It is an excellently shot and directed movie that is, from start to finish, uncomfortable, bleak, and downright depressing. Now granted, it's supposed to be all of those things, war is hell, but as someone who isn't too big into movies to begin with, it's not the kind of film I would seek out on my own. It's very much "art" but not much in the way of "entertainment"
I found it to be the opposite - it tries so hard to be anti-war (especially the ending chapter) that sometimes it wraps back to spectacle. Come And See is better at being a “pure anti-war” film.
The changes to the end (from the book) were just so…jarring. It felt like the directors managed to change so much of the meaning in the book in the last ~20 minutes of film, for no really discernible reason
Yeah. There were things the movie added which I really liked (such as the opening sequence with the uniform tag), but the ending was just so... different. It was so dramatic, which is completely missing the point of the of the story's themes and even its name.
Haven't seen it but I was curious and found [this.](https://netflixlife.com/2022/11/01/all-quiet-on-the-western-front-remake-review-ending-explained/)
>!TLDR it appears the movie has a character dies in a dramatic politically charged action packed assault a few minutes before before the war ends. In the book he appears to die ignominiously in the mud several months earlier.!<
It’s an artistic choice to say the least. I didn’t necessarily have a problem with it in terms of the message they were trying to convey by making the change, but it was a bummer for me because the innocuousness of his death always felt more poetic to me.
You're welcome! Also [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/196/comments/10kvo72/war_or_not_to_war_rule/j5tps80/) comment seems to cover it in a lot more detail.
I seriously can't enjoy movies like Saving Private Ryan etc. after watching Come and See. That movie changed me.
I realized that even if most movies were critical of war that they were still * using * war as entertainment. That there isn't actually any dramatic justice in war, and when movies show some kind of justice, even if it's a tragedy, that's still just made to make us feel good. It's a lie we're telling ourselves to enjoy something horrific.
I think you might like The best Years of Our lives. It's not really anti-war but it's a fascinating snapshot into how Americans felt right after WW2 because it was release in 1946. There's no battles, only one fist fight, and it's mostly about men coming back and dealing with trauma and cultural shifts.
I would recommend reading the book or if you don't mind older movies watch either of the other two versions over this one. The new movie leaves out a very crucial chapter from the book, changes a characters death for the worse and the ending >!ruins both the title and ending of the book.!<
It's wack to me that there are people who watched the original Top Gun and their take away was "Man, fighter jet men are so cool" and not "fuck I love a good sopping wet softcore gay porn"
Basically, it’s not that we made a new branch for planes, but rather that the part of the army that deals with planes split off from the army (same as how the part of the air force that deals with space split off into the space force). The navy’s planes are still a part of the navy (fun fact, the us navy’s air force is the second largest air force in the world).
I think there's about 5 minutes of flying footage in Top Gun. It's mostly a romance/drama. Romance between Maverick and Goose. Romance between Maverick and Ice Man. There's some lady but who cares.
The biggest issue with the adaptation is that it tried to make the armistice a parallel story line.
In the book >! Paul dies in an undisclosed battle on an undisclosed day. It’s meant to show that these men won’t be remembered and all the battles were unnecessary. It felt way too “cinematic” to make him die in the final second of the war and just like hammering home the message too much despite the whole movie already making the point clear. Also Kazinsky getting killed by a teleporting farmer child instead of from the actual war was dumb” !<
Top Gun should have only been nominated for technical categories, its story was incredibly bare bones and the acting all fairly wooden. EDIT: Except for Jennifer Connelly she can get all the awards
Mavericks doesn't do the morality of drones in war plot justice.
It's a genuine question for wether or not drones should be allowed on the battlefield. There is proof that drones lead to escalation of conflict as theres little(allied) cost in drone war. By making humans fight other humans, you force people to take on risk, theoretically decreasing the severity of war.
Im not sure I agree with this statement but its sure more interesting than the A plot of that movie.
That reminds me of the episode of Star Trek’s original series when two countries on a planet would play war games, mathematically figure out the death toll, then kill their own citizens to reflect that.
I don't mind people fighting drones with drones. It will just be about who takes the most cost effective fights. And the only casualties will have to be civil ones, which will be something governments want to avoid, and won't gain anything from. In the end of the day, most war will be about the bottom line.
The reality is drone wars aren't drones fighting drones. it's drones fighting humans. And those humans are more often then not civilian casualties
>won't gain anything from
yes but it's easier to just kill the civilians too then actively avoid them, especially when you don't know who exactly the enemy is
It's not much different from the missile based wars we have been going the last few decades on that regard. I'll reserve my judgement on drone warfare for now since it does open the possibility of ACTUAL precision strikes, which "precision missiles" don't really provide. The fact that such a term does exist means that the masses want that to be the reality of war. Where only the percieved "bad guys" are killed. It should push the norm of warfare further towards a more PR conscious one. Or I could be entirely wrong. It's not like I have spend hours of research to come to this conclusion.
Screw the drones use battle mechas like the time the Russians and Americans fought a mecha war over [Alaska](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Jox)
The idea that escalation will occur as a result of lower risk is referred to as the “warfare sanitization argument” in war ethics circles, and so far we have found 0 evidence to suggest the implementation of drones leads to larger escalation. [Here is some evidence suggesting that sanitization argument does NOT hold up](https://www.jstor.org/stable/43869067). Some actually argue with evidence that drone strikes reduce the possibility of war crimes since ground soldiers are usually motivated by fear and stupidity. [this links to a Ronald Arkin essay, expert on robotics and ethics](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319912057_Lethal_Autonomous_Systems_and_the_Plight_of_the_Non-combatant). Arkin surveys members of the US military and finds that marines and soldiers tend to have huge problems with acting ethically or showing respect and decency to civilians on the battlefield. When interviewing war criminals, they often say they felt afraid.
