Escape to the Movies: Fury - Tank You Very Much

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

When I saw the two second clip of Pitt with the STG I thought the film was about a Panzer crew desperately fighting an impossible war. Big disappointment.

If you like fury, you might like world of tanks!

come blow up some tanks today!

hit me up if you want to play some tanks ;p

usually sick and tired of WW2 movies and games. but maybe i give this one a try. otherwise i just wait for it to be released on dvd.

what was that Mario FPS at the end?

Here's the thing that bugs me. That's a Sherman Firefly, with the long 17 pounder gun. The Americans didn't use them, the Commonwealth armies did since they were modified by the UK. US armor doctrine in WW2 called for specialized Tank Destroyers like a Hellcat or a Grizzly, which were usually less armored, faster and having higher caliber guns, while regular Shermans were infantry support.

Since both these tanks came from the Bovington museum in the film, I can forgive them, though, since the Firefly's long gun makes it look a hell of a lot more threatening. Also, did the film crew actually break the tanks while filming? I thought they said that they didn't have a problem with Tiger 131.

The screenshoot at the end look like it was from borderlands but I don't recognize that level.

Soviet Heavy:
Here's the thing that bugs me. That's a Sherman Firefly, with the long 17 pounder gun. The Americans didn't use them, the Commonwealth armies did since they were modified by the UK. US armor doctrine in WW2 called for specialized Tank Destroyers like a Hellcat or a Grizzly, which were usually less armored, faster and having higher caliber guns, while regular Shermans were infantry support.

Since both these tanks came from the Bovington museum in the film, I can forgive them, though, since the Firefly's long gun makes it look a hell of a lot more threatening. Also, did the film crew actually break the tanks while filming? I thought they said that they didn't have a problem with Tiger 131.

I am pretty sure its an ez8 with a 76 mm

image

Gorrath:
Good review, gave me a lot of information without really spoiling anything (as if there was anything to really spoil.)

That said: "War is designed to turn people into psychopaths."

War is designed to turn people into bodies. The stress of it can have harmful effects on people's lives. War is not "designed" to turn people into psychopaths. Next to no one who comes back from a war is turned into one. Seriously, that line sounds deep and all, but it's pretty much total BS. No one I ever served with was turned into a "psychopath." I say this as someone who served in three of the damned things.

Quick Edit: And yea, I know it was just supposed to be kind of a throw away line. War is horrible, blah, blah, blah. It's still a load of horseshit.

Yeah, sorry, no. To your average, not been through countless hours of drill training and carefully-crafted psychological pressures designed to create a certain mindset, everyday person - soldiers can seem pretty psychopathic. It's not fair, considering our societal structures require some percentage of people to be put through that process(of course some of us think it's a better idea to change that underlying fact than worship away at the alter of "necessary evil" and patriotism, but the world is the world), but the reality is when you boil it right down the job of a soldier is to kill other people, and the very fact that many soldiers are able to come home, compartmentalise the fact that they killed people, and live relatively normal lives is actually pretty disturbing.

The rates of PTSD and other mental illnesses among returning soldiers are horrible, and it's even more despicable that mental healthcare is often unavailable or limited in availability for them than it is when that happens to the general populace, but the fact they aren't much, much higher(even accounting for the inevitable under-reporting that a military culture based on individual strength leading to united strength generates) is indicative of the fact that military training and the whole process of warfare is designed to create individuals who are capable of killing other people with as little compunction as possible.

tofulove:

Soviet Heavy:
Here's the thing that bugs me. That's a Sherman Firefly, with the long 17 pounder gun. The Americans didn't use them, the Commonwealth armies did since they were modified by the UK. US armor doctrine in WW2 called for specialized Tank Destroyers like a Hellcat or a Grizzly, which were usually less armored, faster and having higher caliber guns, while regular Shermans were infantry support.

Since both these tanks came from the Bovington museum in the film, I can forgive them, though, since the Firefly's long gun makes it look a hell of a lot more threatening. Also, did the film crew actually break the tanks while filming? I thought they said that they didn't have a problem with Tiger 131.

I am pretty sure its an ez8 with a 76 mm

image

Yeah, it's an Easy-8 all right.

What I'm excited about is the fact that this is the first WWII film to have an actual Tiger in the tank roster.

Tiger 131 in all her glory, on loan from Bovington Tank Museum.

Baresark:
This looked pretty interesting. At least we have never seen a movie (to my knowledge) that centered around a tank crew. And Brad Pitt tends to pick his movies really well, which is what has kept him a Hollywood A Lister for his entire career.

