Realistic Battle Scenes

[huskerblitz]

What @Legion Para said. A naval medical corps wasn't established until the Spanish American war and that's when "corpsman" came to mean a medic.

In the CW there were no medics in the field. After the battle there'd be stretcher bearers assigned to go find the wounded who weren't able to get back to a field hospital but they weren't medically trained. If you got hit you were on your own basically. Some guys carried tourniquets with them (like the ones the surgeons used) hoping to maybe survive a hit to a limb. I think it amazing that as many survived as they did.

That said, helping the wounded did happen and I've seen it mentioned more than once that a technique used to shirk was to help somebody to the rear. Of course, in the scene depicted, that wasn't the case. So "near" Hollywood is not much different than Hollywood I suppose.

Gosh, now I'll never be able to watch Wicked Spring ever again.

I was going to disagree with you but then you posted a follow-up. I've read a number of accounts of soldiers stopping and helping friends to the back of the lines. But, as you indicated, generally happened when they couldn't advance further. Chickasaw Bayou was one such with good descriptions.

As far as ground bursts, I recall several scenes in different movies that showed plenty of air bursts as well. Maybe James N. can shed some light but I'm sure there are some practical reasons why some scenes are filmed they way they are. I'm thinking costs for one.

 

[Rebel from Finland]

It might be interesting . . . I'm sure Tarantino would have a scene for Uma Thurman running around the battlefield barefoot.

Uma Thurman with any parts bare, I'm cool with that.

 

[Waterloo50]

Here is the thing, I am probably one of the worst people to sit and watch a war movie with, I can't stand it when things are not accurate, I often find myself muttering under my breath that things aren't right much to the annoyance of my family. Take the movie Battle of Britain for example, they use the wrong type of spitfires and the BF109's are the much later Spanish models, for me personally, the inaccuracies in war movies serves as a distraction from the story line and can be very annoying. Its because I have an interest in military history that I watch War Movies, my attitude towards movies is the same as if I were watching a re-enactment. I am always aware that what I am watching isn't real and I am aware that what I am witnessing is a re-enactment of an event where people have died in all sorts of horrific, painful and bloody ways. Do I need to see a film that attempts to educate me on the rights and wrongs of war, I don't think so. I already understand that war is cruel and wrong, but the reality is that war happens and I am interested in it. IMHO war movies don't always have to be made with an anti-war sentiment, neither do they have to glorify war, they just have to tell the story with as much accuracy as is possible. Like so many other adults, I have the capacity to make my own mind up on the rights and wrongs of war.

Kindest Regards

Waterloo

 

[Poor Sharecropper's Son]

I'm the same way with crime drama shows like CSI: or Criminal Minds, and there's ALWAYS plenty to pick apart in them. My wife used to get annoyed at how often I would pause the show just to point out some glaring contradiction but now she's come up with some good observations herself

 

[matthew mckeon]

The nitpicking gets to be too much. Some guy(and its always a guy) nattering on about the number sequence on the landing craft. Half the time they're wrong, and Mr. Expert can barely shoot a vacation picture himself while lecturing Steven Spielburg on carbine slings.

 

[James N.]

As for the ground bursts in Glory and other movies, they are produced by what the industry chooses to call mortars (which are of course different from the artillery pieces of the same name) or simple basin shaped pans filled with powder and covered with earth. For safety, even if one went off under someone, they might be burned but there's no projectile, other than the loose sod on the top of them.

 

[Dave G]

I would like to think that the lead-up, explosion and following struggle in Battle of the Crater was reasonably accurate in Cold Mountain but I wonder - did flames shot up along the entire 270' of the newly-created crater?

Gettysburg always seemed unnatural during the battle sequences because a) there was no cannon recoil and b) the soldiers defied Newton's law by always being blown forward by artillery hits. It became obvious they were being carefully tossed mechanically to a safe landing. (Maybe it's possible to not be blown backward - I still do not understand why the JFK assassination shot resulted in blood splattered behind him instead of toward the front seat.)

 

[huskerblitz]

Battle scenes are so intense, so exciting, that they tend to overwhelm the movie. That's the "good parts" of a war movie. All war movies are supposed to be antiwar movies...but they aren't. Because the battle scenes are so much fun.

 

[Jamieva]

I kind of liked Wicked Spring but it's very small budget and shows it. Compared to a college project it's great, compared to an actual movie it's sort of poor. I thought it was a little movie with a lot of heart.

The Hobbit and LOTR have proven that realistic numbers can be convincingly done using CGI; it's about time people stopped trying to shoot the same herd of reenactors in dense mist or smoke or next to a convenient cliff or any of the other tricks to make a tiny crowd into a big one. Even an enormous crowd of reenactors pales in comparison to the size of most battles, and the larger the crowd, the more likely several reenactors won't look the part. Stop it. Just put the right number of people in with CGI, dress up some convincing skinny young guys and put them in the close-ups.

Yes LOTR and Hobbit have convincing CGI but that's what a budget of over $100 mil will get you. No CW movie has ever had a budget on that level to be able to create the CGI needed to show a full battlefield or section of battlefield like that.

The budget for the 3 Hobbit movies was over $600 mil...that's over $200 mil per movie. Gettysburg was under $20 mil and Gods and Generals I think was in the $50-$60 mil category. Cannot do CGI on that level in that budget.

