Mistakes In Movies Not Noticed (1 Viewer)

[Spitfrnd]

The 'original' plan was British, but Ike did modify it. In effect the operation was launched to late and with to little secrecy, the Germans having the entire allied plans in their hands before most of the operation was instigated.

I beg to differ with your historical information here but in any event for all the reasons noted, the point here is not that the US didn't make its share of mistakes in the war but rather that the account of the British command and planning mistakes depicted in ABTF was a fair representation of reality. Interestingly on the anti British note, the film goes to great lengths to show the extreme reservations of some of the serior British staff involved but the fact remains is that the plan was flawed and poorly implemented under largely British control. Saying that is not anti-British, any more than saying Pearl Harbor could have been avoided with better US military judgement is anti-American.

 

[damian]

Ian Knight told me that in Zulu Dawn, teh invasion is filemd the wrong way round. They crossed from the Zululand bank to the Natal side for purposes of filming instead of from the Natal side to the Zululand side. It is a bit liek when Ted danson made that movie about the Loch Ness monster. Apparently teh director did not chose to film at Loch Ness as he felt it did not look enough like Loch Ness was supposed to look. Os go and figure.
Regards
Damian

 

[damian]

A corollary to Andy's point, for me, is using the wrong stock footage. Look at "Midway", for example, using footage of SB2Us and SB2Cs for SBDs, and using the same stock footage of an Essex-class carrier for all of the American carriers, plus, in one shot, one of the Japanese carriers (either Hiryu or Soryu, I think it was). In fact, the best footage that movie had of the Japanese was re-used footage from Tora! Tora! Tora!

The History Channel has the same problem, and not just with aircraft. Watch closely, and you'll see footage used for the wrong time period, nationality, or context. They should have no excuse.

Prost!
Bradley

Long live "The World at War"
Now that was a classic

 

[damian]

Now getting back to the topic at hand.

I nominate THE BOUNTY (1984) with Anthony Hopkins and Mel Gibson.

The film is set in 1787 yet one of the crew members had a typical 1980's haircut... styled and spikey with blonde streaks.

It's kind of like movies made in the 1970's about WWII where the actors have big muttonchop sideburns and long shoulder length hair.

I seem to remeber that in that particular version they were at great pains to be historically accurate whne it came to the costume (or lack thereof)of young Pelyponesian women of the period 1750-1800.

 

[OzDigger]

I beg to differ with your historical information here but in any event for all the reasons noted, the point here is not that the US didn't make its share of mistakes in the war but rather that the account of the British command and planning mistakes depicted in ABTF was a fair representation of reality. Interestingly on the anti British note, the film goes to great lengths to show the extreme reservations of some of the serior British staff involved but the fact remains is that the plan was flawed and poorly implemented under largely British control. Saying that is not anti-British, any more than saying Pearl Harbor could have been avoided with better US military judgement is anti-American.

What historical information do you differ with?

Operation Market-Garden was a combined operation whereas Pearl Harbor was entirely an American affair, provided of course that you discount the bs that Churchill KNEW Pearl Harbor would be attacked. Consequently you can't compare the two.

Another important consideration is that ABTF was financed by Americans and therefore less likely to focus on errors the Americans made in Market-Garden. For example the 82nd Airborne was supposed to take Njimegen Bridge on the first day.

There have been a number of reasons touted for the failure of Market-Garden but the most important factor has been largely overlooked. Which of course is the fact that the German forces were much stronger and more determined than expected. The other excuses such as the narrow roads, too distant drop zones, poor radio reception etc etc are incidental to the fact that the Germans were tougher than expected.

The main reason for the increased opposition was the delay in the execution of Market-Garden which was largely the fault of Eisenhower. This fact makes the other reasons incidental, at least to people with a more objective view of the matter.

 

[theBaron]

Long live "The World at War"
Now that was a classic

Ah, yes, very much so! I remember seeing it back in the 70s. A great documentary series! And wasn't it Sir Larry who narrated? You're right, a classic.

Same goes for "Victory at Sea", too.

Prost!
Bradley

 

[Spitfrnd]

What historical information do you differ with?

Operation Market-Garden was a combined operation whereas Pearl Harbor was entirely an American affair, provided of course that you discount the bs that Churchill KNEW Pearl Harbor would be attacked. Consequently you can't compare the two.

Sigh, you missed the point entirely, of course PH was American with American mistakes and recognizing those on film or otherwise is not any more anti-American that recognizing the British mistakes in OMG.

Another important consideration is that ABTF was financed by Americans and therefore less likely to focus on errors the Americans made in Market-Garden. For example the 82nd Airborne was supposed to take Njimegen Bridge on the first day.

Yes they were, which maybe they could have if they had not been allocated such a poor drop zone by the British plan.

There have been a number of reasons touted for the failure of Market-Garden but the most important factor has been largely overlooked. Which of course is the fact that the German forces were much stronger and more determined than expected. The other excuses such as the narrow roads, too distant drop zones, poor radio reception etc etc are incidental to the fact that the Germans were tougher than expected.