Well, there was that Lebanon movie from Israel couple years ago, which was horrible. The Beast of War from 80s which I've seen, but I don't remember much about it.

world of tanks is doing a promo with it too. offering a fury bundle where you get the easy 8 sherman in game

Ark of the Covetor:

Gorrath:
Good review, gave me a lot of information without really spoiling anything (as if there was anything to really spoil.)

That said: "War is designed to turn people into psychopaths."

War is designed to turn people into bodies. The stress of it can have harmful effects on people's lives. War is not "designed" to turn people into psychopaths. Next to no one who comes back from a war is turned into one. Seriously, that line sounds deep and all, but it's pretty much total BS. No one I ever served with was turned into a "psychopath." I say this as someone who served in three of the damned things.

Quick Edit: And yea, I know it was just supposed to be kind of a throw away line. War is horrible, blah, blah, blah. It's still a load of horseshit.

Yeah, sorry, no. To your average, not been through countless hours of drill training and carefully-crafted psychological pressures designed to create a certain mindset, everyday person - soldiers can seem pretty psychopathic. It's not fair, considering our societal structures require some percentage of people to be put through that process(of course some of us think it's a better idea to change that underlying fact than worship away at the alter of "necessary evil" and patriotism, but the world is the world), but the reality is when you boil it right down the job of a soldier is to kill other people, and the very fact that many soldiers are able to come home, compartmentalise the fact that they killed people, and live relatively normal lives is actually pretty disturbing.

The rates of PTSD and other mental illnesses among returning soldiers are horrible, and it's even more despicable that mental healthcare is often unavailable or limited in availability for them than it is when that happens to the general populace, but the fact they aren't much, much higher(even accounting for the inevitable under-reporting that a military culture based on individual strength leading to united strength generates) is indicative of the fact that military training and the whole process of warfare is designed to create individuals who are capable of killing other people with as little compunction as possible.

8 weeks of Bootcamp and 2 weeks of Combart Arts training before a deployment is "countless hours?" Look, it's ok to be against war and even as you have pointed out, to highlight the mental health issues of soldiers in combat and in coming home. Speaking as someone who has struggled with this after he's served, I get it. The problem arises when you demonize a soldier for doing his job because you philosophically disagree with it, insult his intelligence by suggesting that such work is menial or that the nature of the job is exploitative (eg. Old men sending young men to die), or couch any of those sentiments in false pity. I signed a contract fully understanding the nature of my responsibilities. I ultimately am responsible for my actions at home or at war and it is my choice to follow orders. While it might be said my duty was to follow orders, it still remains my choice.

That is something I have had to internalize and it hasn't been easy. Luckily, the health care I have received has been top notch. I self-referred and was seen quickly and was treated comprehensively. While I am aware of the horror stories, I think society in general plays as much a role in the stigma of mental health as the military. I was raised to believe that there was nothing wrong with asking help, so when I knew that I needed it, I did. The military didn't discourage me or shut any doors, I just had to be willing to be helped. Conversely, I know of several people on the "outside" that didn't go in for treatment because of what the perceived as a negative stigma attached to seeking mental health counseling.

Was there some compartmentalization? Of course, how could I function in a peaceful society if I didn't have that skill? Did I have to put those feelings aside while I was in the middle of things> Yes, that's just smart survival skills. Does it make me or what I did psychopathic? No, I am not a remorseless killer nor do I do things solely for my own benefit, without considerations of others. Did that make my job pleasant, a joy to do, and one that I looked forward to doing every day? No, it was job and I did it until I didn't. I am not a hero, or a villain, or even just "a guy doing a job". I'm a person, with all the subtleties of existence, similar and yet unique from everyone else.

Ark of the Covetor:

Gorrath:
Good review, gave me a lot of information without really spoiling anything (as if there was anything to really spoil.)

That said: "War is designed to turn people into psychopaths."

War is designed to turn people into bodies. The stress of it can have harmful effects on people's lives. War is not "designed" to turn people into psychopaths. Next to no one who comes back from a war is turned into one. Seriously, that line sounds deep and all, but it's pretty much total BS. No one I ever served with was turned into a "psychopath." I say this as someone who served in three of the damned things.

Quick Edit: And yea, I know it was just supposed to be kind of a throw away line. War is horrible, blah, blah, blah. It's still a load of horseshit.

Yeah, sorry, no. To your average, not been through countless hours of drill training and carefully-crafted psychological pressures designed to create a certain mindset, everyday person - soldiers can seem pretty psychopathic. It's not fair, considering our societal structures require some percentage of people to be put through that process(of course some of us think it's a better idea to change that underlying fact than worship away at the alter of "necessary evil" and patriotism, but the world is the world), but the reality is when you boil it right down the job of a soldier is to kill other people, and the very fact that many soldiers are able to come home, compartmentalise the fact that they killed people, and live relatively normal lives is actually pretty disturbing.

