Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)

ZzZ · #1 May 30th, 2001, 01:49 AM

Thank you for your posting Nitram. It's good to hear such an opinion from an US citizen. I also think that the average intelligence of people in this forum is much higher than in the public.

Let's just hope for better (anti-)war movies in the future.

It is interesting that I can easily accept the villian in an action (not war) movie to be just the way you described the German/Vietnamese/Russian/etc... soldiers. It is really a big difference if there is a historic reference for something.

ZzZ

capnq · #2 May 29th, 2001, 04:16 PM

quote:
An anti-war movie for me should never contain hope and it must show both sides of the fighting forces.

AFAIK, _Pearl Harbor_ was never intended to be an anti-war movie. Most war movies are basically action-adventure genre; I don't think anti-war films usually make nearly as much money.

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

ZzZ · #3 May 29th, 2001, 04:25 PM

quote:
Originally posted by capnq:
I don't think anti-war films usually make nearly as much money.

That's a good point ...

[This message has been edited by ZzZ (edited 29 May 2001).]

dogscoff · #4 May 29th, 2001, 04:41 PM

QUOTE:
I don't think anti-war films usually make nearly as much money.
/QUOTE

Doesn't mean they're not worth making. Full Metal Jacket springs to mind (anyone wanting to go to war after watching that really is nuts.)

Besides, a film doesn't have to be actively anti- war. Better to honestly depict both sides, ie the horror and the (occasional) necessity of warfare and let people make up their own minds.

What annoys me are action/ war/ Bruce Willis type films which show people walking away virtually unhurt from bullet wounds / car smashes / exploding helicopters etc.

I've nothing against the principle of realistic violence in films, or even unrealistic violence in cartoons, scifi (ie Matrix) and other "unreal" contexts. However I think it is irresponsible for film makers to trivialise and glorify violence.

------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so, Brain, but balancing a family and a career ... oooh, it's all too much for me. "

Atrocities · #5 May 29th, 2001, 07:58 PM

quote:
Later I decided NOT to see that movie because all major german movie critics called it historically and politically inaccurate.

If I remember correctly, many Film critics denounced a little film called Star Wars because it was too spacie.

When it comes to war movies, you will always have one side saying one thing about it, while the other side says something else.

Pearl Harbor WAS NOT INTENDED to be an accurate film. It was inteded to be a movie set in and around the time of December 7th.

Please DO NOT get caught up in all this political BS, as its just a complete waste of time and eneregy.

I also would like to know what you all think of the Sneak Attack idea for SEIV.

Nitram Draw · #6 May 29th, 2001, 08:07 PM

It would be a little difficult to do your proposed sneak attack because everyone knows its coming, just not where from. It might be better to set up only one or two and not say who is going to be on the receiving end of it. Also, would the AI carry it out?

Suicide Junkie · #7 May 29th, 2001, 10:19 PM

What if each side had a specific advantage and counter?

So you have to try to figure out whos going to attack you and then build the appropriate type of defense.

Like crystalline to stop the organics, PDC ships to stop missile guys, etc etc

Give each side only one weapon tech, so the missile guy can try do attack whomever they feel is most vulnerable to them (if they can figure out what the other players have).