CHECK THIS OUT!!!
- Thread starter MadMax13
- Start date
drakegoodman
New member
"In 1945 the Nazis went to the moon" :lol: I'll go see it for shits and giggles.
They have a Flickr site with some interesting pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ironskyfilm
Cheers MM.
They have a Flickr site with some interesting pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ironskyfilm
Cheers MM.
Peter_Suciu
Well-known member
MadMax13 said:
You know, this is exactly why I loath movies more and more. As a little kid I loved Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, but as an adult I find that stuff to be really quite awful. I guess I think of real history and find it fascinating.
But mention something like a slightly crippled warlord who was immature and brought ruin to his nation and people yawn. Put it in space and the fan boys can't get enough of it.
Mention a fanatical warlord in Africa in the 19th century who raises and army and calls for a Jihad against the world and most people have no idea what you're talking about. Mention a fanatical warlord with a stupid ring and they go crazy for it.
That is so annoying.
Peter, where I'm an open minded person, someone who values ALL opinions, I couldn't help but find myself questioning your "broad" dislike for what I would consider creativity- especially that of the cinematic kind. Many of the obscure historical moments in time you mentioned are better suited to The History Channel, in documentary format.
This is not to say they wouldn't work as film adaptations because there are PLENTY of existing films that cover lesser known historical events. However, we are talking about cinema here! As an entity, film is one of the most creative forms of expression available to artists because unlike say, a painting- film encompasses every aspect of creativity: writing, performance, sculpture, set & sound design, editing & direction.
With this in mind, are you saying that you would prefer ALL films to deal with 100% factual content or instead make no reference to our reality???
It seems so from your above post. So in other words- no "annoying fanboy stuff "like Superman or Batman? Or a melding of fact & fiction like the supremely entertaining Hellboy series? Braveheart...is that OK? What about Time Bandits?
I'm just confused because you liked Star Wars as a kid, (which is highly inventive stuff), but now you want to discredit and stifle the creativity of filmmakers if you happen to not be into their ideas?
What if the producers of Star Wars told Lucas they wouldn't back his film because THEY felt the Imperial fleet were patterned too closely off the Nazi's and the the Rebel Alliance may contribute to social unrest amongst the lower class??
All I'm saying is that for you to have such a negative reaction to such an obviously "tounge-in-cheek" concept for a film seems more than a bit harsh!
Whether it's Indiana Jones, Inglorious Basterds, marathon Man, Boys from Brazil, Valkerie, Kelly's Heroes- hell- even Hogan's Heroes, the bottom line is that the Nazi's though disgusting in every moral way possible, have left an indelible mark on the minds of many writers. They are the ultimate baddies because of their extremest experiments & belief in the occult, surprising rise to power, and the sheer fact that they DID indeed exist in our history. For those facts alone, it should come as no surprise that they are often the subject of creative "what if" scenarios.
Entertain- that's what a large portion of films try to do.
Have a swell evening. Best Regards ~Max
This is not to say they wouldn't work as film adaptations because there are PLENTY of existing films that cover lesser known historical events. However, we are talking about cinema here! As an entity, film is one of the most creative forms of expression available to artists because unlike say, a painting- film encompasses every aspect of creativity: writing, performance, sculpture, set & sound design, editing & direction.
With this in mind, are you saying that you would prefer ALL films to deal with 100% factual content or instead make no reference to our reality???
It seems so from your above post. So in other words- no "annoying fanboy stuff "like Superman or Batman? Or a melding of fact & fiction like the supremely entertaining Hellboy series? Braveheart...is that OK? What about Time Bandits?
I'm just confused because you liked Star Wars as a kid, (which is highly inventive stuff), but now you want to discredit and stifle the creativity of filmmakers if you happen to not be into their ideas?
What if the producers of Star Wars told Lucas they wouldn't back his film because THEY felt the Imperial fleet were patterned too closely off the Nazi's and the the Rebel Alliance may contribute to social unrest amongst the lower class??
All I'm saying is that for you to have such a negative reaction to such an obviously "tounge-in-cheek" concept for a film seems more than a bit harsh!
