One of the better WWII films made, and here's why.... - Fury (2014) Discussion

[–] Adondra 9 years ago

It was the biggest piece of *beep* film I have ever seen. And not at all accurate...

Zionist propaganda and the worst of them.

I'm a girl. Shh

reply

[–] vortexrider 8 years ago

You're racist piece of garbage.

reply

[–] asguy1 8 years ago

I believe that combat veterans would disagree with you.

reply

[–] writinman2004 8 years ago

Post links to stories proving this.

reply

[–] tmf_scipio 7 years ago

You need to see more movies if you think this is the worst.

Hitler! C'mon, I'll buy you a glass of lemonade.

reply

[–] chas437 8 years ago

I wasn't expecting much, and I was pleasantly surprised.

I'd say its an above average WW2 film. I'd go 8.0, not any higher.

The film losses points for the silly ending sequence, and the coming of age plot thing with Norman, which I found to be annoying. Norman's willful behavior early in the film is absolutely unbelievable, it simply wouldn't have been tolerated. His character his solely to hook millennials, and that's a flaw. Logan Lerman was a bad casting choice.

reply

[–] Dolphin84 8 years ago

"Taking on 300 SS troops with anti-tanks weapons, and nearly winning, when only the tank turret works? No."
Correct: utter nonsense.

"The Sherman tank crews took a beating in WWII."
Yet this movie tries to convey the idea that entire battles can be won by placing a damaged Sherman in the middle of a cross road with Brad Pitt in it.

"This film also gives you some perspective on just how thin allied equipment and supplies were on the European front."
Plainly wrong. It was the Germans who faced overwhelming numerical and material superiority,both from land and especially from the air, in April 45. You just proved that this movie fooled you (and probably much more viewers) into believing that the Americans were facing a superior enemy in terms of numbers (soldiers, AFV etc) when it was just the other way round by 1945. Another question would be that, even though outnumbered, the germans still put up one hell of a fight. The end scene would have made sense if it had been a disabled German Tiger tank.

"Anyone on this board that over-analysed what tanks can or can't do, needs to get a life. If you read the real stories of allied tank battles, you'd know that some amazing accomplishments did in fact occur."
Then Hollywood should make a movie about that instead of coming up with such a war porn fantasy.

"This film is worth a 10, with 9 being a realistic low score. Anything less than an 8 is invalid, and I doubt cynics know anything about the military."
Your opinion, which I respect. And I am sure you know much about WWII and even fought battles right? Get down your high horse, thank you very much. I give it a solid 1 out of 10 for using a real Tiger tank. Everything else was forgettable. Nothing more than a 60s styled shoot em up war movie made to fullfill the war porn fantasies of viewers like you.

Greetings from Germany

reply

[–] asguy1 8 years ago

Actually, I think that the use of a Tiger as unrealistic. I would think a Panther or a King Tiger would have been more common at that point of the war.

As for the SS, at that time of the war, the SS was scraping the bottom of the barrel. By this time, I figure SS units would be composed of demoralized survivors of decimated units, conscripts, kids and old men.

In defense of the Sherman, the Israelis were using them until the 80's against front line Soviet built tanks. Grant4ed, they were up-gunned.

Besides, a disabled Tiger in the same situation would have been abandoned. I don't think a tanker on any side would have wanted to stick around in that kind of situation.

reply

[–] Dolphin84 8 years ago

"As for the SS, at that time of the war, the SS was scraping the bottom of the barrel. By this time, I figure SS units would be composed of demoralized survivors of decimated units, conscripts, kids and old men."

I respect your opinion, but that argument has been brought up frequently, but it does not justify the sheer incompetence and scale of stupidty displayed by the whole batallion. Look, I wish you could read the opinions in German cinema websites, Amazon etc. People WITHOUT proper military training mostly agree: it was all ridiculous. You do not need to be a master in strategy nor do you require 5 years or more years of front experience to find out that small arms fire does not work against a tank, and that charging it frontally all the time is a waste of time and lifes. Add to this the Stormtrooper effect used here: 300 soldiers are incapable of hitting Brad Pitt when he is on top of his tank, they even miss a Panzerfaust shot at close range. It is pathetic and laughable.
And by the way, stating that they were the greenest of all conscripts available is pure conjecture. They had decorated officers leading them, were well equipped, morale seemed high.
By 2014 I would have expected something else, not this piece of propaganda-like trash.

reply

[–] asguy1 8 years ago

I was thinking more that any given German unit at that time was a mixture of combat veteran, kids, and oldsters. I'm sure that there were hardcore fanatics mixed in there as well.