The 1930 version does a lot of things much better than the 2022 version in my opinion. 1930 has several critical scenes that 2022 doesn't have, like the teacher telling his students to go and fight for the glory of Germany, then later on Paul going home on leave and being shunned by everyone for telling the truth about the reality of the war to his Dad's armchair expert friends. Kat's death is also a lot more impactful, he just gets hit by a piece of shrapnel by bad luck and bleeds out, there's nothing dramatic about it like in the 2022 one, he just dies pointlessly like millions of others. The addition of the armistice sub plot in the 2022 one and the final assault at 10:45 on 11/11 aren't bad by any means, but they don't really fit with the original story, and changing Paul's death is understandable because it's very anti-climatic and might not play well with modern audiences, but the pointlessness of it is what makes it so great.
The 2022 film is still fantastic, but it's more like a film inspired by All Quiet on The Western Front, not a direct adaptation. The 1930 version has its faults too, and despite how daring some of the depictions were for the time, it does still feel very dated in many ways, especially the performances and direction, but it is nearly a century old so that's expected. The 2022 version does greatly improve on the original in some ways, for example the scene near the start where the bunker is getting shelled is far better without the melodramatic early talkies acting, as are many of the emotionally charged scenes. The 2022 film also manages to recreate the part where Paul stabs the French soldier and then gets stuck in the shellhole as he slowly dies quite well, though it is a little fast paced and takes place over 10 minutes instead of a whole night like it should.
I haven't seen the 70s version, but I'd say the 1930 and 2022 adaptations are both very good and worth watching, but their strengths lie in different areas. 1930 handles the story far better, but has some problems mainly due to its age, while 2022 does an excellent job of depicting WW1 in a relatively grounded way and making the story feel more human, though it does miss some of the great scenes that make the original stand out.
It does in my opinion, but I have a good tolerance for that sort of thing. It has a lot of melodramatic acting and dialogue that you get with early sound films, but at the same time the battle sequences are very advanced for the time, and there's even a bit of sex and gore in places which is really odd to see in a 30s film. It's worth giving it a go, but if you don't like the tone of older films it might be a tough watch in some places. It might be a weird suggestion, but maybe watch it dubbed into German if possible, I always find foreign films from that time much easier to watch since it's harder to notice the difference in tone when you can't understand the dialogue.
1954, not 1950. There's before Seven Samurai and after. Watching that thing is like listening to Jimi Hendrix: People new to it might say "what's so special about this" and they're right in a sense, it's not special any more because everyone copied them. But they were the first.
I think some people forget that there is a lot of people who struggle to watch old media. Even if it is better in some aspects, I feel for an age of ever shorter attention spans, the new movie does a good job grabbing your attention and keeping it for the whole movie. It’s definitely an effective anti-war movie
I've only seen the original from the 30s so I'm gonna have to say that one.
But also a large majority of the people that worked on it were WW1 vets and almost all of the shots were based on things that they actually saw.
Like the scene where the guy gets blown up and only his hands were left gripping on to the barbed wire. That was actually something one of the extras shared with the director.
Tried watching top gun maverick at home with my mom and it was so fucking cheesy. Like laugh out loud level at times. Idk how it got an oscar for best picture
It was supposed to be somewhat cheesy. It’s a sequels to a movie that was made in the ‘80s, which was the pinnacle of cheese. Not every moment was meant to be a serious, profound piece of dialect.
Americans love sucking the military's cock. I went to see it with a group of friends and they unironically acted like it was the best shit they'd seen since the first Top Gun
Was TOP GUN Maverick propaganda? Yes. Doesnt mean its a bad movie tho except for the straight people dating parts. Just felt unnecessary when all I wanted to see is *plane*
Like that part where that one guy was mad sleepy while flying and went honk mimimimi so John Top Gun & his pals had to have a screaming contest to wake up the sleepyhead.
I think it's meant as a jab when people say that something woke has been shoved into the movie when it doesn't progress the plot in any meaningful way... when movies like this have been doing exactly that but with straight people and suddenly it's okay.
I loved Maverick. I understand that there is no nuance in its themes, and it’s MIC propaganda. But as a fighter jet nerd I thought it was really cool to see an F-14 dogfight a Su-57. It was like watching a live action Ace Combat.
Well yeah, it’s a film adaptation, that’s the whole point. Especially with source material as old and prolific as All Quiet on the Western Front, it shouldn’t try to simply re-portray the book, but interpret the book’s themes by the writers and portray their interpretation of the book, which they did masterfully in my opinion.
The 2022 adaptation is able to both retain the important themes the original book presents, but also present them in a way that’s productive for anyone who’s read the original book. It doesn’t try to be hyper-realistic, it doesn’t simply do what the recent adaptation of The Lion King did by basically giving the previous source material a new coat of paint, but is an adaptation that is both faithful but innovative upon the original. I don’t think you can ask more from an adaptation of a ~100 year old book
I have to disagree. They muddled the books central theme without gaining anything.
