- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Hacksaw Ridge. First time view.
Posted on 3/3/17 at 12:05 am to sprig
Posted on 3/3/17 at 12:05 am to sprig
quote:
It is a movie. It is based off a true story. Not a true story.
In most cases you would be right, but this movie is much more accurate than most based on a true story movies. You can read Doss' MOH report online. The movie is extremely accurate.
0
Posted on 3/3/17 at 12:06 am to RollTide1987
quote:
RollTide1987
[img]It's called a BA in History with a primary focus on U.S. military history. [/img]
I am impressed.
In modern times It is actually a requirement for them to carry a weapon.
Posted on 3/3/17 at 12:11 am to TurkeysAndBees
Thank you. I am not arguing this man was a HERO.
Saving 70+ lives deserves more than a medal.
I understand this movie is pretty accurate.
I am just trying to point out that this guy was somewhat foolish. Ultimately putting his own men at risk.
This guy defined the odds.
Most likely based off his values and beliefs in Christ was he able to pull this off.
Saving 70+ lives deserves more than a medal.
I understand this movie is pretty accurate.
I am just trying to point out that this guy was somewhat foolish. Ultimately putting his own men at risk.
This guy defined the odds.
Most likely based off his values and beliefs in Christ was he able to pull this off.
This post was edited on 3/3/17 at 12:12 am
Posted on 3/3/17 at 12:15 am to sprig
yes, the US army now requires medics to carry at least a pistol. But there are medics who skirt the law by not loading their pistol.
Posted on 3/3/17 at 8:07 am to sprig
I think what is evidently clear from your post is that you watched the movie but completely missed the entirety of the message of the film.
This is not a movie about your average weird-O wanting to join the Army but refusing to carry a gun.
This was a film about an exceptional human being who fought for his right to remain true to his faith and to his country. Your post is relevant when you are talking about an average man. We're not talking about the average man. He was exceptional in the most spectacular definition of the word.
Sorry you missed the entire point of the film.
This is not a movie about your average weird-O wanting to join the Army but refusing to carry a gun.
This was a film about an exceptional human being who fought for his right to remain true to his faith and to his country. Your post is relevant when you are talking about an average man. We're not talking about the average man. He was exceptional in the most spectacular definition of the word.
Sorry you missed the entire point of the film.
This post was edited on 3/3/17 at 8:15 am
Posted on 3/3/17 at 8:10 am to sprig
If you are going to have a problem with realism I would think it would be with his buddy in battle that mowed down like 500 Japanese soldiers by himself.
Posted on 3/3/17 at 8:18 am to sprig
While I agree with you in principle, none of what you said detracts from this great real life story and reenactment.
Posted on 3/3/17 at 8:30 am to sprig
quote:
If you had a child and he was in war. Would you want someone that is caring for his life to be fitted and ready for the risk that comes with saving your son?
I would just be happy that there was someone willing to try to save my child whether that person had a gun or not. Probably prefer that person to have a gun, but at least he is there helping. Would you agree that someone helping without a gun is better than having no one helping? I would think just by adding two arms and two legs to the war effort he is making an impact.
I'm not a WWII vet, but I am reading With the Old Breed right now. Riflemen, mortar men, machine gunners, they all had to take turns carrying out the wounded on stretchers without guns because they couldn't carry their guns and a stretcher. That just happened to be the main duty of the guy in this movie
Posted on 3/3/17 at 8:38 am to GurleyGirl
My main beef with this movie is that his wife in this movie, was hot as all could be. Red hair with those blue eyes. good lord she was pretty. I don't know if it was just me, but that was one of the prettiest woman i've seen in a movie.
His wife in real life, looked nothing like that.
On top of that, how the frick did that rope wall get there, and why did they have to go up and down it? just go around it morons. The Japs could have just waited until they started climbing up, cut it down so those guys fall and die, killing others, then just shoot everyone on the ground, would have been a fairly easy battle they would have won. Seemed like such a stupid unbelievable scenario.
His wife in real life, looked nothing like that.
On top of that, how the frick did that rope wall get there, and why did they have to go up and down it? just go around it morons. The Japs could have just waited until they started climbing up, cut it down so those guys fall and die, killing others, then just shoot everyone on the ground, would have been a fairly easy battle they would have won. Seemed like such a stupid unbelievable scenario.
Posted on 3/3/17 at 8:44 am to RollTide1987
quote:It was unheard of up to that point in time to carry a gun while a medic. It was a "rule" of war to respect medics, and therefore the medics didnt carry a gun to show they were also no threat to the enemy.
WWII medics/corpsmen rarely used fire arms while on the front lines.
However, the Japs were ruthless and didnt give a frick about any rules, and shot medics at will.
Posted on 3/3/17 at 8:50 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
On top of that, how the frick did that rope wall get there, and why did they have to go up and down it? just go around it morons.
1. They couldn't go around it as it was part of the Japanese defense line. The Maeda Escarpment (as the ridge was known) was a key position in their Shuri defensive line. You don't take the island without taking the escarpment.
2. The cliff wasn't as high in real life as the movie made it out to be.
Hence why the Japanese just couldn't cut the rope. They would have been torn to pieces by American small arms fire.
Posted on 3/3/17 at 8:55 am to sprig
quote:
sprig
This thread is an example of full retard. You're never supposed to go full retard bro.
Posted on 3/3/17 at 9:11 am to sprig
ersonal view point.
If you had a child and he was in war. Would you want someone that is caring for his life to be fitted and ready for the risk that comes with saving your son?
Or would you be more comfortable with the guy that is not as prepared to look after your child's life?
-------
Well If it's Doss or some guy named Sprig with a gun, I know who I'm picking.
Do some research and let us know what military medic officer with a gun did better. There were 16 million enlisted. Shouldn't be hard since Doss is an idiot, as you seem to imply.
If you had a child and he was in war. Would you want someone that is caring for his life to be fitted and ready for the risk that comes with saving your son?
Or would you be more comfortable with the guy that is not as prepared to look after your child's life?
-------
Well If it's Doss or some guy named Sprig with a gun, I know who I'm picking.
Do some research and let us know what military medic officer with a gun did better. There were 16 million enlisted. Shouldn't be hard since Doss is an idiot, as you seem to imply.
Posted on 3/3/17 at 1:47 pm to sprig
quote:
I am not understanding.
Clearly.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News