Whether it's Indiana Jones, Inglorious Basterds, marathon Man, Boys from Brazil, Valkerie, Kelly's Heroes- hell- even Hogan's Heroes, the bottom line is that the Nazi's though disgusting in every moral way possible, have left an indelible mark on the minds of many writers. They are the ultimate baddies because of their extremest experiments & belief in the occult, surprising rise to power, and the sheer fact that they DID indeed exist in our history. For those facts alone, it should come as no surprise that they are often the subject of creative "what if" scenarios.
Entertain- that's what a large portion of films try to do.
Have a swell evening. Best Regards ~Max
Peter_Suciu
Well-known member
Well, I'll stand by my argument. I finally saw Avatar. I didn't bother going to see it in 3D. I could - and why not WILL - rant about 3D too. As a journalist I write about TVs a bit. Not as much as a few years ago, but it remains something I am passionate about, and write about. 3D is bad because it is a gimmick and it will ruin film making. Movies don't need to be in 3D and having seen Avatar in 2D I can't imagine what it will bring in 3D.
That said, Avatar as a film was bloody dreadful. The politics aside, the story was almost beat for beat The Last Samurai or Dances With Wolves. And the fanboys loved it. The same fan boys were bored to death by the former two films. The sci-fi element won out for many people.
As for Star Wars, yes as a kid I loved it. But what bothers me is the legion of fans that know the names of secondary characters, the planets, the ships, etc. They treat this fiction as if it is more real than the real world. But ask them to name just the American ships at the Battle of Midway and they couldn't do it. That's my problem with these films.
I'm not saying these aren't creative. They're terribly creative. And I have nothing against the creators. It is the fans that I find disguisting to some degree. As a journalist I also cover video games a bit. I've written about video games for nearly 20 years.
So a couple years ago I had some developers come by to show me a game and I showed them my helmet room, and the response was that it was impressive... but did I ever consider branching out and getting helmets from Star Wars and Halo. My response was "those aren't real." And they said, "no you can buy them." That wasn't what I meant. I mean I know plastic versions exist. But they aren't real in that these were used by any real soldier anywhere.
Thus the point of my long rant is that is that fiction has gotten to the point where it is more real to people than actual history. I say this as someone who loved LOST on ABC, but I also loved Rome on HBO and The Tudors on Showtime. The latter two I even consider historical fiction that took vast liberties with the real figures from history.
For this reason I actually liked Spartacus. It took great liberties, but at least it was set in a real history - that of the later Roman Republic in the years leading up to the Civil Wars that eventually resulted in the transformation to Roman Empire. But this brings me full circle. Rome on HBO and Spartacus on Starz at least used a real historical backdrop to tell the story of a great republic turning to an empire, and most people have no idea this even happened.
Ask anyone to tell you who the first Roman Emperor was and I'll be dollars to donuts the answer is Julius Caesar. That would of course be wrong. Ask to name the battles of the Civil War between Octavian and Marc Antony and you'll get no response from most sci-fi fanboys. They might even say, who cares. But ask about the battles in Star Wars... well, that's another story.
But then again, I'm also quite different. At 42-years old I actually think the prequels are VASTLY superior to the original trilogy. They're not better films, but they're more enjoyable and they tell a story that is far easier to follow. Most Generation-Xers grew up with the original trilogy and thus it is the best. Frankly, it is middling story telling at best.
That said, Avatar as a film was bloody dreadful. The politics aside, the story was almost beat for beat The Last Samurai or Dances With Wolves. And the fanboys loved it. The same fan boys were bored to death by the former two films. The sci-fi element won out for many people.
As for Star Wars, yes as a kid I loved it. But what bothers me is the legion of fans that know the names of secondary characters, the planets, the ships, etc. They treat this fiction as if it is more real than the real world. But ask them to name just the American ships at the Battle of Midway and they couldn't do it. That's my problem with these films.
I'm not saying these aren't creative. They're terribly creative. And I have nothing against the creators. It is the fans that I find disguisting to some degree. As a journalist I also cover video games a bit. I've written about video games for nearly 20 years.
So a couple years ago I had some developers come by to show me a game and I showed them my helmet room, and the response was that it was impressive... but did I ever consider branching out and getting helmets from Star Wars and Halo. My response was "those aren't real." And they said, "no you can buy them." That wasn't what I meant. I mean I know plastic versions exist. But they aren't real in that these were used by any real soldier anywhere.