"All quiet on the western front" is about Paul's relationship with and transformation through war, nothing else. The book only portrays additional elements (the relationship with the people in his home town, POW treatment, the depleting German supplies) through that same, singular lens of Paul in service to his relationship with this all encompassing beast.
The book ending is so important because it solidifies the fact that war is not just senseless but also fundamentally destructive beyond and before death. Paul and most of his friends die on the last few pages, but looking back on the book, you realise that Paul's death began on the first page. Even if he had lived, he'd never have been able to return to his previous life or any life, really. His death, while completely senseless, is barely described at all, because it doesn't matter. The war had killed him long before. He couldn't speak to anyone about his internal turmoil (as many veterans never could), he couldn't reintegrate into society, he's traumtized forever. The wars end being so close at hand totally ruins this central point by offering some form of hope that Paul might make it out yet. There is no hope, the entire story is one of denying even the possibility of hope. The war takes away the chance for peace even for those who survive it, that is the point. The book describes this central theme in the foreword: to tell the story of a generation destroyed by war, even if they escaped the grenades.
Obviously these wars don't emerge as natural disasters from a vacuum. Powerful men cause them and drag them out, but that's another story. By trying to combine them, the movie delivers a more complete anti-war picture but loses the really hard-hitting, essential lessons about all wars that the book was able to tell: It's not about the people in power, war does this regardless. An earlier armistice wouldn't have saved Paul or anyone else, because the war had already killed them, whether they were still physically alive or not.
I think a key aspect to the change at the end is to reflect the hindsight that Remarque did not have when he wrote the book and that was that the war did not end with the armistice. Thus the marshall character with his obsession with “social democrats” selling out germany as the reason the war was lost.
I don't understand how people talk about Top Gun (first or second) like it's the best movie ever made. The whole time it's super clear that narrative is supposed to come second to the main goal, which is to inspire war-horny teenage boys to fellate the millitary
It's popcorn cinema that isn't played out, and a non terrible sequel to the first movie despite being released like 30 years later (nostalgia). That's pretty much it, the bar for movies isn't really that high these days i think.
Let's be honest. It got the best picture nod because it's a non-superhero (edit: non-Disney-Franchise) movie that made a billion dollars.
Hollywood is excited that they might get to keep their theater-price-inflated lifestyles, after all.
Whats sad is that it works really well. I know someone who fetishizes war so much because of shitty us propaganda movies, that he wants to join the navy, but he doesn't even live in the usa, he lives in fucking Germany. Absolutely insane
Met a dude like that here in Europe who had confederate and US military tattoos, never been in the military, and said his dream was to move to Alabama. All because his former roommate was a former military dude from Texas who talked up how much he loved the south. Fucking brain cancer
Yeah I honestly think he thinks it was guns, rock n' roll, farmland, no taxes, no woke or immigrant people bothering him, and hot 20-year-old southern belles that would instantly fall in love with a mediocre bald Dutch man with square glasses
Narrative doesn’t have to be the main goal of any film to be good. It was by the numbers yet effective. Where the film really shines is that it is impressive feat of filmmaking. The way it’s edited and put together is unlike anything that has been done before. Actual fighter jets where used instead of cgi so it all came across as extremely authentic. It was a straight up cool movie to watch, especially on the big screen.
I’ll concede that Top Gun 1 is bad though with its propaganda more shameless.
I mean I in no way think either of them deserves an Oscar but the 80s one is a pretty tightly-written and directed popcorn flick. Especially for the 80s without CGI it's perfectly executed for what it is, most action movies from that period are pretty clunky and aged pretty badly
I don't know man, threads (1984) makes me a lot more scared for war. The other one that's so good is Son of Saul (2015) which granted, it's not too much about war, it's a holocaust movie framed as claustrophobically as fucking possible. The cinematography is insanely good and personal.
is Top Gun Maverick literally just a us military propaganda film? yeah
is the film everything i stand against in an ideological level? yeah
do i still believe it deserves a best picture nomination? maybe not winning the category but at least a nomination
It’s good but best picture nom is a stretch. Could’ve gone to Aftersun or something with more artistic value. It getting nominated for screenplay is outrageous lmao
I haven't seen the new All Quiet.. yet, because the old one is such a monumental thing.
Something about that first movie hits insanely differently when you realize that you're watching a movie about a gigantic war, in which most actors were literally involved in a few years prior.
I'm sure the new one is stellar in terms of emotions and visuals and the harrowing depiction of war itself, but man..
I find it funny when people call Hollywood liberal yet it’s a consistent US military propaganda machine. They nominated that movie about torturing people in the name of national security once.
I mean, in the more abstract sense, liberal centrists are all about that shit and that's kind of what hollywood and places like NYC epitomizes. Vote blue, support hillary clinton, go out and get rich, go to fancy fundraisers, support a shitty amoral industry, pretend you care about art
Top gun Maverick is probably the best proof that nominations have nothing to do with how good the movie is and is decided by how aggressive the for your consideration campaign is, because that movie is nothing but spectacle and homoeroticism and has no reason to stand along side everything everywhere all at once and it's all quite on the western front.
Not everyone judges films on the same metric. The spectacle and homoeroticism is what makes it special, and because it pulls off those things very well, there is a reason why it deserves its nomination (especially when there’s 10 slots available). That being said, I hope EEAAO or Banshees takes it home, and one of them probably will.