I figure also that many of the errors in tactics was for the sake of the movie. Lets face it, if the tank and crew were wiped out in the first couple minutes of the final battle by a fusillade of panzerfausts, it would have been a bit anti climactic.

Different tactics by the tank crew would probably been just as effective and increased their probability of survival.

reply

[–] the_la_baker 8 years ago

The finale is loosely based on Audie Murphy's amazing bravery defending a vital roadway near the Alsatian town of Holtzwihr.

Its difficult to imagine. Almost more than the end of this film. He held off six tanks and an estimated 250 German infantrymen.

The Germans scored a direct hit on an M10 tank destroyer, setting it alight, forcing the crew to abandon it. Murphy ordered his men to retreat to positions in the woods, remaining alone at his post, shooting his M1 carbine and directing artillery fire via his field radio while the Germans aimed fire directly at his position. Murphy mounted the abandoned, burning tank destroyer and began firing its .50 caliber machine gun at the advancing Germans, killing a squad crawling through a ditch towards him. For an hour, Murphy stood on the flaming tank destroyer returning German fire from foot soldiers and advancing tanks, killing or wounding 50 Germans. He sustained a leg wound during his stand, and stopped only after he ran out of ammunition. Murphy rejoined his men, disregarding his own wound, and led them back to repel the Germans. He insisted on remaining with his men while his wounds were treated. For his actions that day, he was awarded the Medal of Honor. The 3rd Infantry Division was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for its actions at the Colmar Pocket, giving Murphy a Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster for the emblem.

"War Daddy" was a real person, too. As another user made a post about recently.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2713180/board/thread/259751321

reply

[–] thebricks 8 years ago

More than likely, that story was embellished. A LOT.

reply

[–] the_la_baker 8 years ago

Really?! Is that the best you can do?
You call a documented and decorated war hero a fraud?!!
How do you sleep at night?

http://www.audiemurphy.com/

You should be ashamed of yourself.

reply

[–] Hotrodder 8 years ago

I'm not trying to defame Murphy but the story does have its problems. Two in particular- why would any soldier climb onto a burning tank? - burning tanks have a habit of exploding when the fire ignites the ammunition or fuel. Secondly he was facing six tanks, they had a stationary target- ie the burning tank destroyer- and not one single tank commander thought to take him out? Not to mention that tanks are hardly going to be affected by .50 cal MG fire. These must have been the worst German soldiers of all time.

Sadly, stories of derringdo are sometimes suspect- Billy Bishop's claims in WW1 that got him the Victoria Cross are somewhat, ah, dodgy to say the least. While the VC was handed out rightly most of the time there have definitely been cases where the decision was political- ie the politicians needed a hero for the media at the time. The first shooting down of a Zeppelin is also such a case IMO.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

reply

[–] thebricks 8 years ago

I really hate people that treat the military like a religion and think it can't be questioned. The guy you responded to is one of the things I hate most about America.

A lot of these Medal of Honor stories are completely bogus. They're propaganda.

reply

[–] asguy1 8 years ago

1. If you are here, please feel free to leave.
2. If not, how did you become an expert on American military history?
2. If MOH stories are bogus, which ones?

reply

[–] thebricks 8 years ago

Here we go, typical xenophobic "you can leave America" crap. Your country isn't that special you POS.

reply

[–] asguy1 8 years ago

I'm sure yours is the most wonderful place on the face of the earth...where unicorns dance, every child is above average, and everyone's farts smell like cinnamon rolls.

reply

[–] Dave-R011 8 years ago

If Murphy's story was embellished or fabricated, you should have little trouble finding reliable sources to debunk it. I look forward to the results of your research.

