Home
Posted By: Barkoff 1917 Revisted. - 01/12/20
Great movie, well done, seldom a boring moment, but I have a question.

Why wouldn’t they just fly over the English lines, and drop the message out of a plane?
Posted By: IndyCA35 Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/12/20
Good question. Maybe the air fields were too far away and (maybe) there were no telephone lines to them.

Another question. Why did they have to cross German lines on foot instead of sending a truck by another route?

I thought it was a great movie, but the Germans seemed to be very lousy shots. Too lousy.
Posted By: kaywoodie Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/12/20
"Another question. Why did they have to cross German lines on foot instead of sending a truck by another route?"

Human legs were not only more efficient, but more dependable.
Posted By: ScottBrad Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/12/20
Originally Posted by Barkoff
Great movie, well done, seldom a boring moment, but I have a question.

Why wouldn’t they just fly over the English lines, and drop the message out of a plane?



Notes from planes could be from anyone, not to mention no GPS.

A Brit is a Brit.
Posted By: KC Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/12/20

I saw the movie last night. Intense! Good flick.

Remember the bucket full of milk. The milk had not even soured. Who milked that cow?
Posted By: RGK Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/12/20
During that time dispatch runners with messages were routine (SOP). Telephone lines were cut, usually with artillery fire. Hitler was a messenger/runner and decorated twice (Iron Cross, 1st and 2nd class) for some pretty scary stuff. Not for the faint-hearted.
Bob
Posted By: rockchucker Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/12/20
and why didnt all the troops on the trucks not fire at the sniper?
Posted By: CrimsonTide Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/12/20
Originally Posted by KC

I saw the movie last night. Intense! Good flick.

Remember the bucket full of milk. The milk had not even soured. Who milked that cow?





Just saw the movie today. My first thought was "somebody just milked that cow."
Posted By: Burleyboy Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/12/20
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
Good question. Maybe the air fields were too far away and (maybe) there were no telephone lines to them.

Another question. Why did they have to cross German lines on foot instead of sending a truck by another route?

I thought it was a great movie, but the Germans seemed to be very lousy shots. Too lousy.


My little brother was really put off by the lousy shooting of the germans. If I found I fresh bucket of milk left after the germans just left I'd assume it was poisoned. Other than a few little issues I really enjoyed the movie.

Would have been a good one to see with my brother if he hadn't had his phone out texting in the theater for 30 minutes. There was any empty seat between us so evidently he didn't hear me telling him to turn off his damn phone.

Between him and the old lady who felt everybody within shouting distance came to hear her thoughts on wound care throughout. Made me realize why I usually wait and go to shows after theyve been out a while at a time when the theaters mostly empty. Seriously people, keep your phones off and save your comments until after the show. Nobody is impressed by your knowledge of wound care and that you shouldn't cut your hand on barbed wire and then stick it in a rotting corpse.

Great movie overall, I just wished I would have seen it alone in a mostly empty theater. I was so looking forward to it that the cell phone and people talking pissed me off more than it normally would.

Bb
Posted By: Barkoff Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/12/20
Those two were creeping through total carnage, dead smelly horses, then one dead dog..lady in the audience says “ahhhh”.

Women should have never been given the vote.
Posted By: 22250rem Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
I plan on seeing it for sure, as I've always been interested in that conflict, as my paternal grandfather was there with the Canadian Machine Gun Corps. Luckily, I'll be able to see it at a 12:50 PM Mon. thru Thu. showing this week. During the afternoon during the week is the only way to go, IMO. See it that way if possible. Mostly empty theater and lots of older retired folks, (like me) who actually just sit there and watch the movie. They also have a reminder before the show to please silence your devices.
Posted By: CrimsonTide Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by Barkoff
Those two were creeping through total carnage, dead smelly horses, then one dead dog..lady in the audience says “ahhhh”.

Women should have never been given the vote.


Saw the movie just today. There was an audible response from the audience when the character ran his hand into the cadaver. "Ahhhhhh!!"
Later, when the character swam into a group of corpses in the river and had to climb over them, no one uttered anything....My thought was that they had never pulled a corpse out of water.