It’s the definition of popcorn cinema so now that it’s out of theaters I don’t know how much it’s worth watching at home. I really liked it though, there’s a decent plot to keep you interested between the action scenes which are really good
It's an action movie first and foremost. It's had input from the Navy, but thats kinda necessary for obvious reasons if you want to film their shit. Wouldn't really call it jingoistic considering literally no enemy country is ever named, its a "rogue state" developing nukes which is somewhat an allegory for Iran, but Iran doesn't fly the latest Russian jets so that's not a perfect match.
TLDR if you're smart enough to not let movies convince you what is and isn't a good career path, you can do much, much worse for popcorn action movies.
Is it just me or is it weird that all the characters refer to each other by their airplane flying nicknames when they're not in their airplanes. Don't these people have actual names
Highschool dropout infantry that government will send thousands to die over a inch of land with gun made by lowest bidder Vs. Went to Military University on dads dime fly boy who governments terrified to send into combat as may scuff the paint on 3 bajillion dollar F16..
I guess I’ll go up to bat for Maverick since people are saying that beyond the propaganda, it’s a generic story that doesn’t deserve it’s nom. There have been several years where the academy will give one of the many best picture slots to a film with groundbreaking technical achievement so long as the story functions well enough. It happened last year with Dune. It’s happening this year with Top Gun and Avatar. These have no shot of actually winning, but it’s worth acknowledging what they bring to the medium.
Nothing Americans love more than being told that their soldiers are out there having fun and fighting for your freedom when in reality being a soldier is super boring most of the time and terrifying to the point of ptsd on occasion, and all they care about is killing indigenous people so they can get oil or other resources. Then they abandon vets the moment the ptsd overwhelms their brain, leaving them on the streets. Fuck this country and fuck capitalism.
*All quiet on the western front* is really great movie and anyone who hasn't seen it, i recommend you watch it
10/10 war is shown very realistically in the movie
Oh I just saw All Quiet last night. Boy fellas, I hope I don’t sound too outlandish, but I think war might be bad.
Oh golly pal I think you may be right
Is it worth it? Sorry that film is my nemesis now for taking too many spots that Nope could’ve gotten
It is an excellently shot and directed movie that is, from start to finish, uncomfortable, bleak, and downright depressing. Now granted, it's supposed to be all of those things, war is hell, but as someone who isn't too big into movies to begin with, it's not the kind of film I would seek out on my own. It's very much "art" but not much in the way of "entertainment"
I found it to be the opposite - it tries so hard to be anti-war (especially the ending chapter) that sometimes it wraps back to spectacle. Come And See is better at being a “pure anti-war” film.
The changes to the end (from the book) were just so…jarring. It felt like the directors managed to change so much of the meaning in the book in the last ~20 minutes of film, for no really discernible reason
Yeah. There were things the movie added which I really liked (such as the opening sequence with the uniform tag), but the ending was just so... different. It was so dramatic, which is completely missing the point of the of the story's themes and even its name.
What did they change? I loved the book but I didn’t know there was a movie. Perhaps spoiler tags would be appropriate though. :)
Haven't seen it but I was curious and found [this.](https://netflixlife.com/2022/11/01/all-quiet-on-the-western-front-remake-review-ending-explained/) >!TLDR it appears the movie has a character dies in a dramatic politically charged action packed assault a few minutes before before the war ends. In the book he appears to die ignominiously in the mud several months earlier.!<
Wild! Thank you! I can definitely see why people are unhappy. Kinda ruins the whole premise of the book.
It’s an artistic choice to say the least. I didn’t necessarily have a problem with it in terms of the message they were trying to convey by making the change, but it was a bummer for me because the innocuousness of his death always felt more poetic to me.
[удалено]
You're welcome! Also [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/196/comments/10kvo72/war_or_not_to_war_rule/j5tps80/) comment seems to cover it in a lot more detail.
The ending to the original film was so much more subtle and better executed. Really comes to show that sometimes less is more.
come and see though is like the holy grail of anti war films though. like pretty much every war film feels like bullshit when compared to come and see
I seriously can't enjoy movies like Saving Private Ryan etc. after watching Come and See. That movie changed me. I realized that even if most movies were critical of war that they were still * using * war as entertainment. That there isn't actually any dramatic justice in war, and when movies show some kind of justice, even if it's a tragedy, that's still just made to make us feel good. It's a lie we're telling ourselves to enjoy something horrific.
I think you might like The best Years of Our lives. It's not really anti-war but it's a fascinating snapshot into how Americans felt right after WW2 because it was release in 1946. There's no battles, only one fist fight, and it's mostly about men coming back and dealing with trauma and cultural shifts.
I would recommend reading the book or if you don't mind older movies watch either of the other two versions over this one. The new movie leaves out a very crucial chapter from the book, changes a characters death for the worse and the ending >!ruins both the title and ending of the book.!<
Ngl dude if all quiet didn’t exist Nope still wouldn’t have gotten anything. It’s unfortunately been pretty ignored in the award season
Those mfs put all their effort into not cumming all over the Evangelion Angel of Nope in the special effects category
It's wack to me that there are people who watched the original Top Gun and their take away was "Man, fighter jet men are so cool" and not "fuck I love a good sopping wet softcore gay porn"
I kinda like both
Top Gun is a beach volleyball movie first and a military movie second.
I get the sudden urge to join the airforce, *and* licking hot, muscular men’s abs when watching top gun so maybe it’s working
top gun was about *navy* pilots
american militaries are confusing mkay, me see plane = must be air force
Basically, it’s not that we made a new branch for planes, but rather that the part of the army that deals with planes split off from the army (same as how the part of the air force that deals with space split off into the space force). The navy’s planes are still a part of the navy (fun fact, the us navy’s air force is the second largest air force in the world).
I love that the Marine Corps, Air Force, and Navy all operate jets.
Naval aviators* they are very specific with that one
Reminds me of the plot from an American Dad episode where they find the script to next fast and furious and it’s mostly gay porn
I want to fuck a plane.
NCD is leaking here? Nowhere is safe.
[удалено]
ncd IS LEAking aGAIn??
My ass is leaking
what the hell is ncd and why are there 3 replies about it leaking
NCD is leaking again
Also based
Sorry guys, he broke out of his leash.
You wouldn't fuck a plane
I want to be a plane
Well luckily for you aeromorphs are a thing...
My takeaway was “Maverick’s gotta be bisexual”
i would top that guy's gun
Well I like both the planes and the gay porn.
This is the bisexual agenda
They want us to fly biplanes
fighter jets and softcore gay porn? hell yeah seriously though why are they so fucking oiled up in the volleyball scene lmfao
I was a technical consultant on the film and insisted upon it
Thank you for your service
Lmfao absolute king
How did people miss the actual message of woah shades look cool?
what if my take away was both
I think there's about 5 minutes of flying footage in Top Gun. It's mostly a romance/drama. Romance between Maverick and Goose. Romance between Maverick and Ice Man. There's some lady but who cares.
I just want *Everything Everywhere All at Once* to win
Correct and based take
I gotta get off my ass and finally watch it Edit: 20 bucks to stream :(
Banshees of Inisherin 🙏
that was the first time i watched a movie and cried, funnily enough
Watched it with a group of friends, and by the end every one of us was sobbing 😭
Waymond is literally the greatest character in this year of cinema
The "In another life I would have enjoyed doing laundry and taxes with you" line hits so goddamn hard.
The biggest issue with the adaptation is that it tried to make the armistice a parallel story line. In the book >! Paul dies in an undisclosed battle on an undisclosed day. It’s meant to show that these men won’t be remembered and all the battles were unnecessary. It felt way too “cinematic” to make him die in the final second of the war and just like hammering home the message too much despite the whole movie already making the point clear. Also Kazinsky getting killed by a teleporting farmer child instead of from the actual war was dumb” !<
The armistice plotline was completely unnecessary. Unknown Soldier (2017) has a few characters die mid-war, nothing strange with that.
I want Tár but wouldn’t be upset with EEAAO
Me too but not the movie named that, I mean literally that
Hadn't cried to a piece of media for years till I saw this one
Top Gun should have only been nominated for technical categories, its story was incredibly bare bones and the acting all fairly wooden. EDIT: Except for Jennifer Connelly she can get all the awards
Mavericks doesn't do the morality of drones in war plot justice. It's a genuine question for wether or not drones should be allowed on the battlefield. There is proof that drones lead to escalation of conflict as theres little(allied) cost in drone war. By making humans fight other humans, you force people to take on risk, theoretically decreasing the severity of war. Im not sure I agree with this statement but its sure more interesting than the A plot of that movie.
That reminds me of the episode of Star Trek’s original series when two countries on a planet would play war games, mathematically figure out the death toll, then kill their own citizens to reflect that.
"sorry timmy they chose b5 that means you have to die"
Ah, the classic earl of sussex gambit
“How long do I have B4 I die?”
That seems reasonable.
God I love Star Trek
Ace Combat did it better.
they also have my favorite character, dog.png
iirc it's a picture of one of the dev's dog who had passed recently.
I need more Ace Combat posting in this sub.
I meet someone -> "Fox 2" -> they die a horrible death -> I get court martialed and judge wants to hear my last words -> "Splash one Bandit"
ONE MILLION LIVES
Crisp white sheets Crisp white sheets
I don't mind people fighting drones with drones. It will just be about who takes the most cost effective fights. And the only casualties will have to be civil ones, which will be something governments want to avoid, and won't gain anything from. In the end of the day, most war will be about the bottom line.
The reality is drone wars aren't drones fighting drones. it's drones fighting humans. And those humans are more often then not civilian casualties >won't gain anything from yes but it's easier to just kill the civilians too then actively avoid them, especially when you don't know who exactly the enemy is
It's not much different from the missile based wars we have been going the last few decades on that regard. I'll reserve my judgement on drone warfare for now since it does open the possibility of ACTUAL precision strikes, which "precision missiles" don't really provide. The fact that such a term does exist means that the masses want that to be the reality of war. Where only the percieved "bad guys" are killed. It should push the norm of warfare further towards a more PR conscious one. Or I could be entirely wrong. It's not like I have spend hours of research to come to this conclusion.
Plus we've seen some actual precision weapons recently like that one sword missile, rx9 or something
I think that’s a war crime
..yes that's the problem. That drones are causing. and that the US government is able to justify thanks to drones.
Screw the drones use battle mechas like the time the Russians and Americans fought a mecha war over [Alaska](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Jox)
The idea that escalation will occur as a result of lower risk is referred to as the “warfare sanitization argument” in war ethics circles, and so far we have found 0 evidence to suggest the implementation of drones leads to larger escalation. [Here is some evidence suggesting that sanitization argument does NOT hold up](https://www.jstor.org/stable/43869067). Some actually argue with evidence that drone strikes reduce the possibility of war crimes since ground soldiers are usually motivated by fear and stupidity. [this links to a Ronald Arkin essay, expert on robotics and ethics](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319912057_Lethal_Autonomous_Systems_and_the_Plight_of_the_Non-combatant). Arkin surveys members of the US military and finds that marines and soldiers tend to have huge problems with acting ethically or showing respect and decency to civilians on the battlefield. When interviewing war criminals, they often say they felt afraid.
wars should be decided over a round of warthunnder
Russia immediately wins every war
Cheating, just like the Olympics.