Of course, if you can't fins anything to show that story was false, we will have to presume that you actually have not the slightest idea of what you are speaking about and are just a bigotted idiot.

reply

[–] Hotrodder 8 years ago

It's spelled "bigoted" Davey, old bean. And "find", come to that. Your hero worship of all things American is embarrassing, lad. Especially as you claim to be a Canadian. Which I am by no means convinced of.
I'm just pointed out one or two obvious flaws in Murphy's story, that's all. So why did he climb onto a burning tank destroyer when it was very likely to explode, thus killing him? And how did he stop tanks- six of them!- from targeting him, or rather the vehicle on which he stood- when it was the obvious thing to do to any tank commander?
How does one hold off six armour plated tanks with a mere machine gun, hmm?
I'd really like to know!
He just possibly got lucky, but he must have had one mean rabbit's foot!

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 8 years ago

How does one hold off six armour plated tanks with a mere machine gun, hmm?
I'd really like to know!

You may have answered your own question. It was a freaking tank destroyer, after all. One can hardly blame a German tank commander from avoiding exposure to its 3-inch (note the use of a hyphen) or 90mm gun. Maybe, just maybe, they did not read Murphy's citation, which was written only after the battle, and did not know the TD was abandoned except for Murphy's presence. The firing .50 Browning must have strongly suggested otherwise.

 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

reply

[–] nickm2 8 years ago

And on top of that wasn't Murphy calling artillery down on the Tanks? Tankers hate 'the big boom from the sky'.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 8 years ago

Most German tanks and SP guns had roof armor in the 5-8mm range, which was vulnerable to 105mm HE. Some had no roof at all, like many tank destroyers of that era.

Panthers had 15mm roof armor, and would be difficult for 105mm. Tigers had 25mm and were proof against 105mm. Both were vulnerable to 155mm or 8-inch howitzer.

 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

reply

[–] thebricks 8 years ago

If Murphy's story was embellished or fabricated, you should have little trouble finding reliable sources to debunk it. I look forward to the results of your research.

It's a battlefield that has had the evidence removed long ago. It is not easy to find evidence. It's an account, much like religious accounts, which can't be verified but any sensible person will realize is completely fabricated.

These stories are nothing but propaganda designed to make the soldiers feel invincible and raise morale. "Look, the enemy is so inferior that one soldier can hold off tanks and men from a burning tank destroyer!" It's a lot better than telling them 2,000 of your guys died in the last week.

Look at many movies out there today that are based on real events. Most are embellished. Why? Real life just isn't that exciting.

I don't know why you're getting offended. Just be realistic and understand.

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 8 years ago

These stories are nothing but propaganda

A bit too far, there. I agree the official account may well have been embellished, but we can be pretty sure Murphy did something exceptional that day. I know of only one significant medal that was awarded for purely fabricated reasons.

 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

reply

[–] thebricks 8 years ago

The one you know of is just the one that got caught.

My guess is, the tank destroyer was disabled and Audie Murphy held back some unsupported German soldiers until retreating. The brass looked at the story, dressed it up a bit and passed it on. I think that's usually what happens.

reply

[–] Dave-R011 8 years ago

It's a battlefield that has had the evidence removed long ago. It is not easy to find evidence. It's an account, much like religious accounts, which can't be verified but any sensible person will realize is completely fabricated

You mean no one questioned it at the time? None of the people who were there at the time have decided to tell the "true" story over the last seventy years? No one has found evidence to the contrary in that time? Sorry, that defies belief.
When several dozen witnesses tell a reasonably consistent story and stick to it over decades, chances are very high indeed that it happened pretty much as they said.

Real life just isn't that exciting.

Real life is frequently so outrageous that no one would believe it were it fiction.

Just be realistic and understand.

I am and do. It is you who has invested so much in an skewed worldview that you are unable to credit any data that does not agree with our preconceived notions.

reply

[–] thebricks 8 years ago

They obviously got some incentive to shut up, don't you think?

How old are you?

