Stop it, already, you with your facts! All they do is ruin a good script. ~Louis B. MayerExcept that, in the scenes in question, they weren't very well supplied at all.
j/k
Stop it, already, you with your facts! All they do is ruin a good script. ~Louis B. MayerExcept that, in the scenes in question, they weren't very well supplied at all.
Mayer's right; that would be a really boring movie. :lol:To the extent that Pvt. Ryan/Sgt. Niland was "saved", it was by an Army Chaplain filling out paperwork, not by Tom Hanks and a band of misfits charging through the hedgerows.
I'm a great fan of war movies but the total ignoring of logic and time-sequence makes me dislike SPR.
The idea of a lone infantry squad going out to find one particular 101st guy, when the Division was scattered for miles in all directions after the night drop, and then finding him, is just preposterous. It just couldn't/wouldn't/didn't happen that way.
Spielberg is the quintessential Hollywood dream merchant. If you have problems with realism and accuracy in his films (or anything out of Hollywood) you would be better served by viewing documentaries. C'est la vie.
Yeah but President Lincoln posted almost the same thing on Facebook, so it makes Mayer's statement believable.BTW folks Mayer never actually made the statement I posted above. j/k = joke
You obviously haven't seen Bosom Buddies.the wife and I aren't Tom Hank's fans.
Agreed. It certainly feels like he is creating films on autopilot. Spielberg ruined War Horse with all the schmaltz.No, I think the problem is his frequent lack of nuance, his bombastic style and his over reliance on shmaltz. Not all Hollywood (and since the 1950's, what has that really meant?) rely on these ingredients.
I might just be stirring up a little debate here:
Saving Private Ryan
Now, don't get me wrong, I think it's a great film. But i just feel that its reputation is a little too over the top.
I can't fault the opening sequences but after that it all gets a bit too 'action movie'. The final battle sequences are just too much for me. I recall a review from a British veteran of the fighting in Normandy. After watching the film he said something along the lines of 'The thing about street fighting is that you never go into the street.' He also commented on the overuse of ammunition.
And there's the 'let's use TNT filled socks to disable the tank' scene - just run out into the street and stick these things to a tank. What about trying the bazooka from an upstairs window?
I could go on, but i would be interested to know other people's thoughts.
You obviously haven't seen Bosom Buddies.
I remember when I first saw the film: I was thoroughly enjoying it until the scene where Hanks meets Ted Danson (supposedly in Carentan?). They discuss how slow the battle for Normandy is going due to 'Monty being held up at Caen'.
It's a couple of days after D-Day, they are cut off and fighting for their lives, they don't know where the rest of their unit is or when relief is going to come. And yet they know all about the situation 40 or so miles away - when they don't know what's happening in the next field.
It struck me that line was thrown in as a deliberate dig against the British (any film that has Stephen Ambrose listed as an advisor/consultant runs the risk of that!).
The problem with Spielberg is that he sees himself as the next Walt Disney.
The problem with Spielberg is they still let him make films.
As for the overuse of ammo it seems that it's always been the American way of fighting considering that US forces tended to be better supplied.