There seems to be quite a few historical / war-themed films coming up over the next 12 months, so is anyone planning on watching any of these?
Hurricane:
T-34:
The Captain:
Operation Finale:
Looks like a few interesting ones. Had seen the Trailer for hurricane already, and will be watching that one!
Quite a few of those look to be of interest. Thanks for the 'heads up' :)
Strange how the Earth was created in 1939.
Henning Wehn says German history only starts in 1948, b3fore that, nothing!
That goes some way to explaining the popularity of the Korean War as a gaming period.
Opened the worm can here. You know that a sample of reviews will be:
"Officer's belt was one discontinued in 1942, totally ruled the 1944 atmosphere for me."
"That weapon wasn't issued until 2 months afre the end of the story - made a nonsense of the entire film".
"Tracer shooting from an MG 34 - ohhh the humanity!!!"
"Totally inappropriate tracks on the T34 for a winter battle - how can anybody watch this".
Then in 6 month's time.
"Nobody makes films aimed at a wargamer audience - the PC brigade strike again".
I tend to be quite charitable to film makers in this regard, but there are a lot of source materials out there so it's very often easier to get it right than get it wrong.
We've come a long way since M48 Tigers and M24 Shermans. I think there's a trend to getting re-enactment societies involved, so standards are a lot better than they used to be. In fact, now that the authenticity of uniforms has gone up, the standards of writing seem to be plummeting.* Perhaps I just didn't notice the poor script in "The Battle of the Bulge" because I was decrying the poor choice of armoured vehicle.
*Take "Fury". I have a large, well armoured but quite slow moving Tiger tank. I am in cover. I see 5 Shermans lined up nicely. I pop off a couple then charge over the open ground, closing the distance to a point where even a 75mm can do me serious damage, upsetting the gunner's aim and generally sacrificing all my advantages for a closer look at Brad Pitt.
It's Brad Pitt, why wouldnt you! 8)
One reason I really enjoy WWII films is that I don't game it, so know sod all about what gun goes where, how shiny SS boots should be etc. Unfortunately I do game an awful lot of the earlier periods, so get brassed off with TV documentaries showing French in Adrian helmets and British in shrapnel helmets whilst discussing 1914. I know there was less film footage then, but there were plenty of photographs (the French even had colour ones) and paintings. I'd rather the masses did get a bit of education rather than pandering to the constant need for a moving image. Or are the politicians wrong and the British public actually is stupid :d
Quote from: Leman on 31 August 2018, 07:52:53 PM
Strange how the Earth was created in 1939.
Hopefully, this will help to redress the balance, Andy (although, already, I have seen some mumblings - but surely it cannot be worse than the historical car
t crash that was
Braveheart! ?).
Who knows - at least RB doesn't appear to be covered in woad.
Quote from: fsn on 11 September 2018, 08:04:10 AM
I tend to be quite charitable to film makers in this regard, but there are a lot of source materials out there so it's very often easier to get it right than get it wrong.
We've come a long way since M48 Tigers and M24 Shermans. I think there's a trend to getting re-enactment societies involved, so standards are a lot better than they used to be. In fact, now that the authenticity of uniforms has gone up, the standards of writing seem to be plummeting.* Perhaps I just didn't notice the poor script in "The Battle of the Bulge" because I was decrying the poor choice of armoured vehicle.
*Take "Fury". I have a large, well armoured but quite slow moving Tiger tank. I am in cover. I see 5 Shermans lined up nicely. I pop off a couple then charge over the open ground, closing the distance to a point where even a 75mm can do me serious damage, upsetting the gunner's aim and generally sacrificing all my advantages for a closer look at Brad Pitt.
This might be the time to mention that Braveheart made use of Reenactment societies.
Quote from: Leman on 11 September 2018, 10:39:20 AM
One reason I really enjoy WWII films is that I don't game it, so know sod all about what gun goes where, how shiny SS boots should be etc. Unfortunately I do game an awful lot of the earlier periods, so get brassed off with TV documentaries showing French in Adrian helmets and British in shrapnel helmets whilst discussing 1914. I know there was less film footage then, but there were plenty of photographs (the French even had colour ones) and paintings. I'd rather the masses did get a bit of education rather than pandering to the constant need for a moving image. Or are the politicians wrong and the British public actually is stupid :d
The politicians know, they simply aren't letting on.
KV1 Strong :)
Seems to be a lot of authentic kit used in this trailer.....looks pretty good, just need some sub titles.
Quote
This might be the time to mention that Braveheart made use of Reenactment societies.
Yeah ! The Irish Defence Force. 1,500 troops as extras at the Curragh. Its still on youtube
Watched Outlaw/King last night. What an improvement on Brave Heart! This time round the Scots actually looked like medieval Scots, no woad and no kilts, but plenty of padded linen protection (aqueton?). Some of the nobles sported mail and surcoats, not to mention some helmets and flat iron shields. Bruce's tactics using pits. stakes and the natural morass of the landscape was really well shown. I did notice that Tony Pollard was a historical consultant. Maybe slightly slower beginning than Brave Heart but a much more measured film with a superb finale of the Battle of Loudon Hill. Well worth a watch especially for those interested in medieval warfare.
Thanks for that review, Leman. The wife and I were debating whether to watch the thing (there is only so much time available), think we will now give it a go.
I have been a busy boy today, just finished watching Outlaw King with Mrs Shy and I would echo Leman's commmets, well worth 2 hours of your time Bill ;)
Thanks,
Scheduled for this week.
Outlaw king was great! watched it yesterday and found it very nicely done. battle at the end is top notch!
Me and the Wife watched the captain last night, we thoroughly enjoyed the film but couldn't understand his lack of compassion for his fellow deserters considering he was one
Take care
Andy
Wife and I watched the Outlaw King last night and both enjoyed it. With 45 minutes left I wondered aloud to my wife how they were going to get all the way to Bannockburn. But then saw what they did. Clever (and within budget)! Like the various nods to spiders and their webs.
In discussing its look compared to Braveheart my wife noted that only similarity seemed to be that the English don't come off very well! :)
Something you guys might be interested in. Airs sometime 2019.
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/t8qjau.jpg)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8883486/
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 16 September 2018, 09:10:59 PM
This might be the time to mention that Braveheart made use of Reenactment societies.
Hmmm ... yes ... one particular reenactment society - The Clan - which is actually more of a cult than a re-enactment society in any true sense of the word!
Quote from: Noktu on 14 January 2019, 05:29:25 PM
Something you guys might be interested in. Airs sometime 2019.
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/t8qjau.jpg)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8883486/
A battalion of arrow shooting Vickers guns?
"... then we will fight in the shade!" :)
In other news, for the aerially inclined amongst us looks like Pete Mitchell is returning to the danger zone in 2020......in a F-18 this time....those pesky MiG 28's better look out ;)
https://youtu.be/FIskWMtCFAw
Sorry I can never get embedding to work properly.....
The letters/numbers after the slash FIskWMtCFAw go inside the Youtube tags
{youtube}FIskWMtCFAw{/youtube}
I have high hopes ... but low expectations for "The Witcher"
The film of the game of the book!!! :)
Back scabbard :o
""I heard that Witchers wear two swords, one for Monsters and one for Humans."
"You're wrong, both are for Monsters"
Quote from: Ithoriel on 24 July 2019, 11:24:27 PM
""I heard that Witchers wear two swords, one for Monsters and one for Humans."
"You're wrong, both are for Monsters"
So epic!
I'm afraid that the Americans will just ruin the show with their twisted political agendas and whatnot.
Quote from: Noktu on 31 July 2019, 06:59:54 AM
So epic!
I'm afraid that the Americans will just ruin the show with their twisted political agendas and whatnot.
Apparently it has already been ruined by political correctness and inclusivity. Indian Yennefer for eaxmple...
I made the mistake of starting to watch 'Another Life' on Netflix - that was a huge mistake.
Is it me. Am I getting old & prudish. Or does a film/series really have to have the cast saying "wat the f**k!' every other sentence!
As for the plot line - strewth - even early editions of Star Trek have more complexity.
A definite '-10 out of 10' rating from me. Not even any really cool alien baddies either.
I am however, greatly looking forward to the next in the Altered Carbon franchise ... being a big fan of the books
>>Or does a film/series really have to have the cast saying "wat the f**k!' every other sentence!
The most obvious example of this change in culture we came across is in the US political series "Designated
Survivor".
Series 1 & 2 were almost swear free but with Series 3, every sentence is effin this and effin that. It felt
really odd. Perhaps its the result of the 'Game of Thrones' effect (sex and swearing pushed to the max
now sells and has become expected).
I have no problem with swearing on the telly (or naked ladies !!) but overuse just kills any sense of impact
it can have.
Phil
Quote from: Glorfindel on 01 August 2019, 03:15:10 PM
>>Or does a film/series really have to have the cast saying "wat the f**k!' every other sentence!
The most obvious example of this change in culture we came across is in the US political series "Designated
Survivor".
Series 1 & 2 were almost swear free but with Series 3, every sentence is effin this and effin that. It felt
really odd. Perhaps its the result of the 'Game of Thrones' effect (sex and swearing pushed to the max
now sells and has become expected).
