I just saw the 1917 movie

doctorj wrote:

U.S. feds spends a fortune ... wrote:

U.S. federal government spends a fortune on theater at N.F.L. games, tv commercials and contributing to these war movies. Teenage boys think they choose on their own to volunteer for U.S. military service. Our young lads are being put together like Manchurian Candidate.

Yes, like I did. they trained me to be a pilot, I did my time with Uncle Sam, went on working for a great airline and now I am comfortably retired making more on retirement than you do working your rear off 40 hours a week. Not bad for a volunteer played like a fiddle by the government. How about you? Tell us about your interesting life...or lack of one.

Nothing you said refutes what he said. He basically called you a mindless brainwashed drone sent to off on nationalistic wars for profit and your response was "Look at my pension!!!"

here. here wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

How did we get from 1917 to 1942?

9th post of the thread.

That assumes a post introducing the subject of invasion of the US is relevant to a movie about the British experience of the trenches in the First World War. I can't wait to we get to Vietnam and then the Iraq war.

Armstronglivs wrote:

here. here wrote:

9th post of the thread.

That assumes a post introducing the subject of invasion of the US is relevant to a movie about the British experience of the trenches in the First World War. I can't wait to we get to Vietnam and then the Iraq war.

Dual meanings: Movie and tv show M.A.S.H. officially was about Korean Conflict but was also about Viet Nam Conflict. I am sure movie 1917 has more than one meaning.

M.A.S.H. film & tv show wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

That assumes a post introducing the subject of invasion of the US is relevant to a movie about the British experience of the trenches in the First World War. I can't wait to we get to Vietnam and then the Iraq war.

Dual meanings: Movie and tv show M.A.S.H. officially was about Korean Conflict but was also about Viet Nam Conflict. I am sure movie 1917 has more than one meaning.

Quite possibly true, but the parallel between the Western Front in 1917 and the question of whether the US was invaded in WW2 doesn't work so well - unless you're American and inclined to think everything is somehow related to you.

The husband and I saw this a few days ago. It’s a visually stunning film that’s a bit dry. This seems to be a mark of any Sam Mendes film (the last two Bond movies were pretty but sucked). Roger Deakins helped made it more coherent but it was still a bit of a mess.

As far as black soldiers serving the UK were concerned, there were many, but they were generally not allowed to fight. They were mostly there to move supplies and dig ditches. Many lost their lives to disease and sickness and there were some that died of wounds from battle. They were not supposed to hold a rank higher than sergeant. Some of the black soldiers even had to pay for their own travel to the battle from where they lived. Most were unarmed. They were not treated as equals that's for sure.

Was this a racist climate? Yes, of course it was. Did the British pretty much ignore their contributions after the war? Yes, they did.

Should the movie have portrayed more fighting black soldiers and black officers? I am saying no for accuracy. That's the way it was.

Armstronglivs wrote:

M.A.S.H. film & tv show wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

That assumes a post introducing the subject of invasion of the US is relevant to a movie about the British experience of the trenches in the First World War. I can't wait to we get to Vietnam and then the Iraq war.

Dual meanings: Movie and tv show M.A.S.H. officially was about Korean Conflict but was also about Viet Nam Conflict. I am sure movie 1917 has more than one meaning.

Quite possibly true, but the parallel between the Western Front in 1917 and the question of whether the US was invaded in WW2 doesn't work so well - unless you're American and inclined to think everything is somehow related to you.

Everything is related to the US in modern times. Whether it is on our soil doesn't matter. We have been involved either financially or through our blood (or are expected by the world if we are not) in every conflict since.

Half my family is gone because of this. No matter what if you have had family since World War 1 and you are a citizen of the US you have been affected

Regardless of right or wrong is RELATED to us. ALL of it!!!

So, don't tell us we have no perspective because we have not been invaded. For the sake of the entire world and humanity Germany had to be stopped in WW1 and especially in WW2.

Yes, Germany did have to be stopped in both wars but in 1917 it wasn't the US that was doing the stopping. I guess you have to be an American to think every country's story is somehow about you. For those of us who aren't Americn, a movie about the British experience in the trenches in 1917 doesn't bring Pearl Harbour or indeed anything American to mind.

On the subject of invasion (,which the film isn't about) it's quite correct that the US has seen few instances of foreign combatants on its soil, but it has certainly done more than its share of invading other countries.