The rates of PTSD and other mental illnesses among returning soldiers are horrible, and it's even more despicable that mental healthcare is often unavailable or limited in availability for them than it is when that happens to the general populace, but the fact they aren't much, much higher(even accounting for the inevitable under-reporting that a military culture based on individual strength leading to united strength generates) is indicative of the fact that military training and the whole process of warfare is designed to create individuals who are capable of killing other people with as little compunction as possible.

I would counter by saying that what a soldier does seems psychopathic because most people have no real clue what soldiers even do. Most people get their ideas about a soldier's life from bad reporting, over hyping media and war movies full of more artistic merit than reality. It also seems psychopathic because those civilians, usually, have never ever been put in a situation remotely like what soldiers experience during a war.

As to the training, I've mention this before but I'll elaborate some more. As much as you are trained to be a killer, you are also trained to do so with restraint. If you think that a bunch of untrained civilians dumped into fighting a war are going to not "act like psychopaths" when compared with their trained military counterparts you are frankly just wrong. At no point did I receive any training which was designed to make a less compassionate person, a less empathetic person or a person more willing to kill. Your willingness to kill is based on circumstance, not training. Your training is designed to make you an efficient killer and a restrained one.

A lot of that ugliness people seem to think the military instills in people is actually already there. Don't believe me on that though, go look at any studies on how random every day people react to being put in or under authority. It does not take special training to get humans to kill or torture one another, it just takes a tribalistic mentality or basic necessity. Actually, allow me:

http://www.prisonexp.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

You may find the ability of people to live normal lives after killing other people disturbing, but I attribute this to the fact that you've likely never been faced with a situation that tested you that way. Do please tell me if I'm wrong about that. I fought along side people who were part of hastily organized militias with no formal military training at all. Those people were no less willing to kill when necessary and often had to be restrained by command or even physically to keep them from over doing it when they wanted to fire indiscriminately or kill prisoners.

As I've mentioned several other times as well, killing other people during a war isn't psychopathic. I have a feeling people either don't know what soldiers do in war, don't know what psychopathy is, or both. In inclined to think it's both.

Higgs303:
For those who are familiar with the technical aspects of WW2 tanks, how authentic is the tank combat? In the trailer, there is a sequence where a near point blank shot from a German Tiger glances off a US Sherman tank. That is pretty questionable, but it is hard to tell from a split second clip.

Any depiction or mention of the Commonwealth forces in the adjacent sector? Any acknowledgment of the Soviet offensive into Berlin?

It was certainly the most accurate rendition of tank combat I have ever seen on screen. That is not to say it was 100% accurate, or even close to that, but it was accurate enough that even though I'm a huge techno-nut when it comes to these kinds of things I was able to suspend my disbelief. The one shot that the Tiger fired not only hit the frontal slope, but hit said slope at an 80 or so degree angle. Entirely reasonable for it to deflect. Another hit was directly on the side armour of the Sherman and at fairly flat angle to boot. That should have penned easily, but that was really the only time my eyebrows raised. Overall, the majority of the Sherman's time was spent shooting HE at soft targets which is entirely accurate as tank on tank combat was very rare then as it is now, particularly when one is dealing with the Wehrmacht circa April 1945 (the film's setting). One thing that bothered me a bit was that all the tanks constantly fired on the move and at very close range, but that was probably done just to make the action scenes more exciting for general audiences.

Without spoiling anything, some people may complain about the final action set piece, but it didn't bother me that much since the unit the Sherman ended up fighting was horrifically deficient in AT (historical) and probably fairly poorly trained (implied a bit in the film, but would be historical if that was the case).

They do mention the Commonwealth forces along with the Falaise Pocket briefly which is really more than I expected from a film that has this tight of a focus. There was no mention of the Soviets, but that worked within the constraints of the story. There were even a handful of scenes that showed not every single German or German soldier was a goose-stepping, Jew-hating, Hitler nut which was quite welcomed by me. The film was not patriotic by any stretch of the imagination. It is one of those war movies that just leaves you depressed and horrified rather than leaving the theatre singing "America, Fuck Yeah!"

Wait . . . Shia LeBoeuf is in this? Okay, I guess I will skip it. Too bad.

Looking forward to this one and will try to get to see it at the cinema.

Reminds me of the Big Red One somewhat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_A0ZvUIDfE

More specifically a recent movie from South Korea called the Front Line (2012) as both the sides end up taking and re-taking the same hill and are made to have one last battle due to the armistice not officially coming into effect until a certain time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxFbRg9HS8Y

The "island hopping" strategy was used in the latter stages of the war in the Pacific also, was criticised for people being wasted on "useless" battles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leapfrogging_(strategy)

Gorrath:
Snip

I'd argue that to be part of war you have to be disconnected from the implications, the people you aren't fighting are humans just like you and me, they're the "bad guys", the evil women beating terrorists, the nazis, the vietcong etc. To use a word that's to fancy for my level of knwoledge, "pseudo-speciation".

