OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making!

OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Apollo11 -> OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 7:51:14 AM)
Hi all, New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! With recent extremely bad movies coming around (new "Indianapolis" movie comes to my mind) it is good to see that people who understand the WWII thematic are back ("Saving Private Ryan", "Band of Brothers" and "The Pacific")! [:)] Leo "Apollo11"

Hotei -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 9:17:00 AM)
Maybe changing the name of the working title and honoring the naming conventions of the time would be a good start. Someone should contact them about this actually when it is not too late.

Barb -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 10:07:54 AM)
Dunkirk and Pegasus Bridge should be great too...

Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 1:41:51 PM)
Definitively looking forward for it, other than Tom Hanks being too old to be a WW2 DD captain, I bet it will be very accurate

Canoerebel -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 1:49:24 PM)
They missed the chance to make a WWII movie about a young DD captain who's killed in a kamikaze attack off Okinawa. Henry Fonda could've played the lead role in Captain Roberts. P.S. I know that Dunkirk and Pegasus Bridge (and lots of other places) are great material for movie-making in the hands of the right people, but too often the material doesn't end up in the hands of the right people and we end up with TBTSNBN, Cold Mountain, Dances with Wolves, Kelly's Heroes, etc.

Lecivius -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 1:56:59 PM)
Kelly's Heroes was humor, set in a WWII background. Never saw Cold Mountain. And I'm in agreement with Dances with Wolves.

Chickenboy -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 1:57:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel They missed the chance to make a WWII movie about a young DD captain who's killed in a kamikaze attack off Okinawa. Henry Fonda could've played the lead role in Captain Roberts. P.S. I know that Dunkirk and Pegasus Bridge (and lots of other places) are great material for movie-making in the hands of the right people, but too often the material doesn't end up in the hands of the right people and we end up with TBTSNBN, Cold Mountain, Dances with Wolves, Kelly's Heroes, etc. Again with the Kelly's Heroes digs? So many negative vibes, man.

Chickenboy -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 1:59:37 PM)
Here's what Gary Larson said about those that didn't like Dances With Wolves: [image]local://upfiles/6968/E6D18F0A77C54B839BD7BC6E43A86269.jpg[/image] ETA: DWW was not a war movie. It was a worthy recipient of many major awards that year, including Best Picture, IIRC. Deservedly so. It was one of the 10 best movies of that decade.

Canoerebel -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 2:03:39 PM)
Dances with Wolves was a bad movie unless you don't mind 1970s characters in an 1870 setting. From an art standpoint that's fine; from a history standpoint: awful.

Chickenboy -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 2:05:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hotei Maybe changing the name of the working title and honoring the naming conventions of the time would be a good start. Someone should contact them about this actually when it is not too late. Before we go too far down the rabbit hole re: naming conventions on a movie that hasn't yet come out, it's quite possible that the film "Greyhounds" refers to the slang term for fast ships-e.g., Destroyers-as a group. The movie may very well feature a specific destroyer with an 'appropriate' naming convention. But we just don't know.

Chickenboy -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 2:10:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel Dances with Wolves was a bad movie unless you don't mind 1970s characters in an 1870 setting. From an art standpoint that's fine; from a history standpoint: awful. I can't disagree enough with your assessment. There were no 1970s characters in the movie, misplaced into a movie set a century previously. The movie was a beautifully cast and filmed showpiece of the disintegration of the life of the American plains indians as seen through the eyes of a man broken by his experiences in the Civil War. Sure, some of the Civil War scenes were campy, but there's much richness and depth in the rest of it. On a related note, you seem to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to all (movie) things 1970s. Personal issues? [:'(]

Grfin Zeppelin -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 2:29:36 PM)
Pearl Harbor is still da best. best

btd64 -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 3:06:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gr�fin Zeppelin Pearl Harbor is still da best. best I saw the original at a drive in with my parents....GP

geofflambert -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 3:34:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Hotei Maybe changing the name of the working title and honoring the naming conventions of the time would be a good start. Someone should contact them about this actually when it is not too late. Before we go too far down the rabbit hole re: naming conventions on a movie that hasn't yet come out, it's quite possible that the film "Greyhounds" refers to the slang term for fast ships-e.g., Destroyers-as a group. The movie may very well feature a specific destroyer with an 'appropriate' naming convention. But we just don't know. For instance, do we know this is about a US DD? If it were UK it could very well have such a name (I think). One clue is the spelling of "Greyhound". [image]local://upfiles/37002/B021006955ED4FD3820C036D76F4A5BB.jpg[/image]