Thus the point of my long rant is that is that fiction has gotten to the point where it is more real to people than actual history. I say this as someone who loved LOST on ABC, but I also loved Rome on HBO and The Tudors on Showtime. The latter two I even consider historical fiction that took vast liberties with the real figures from history.
For this reason I actually liked Spartacus. It took great liberties, but at least it was set in a real history - that of the later Roman Republic in the years leading up to the Civil Wars that eventually resulted in the transformation to Roman Empire. But this brings me full circle. Rome on HBO and Spartacus on Starz at least used a real historical backdrop to tell the story of a great republic turning to an empire, and most people have no idea this even happened.
Ask anyone to tell you who the first Roman Emperor was and I'll be dollars to donuts the answer is Julius Caesar. That would of course be wrong. Ask to name the battles of the Civil War between Octavian and Marc Antony and you'll get no response from most sci-fi fanboys. They might even say, who cares. But ask about the battles in Star Wars... well, that's another story.
But then again, I'm also quite different. At 42-years old I actually think the prequels are VASTLY superior to the original trilogy. They're not better films, but they're more enjoyable and they tell a story that is far easier to follow. Most Generation-Xers grew up with the original trilogy and thus it is the best. Frankly, it is middling story telling at best.
Lost Skeleton
Well-known member
In the early 1980s, while I was still a teenager, the supervisor at my summer job promulgated all manner of conspiracy literature, and believed every word of what he read. In addition to treatises regarding the Kennedy assassination and denials of the Holocaust, he had pamphlets and books about Nazi rocket bases in Antarctica (Neuschwabenland) and Nazi UFOs. This was a grown man in his early 40s, who served in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War.
By no means stupid, he was, nonetheless, sufficiently conceited to believe he was more intellectually enlightened than the masses because of his appreciation for, and encyclopedic knowledge of, such revisionary pseudoscience.
The subject matter of Iron Sky, absurd though it may be, has a history of its own. Wikipedia (The last resource I would endorse) provides a brief overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_UFOs
Though I have a master's degree in cinema studies from NYU, I wouldn't dream of passing judgment on Iron Sky until I see it, which, most likely, will be never (being a German film, produced independently, international distribution is unlikely). Likewise, I won't pass judgement on its target audience. The ignorance present in the world today cannot be blamed exclusively on the intellectual and artistic poverty of present day cinema. Those seeds are sown elsewhere.
I have no idea what constitutes the archetypal "fanboy," nor what percentage of the population is comprised by this class of person. Consequently, I'm in no position to predict his likes, dislikes, or general knowledge. Furthermore, I don't care. As long as he can hold a job and pay his Social Security taxes, who does, right?
For those interested in the compromises inherent to movies based on history, I thoroughly recommend:
The Hollywood History of the World by George MacDonald Fraser (author of the "Flashman" novels) and Past Imperfect - History According to the Movies, Mark C. Carnes, General Editor.
Popular culture has always been a question of likes, dislikes, and loyalties. I've never seen an episode of "Seinfeld," but I just finished reading Kenneth Roberts' Northwest Passage, all 709 pages of it. Does this make my interests better than someone else's? Hardly. It just makes them individual.
Oh, and, it seems to me, a movie, described by the producers as a "Sci-Fi Comedy," is beyond critical reproach.
http://www.ironsky.net/site/
By no means stupid, he was, nonetheless, sufficiently conceited to believe he was more intellectually enlightened than the masses because of his appreciation for, and encyclopedic knowledge of, such revisionary pseudoscience.
The subject matter of Iron Sky, absurd though it may be, has a history of its own. Wikipedia (The last resource I would endorse) provides a brief overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_UFOs
Though I have a master's degree in cinema studies from NYU, I wouldn't dream of passing judgment on Iron Sky until I see it, which, most likely, will be never (being a German film, produced independently, international distribution is unlikely). Likewise, I won't pass judgement on its target audience. The ignorance present in the world today cannot be blamed exclusively on the intellectual and artistic poverty of present day cinema. Those seeds are sown elsewhere.
I have no idea what constitutes the archetypal "fanboy," nor what percentage of the population is comprised by this class of person. Consequently, I'm in no position to predict his likes, dislikes, or general knowledge. Furthermore, I don't care. As long as he can hold a job and pay his Social Security taxes, who does, right?