I have not read any objective view that would call those other so called "excuses" incidental. Fact is though Monty and his planners were warned that the opposition was likely to be greater than THEY expected but we ignored, right through the last days before the operation.

The main reason for the increased opposition was the delay in the execution of Market-Garden which was largely the fault of Eisenhower. This fact makes the other reasons incidental, at least to people with a more objective view of the matter.

Now that is revisionist history and again not supported by the other points you have acknowledged. I am not sure how many times this need be said but OMG was an operation under the primary planning and control of Monty and his selected commanders, a number of whom were very unhappy about the idea from the onset. The focus of ABTF was not incorrect and certainly not anti-British unless you take the absurd view that all plans in war are brilliant and all war goes according to plan. Please refer again to my first point. I think I have said all I can and certainly more than the rest of the forum cares to hear about this now. If you like, say ABTF was an American plot to undermine American confidence in British tea, matters no longer to me.

 

[OzDigger]

Sigh, you missed the point entirely, of course PH was American with American mistakes and recognizing those on film or otherwise is not any more anti-American that recognizing the British mistakes in OMG.

You missed my point entirely, but I'm not surprised.

Yes they were, which maybe they could have if they had not been allocated such a poor drop zone by the British plan.

I know that is how it's portrayed in the movie. However in actual fact Montgomery did not micro manage the operation. It was up to the individual commanders to choose drop-zones.

I have not read any objective view that would call those other so called "excuses" incidental. Fact is though Monty and his planners were warned that the opposition was likely to be greater than THEY expected but we ignored, right through the last days before the operation.

I suggest that you do seek out some objective information on this subject rather than pay undue attention to a Hollywood epic more concerned with making money rather than accurately portraying historical events. The MAIN cause of the failure was the delay of Operation Market Garden, I really don't know how I can make that any simpler.

Most reports from the Dutch underground said there were minimal German forces when in fact they were substantial. Further-more the British did not entirely trust the Dutch underground because of previous betrayals. None of this is mentioned in 'the movie'.

Now that is revisionist history and again not supported by the other points you have acknowledged. I am not sure how many times this need be said but OMG was an operation under the primary planning and control of Monty and his selected commanders, a number of whom were very unhappy about the idea from the onset. The focus of ABTF was not incorrect and certainly not anti-British unless you take the absurd view that all plans in war are brilliant and all war goes according to plan. Please refer again to my first point. I think I have said all I can and certainly more than the rest of the forum cares to hear about this now. If you like, say ABTF was an American plot to undermine American confidence in British tea, matters no longer to me.

It's amusing that some people bring up the revisionist tag when their long held views are challenged. Maybe you just can't handle the truth.

Are we through yet

 

[binder001]

Are we through yet

Personally, I see no sense in continuing. Your view differes with my readings, so I don't think we're going to reach an agreement point. I am dropping out of this thread.

Gary

 

[OzDigger]

Personally, I see no sense in continuing. Your view differes with my readings, so I don't think we're going to reach an agreement point. I am dropping out of this thread.

Gary

That's ok Gary, people tend to read and believe what they want to. Heck, there's still plenty of people that believe the Sherman was the best tank in WW2.

 

[Warrior]

"Heck, there's still plenty of people that believe the Sherman was the best tank in WW2."

Wait; you mean it wasn't...............lol...............

 

[1879fanatic]

It was.

 

[jazzeum]

Can we please lower the rhetoric on this one please.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Isn't it amazing how many sites they have that track this stuff. Here's one I just happened to notice that among other things rates movies in terms of the number of thier mistakes.
http://www.moviemistakes.com/top.php
Their current top 10 list is as follows:
1 Apocalypse Now: 396
2 The Shining: 299
3 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: 285
4 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: 284
5 Star Wars: 261
6 Scary Movie 3: 257
7 Superman IV: The Quest for Peace 255
8 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring 255
9 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers 254
10 The Wizard of Oz: 253

I am sure we would all have different candidates but it does make interesting reading.

I wonder if rhetoric is actually too generous a description for some of the discourse here; seems more like an excess of sophistry with a breakdown in commonality of understanding between the orator or rhetor and his/her audience.

 

[theBaron]

When you think about it, the Internet is a colossal waste of time...


Prost!
Bradley

 

[damian]

Well A Bridge Too Far did not seem to be on the list.
Maybe we should submit an entry on it

 

[Spitfrnd]

When you think about it, the Internet is a colossal waste of time...

Prost!
Bradley

Well to me it is a tool like many others than can be useful or not depending on how it is used. For example, how else would we be having these exchanges, uh unless that was your point.

 

[theBaron]

Well, it was the movie mistake website that prompted me to say it, but yes, precisely

Prost!
Bradley

 

[damian]

I suppose in the old days we would all be down in the local bar on a Saturday night, now at least we are at home. Pass me the peanuts will you.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I suppose in the old days we would all be down in the local bar on a Saturday night, now at least we are at home. Pass me the peanuts will you.

Funny, that's what my wife says too. Anyways, consider them passed mate (or perhaps to avoid inadvertent national insult we should say pass the pork pies, sausage rolls and chips.)