I have no problem with swearing on the telly (or naked ladies !!) but overuse just kills any sense of impact
it can have.
Phil
Well I do, it ain't genteel, and I am no longer a 14 year old oik...
I can't seem to post the you tube link, but seek out "Danger Close" to watch the trailer. Out soon.
Looks like this thread is now on hold until at least the end of April :(
Quote from: Orcs on 18 March 2020, 09:37:30 AM
Looks like this thread is now on hold until at least the end of April :(
Not a problem, I only just caught up with Goldfinger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOgI7TAA3H4
Robert the Bruce
Slow motion BRAVEHEART; another advertisement for the SNP.
Avoid the temptation to start watching Colony (sci-fi tv drama) on Netflixs.
Terrible.
Slow - 3 series (and then it got canned)
You see no aliens other than a few model space ships in series 1 & 2 (other than some human looking robot thing and that just lies there having been knocked out by an IED)
The plot is so unbelievably lame that it probably takes the prize as almost the most naff sci-fi tv series ever.
Apparently it was all based on the idea of Vichy French collaboration in WW2 Paris ... and there you have the whole thing. Apparently Steven King thought it was original and outstanding ... I wonder how much they paid him!
You get no real idea what the aliens are up to, unless that is disclosed in series 3 which is not yet on Netflix and probably never will be now. But there are even vague references to a concentration camp - The Factory (on the moon!) ... strewth.
To say the plot is thin is an understatement and it's almost impossible to have any form of empathy for any of the characters! And you can spot a mile away where the script writers got bored or lost the plot (willingness to live) and characters just get deported or shot to get them out of the way or draw a weak story line to a conclusion.
I wasted too much of my precious life, waiting in vain hope that the early hours of tedious character building I'd had to suffer in series 1 would eventually lead to something better in series 2 only to be hopelessly disappointed.
If you spot it on your Netflix list - be firm and give it the thumbs down! You wont regret it.
Mark
Steven King's one gold star with the recording angel - and he won't like it - is that he gave Kubrick the material for a brilliant movie.
Quote from: Big Insect on 18 March 2020, 06:47:59 PM
Avoid the temptation to start watching Colony (sci-fi tv drama) on Netflixs.
Terrible.
I have to disagree, I watched it a while back and quite enjoyed it. I hope they do bring season 3 onto Netflix. It gave a good sense of the powerlessness of being under occupation, and the line between collaboration and survival. The fact you don't really see the aliens (other than their drones and ships) is a strength as invariably once you start showing the aliens too much they risk becoming silly. You don't know what they're up to because the people don't, though there's hints that'll hopefully be explored in season three.
I think it was cancelled more because it was essentially a drama with a bit of action rather than a flashy shooty bang bang type of sci fi so was difficult to justify the budget. There were a few bits that were a little off I'm sure, but can say that for just about anything. Overall worth a go for a few episodes to see if it's to taste, each to their own!
I made it to episode 3, the decided, life's too short.
It had the guy from Lost in it I think (very apt :D)
Quote from: Big Insect on 18 March 2020, 06:47:59 PM
Avoid the temptation to start watching Colony (sci-fi tv drama) on Netflixs.
Not tried Colony, but have a couple of other series on Netflix. Both had one thing in common - gut-wrenchingly slow pacing, filling out 10 hours when the thing should have been wrapped up in three.
DEVS, however, shews what TV can do these days if it tries.
BBC have stopped filming East Enders :D, Holby City ;D, Casualty ;D, Peaky Blinders :( and Line of Duty :(. Unfortunately they have enough of the soaps filmed to keep showing them. Info from Media Show on R4 yesterday.
Quote from: mmcv on 19 March 2020, 07:19:31 AM
I have to disagree, I watched it a while back and quite enjoyed it. ... each to their own!
Glad you enjoyed it mmcv ... but not for me. I felt that even the drama was lame. I think I like a bit more action and a lot more alien in my sci-fi diet.
I was also not hugely impressed with
Altered Carbon II - the first series was much more true to the books - which I thoroughly enjoyed - and I had great hope for series II as the Fallen Angels book is a really great sci-fi read.
I felt they really missed a trick with the whole 'uncleared' and auto-machine warfare bit. We've used it as a theme for a couple of really good FWC machine-bug hunt type scenario games.
Maybe they will expand things more into series III, but I do think that they have more than slightly lost the plot (from the books) abouy just how bleak it all is for Kovach.
Quote from: Big Insect on 19 March 2020, 09:35:44 AM
Glad you enjoyed it mmcv ... but not for me. I felt that even the drama was lame. I think I like a bit more action and a lot more alien in my sci-fi diet.
I was also not hugely impressed with Altered Carbon II - the first series was much more true to the books - which I thoroughly enjoyed - and I had great hope for series II as the Fallen Angels book is a really great sci-fi read.
I felt they really missed a trick with the whole 'uncleared' and auto-machine warfare bit. We've used it as a theme for a couple of really good FWC machine-bug hunt type scenario games.
Maybe they will expand things more into series III, but I do think that they have more than slightly lost the plot (from the books) abouy just how bleak it all is for Kovach.
I really enjoyed season one of Altered Carbon but only managed to get a few episodes into season two so far and found it a bit of a drag so haven't really been inclined to go back to it. Seems to have deflated somewhat after the first season.
Sounds like fun games though!
Yes - it was a big multi-player 6mm FWC game - player could build up their own decom-squads - ground troops & vehicles - no air as the orbitals would frazz them (all from restricted lists) as specified by Mandrake Corp as to what it would transport to the Green Zone on the edge of the uncleared. So certain weapon types were banned as they could not be risked to fall into the hands of the bio-mechs (mimots).
The terrain was a huge battered futuristic city-scape* - players all started along the same base edge and then advanced into the 'uncleared', building by building or ruin by ruin, dicing to see what was in each area they had to clear. Nearer the Green Zone the mimots were small and few but the numbers got worse and the mimots got bigger the deeper the teams progressed into the 'uncleared'.
* I think Shedman might have some photos - i am terrible at uploading anything to the forum.
Each player had an objective (at the opposite end of the table) to reach and gather some specific special resource - it might be a secure bunker (with tactical code), a hospital (with some off-world archaeological team hold-up in it to rescue) or a power station to bring back on-line to power a lazer-wire defence system etc.etc.
There were also large colonies of razor-wings that had nested on the derelict skyscrapers and also 'scythe-beasts' (my own nasty addition) - large predators with adaptive-camo abilities and free ambush capabilities - that were roaming the abandoned city looking to hunt and pray on the teams.
There were also random Alien artefacts to be found in the dig sites across the table - which the teams were keen to get hold of as they were worth far more points than anything else.
Teams got points for mimots destroyed - the bigger the mimot the bigger the points (credit) score. Likewise they got points for securing their own objectives.
In theory they were supposed to assist each other ... "yeah, right!"
We ran it at one of our regular FWC Boot Camp Events. We ran it with 8 players (DeCom Teams) and 2 umpires - and it took most of a day to play to it's grizzly conclusion. Some teams just didn't make it sadly ;D ;D ;D
In fact there is already a photo on this very site ...http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,17884.0.html ... in the FWC 2019 Boot Camp thread.
And it was the Woken Furies game not Fallen Angels ... I was mistaken.
But still it was huge fun.
I'd certainly run it again on a weekend if we got enough players - post the virus apocalypse of course :(
Quote from: Big Insect on 19 March 2020, 02:31:24 PM
In fact there is already a photo on this very site ...http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,17884.0.html ... in the FWC 2019 Boot Camp thread.
And it was the Woken Furies game not Fallen Angels ... I was mistaken.
But still it was huge fun.
I'd certainly run it again on a weekend if we got enough players - post the virus apocalypse of course :(
Looks epic!
Great fun .... I'd like to see it done in a bigger scale.
It was also fun finding and buying the mimots - all sorts of assorted combat robot types were used.
Quote from: mmcv on 19 March 2020, 01:05:06 PM
I really enjoyed season one of Altered Carbon but only managed to get a few episodes into season two so far and found it a bit of a drag so haven't really been inclined to go back to it. Seems to have deflated somewhat after the first season.
Sounds like fun games though!
Turns out we've watched almost all of the series, but just felt like we hadn't as so little of interest seemed to happen. Did notice an anime version there, Altered Carbon Resleeved. Wonder if it's any better.
Watched Danger close: battle for long tan, on Netflix.
Very good for those interested in Viet Nam, nice to see the war from a Aussie kiwi viewpoint. Also charging ACAV action and had that viking chap in it.
Have been watching The Boys on Amazon Prime, it somehow seems to be a TV show that perfectly captures the zeitgeist
I watched season 1. Saving season 2 for a cold, wet weekend.
Quote from: Matt J on 06 October 2020, 09:29:40 PM
Watched Danger close: battle for long tan, on Netflix.
Very good for those interested in Viet Nam, nice to see the war from a Aussie kiwi viewpoint. Also charging ACAV action and had that viking chap in it.
I recently watched it too - very enjoyable contrast to "Hollywood 'Nam" movies
I have thoroughly enjoyed the Netflix series DARK
A new twist on the Time-travel concept - 3 episodes - it is IMHO gripping - even though there is actually very little sci-fi in it from a technology or warfare side of things.
I must try Danger Close and also the new Barbarians Netflix about the Varus AD9 massacre.
Just finished watching The Last Warrior on Prime.
I didn't really have high hope but needed a brain-softner before bed on Saturday night (over-tired) ... but I thought it was actually a jolly romp.
It is a Russian film (subtitled in English) but that isn't really a big issue as a lot of it is sword, axe and archer combat.
It's set in C10th-11th Southern Russian and is an eclectic mix of Rus, Pechneg, Cuman. old Sarmatian and (the last warriors) the last Scythian clan.
Historically 'accurate' it is not but it is great fun ... the sort of film a reenactor group might choose to make if they had the cash.
Well worth the time to watch IMHO - as long as you dont take it too seriously.
It made me dust off a box of half-painted 28mm Sarmatians I have been collecting off eBay to build an allied contingent and start the job of finishing them off.
Thoroughly enjoying "Valley of Tears" - about the 1973 Yom Kippur war.
Well done Centurion (Sh'ot) scenes - what's not to love?
New 'Dune' movie is looking good on trailer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9xhJrPXop4
Two that I watched recently:
The Battle Of JangsariAbout a group of student soldiers in the Korean War sent to carry out a diversionary attack. The film is in Korean with subtitles and the action sequences are excellent, you can see the Private Ryan influences in the beach attack. Having Megan Fox and the guy from CSI in there is a bit odd as they don't interact with any of the main characters at all and are clearly just there for some 'Hollywood' glitz. Overall a really good watch.
The Last Full MeasureThis one is about a group of veterans trying to get the Medal of Honour awarded to William Pitsenbarger, a medic who saved a load of lives during Operation Abilene in Vietnam. It's heavy on the sentimentality but the flashback scenes are good and there's some nice performances by the older actors playing the vets.
Not really a movie - but the latest Netflix offering.
I've started watching my way through Age of Samurai - so far so good - not enough large scale battle action but interesting to understand the political background to an Age of War samurai army. Most inspiring ... with Turnbull wittering away, it has some interesting insights.
I must get cracking on those Pendraken Feudal Japanese I got last year :D :D :D
I'll have to check this out Mark, as I didn't know it was available :)
I would recommend Sputnik a rather good if stately paced Russian sci-fi flick
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11905962/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0 (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11905962/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0)
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 25 May 2021, 07:06:15 PM
I would recommend Sputnik a rather good if stately paced Russian sci-fi flick
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11905962/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0 (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11905962/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0)
Agreed - I found it a very entertaining idea
Quote from: Big Insect on 11 December 2020, 10:42:59 AM
New 'Dune' movie is looking good on trailer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9xhJrPXop4
I just hope the portrayal of the Guild Navigators can live up to the standard set by the 2000 TV Series
I enjoyed the film (on Amazon Prime) The Unthinkable - about a Cold War attack/attempt to take over Sweden by Soviet Russia. Not much combat action but nevertheless entertaining.
NB: I originally thought that the bio/chemical elements were a bit 'sci-fi' & extreme, until I did a bit of research and found out that this idea was actually experimented with by both the Soviets and the Israelis :(
Not really an Upcoming Movie - as it has been out on Netflix for a while now (since Oct'19), but I recently rewatched 'The King' - the Henry Vth move - which I must say I found as good a rewatch as it was the first time I viewed it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King_(2019_film)
I have to say I approach most 'medieval' historical films with a degree of caution but was pleasantly surprised by this one.
Quote from: Big Insect on 22 June 2021, 04:10:44 PM
Not really an Upcoming Movie - as it has been out on Netflix for a while now (since Oct'19), but I recently rewatched 'The King' - the Henry Vth move - which I must say I found as good a rewatch as it was the first time I viewed it.
yes and I thought it was a plausible (but very small) interpretation of Agincourt.
Spoilt by the panto-villian turn by Pattinson as the French prince.
Interesting take on Agincourt - it's always been my understanding the English were at the top of the hill?
De Slag om de Schelde has come out in the Netherlands, about the lesser known Battle of the Scheldt in 1944. Concentrates on individual characters involved, such as a Dutch girl in the resistance, a Dutch soldier in the German army and a British pilot. Where it will go after Dutch and Belgian cinemas I know not.
Quote from: Leman on 22 June 2021, 05:22:36 PM
De Slag om de Schelde has come out in the Netherlands, about the lesser known Battle of the Scheldt in 1944. Concentrates on individual characters involved, such as a Dutch girl in the resistance, a Dutch soldier in the German army and a British pilot. Where it will go after Dutch and Belgian cinemas I know not.
It sounds a little bit like Dunkirk.
Quote from: Raider4 on 22 June 2021, 05:00:28 PM
Spoilt by the panto-villian turn by Pattinson as the French prince.
Interesting take on Agincourt - it's always been my understanding the English were at the top of the hill?
Having walked the battlefield at Agincourt it is actually reasonably flat with just a slight hollow forward of the initial English dispositions.
At Crecy the English defend a slight rise with copses, terracing and a sunken road to their front.
At Poitiers they fight with a thick hedge to their front & centre and orchards and hedges on their flanks.
At Agincourt the real issues for the French were:
1) very restricted frontage - the English filled the gap between 2 woods - which would have greatly disadvantaged the French men-at-arms (on foot or mounted) - thus reducing the fighting front of the French significantly
2) the ground had been recently ploughed
3) it had rained very heavily and unseasonally - so that the ground was even more soft than usual - it had become a quagmire - especially as the 2nd an 3rd French 'battles' closed for combat
4) arrogance/overconfident - fostered by the belief that a French army that outnumbered the English raiders so heavily should have just run down the significantly smaller English force frontally meant that they were overconfident - also a large proportion of the French attack went in dismounted - allowing the archers to rain a significant volume of arrows down upon them as they advanced slowly across the muddy terrain
5) exhaustion - having fought/re-enacted in full C15th harness and carried a sword and polearm in the process, personally I'd not have also wanted to march the distance the French did, in slippery and clogging mud - to end up facing a static enemy at least as well arrayed as me (& reasonably rested)at the other end . Especially not under a barrage of longbow shafts.
The film is (as stated by DecemDave) only really a potion of the battlefront - it doesn't show the archers setting their stakes which would have funnelled the French mounted troops into the English dismounted men-at-arms, knights and billmen. The 'flank attack' from the woods by Henry is pure fallacy of course. But the armoured melee I suspect is very realistic as is the single combat between Henry and Hotspur (earlier in the film). The bit in the melee with Falstaff fighting holding the blade of his sword in one hand and the handle in the other is based on contemporary fighting manuals and is very effective.
I also think that once the melee between the opposing men-at-arms was underway the archers supporting their men-at-arms would have been realistic. English archers of this period were not the poorly equipped wretches depicted in the film, they had reasonable armour and helmets and at least swords and bucklers supplemented by axes, mauls and mallets (all attested by contemporary chroniclers). So they were very capable of getting stuck in, especially with an opponent who was wrong footed by the mud and with limited visibility in the press of battle.
For those who have not read it the John Keegan book - The Face of Battle - is (IMHO) a brilliant examination of the way that soldiers behave in these kinds of situations.
Well worth the read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Face_of_Battle
For all its faults I still thoroughly enjoyed it :D
Cheers
Mark
Quote from: Leman on 22 June 2021, 05:22:36 PM
De Slag om de Schelde has come out in the Netherlands, about the lesser known Battle of the Scheldt in 1944. Concentrates on individual characters involved, such as a Dutch girl in the resistance, a Dutch soldier in the German army and a British pilot. Where it will go after Dutch and Belgian cinemas I know not.
Canada, maybe? Since they did much of the fighting and got very little of the glory.
Big Insect: Fits wiith what I have read/watched. Accounts mainly say a 'defile'. Makes you wonder whether Henry REALLY judged the ground...and the conditions.. or just 'got lucky'!
'A Slight Dip' in front of English position, 'May' not have looked like a problem... almost an 'invitation', rather than 'uphill'. But, with the wet ground...
By this time, English Archers were 'pro's', not so much 'levy', so think that most would have had 'some sort' of 'protection' / 'weaponry'. This was s 'an armed raid '...
Quote from: Heedless Horseman on 23 June 2021, 10:11:43 AM
By this time, English Archers were 'pro's', not so much 'levy', so think that most would have had 'some sort' of 'protection' / 'weaponry'. This was s 'an armed raid '...
English sources don't categorise archers as archers in this era (right the way through to early Tudor period) they are just called 'soldiers'. Same as there are no references to the word 'billmen' until Henrician times.
Those 'archers' belonging to professional retinues (as took part in the Agincourt campaign) would have been as capable with a polearm and/or sword and buckler, as with a war-bow. They were professional soldiers. I also suspect that by this time they probably fought in a reasonably dense formation and would have been well armoured - at least on body and legs. Munition armour was a lot more prevalent even in the early C15th than we actually believed previously.
