did Spielberg steal ideas from this movie? - Die Brücke (1961) Discussion

[–] mikebeacher 16 years ago

I agree.
First of all: I like Spielberg, he is a great director but: When I saw the Spielberg - Scene. everything reminded me right away to the unforgettable scene from "Die Brücke". It was annoying to steal this scene incl. sound effects.
AND: Yes, Private Ryan is NOT an anti-war Movie, it is a WAR-MOVIE, Same year Ryan came out, a real good ANTI-War Movie came out: THE THIN RED LINE (Both 1998: The THIN RED LINE was made in the same way/ideas like DIE BRÜCKE; War doesn't make ANY sense, and RYAN was made in the "HERO, yes War is sometimes Ok- Way"
same with PLATOON (WAR MOVIE - good war-Willem Dafoe, Bad war: Tom Berenger) and FULL METAL JACKET (ANTI WAR - Movie).
Guess what movies won the oscars????
Not every WAR MOVIE is an ANTI-WAR Movie but DIE BRÜCKE is.

Michael Schuerger (german segment producer of THE FALLEN - Independent ANTI WAR MOVIE by Ari Taub)

reply

[–] noblejones 16 years ago

<<
Not every WAR MOVIE is an ANTI-WAR Movie . . .
>>

I repectfully disagree; all war movies are anti-war movies. Dying heroically and dying for nothing both acheive the same end -- you are dead. Just because sometimes you have to fight does not mean reasonable people want to. Ask a soldier if he *wants* to go to war.

I personally believe the United States should have stayed out of the second world war altogether. That likely would have prevented the whole cold war mess and the world would be a better place now.

reply

[–] jasir_arafat 13 years ago

i disagree .. usa was attacked by japan. the pacific theater was inevitable and necessary. on the other hand the us intervention in europe WAS the first act of the cold war. the americans didnt only want to destroy the nazis. much more important was to make as much ground as possible before the russians reach berlin. otherwise the iron curtain wouldnt have been in berlin but in paris or even worse... on the ground of the english channel.

reply

[–] mepieke 9 years ago

Although I'm German, I'm somewhat glad the USA did enter WWII. What they should have done is stay out of WWI! Once that happened, Germany's defeat was inevitable, and led directly to Versailles, Hitler, the Holocaust and Communism, and indirectly to Korea, Vietnam, and the problems in the ME today. When Germany collapsed in 1918, Europe was doomed; Empires were lost, culture and science atrophied, and the stage was set for dominance by totalitarian regimes in Russia and China.

reply

[–] LuciaJoyce 9 years ago

So, by that logic -- Germany should have won WWI? Would that have been better? I guess I agree that the US intervention in WWI led directly to an Allied victory, and thus to a dissolution of worldwide Empire; I don't know, however, if that's an altogether bad thing.

--
I should warn you -- he's a Fourierist.

reply

[–] Dilldappe 9 years ago

what world wide empire?! The British o0?! The German "Empire" was three or four meager colonies while the Commenwealth aka British Empire spaned a quarter of the world.
It is still some kind of leftover propaganda to claim Germany held a worldwide Empire, which only shows how effective that story was because it still lingers in some minds.

reply

[–] LuciaJoyce 9 years ago

I just meant Empire in general. Specifically, I suppose, I meant imperialism.

--
I should warn you -- he's a Fourierist.

reply

[–] thomas-begen-194-976045 8 years ago

Yes, Germany ought to have "won" WWI. It was the most senseless loss of life in human history. Really, there should not have been a war at all. An isolated incident, the assassination of the Archduke, and Austria-Hungary's subsequent war against Serbs, should not have escalated into a war including Germany, Russia, and the rest of Europe.

Instead of staying out of a conflict which did not concern Russia, and against Tsar Nicholas' cousin, Wilhelm's, requests, Russia entered a war many of its people did not support; Russia lost many lives; the Russian Empire was overthrown. I feel for the Russian people but the Tsar got what he deserved.

France and Britain also sustained significant losses in human life. ... but they weren't reasonable enough to treat the end of the Great War as the end of a war. No, they continued it. They made Germany the loser and imposed unfair sanctions on the nation which bred in Germany vast discontent and great resentment.

Just think how better the world would be if Germany "won" WWI. There would not have been a WWII as we know it. The probability not only of WWII but a WWII which was worse than the actual WWII is minimal. It's hard to imagine a worse fate for Russia than what happened after WWII or for Europe for that matter. France? I'm willing to bet the French would prefer a world without German occupation after they foolishly declare war on a nation which beats it into submission in a matter of weeks.

reply

[–] amkatz 8 years ago

Somewhat agree that the way the war ended & its duration, particularly that last year, were catastrophes of an even greater magnitude than what preceded. But who can say what resentments & disorder a German victory would have left in its wake? Surely French entry into the war to start with stemmed in great deal to her humiliation in the wake of the Franco-Prussian war.

Better would have been a face-saving armistice that left no clear winner or loser.

As Churchill himself was alleged to have said:

https://www.google.com/search?q=america+ought+to+have+stayed+out&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

"America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government - and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives."

Whether he actually said it, & whether it's even correct, there's little doubt that prolonging the war into 1918 created the bases for later, more catastrophic events.

reply

[–] JB_Alaska 9 years ago

I also respectfully disagree with your concept that "All War movies are Anti-War Movies"

There have been hundred's of WAR movies, many of them "propaganda (Or Truth) and patriotic films" from the late 1930's and up to the late 50's

As Patton very possibly did say: "Don't die for your country, let the other poor dumb bastard die for his country!" and also sadly was assassinated on orders from Eisenhower BTW.

If Darwin was right, then we evolve by "survival of the fittest", without the occasional War, all we have is Cali Freeways, and both unfortunately involve a large amount of luck. So instead of evolving into a more intelligent human, we will complete the "survival of the brain dead welfare breeders", folks so dumb they will actually need our current "nanny state" mentality to just get through life LOL.

Glad I won't be here to see it :(

"This was done in cold blood by people who claim to be civilized...Civilized!!, They're degenerate, immoral idiots. Stinking little savages, Wipe them out I say! Wipe them off the face of the earth!!" Henry Hull, Objective Burma (1945)

reply

[–] Cobram 7 years ago

"assassinated on orders from Eisenhower BTW"

WTF are you talking about? It's a conspiracy theory, nothing more, with nothing but establishing motives at it's root. Even at their most adversarial moments, the two generals were still amiable towards each other. A far more probable candidate would be Stalin and the Soviet Union being responsible for the death of Patton.

These points can be argued, conspiracy theories spouted, but it is FAR from being a fact as you so nonchalantly posted.

"Man without relatives is man without troubles." Charlie Chan

reply

[–] noit-all 8 years ago

er, you do know that Pearl Harbour got bombed by the Japanese yeah? And consider this, if the US and her allies didn't liberate western europe the Soviets would have and the whole of europe would have been a Stalinist *beep* hole instead of just the east. How would Europe be a better place now if all her forests were filled with toxic waste and water irradiated is it is in so many former eastern bloc countries?

reply

[–] DelendaEst 16 years ago

countless soldiers died to keep one alive. Senseless and makes no sense. He did pay homage to the bridge though, cross of iron, AND an old show called Combat!

reply

[–] lgarcia67 16 years ago

Most definetely. As I was watching Saving Private Ryan for the first time, I remember thinking of Die Brucke as soon as I realised what the final sequence was moving into. But Spileberg not only stole the concept of the desperate defence of the bridge against all odds from Die Brucke; he certainly copied also the climaxing as well as terrifying rumble of the approaching tanks. In addition, I believe that in SPR Spielberg stole concepts from other movies too: like for example, the scene when Caparzo is shot by the German sniper and then the tension mounts because the rest of the American platoon can´t do anything while Caparzo bleeds to death, is taken from Stanley Kubricks`s Full Metal Jacket. All in all, this suggests that SPR is quite a bit of patchwork with uncredited sources. And, finally, yes, SPR it is NOT an antiwar movie in the way Die Brucke is. In SPR there is a point and a reason for war and patriotism is all over the place; in Die Brucke, there isn´t. Die Brucke shows crudely the senselessness of war and how gullible people are manipulated into it certainly conveys a strongly sceptical message about patriotism.

