Started By
Message

WW-Inspired Question

Posted on 6/2/17 at 10:53 am
Posted by VoxDawg
Glory, Glory
Member since Sep 2012
60063 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 10:53 am
Why so few WWI movies? Filmmakers love visceral, compelling stories, why so little love for The Great War?

You had the invention of the tank, weaponized aircraft, chemical weapons, trench warfare, a scenario where one side didn't defeat the other so much as both agreed to lay down arms mutually...

Compelling stuff. This needs to be a thing.
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
108573 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 10:55 am to
Because the trenches suck.
Posted by vilma4prez
Lafayette, LA
Member since Jan 2009
6431 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 10:59 am to
They try to focus on the romantic part of war..
The red baron
Seargent York
The poor aussies in Gallipoli
Etc.

But most of the war wasn't very pretty. Lots of mud.
Posted by Fewer Kilometers
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2007
36061 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 11:13 am to
Downton Abbey had a season that dealt with the homefront and touched on the desperation of the trenches.
Posted by SCLSUMuddogs
Baton Rouge
Member since Feb 2010
6869 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 11:16 am to
WW1 is difficult to do a movie about for a number of reasons.

Aside from the first 4-5 months, the entire struggle was fought in the trenches. Difficult to make that compelling.

Due to the type of warfare, all of the encounters kind of mesh together, there are very few battles that have unique characteristics.

The nature of the contest as a whole is difficult as well. There is no defined good guy/bad guy really. The war started due to a complicated string of alliances.
Posted by Fewer Kilometers
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2007
36061 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 11:17 am to
They'll never do it, but a Steve Trevor prequel would be awesome. DC has some amazing WWI characters with Enemy Ace and Balloon Buster. But I'm guessing they're done with WWI.
Posted by airfernando
Member since Oct 2015
15248 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 12:03 pm to
quote:

trench warfare
like a magnet for sensationalism.
Posted by Scoob
Near Exxon
Member since Jun 2009
20418 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 12:19 pm to
WW1 has a lot of issues, when it comes to making a movie about it.

Like has been posted before- trench warfare really has no glamour or excitement to it. People living in a muddy ditch, no advancing, worried about snipers (the "3 men on a match" issue), with the occasional gas attacks and shelling... it's very dehumanizing.
Plus, nobody "wins", they just agree to quit fighting and sign the armistice. I think I read somewhere that there was a net gain of maybe 1 mile of territory gained, if that. Nothing was achieved, other then a lot of death.

So right there, you get the lack of dramatic climax, most stories are simply a matter of endurance if you survive. No daring raids etc.

Add to that, the politics didn't work, and you end up with the major nations going back to war within a couple of decades.

The WW1 aerial battles are the stuff of romantic adventure, but outside that area, the "action" would just be very somber and glum, and without much moral point to the tale.
Posted by Ross
Member since Oct 2007
47824 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 1:35 pm to
Probably because the Nazis are a compelling villain whereas in WW2 the entire war is just a depressing story that has no real resolution at the end of it.
Posted by tubucoco
las vegas, nevada
Member since Oct 2007
32994 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 1:37 pm to
Just looking at a movie involving boring trench warfare type of fighting with biochemical weapons mixed in, that if the participants or combatants I should say weren't wearing gas masks made for god awful ghastly death scenes just didn't make for thrilling action imo. Throw in the always bad gloomy weather conditions it seemed like and other crazy shite going on in those days, and that should give you an ideal as to why WWI wasn't much of an era in terms of making motion picture success happen.
Posted by tubucoco
las vegas, nevada
Member since Oct 2007
32994 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 1:39 pm to
And you're right, the Nazi's were just better villains that everybody loved to hate.
Posted by sbr2
Member since Apr 2011
15014 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 2:09 pm to
They already have, it's called Lawrence of Arabia
Posted by 3nOut
Central Texas, TX
Member since Jan 2013
28931 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 2:19 pm to
already touched on, but i think the main thing is there are no bad guys in WWI. just alliances gone wrong.

WWII has a clear villain that 99% of the world can look at today and call them the bad guys.
Posted by VoxDawg
Glory, Glory
Member since Sep 2012
60063 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 2:20 pm to
I didn't say there weren't any. I wonder why there aren't more.
Posted by BigAppleTiger
New York City
Member since Dec 2008
10386 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 2:39 pm to
quote:

already touched on, but i think the main thing is there are no bad guys in WWI. just alliances gone wrong.


This little gem is getting tiresome. No... the German Army is not the same army that mechanized human extinction to the level it rose to during WW2- but the German Army's march of death through Belgium, decimating entire villages of men, women, and children, was a shocking crime even in times of War. They were far from innocent and Ludendorff was already sowing the seeds of fascism and extinction.
Posted by 3nOut
Central Texas, TX
Member since Jan 2013
28931 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 2:53 pm to
quote:

This little gem is getting tiresome. No... the German Army is not the same army that mechanized human extinction to the level it rose to during WW2- but the German Army's march of death through Belgium, decimating entire villages of men, women, and children, was a shocking crime even in times of War. They were far from innocent and Ludendorff was already sowing the seeds of fascism and extinction.



i think that's fair, but i'd say at the time (just my opinion) but that was the savagery of the time. Germany lost WW1 and was punished for playing it way too rough, which lead to WWII.

maybe saying "there's no bad guy in WW1" could be replaced with "there was no Pearl Harbor, Saddam invading Kuwait, 9/11 lynch pin that clearly set one side of being in the wrong from the beginning*."



*outside of the assassination of Ferdinand.
This post was edited on 6/2/17 at 2:57 pm
Posted by SpringBokCock
Columbia, SC
Member since Oct 2003
3157 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 4:00 pm to
Our World War is pretty good. Seen that?
Posted by all_over_it
Montegut
Member since Feb 2013
576 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 7:39 pm to
War horse was pretty good
Posted by WhiskeyPapa
Member since Aug 2016
9277 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 7:46 pm to
World War One is the most depressing single event in world history. Not much of a subject.
Posted by Fewer Kilometers
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2007
36061 posts
Posted on 6/4/17 at 1:02 pm to
To show how under served WWI is in Hollywood, Wonder Woman became the top grossing WWI film of all time within a few days:

first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram