forums

OT: 1917

Advertisement
OriginalGatorHater said:
Couldn't agree more with everything you said. Even with the king kong schit. Original was a great film. The 3 hour one was trash. If a movie needs to be 4 hours long I'm cool with it and will watch it no question. But if you are just adding filler for whatever the **** reason to make it more pretentious and long. I'm not going to watch it. Then on the other hand you have 1:30 long movies that are straight filler and have no real story to them at all. Those are just as bad imo.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Worst hit film I ever saw was The Blair Witch Project. 81 minutes of awfulness. After the film the friend I was with both said “I’d have left if you had wanted to.”
 
TemplarCane said:
Agreed.

Worst hit film I ever saw was The Blair Witch Project. 81 minutes of awfulness. After the film the friend I was with both said “I’d have left if you had wanted to.”
Click to expand...

Trash ******* film bro. I remember sneaking into the theater to see it with a couple of my boys. We were like 7 years old. Didn't get creeped out or jump once and were just bored out of our mind. Terrible film. Until today, I didn't even realize it was a hit lmao.
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
Trash ******* film bro. I remember sneaking into the theater to see it with a couple of my boys. We were like 7 years old. Didn't get creeped out or jump once and were just bored out of our mind. Terrible film. Until today, I didn't even realize it was a hit lmao.
Click to expand...
Budget: $60,000
WW Box Office: $248,600,000

A lot of people made a lot of money, so there’s that...
 
TerragonSix said:
I know 1979 is a long time ago, but it's based off the book written by a guy who was in the trenches. Who the ***** killed his family during World War II because he refused to participate in **** propaganda. Erich Maria Remarque, I believe his name was.

I'll check out 1917 though; haven't had a reason to go to the theater in years.
Click to expand...

The 1979 one can't even come close to the 1930 original version.
 
TemplarCane said:
Budget: $60,000
WW Box Office: $248,600,000

A lot of people made a lot of money, so there’s that...
Click to expand...

Holy schit I honestly had no idea. I think a big piece of that was the marketing. I remember when it came out a ton of people(of course mainly kids and teens) thought it was real found footage.
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
Holy schit I honestly had no idea. I think a big piece of that was the marketing. I remember when it came out a ton of people(of course mainly kids and teens) thought it was real found footage.
Click to expand...
The film more or less invented the ‘found footage’ sub-genre. A pair of young, independent filmmakers, I give them credit.
 
Advertisement
TemplarCane said:
The film more or less invented the ‘found footage’ sub-genre. A pair of young, independent filmmakers, I give them credit.
Click to expand...

Yup and then a ton of people started making them after that. I think you are right though. I don't think there were any found footage films prior to that(unless you count canibal hollocaust, but that was a different type of found footage film)
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
The 1979 one can't even come close to the 1930 original version.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but considering its budget, it was fine. Frankly, I think it's mostly nostalgia when I watched it in 10th grade American History that makes me favor it so.

A few things I thought I understood about the war were wrong until I got older. I'm a bit of a gun afficionado, and I thought for years that the 1903 Springfield were the US Infantries main rifle in World War One.

I found out about five years ago after really looking into it, while we were producing the 1903 Springfield, the M1917 Enfield was far more prevalent in World War One. It was phased out in the interwar period, and saw very limited action in World War II. By that time, M1 Garands were the mainline rifle, supplemented by 1903 Springfields, M1928 Thompsens, Ithaca 37 and Remington Model 11 shotguns. Later in the war, the M3 Grease Gun was introduced to replace the M1928.
 
TerragonSix said:
Maybe not, but considering its budget, it was fine. Frankly, I think it's mostly when I watched it in 10th grade American History that makes me favor it so.

A few things I thought I understood about the war were wrong until I got older. I'm a bit of a gun afficionado, and I thought for years that the 1903 Springfield were the US Infantries main rifle in World War One.

I found out about five years ago after really looking into it, while we were producing the 1903 Springfield, the M1917 Enfield was far more prevalent in World War One. It was phased out in the interwar period, and saw very limited action in World War II. By that time, M1 Garands were the mainline rifle, supplemented by 1903 Springfields.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, nostalgia. Its a good movie as a stand alone film imo. I actually enjoyed it, but if you ever get the chance watch the old school 1930 one. It honestly blows the remake out of the water and is a true classic(its preserved in the library of congress).
 
Advertisement
Thought private Ryan was better. 1917 was good. Not great. I can see the camera style for an award. Other aspects were good too.
 
Back
Top