Anyway, a couple of other observations. When the pair of soldiers climbed ladders and went over the top. I caught myself physically stooping in my chair, keeping my head down.

After that, when they were clearing the enemy dugout in the German trenches, I caught myself leaning in my chair, while they were clearing corners and doorways. Old habits, I guess.
Posted By: Barkoff Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by 22250rem
I plan on seeing it for sure, as I've always been interested in that conflict, as my paternal grandfather was there with the Canadian Machine Gun Corps. Luckily, I'll be able to see it at a 12:50 PM Mon. thru Thu. showing this week. During the afternoon during the week is the only way to go, IMO. See it that way if possible. Mostly empty theater and lots of older retired folks, (like me) who actually just sit there and watch the movie. They also have a reminder before the show to please silence your devices.



It is really well done,probablly visually the best since saving private Ryan
Posted By: spencer516 Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Just saw it. Pretty good. I had to tell the couple behind me to shut up after they talked thru the first two minutes.
And, yea. Who milked the cow?
Posted By: deflave Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Disappointing flick.

They could have done a lot with what they didn't.
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by Barkoff
Great movie, well done, seldom a boring moment, but I have a question.

Why wouldn’t they just fly over the English lines, and drop the message out of a plane?


Good question, but recall the greatest of them all, the Red Baron himself, was shot down and killed by ground fire when he flew too low over the lines.

Also, unless you can drop that bottle into a trench, someone is gonna have to go over the top to go get it.
Posted By: deflave Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher
Originally Posted by Barkoff
Great movie, well done, seldom a boring moment, but I have a question.

Why wouldn’t they just fly over the English lines, and drop the message out of a plane?


Good question, but recall the greatest of them all, the Red Baron himself, was shot down and killed by ground fire when he flew too low over the lines.

Also, unless you can drop that bottle into a trench, someone is gonna have to go over the top to go get it.


That's a very nice way of saying that Barkoff asked a really dumb question.
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by deflave
Disappointing flick.

They could have done a lot with what they didn't.


I agree, the filming and the weapons and equipment were great. The storyline was nothing special.
Posted By: deflave Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by spencer516
Just saw it. Pretty good. I had to tell the couple behind me to shut up after they talked thru the first two minutes.
And, yea. Who milked the cow?


The people that just left the area.
Posted By: deflave Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
Good question. Maybe the air fields were too far away and (maybe) there were no telephone lines to them.

Another question. Why did they have to cross German lines on foot instead of sending a truck by another route?

I thought it was a great movie, but the Germans seemed to be very lousy shots. Too lousy.


It's a human story.

Not a war story.
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by deflave
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher
Originally Posted by Barkoff
Great movie, well done, seldom a boring moment, but I have a question.

Why wouldn’t they just fly over the English lines, and drop the message out of a plane?


Good question, but recall the greatest of them all, the Red Baron himself, was shot down and killed by ground fire when he flew too low over the lines.

Also, unless you can drop that bottle into a trench, someone is gonna have to go over the top to go get it.


That's a very nice way of saying that Barkoff asked a really dumb question.


Next time that happens I think you should go over the top to get it.
Posted By: luv2safari Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by kaywoodie
"Another question. Why did they have to cross German lines on foot instead of sending a truck by another route?"

Human legs were not only more efficient, but more dependable.



That's what Hitler did in WW I. He was decorated for bravery as a courier.
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
My great-Uncle David of the Royal Munster Fusilliers was shot by a sniper while carrying messages at Gallipoli, he was posthumously mentioned in dispatches.
Posted By: deflave Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher


Next time that happens I think you should go over the top to get it.


I've done my time.

And it wasn't in the Peace Corps.
Posted By: deflave Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher
My great-Uncle David of the Royal Munster Fusilliers was shot by a sniper while carrying messages at Gallipoli, he was posthumously mentioned in dispatches.


That's a really good movie and I couldn't help but feel 1917 stole from it.
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by deflave
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher


Next time that happens I think you should go over the top to get it.


I've done my time.

And it wasn't in the Peace Corps.


Thank you for your service, you still should go get the bottle.
Posted By: deflave Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher


Thank you for your service, you still should go get the bottle.


