Why are there no good films about the Great War?

Gallipoli which has a kino ending

no concentration camps, so no way for them to enforce NEVER AGAIN

I enjoyed A Very Long Engagement

War Horse is the usual Spielberg contrived crap, kys for reccomending it.

Because there is no bad guy. You need an obvious bad guy vs. good guy scenario to tell the audience who to cheer for and how to feel. With WWI, everyone lost, and the fighting was all in vain.

Look up the Christmas Truce, 1914. After you read about that, you'll understand why a movie about WW1 would fail...but also why this is the most beautiful thing that reminds us of our humanity in inhumane conditions.

Attached: More Precisely.....jpg (641x530, 44K)

>It certainly doesn't have the drama and bombast of the second world war.

I'd argue that there is more. Chemical warfare, trench warfare with much more hand to hand combat, much greater sense that you will die a horribly painful gruesome death getting your skull smashed in with a shovel or skullcrusher. Literally just rushing over the top hoping you don't get pegged. Massive advancements in artillery with little to no proportionate advancement in defensive components of war leads to absolute shock, awe, horror, destruction. Look at OP pick of no man's land. Total annihilation. Eerily quiet one minute than you're getting shelled into oblivion while you crouch in the mud, next minute the enemy tunnels through and is screaming in your face stabbing you in the eye. WWI always seemed infinitely more brutal, gruesome, horrific than WWII to me.

Attached: aesthetic.jpg (1200x909, 224K)

mental how millions of men pointlessly died because the international banking elite wanted to test their new pet (germany) against their old pet (great britain)

All Quiet on the Western Front was pretty good as was the Beneath Hill 60. WW1 is pretty underappreciated as far as kino goes, which is a shame, considering it has so much potential.

Attached: 1547099787689.jpg (511x765, 109K)

I want a real, high budget, well-crafted hollywood blockbuster with this aesthetic, not just another contrived "hitler bad" memefest

Attached: uploads%2F2016%2F10%2F20%2Fhurley_37.jpg%2Ffit-in__1440x1440.jpg (1200x850, 191K)

The Lost Battalion

There’s lots though. Do you just not watch movies made before 2000?

There are lots. None that are really great. I've seen a few WWI movies, some good I suppose, most shit, none great. Seems like every other year theres a big budget blockbuster for WW2 while nobody ever tries to tackle the great war as an epic

Attached: uploads%2F2016%2F10%2F20%2Fhurley_36.jpg%2Ffit-in__1440x1440.jpg (1200x823, 183K)

Imagine having to mobilize your army because some shitter 4 countries over shot some other shitter 2 countries south and some other shitter on the otherside of the continent came to his defence and your sisters boyfriends cousins best friend didnt like like that so now you have to conscript 78% of your male population when all you wanted to do was tend soil

Any movie that shows the French/Russians instead of the overrepresented Brits.

>Because there is no bad guy.

t. brainlet.
What about the one side that started the war?
What about the one side that comitted all the atrocities (Rape of Belgium, Armenian Genocide...)?

Attached: wwdf.png (1058x485, 45K)

Read a book nigger

Very few wars had "bad guys".
Most wars about about countries defending their own interest at the expense of others.

Btw, Americans can very much be seen as the "bad guys" in the Pacific War. It's all a matter of perspective.

Attached: war crime.jpg (1196x810, 348K)

The problem with WWI is that the reason behind the allegiances between the countries originally involved requires too much political explanation for a general audience. WWII has Nazis and Kamikazes. That's easy. It has Pearl Harbor...that's easy. The common person can easily identify the bad with the good.

WWI has...the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand by Princip, which easily could have been dealt with between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia. But all the other big brothers had to come in and escalate. In the trenches, what separated German Soldiers from French or British? That's the problem. It's not like one particular country or political party was trying to conquer Europe and eventually the world....

But then again, I'm just a brainlet...

Attached: Reflect.jpg (640x877, 343K)

low iq post
The rape of belgium was largely exaggerated and there were similar atrocities during the Russian invasion of East Prussia.
Additionally, the Entente forces invaded neutral Greece and toppled the government to open a new front against the Central Powers

Attached: Gavrilo Princip.png (1257x704, 1.97M)

Yes yes, but OP asked why there were no good films about the Great War.

If it were a small independent film, one could do a series of character studies...but to do a proper WWI film you'd need a huge budget, and studios won't make a film like that unless they get a somewhat guaranteed return. They would need obvious bad guys and good guys, not a half-hour explanation of why certain countries sided with certain countries, nor could they have the clear ambiguity that happens when you analyze the thoughts and feelings of soldiers from both sides who fought in the trenches.

