19/09/2014 at 09:17 #8788
Featuring the Tiger from the Bovington Tank Museum!
I for one am not fussed how many historical errors it has in, I am keen to see it not only for the TANKness of it all, but also to see the relationship between the crew.
All the best films are about the people and their story, and this has potential for that.
Plus TANKS.19/09/2014 at 09:20 #8789SparkerParticipant
Oh yes – looking forward to this immensely! All the long haired Brigadier knows so far is that she’s being taken out to ‘the new Brad Pitt movie’ – I’m sure all will be well….
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:902/04/2015 at 09:11 #2119902/04/2015 at 18:05 #21229
I got it on DVD and watched in a few weeks ago, and if you’re disappointed, I suspect it’s because it is a crap film.
Granted that I have a preference for films with some elements of plot and character development, rather than CGI rolling explosions and splatter effects, I was hoping that they might explore the community feeling of a tank crew. Instead we have to have cliched Hollywood tough-guy types, and the FNG undergoing a supposed “rite of passage” by being bullied into committing a war crime. What tosh. That’s the Japanese Army in 1937, not the US Army in 1945. And if you want to create an image of gutsy Yanks using their courage and resourcefulness to overcome massive odds against them, the US Army in NWE in 1944-45 really isn’t the right setting for you, outside the Battle of the Bulge. But Brad Pitt’s platoon appeared to lead an isolated gypsy existence, more or less completely detached from the rest of the US Army. Which might partially explain why none of them were apparently capable of giving their faces a quick wipe. Are we supposed to think that this is grittily realistic because the soldiers have dirty faces?
“They Were Not Divided” was made in 1950, and is in black and white, but it is a far better film than “Fury”. We get to know the characters well enough that we actually do care when they get killed. And it has just as many real Tigers in it, as well as Shermans using tactics more sophisticated than a massed charge.
All the best,
John.02/04/2015 at 18:23 #21230sheepmanParticipant
I watched it a couple of weeks ago. The first half was ok, not brill but ok, then it went all Hollywood heroish. The Tiger tank, after knocking out one Sherman on the road proceeded to come out of good cover to get closer to the Shermans (why?) then everyone charged each other firing at the same time (no chance of hitting while on the move). Never mind, put that to one side.
Brad Pitts one remaining Sherman, after imobilising itself at the crossroad it had to defend then took on a battalion of panzer grenadiers copiously supplied with crates of panzerfaust. The said grenadiers appeared to form column and advance towards the forward facing hull mounted machine gun many suffering a grizzly death in the process, not one of the Germans thought to pin Brad down while he was outside the tank, pick up one of the panzerfausts, edge round the rear of the immobilised tank and blow the **** out of it. Simples! Brad the lad held the enemy off for eight hours like this.
I know Audie Murphy did a similar thing both in real life and as portrayed in his film ‘To Hell and Back’ but I think even he would balk at Brads exploits.
Sorry, had to get this off my chest, I was looking forward to this film and to say I was disapointed is as you can see an understatement. The tanks looked good though.
'The higher up the tree the monkey goes, the more of it's arse you can see'.
To bosses everywhere!
http://thenorthumbrianwargamer.blogspot.co.uk/02/04/2015 at 18:25 #21231
But Brad Pitt’s platoon appeared to lead an isolated gypsy existence, more or less completely detached from the rest of the US Army. Which might partially explain why none of them were apparently capable of giving their faces a quick wipe..
The ‘Kelly’s Heroes syndrome’…
Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.02/04/2015 at 22:57 #21255CerdicParticipant
I haven’t seen Fury, but at least Kelly’s Heroes had a plot that explained their isolation from the rest of the army!03/04/2015 at 01:25 #21262
I haven’t seen Fury, but at least Kelly’s Heroes had a plot that explained their isolation from the rest of the army!
…and the free lances in “Kelly’s Heroes” gave a better idea of a combined arms team — armoured infantry, armour, Mulligan’s mortars and a bridging column — than anything in “Fury”. And they seemed to manage to wash their faces, too.
All the best,
John.03/04/2015 at 08:34 #21277
It’s a film produced for the entertainment of the masses chaps, not a documentary to satisfy wargaming rivet counters like us. Everything that comes out of the major studios for general release is. Their bottom line is profit, not accuracy.
The premise of Fury is a small bunch of Americans valiantly holding their own against the might of the Nazis and prevailing, not an illustration of US compined arms ops in Normandy in 1944. If Wittman had come rolling down the road in the first five minutes and blasted the shit out of the Shermans there’d have been no film and a gaggle of dissatisfied punters. Likewise, if the American Luftwaffe had appeared over the treetops in P47s and wreaked havoc it wouldn’t work too well – though it might be a far more likely scenario
Do you reckon real detectives complain about the gaping plot holes in Se7en?
Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.03/04/2015 at 09:25 #2128103/04/2015 at 13:16 #21287irishserbParticipant
I saw it yesterday, and found it to be far better than expected. I thought the story was week and disjointed, and pretty much hated the characters. Despite that, I was entertained. It was sort of like a game with great terrain and figs, but crappy bad rules, I guess.04/04/2015 at 13:40 #21363CerdicParticipant
Actually I expect real detectives complain about film and TV detectives all the time!
I’m married to a teacher, and know that real teachers pick massive holes in film and TV teachers. Within the first five minutes I always hear ” you’re not allowed to do that, she would have been sacked by now” or “the kids would be running riot by now” and so on!04/04/2015 at 16:27 #21382McLaddieParticipant
Despite that, I was entertained. It was sort of like a game with great terrain and figs, but crappy bad rules, I guess.
