Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: 1917 [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ThisIsIt wrote:
mck414 wrote:
I can't figure out how to post a YouTube link from my phone. But do yourselves a favor and go watch the trailer for 1917. Fuck-n-A, looks good.


By the end of the trailer I was thinking this looks like just another crappy action movie but set in WWI. Hope I'm wrong.

was kind of thinking the same thing.

we have intel that will save thousands of lives. Its vitally important to get this message delivered in a unreasonably short amount of time. Lets send two people, that should be good enough.
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [DavHamm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DavHamm wrote:
Just cause.
22 Million in the United States
9 Million in the Confederacy

2.1 Million soldiers in the United States
1 Million in the Confederacy

620,000 killed.
All other wars don't total the death of the Civil war.

WWII 405,000 US killed
116k in WWI
58k Vietnam
35k Korea
25k Revolutionary war
20K war or 1812
13K mexican war
6,600 Iraq-Afgan.
2,400 Spanish-American war
258 Gulf war.
https://www.battlefields.org/...cles/civil-war-facts

Can't find deaths from the war on drugs.

The claim that all other wars don't add up to the Civil War doesn't jive with the numbers you posted (they add up to 661,248, BTW). Sorry for being nitpicky.

Also, not saying this matters, but around half or so of the Civil War casualties were due to disease, and not from battle.

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [Francois] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Francois wrote:
Yep. Here are the discharged papers of my grandfather. They didn't let him enroll in Europe because of his age, so he went to Canada.
Find them when my father passed away a few years ago. Along with my dad's Algeria papers (courtesy of having just become a French citizen...)


That's so fasciniting.

My grandfather was 16 when he enlisted in 1918. He had tried once before realizing that he had to lie about his age. But the lie was accepted with a lie and a wink. I wish I could find some of those records. Apparently, my grandfather's war records were destroyed in some archive fire in 1973, years after he had passed away. (He died a couple months before I was born.) I'd love to get more information.

https://www.archives.gov/...rds-center/fire-1973
Last edited by: AlanShearer: Dec 13, 19 16:47
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
Not to further derail this thread, but, we went that way so ...

Look at the death toll of WW2. You mention the population of Canada was 11M at the time. By comparison, the population of the US was 133M and the Soviet Union was 168M.

The Soviet Union lost 24M soldiers and civilians in WW2. That's over twice the then population of Canada.

China lost 20M soldiers and civilians.

Those numbers are mind-boggling.

24M is approximately 2/3rds of the population of Canada today. Those kinds of stats really do make one take pause. China doesn't get mentioned enough in WW2 but the barbaric behavior the Japanese displayed there was probably the worst of the entire War, and that's saying something.

Hitler had death camps. Russia said hold my beer, and Japan just went way off the deep end. Under the thin veil of civility, humans are pretty cruel animals...

Unrelated, but talking number of deaths, Didn't more people die from the Spanish Flu then died in WW1? That wreaked havoc on a staggering amount of people.

Proud citizen of Long Chile.
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [BCtriguy1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BCtriguy1 wrote:
JSA wrote:
Not to further derail this thread, but, we went that way so ...

Look at the death toll of WW2. You mention the population of Canada was 11M at the time. By comparison, the population of the US was 133M and the Soviet Union was 168M.

The Soviet Union lost 24M soldiers and civilians in WW2. That's over twice the then population of Canada.

China lost 20M soldiers and civilians.

Those numbers are mind-boggling.

24M is approximately 2/3rds of the population of Canada today. Those kinds of stats really do make one take pause. China doesn't get mentioned enough in WW2 but the barbaric behavior the Japanese displayed there was probably the worst of the entire War, and that's saying something.

Hitler had death camps. Russia said hold my beer, and Japan just went way off the deep end. Under the thin veil of civility, humans are pretty cruel animals...

Unrelated, but talking number of deaths, Didn't more people die from the Spanish Flu then died in WW1? That wreaked havoc on a staggering amount of people.

I believe the Spanish flu infected ~ 500 million (1/3 world population) killing between 20 and 50 million, possibly more.
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [Ringmaster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ringmaster wrote:
BCtriguy1 wrote:
JSA wrote:
Not to further derail this thread, but, we went that way so ...

Look at the death toll of WW2. You mention the population of Canada was 11M at the time. By comparison, the population of the US was 133M and the Soviet Union was 168M.