I stopped listening to teachers in the third grade.
Posted By: IndyCA35 Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
The producer was some guy named Mendes. The movie was dedicated to "Lance Corporal Mendes, who told us the stories." Be interesting to know who that actually was.

Another interesting comparison, with "They shall Not Grow Old," was that all the young men had full sets of teeth. Apparently 100 years ago a lot of people didn't.

My own opinion was that it was better than "Saving Private Ryan." My son, who is an Army officer, disagreed.

I found myself thinking of my Uncle 'Cootie," who was an ambulance driver in the US Army. He was later the town drunk. Died before I was born. Probably PTSD. Nobody gave a damn in the '20s and '30s.
Posted By: deflave Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
The producer was some guy named Mendes. The movie was dedicated to "Lance Corporal Mendes, who told us the stories." Be interesting to know who that actually was.

Another interesting comparison, with "They shall Not Grow Old," was that all the young men had full sets of teeth. Apparently 100 years ago a lot of people didn't.

My own opinion was that it was better than "Saving Private Ryan." My son, who is an Army officer, disagreed.

I found myself thinking of my Uncle 'Cootie," who was an ambulance driver in the US Army. He was later the town drunk. Died before I was born. Probably PTSD. Nobody gave a damn in the '20s and '30s.





Nowhere NEAR Saving Private Ryan.

A good flick regardless.
Posted By: 257heaven Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
I watched it yesterday and thought it was very good. Amazing with the continuous shots. A few things left me wondering, but I just resolved myself to enjoying the film and the way it was made.

Definitely not as good as Saving Private Ryan. But still a must see on the big screen.
Posted By: Barkoff Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by deflave
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher
Originally Posted by Barkoff
Great movie, well done, seldom a boring moment, but I have a question.

Why wouldn’t they just fly over the English lines, and drop the message out of a plane?


Good question, but recall the greatest of them all, the Red Baron himself, was shot down and killed by ground fire when he flew too low over the lines.

Also, unless you can drop that bottle into a trench, someone is gonna have to go over the top to go get it.


That's a very nice way of saying that Barkoff asked a really dumb question.



And this is a very polite way of saying you have a mouth too big for your brain.

Planes showed up three times in the movie, and it appeared in this story the English ihad air superiority, can’t seeing it very hard to fly along in the same direction as the trench and dropping something into it.
Posted By: deflave Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Well you obviously missed a lot of key points in the movie if that's your takeaway.

You also missed out on a number of history books before you went to see the film.
Posted By: Barkoff Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by deflave
Well you obviously missed a lot of key points in the movie if that's your takeaway.

You also missed out on a number of history books before you went to see the film.



So now you are an expert on the war, you know a plane couldn’t fly over friendly lines?
I mean they could drop hand grenades over enemy lines, but not a bottle over friendly lines?

OK, you're a professor of history, my mistake.
Posted By: deflave Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Sorry you missed it.

And as stated, it's not a war story. It's a people story.

Zero doubt you missed that as well.
Posted By: Barkoff Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by deflave
Sorry you missed it.

And as stated, it's not a war story. It's a people story.

Zero doubt you missed that as well.



Ah, now you”re a film critic. So much insight for just one man, that must knowledge must be daunting to handle.
Posted By: deflave Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by Barkoff
Originally Posted by deflave
Sorry you missed it.

And as stated, it's not a war story. It's a people story.

Zero doubt you missed that as well.



Ah, now you”re a film critic. So much insight for just one man, that must knowledge must be daunting to handle.


My apologies for not being stupid.
Posted By: Barkoff Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by deflave
Originally Posted by Barkoff
Originally Posted by deflave
Sorry you missed it.

And as stated, it's not a war story. It's a people story.

Zero doubt you missed that as well.



Ah, now you”re a film critic. So much insight for just one man, that must knowledge must be daunting to handle.


My apologies for not being stupid.




Who told you you weren’t stupid?
Posted By: las Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
And don't forget your hearing protection. Theatre sound levels are painful, and I hate sitting there with my fingers in my ears the whole movie.