Jesus...sometimes I really think you guys are just a row of phones coming from those comment factories in the middle east....

Attached: umm....what....png (693x496, 42K)

>WWII has Nazis and Kamikazes. That's easy. It has Pearl Harbor...

The reasons why Pearl Harbor happened are just as complicated as the reasons for WW1's alliances.
Just going with "It all started when they attacked us at Pearl Harbor" while ignoring everything that happened before and the reasons why Japan attacked the US is like explaining WW1 with "It all started when Germany declared war on France and Russia".

Don't bother arguing with /pol/tards.
They literally believe "da world wuld be bettur if germoney won".

Nevermind the fact that the Austrians raped Serbia, the Turks genocided Armenians and Greeks or the Germans planned the whole war since 1912 with the idea of imposing even worse conditions than Versailles on the Entente.

>If it were a small independent film, one could do a series of character studies...but to do a proper WWI film you'd need a huge budget, and studios won't make a film like that unless they get a somewhat guaranteed return. They would need obvious bad guys and good guys, not a half-hour explanation of why certain countries sided with certain countries, nor could they have the clear ambiguity that happens when you analyze the thoughts and feelings of soldiers from both sides who fought in the trenches.

Then the real issue is this retarded normie meme that consists in saying "WW1 had no bad guys while WW2 did", a meme that was created to rehabilitate Germany's reputation in the wake of the Cold War without lowering their WW2 guilt.
Truth is that both WW1 and WW2 were fought over countries having clashing selfish interests.

it annoys me that people will flock to watch a 3 hour film like the avengers and listen to all the fake backstory but not a 3 hour film about the first world war which actually happened and actually threatened western civilization and actually reshaped the world

The reasons are simple. US cut off oil from Japan and that’s pretty much it.
Japan then attacked USA first.

Attached: NZL_277996R1.jpg (716x1075, 104K)

WW1 was literally started because of peace treaties, one country going to war triggered 50 others to follow suit

Yeah, but this one is very rarely mentioned (unlike muh alliances for WW1).
Embargoing another nation is a very serious diplomatical attack.

>Japan then attacked USA first.

Just like Germany attacked Russia and France first in 1914.

The reasons is simple. A random nobody killed some Austrian dude and that’s pretty much it.
Austria then attacked Serbia first.

Pleb

still better than democracy

It was pretty much planned by Germany and ignited on purpose using the alliance system.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Imperial_War_Council_of_8_December_1912
>Wilhelm II's opinion was that Austria-Hungary should attack Serbia that December, and if “Russia supports the Serbs, which she evidently does…then war would be unavoidable for us, too,” and that this would be better now than later, after completion of (the just begun) massive modernization and expansion of the Russian army and railway system toward Germany. Moltke agreed. In his professional military opinion "a war is unavoidable and the sooner the better". Moltke "wanted to launch an immediate attack."

>Both Wilhelm II and the Army leadership agreed that if a war were necessary it were best launched soon. Admiral Tirpitz, however, asked for a “postponement of the great fight for one and a half years” because the Navy was not ready for a general war that included Britain as an opponent. He insisted that the completion of the construction of the U-boat base at Heligoland and the widening of the Kiel Canal were the Navy's prerequisites for war

>Tirpitz did say that the Navy wanted to wait until the Kiel Canal was ready in summer 1914 before any war could start. Though Moltke objected to the postponement of the war as unacceptable, Wilhelm sided with Tirpitz. Moltke yielded "only reluctantly."

>Historians more sympathetic to the Entente, such as British historian John Röhl, frequently see this as a conference as setting a time when a war was to begin, namely the summer of 1914. It was clearly established that, if there was going to be a war, the German Army wanted it to commence before the new Russian armaments program began to bear fruit.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Shall_Not_Grow_Old

kino about it came out this year, what are you talking about

fair point but that is a documentary which is not really what were talking about here

>that was the only reason
Fucking brainlets.

youtube.com/watch?v=KBRrbgf8nm8

It didnt have a holocaust or a Head figure of "evil" to give it more gas.

most people will dismiss the atrocities and horrific deaths ww1 and rather do the holocaust was worst card.

Based Tirpitz

youtube.com/watch?v=DX1PW2n8POg

>It didnt have a holocaust or a Head figure of "evil" to give it more gas.

Central Powers had the Rape of Belgium and the Armenian Genocide.
It's just not as overblown because Belgians and Armenians arent as influencial as you-know-who.

