GREYHOUND - Tom Hanks

[sc_rufctr]

Originally Posted by plain fan

I really hope it gets a physical release onto disc.

I'm sure it will... Blu-Ray has better sound when compared to steaming IMO. There's way more dynamic range in a Blu-Ray.

[Iciclehead]

Just watched it on Apple TV 4K, plenty good enough for my old eyes....

Good movie, not much in it for the ladies (or non-warmongering imperialist lackey's), but it was enjoyable.

Part of the free Apple TV+ package, so zero incremental cost.....

Dennis

[svandamme]

juat watched it.. dissapointed.. the sea big pictures look like a game.
subs some how manage to do surface warfare agajnst 2 destroyers.. what a joke

[wilnj]

Originally Posted by svandamme

juat watched it.. dissapointed.. the sea big pictures look like a game.
subs some how manage to do surface warfare agajnst 2 destroyers.. what a joke

Well they didn’t do it successfully.

[svandamme]

no sub would have done that as it would have been suicide.



the taunting by the subs. what a farce


Fletcher class destroyers .. ran in the pacific..not Atlantic..
because they couldn't take rough seas well adn because of their long range.. so why does it run out of fuel in the atlantic?
The Atlantic was Clemson or Gleaves class destroyers.

[sc_rufctr]

The movie is based on the book "The Good Shepherd". The ship in the book was "Mahan-class destroyer".

And U Boats did engage ships on the surface. That's well documented.
Would they choose to engage two ships at once? Of course not but that wasn't their choice.

USS Kidd (DD-661), a Fletcher-class destroyer was used as the ship in the movie. Maybe that's the closest they could get to an appropriate WW2 ship? The only issue I had was the speed of the torpedoes. They seemed too fast but who knows?

How fast were German torpedoes in WW2?

The G7a(TI) was the standard issue Kriegsmarine torpedo during the early years of World War II. It was a steam-powered design, using a wet heater engine burning decaline, with a typical range of about 7,500 metres (24,600 ft) while running at 40 knots (74 km/h; 46 mph).

BTW: You're becoming entirely predictable.

[john70t]

Originally Posted by svandamme

Fletcher class destroyers .. ran in the pacific..not Atlantic..
because they couldn't take rough seas well adn because of their long range.. so why does it run out of fuel in the atlantic?
The Atlantic was Clemson or Gleaves class destroyers.

"Those are P-51s. Tank-busters"! -Saving Private Ryan

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by sc_rufctr

The movie is based on the book "The Good Shepherd". The ship in the book was "Mahan-class destroyer".

And U Boats did engage ships on the surface. That's well documented.
Would they choose to engage two ships at once? Of course not but that wasn't their choice.

USS Kidd (DD-661), a Fletcher-class destroyer was used as the ship in the movie. Maybe that's the closest they could get to an appropriate WW2 ship? The only issue I had was the speed of the torpedoes. They seemed too fast but who knows?

How fast were German torpedoes in WW2?

The G7a(TI) was the standard issue Kriegsmarine torpedo during the early years of World War II. It was a steam-powered design, using a wet heater engine burning decaline, with a typical range of about 7,500 metres (24,600 ft) while running at 40 knots (74 km/h; 46 mph).

BTW: You're becoming entirely predictable.

It's Hollywood that's entirely predictable.. they can't get basics right.
It's just stupid.. it makes people stupid... kids these days will grow up believing that to be the history... And if anything we should honor those who fought in those wars for freedom and values.. .with the truth.
That entire generation is dying, every day we loose more and soon they will all be gone.
How will we remember them??? with Hollywood CGI and BS???

The surface fights did happen.. when subs were caught by surprise or ran out of air
but they didn't do that during the happy days when they employed Wolfpack tactitcs against convoys... They weren't so stupid to taunt destroyers and then end up on the surface shooting back with machine guns..

Destroyers came up.. they dived deep and prayed.

[sc_rufctr]

I understand but most of the movies coming out of Hollywood are just crap.

If you want to be really offended try watching "The Old Guard" (Netflix movie)

A better effort is "The Outpost". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Outpost_(2020_film)

[svandamme]

old guard just looks like an action film.. i don't like em, but can't be arsed to complained bout those.. I just don't watch em.

I just get fired up with there are historical films done wrong.
And they were talking Das Boot in this thread, and Tom Hanks, so kinda hoped to be proven wrong, but not to be the case.. This thing isn't 5% of what Das Boot is.. Das Boot was a real movie..

[Yorkie]

It’s supposed to be entertainment not a bloody documentary. If it encourages a kid to pick up a book and read further then great.

[svandamme]

Well I disagree.. it's not because it's entertainment that they have to rewrite and dumb down history simply because they are to lazy to write a decent script and instead want easy big action. We already have History Channel for dumbed down history... But even they at least get the destroyer classes right for the theater.

It costs just as much to do it right and the result would have been a much better movie.
Was Das Boot a documentary? No
Was it entertainment? yes
Was it done with respect for history? yes

Was it a better movie? without a doubt and nobody will disagree with me on that.


That anybody will read a book because of this movie.. I'm calling Big BS on that.. many kids will go home thinking that was how WW2 was fought...

[Yorkie]

I’m going to disagree with your assumption that kids won’t look further into the topic. I’m 54 and grew up in the UK around a lot of family members who fought in WW2. Listening to their stories and a diet of black and white patriotic movies made me pick up a few books over the years. Now one could argue that none of the young people are going to pick up a book these days but I don’t want to get into generation bashing.

It’s actually pretty tough to make a movie with all the right equipment and factually historically correct events. You can poke holes Dunkirk , Saving Private Ryan,etc. but all that does is prove you are an excellent scholar of military history. Truthfully, nobody cares.

I watched Greyhound with my French wife and she had no idea about the sacrifice of both the allied convoy sailors and the U-Boat crews. Now she knows. Cannot say she walked out of the room due to the incorrect class of Destroyer used. It’s historical entertainment and did not mess too far from the truth. The U-Boats lost.

[sc_rufctr]

Originally Posted by svandamme

old guard just looks like an action film.. i don't like em, but can't be arsed to complained bout those.. I just don't watch em.

I just get fired up with there are historical films done wrong.
And they were talking Das Boot in this thread, and Tom Hanks, so kinda hoped to be proven wrong, but not to be the case.. This thing isn't 5% of what Das Boot is.. Das Boot was a real movie..

Das Boot was excellent but it's not without it's issues and the ending was entirely predictable.

In reality the U Boat would have never gotten off the bottom of the ocean. (When they were hit near Gibraltar)
So they go through all of that out at sea and get smashed just after they get back to their base? (Were the writers asleep?)
And of course the Captain dies tragically and alone on the wharf.

IMO Greyhound is a more satisfying movie than Das Boot. Not perfect but a decent effort.

[rusnak]

Originally Posted by Yorkie

It’s supposed to be entertainment not a bloody documentary. If it encourages a kid to pick up a book and read further then great.

But then they'd have to put down their phones. Ain't gonna happen.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Yorkie

I watched Greyhound with my French wife

Wait - what? You have a French wife?

[vash]

Originally Posted by sc_rufctr

If you want to be really offended try watching "The Old Guard" (Netflix movie)

]

I just started the OLD GUARD. loving it so far. Had to stop watching because of real life, but I’ll finish it tonight.

What impossible mis-step in history was incorrect? I mean besides the immortality part? I can’t imagine this show is steeped in historical correctness. Serious;y. Is there a non combatant immortal? The odds are that some fry-cook could draw the lucky straw, no? Cant fight, can’t shoot, not all good looking, fat, bad skin, makes a mean fried chicken.


I’ll watch greyhound later since it’s in the free service package.

[sc_rufctr]

The Old Guard starts off OK but then it goes downhill. You'd think anything with Charlize Theron would be great but it just loses its way.
You'll see what I mean when you finish it. I hope I haven't spoilt it.

[Iciclehead]

I guess I have a different perspective....I do not watch movies to be informed, I watch them purely to be entertained.

I don't actually care about the realism as I always go online and read up on whatever technology/event/personalities etc to find out what the "real" story is without having to sit through our illustrious Hollywood mental giants play-act on screen for me.

I therefore avoid tear jerker movies, movies with strong social messages, movies which are a platform for glorification of some "famous" actor....I want happy endings, see a few pretty girls preferably with as little clothing as possible, get a few laughs and feel good afterwards.

If I want to become depressed or deal with idiots I will go to work.

Dennis

[Helix8]

I've never confused Hollywood with history and besides my nephew was in the movie so I enjoyed it.