I usually forget my hearing protection.
Posted By: Barkoff Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by las
And don't forget your hearing protection. Theatre sound levels are painful, and I hate sitting there with my fingers in my ears the whole movie.

I usually forget my hearing protection.


OK in my theater, I'm thinking the excess was on your theater.
Posted By: Seafire Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Went and saw it on my own Thursday night...wife wanted to go, but i told her to stay home...

it was less bloody than I anticipated...late show I went to, there were a lot of veterans in the theatre...
more Iraq/Afghanistan Vets than Vietnam Era Vets...

my thoughts were going back to my time in the Army, working at the hospital at Ft Lewis, Madigan AMC...

Predominately assigned to the Surgical Recovery Ward... a 90 bed ward...

this was in the 70s... 50% plus of all of our patient load, were WW 1 vets, most being in their 70s and 80s in those years..

I've had conversations with 1000s of those guys, on a daily basis asking about their time in war, as you took care of their daily recovery plan....I feel that was a bonus like blessing to have had that privilege..

during the movie, I was wishing I could relive those experience at Madigan once again.. and listen even closer to what they said and the stories they told...

When I lived in England from 63 to 66, many of the older residents were WW 1 vets...and there was a lot of them...
yet in our little town, during WW 1, most of the boys who were between 17 and 24 during the years 1914 to 1918
went to war... over 40 % of them never made it home..

The older men delighted in any interest we younger boys had in the stories of their youth back in those days...
The one thing I remember the most of their tales...,,many of the dead didn't last long at the front... just days, not even weeks..
and the deaths they suffered were horrible...more blown up than shot.. bodies that weren't moved were a daily thing to deal with... corpses rotted in the trenches, and especially in shell holes...they never got use to the smell, yet learned to endure it daily...
a wound that sent you home was like a winning lottery ticket...many that returned home, did so without a leg or arm, or hand...
some told of being sent home all messed up inside their bodies due to gas attacks...

Guess hearing those stories, it came to mind, when the Albatross was shot down when they were at the barn on that abandoned farm.... instead of just pulling the German pilot out of the burning plane, it went thru my head, that they must not have been at the front for very long.. if they had, they would have just shot the German and let his body burn...

and as it turned out, after doing so, the German, stabbed one who had just saved his life, while the other was trying to get him water.. that is how WW 1 was described to me by the folks who had fought it...you just put your enemy down before he had the chance to put you down...it was a slaughter house, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day....

and then to think, after it was all over in 1918, The Spanish Flu hit worldwide, and it killed more people than had been killed in all fronts in WW 1, by all participants combined....

I've always been in awe of how people survived that period of time at all in Europe.. and even the WW 1 vets that came home from Europe when it was all over.... We lost 58,000 men in like 18 to 20 years involvement in Vietnam... We lost over 50,000 dead Americans in WW 1, in a little over 1 year of combat...and if wounded...medical treatment was usually an amputation in the field hospital....or gas took your lungs and your eyesight....

They evidently still teach that history in England...here, the average millennial doesn't have a damn clue of what those people did to keep their nations culture and sovereignty in those days....

I am thankful I know, because of being able to know and speak with so many who went thru it,, both at Madigan but also when Lived in England as a kid... and then there were the WW 2 veterans.. both there and in the Army Hospital at Madigan...
Posted By: deflave Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by Seafire
Went and saw it on my own Thursday night...wife wanted to go, but i told her to stay home...



What a gentleman! LOL.
Posted By: deflave Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by Barkoff


Who told you you weren’t stupid?


I guess you weren't paying attention during the dogfight scene?

Or when the officer that gave him a lift explained that he should present his orders in front of witnesses? Because some officers will try and ignore the order?

And I guess you were buying more popcorn when he had to walk past five or six different Lieutenants? All of whom wouldn't listen to him as men poured over the wall?

Or the fact that when the Colonel receives the message his initial reaction is not listen to the Lance Corporal?

These scenes are put into the script to provide context to the audience. So that you understand the necessity of the mission. And why it can't be thrown like a paper airplane out of Sopwith.