Agincourt is a classic 'constricted front' battle - like Horacio on the bridge or the Viking champion at Stamford Bridge - or the Spartans at Thermopylae - it's just that it all turned-out well for King Henry in this instance.
Interesting stuff - looking at other well documented medieval battles - such as Granson, Morat Nancy etc if you read the contemporary accounts you get a very different view of how certain troop types operated - such as Swiss pike keils moving (at pace) over wooded hilly terrain to outflank the Burgundian position - try that on most wargames tables and you'll be in for a long and potentially dull game :D
Quote from: Big Insect on 23 June 2021, 12:15:22 PM
English sources don't categorise archers as archers in this era (right the way through to early Tudor period) they are just called 'soldiers'. Same as there are no references to the word 'billmen' until Henrician times.
Those 'archers' belonging to professional retinues (as took part in the Agincourt campaign) would have been as capable with a polearm and/or sword and buckler, as with a war-bow. They were professional soldiers. I also suspect that by this time they probably fought in a reasonably dense formation and would have been well armoured - at least on body and legs. Munition armour was a lot more prevalent even in the early C15th than we actually believed previously.
Agincourt is a classic 'constricted front' battle - like Horacio on the bridge or the Viking champion at Stamford Bridge - or the Spartans at Thermopylae - it's just that it all turned-out well for King Henry in this instance.
Interesting stuff - looking at other well documented medieval battles - such as Granson, Morat Nancy etc if you read the contemporary accounts you get a very different view of how certain troop types operated - such as Swiss pike keils moving (at pace) over wooded hilly terrain to outflank the Burgundian position - try that on most wargames tables and you'll be in for a long and potentially dull game :D
Battles can be won by the unxpected...Against The Rules... That's WHY they were won!
You will know much more Medieval than I. But I was amazed on watching a recent doc on Bannockburn.. It 'posthumated' a dawn assault... D2...up a valley and through woods...to surprise an English Camp 'expecting' a 'set piece' battle, later.
'Scottish Spears... good on defence'...
Or, English at Flodden... excellent defensive position, but attacked disorganised Scots, down hill.
Richard III 'outdated' cav charge 'could' have worked? Just didn't.
Just exercise judgement ... and roll the dice! Just as they did!
Apologies for ignorance of much medieval!
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 22 June 2021, 06:11:55 PM
It sounds a little bit like Dunkirk.
people who loved Dunkirk will probably like this one too. For me personally it was a dissapointing visit to the cinema... as was Dunkirk.
Cheers,
Rob
As one who loved Dunkirk, I hope to get a chance to watch it then.
Any views on '1917'? Trailer does not inspire... especially, the 'SPR' 'motivation' storyline... but, any good?
It's OK but shold be called 1916 - there is little shell damage around. Plot is OK and the kit looks about right. Not bad but probably best to wait for it to come up on terrestial TV.
Quote from: Heedless Horseman on 03 August 2021, 04:53:54 AM
Any views on '1917'? Trailer does not inspire... especially, the 'SPR' 'motivation' storyline... but, any good?
It's an excellent "Boy's Own" story. It's beautifully shot, well paced, keeps the tension going, gets the period detail pretty well correct BUT it's a blockbuster movie, not a historical documentary. If you are the sort who's enjoyment of a film is going to be ruined because it is not getting the historical minutiae right, don't watch it.
Definitely better on the big screen, however, I'd second Ian's suggestion to see it on TV, if it's available.
1917. Thanks, Guys. Might give it a try from TV or cheap dvd. It is the 'personal interest' motivation that puts me off... too 'Hollywood'. So many blokes did similar... in so many wars, without that... so makes it feel a bit 'iffy'. Could just ignore 'story'! In 'Private Ryan', it was the beach landing that 'made' the film... the rest was, well...
I have posted on another forum, comment about '1917' and the ''Golf Course' battleground. May as well copy to here... hope no one will mind.
" 'No Man's Land' could vary in cratering, etc. Depends on 'where' and 'when'.
Much fought over areas.. especially where lines close together... could be the horrible images so often seen.
However, I have seen several aerial photos... of SOME areas... in which the cratering was pretty much confined to the trench / wire entanglement zones... with 'No Man's Land' between the lines, relatively untouched.
If no targets in 'No Man's Land'... why shell it?
Open ground is a better kill zone from a Defender's point of view,... and Attackers Command would not want troops 'dropping into cover' and 'sticking' there. However risky a crater might be... probably safer than in the open.
As the period of use extended, sporadic shellfire at wiring parties, patrols, listening posts, etc. would gradually churn things up more. But, it was the extended, concentrated barrages before a major assault... and 'counter' fire, that really hammered the ground. "
After many years exposure to photos in books... (and Wargames tables!)... giving an 'impression' of battlefields in several periods... watching DVDs such as the 'Pen & Sword' series has been rather an eye opener. Battlegrounds were so 'BIG'! Hard to imagine the prolonged terror and fortitude of those who had to advance across large spaces of 'open'... in the face of archery, artillery or MGs. Movies , with their 'in shot', heroics... just cannot show the 'scale' of things... and the True Heroism of those who were there.
Anyway, might give 1917 a 'try'! Thanks.
Ah, never underestimate the profound stupidity of human beings, especially in large groups.
I was disappointed with "1917". I felt it was a story written by a 6 year old.
1917 was a big disappointment for me as well, the story line/plot was absurd (IMHO).
Just my tuppence worth of course!
Cheers Paul
I enjoyed 1917, plot concerns aside, it was well shot and captured some of the feel of the period and made for an entertaining watch. Pretty much everything Ithoriel said really. I watched it on my tablet (on Amazon Prime I think) a little while back so can't speak to big-screen experience, but was enjoyable enough there. And I mean a small screen held close to your face is kind of like a big screen far away.... :-\
Quote from: mmcv on 04 August 2021, 08:49:08 AM
I enjoyed 1917, plot concerns aside, it was well shot and captured some of the feel of the period and made for an entertaining watch. Pretty much everything Ithoriel said really. I watched it on my tablet (on Amazon Prime I think) a little while back so can't speak to big-screen experience, but was enjoyable enough there. And I mean a small screen held close to your face is kind of like a big screen far away.... :-
I too enjoyed 1917, I'm not sure what I was expecting given the overall plot point, but the cinematography and overall film experience is fantastic. I watched it streamed on the TV a few months ago (may even of been a year ago...)
New Dune movie getting closer to cinema release - October 22nd
+ a new (extended) trailer - most exciting:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcQx41TM6MY
AND
A new Matrix film for Xmas (is it me or is Tiffany as gorgeous as ever!!!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ix7TUGVYIo
Quote from: Big Insect on 23 September 2021, 11:30:14 AM
New Dune movie getting closer to cinema release - October 22nd
+ a new (extended) trailer - most exciting:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcQx41TM6MY
AND
A new Matrix film for Xmas (is it me or is Tiffany as gorgeous as ever!!!)
She has the bad habit of doing clothed scenes, just for shock value.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 23 September 2021, 11:36:29 AM
She has the bad habit of doing clothed scenes, just for shock value.
;D ;D ;D ;D : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ix7TUGVYIo
Quote from: FierceKitty on 23 September 2021, 11:36:29 AM
She has the bad habit of doing clothed scenes, just for shock value.
Bad bad Kitty - out out out !
New Dune Movie is FAB!
Makes me want to dust down those FWC toys and get zapping the lazer agian (ooo-errr missus)!
'Indestructible' looks fantastic... hope the music was just for the trailer? Wonder if an English dubbed version? If it had been a Hollywood movie...
If 'Indestructible' is 'Invincible'... have ordered 2h DVD with subtitles in English. Looks same, so will have to see!
Yes, same movie. Not bad... a bit 'contrived' in story... but what War film is not?
Usual gripes over equipment. Set in 1942. Static T34/76s around scenes, but moving vehicles T34/85s. Pretty good mock-up PzIVs... but with Schurzen, Lead tank a KV1... either real or a VERY good mock-up... looked genuine, anyway. Pity it was in a 'mixed' unit with T34s... maybe That is why they couldn't get spare parts! lol ;)
'Tactics'... hm. Tanks and trucks able to 'wander around' on their own...BUT, Russia a very big place. Combat scenes... some nice shots but pyrotechnics a bit limited and repetitive.
Overall, I liked it...seen much worse! :)
I find Olga Pogodina insanely attractive.
Anyone seen/heard of Ridley Scott's The Last Duel?
I hadn't heard anything about it until an article today about how he was blaming Millenials with their "cell phones" and "Facebook" and how "the millennian do not ever want to be taught anything unless you're told it on a cellphone" for it flopping at the cinema and only making back a quarter of its budget.
Putting aside the completely ignorant nonsense of his statement and his clear confusion over who comprises what generation, what they like, and whether they go to the cinema or use Facebook, and just how much can be learned through a mobile device.... I'm wondering if anyone had actually seen the film?
Or heard about it even? As I suspect one of the reasons for its flop was more to do with its lack of promotion.