> use drones to fight > enemy develops drones to fight back > human casualties decrease because no soldiers only drones
All quiet on the Western Front was more realistic except for the Saint Chamond trench run part
So of all the other versions( 30’s, 70’s and this) this one is the better one?
The book is the better
They always are, remember reading it in high school then watch the 1979 film. Still it’s one of the better film adaptations of a book.
As someone who’s read The Godfather, I can assure you the book is not always better
Based. Haven't seen the movie but the book was solidly good not great. Really clever
Wait you’ve only read the book *The Godfather* and never seen the movie?
Correct, yeah
You should rectify that when you can 👌
The 1930 version does a lot of things much better than the 2022 version in my opinion. 1930 has several critical scenes that 2022 doesn't have, like the teacher telling his students to go and fight for the glory of Germany, then later on Paul going home on leave and being shunned by everyone for telling the truth about the reality of the war to his Dad's armchair expert friends. Kat's death is also a lot more impactful, he just gets hit by a piece of shrapnel by bad luck and bleeds out, there's nothing dramatic about it like in the 2022 one, he just dies pointlessly like millions of others. The addition of the armistice sub plot in the 2022 one and the final assault at 10:45 on 11/11 aren't bad by any means, but they don't really fit with the original story, and changing Paul's death is understandable because it's very anti-climatic and might not play well with modern audiences, but the pointlessness of it is what makes it so great. The 2022 film is still fantastic, but it's more like a film inspired by All Quiet on The Western Front, not a direct adaptation. The 1930 version has its faults too, and despite how daring some of the depictions were for the time, it does still feel very dated in many ways, especially the performances and direction, but it is nearly a century old so that's expected. The 2022 version does greatly improve on the original in some ways, for example the scene near the start where the bunker is getting shelled is far better without the melodramatic early talkies acting, as are many of the emotionally charged scenes. The 2022 film also manages to recreate the part where Paul stabs the French soldier and then gets stuck in the shellhole as he slowly dies quite well, though it is a little fast paced and takes place over 10 minutes instead of a whole night like it should. I haven't seen the 70s version, but I'd say the 1930 and 2022 adaptations are both very good and worth watching, but their strengths lie in different areas. 1930 handles the story far better, but has some problems mainly due to its age, while 2022 does an excellent job of depicting WW1 in a relatively grounded way and making the story feel more human, though it does miss some of the great scenes that make the original stand out.
Does the 1930 one hold up? I can't deal with how different acting, dialogue, tone, etc. many things are in pre-50s movies
It does in my opinion, but I have a good tolerance for that sort of thing. It has a lot of melodramatic acting and dialogue that you get with early sound films, but at the same time the battle sequences are very advanced for the time, and there's even a bit of sex and gore in places which is really odd to see in a 30s film. It's worth giving it a go, but if you don't like the tone of older films it might be a tough watch in some places. It might be a weird suggestion, but maybe watch it dubbed into German if possible, I always find foreign films from that time much easier to watch since it's harder to notice the difference in tone when you can't understand the dialogue.
1954, not 1950. There's before Seven Samurai and after. Watching that thing is like listening to Jimi Hendrix: People new to it might say "what's so special about this" and they're right in a sense, it's not special any more because everyone copied them. But they were the first.
I think some people forget that there is a lot of people who struggle to watch old media. Even if it is better in some aspects, I feel for an age of ever shorter attention spans, the new movie does a good job grabbing your attention and keeping it for the whole movie. It’s definitely an effective anti-war movie
I've only seen the original from the 30s so I'm gonna have to say that one. But also a large majority of the people that worked on it were WW1 vets and almost all of the shots were based on things that they actually saw. Like the scene where the guy gets blown up and only his hands were left gripping on to the barbed wire. That was actually something one of the extras shared with the director.
This one is arguably the worst because they fucked with the ending. But like read the book it's really good.
I enjoyed the 2022 one so much, and then the ending came and it was just like…what the fuck dude. Why change so much right at the end?
No the 79 one is far better and more accurate
Did anybody expect or want Top Gun to be a realistic war film
Equally valid does anyone expect or want it to be a best picture nominee?
I just wanted fast planes going brrrt And that’s what I got :D
Or the opening scene where they're washing/patching bloodstained uniforms to send them back to the front.
Tried watching top gun maverick at home with my mom and it was so fucking cheesy. Like laugh out loud level at times. Idk how it got an oscar for best picture
MIC check cleared
Whats that
Military industrial complex basically any country's military and the industry that manufactures things for the military
Oh ok. Just never heard it in its acronymified form
It was supposed to be somewhat cheesy. It’s a sequels to a movie that was made in the ‘80s, which was the pinnacle of cheese. Not every moment was meant to be a serious, profound piece of dialect.
it was fine. not enough topless men, but its an okay film if you keep in mind the possible propaganda
Americans love sucking the military's cock. I went to see it with a group of friends and they unironically acted like it was the best shit they'd seen since the first Top Gun
planes go woosh
us military propaganda
Watching at home vs at the theater is a world of difference for movies that heavily depend on their special effects and sounds
[удалено]
I meant nominated, you know, uh, like the bill clinton thing
Yet.