For those interested in the compromises inherent to movies based on history, I thoroughly recommend:
The Hollywood History of the World by George MacDonald Fraser (author of the "Flashman" novels) and Past Imperfect - History According to the Movies, Mark C. Carnes, General Editor.
Popular culture has always been a question of likes, dislikes, and loyalties. I've never seen an episode of "Seinfeld," but I just finished reading Kenneth Roberts' Northwest Passage, all 709 pages of it. Does this make my interests better than someone else's? Hardly. It just makes them individual.
Oh, and, it seems to me, a movie, described by the producers as a "Sci-Fi Comedy," is beyond critical reproach.
http://www.ironsky.net/site/
Peter_Suciu
Well-known member
You make a good argument Chas, and again my point is just that I find it frustrating that real history is still considered "boring" by many while "fantasy" with essentially the same themes is considered rich and narrative.
There are just so many stories that haven't been told, or shared in movie form. Consider that it took Ted Turner to finance a movie about The Battle of Gettysburg, the single bloodiest battle for America. That movie wasn't made until 1993. Even WWII was considered uninteresting until Spielberg made Saving Private Ryan and got a new generation of viewers interested.
And actually I agree that if a movie maker can make a fortune showing blue smurfs defending their planet from greedy white people, good for them. Kudos to Cameron and Landau for it.
But I still think it is a shame that people aren't interested in real history. And worse today Hollywood is so PC that we ruin, or at least rewrite the history when the movies are made.
Case in point... the last remake of The Four Feathers with deadman Heath Ledger. The book and previous movies are about the 1896 reconquest of the Sudan, NOT the 1885 failed campaign to relieve Khartoum. But of course we can't - even in this post-9/11 world - make a movie where a white army massacres a bunch of fanatical Islam "fussy wussies" (I'm using the term used by the British btw). No, instead, we need to show the white men of the British army go down in defeat. For the record, the battle shown in the movie was a British victory, albeit a close one.
But I'd still love to see so many historial tales told. The irony is that I talked to a cab driver in NYC (my last cab ride before I moved) and he was from West Africa. He knows the story of the French Captain Marchand because they teach it in school. This French officer lead a force of French marines and colonial troops across Africa, which convinced the British to reconquer the Sudan first. He spends more than a year trekking across Africa, has small skirmishes with natives, reaches Fashoda and raises the Tri-Color on the Nile.
Then British Field Marshal Kitchner shows up and ruins everything. France and Britain almost go to war in 1896 (an event no one remembers) and finally the French back down (the British agreed to support them in Morocco). Marchand walks to the Red Sea and sails home a minor hero for all of five minutes.
Now that could be a great story. But it will never be made into a movie, because we'll get blue aliens, rings of power and space monsters. Woohoo.
There are just so many stories that haven't been told, or shared in movie form. Consider that it took Ted Turner to finance a movie about The Battle of Gettysburg, the single bloodiest battle for America. That movie wasn't made until 1993. Even WWII was considered uninteresting until Spielberg made Saving Private Ryan and got a new generation of viewers interested.
And actually I agree that if a movie maker can make a fortune showing blue smurfs defending their planet from greedy white people, good for them. Kudos to Cameron and Landau for it.
But I still think it is a shame that people aren't interested in real history. And worse today Hollywood is so PC that we ruin, or at least rewrite the history when the movies are made.
Case in point... the last remake of The Four Feathers with deadman Heath Ledger. The book and previous movies are about the 1896 reconquest of the Sudan, NOT the 1885 failed campaign to relieve Khartoum. But of course we can't - even in this post-9/11 world - make a movie where a white army massacres a bunch of fanatical Islam "fussy wussies" (I'm using the term used by the British btw). No, instead, we need to show the white men of the British army go down in defeat. For the record, the battle shown in the movie was a British victory, albeit a close one.
But I'd still love to see so many historial tales told. The irony is that I talked to a cab driver in NYC (my last cab ride before I moved) and he was from West Africa. He knows the story of the French Captain Marchand because they teach it in school. This French officer lead a force of French marines and colonial troops across Africa, which convinced the British to reconquer the Sudan first. He spends more than a year trekking across Africa, has small skirmishes with natives, reaches Fashoda and raises the Tri-Color on the Nile.
Then British Field Marshal Kitchner shows up and ruins everything. France and Britain almost go to war in 1896 (an event no one remembers) and finally the French back down (the British agreed to support them in Morocco). Marchand walks to the Red Sea and sails home a minor hero for all of five minutes.