Despite its bizarre half helmets (because you just have to see the actors face at all times) and typical "everything in history is grimy and has a muted colour palette" look, it could be an entertaining enough film and I'll probably watch it when it pops up on a streaming platform.
QuoteAnyone seen/heard of Ridley Scott's The Last Duel?
I hadn't heard anything about it until an article today about how he was blaming Millenials with their "cell phones" and "Facebook" and how "the millennian do not ever want to be taught anything unless you're told it on a cellphone" for it flopping at the cinema and only making back a quarter of its budget.
Putting aside the completely ignorant nonsense of his statement and his clear confusion over who comprises what generation, what they like, and whether they go to the cinema or use Facebook, and just how much can be learned through a mobile device.... I'm wondering if anyone had actually seen the film?
Or heard about it even? As I suspect one of the reasons for its flop was more to do with its lack of promotion.
Despite its bizarre half helmets (because you just have to see the actors face at all times) and typical "everything in history is grimy and has a muted colour palette" look, it could be an entertaining enough film and I'll probably watch it when it pops up on a streaming platform.
Yes. Saw the reviews. Films seldom interest me. I didn't see anyhing of particular interest. Looks at the incident through the three perspectives of the husband, wife and alleged perpetrator.
The Last Duel is rated 85% by critics and 81% by audiences on Rotten Tomatoes (www.rottentomatoes.com) which suggests that most who have actually seen it have enjoyed it.
Yeah it has an impressive cast and I generally enjoy Ridley Scott's films, seems well received, it's rare for critics and audiences to agree these days. Just seems to have misdirected his reasoning for why it failed at the box office.
Looks like it's due to hit Disney+ on the first of December so may give it a watch over the Christmas break and see. I'm pretty terrible at watching films mind you.
Currently watching, and enjoying, The Wheel of Time on Amazon Prime. Only 4 episodes released so far. New episode arriving every Friday at the moment.
QuoteAnyone seen/heard of Ridley Scott's The Last Duel?
I hadn't, up until a week ago, until a trailer for it appeared in my YouTube 'recommendations'. How widely was it advertised?
Might have been the sort of thing I'd go to see before, but I have no desire to sit in a movie theatre for 2-3 hours. Apparently this is a very common theme amongst the over-45s.
The Bond film was being hyped as having excellent opening figures, but now they're saying it's going to lose 100 million dollars, apparently.
I'd normally wait for these movies to turn up on 'terrestrial' TV (i.e. Freeview), but I suspect that now a lot of studios have their own pay TV streaming channels, they're going to keep them all to themselves, so I may never get to see Dune, or Bond 25, or The Last Duel. I'm still waiting for Knives Out to turn up, but so far nothing.
We found the first three episodes of 'The wheel of time' a bit slow, but the latest episode was more enjoyable.
Yeah I find investing a few hours in a film a bit of a chore, and often not worth the payoff compared to a TV series where you have more time to spend with the characters and story.
I am looking forward to starting wheel of time as I loved the books in my teens (though like a lot of people stopped around book 10 when the story was dragging and the books took forever to come out. But the early books are fantastic from memory. I hope the show does it justice as it has great potential.
We just finished Cowboy Bebop last night and despite the mixed reviews, quite enjoyed and hope they do a season 2. I'd seen the anime a few times over the years so it and the fantastic soundtrack held a special place in my heart but while the live action was a bit different and could have used a higher budget it was still enjoyable and my wife who hadn't seen the anime enjoyed it too.
QuoteCurrently watching, and enjoying, The Wheel of Time on Amazon Prime.
Daughter has Amazon Prime, so watched the first two episodes whilst baby-sitting.
Never read the books, so did not know what to expect.
Frankly a bit dull so far. Obviously had wargaming head on, so the attack on the village made me go look at the Pendraken website to see if there were suitably figures for a beastman-style warband. And when they get to the abandoned walled city I thought "That's what a Mordheim/Frostgrave table really ought to look like!".
Dunno when/if I'll get the chance to watch more episodes.
QuoteDaughter has Amazon Prime, so watched the first two episodes whilst baby-sitting.
Never read the books, so did not know what to expect.
Frankly a bit dull so far. Obviously had wargaming head on, so the attack on the village made me go look at the Pendraken website to see if there were suitably figures for a beastman-style warband. And when they get to the abandoned walled city I thought "That's what a Mordheim/Frostgrave table really ought to look like!".
Dunno when/if I'll get the chance to watch more episodes.
I think Amazon were wise to release episodes 1-3 together as they are all pretty much scene setting. The books are full of descriptive prose and background and contain more characters than the phone book. Hats off to them for having done as well with it as they have.
My opinion so far? It's a load of old trollocs! But I like it! :)
I saw the trailer for that and was a bit tempted. I'm not sure if it's just a GoT clone though and I've got a certain reluctance after that last season...!
At least WoT is finished, even though Brandon Sanderson had to step in and liaise with "Robert Jordan" to complete the series. 14 books and a prequel give lots of material to work with!
Yeah they'll not run out of material at least and Brandon has been a "producer" on it to provide advice, though I think has butted heads with the showrunner a few times over certain decisions and changes, e.g. Perrin....
Watched the first couple of episodes with my wife (who knows nothing of the books) and both quite enjoyed it, despite the changes they've made. I do understand accelerating a lot of the plot and having the characters being a little more grown-up though I do think it has "GoTified" itself a bit more than RJ would perhaps have chosen had he been alive. He wasn't so much about the sex and gore, but they probably think that's what people expect post-GoT.
Still looking forward to seeing what they do with the rest.
Quote. . . though I do think it has "GoTified" itself a bit more than RJ would perhaps have chosen had he been alive. He wasn't so much about the sex and gore, but they probably think that's what people expect post-GoT.
Eh? No nudity in either of the episodes I've seen, so not very GoT-ified I'd say!
QuoteEh? No nudity in either of the episodes I've seen, so not very GoT-ified I'd say!
Haha fair, I thought they were almost going to with the bath scene. I guess they're aiming to skip over the more "stroppy teens" of the first book and straight into the "surly young adults" they grow into.
So far I have to say the casting is pretty good. Not miles off how I would have imagined the characters for the most part. One or two not quite matching my vision but not far off either. They're not going to be able to get everything right (e.g. a 6ft 6 Rand!) but they've tried to match up appearances reasonably well with the books.
Quote from: mmcv on 30 November 2021, 04:15:08 PMOne or two not quite matching my vision but not far off either. They're not going to be able to get everything right (e.g. a 6ft 6 Rand!) but they've tried to match up appearances reasonably well with the books.
I know nothing of this but why is a 6ft 6 Rand not achievable? There is no shortage of actors who exceed that height so what is the issue?
https://www.ohsosmall.com/internationaltallactors.html
https://www.ohsosmall.com/tallactors.html
QuoteI know nothing of this but why is a 6ft 6 Rand not achievable? There is no shortage of actors who exceed that height so what is the issue?
https://www.ohsosmall.com/internationaltallactors.html
https://www.ohsosmall.com/tallactors.html
6ft 6, late teens/early twenties, red hair and blue/grey eyes. I imagine finding all those qualities as well as someone who can act the part is a tall order*. They got the rest of it right and don't think the height itself is that important from memory beyond just another way he stood out from others, marking him as being from other parts.
*No pun intended.
I watched the first five minutes of Wheel of Time. Far too self-important gobbldy gook for my taste. I do enjoy The Witcher though. Cowboy Bebop - Nah!That also got a 5 minute switch off.
Gave up on Wheel of Time after about 4 or 5 episodes. Ridiculously derivative and horribly, horribly, clichéd.
Tried The Witcher, didn't finish the first episode.
Just discovered The Silent Sea. Netflix series, Korean. Watched the first three episodes back-to-back. Gripping and suspenseful so far.
Silent Sea is gripping ... as long as you don't think about the physics too hard.
:)
Different strokes for different folks, clearly.
I've been enjoying Wheel of Time and The Expanse on Amazon Prime and was gifted a Netflix voucher so I could watch "The Witcher" which I also enjoyed.
I stayed overnight with friends recently and they were set for an evening watching "The Silent Sea" I managed about twenty minutes before giving up, going to the kitchen to make myself a coffee and communing with their guinea pigs until the first episode was done. We watched old Dr Who episodes for the rest of the evening.
Each to their own.
I'm amazed there's been no attempt to reboot Ice Cold in Alex.
Plenty of wars where it could have been forcibly inserted.
I fear Hollywood could never assimilate the scene with honourable Germans.
Wheel of Time was OK as my wife enjoys this sort of stuff. A lot of the fun was spotting stuff that was very LotR, which made us have a little titter. Certainly of its time in terms of the storyline. The Witcher took quite a while to get going in Season 2 and got better when some of the original characters from season 1 returned.
I'll check out the Korean series as I've not heard of that one. Frankly there's so much to choose from it can be hard to decide what to go for.
QuoteEach to their own.
Aye, and amen to that. It would be a very dull world if we all liked exactly the same thing.
Just finished Vikings Valhalla on netflix.
A carry-on from the original Vikings, moved forward into the 11th century and the time of Canute/Knut.