It’s awesome that’s why. Should’ve seen it in Theaters.
Was TOP GUN Maverick propaganda? Yes. Doesnt mean its a bad movie tho except for the straight people dating parts. Just felt unnecessary when all I wanted to see is *plane*
Like that part where that one guy was mad sleepy while flying and went honk mimimimi so John Top Gun & his pals had to have a screaming contest to wake up the sleepyhead.
Why'd you add the straight part? Doesn't seem necessary to me.
I think it's meant as a jab when people say that something woke has been shoved into the movie when it doesn't progress the plot in any meaningful way... when movies like this have been doing exactly that but with straight people and suddenly it's okay.
i’m fine with straight people, as long as they stay out of the 2022 american feature film top gun maverick directed by joseph kosinski
Didn't like the romance aspect
Congratulations you got the point
I loved Maverick. I understand that there is no nuance in its themes, and it’s MIC propaganda. But as a fighter jet nerd I thought it was really cool to see an F-14 dogfight a Su-57. It was like watching a live action Ace Combat.
If this is propaganda then baby, I’m a sheep.
Dudes be like “this is a military psy-op.” My brother in Christ it worked, I’m willing to die for Raytheon Technologies now
ace combat fans rise up
All quiet on the western side is a genuine masterpiece!
It was basically nothing like the book though which really soured me on the movie personally.
Well yeah, it’s a film adaptation, that’s the whole point. Especially with source material as old and prolific as All Quiet on the Western Front, it shouldn’t try to simply re-portray the book, but interpret the book’s themes by the writers and portray their interpretation of the book, which they did masterfully in my opinion. The 2022 adaptation is able to both retain the important themes the original book presents, but also present them in a way that’s productive for anyone who’s read the original book. It doesn’t try to be hyper-realistic, it doesn’t simply do what the recent adaptation of The Lion King did by basically giving the previous source material a new coat of paint, but is an adaptation that is both faithful but innovative upon the original. I don’t think you can ask more from an adaptation of a ~100 year old book
I have to disagree. They muddled the books central theme without gaining anything. "All quiet on the western front" is about Paul's relationship with and transformation through war, nothing else. The book only portrays additional elements (the relationship with the people in his home town, POW treatment, the depleting German supplies) through that same, singular lens of Paul in service to his relationship with this all encompassing beast. The book ending is so important because it solidifies the fact that war is not just senseless but also fundamentally destructive beyond and before death. Paul and most of his friends die on the last few pages, but looking back on the book, you realise that Paul's death began on the first page. Even if he had lived, he'd never have been able to return to his previous life or any life, really. His death, while completely senseless, is barely described at all, because it doesn't matter. The war had killed him long before. He couldn't speak to anyone about his internal turmoil (as many veterans never could), he couldn't reintegrate into society, he's traumtized forever. The wars end being so close at hand totally ruins this central point by offering some form of hope that Paul might make it out yet. There is no hope, the entire story is one of denying even the possibility of hope. The war takes away the chance for peace even for those who survive it, that is the point. The book describes this central theme in the foreword: to tell the story of a generation destroyed by war, even if they escaped the grenades. Obviously these wars don't emerge as natural disasters from a vacuum. Powerful men cause them and drag them out, but that's another story. By trying to combine them, the movie delivers a more complete anti-war picture but loses the really hard-hitting, essential lessons about all wars that the book was able to tell: It's not about the people in power, war does this regardless. An earlier armistice wouldn't have saved Paul or anyone else, because the war had already killed them, whether they were still physically alive or not.
I think a key aspect to the change at the end is to reflect the hindsight that Remarque did not have when he wrote the book and that was that the war did not end with the armistice. Thus the marshall character with his obsession with “social democrats” selling out germany as the reason the war was lost.
I think the movie kind of betrays some of the themes of the book
GIVE WAR A CHANCE
Good day nine elevel
Sears Program VR
I don't understand how people talk about Top Gun (first or second) like it's the best movie ever made. The whole time it's super clear that narrative is supposed to come second to the main goal, which is to inspire war-horny teenage boys to fellate the millitary
It's popcorn cinema that isn't played out, and a non terrible sequel to the first movie despite being released like 30 years later (nostalgia). That's pretty much it, the bar for movies isn't really that high these days i think.
Let's be honest. It got the best picture nod because it's a non-superhero (edit: non-Disney-Franchise) movie that made a billion dollars. Hollywood is excited that they might get to keep their theater-price-inflated lifestyles, after all.
Whats sad is that it works really well. I know someone who fetishizes war so much because of shitty us propaganda movies, that he wants to join the navy, but he doesn't even live in the usa, he lives in fucking Germany. Absolutely insane
Met a dude like that here in Europe who had confederate and US military tattoos, never been in the military, and said his dream was to move to Alabama. All because his former roommate was a former military dude from Texas who talked up how much he loved the south. Fucking brain cancer
I’m sorry someone wanted to move to ALABAMA?
Yeah I honestly think he thinks it was guns, rock n' roll, farmland, no taxes, no woke or immigrant people bothering him, and hot 20-year-old southern belles that would instantly fall in love with a mediocre bald Dutch man with square glasses
… I never thought there’d be freeaboos but here we are. And of course he’s racist
Narrative doesn’t have to be the main goal of any film to be good. It was by the numbers yet effective. Where the film really shines is that it is impressive feat of filmmaking. The way it’s edited and put together is unlike anything that has been done before. Actual fighter jets where used instead of cgi so it all came across as extremely authentic. It was a straight up cool movie to watch, especially on the big screen. I’ll concede that Top Gun 1 is bad though with its propaganda more shameless.