Fuck Hackson.

Allies tried to paint Wilhelm II as a "pure evil monster," but today that propaganda doesn't really stand up when you realize the Allies committed similar atrocities in their time to the Central Powers.
Germany had a genocide in Deutsch-Südwestafrika (Namibia) with the Herero people. The Ottomans had the Armenian genocide.
But the Allies had their own atrocities. Genocides of Native Americans by the US and Britain, Boer genocide in South Africa for Britain, French genocides in places like Algeria etc.

this aint ww2 son

No, it's WWI. Who said it was WW2?

ik bro, i was being sarcastic.

the you-know-who is kinda the reason why im completely bored out of WW2 history, WW1 is just more interested and varied.. and not just "muh hitler and holocaust"

that wasn't the inference... inference was that hollywood pushes out WW2 films with anti-holocaust sentiments all the time while I just want a kino great war film

>But the Allies had their own atrocities. Genocides of Native Americans by the US and Britain, Boer genocide in South Africa for Britain, French genocides in places like Algeria

None of those took place during WW1 (and the Algerian "genocide" is a meme).

Well you're in luck, cause instead you'll get just another "kaiser bad" memefest instead.

>I want a real, high budget, well-crafted hollywood blockbuster with this aesthetic, not just another contrived "hitler bad" memefest

Hitler was WW2 bud. That's a pic from WW1

It's hardly a documentary.

You're invoking atrocities decades and even centuries prior to WW1. The Germans and Austrians and Ottomans had plenty of atrocities within WW1. The Germans didn't start the war (there are compelling arguments to suggest they ultimately did and strong armed the Austrians to demand such an onerous peace terms the Serbs wouldn't accept - except they did) but if WW1 was shades of Gray it was light grey with 1 splotch of dark (Russia) versus very dark grey where every member but Bulgaria had a lot of shit to answer for.

I never said they took place during WW1.
The Herero genocide by Germany didn't either.

sentence structure

are you stupid?

Not relevant. Everyone else understood the inference except you who needs it spoonfed to him.

nah

just say inferred

"Everyone else understood the inferred except you..."
what?

>Everyone else inferred that except you who needs it spoonfed to him.

good try

....you want me to dumb down my sentence structure because its easier for you to understand?

But people didn't infer that. The original poster inferred that the pic was WW1 whereas everyone else understood his inference. They mean different things.

Attached: 1522215239883.jpg (645x729, 59K)

fair enough.

>understood the inference

that's a double negative

La Grande Guerra...

That's because-for the West-it was more brutal. There were more British deaths in 1918 alone than there were in all of WWII.

The original poster had to infer his own post? What are you stupid?

>what is colloquial speech
[literally] retarded

this, do not miss this movie

this, wtf
are you retarded?

Paths of Glory.

It stars Kirk Douglas and was directed by Stanley Kubrick for fucks sake.

Attached: paths-of-glory.jpg (1156x1600, 501K)

this was fucking kinography and I'm positively chuffed to have seen it in the cinema

Attached: Black Adder Wibble.jpg (450x450, 21K)

OP, kys until you have seen all three, then un-kys to make threads about them

>scenes of protgonist at home enjoying comfy peaceful life
>scenes of news annoucing war
>protagonist signs up with bunch of optimistic young men
>basic training scenes with mean drill instructor
>protagonist shipped to the front
>small scale skirmish action scene where a bunch of his friends die
>extended scenes of trench digging and artillery shelling
>climax of protagonist going over the top with his battalion and getting machine gunned

This movie has been done a thousand times already. Only smaller war films by intelligent directors would be worth watching.

>Look up the Christmas truce, 1914.
There is a movie about exactly that part called Joyeux Noël, very good imo.

>All Quiet On The Western Front
Truly the greatest.

>Look up the Christmas Truce
Did you know that Hitler was against it during his time in the trenches?

lol "cinephile" faggot

sam mends is currently making one. principal photography is undergoing.

^this
excellent film/documentary

i love this film but it was kinda rushed because kubrick was not his own man back then. if it were made in the 70s it'd last over 3 hours and we'd get much longer battle and courthouse sequences.

damn I forgot about this one

imagine being this retarded... imagine seeing the absolutely inhuman imperial Japs as the "good guys" in anything

How the fuck haven't you seen AQOTWF you absolute mong

Joyeux Noel
all quiet on the western front
the lost batallion
paths of glory

I want a 180 minute anxiety attack inducing adaption of this.

youtube.com/watch?v=soGeowHi4kA