As before, takes historical figures and events and builds a fictional story using them.
Fairly typical "hairy men waving swords & axes around" stuff (see Game of Thrones, Vikings, The Last Kingdom, etc.).
Worth watching, not quite as good as the original, I think.
I've just finished series 2 of "Ragnarok" on Netflix.
It's a Norwegian story about Magnar who is the re-incarnation of Thor and his battles against the Giants.
Bit weird, but fun spotting the clues. For example, the old man in the old folks home who has only one eye ...
Quote from: fsn on 04 March 2022, 10:18:19 AMI've just finished series 2 of "Ragnarok" on Netflix.
It's a Norwegian story about Magnar who is the re-incarnation of Thor and his battles against the Giants.
Bit weird, but fun spotting the clues. For example, the old man in the old folks home who has only one eye ...
I also enjoyed this as well :D
As you say, there are some interesting plays on the Old Norse legends - very clever how they 'create' the modern day Jörmungandr (the Midgard Serpent) - made me laugh but very 'plausible'.
I also re-watched the Netflix film Outlaw King (about the early campaigns of Robert Bruce) - which I enjoyed more the 2nd time around
Likewise I enjoyed The King as well, on a 2nd watch. Although the reinterpretation of Agincourt has a little bit too much artistic license (IMHO).
If you are into your Highland & Isles warfare, I'd also recommend watching the 2015 Macbeth with Michael Fassbender as the Thane of Cawdor on Amazon Prime - very good & very bloody.
And for further related Highland & Isles viewing - Valhalla Rising should be on your watch list - but this is very gruesome watching - but the use of the 2 handed axe in combat is very insightful and well observed.
On a lighter note ... I am also enjoying The marvelous Mrs Maisel on Amazon Prime ... just for something totally different ;D ;D ;D
Enjoyed the 1st episode of The Ipcress File last night on ITV.
Pleasantly surprised to find it's not full of eff-ing and jeff-ing, unlike most things on after 21:00 nowadays.
Looking forward to the next episode.
I watched Peaky Biklnders, good as ever, will look at Ipcress File on catchup tonight.
It's not got great reviews, but I've just enjoyed The Bubble on Netflix. As usual, it's probably twenty minutes too long, but I found it amusing.
Unlike the same networks Don't Look Up. Dreadfully unfunny, gave up after about 40 minutes.
Still enjoying The Ipcress File on Sunday evenings, although the female lead seems to be doing a poor imitation of Lady Penelope.
Quote from: Raider4 on 05 April 2022, 11:24:12 AMStill enjoying The Ipcress File on Sunday evenings, although the female lead seems to be doing a poor imitation of Lady Penelope.
I've been persevering with it but it's a pale imitation of the Michael Caine film.
Has anyone seen the trailers for what seems to be a remake of the WW2 classic "the man who never was" I think it is called "Operation Mincemeat" I wonder if it will hold up against the original
ITV4 showed Aliens last night - and it was the original, theatrical version!
Other than the ad breaks, perfection.
QuoteHas anyone seen the trailers for what seems to be a remake of the WW2 classic "the man who never was" I think it is called "Operation Mincemeat" I wonder if it will hold up against the original
Saw this review pop up on it https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/apr/13/operation-mincemeat-review-colin-firth-heads-starry-cast-in-wartime-spy-caper
Seems to be a different take on the same incident, but not directly related to the older film beyond the shared historical events.
Not sure but I think it takes as it's basis the Ben McCyntyre book of the same name.
Went to see Top Gun - Maverick last night to support a fund raising event for the local Scout group which we're involved with.
Overall I thought it was pretty good, amazing how far you can push the flight envelope of the F-18 Hornet! The ending is straight out of Hollywood (now there's a surprise :) ) but without giving away too much of the plot the second film is more about the pilots than the aircraft and lets just say that Captain Mitchell finally finds redemption and closure.
FWIW I'd give it 4 out of 5 stars.
I'm not really a Cruise fan but the trailer for Top Gun really made me want to see it. I guess it's just the flinging around in jets that appeals I guess!
Quote from: Leon on 27 May 2022, 12:55:38 AMI'm not really a Cruise fan but the trailer for Top Gun really made me want to see it. I guess it's just the flinging around in jets that appeals I guess!
It's worth a watch, rubbish plot but some excellent flying sequences just got back from watching it.
I'll probably catch in a few years time when it appears on YouTube.
Needs a wide screen Jim.
QuoteIt's worth a watch, rubbish plot but some excellent flying sequences.
I've already seen that film. It's called
Top Gun . . .
Well this . . . does not look good:
Looks like someone has seen
Guardians of the Galaxy and wanted to do a fantasy version.
I think it looks an absolute hoot! Looking forward to seeing it.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 22 July 2022, 11:48:33 AMI think it looks an absolute hoot! Looking forward to seeing it.
My inner teenager agrees
He also plays the lute!
My RPG characters prefer to play with their loot. :)
QuoteLooks like someone has seen Guardians of the Galaxy and wanted to do a fantasy version.
eerrr? whereas talking trees, aliens and genetically modified racoons are firmly in the historical genre.
Perhaps Sir should consider calling it a day on today's mess celebrations? X_X
Quoteeerrr? whereas talking trees, aliens and genetically modified racoons are firmly in the historical genre.
True, all superhero movies are fantasies. I was referring to the more traditional style of medieval-based fantasy we usually get.
Quote from: Raider4 on 22 July 2022, 11:25:29 AMWell this . . . does not look good:
Thanks for the warning. I would probably have avoided it anyway. Not much original coming out of the film industry these days.
Loved the clip that's doing the rounds of Chris Pine explaining to Hugh Grant what an "easter egg" is in relation to the film.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 22 July 2022, 11:48:33 AMI think it looks an absolute hoot! Looking forward to seeing it.
Absolutely!
I see that Netflix have added "The Gray man" to their oeuvre.
This is based on the first (in time) of the Gray Man books by Mark Greaney. These are action/spy type books
a la Bourne with the eponymous Gray Man having an on/off job as an CIA assassin. I have read them all (bar the
Gray Man itself) and they're fun nonsense - and I mean that as someone who enjoys and appreciates fun nonsense.
It stars Ryan Gosling and Chris Evans.
Trailer has lots of *boom*
Should be good.
Should be.
Hmmm. Review of the "Gray Man".
Have you ever watched the Jack Reacher films with Tom Cruise? They're OK. Tom being Tom and plenty of boom. If you then watch the Reacher series with Alan Ritchson, you see a whole different Reacher. For a start, Ritchson is a big bloke (6'2" and built like the proverbial outhouse) and Tom ... isn't. Then you read the Reacher books and find that Reacher is supposed to be a big bloke. However, does that make Tom's Reacher any less of a film? Well if you've seen Tom in action first, you're probably more forgiving than if you read the books first.
"Nobby", I hear you say. (well the voices are saying - except they always call me "Batman") "you're supposed to be reviewing The Gray Man not Jack Reacher". Well, I read the Gray Man books before I saw the film and so when I watched the film I was confused by the patchwork of characters, mixed story lines and half hearted adherence to the books. They used the names (mostly) of the characters from the original, but changed the back story. Fitz for example, is (in the film) an ex-CIA agent. In the book, he's British for a start. In the books Lloyd is a recurring character and (spoiler) in the film, not so much.
Having said all that, if you haven't read any of the books, the Gray Man is high octane, as I believe is the term. The obligatory super-female is not that super, and manages to get beaten to a pulp by a man who is much bigger than she is, which is a change. The child is not annoying, which is also refreshing. Ryan Gosling as the eponymous Gray Man is a bit like Michael Keaton's Batman. A bland canvas in front of which the bad guys prance and strut. Chief strutter is Chris Evans who plays the psychopathic bad guy as if he was doing it because his girlfriend made him.
As as a stand alone the film is fine for a popcorn and beer sort of viewing.
Not all movies, but these are on their way:
The Rings of Power (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewgCqJDI_Nk) - a Lord of the Rings prequel on Amazon Prime. Includes Lenny Henry as a hobbit, doing his best country bumpkin Mummerset accent.
House of the Dragon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DotnJ7tTA34) - a Game of Thrones prequel from HBO (so will be on Sky in the UK, presumably?).
And finally, Prey (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ7LytagKlc) - the next installment in the Predator franchise. Set in 18th century America. Can't possibly be worse that the last one. Released on/by Hulu. Not sure if the means it will be in cinemas or not, or a streaming service?
The fragmentation of movie distribution is a regular bugbear of mine.
I am NOT going to subscribe to a dozen different services in a fit of misplaced FOMO!
I use Amazon Prime because I am Mr. Disorganised and free, fast, often 24hr delivery regularly saves my bacon. Prime Gaming and Prime Video are nice to have add-ons but without the delivery side I wouldn't bother.
Netflix, Sky Movies, Disney, Hulu, et al can go hang!
</soapbox>
Tend to agree with Mr I.
I started with Netflix years ago, and keep it up mostly because my daughter uses it. I have amazon Prime for the speedy delivery and the video platform is somewhat secondary.