Encircled -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 3:48:50 PM)
Still my favourite ever cartoonist [image]http://i65.tinypic.com/2cfxeg1.jpg[/image] And Dances with Wolves is still an excellent movie

Encircled -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 3:51:25 PM)
Ah, why did he ever retire? [image]http://i64.tinypic.com/2w71zdi.jpg[/image]

Revthought -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 4:34:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 With recent extremely bad movies coming around (new "Indianapolis" movie comes to my mind) it is good to see that people who understand the WWII thematic are back ("Saving Private Ryan", "Band of Brothers" and "The Pacific")! [:)] Band of Brothers was quite good. Saving Private Ryan, while I thought it was a decent film, I took exception to what I found was the glorification of the murder of prisoners of war. There should be and are strong norms, which have been codified in international law, against the murdering prisoners of war. Just shooting people who are surrendering, or who have surrendered, is never justified, no matter how soldiers feel about the enemy government and no matter what a soldier thinks his prisoner may be guilty of. The Pacific was... like a David Lynch film. I had no idea what the hell was happening for a good half of the film.

geofflambert -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 4:36:06 PM)
The book the movie is based on was fiction written by a Brit, but about the captain of the fictional ship "USS Keeling" operating in the Atlantic. Whether in the movie "Greyhound" is the fictional name of the fictional ship is unclear at this point. Looks like the kind of thing actors like because it's all about his character. Being fiction, the name of the ship doesn't much matter except as an artistic device. It could be a nickname. It could derive from part of the action in the film. As long as they don't portray the ship as a Romulan Bird of Prey I'm ok. The book "The Good Shepherd" sounds like a good story so give it a chance.

warspite1 -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 4:41:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gr�fin Zeppelin Pearl Harbor is still da best. best warspite1 100% agree GZ, Pearl Harbor is the best damn war film I've ever seen, and then some.

geofflambert -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 4:44:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Revthought quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 With recent extremely bad movies coming around (new "Indianapolis" movie comes to my mind) it is good to see that people who understand the WWII thematic are back ("Saving Private Ryan", "Band of Brothers" and "The Pacific")! [:)] Band of Brothers was quite good. Saving Private Ryan, while I thought it was a decent film, I took exception to what I found was the glorification of the murder of prisoners of war. There should be and are strong norms, which have been codified in international law, against the murdering prisoners of war. Just shooting people who are surrendering, or who have surrendered, is never justified, no matter how soldiers feel about the enemy government and no matter what a soldier thinks his prisoner may be guilty of. The Pacific was... like a David Lynch film. I had no idea what the hell was happening for a good half of the film. I didn't have the sense anyone was glorifying it. Stuff like that did in fact happen. A bunch were murdered in "Band of Brothers". To a great extent at least when it came to US Army troops, Waffen SS were not allowed to surrender or were executed afterword, ad hoc, no judge no jury. We can't be censoring reality from the movies.

Revthought -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 4:46:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert The book the movie is based on was fiction written by a Brit, but about the captain of the fictional ship "USS Keeling" operating in the Atlantic. Whether in the movie "Greyhound" is the fictional name of the fictional ship is unclear at this point. Looks like the kind of thing actors like because it's all about his character. Being fiction, the name of the ship doesn't much matter except as an artistic device. It could be a nickname. It could derive from part of the action in the film. As long as they don't portray the ship as a Romulan Bird of Prey I'm ok. The book "The Good Shepherd" sounds like a good story so give it a chance. My grandfather was the chief engineering officer on an old 'Gull class minesweeper in Argentia in 1941. Half of the crew of his ship were transferred to the USS Reuben James in late September/early October 1941. My grandfather was ordered on her too, until his CO, who did not want to give up his Chief Engineer, intervened and stopped his transfer. At the time, my grandfather was very upset about this because all of his engineering staff, and most of his friends on ship, were sent over to the Reuben James. As it turns out, both my grandfather and I ended up owing our lives to his CO as none of the engineering staff on the Reuben James survived her torpedoing. Don't know why I shared that, other than it was a "non-fiction" story about a US destroyer from the Second World War. [:)]

