JeffBrooks
2nd Lieutenant
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Location
- Hutto, TX
When it comes to Civil War films, I can think of most of them off the top of my head: Glory, Gettysburg, Gods and Generals, Ride With The Devil, Cold Mountain. Field of Lost Shoes is an indie film in limited release (not showing anywhere near me, sadly). And then you have a few films like Wicked Spring that are essentially made by Civil War buffs themselves. Point being, there are relatively few Civil War movies.
On the other hand, there are hundreds upon hundreds of movies set during World War II, including great epics like Saving Private Ryan, The Longest Day and Patton. In addition, we have two major HBO mini-series (Band of Brothers and The Pacific).
Why is this? There are just as many Americans deeply interested in the Civil War as there as Americans deeply interested in World War II, if not more. It also seems to me that it would be easier and cheaper to produce movies set during the Civil War, due to the large numbers of reenactors and there being no need for tanks, airplanes, ect. So why do we see so many World War II movies and so few Civil War movies?
On the other hand, there are hundreds upon hundreds of movies set during World War II, including great epics like Saving Private Ryan, The Longest Day and Patton. In addition, we have two major HBO mini-series (Band of Brothers and The Pacific).
Why is this? There are just as many Americans deeply interested in the Civil War as there as Americans deeply interested in World War II, if not more. It also seems to me that it would be easier and cheaper to produce movies set during the Civil War, due to the large numbers of reenactors and there being no need for tanks, airplanes, ect. So why do we see so many World War II movies and so few Civil War movies?