Gave up my BBC licence 'cos the only thing I watched was Only Connect and I can go to my daughter's and binge watch that. (Seems like a fair exchange.)
Agree with Mr 4 as well. I've given up on so many franchises that I used to enjoy because the modern ones are either badly written and/or badly "re-imagined" - Dr Who, Star Trek, DC Comics, Star Wars, Terminator, Predator, etc, etc. I never got past the Lord of the Rings on Radio 4 with Ian Holm and Michael Horden, but I've watched the "Rings of Power" trailers and imagine Mr Tolkien doing handsprings in the afterlife.
I leave aside the Marvel films, as well ... they're just Marvel. I also recognise my own bias - for example I refused to watch Woodentop Craig as Bond because he's blond. *
It seems to me that there is a dearth of good writing. The best performing films of 2022
Spider-Man: No Way Home and
Top Gun: Maverick are in some ways throwbacks to the 1980s.
Now, I mostly watch YouTube (great series on the Franco-Prussian War week-by-week linked below) or listen to audiobooks. Last week I attended the virtual Data Practitioners' Conference and painted a regiment of Polish lancers as I listened.
*And a Woodentop. After half an hour of
Defiance I was hoping the Nazis would find him.
Quote from: fsn on 23 July 2022, 11:48:42 AMGave up my BBC licence 'cos the only thing I watched was Only Connect and I can go to my daughter's and binge watch that. (Seems like a fair exchange.)
Some very strange rules on the TV licensing website. You can watch Netflix and on demand TV, provided you do not watch I-player or Amazon Prime.
But if you watch any live content on any on demand service you do? How the heck can they tell or work that out?
It used to be if you had a TV aerial and a device you could connect it to even if you didn't connect it.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104#:~:text=Do%20I%20need%20a%20TV%20Licence%20to%20watch%20Netflix%3F,on%20demand%20programmes%20on%20Netflix.
These are answers to FAQs rather than rules. The key issue is whether the programmes are live or not.
According to Which - Legal "The law says you need a TV licence to watch, record or stream programmes live on any TV channel, and to watch or download any BBC programme. It doesn't matter whether you do that on a TV, laptop, tablet or any other device. But you may not need a licence if you're not watching live TV, or if you have no TV."
There were, apparently, over 49,000 prosecutions last year, 92% of which resulted in convictions and it doesn't seem to matter very much whether you watch live TV or not, or just on-demand TV, as the licence simply enables you to install and use television receiving equipment. The assumption seems to be that if you have such equipment, you must be using it and this includes TVs, PCs, mobile phones, DVD recorders, in fact anything at all that is capable of receiving live TV by any means.
Blimey they still have TV licensing in the UK?
Reminds me of that episode of "The Young Ones" where Vivian ends up eating the flat's TV, but is caught by the inspector with the plug still hanging out his mouth....used to love that series when it was on in the early 80's...a few years ago now! :)
Yes, we still do. It is a contentious subject and an unpopular 'tax'. It is used, essentially, to fund BBC TV, radio and other BBC services like iPlayer, all of which are advertisement-free at the moment. It is frozen at the moment and due for review in 2027. The present government, for all kinds of reasons, wants to replace it with something else.
We haven't had a licence for 23 years now...
As the Government say,
"You do not need a TV Licence to watch:
non-BBC programmes on online catch-up services
videos or DVDs
clips on websites like YouTube
closed circuit television (CCTV)"
Very happy to pay the licence and fund the only broadcast news service not in hoc to a media oligarch, and the producer of excellent drama and documentaries.
Quite happy to pay tv licence .
Rarely watch BBC tv these days but do listen to the BBC radio most days and its got to be funded somehow.
QuoteWe haven't had a licence for 23 years now...
Do you not get hounded by the licensing people, who can't quite get it into their heads that not everyone has or watches the telly?
Quote from: Raider4 on 25 July 2022, 06:39:50 PMDo you not get hounded by the licensing people, who can't quite get it into their heads that not everyone has or watches the telly?
Not after the first one or two years, get a letter every two years or so stating they assume I still don't need a licence.
Quote from: Gwydion on 25 July 2022, 03:28:48 PMVery happy to pay the licence and fund the only broadcast news service not in hoc to a media oligarch, and the producer of excellent drama and documentaries.
Don't watch or buy any MSM as well
Just checked the BBC1 schedule for today. Program of painting portraits that I would possibly watch, so 30 minutes of possible out of 18 hours. Rest is antiques, bargains, pets, East-flipping-Enders and lcd quiz shows. Not seeing a lot of high quality programming.
Wednesday - same but with some ladies kicky-ball thrown in.
Friday, Saturday. BBC1 given up almost entirely to the Commonwealth Games.
I gave up the TV licence because the BBC was a 99.7% Victoria Coren free zone. I also don't watch sports. Put the BBC on a subscription service and I'll happily pay for things that are watchable (e.g. Victoria Coren.)
Quote from: fsn on 25 July 2022, 09:17:03 PMI'll happily pay for things that are watchable (e.g. Victoria Coren.)
Would a more accurate and correct version of the above comment be " I'll happily pay for things that I can lust over!"
:D
Quote from: Raider4 on 25 July 2022, 06:39:50 PMDo you not get hounded by the licensing people, who can't quite get it into their heads that not everyone has or watches the telly?
Just get a threatening letter every two years checking I don't need a licence. I just confirm online, but it is really ridiculous. I don't have a gun or dangerous animals or a car, but I don't get a nastily worded letter every two years from the police, DEFRA or DVLA checking up if I don't have any of them. The arrogance of the BBC, and their misogynistic* privatised investigator Capita is unbelievable, I despise them and the BBC for it. One of the benefits of the upcoming collapse of global industrial civilisation will be the disappearance of the BBC, Capita and their ilk and TV in general.
*https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/why-are-women-being-disproportionately-penalised-tv-license-non-payment/
https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/tv-licence-prosecutions-discriminate-against-women
Quote from: Ben Waterhouse on 25 July 2022, 01:49:08 PMWe haven't had a licence for 23 years now...
Good luck Ben but unless the device/s you use are physically incapable of receiving live TV you could be treading on very thin ice. You'd need to show that any TV receiver you used was incapable of receiving live TV.
The authority for licences is the Communications Act 2003 which says at Part Four that (1). A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.
TV Licensing.co.uk expands on this by a more recent explanation to cover common devices other than conventional TVs. "A TV Licence is a legal permission to install or use television receiving equipment to watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV or live on an online TV service, and to download or watch BBC programmes on demand, including catch up TV, on BBC iPlayer. This could be on any device, including TVs, desktop computers, laptops, mobile phones, tablets, games consoles, digital boxes, DVD, Blu-ray and VHS recorders. This applies regardless of which television channels a person receives or how those channels are received."
I am typing this on my PC, which is capable of receiving live TV, and even if it were the only receiver I owned, if push came to shove I'd need to show that I never used it to "watch or record television programmes as they are being shown". The onus would be on me to prove this and the assumption in cases that are brought to court seems to be that if somebody operates a device that is capable of receiving live TV, they must be using it. The fine is up to £1000 plus costs.
Quote from: howayman on 25 July 2022, 03:43:00 PMQuite happy to pay tv licence .
I tend to agree with you and Gwydion. I also pay it because I have numerous devices, including this PC, which are capable of receiving live TV via the internet, whether I like it or not, and I don't fancy being fined £1000 plus costs for operating one. The concept that it only applies to TVs is a bit dated these days.
BBC TV programmes are on my menu, as is BBC radio, so I shouldn't really complain but the fact that a licence is mandatory doesn't sit well with me and I would prefer for the BBC to be funded by a subscription service like any other, not least because the 'tax' raised by the licence is pillaged by governments for other purposes.
QuoteWould a more accurate and correct version of the above comment be " I'll happily pay for things that I can lust over!"
:D
Fie! I admire Ms Coren for her acerbic wit and keen intelligence.
(https://i.redd.it/0t6lf3tci4l81.jpg)
Of course she has other attributes which are to be admired.
QuoteThe onus would be on me to prove this and the assumption in cases that are brought to court seems to be that if somebody operates a device that is capable of receiving live TV, they must be using it.
As a young man with no TV (and a tad before cellphones let alone smartphones!) I was routinely harrassed by nasty letters from the licence people who seemed incapable of understanding how anyone could survive without a TV. Anyway, I have long since been a regular payer but am I the only one who thinks that the evolution to the position above where we would have to prove our innocence is utterly obnoxious?
QuoteOne of the benefits of the upcoming collapse of global industrial civilisation
Oooh err. Lets hope Leon can turn the workshop into a bunker and continue to turn out figures.
Quote. . . but am I the only one who thinks that the evolution to the position above where we would have to prove our innocence is utterly obnoxious?
No, you are not.
No, you're not.
My uncle in the 1970s abandoned his television - he was a jazz musician as well as holding down a day job and just didn't have time (or the inclination) to watch tv.
He got the usual letters which he ignored as he had already told them he didn't have one. They turned up and asked to check! He told them to go and get a warrant. Never heard another word until he died about fifteen years ago.
