Most Common Mistakes in World War II Movies (1 Viewer)

[BigDenny]

Let's start off with a few basic ones:

1. Most German and U.S. Armored vehicles are incorrect for the era, repainted M60 Patton Tanks standing in for Panzers, Tigers, and Shermans in many older films such as Patton, Battle of the Bulge, etc.

2. German soldiers are almost always seen in grey Wehrmacht 1941 Parade uniforms. Rarely are even specialized units such as the Waffen SS seen in the mismatched camouflage seen commonly after D-Day. (The Big Red One, the Longest Day, Where Eagles Dare, etc)

3. The good guys apparently are much better trained and equipped than their enemies; there is usually a 10:1 kill ratio in their favor.

4. Weapons, especially handguns, are far more powerful and accurate than in real life. The worst offender is obviously Windtalkers.

5. German units rarely follow any sort of military tactics, one of the most egregious examples in an otherwise great movie is found in Saving Private Ryan, when the Germans fail to destroy the belltower before they move into town, this was pretty much standard to dispel any potential snipers.

6. With most units, especially airborne, there's an overabundance of Thompsons. For the German side, as seen in Dirty Dozen, there are far too many MP40s.

 

[uksubs]

Let's start off with a few basic ones:

1. Most German and U.S. Armored vehicles are incorrect for the era, repainted M60 Patton Tanks standing in for Panzers, Tigers, and Shermans in many older films such as Patton, Battle of the Bulge, etc.

2. German soldiers are almost always seen in grey Wehrmacht 1941 Parade uniforms. Rarely are even specialized units such as the Waffen SS seen in the mismatched camouflage seen commonly after D-Day. (The Big Red One, the Longest Day, Where Eagles Dare, etc)

3. The good guys apparently are much better trained and equipped than their enemies; there is usually a 10:1 kill ratio in their favor.

4. Weapons, especially handguns, are far more powerful and accurate than in real life. The worst offender is obviously Windtalkers.

5. German units rarely follow any sort of military tactics, one of the most egregious examples in an otherwise great movie is found in Saving Private Ryan, when the Germans fail to destroy the belltower before they move into town, this was pretty much standard to dispel any potential snipers.

6. With most units, especially airborne, there's an overabundance of Thompsons. For the German side, as seen in Dirty Dozen, there are far too many MP40s.

If you want a bad war film just look at the Battle of the Bulge :wink2:

 

[OldDragon]

Heavy artillery and bomb explosions going off like grenades or light mortars. No explosions that I have seen in any war movie matches the kind of heavy explosions captured on historic footages.

OD

 

[Scott]

Women's clothing, lingerie, and hair styles usually look like the year the movie was shot and not 1940-45. See Kelly's Heroes, Dirty Dozen, The Longest Day and, Battle of Britain.









I can forgive a large item like a tank or aircraft. I suspect the makeup and wardrobe dept. were concerned about the contemporary audiences not thinking their parents ever looked good.

Many films are far worse. The above are still GOOD movies!

 

[Rob]

Kellys heroes is pure rubbish, Where Eagles dare is entertaining but not a War film as such and I must agree with Big Denny in that the kill ratio is often absurd. Where Eagles is a classic example. From the moment Clint Eastwood takes on all those Germans in the Castle passages until they take off for Britain the body count is truly ludicrous . The way the group just kill all Germans in their path (and from the Bus they flee in ) is laughable. The Germans miss hitting a Bus (!!) but the girl with the MP40 never misses a Jerry from the back window of a moving vehicle.:rolleyes2: Just before they take off its almost as if someone had said ' Richard Burton hasn't killed enough Germans so lets get him to shoot up some more before he jumps on the plane', a War film it really isn't, but somehow still highly enjoyable and a film I grew up watching every Christmas so I do like it a lot.

Neil and many others have said Battle of The Bulge is a bad film and in some ways it is because it is indeed riddled with mistakes and absurdities. (The Bulge Tank battle in the Desert is hilarious^&grin) but at least I can respect that they TRIED to make a proper War film that (however loosely) was based on what happened and tried to portray events such as the German advance and massacre at Malmedy etc, its just that they failed badly.

Another thing that can ruin a good War film is the dialogue. If you want an example of terribly hackneyed dialogue check out ' Battleground' , just awful.