warspite1 -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 4:48:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Revthought quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 With recent extremely bad movies coming around (new "Indianapolis" movie comes to my mind) it is good to see that people who understand the WWII thematic are back ("Saving Private Ryan", "Band of Brothers" and "The Pacific")! [:)] Band of Brothers was quite good. Saving Private Ryan, while I thought it was a decent film, I took exception to what I found was the glorification of the murder of prisoners of war. There should be and are strong norms, which have been codified in international law, against the murdering prisoners of war. Just shooting people who are surrendering, or who have surrendered, is never justified, no matter how soldiers feel about the enemy government and no matter what a soldier thinks his prisoner may be guilty of. warspite1 I don't recall the shooting of prisoners being glorified in the film. As for it being justified, well its nice to think that unpleasant things aren't done in war, but that's not the nature of the beast is it? Maybe if you had been through the sort of hell those soldiers had, you would think differently - maybe, maybe not. If not then that is to be applauded, but I don't think any of us can say for certain unless we'd lived through such an event. Hell I don't think I would get off the landing craft....

warspite1 -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 4:57:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Barb Dunkirk and Pegasus Bridge should be great too... warspite1 Cool. I had not heard about Pegasus Bridge. Should be good (hopefully).

Revthought -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 5:05:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 I don't recall the shooting of prisoners being glorified in the film. Two scenes in particular comes to mind. As the Americans make it off of Omaha beach, a number of Germans come out with their hands raised, saying "I surrender," and the Americans happily shoot them. Then one American soldier says to another something to the effect of "oh well, good thing I don't speak German." Then of course, the prisoner that is executed at the end of the film. Executed by the only protagonist who at any time during the film voices dissent to the idea of killing prisoners. This isn't just "bad things happen in war." The writers and the director of the film chose to use the only character who ever voiced a moral objection to killing prisoners of war, to kill a prisoner of war. This communicates to the viewer that not only is this particular killing of a prisoner justified, but when it came to the "nazis," no prisoner could be trusted and thus the murder character's original moral objection was misplaced. In any case, very few "in the movie theatre" experiences sit with me for years; however, one that does was Saving Private Ryan. I'm an American, so I saw the film on release in an American theatre and with an American audience--with my grandfather no less, who was actually at Omaha beach. I will never forget the sick feeling I felt when people in the theatre were actually cheering during both of those scenes. So, forget my analysis even. If a scene of Americans killing prisoners of war literally inspired Americans to cheer in a movie theatre, I feel pretty okay saying that the scene in question glorified the murder of POWs. Edit There were similar scenes in Band of Brothers, however in that case the audience feels from the outset that the murder of POWs is wrong. Partially because the writers and director took a moment to humanize one of the prisoners that gets murdered--an American whose family returned to Germany in the 1930s. What is more, throughout the series the character who committed the murder has to be painstakingly redeemed to the point where, at the end of the series he realizes killing a prisoner (another American who shot a fellow soldier) would be murder and he makes the choice to not kill that person. I mean there are "right ways" to make films that show war like it is and then there are wrong ways to do the same. Saving Private Ryan just happens to be a bad one. Band of Brothers and Letters From Iwo Jima are "good" ones.

warspite1 -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 5:12:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Revthought quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 I don't recall the shooting of prisoners being glorified in the film. Two scenes in particular comes to mind. As the Americans make it off of Omaha beach, a number of Germans come out with their hands raised, saying "I surrender," and the Americans happily shoot them. Then one American soldier says to another something to the effect of "oh well, good thing I don't speak German." Then of course, the prisoner that is executed at the end of the film. Executed by the only protagonist who at any time during the film voices dissent to the idea of killing prisoners. This isn't just "bad things happen in war." The writers and the director of the film chose to use the only character who ever voiced a moral objection to killing prisoners of war, to kill a prisoner of war. This communicates to the viewer that not only is this particular killing of a prisoner justified, but when it came to the "nazis," no prisoner could be trusted and thus the characters original moral objection was misplaced. In any case, very few "in the movie theatre" experiences sit with me for years; however, one that does was Saving Private Ryan. I'm an American, so I saw the film on release in an American theatre and with an American audience--with my grandfather no less, who was actually at Omaha beach. I will never forget the sick feeling I felt when people in the theatre were actually cheering during both of those things. So, forget my analysis even. If a scene of Americans killing prisoners of war literally inspired Americans to cheer in a movie theatre, I feel pretty okay saying that the scene in question glorified the murder of POWs. warspite1 a) If people actually cheer that in the cinemas it says more about society and the neanderthals being dragged up than anything else. Morons. b) Those things happened. If they are not shown - we end up with 1960's style films where the goodies where white hats and the baddies wear black hats. I don't see it as glorification. It happened and people make up their own mind as to the rights and wrongs. My uncle met the SS on Hill 112 in Normandy. He and his mates were told that they were facing SS troops. "There will be no prisoners today lads". It happened, its unpleasant, its not the Marquess of Queensbury rules, but it is perhaps understandable given the fate of British troops at Le Paradis and Wormhoudt.