 

[Allie]

Yes LOTR and Hobbit have convincing CGI but that's what a budget of over $100 mil will get you. No CW movie has ever had a budget on that level to be able to create the CGI needed to show a full battlefield or section of battlefield like that.

The budget for the 3 Hobbit movies was over $600 mil...that's over $200 mil per movie. Gettysburg was under $20 mil and Gods and Generals I think was in the $50-$60 mil category. Cannot do CGI on that level in that budget.

The expensive part of that was developing the programs. That's done. Paying to use them is much less. CGI is less expensive than hiring actors, not more.

And it goes without saying that to be really good, a movie would need to have a budget indicating it was taken seriously.

 

[bdtex]

As for the ground bursts in Glory and other movies, they are produced by what the industry chooses to call mortars (which are of course different from the artillery pieces of the same name) or simple basin shaped pans filled with powder and covered with earth. For safety, even if one went off under someone, they might be burned but there's no projectile, other than the loose sod on the top of them.

Watched that movie again last night. Union artillery fire at the fort was air bursts but the Confederate artillery fire on the 54th MA was ground bursts.

 

[Jamieva]

The expensive part of that was developing the programs. That's done. Paying to use them is much less. CGI is less expensive than hiring actors, not more.

And it goes without saying that to be really good, a movie would need to have a budget indicating it was taken seriously.

Go find a studio willing to spend $100+ mil on a Civil War movie right now. Good luck!

 

[kepi]

It's good, but it needs more blood.

 

[BillO]

"When Trumpets Fade" is a lesser known movie that focuses on the Battle of Hurtgen Forrest. Although it does have battle scenes, the film certainly took the glory and patriotism out of war.

I bought that movie because my Dad was in that fight. Ended up sent to the hospital with trenchfoot.

 

[Waterloo50]

I would like to think that the lead-up, explosion and following struggle in Battle of the Crater was reasonably accurate in Cold Mountain but I wonder - did flames shot up along the entire 270' of the newly-created crater?

Gettysburg always seemed unnatural during the battle sequences because a) there was no cannon recoil and b) the soldiers defied Newton's law by always being blown forward by artillery hits. It became obvious they were being carefully tossed mechanically to a safe landing. (Maybe it's possible to not be blown backward - I still do not understand why the JFK assassination shot resulted in blood splattered behind him instead of toward the front seat.)

It appears that there is always a compromise in these types of movies, a sort of trade off between historical accuracy and action. You can have plenty of action but little accuracy or lots of accuracy with little action.

Waterloo

 

[kevikens]

As for the ground bursts in Glory and other movies, they are produced by what the industry chooses to call mortars (which are of course different from the artillery pieces of the same name) or simple basin shaped pans filled with powder and covered with earth. For safety, even if one went off under someone, they might be burned but there's no projectile, other than the loose sod on the top of them.

Many years ago I was in a movie on George Washington entitled the World Turned Upside Down, a David Wolper production made for ABC television. We had lots of battle scenes using some of those buried mortars. They were covered with white lime powder, invisible from a side angle but very visible to the actors and reenactors in the field. The lime powder made for a good looking explosion, not much noise, but a big cloud. The sound of big explosions was dubbed in later. Before a big battle scene where troops were advancing on the enemy the special effects guy walked us over the field and pointed out what the buried and covered mortars looked like. He told us he could not see where soldiers were in relation to the explosives when he set them off so he gave us a bit of advice. "Don't walk over a buried mortar if you guys want to be fathers some day". That really got our attention.

That special effects guy was wonderful to work with. He told us all kinds of secret, neat ways they could duplicate battlefield effects. He really enjoyed his work and went out of his way to enlighten us reenactors on how it should be done. It was with much sadness that we learned that a few months after the movie was completed, even before it was aired on TV, that entire production crew was killed in a plane crash in the Rocky Mountains while working on another movie.

 

[Poor Sharecropper's Son]

Great story - sad to hear of the film crew

 

[Eagle eye]

There were more men killed in 32 hours at Chickamauga than in 32 days at Iwo Jima. The cost would be vast and to be quite honest, I don't know that I'd want to see it. Its hard to grasp the scale of death in the ACW but there are some colorized battlefield pictures out there that show the fields of bloody mud that were left. Large caliber, low velocity projectiles paired with rows of 10's of Thousands of soldiers, made one heck of a mess. Modern pics are one thing but I'm not sure they can even start to come close to scenes of the ACW. It would take a modern wars worth of casualties to make up One battles worth from the ACW. If they did make a more accurate film my guess would be lots of vomit being cleaned up in theaters and a huge loss in revenue from the amount of people that would walk out. I don't think people could "handle the truth" to be honest. I'd avoid seeing it just because I don't want those pictures in my head. There are enough in there already I'd be glad to be rid of.

-------------------------
Well said M.W… the only thing I would add is the smell of a battle cannot be duplicated in a theater (thank the Lord) & that's always a shocker the first time around. Sweat, Sound, Smell.

 

[wilber6150]

Wide awake productions used to produce some well done realistic documntaries on different battles, not sure if they are still in business though..

 

[wilber6150]

Link to their film about Franklin