You can appreciate tech made for warfare without liking the suffering it brings.
I'm afraid I innately enjoy violence because I am a man.
Lol, lmao even
as men have done for many generations
Those are bugs though
Just admit that you’ve never read All Quiet on the Western Front and end this retarded back and forth
Just admit you don't like weapons and just rolled in from reddit.
>if you think a movie should be thematically faithful to the book then you don’t like weapons
You are a braindead chink
Haven't posted any chinese media.
Imagine being this stupid. Imagine coming to PrepHole to seethe at cartoons.
>dodging the point because you have no answer
>while simping for bugs
Lol, lmao even
>war sucks but we were told it was fun
>being a soldier sucks
>WW1 was pointless
yada yada, I've heard it a billion times, I know what the book is about.
A good combat scene makes the rest of a bad movie irrelevant because at least something good came of it.
Keep screeching about asians. You don't even have the IQ to learn the proper slurs for each one, zoomer.
>but I don't like the people who made this cool media 🙁
>all this seething in defence of your chinky cartoons
Lel thanks for confirming you are a bug
>the child, utterly defeated, can do nothing but impotently spam zoomer buzzwords
You already admitted that you haven’t read the book, and you watch kids cartoons
It’s literally impossible for you to insult me, because I know that your opinion is trash
Keep seething into the void
you are a fucking insect, die in a fire
election tourist tears
Ching chong ping pong
>posts children's cartoons and Michael Bay movies
Unironically mentally retarded
whats this from?
Future War 199X, I think. Quite similar to Konpeki no Kantai.
I'm afraid I innately enjoy violence because I am a man.
You must be 18 years old in order to browse this website
You mean regular man?
>complaining about weebs
War porn is super boring imo.
>Missing Africa Addio
>Dirty Harry but not Magnum Force
>Missing Leon: The Professional
>Missing Lonesome Dove
>Missing Fury Road
>Missing Miami Vice '06
>Missing Bone Tomahawk
>Missing The Missing
Even after all of that, the fact that Master and Commander isn't under "more approved" is the greatest travesty on that list. It's both the best movie about naval combat ever made and the best movie about the Napoleonic Wars ever made as well as the best film about the age of sail and a front-runner for the greatest nautical film ever.
Captain Horatio Hornblower with Gregory Peck is better
Shit and barely even a documentary
Leon: The Professional
you are literally a paedophile
mad max are you literally 5 years old?
awful tv movie the only good actor was sean bean
you have shit taste in movies
based moron trying to bait with fake shit opinions
If its on netflix than its pozzed and rewrites history through a marxist lens like dahmer, so no.
we don't care about your dumb moron opinions
who’s „we”, you gay netflix shilll
I urge you to watch this
holy shit, such a fun movie, a classic kind of "western" in a different and cool setting
enjoying good WW1 media while zoomers jack off to an anti-war novel.
>All quiet on the western front
Anon do you really?
But at least you post WWI pics so that's at least something good
zoomers regularly find out about ancient source material through some recent adaptation.
In this case they're shitting on the adaptation because it's not a three hour monologue about how shitty war is.
>zoomers regularly find out about ancient source material through some recent adaptation.
You seem to have a better opinion of zoomers than me if you think they actually read the source material
( though that would fit with them thinking it's a 3hour monologue)
>In this case they're shitting on the adaptation because it's not a three hour monologue about how shitty war is.
Nah, it's mostly oldfags who read the books already ages ago like with other books where Netflix and Company raped the source material.
I'm 20years to late to be on the zoomer train but I will shit on the adaptation if it's unfaithful to the book.
"Artistic liberties" are okay on mediocre stuff, not on legit good shit like All Quiet on the wester front.
It's been a thing in tabletop gaming for a while. They don't usually read the actual source material, they discover the setting from a recent video game, then mostly watch youtube clickbait or read inaccurate wiki pages. Their knowledge often ranges from moderately knowledgeable to completely misinformed.
>not actually WW1 but pretty close
From the film alone, could anyone even name any (non-superficial) characteristics of the characters? I was perplexed at four-eyes's early death from a screenwriting perspective, and how we were expected to be moved despite spending NO time on him, and the film continues like that.
I think that there isn't all that much difference between watching dramatizations of historical violence that involved actual people and just browsing BestGore, that is unless you meaningfully use the violence for your narrative where it can serve a point. In isolation, using representations of actual historical suffering for titillation and excitement alone with little deeper meaning is shameful to me; I don't want to participate. I suppose the visceral horror can be the message itself (people forget), and I don't think their intention was for the action be "enjoyable," but the message that they're trying to convey that war is LE BAD ironically comes off as insincere to me when much (most?) of the film is gory action, and the rest of the narrative is neglected for it.
I don't see the point. Maybe I need to watch it differently.
they should have left out the negotiation parts and make it a more personal story like it was in the book, i was disappointed that they completely left out the training parts and visits to his family
One wonders why so many people that hate weapons are on the weapons board. are they from PrepHole?
We don't hate weapons, we hate you, you stupid gay Chinaman.
>I hate all war and weapons media
>I only love anti-war books
You hate weapons, feel free to leave at any time.
/pol/fags who want attention. On 4chan anything they say will disappear in an hour. On PrepHole, threads last for days, or sometimes more than a week. This place lends a temporary "permanency", plus bots don't come here so they can be assured that all responses are from real people.
Remark was a fag who changed his name to sound more french
>Erich Maria Remarque
I thought this was a book for pacifist teenagers
He was a fag but it doesn't mean an anti-war novel can't have cool moments. They Shall Not Grow Old is anti-war as well but you'd have to be the dumbest thing on two feet not to consider it kino, same with Stalingrad. Anti-war doesn't immediately make it lame (though you could be forgiven for making the association)
I wish that they made it on British v Germans, because it is genuinely kino when both sides come together there are serious deep feelings of mutual respect.
I didn't care for the ending. I liked the one from 1930. It showed him clinging to one last thread of boyhood innocence by reaching for the butterfly before being killed by a French sniper in what was supposed to be portrayed as a senseless war. This one was ok, but the ending could have been better.
I just watched it. I enjoyed it although I didn't like some of the changes they made from the source material. Paul should have died the way he did in the book, it loses a lot of its impact otherwise and sort of detracts from the whole message of the absolute wastefulness of the war. Le evil german general and the softy peacemaker politician were a little bit on the nose, to the point of being insufferable.
But I did enjoy it, overall. The bit where Paul was trapped in the crater with the French soldier was exceptionally uncomfortable, in a good way. Reading Kat's letter from his wife was sad.
Notwithstanding the exploitation of a literary title, the movie is excellent. The battle scenes are the best portrayals of ww1 trench combat that I've seen - more than enough to justify a watch. People complaining about the "marvelization" of German high command are ignoring that the displayed sentiment existed historically and that fighting continued on the front up to the date/time of the armistice. The film is incredibly graphic, and I understand if people are not into that, but I cannot think of another movie that captures trench warfare in such a realistic and unromantic manner.
1917 and Road to Calvary both do it better. So does 1930 All Quiet.
No. It's shit. Weapons and equipment are ok, and the sets outside of the trenches are OK, but that's it.
(Other than the retarted final charge scene, ie the premise of the whole movie) the cringe part was
>Abandoned railroad junction filled with shells and no one is even there
That was totally fucking mind blowingly retarded
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save name for the next time I post.