The Soviet Union lost 24M soldiers and civilians in WW2. That's over twice the then population of Canada.

China lost 20M soldiers and civilians.

Those numbers are mind-boggling.


24M is approximately 2/3rds of the population of Canada today. Those kinds of stats really do make one take pause. China doesn't get mentioned enough in WW2 but the barbaric behavior the Japanese displayed there was probably the worst of the entire War, and that's saying something.

Hitler had death camps. Russia said hold my beer, and Japan just went way off the deep end. Under the thin veil of civility, humans are pretty cruel animals...

Unrelated, but talking number of deaths, Didn't more people die from the Spanish Flu then died in WW1? That wreaked havoc on a staggering amount of people.


I believe the Spanish flu infected ~ 500 million (1/3 world population) killing between 20 and 50 million, possibly more.

I don't remember the exact numbers but I've read part of the reason it was so devastating was because the powers that be tried to keep it secret rather than implementing sensible steps to check its spread.
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ThisIsIt wrote:
Ringmaster wrote:
BCtriguy1 wrote:
JSA wrote:
Not to further derail this thread, but, we went that way so ...

Look at the death toll of WW2. You mention the population of Canada was 11M at the time. By comparison, the population of the US was 133M and the Soviet Union was 168M.

The Soviet Union lost 24M soldiers and civilians in WW2. That's over twice the then population of Canada.

China lost 20M soldiers and civilians.

Those numbers are mind-boggling.


24M is approximately 2/3rds of the population of Canada today. Those kinds of stats really do make one take pause. China doesn't get mentioned enough in WW2 but the barbaric behavior the Japanese displayed there was probably the worst of the entire War, and that's saying something.

Hitler had death camps. Russia said hold my beer, and Japan just went way off the deep end. Under the thin veil of civility, humans are pretty cruel animals...

Unrelated, but talking number of deaths, Didn't more people die from the Spanish Flu then died in WW1? That wreaked havoc on a staggering amount of people.


I believe the Spanish flu infected ~ 500 million (1/3 world population) killing between 20 and 50 million, possibly more.

I don't remember the exact numbers but I've read part of the reason it was so devastating was because the powers that be tried to keep it secret rather than implementing sensible steps to check its spread.

I believe you're correct. In order to keep moral high, wartime censors in Europe and the US minimized the illness. Since Spain was neutral, their news openly reported on it. Hence the name "Spanish" flu, even though it may have originated in the US (Kansas I think).
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [tfleeger] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Saw it tonight

Best movie I’ve seen in a long long time.

Incredible filmmaking and acting
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [ChrisM] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ChrisM wrote:
Saw it tonight

Best movie I’ve seen in a long long time.

Incredible filmmaking and acting

Thanks for the review. I was a little surprised that the thread was 2 pages without more who had actually seen more than the trailer. The reviews I've read have been excellent. I only use reviews as a very rough guide, so it's good to hear from someone who's seen it. This one looks good enough that I to want to see it in the theater. I was very glad that the first time I saw Private Ryan was on the big screen.
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [zed707] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It’s only in limited release so we had to drive 45 minutes to see it in LA But I am planning on seeing it again, which I rarely do. It’s that good. There are some details I think I missed

Technically, the shooting/ editing is done to make it appear as one continuous shot, and there are a number of places where you wonder how the hell they did that. The planning and blocking, not to mention the acting through long scenes (I’ve read some scenes were something like 9 minutes) is technically fantastic.

One review I read said it’s a strange juxtaposition to have such a beautiful movie about such a horrific topic, but it’s really true.
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [ChrisM] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ah, the limited release explains why more haven't seen it. Looks like I'll have to wait a while, but plan on seeing it. Thanks again.
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [Francois] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That is way cool.

You should frame that for sure.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [tfleeger] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tfleeger wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
mck414 wrote:
I can't figure out how to post a YouTube link from my phone. But do yourselves a favor and go watch the trailer for 1917. Fuck-n-A, looks good.


By the end of the trailer I was thinking this looks like just another crappy action movie but set in WWI. Hope I'm wrong.


was kind of thinking the same thing.

we have intel that will save thousands of lives. Its vitally important to get this message delivered in a unreasonably short amount of time. Lets send two people, that should be good enough.

