1917

[alanm]

Any one looking forward to seeing this movie. I think it's going to be ****ing good!!.

[candyman]

Finally got around to seeing this. One of the most overrated movies I've ever seen. SPR was 1000 x's better.

[Stryker]

It was a good movie since it was WWI and it was one continuous scene. Absolutely no way in hell does it even closely compare to "SPR" - you guys are crazy. I was turned off by "1917" after the ridiculous tripwire scene and then mostly by the downed German pilot scene. Had to shake my head at both of those. The rest of the movie was good and I did enjoy. Would not watch again.

[Easy 6]

Just finished this and yeah, totally overrated... damn glad I didn’t waste $10 plus popcorn and a drink on it

Not worthy of the hype at all, the “one continuous shot” gimmick couldn’t save it, or the idiot brother

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by CarlosCarson88

I never understood that.
how godam dumb do you have to be ,to not understand what war is?

I think you can understand how awful war is and not understand "holy shit, people were literally getting stuck in the mud, sinking to their knees quickly and then up over their mouths/noses to drown very slowly..."

I think it's possible to get an understanding of the staggering raw numbers, especially the way they happened later in the war as the spring offensive and final 100 days yielded a style of warfare very similar to WW2. And I think many can even understand the grinding savagery and sense of awe that accompanied the Somme.

But shit like Passchendaele - I think very few people truly understand that. Or the interminable grind of it. I mean we think of 'battles' when we talk about warfare and even something like the Normandy invasion was largely over in a few days.

But we're talking months of conditions that simply weren't experienced before or since. Prior to WWI armies simply lacked the chin to be able to take those kinds of hits without being overwhelmed. One day like what you saw at Verdun and armies folded up their tents and the war was over. And after WWI they realized the folly of that style of warfare.

But that interim period where armies could take serious body blows, deal out serious body blows and yet neither side had the ability to do anything about it. That was a unique period and deserves a little extra attention, IMO.

[Buehler445]

Well said DJLN.

Again, for those that haven’t listened to Blueprint for Armageddon podcasts in Dan Carlin’s hardcore history do it. Now. The manner in which he explains and describes WWI should be required listening for everyone involved.

[Easy 6]

This movie, while generally well shot... was a dud, if you want understated but picturesque British war movies watch Dunkirk

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

Well said DJLN.

Again, for those that haven’t listened to Blueprint for Armageddon podcasts in Dan Carlin’s hardcore history do it. Now. The manner in which he explains and describes WWI should be required listening for everyone involved.

Max Hastings has some really good stuff on it as well. Catastrophe 1914: Europe Goes to War is a really good one. Not always an easy read; can really get itself bogged down at times, but a ton of good information in there.

Inferno is a similar treatment for WWII and suffers the same problems. Really good road trip audio-book but hard to pound through on paper at times.

Where Carlin really shines is demonstrating the geopolitical aspects of it. Man, there just isn't a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy' in that story. Every nation involved had a reason to do what it did. Every nation involved had good reasons to NOT have done what they did.

WWI is a goldmine for analysis and often gets overlooked in favor of "There were a lot of stupid generals that ran guys into machine guns because they were stupid..." It's far more complicated than that. Much of it simply came down to the fact that we could kill people but we couldn't move well yet. So even an army that was losing and was looking to cede territory couldn't. And an army looking to take advantage of a routed opponent ALSO couldn't. The logistics involved at the time made that kind of prolonged stalemate almost inevitable.

And when people say "well why'd they just keep doing the same thing?" -- they didn't. All those offensives started differently. They were all based on different concepts and strategies. But they all fell victim to the same realities on the ground.

There were few truly stupid or apathetic leaders involved in this thing - there just wasn't a hell of a lot they could do. Killing technology was FAR beyond infrastructure and mobility. Siege tactics were far better understood and capable of being implemented than the commando style tactics we see utilized today.

I don't think any treatment of WWI is unnecessary - few people have near the understanding of it that they should.

[DJ's left nut]

To build on that a little - I read a book awhile ago (can't recall the name) that made a fascinating point regarding WWI and WWII.

The idea of a 'World War' is largely a historical construct. First off, WWI wasn't. For the vast majority of the war, most nations had little to do with it. WWII became something closer to the idea of a truly global war, but it wasn't viewed that way in real time.

The French at the time didn't see themselves as combatants in a world war - they saw themselves as a nation that fought Germany, lost and then observed. Britain saw themselves as fighting Germany. The Russians to this day don't see it as a World War - they see themselves as having fought the Patriotic War to defeat the Nazis. The Japanese were at war with America.

For the most part it's been historians who have taken a series of conflicts between nations and combined them into a whole. And where that idea becomes REALLY fascinating is 200 years from now or longer. What will WWI and WWII be referred to as?

The Peloponnesian War, for instance, took about 25 years. It was a series of conflicts among varied states on various fields. Even more extreme is the Crusades - dozens of conflicts over 200 years that history refers to largely as 'the crusades'.

A couple of centuries from now, will WWI and WWII be seen as distinct entities? SHOULD they be? Even now I would listen to an argument that WWII was simply a continuation of WWI. But decades/centuries from now can't you see an argument that they will be lumped into a single banner along the lines of the "Germanic Wars" or something along those lines?

[Buehler445]

Thanks DJLN. I’ll check out those books. I get a lot of seat time, albeit not on road trips and the wife got a subscription to Audible this year which was fairly life changing.

[eDave]

Is this piece of shit streaming yet?

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by eDave

Is this piece of shit streaming yet?

Should be. It’s out on blu ray now.

Tried to order it, but Amazon can’t deliver it for a month. I guess I’ll have to venture out to Best Buy to grab one.

[TinyEvel]

Originally Posted by eDave

Is this piece of shit streaming yet?

Yes but you have to PURCHASE it for 19.99. Vudu.

I did.

Was disappointed with the ending. did appreciate the cinematography but with the story-- I think the one shot thing prevented the ability to build suspense.

Even just that one sniper scene in the rain in SPR, that one scene had more suspense and thrill than this entire film IMO.

Amazing scenery and set and, like I said, the journey, but when it was over I just was like "really?"

A long walk for a little drink.

[Frazod]

Picked up the blu ray at the Best Buy drive-through today. That was.... different.

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by Frazod

Picked up the blu ray at the Best Buy drive-through today. That was.... different.

And by that you mean, disappointing?

[eDave]

Watched Hacksaw Ridge last night. Now THAT is a splendid movie.