You'd rather believe in the outrageous than be skeptical. This is, in a nutshell, why you are just an everyday punter.

reply

[–] Dave-R011 8 years ago

SO faced with as lack of evidence, you desperately make up another baseless charge to excuse your total inability to back your story.

reply

[–] thebricks 8 years ago

I may not have evidence, but I sure as hell have common sense.

reply

[–] asguy1 8 years ago

That has yet to be proved.

reply

[–] the_la_baker 8 years ago

I really hate people that treat the military like a religion and think it can't be questioned. The guy you responded to is one of the things I hate most about America.

What? First of all, I'm not militaristic at all. I am a history buff and I have respect for people who served. When did I say it cannot be questioned? Go ahead, question it, but there is no evidence that anything was embellished or manufactured. When you make a statement and not an inquiry regarding a dead man's honor, I tend to side with the documented war hero and not the "this can't be real because I don't think so" angry internet pundit.

You hate me? You don't even know me. Why are you so angry?

Scroll down about half way on the following link

http://www.kratzmc.com/351st-bomb-group-an-introduction/audie-l-murphy-the-ultimate-hero/

Those are sworn witness testimonies, and some other interesting tidbits.

Just to see what came up, I tried to find something, ANYTHING, mentioning him fabricating or embellishing anything attributed to him. All I found was an article talking about stolen valor saying that some people who lie about their military service create fantasy tales that put REAL STORIES LIKE AUDIE MURPHY to shame.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fake-war-stories-exposed/

So, in an attempt to find something even suggesting he was in anyway a phony, the only thing I could find was the exact opposite. Another confirmation of his story being legit.

reply

[–] Hotrodder 8 years ago

In the same way that German tanks are always Tigers, perhaps the German tanks here were SPGs or even APCS like the Hanomag- everything tracked is described as a bloody tank sometimes. Ad instead of actually being on fire perhaps some smoke was emerging from the TD. Perhaps it was embellished to a degree but I have little difficulty in believing the nub of Murphy's actions. Extraordinary things are done in wartime by soldiers.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing. emerging from the TD.

reply

[–] thebricks 8 years ago

"Sworn" witnesses.

Oh, guess I'm convinced, lol!

reply

[–] the_la_baker 8 years ago

"Sworn" witnesses.

Oh, guess I'm convinced, lol!

Unless you have some sort of evidence, even anecdotal, that there was something embellished or fabricated(as is the case in some heroic tales, I never denied that) you have no leg to stand on.

I think you watched "Flags of our Fathers" too many times.

reply

[–] thebricks 8 years ago

Humans have ingrained survival skills to help them avoid bad situations by learning what is a lie and what isn't.

If you really believe the Audie Murphy story, I feel sorry for you. I really do. You're functionally retarded.

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 8 years ago

He made a rational post and you replied with insult.

In history, rational people accept the documented account as the best evidence unless contrary evidence appears. That does not lead us to assume it must be absolutely 100% true and complete, but that it is the best available account of events. To claim it must be false without evidence is not rational.

 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

reply

[–] thebricks 8 years ago

Try to replicate this on a real battlefield and see what happens.

You cannot just trust EVERYTHING that's documented. That's retarded and gullible.

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 8 years ago

That's not even an argument.

In any case, artillery fire driving an enemy away with loss is quite believable. Firing a machine gun from a burning tank destroyer is believable under certain conditions, and Murphy was there to check the conditions before acting.

 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

reply

[–] thebricks 8 years ago

You're utterly, *beep* delusional. Get outside and GET A LIFE. *beep* nerd!

Burning tank destroyer is your first clue this story is *beep* If you're too stupid to see this, I can't help you.

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 8 years ago

We already knew you are an idiot. You can stop proving it.

 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

reply

[–] thebricks 8 years ago

Blocked. I can't argue with thick idiots anymore. You're one of those people that believes the government can NEVER lie. I just don't have the time to deal with someone who clearly is not out of their teens and had any life experience. There's no point. You're indoctrinated, and it's pathetic.

reply

[–] nickm2 8 years ago

OK now I KNOW you're trolling....and you must try harder!!