(on the other hand a lot of people who do watch live programming don't have a licence and the BBC need the cash. Its almost as if someone devised a system to alienate people from the BBC. I'm sure that can't be true.)
Quote from: Raider4 on 26 July 2022, 08:57:20 AMNo, you are not.
It is what it is. At least a TV Licensing inspector has no right of entry, without a warrant, and magistrates rarely issue such warrants to TVL these days.
QuoteGood luck Ben but unless the device/s you use are physically incapable of receiving live TV you could be treading on very thin ice. You'd need to show that any TV receiver you used was incapable of receiving live TV.
The authority for licences is the Communications Act 2003 which says at Part Four that (1). A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.
TV Licensing.co.uk expands on this by a more recent explanation to cover common devices other than conventional TVs. "A TV Licence is a legal permission to install or use television receiving equipment to watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV or live on an online TV service, and to download or watch BBC programmes on demand, including catch up TV, on BBC iPlayer. This could be on any device, including TVs, desktop computers, laptops, mobile phones, tablets, games consoles, digital boxes, DVD, Blu-ray and VHS recorders. This applies regardless of which television channels a person receives or how those channels are received."
I am typing this on my PC, which is capable of receiving live TV, and even if it were the only receiver I owned, if push came to shove I'd need to show that I never used it to "watch or record television programmes as they are being shown". The onus would be on me to prove this and the assumption in cases that are brought to court seems to be that if somebody operates a device that is capable of receiving live TV, they must be using it. The fine is up to £1000 plus costs.
John. The law is "watching" live TV not having the equipment that can watch it. Capita needs to prove in a court of law that I have watched live TV not me proving I don't; it's basic English law - innocence until proven guilty. The vast majority of people convicted have either admitted they watch live TV or have been observed by a licensing enforcer doing so.
I don't have a TV, I do have a PC, smart phone and iPad.
As the great Alan Price (yes, that one) said to me, "Why pay a poll tax for having a sewer in the middle of your front room?"
I want to fund the BBC (mostly radio for me but I do watch some TV) but I think the way TV licensing is 'enforced' is badly flawed and and generally antithetical to English Law.
Anyone wanting a nice long read on the matter should try:
licencefree (http://licencefree.co.uk/law_grievance.html)
In dubio pro reo. Fight it all the way: they'd need to prove you were guilty of using it as charged. I've taught a few judges in my time....
Quote from: FierceKitty on 26 July 2022, 04:06:23 PMIn dubio pro reo. Fight it all the way: they'd need to prove you were guilty of using it as charged. I've taught a few judges in my time....
Hear him!
Quote from: Gwydion on 26 July 2022, 10:24:33 AMNo, you're not.
My uncle in the 1970s abandoned his television - he was a jazz musician as well as holding down a day job and just didn't have time (or the inclination) to watch tv.
He got the usual letters which he ignored as he had already told them he didn't have one. They turned up and asked to check! He told them to go and get a warrant. Never heard another word until he died about fifteen years ago.
(on the other hand a lot of people who do watch live programming don't have a licence and the BBC need the cash. Its almost as if someone devised a system to alienate people from the BBC. I'm sure that can't be true.)
Never had a television and after University filled in the form I received TVL. When I got it for a third year in a row I wondered why I should have to deal with it every 12 months so just binned them. After 20 years and a move from the flat to a house I got a visit. I declined to let him and he said they always sought a warrant. I told him that was fine and go and get one. Never heard anything more. The whole system needs reforming after 75 years and a doubling in real value.
Quote from: Ben Waterhouse on 26 July 2022, 03:03:40 PMThe law is "watching" live TV not having the equipment that can watch it.
My neighbours opposite thought exactly that and are being prosecuted under the Communication Act 2003.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/4
They are retired teachers who have a TV on which they watch nothing but films via an old VHS player, yes some people still use them. They are both in their 80s and didn't even need a licence previously because they were over over 75 and when that changed they decided simply to not watch TV anymore.
The evidence on which they have been summonsed is the statement of the Capita TV licensing enforcement officer, essentially his external observations that because there is receiving equipment installed at the address it is used. There is a terrestrial TV aerial on their roof and they will now have to show to a court that they do not use it to receive live TV, or that they play recordings of live BBC TV programmes on their VHS player. Quite how they will do that is unclear.
One of the principal current complaints about prosecutions for not having a TV licence is that courts tend to accept the statements of the prosecution and the onus is on the defendants to show otherwise.
Quote from: DecemDave on 26 July 2022, 08:33:12 AMam I the only one who thinks that the evolution to the position above where we would have to prove our innocence is utterly obnoxious?
No you are definitely not the only one. The way that courts seem to accept the statements of the Capita TV licensing officer over those of the defendant are a principal complaint. People, in effect, have to prove their innocence and that can't be right.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 26 July 2022, 04:06:23 PMthey'd need to prove you were guilty of using it as charged.
That is one of the principal complaints about these cases, where the evidence of the TV licensing enforcement officer is disputed and it is one person's word against another. The magistrates who deal with these cases tend to believe the prosecution, not the defendant.
Quote from: Gwydion on 26 July 2022, 04:00:31 PMAnyone wanting a nice long read on the matter should try:
licencefree (http://licencefree.co.uk/law_grievance.html)
Thanks for that. I hadn't seen this site before but it sums up the appalling situation with the BBC, their Capita enforcers and the courts pretty well. I'll pass it to my neighbours who are fighting prosecution now. I'm not sure how much use it will be to them and I expect their solicitors are aware of the issues.
Quote from: hammurabi70 on 26 July 2022, 11:46:35 PMThe whole system needs reforming after 75 years and a doubling in real value.
Absolutely. It is an iniquitous system. It is long past its sell-by date and, a bit like the NHS, needs a complete review and modernisation to make it appropriate to the 21st Century.
I remember being in a queue at a Comet store in a low income area... and a rather horrible female was 'blowing up' at till girl, over having to provide her address. Pretty obviously, no TV licence for her new Big Screen TV!
I almost never 'watch' UK TV... and have not for many years... only a short 'curiosity', flick through, after DVDs end. I buy Box Sets of shows ... I HATE adverts, and like to 'binge watch'.
In years long gone, I was Happy with THREE channels! Decent Drama on BBC1, Good Documentaries on BBC2 and, usually, 'Rubbishy entertainment' on ITV.
TV Licence paid FOR ALL THREE! Great Deal! 8)
I do not want to pay for Sky or streaming a lot of cr*p programmes. I have just paid TV Licence... but, personally, find it annoying that it costs so much due to unwanted competition from non-broadcast sources.
And, revenue loss from channel proliferation has meant a whole lot of rubbish 'Filler' shows' on the once good, BBC! Repeats, though complained of, were better!
MY answer... ! Keep licence Fee and charge Commercial Channels MORE for the privilege of broadcasting to our discerning public! ;D ;D ;D
There is a court of appeals too. You can make a LOT of trouble even before we get into community boycotts and so on (and these can work. I've been involved in a few). The government is there to serve the citizens; look at your rights in common law etc.
QuoteMy neighbours opposite thought exactly that and are being prosecuted under the Communication Act 2003.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/4
They are retired teachers who have a TV on which they watch nothing but films via an old VHS player, yes some people still use them. They are both in their 80s and didn't even need a licence previously because they were over over 75 and when that changed they decided simply to not watch TV anymore.
The evidence on which they have been summonsed is the statement of the Capita TV licensing enforcement officer, essentially his external observations that because there is receiving equipment installed at the address it is used. There is a terrestrial TV aerial on their roof and they will now have to show to a court that they do not use it to receive live TV, or that they play recordings of live BBC TV programmes on their VHS player. Quite how they will do that is unclear.
One of the principal current complaints about prosecutions for not having a TV licence is that courts tend to accept the statements of the prosecution and the onus is on the defendants to show otherwise.
In which case they should plead not guilty, it would appear this is a malicious prosecution and they are being misled into pleading guilty. Again a quote from Which, the consumers pressure group.
"Do I need a TV licence?
Yes You watch or record TV at the time it's broadcast ('live' TV) through Freeview, Freesat or a pay-TV service such as Sky. This includes all channels, not just BBC channels. You need a licence regardless of whether you rent or own your home. You use BBC iPlayer on any device, including smartphones, laptops and tablets.
No You exclusively use other catch-up services, such as ITV Hub and All 4. You only watch TV-streaming services, such as Amazon Prime Video, Disney Plus or Netflix, or YouTube videos. You only use your TV to watch DVDs, Blu-rays or video cassettes."
Read more: https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/televisions/article/tv-licence-explained-a4ROt3S92d24?utm_source=which&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=text_share - Which?
I won't be adding to this thread as we are going round in circles - I haven't had a TV licence for over 20 years and after the first couple of years haven't been harassed by the BBC. I have lived in the same house for this whole time.
Quote from: Ben Waterhouse on 27 July 2022, 10:49:43 AMIn which case they should plead not guilty
Of course they are pleading not guilty. Nobody has mislead them.
Unfortunately, Which, and other similar 'authorities', do not make UK criminal law.
I'm going to lock this thread for a while....It seems to be getting a wee bit too tetchy.