I saw it today. As noted below, the cinematography and acting are good, but I have a problem with the premise -“ let’s send 2 corporals on this mission to save thousands.” It needed a military advisor to make it more realistic ala Saving Pvt Ryan or Band of Brothers

Still worth the cost of a ticket
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [hammond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
hammond wrote:
tfleeger wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
mck414 wrote:
I can't figure out how to post a YouTube link from my phone. But do yourselves a favor and go watch the trailer for 1917. Fuck-n-A, looks good.


By the end of the trailer I was thinking this looks like just another crappy action movie but set in WWI. Hope I'm wrong.


was kind of thinking the same thing.

we have intel that will save thousands of lives. Its vitally important to get this message delivered in a unreasonably short amount of time. Lets send two people, that should be good enough.


I saw it today. As noted below, the cinematography and acting are good, but I have a problem with the premise -“ let’s send 2 corporals on this mission to save thousands.” It needed a military advisor to make it more realistic ala Saving Pvt Ryan or Band of Brothers

Still worth the cost of a ticket

Probably not as absurd as you might think. Sending a larger force into no-mans-land would probably be noticed and countered. Not to mention that comms in WWI were almost entirely wired...wireless wasn't really accepted in the BEF until mid-1917, and was still fairly rare then. Also, we're talking about an era where carrier pigeons were used extensively to send messages over longer distances.

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [zed707] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
zed707 wrote:
Ah, the limited release explains why more haven't seen it. Looks like I'll have to wait a while, but plan on seeing it. Thanks again.

Maybe it will be in wider release now that it won the best drama at the Golden Globes last night.

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com
Last edited by: ironclm: Jan 6, 20 4:02
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [ironclm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ironclm wrote:
zed707 wrote:
Ah, the limited release explains why more haven't seen it. Looks like I'll have to wait a while, but plan on seeing it. Thanks again.

Maybe it will be in wider release now that it won the best drama at the Golden Globes last night.

It was in limited release until this Friday when it goes unlimited, so to speak.
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [spot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Spot on, Spot. Telegraph wires laid on the battlefields were frequently cut by artillery. Effective communication was difficult and often relied on runners.

I want to see the movie, but one thing that bugs me about the trailer is the premise that they are trying to stop an attack which will be walking into a trap. Every attack against trenches in WW1 was walking into a trap, and that didn't bother the generals ordering the attacks very much.
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [markea] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Don't overthink it. It's a movie, and a damn good one at that. Go see it.
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ThisIsIt wrote:
mck414 wrote:
I can't figure out how to post a YouTube link from my phone. But do yourselves a favor and go watch the trailer for 1917. Fuck-n-A, looks good.

By the end of the trailer I was thinking this looks like just another crappy action movie but set in WWI. Hope I'm wrong.

We finally saw it this past Saturday. It's as good as advertised.

The filming style was extraordinary. I won't go into any spoilers but it's well worth seeing on the big screen.

--------------------------
Runners Roost Race Team
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [mck414] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hauntingly beautiful movie. Words cannot describe when I watched this last night. 10/10.
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [markea] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
markea wrote:
Spot on, Spot. Telegraph wires laid on the battlefields were frequently cut by artillery. Effective communication was difficult and often relied on runners.

I want to see the movie, but one thing that bugs me about the trailer is the premise that they are trying to stop an attack which will be walking into a trap. Every attack against trenches in WW1 was walking into a trap, and that didn't bother the generals ordering the attacks very much.

It was about when the Germans pulled back to the Hindenburg Line.
The movie takes place on the 6th and 7th of April 1917. The Battle of Arras happened on 9 April 1917. It really was what Sherlock says at the end, pull them back today so they can die tomorrow.
The 9th was also the beginning of the Battle of Vimy Ridge for the Canadian posters. Vimy Ridge is 10 km from Arras
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [scorpio516] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
amazing, more like a 2-hour ride-along than a film, you mirror every move because of the point of view.

am glad we saw it on the big screen in a respectful cinema -- made it even more immersive.
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [ChrisM] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Like finding a river with rapids and a waterfall on the western front.......
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [mck414] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Great movie, saw it in an IMAX. First theater I've been to in 6 years. Thumbs up.
Quote Reply
Re: 1917 [Francois] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wow! What a priceless family artifact.



Lifeguard: "Do you need help?" Me: "No, that's just my butterfly."
Quote Reply

Prev Next