Interesting comparison. I found it hard to ‘get into it’, because the incongruities kept popping me out of the story, much like bad game rules do. Lots of ‘flavor’, but no meat. The Canadian War Museum has a Sherman sitting next to a Tiger and Panther tank. I was surprised to see that the Sherman was as big or taller than the other two. It was impressive to see those machines rolling in the film.
Fury is a classic example of ‘Hollywood’ history along the lines of “The Patriot.” Subtlety and intelligence is not something Hollywood values, given most films that are produced. Terrific sets and costumes. Absolutely stupid history. No experienced officer would have attacked the immobilized Sherman head-on and the Americans would have had AT LEAST some infantry/cooks and clerks to protect the tanks’ flanks and give them a fighting chance. Dozens of available panzerfausts and the Germans destroy the tank with grenades. Go figure. But no, stupid tactics are so much more dramatic, more ‘entertaining’. Earlier posters have pointed out other weak points. Would actual tactics, real combat relationships and such have really lacked entertainment value?
Audie Murphy’s heroism involved accurate artillery fire and smoke. Much different than Fury’s final scenes…28/08/2016 at 13:20 #47562greg954Participant
I too found it to be weak for all the above reasons.
However, I was very excited to see the tanks. That part, no matter how historically incorrect was good. Probably because I saw Fury and Tiger 131 at Bovy back in June at the tankfest. Seeing the tanks drive past you was impressive and to see how much goes into them to keep them running. Even though the panzer 4 and Fury broke down.
Next year, they are thinking about putting on a show with all the Tigers they have and more ww2 German armour.23/09/2016 at 15:28 #49170Jemima FawrParticipant
I Thought it was bloody awful for a whole raft of reasons.
That said, I think they did a remarkable job in taking actual, real tanks and making them look like CGI tanks in the dire Tiger scene…
My wargames blog: http://www.jemimafawr.co.uk/23/09/2016 at 15:46 #49172ThuseldParticipant
I have to admit, I strangely enjoy this film. I love the relationships between the crewmen. I love how dirty it is.
On the other hand, the entire final act with the crossroads infuriates me to the point that I doubt I will watch it more than the couple of times I have seen it.26/09/2016 at 10:38 #49302Angel BarracksModerator26/09/2016 at 17:11 #49327PatGParticipant
Watched it again last night.
Did they really use tracers so frequently?
Let’s just say an American sports network added digital “tracers” to ice hockey pucks to make the game more interesting.
It was a fun movie in the same vein as Inglorious Basterds and 300 with about the same level of historical accuracy.26/09/2016 at 17:34 #49329
Watched it again last night. Did they really use tracers so frequently?
Some AT shells had tracer bases. Typical tank MG load was about every sixth round was tracer.
There is a newsreel film of a night engagement in the Western Desert and the amount of tracer zipping around is remarkable. And scary. I think it was in the old TV series ‘The World at War.
Browning ammo, the green tipped, copper jacketed rounds are tracer. So every fifth round.
Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.26/09/2016 at 17:45 #49331Mike HeaddenParticipant
By comparison Wardaddy and the crew of “Fury” are wusses 🙂
“This Citation was awarded to Audie Murphy for “Conspicuous Gallantry and Intrepidity Involving Risk of Life Above and Beyond the Call of Duty In Action With the Enemy”, 26 January 1945. The citation reads:
2d Lt. Murphy commanded Company B, which was attacked by 6 tanks and waves of infantry. 2d Lt. Murphy ordered his men to withdraw to prepared positions in a woods, while he remained forward at his command post and continued to give fire directions to the artillery by telephone. Behind him, to his right, 1 of our tank destroyers received a direct hit and began to burn. Its crew withdrew to the woods. 2d Lt. Murphy continued to direct artillery fire which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry. With the enemy tanks abreast of his position, 2d Lt. Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer, which was in danger of blowing up at any moment, and employed its .50 caliber machine gun against the enemy. He was alone and exposed to German fire from 3 sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. The enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back. For an hour the Germans tried every available weapon to eliminate 2d Lt. Murphy, but he continued to hold his position and wiped out a squad which was trying to creep up unnoticed on his right flank. Germans reached as close as 10 yards, only to be mowed down by his fire. He received a leg wound, but ignored it and continued the single-handed fight until his ammunition was exhausted. He then made his way to his company, refused medical attention, and organized the company in a counterattack which forced the Germans to withdraw. His directing of artillery fire wiped out many of the enemy; he killed or wounded about 50. 2d Lt. Murphy’s indomitable courage and his refusal to give an inch of ground saved his company from possible encirclement and destruction, and enabled it to hold the woods which had been the enemy’s objective.”
Who’d believe that as the climax of a film?
There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data26/09/2016 at 17:52 #49332
The most decorated American serviceman in WWII, and he starred as himself in his own biopic – To Hell and Back 😉26/09/2016 at 19:54 #49344
One of the reasons I prefer historical gaming — fantasy and SF have to be believable.
All the best,
John.13/01/2018 at 05:23 #81733Harry FavershamBlocked
Tank conks out at a vital crossroads, so vital they’re the only one’s there. SS Battalion, every third man carrying a Panzerfaust over his shoulder, comes marching over the hill. They then proceed to chuck their Panzerfausts down and charge the solitary tank like Zulus at Rorke’s Drift… when there’s only half a dozen left one of the brighter ubermensh goes back and gets one. Titt pops out of the tank’s lid to finish ’em off, gets shot three times in the chest with a sniper’s rifle. Pops back inside, with enough breath left, to give the obligatory last surviving rookie ‘Wardaddy’s’ (yep, that’s Titt’s name in this epic) version of the Gettysburg Address… absolute drivel.
"Wot did you do in the war Grandad?"
"I was with Harry... At The Bridge!"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.