But as BD says one of the main complaints is what they use for German Tanks, at least SPR made an effort with their Tiger.

 

[Jack]

View attachment 96410


Susannah York could be forgiven for anything.

 

[Rob]

View attachment 96410


Susannah York could be forgiven for anything.

Always said you are a wise man Jack:wink2:

Rob

 

[BigDenny]

Personally I couldn't stand Battle of the Bulge, even when I saw it back when I was a kid I still knew that it was nowhere near accurate. The one redeeming feature was the Waffen SS tank commander's character but even that couldn't redeem a terrible movie. For a good Bulge movie, watch Saints & Soldiers or the Bastogne episodes of Band of Brothers.

Neil and many others have said Battle of The Bulge is a bad film and in some ways it is because it is indeed riddled with mistakes and absurdities. (The Bulge Tank battle in the Desert is hilarious^&grin) but at least I can respect that they TRIED to make a proper War film that (however loosely) was based on what happened and tried to portray events such as the German advance and massacre at Malmedy etc, its just that they failed badly.

Another thing that can ruin a good War film is the dialogue. If you want an example of terribly hackneyed dialogue check out ' Battleground' , just awful.

But as BD says one of the main complaints is what they use for German Tanks, at least SPR made an effort with their Tiger.

 

[lancer]

Personally I couldn't stand Battle of the Bulge, even when I saw it back when I was a kid I still knew that it was nowhere near accurate. The one redeeming feature was the Waffen SS tank commander's character but even that couldn't redeem a terrible movie. For a good Bulge movie, watch Saints & Soldiers or the Bastogne episodes of Band of Brothers.

I agree about the Fonda BoB movie. Just terrible. Thank goodness Fonda was on our side or we would have lost the war.:rolleyes2: An interesting POV human interest story on the BoB is a movie called "A Midnight Clear". Very well done and unusual. -- Al

 

[Jack]

What astounds me more than ignorance or oversight in matters of realism is when errors are made by choice. I know that they are not WW2 movies but the depiction of Hook in 'Zulu' and the hint that William Wallace fathered a King of England in 'Braveheart' are prime examples. They were not errors in the sense that a mistake was inadvertently made, but rather the odd situation in which researchers and writers working for the movie makers knew the truth but actively chose to ignore it (if you can actively ignore something!!). In fact, to get it wrong, they first had to know what was right. Not to stir up our Brit friends, but what about the movie with the capture of the German codes on the U-Boat as a WW2 example? To get that so wrong, you had to be pretty familiar with what was right.

 

[lancer]

What astounds me more than ignorance or oversight in matters of realism is when errors are made by choice. I know that they are not WW2 movies but the depiction of Hook in 'Zulu' and the hint that William Wallace fathered a King of England in 'Braveheart' are prime examples. They were not errors in the sense that a mistake was inadvertently made, but rather the odd situation in which researchers and writers working for the movie makers knew the truth but actively chose to ignore it (if you can actively ignore something!!). In fact, to get it wrong, they first had to know what was right. Not to stir up our Brit friends, but what about the movie with the capture of the German codes on the U-Boat as a WW2 example? To get that so wrong, you had to be pretty familiar with what was right.

I heard that the movie in question, U-571, was going to be British oriented, except neither Matthew or Bill or Harvey or Jon Bon could do an English accent, so the producers went Yankee instead, history be ****ed.:wink2:{eek3}:rolleyes2: -- Al

 

[Jack]

I heard that the movie in question, U-571, was going to be British oriented, except neither Matthew or Bill or Harvey or Jon Bon could do an English accent, so the producers went Yankee instead, history be ****ed.:wink2:{eek3}:rolleyes2: -- Al

They should have done a Sean Connery - if you act well enough the audience will ignore the accent!

 

[Nooooo9]

They should have done a Sean Connery - if you act well enough the audience will ignore the accent!

Yeah, but when Sean Connery plays an American you can always think of him as an immigrant. I think Kevin Costner is a good actor but I never bought his California voiced Robin Hood.

 

[Scott]

I watched John Rabe (2009) last night and a quick search with both the Internet Movie Data Base, Netflix viewer reviews, and Wikipedia told me of mistakes or incidents of dramatic license taken to "enhance" the basically true story.

This movie made the USS Panay into a passenger steamer!