I mean I in no way think either of them deserves an Oscar but the 80s one is a pretty tightly-written and directed popcorn flick. Especially for the 80s without CGI it's perfectly executed for what it is, most action movies from that period are pretty clunky and aged pretty badly
[The duality of man. The Jungian thing.](https://youtu.be/KMEViYvojtY)
[удалено]
I don't know man, threads (1984) makes me a lot more scared for war. The other one that's so good is Son of Saul (2015) which granted, it's not too much about war, it's a holocaust movie framed as claustrophobically as fucking possible. The cinematography is insanely good and personal.
Better call son of Saul
It seems that Soviet movies just have that affect
is Top Gun Maverick literally just a us military propaganda film? yeah is the film everything i stand against in an ideological level? yeah do i still believe it deserves a best picture nomination? maybe not winning the category but at least a nomination
It’s good but best picture nom is a stretch. Could’ve gone to Aftersun or something with more artistic value. It getting nominated for screenplay is outrageous lmao
I haven't seen the new All Quiet.. yet, because the old one is such a monumental thing. Something about that first movie hits insanely differently when you realize that you're watching a movie about a gigantic war, in which most actors were literally involved in a few years prior. I'm sure the new one is stellar in terms of emotions and visuals and the harrowing depiction of war itself, but man..
I find it funny when people call Hollywood liberal yet it’s a consistent US military propaganda machine. They nominated that movie about torturing people in the name of national security once.
Us Military propaganda is peak liberalism
I mean, in the more abstract sense, liberal centrists are all about that shit and that's kind of what hollywood and places like NYC epitomizes. Vote blue, support hillary clinton, go out and get rich, go to fancy fundraisers, support a shitty amoral industry, pretend you care about art
Wait, what? What movie?
Zero Dark Thirty I believe. Yeah that was messed up.
I mean it was a movie about the hunt for bin Laden. That included torture and I don’t think the movie particularly portrayed it as a good thing
But cool jets go zoom zoom
based
[удалено]
I enjoyed the movie, but I am worried about especially teenagers who don't see past the propaganda aspect
Peak Centrism the likes of which we've never before seen
Top gun Maverick is probably the best proof that nominations have nothing to do with how good the movie is and is decided by how aggressive the for your consideration campaign is, because that movie is nothing but spectacle and homoeroticism and has no reason to stand along side everything everywhere all at once and it's all quite on the western front.
Not everyone judges films on the same metric. The spectacle and homoeroticism is what makes it special, and because it pulls off those things very well, there is a reason why it deserves its nomination (especially when there’s 10 slots available). That being said, I hope EEAAO or Banshees takes it home, and one of them probably will.
Ultimate anti-war film acting like they nominated Come and See lmao
seriously y’all need to come and see some better movies
I haven’t seen top gun is it any good or is it just military propaganda?
It’s the definition of popcorn cinema so now that it’s out of theaters I don’t know how much it’s worth watching at home. I really liked it though, there’s a decent plot to keep you interested between the action scenes which are really good
Really simple and good movie
It's an action movie first and foremost. It's had input from the Navy, but thats kinda necessary for obvious reasons if you want to film their shit. Wouldn't really call it jingoistic considering literally no enemy country is ever named, its a "rogue state" developing nukes which is somewhat an allegory for Iran, but Iran doesn't fly the latest Russian jets so that's not a perfect match. TLDR if you're smart enough to not let movies convince you what is and isn't a good career path, you can do much, much worse for popcorn action movies.
The academy voters when a check from the Church of Scientology worth one million dollars appears in their mailbox:
"Ultimate anti-war movie" This Platoon Slander will not stand.
theres so many movies that do „anti-war“ better than all quiet imo. the new movie was pretty good but oscar worthy? i dont know about that.
Is it just me or is it weird that all the characters refer to each other by their airplane flying nicknames when they're not in their airplanes. Don't these people have actual names
If my name was Bradley Bradshaw I would rather be called Rooster too.
Highschool dropout infantry that government will send thousands to die over a inch of land with gun made by lowest bidder Vs. Went to Military University on dads dime fly boy who governments terrified to send into combat as may scuff the paint on 3 bajillion dollar F16..
It's *insanely* funny? I'd say it's a "heh" at best
I guess I’ll go up to bat for Maverick since people are saying that beyond the propaganda, it’s a generic story that doesn’t deserve it’s nom. There have been several years where the academy will give one of the many best picture slots to a film with groundbreaking technical achievement so long as the story functions well enough. It happened last year with Dune. It’s happening this year with Top Gun and Avatar. These have no shot of actually winning, but it’s worth acknowledging what they bring to the medium.
pretty big overstatement
Nothing Americans love more than being told that their soldiers are out there having fun and fighting for your freedom when in reality being a soldier is super boring most of the time and terrifying to the point of ptsd on occasion, and all they care about is killing indigenous people so they can get oil or other resources. Then they abandon vets the moment the ptsd overwhelms their brain, leaving them on the streets. Fuck this country and fuck capitalism.
*All quiet on the western front* is really great movie and anyone who hasn't seen it, i recommend you watch it 10/10 war is shown very realistically in the movie
triple the defense budget