I wouldn't go so far as to say that war is designed to turn people into psychopaths but that military training is used to allow people to do monstrous things. With enough training and the right circumstances, a person's personal views or the implications of their actions do not matter. If that's not in someway sociopathic I don't know what is.

I should note that I personally don't have any experience with any form of military (aside from relatives serving).

Something tells me that In the Heart of the Sea is gonna be bad. I own the book, which is a chronicle of the crew of The Essex, a whaling ship that gets sunk by a whale (supposedly the inspiration for Moby Dick). Its a fascinating book, but I'm guessing Hollywood is going to have the whale become a T-Rex, and be a constant source of fear throughout the movie. Sad if that's the direction it goes.

misogynerd:
Wait . . . Shia LeBoeuf is in this? Okay, I guess I will skip it. Too bad.

Then you'll definitely be missing out. I don't watch many movies. Fury is probably the one I'm really looking forward to.

DerangedHobo:

Gorrath:
Snip

I'd argue that to be part of war you have to be disconnected from the implications, the people you aren't fighting are humans just like you and me, they're the "bad guys", the evil women beating terrorists, the nazis, the vietcong etc. To use a word that's to fancy for my level of knwoledge, "pseudo-speciation".

I wouldn't go so far as to say that war is designed to turn people into psychopaths but that military training is used to allow people to do monstrous things. With enough training and the right circumstances, a person's personal views or the implications of their actions do not matter. If that's not in someway sociopathic I don't know what is.

I should note that I personally don't have any experience with any form of military (aside from relatives serving).

I've argued this with a few people in the thread already, so I don't know if you read those replies or not, but I've covered this. Yes, the people you are fighting are humans and at no point was I not keenly aware of this fact. Sure, there's a tribalistic mentality involved, us vs. them, good guys vs bad guys, that kind of stuff, but that's mostly used to deal with the issues after the fact. During a fight it's just survival, doing your job, achieving your objectives.

Your personal views do have to take a back seat but the implications of your actions do very much matter. That's why we have rules of engagement that many times are more strict than what our police practice. You might be surprised by how much military training time is spent on learning to be efficient, disciplined and very much restrained.

I don't want to just rehash things I've said two or three times already in the thread, so if you are interested, please scan my other replies. Military training is not at all what most people seem to think it is.

ConanThe3rd:
So, uh, is there a reason why the cannon shots about half way though this review look like green and blue lasers?

That was mainly MG fire, but entirely historical.

The Germans used a Green colour for their tracer-rounds.

I do not support a contributor who claims Doxxing, threats and Harrassment are OK tactics to use just because you believe people deserve to be punished.

That is all I have to say on this video.

The_Kodu:
I do not support a contributor who claims Doxxing, threats and Harrassment are OK tactics to use just because you believe people deserve to be punished.

That is all I have to say on this video.

I agree with this post. This contributor also has fairly bad taste in movies anyway.

webkilla:
Well this suddenly looks like something I want to see

I just thought it was another braindead "America fuck ya" WW2 flick - but this... this looks interesting

It is anything but.. A good movie.. And ya Shia actually acts.. I was shocked.

A_Parked_Car:

It was certainly the most accurate rendition of tank combat I have ever seen on screen. That is not to say it was 100% accurate, or even close to that, but it was accurate enough that even though I'm a huge techno-nut when it comes to these kinds of things I was able to suspend my disbelief. The one shot that the Tiger fired not only hit the frontal slope, but hit said slope at an 80 or so degree angle. Entirely reasonable for it to deflect. Another hit was directly on the side armour of the Sherman and at fairly flat angle to boot. That should have penned easily, but that was really the only time my eyebrows raised. Overall, the majority of the Sherman's time was spent shooting HE at soft targets which is entirely accurate as tank on tank combat was very rare then as it is now, particularly when one is dealing with the Wehrmacht circa April 1945 (the film's setting). One thing that bothered me a bit was that all the tanks constantly fired on the move and at very close range, but that was probably done just to make the action scenes more exciting for general audiences.

Sherman tanks were one of the first to be fitted with gyro stabilizers that allowed them to fire on the move with some accuracy. I can buy them maneuvering and firing to avoid the Tiger. As for the close range engagement, well, the Tiger *did* ambush them, so it isn't exactly a proper engagement.

I really enjoyed this movie. I enjoy a good war movie and this is one of the best I've seen in a long time. Definitely worth a watch. Some pretty intense moments 9/10 :)

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here