reply

[–] max-632 16 years ago

hmm.. i dont think Spielberg watched this movie ever.
Just look at the portrayal of the germans in his movies. Inhuman, evil and brainless individuals.
by the way, i love this picture, maybe in the top five of the belic genre.

reply

[–] DoctorKay 16 years ago

I'm pretty sure, Spielberg knows "Die Brücke", it is an internationally acclaimed film, won the Golden Globe, was nominated for the Oscar and in spite of its age it is still pretty well known all around the globe.
And I'm pretty sure that Mr. Spielberg is a film fanatic and extremely interested in WWII, so he has definitely seen "Die Brücke"....

--------
Before time began, there was.... the cube.

reply

[–] sawyertom 13 years ago

he might havebeen influenced or knew of it, but from there, I think the comparison ends. The kids in Die brucke were gaurding a bridge with no strategic importance, while in SPR they had to hold it either for their own reinforcements to cross or prevent the German counter attack from crossing or capturing it. I know this might be a trivial difference, but one movig was almsot soley about defending a bridge while the other one involved a bridge only in a quest to find someone. As for the poster that said there is no difference whether one dies heroically or not, it's not about the how you die, but how you lived and acted in your life up until that point. That is what matters. It all comes down to how you are thought of and remembered.

reply

[–] jasir_arafat 13 years ago

oscar schindler?

reply

[–] pieterjutte 13 years ago

There is one movie Spielberg used for SPR (and for his TV series 'Band of Brothers'), that is 'Battleground',... Pvt. Jim Layton leads us through 'Battleground' as Upham is doing in SPR (even starts to smoke). Calling for 'mamma' when one of the men is shot. The 'all american boys' from all over the states,... are in both movies a theme,..

reply

[–] Darvidd 12 years ago

The concept of defending a vital bridge against overwhelming odds goes back to the Roman legend of 'Horatio at the bridge' so its not exactly an original idea in storytelling of any type...

'What is an Oprah?'-Teal'c.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bravomailer 11 years ago

I'd call it homage rather than theft, but I saw three things that Die Brücke and the final battle scene in SPR had in common:

The bridges are visually similar: small, arched, made of stone, and with rounded walls on the sides.

As already noted, protracted grinding sounds of approaching tanks and the anxious looks on the defenders' faces.

There is an execution at the end of each film followed by the shooters' saying to others "Verschwindet!" (Beat it!).

http://www.imovies.ge/m_posters/big/132607764924.jpg

http://www.trasksdad.com/PrivateRyan/trask1.jpg

http://tinyurl.com/amq4sn2

Spielberg also paid homage to the final battle scene in the unappreciated Kelly's Heroes: sniper in bell tower and Tigers in a small town.

reply

[–] Synergetic11 9 years ago

Spielberg is not only a thoroughly mediocre and vastly overrated director but a PROVEN liar and propagandist who was thoroughly exposed in the film "Last Days of the Big Lie," which you can only watch on the internet.

reply

[–] daddysarm 9 years ago

It isn't bad, but not great. Hanks is great, but otherwise ... meh. It also includes a scene copied from Full Metal Jacket, of a US soldier in an open area being shot by a sniper and then calling for help. It is funny that a couple of times when someone mentioned either movie or either actor I had a hard time remembering which actor was shot in which movie.

reply

[–] a666333 8 years ago

I don't know if it is best to call it homage or stealing but the amount of patching together of ideas from previous war films does not speak well for his creativity. Furthermore SPR far too much "Ameri-centrism", sensationalism, commercialism and leaps of logic. It was a seriously flawed film that the Hollywood machine sold hard.

reply