Chickenboy -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 5:15:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 I had not heard about Pegasus Bridge. You git. Pegasus Bridge was the nickname given a bridge that crossed the Caen canal that was subject to a coup de main in the early hours of June 6, 1944. The daring glider assault captured and held that bridge and a nearby one a few hundred yards away that crossed the Orne river. You really should read up on your military history more. This was a gripping action and a job very well done by your airborne troops. For the bestest ever version of Rafe McCawley's exploits at "Ham and Jam", I recommend reading this definitive work on the subject. You'll find it wherever fine books and Brazilian peanut brittle are sold. [image]local://upfiles/6968/74649BC01C8844AA9C7EA64ECCE9EB7B.jpg[/image]

Revthought -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 5:18:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 See my above addendum to that post. I agree, you sometimes have to show these things; however, how you show them matters. Do you humanize the POWs who are killed? Do you show the psychological trauma most people who kill POWs suffer from afterwards? Or do you just make light of it, and in the end frame the murder in a way that communicates that you (the film maker) think killing of prisoners is completely justified in the instance you are portraying? These things matter. At least in my brain.

warspite1 -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 5:21:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 I had not heard about Pegasus Bridge. You git. Pegasus Bridge was the nickname given a bridge that crossed the Caen canal that was subject to a coup de main in the early hours of June 5, 1944. The daring glider assault captured and held that bridge and a nearby one a few hundred yards away that crossed the Orne river. You really should read up on your military history more. This was a gripping action and a job very well done by your airborne troops. For the bestest ever version of Rafe McCawley's exploits at "Ham and Jam", I recommend reading this definitive work on the subject. You'll find it wherever fine books and Brazilian peanut brittle are sold. [image]local://upfiles/6968/74649BC01C8844AA9C7EA64ECCE9EB7B.jpg[/image] warspite1 Very good chickenboy. Perhaps I should have written it so simpler folk could understand I had not heard they are making a film* about Pegasus Bridge.* Better? P.S. I trust Rafe will be there leading the assault... after having flown the lead glider to the drop zone natch. Then, bridge secure, the valiant Rafe heads to Gold, Juno and Sword where he has heard that those Anglo-Canadians have got themselves into a pickle on the beach. Obvs Rafe arrive dans le nick of time to save le jour. Hussah!

warspite1 -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 5:28:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Revthought quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 See my above addendum to that post. I agree, you sometimes have to show these things; however, how you show them matters. Do you humanize the POWs who are killed? Do you show the psychological trauma most people who kill POWs suffer from afterwards? Or do you just make light of it, and in the end frame the murder in a way that communicates that you (the film maker) think killing of prisoners is completely justified in the instance you are portraying? These things matter. At least in my brain. warspite1 A fair point. I do not recall the scenes well enough - although I seem to recall there was a long debate over the second killing. Trouble is, its difficult to convey this 'complicated' message on film. E.g. If they made a film about Hill 112 I would not want my Uncle's division shown in a bad light. I would have no qualms about the episode being shown, but then I would fully understand the reasoning. Sadly, because of they type of society we live in, that is not the same for all.... I still can't get over the 'cheering' you describe. Bunch of twats.

witpqs -> RE: OT: New Tom Hanks WWII Destroyer movie "Greyhound" is, apparently, in the making! (2/15/2017 5:38:28 PM)
I agree that Saving Private Ryan did not glorify the killing of prisoners. They simply showed it. Using that character to kill a prisoner at the end did not show that his moral objection was misplaced, it showed the moral journey that many people make in such circumstances. And it showed those things without glorification or condemnation so you had to see it and consider it for yourself.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.25