New Movie

[LeeChard]

I saw a new trailer for a WWII movie called 'AIRSTRIKE' (I think)
Bruce Willis and Adrian Brody. Set in China.
I think it was on YouTube.

[LeeChard]

Found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiJjMggOUu8

[rustysi]

We'll see.

[Rusty1961]

The CGI is over the top. This is Chinese propaganda.

[rustysi]

The CGI is over the top.

Yeah, I kinda thought so too.

[rustysi]

This is Chinese propaganda.

Of this I know not.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

This is Chinese propaganda.

Of this I know not.

Filmed in Shanghai. Gibson has a hand in it, but it is a Chinese production. I'm sure you know the Chinese still hate the Japanese over the war and they use their media to continue attacking them.

[rustysi]

I'm sure you know the Chinese still hate the Japanese over the war

Yeah, lots to have a grudge over. I get it, but its best to let it go so as not to repeat our past mistakes. Stirring the pot only creates tension, and that usually leads to trouble. Unless it is of course trouble that you are looking for.[:-]

[oaltinyay]

Those Nells look like they need some escort...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: rustysi

This is Chinese propaganda.

Of this I know not.

Filmed in Shanghai. Gibson has a hand in it, but it is a Chinese production. I'm sure you know the Chinese still hate the Japanese over the war and they use their media to continue attacking them.

rustyi

Stirring the pot only creates tension

warspite1

Well if Gibson had a hand in it then I'm sure the British will get the blame... [:D]

But in all seriousness, if the Chinese want to make a film about their experience of WWII why shouldn't they? You dismiss it as propaganda and an attack on Japan - maybe you've seen the film? Is is hideously one-sided and shows the Japanese in a bad light? But even if so then in a war that reputedly saw 20 million + Chinese dead (a great many of which were civilians) and incidents like the Rape of Nanking, maybe they have a point?

I've just started watching The Pacific for the first time. The references to the Japanese generally and the incidents depicted show Japanese actions in a very poor light (the first episode depicts a scene where the Japanese have obviously tortured some marines before killing them). Scenes such as this happen to be based on actual events. So is this Japan-hating propaganda?

I've read plenty of reviews on The Pacific - some good, some bad - but I don't recall anyone referring to it as propaganda and an attack on Japan. Why is it different for the Chinese in this film?

Depicting real events is not propaganda - its history. Depicting events based on fact is not necessarily propaganda. I'd be interested to hear from you what the Chinese have done in this film that most film makers all over the world haven't been doing since the war.

Now of course whether films that "stir the pot" are a good idea or not, well that is a subject in itself. If we go down that route then we end up with a world where the past can't be re-told for fear of upsetting someone somewhere, history gets airbrushed and future generations know even less about history than the current generation do already. And that is not a good thing.

[LeeChard]

The way Imperial Japan treated the Chinese is the is the fundamental reason the war in the pacific was fought.
The attack on Pearl was a result of American freezing of Japanese assets and cutting off oil and steel trade in
response to treatment of civilians in places like Nanking.

[dasboot1960]

Well said LeeChard. I think it should also be pointed out that the US had apparently concluded that the Japanese would be stopped by nothing short of war. The sanctions imposed by the US basically put Japan in the all-out war/no war and get out of China box. I think the US suffered from some 'cultural' blinders that limited their imagination as to what the Japanese might get up to.

[BBfanboy]

Having seen only the trailer in the link posted, I would say the propaganda part is the 'over the top' heroics of an American training Chinese fighter pilots and the depiction of the success they had. Yes, the AVG hurt the Japanese from time to time but mass shoot-down of Japanese planes is not something I have heard before.
Having said that, Hollywood/Shanghaiwood probably were just going for lots of action rather than historical accuracy, as others have pointed out.

[Yaab]

The CGI is awful. Where is Dai Li when you need one?

[Edward75]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZlcDSrCDY4
New Russian movie. I do not even know if you make translations for our films.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Edward75

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZlcDSrCDY4
New Russian movie. I do not even know if you make translations for our films.

Unlike that Chinese trash this Russian movie looks entertaining.

[SheperdN7]

Oh dear.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Now of course whether films that "stir the pot" are a good idea or not, well that is a subject in itself. If we go down that route then we end up with a world where the past can't be re-told for fear of upsetting someone somewhere, history gets airbrushed and future generations know even less about history than the current generation do already. And that is not a good thing.

Agreed. Which is why, in the spirit of watching entertaining films devoid of historical accuracy or film value, I've vowed to re-watch The Patriot, Gallipoli, Pearl Harbor and Indianapolis: Men of Courage. I don't care if these renditions of history can't be re-told for fear of upsetting someone somewhere.[:'(]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Now of course whether films that "stir the pot" are a good idea or not, well that is a subject in itself. If we go down that route then we end up with a world where the past can't be re-told for fear of upsetting someone somewhere, history gets airbrushed and future generations know even less about history than the current generation do already. And that is not a good thing.

Agreed. Which is why, in the spirit of watching entertaining films devoid of historical accuracy or film value, I've vowed to re-watch The Patriot, Gallipoli, Pearl Harbor and Indianapolis: Men of Courage. I don't care if these renditions of history can't be re-told for fear of upsetting someone somewhere.[:'(]

warspite1

I've never seen Indianapolis: Men of Courage and Pearl Harbor is obviously not worth discussing on a wargaming forum (but Kate looked good ).

Of the other two, these, to my mind, don't fit into the simple 'stir the pot' category as they are largely ahistorical twaddle - a sort of stir the pot with propaganda nobs on if you will [:D]. 'Stirring the pot' is, in the sense I used it, simply telling a story based on the facts - and even a simple telling of that story (without recourse to lies and falsehoods) is bound to upset someone.....

But in both cases the stories as told are in large part woefully distorted versions of the truth in order to satisfy the film-makers desire to get a certain, biased, inaccurate version of history across. At least Gallipoli has the redeeming feature of being a bloody good film with a wonderful soundtrack.

[FlyByKnight]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Agreed. Which is why, in the spirit of watching entertaining films devoid of historical accuracy or film value, I've vowed to re-watch The Patriot, Gallipoli, Pearl Harbor and Indianapolis: Men of Courage. I don't care if these renditions of history can't be re-told for fear of upsetting someone somewhere.[:'(]

Don't ya mean The movie that shall not be named? [;)]