You're welcome.
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by Seafire
Went and saw it on my own Thursday night...wife wanted to go, but i told her to stay home...

it was less bloody than I anticipated...late show I went to, there were a lot of veterans in the theatre...
more Iraq/Afghanistan Vets than Vietnam Era Vets...

my thoughts were going back to my time in the Army, working at the hospital at Ft Lewis, Madigan AMC...

Predominately assigned to the Surgical Recovery Ward... a 90 bed ward...

this was in the 70s... 50% plus of all of our patient load, were WW 1 vets, most being in their 70s and 80s in those years..

I've had conversations with 1000s of those guys, on a daily basis asking about their time in war, as you took care of their daily recovery plan....I feel that was a bonus like blessing to have had that privilege..

during the movie, I was wishing I could relive those experience at Madigan once again.. and listen even closer to what they said and the stories they told...

When I lived in England from 63 to 66, many of the older residents were WW 1 vets...and there was a lot of them...
yet in our little town, during WW 1, most of the boys who were between 17 and 24 during the years 1914 to 1918
went to war... over 40 % of them never made it home..

The older men delighted in any interest we younger boys had in the stories of their youth back in those days...
The one thing I remember the most of their tales...,,many of the dead didn't last long at the front... just days, not even weeks..
and the deaths they suffered were horrible...more blown up than shot.. bodies that weren't moved were a daily thing to deal with... corpses rotted in the trenches, and especially in shell holes...they never got use to the smell, yet learned to endure it daily...
a wound that sent you home was like a winning lottery ticket...many that returned home, did so without a leg or arm, or hand...
some told of being sent home all messed up inside their bodies due to gas attacks...

Guess hearing those stories, it came to mind, when the Albatross was shot down when they were at the barn on that abandoned farm.... instead of just pulling the German pilot out of the burning plane, it went thru my head, that they must not have been at the front for very long.. if they had, they would have just shot the German and let his body burn...

and as it turned out, after doing so, the German, stabbed one who had just saved his life, while the other was trying to get him water.. that is how WW 1 was described to me by the folks who had fought it...you just put your enemy down before he had the chance to put you down...it was a slaughter house, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day....

and then to think, after it was all over in 1918, The Spanish Flu hit worldwide, and it killed more people than had been killed in all fronts in WW 1, by all participants combined....

I've always been in awe of how people survived that period of time at all in Europe.. and even the WW 1 vets that came home from Europe when it was all over.... We lost 58,000 men in like 18 to 20 years involvement in Vietnam... We lost over 50,000 dead Americans in WW 1, in a little over 1 year of combat...and if wounded...medical treatment was usually an amputation in the field hospital....or gas took your lungs and your eyesight....

They evidently still teach that history in England...here, the average millennial doesn't have a damn clue of what those people did to keep their nations culture and sovereignty in those days....

I am thankful I know, because of being able to know and speak with so many who went thru it,, both at Madigan but also when Lived in England as a kid... and then there were the WW 2 veterans.. both there and in the Army Hospital at Madigan...


Nice post, I too recall those old veterans. I HOPE they still teach that history.

I have heard this movie is doing good at the box office, maybe there’ll be more of the genre.

A few years back I read Spielberg was gonna do a movie about the US 8th Air Force, ain’t heard anything since.
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by deflave
Originally Posted by Barkoff


Who told you you weren’t stupid?


I guess you weren't paying attention during the dogfight scene?

Or when the officer that gave him a lift explained that he should present his orders in front of witnesses? Because some officers will try and ignore the order?

And I guess you were buying more popcorn when he had to walk past five or six different Lieutenants? All of whom wouldn't listen to him as men poured over the wall?

Or the fact that when the Colonel receives the message his initial reaction is not listen to the Lance Corporal?

These scenes are put into the script to provide context to the audience. So that you understand the necessity of the mission. And why it can't be thrown like a paper airplane out of Sopwith.

You're welcome.


Quit avoiding the question.
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
The story behind the movie...

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a30456703/1917-movie-based-on-true-story/
Posted By: local_dirt Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
From 2 weeks ago..

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/14418929/1
Posted By: IndyCA35 Re: 1917 Revisted. - 01/13/20
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher


Thank you for posting that.
© 24hourcampfire