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] thebricks 8 years ago

Can you be a man and quit whining about people trolling when you disagree with them?

reply

[–] the_la_baker 8 years ago

Can you be a man and quit whining about people trolling when you disagree with them?

I am also having trouble believing you are being serious at this point. Then again, I remind myself of the famous Einstein quote, "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." and then I realize you probably are serious.
So Sad.

I will leave you with another famous quote, this one from Honest Abe, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt".

Good luck.


reply

[–] nickm2 8 years ago

It's your 'dismissal' as children of people who disagree with you; if you've spent any time here you know that some of these guys are old enough to be your Pa.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] thebricks 8 years ago

That doesn't mean they're right!

reply

[–] nickm2 8 years ago

Nor does it mean they're wrong...look deeper. Anyway, what's the point of propaganda? It's not like the end is not in sight in Europe in 1945.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] moufoil 8 years ago

You guys should stop being so mean to bricks. I mean, come on...

All he's doing is completely ignoring all evidence and facts presented before him because it obviously never happened.

The Audie Murphy story never happened, just like the Holocaust never happened. Anyone who believes the opposite is a foolish child.

The Jews just came up with another way to seem like the most persecuted people in the world while they control it. All that Holocaust "evidence" is just corroborated propoganda from people with Zionist ties!

Just use common sense people. No matter what evidence or facts are laid out in front of you, always believe the opposite. #factsliesometimes

reply

[–] asguy1 8 years ago

You are a fool.

reply

[–] moufoil 8 years ago

lol you're the fool if you think i'm being serious XD

reply

[–] writinman2004 8 years ago

"War Daddy" was a real person, too.

But let's not pretend that relates to the movie. As the article states:

His crew gave him the nickname “War Daddy” which was used in the 2014 move Fury for the fictional tank commander played by Brad Pitt.

Pool sounds like he was a hero. The jackasses in this movie are terrible representatives of the US military.

reply

[–] the_la_baker 8 years ago

"War Daddy" was a real person, too.

But let's not pretend that relates to the movie. As the article states:

His crew gave him the nickname “War Daddy” which was used in the 2014 move Fury for the fictional tank commander played by Brad Pitt.

Pool sounds like he was a hero. The jackasses in this movie are terrible representatives of the US military.

What?
Do you know what a strawman argument is? If you do not, you at least know how to apply it as a fallacious argument.

Yes, he is a fictional character within the film, but the real "War Daddy" was also a highly decorated war hero and is considered the single best tank commander the US had.

The rest of that had nothing to do with what I said.

You people are desperately grasping at "its not possible and is so inaccurate compared to reality(because I refuse to believe it)" straws, it is getting quite pathetic.

reply

[–] watchingthroughthewindow 8 years ago

You are kind of right, it was actually a good movie... with the BIG exception of the battle scenes which were utter CRAP, sadly for it this was a WAR movie, and sucking at battle scenes is a big nono.

This is the Anti-SVP, a movie that was a crap sandwich, a stupid premise and plot sandwiched between two of the best battle scenes in history... this is its polar opposite.

reply

[–] milo44 8 years ago

I agree .. one of the best .

"A man that wouldn't cheat for a poke don't want one bad enough".

reply

[–] rascal67 8 years ago

It was sensationalized with phony sentiment. It had a gung-ho mentality, the dialog appeared anachronistic so as to appeal to the newbies, and the battle scenes looked like laser fights out of Star Wars. That said, it was a stylish and heightend looking film and competently acted—except for LaBeouf. It did portray the hellish and futile existence of the horrors of combat\war quite well. Due to the extraordinary circumstances these guys were placed in, they were not so much fighting the enemy; but just fighting to survive. The end sequence was frustrating for me, in that they all chose to stay with the tank and follow Wardaddy to do "their job", and get wasted in the process. Nice that he had worked though with them and they survived, and then decides it all he really knew and running wasn't an option. What a hero! The film had shades of Private Ryan; but that was more believable and realistically portrayed. PATTON-70' it's not.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩

reply

[–] nakedgirl 8 years ago

mp40

reply