Brits did fight bravely during Great War a.k.a. WW1, but U.S.M.C. entered Great War in 1918 and turned things around. Before U.S.M.C. entered Great War, Brits did not know how to fight properly. U.S.M.C. demonstrated the fighting had to be taken to next level. There is a reason Germans during Great War named U.S.M.C., DEVIL DOGS.

i dont really know what to think wrote:

As far as black soldiers serving the UK were concerned, there were many, but they were generally not allowed to fight. They were mostly there to move supplies and dig ditches. Many lost their lives to disease and sickness and there were some that died of wounds from battle. They were not supposed to hold a rank higher than sergeant. Some of the black soldiers even had to pay for their own travel to the battle from where they lived. Most were unarmed. They were not treated as equals that's for sure.

Was this a racist climate? Yes, of course it was. Did the British pretty much ignore their contributions after the war? Yes, they did.

Should the movie have portrayed more fighting black soldiers and black officers? I am saying no for accuracy. That's the way it was.

Yikes. Three rhetorical questions in two small paragraphs. If you give us the answer, we'll know what the question is.

There was some contribution by the United States. Wilson declared war on Germany in the spring of 1917 and by the summer of 1918 around 2 million troops were sent to France with about half of those seeing action. The U.S. suffered about 110,000 deaths when all was said and done. The U.S. Navy also sent a battleship task group to assist GB along the coasts of England & Ireland.

Clearly Britian bore the brunt of this war with unimaginable casualties that traumatized the nation for decades. In the Battle of the Somme alone, one million men were wounded or killed, making it one of the bloodiest battles in human history. This first day was, in terms of casualties, also the worst day in the history of the British Army, which suffered 57,470 casualties, including 19,240 killed in action.

As I said, a distinctly American perspective on the First World War, in which Americans did not enter the fray until its closing months. That wasn't 1917, the subject of the movie in this thread.

The War was mostly fought by the French - on whose soil it was largely bloodily expended - and the British, supported by the forces of the British Empire - the "colonies", as they were called. Some from the Commonwealth, like Australia and New Zealand, endured more casualties proportionately than the major combatants. The Allies were fighting the Axis powers, headed by Germany. US forces didn't enter the conflict until 1918, and while they made a valuable contribution to Allied efforts in the closing stages they were not central to its course.

The most significant effects the First World War had on the US were two-fold: it lead to a policy of isolationism and a determination not to become embroiled in "European conflicts", while helping to create a generation of military leaders, like Eisenhower, MacArthur and Paton (and a future President in Harry Truman), who all subsequently played key roles in the greater conflict of 1939-45.

Armstronglivs wrote:

former U.S.M.C. rifleman wrote:

Brits did fight bravely during Great War a.k.a. WW1, but U.S.M.C. entered Great War in 1918 and turned things around. Before U.S.M.C. entered Great War, Brits did not know how to fight properly. U.S.M.C. demonstrated the fighting had to be taken to next level. There is a reason Germans during Great War named U.S.M.C., DEVIL DOGS.

As I said, a distinctly American perspective on the First World War, in which Americans did not enter the fray until its closing months. That wasn't 1917, the subject of the movie in this thread.

Try not to forget about the 100,000+ US lives that were lost in that war. I think we allowed a perspective.

otter wrote:

Try not to forget about the 100,000+ US lives that were lost in that war. I think we allowed a perspective.

US only had 100M people back then, so 100k is a significant #. Curiously, the period from 1917 to 1918 is the only year that US population has ever declined YOY.

Year. Population. Change. % change

1922 110,049,000 1,511,000 1.39%

1921 108,538,000 2,077,000 1.95%

1920 106,461,000 1,947,000 1.86%

1919 104,514,000 1,306,000 1.27%

1918 103,208,000 (60,000) -0.06%

1917 103,268,000 1,307,000 1.28%

1916 101,961,000 1,415,000 1.41%

1915 100,546,000 1,435,000 1.45%

1914 99,111,000 1,886,000 1.94%

1913 97,225,000 1,890,000 1.98%

1912 95,335,000 1,472,000 1.57%

It is the most bold and passionate film since Mendes' less-seen 2005 film Jarhead. 1917is an exciting war movie.

https://www.plaza.ir/mag/139812/217802/1917-movie-plot-trailer-backstage

martinjus wrote:

It is the most bold and passionate film since Mendes' less-seen 2005 film Jarhead. 1917is an exciting war movie.

https://www.plaza.ir/mag/139812/217802/1917-movie-plot-trailer-backstage

Agree, Martin. I liked 1917 (the movie).

I assume most people have seen the movie by now so I'll comment on a scene in the movie that I thought was ridiculous. The chances of that damaged plane diving into a gully, popping back up again and flying directly at the 2 soldiers was a million to one.

Japanese that were about to be taken prisoner were said to have stabbed their captors, but I've never heard of that happening in European wars. They had saved the pilot's life,were in German territory and would not have carried him back. If he had stayed put, he would likely to have been rescued. Stabbing the guy when the other one had a rifle was suicidal.