Now that could be a great story. But it will never be made into a movie, because we'll get blue aliens, rings of power and space monsters. Woohoo.
Lost Skeleton
Well-known member
I hear you, Peter. For me, the best adaptation of A.E.W. Mason's The Four Feathers is the 1939 London Films production directed by Zoltan Korda. I avoided the recent remake simply because I have a disdain for remakes (even though I plead guilty to having seen Storm over the Nile on TV as a kid). I expected the Ledger/Hudson film to be dreadful, but I had no idea it tampered with the story to such a degree. I'm glad I missed it.
In addition to history, there are so many great novels that, if developed properly, would make outstanding narrative films. What raises is my ire are the endless BBC interpretations of Jane Austen. Bring back the days of The Fall of Eagles, The Edwardians, and The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes (but don't remake them).
R.C. Sherriff, playwright, novelist, and veteran of the trenches, wrote what is, arguably, the finest stage drama about the First World War, Journey's End. Coincidentally, he also scripted the 1939 Four Feathers. In 1940, Sherriff wrote The Hopkins Manuscript a satire about British complacency in the face of impending war. The conflict begins with the Moon falling into the Atlantic Ocean (you were expecting Hitler?), and the survivors of the disaster fight over the new territory created by the impact. I mention it only because it is a book that reposes in my personal library and just one of dozens forgotten by literary historians and society. Don't look for it in your local lending library, where the stacks are filled with Stephen King and 'Harry Potter.'
As much as it pains me to admit it, what we see from Hollywood today is the best we can expect. For that matter, name one artistic medium that isn't in decline. For example, name a recent, original stage musical (excluding Andrew Lloyd Webber) that wasn't inspired by a movie or Disney property.
A few years ago, somebody took the original shooting script for Casablanca, changed only the title and character names, and mailed it to several producers, who rejected it derisively as having no box office potential. The joke was that not one of them recognized the screenplay as being Casablanca.
'Nuff said.
Chas
In addition to history, there are so many great novels that, if developed properly, would make outstanding narrative films. What raises is my ire are the endless BBC interpretations of Jane Austen. Bring back the days of The Fall of Eagles, The Edwardians, and The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes (but don't remake them).
R.C. Sherriff, playwright, novelist, and veteran of the trenches, wrote what is, arguably, the finest stage drama about the First World War, Journey's End. Coincidentally, he also scripted the 1939 Four Feathers. In 1940, Sherriff wrote The Hopkins Manuscript a satire about British complacency in the face of impending war. The conflict begins with the Moon falling into the Atlantic Ocean (you were expecting Hitler?), and the survivors of the disaster fight over the new territory created by the impact. I mention it only because it is a book that reposes in my personal library and just one of dozens forgotten by literary historians and society. Don't look for it in your local lending library, where the stacks are filled with Stephen King and 'Harry Potter.'
As much as it pains me to admit it, what we see from Hollywood today is the best we can expect. For that matter, name one artistic medium that isn't in decline. For example, name a recent, original stage musical (excluding Andrew Lloyd Webber) that wasn't inspired by a movie or Disney property.
A few years ago, somebody took the original shooting script for Casablanca, changed only the title and character names, and mailed it to several producers, who rejected it derisively as having no box office potential. The joke was that not one of them recognized the screenplay as being Casablanca.
'Nuff said.
Chas
Peter_Suciu
Well-known member
The 1939 version of The Four Feathers is excellent. Interestingly it probably used real equipment, which was only about 40 some years old at the point!
I rewatched part of Young Winston this week, as I had been meaning to since SOS. One seller had a uniform from the movie, and from what I can determine, it might have been a mix of prop and real pieces that were sold as surplus.
I rewatched part of Young Winston this week, as I had been meaning to since SOS. One seller had a uniform from the movie, and from what I can determine, it might have been a mix of prop and real pieces that were sold as surplus.
Peter_Suciu
Well-known member
And remember what I said about fanboys and how they care more about fantasy than history. Actually this comic explains my feelings SO much better than I can put it into words:
http://www.pvponline.com/2010/05/31/the-king-and-aiiieeee/
http://www.pvponline.com/2010/05/31/the-king-and-aiiieeee/