War began.
:cry:
Printable View
War began.
:cry:
:cry:
In memory of those who died, be it civilians or soldiers...
That was awfull. My grandma lost 2 brothers in that war. Her third brother died from being wounded in a battle. I sympathize with all people who have lost their relatives in this war. It should not be repeated again.
:(
what exaclty are we talking about here ? your english, is ... oh never mind here, let me help you... if you are talking about a war that started today. you would say "june 22nd, at exactly 4 pm, war began. " then you would say
"This is awfull. (assuming the war does not only last a few hours) My grandma lost 2 brothers in this war. Her third brother died after the war from wounds he got (has received). I sympathize to all people who have lost their relatives. It should not be repeated!"
If you are taling about WWII, which it sure seems like you are trying to do, it would be like
june 22nd, at exactly 4 pm, war began
That was awfull. My grandma lost 2 brothers in that war. Her third brother died from being wounded in a battle.I sympathize to all people who have lost their relatives ... (in this war or any other). It should not be repeated again.
:D
What's your point, dogboy?
We are all talking about Great Patriotic War, it was a part of WW2. It had begun at 4 am on june 22nd in 1941 and was finished on may 8th in 1945. The German troops attacked USSR 62 years ago. USSR got heavy casualties, about 30 million people were killed in this war. Germany lost about 9 million people. This is a sad day for us.
Thanx for correction.
I sympathize to? I thought it was sympathize with!
BTW, Dogboy, what was meant was obvious. No need telling people they were wrong grammatically when it's about such an emotional thing. If you DO feel the need to correct people, you might wanna be more tactful.
Just my 2 cents...
no, i serously couldn't tell if you were talking about WWII, or not. that's what it seemed like, but my first hunch was that chechnya got attacked today or somthing. but i guess that's my problem. i was not trying to be desrespectfull to anybody. before russian, all i did was study WWII for the past 4 years. i have seen saving privae ryan nearly 40 times :o .
Just keep backpedalling there, Dogboy. You're doing great. :) Saving Private Ryan... "We wanted to capture the horrors of war...for the first 30 minutes, at least. Then we turn it back into the same old movie that glorifies heroism and turns the soldiers on both sides into abstract symbols rather than real people."
The only problem I have with SPR is that it was directed by Steven Spielberg, who seems to be very uncritical to the idea of communism on Cuba...oh well. Glorifying heroism? Is heroism wrong? I dunno, it might not be what I think it is. Abstract symbols? I don't see where that happens.
When the movie came out, Spielberg and Hanks and every other big talker who had to do with the movie kept saying, "This is a different kind of World War 2 movie. It shows the human side of the war." They made it seem like it would be so much different than the other four thousand ww2 movies that have been made in the past 50 years. And for the storming of the beach scenes it was. Well, it was grotesquely, stomach-churningly violent, but I guess that is supposed to scare people into never having wars again. Looks like they did a successful job, as we certainly haven't had any since the movie came out! THEN as soon as that scene over, it went back to being no different from any other war movie ever made (only it was 100 times more boring than the three best WW2 films: The Dirty Dozen, Kelly's Heroes, and Stalag 17). Americans are good guys who don't want to be there but are doing their job. Germans are all evil, nameless cardboard standups with guns waiting to be knocked over. BTW, if they were going for historical accuracy and a real portrayal of war, how could they expect anyone to believe Washington would give a shit about Private Ryan, let alone send a group to rescue him just for the sake of his poor mother? Talk about total BS. Maybe if it was Saving Lieutenant Colonel Ryan I could buy it.
Except, of course, the fact that people might care and turn against the government if it was known that they had let all four brothers of a family die.
they certainly didn't when the ship with those 5 sailors that were all brothers went down. What was their name, Sullivan? anyhow, if 4 people from some family that's not your own die in a war, that's no reason for everyone to go rioting against the government. Even if they did, the answer: National Guard.
Yeah that seems really likely to happen. "No! Three of my babies dying, I can live with that. But not four! That is the last straw. I'm going to sabotage a submarine factory!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pravit
I said turn against the government, not riot. Besides, even if that's not likely to happen, it's not some gloryfication of war or anything. Historically inaccurate, maybe. But who cares?Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
Not only historically inaccurate, but historically misleading and asinine. I wouldn't have been surprised if Spielberg had FDR trying to rescue the private himself despite protests from his Cabinet.
Roosevelt: Someone has to do something! This poor boy's life is in danger! I'll swim across the ocean with a knife in my teeth if I have to! This precious human life and example of a mother's love is too strong! We can't just treat the possible death of an enlisted man so lightly!
Perkins: No, Franklin! No! Not in your condition! You know what the doctor said about acts of superheroism.
Roosevelt: Oh, all right. Well, let's get back to planning the Manhattan Project then. By the way, how did that whole Dresden thing go, Ike?
Eisenhower: OSS says four non-commissioned German officers pissed themselves. So from a tactical standpoint it was a pure success.
Roosevelt: Excellent.
ah, mike, your stinging brand of sarcastic humor never ceases to please.
Go mike! :D
Yeah, long live deceit and stuff that has nothing at all to do with the point.
When I saw this movie, I was rather surprised by the plot. I remember a documentary about a Russian mother who had 10 sons. They all went to war. No one came back. She was sitting under their's photos. I never forget her sad and clear eyes.
Oh, V, it has everything to do with the point. I was making fun of the film's depiction of the sympathetic American government doing everything it can to save this one dopey idiot's life from behind enemy lines. Maybe nowadays they would, but in the 1940s? Give me a break.Quote:
Originally Posted by V
You see, I didn't say glorification of war. It was a glorification of heroism in war at the expense of any sense that what the Americans (By the way, where were all the allies in this film? Apparently the only country in the war was the US) were fighting were not just two-dimensional enemies waiting to be shot at or to kill off some character to move the plot along. The only war film I have EVER seen in which it seemed like they were Germans in Nazi uniforms rather than Nazis in German uniforms was The Longest Day. Another good one along a similar vein is Midway. I don't mind war movies, in fact I like some of them. But it's dumb when the villain characters are portrayed with no character development or personalities whatsoever, so that the audience just hates them and isn't allowed to identify with them at all. To me, this has the potential for dangerous psychological consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prior comment by V
So, again, historically inaccurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
Glorification of heroism? I see nothing wrong with that at all. I agree that SPR could have been a lot better at showing who the Germans were, although it did to that to some extent. I think Band of Brothers was a lot better at doing this, by the way. It was definitely better than Saving Private Ryan overall, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
Wasn't that on HBO? I don't get premium cable.