“Fury” is title of the Columbia Pictures film that’s being released this November 2014. It’s about the exploits of an ETO M4A1 Sherman tank crew around 1944-45. Brad Pitt is portraying the tank commander who goes by the name of SSgt “War Daddy”.
As many of you are aware “War Daddy” also happens to have been the nickname of the 3rd Armor Divisions legendary "Tank Ace”, the late SSgt. Lafayette Pool.
Does any one know if this film will be somewhat fact-based about this legendary American tank ace or is this film a purely factional story? Inquiring minds want to know.
I don’t know if it is fact or fiction, but the photos I’ve seen of the tank he rides is an M4A3E8 76(W) and not a welded hulled M4A1.
Lafayette Pool’s most well known tank was an M4A1 76(W) with VVSS (not an E8) called “In The Mood”. When I was in 3-32 Armor, there was a painting of his tank in the battalion conference room that he signed before he died. I remember building the Italeri M4A1 kit to match the painting sometime after Desert Storm.
Based on Brad Pitt’s last war movie, “Inglorious Bastards”, and how accurate it was, I’m sure this one will be just as accurate. What a piece of dog crap that was.
Ahhh, but we need to be fair here. Actors (generally) don’t have much to do with the writing and directing of a movie. And Quentin Tarantino is known for making violent “artsy” kind of movies, not ones with historical accuracy in mind. Also to be fair (again [:D] ) David Ayer, the director for Fury, is responsible for the screenplay for U-571, so…
A couple good examples…Clint Eastwood brought us Flags of Our Fathers (and of course Letters from Iwo). As far as Hollywood goes, it was a pretty fairly accurate representation of the actual history. But let’s not forget Clint was also responsible for a completely fictitious movie called Kelley’s Heroes. And the last is proof that a movie can be fictitious and still remain pleasing within it’s historical context. [H]
And another good example is Tom Hanks, who brought us Band Of Brothers, which despite a few minor nitpicky issues managed to stay rather historically accurate. But he was also responsible for Saving Private Ryan…again, wholly fictitious, yet still incredibly entertaining within the historical context. [Y]
Inaccuracies in movies and TV shows used to drive me nuts. Now I just take them for what they’re worth. Entertainment. As long as I enjoy watching it, then okay. I don’t really mind the inaccuracies. Now if they are showing something that they advertise as a documentary and it’s just as inaccurate, then I have a problem. Unfortunately the Hiistory and Discovery channels are famous lately for these types of shows. That’s inexcusable.
Pearl Harbor (2001) and Tora, Tora, Tora (1970) were filled with inaccuracies. Final Countdown (1980) was about Pearl Harbor too… I mean, it wasss quite a stretch but again, it was entertaining.
As long as it’s not laughably over top like that formation of 500 or so Fokker triplanes showing up in ‘Flyboys’ I’m willing to let it slide a little. Looking forward to this.
I thought Band of Brothers was based on actual facts…
“In World War II the Borgstrom brothers, Elmer, Clyde, and twins Rolon and Rulon, were killed within a few months of each other in 1944. Their parents then petitioned for their son Boyd, who was also on active duty, to be released from service. Their sixth son, Elton, who had not yet reached conscription age was exempted from military service.”
Band of Brothers was good, but was lacking in the accuracy department for a few things. Take the Albert Blythe situation for instance…
As for war movies and their inaccuracies, well, they are considered entertainment after all. If they don’t advertise as “The Unbelievable, but true story of,” whatever, it doesn’t bug me.
What does bug me is some of the junk people post on message boards, like IMDB. Stuff like “That wasn’t a real Tiger tank that got blown up!” Or, “You could tell that they weren’t firing live ammo at each other, 'cuz you could see the front of the round was crimped and didn’t have a bullet.” Come on people! Its not like you can run down to the prop shop and have your pick of Tiger tanks for the movie. And no live ammo? Kinda makes sense to me.
Sometimes people get too caught up in the realism thing. Blatant lameness is one thing, but it is a movie after all.
As long as they don’t put a freakin’ stupid, wholly-unnecessary romance in it (Pearl Harbor, Enemy at the Gates) to attract the ladies, it should be a lot of fun and a welcomed “tank movie” that have been long-ignored by Hollywood.
“Enemy at the Gates” got me a little peeved; the dumb romance they put in it wasn’t EVER going to make it a “date movie”, and the insipidly foolish ending they put on it was, again, entirely unnecessary. The story of Vasilley Zeitsev and how he killed Koenig was enthralling and incredible enough without having to change it with some concocted “Hollywood ending”.
You know, the other day I went with my wife to see a movie. She’s a fan of the Rock, and would leave me for him if he showed up at our door. It was about some dude name Hercules and his band of merry men. I doubt the events really occurred. In fact, I’m not sure many of the people ever existed. And don’t get me started on those weaponized chariots.
Seems like a lot of ado is being raised about a WW2 movie that includes a tank. Instead of being happy that a new war movie is being made that includes one of the more popular armor modeling subjects, we are either questioning the accuracy of the story (it’s called fiction) or dismissing the movie because of past movies the actors did.
We get war movies/shows based on actual events, like Black Hawk Down, Lone Survivor, The Great Raid, We Were Soldiers, Band of Brothers, etc. Very entertaining movies, but just because it is a war movie, does not mean it has to be based on actual events. Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, Platoon were all fiction, but very entertaining. Even at a stretch, Forrest Gump could be considered a war movie that was entertaining and a total work of fiction.
Now if the tank transformed into a giant robot that strolled across Europe to stomp on Hitler, that would be weird, but it could also be entertaining.
If you want to talk about accuracy, what’s up with a 50 something year old man playing a tank commander. An “old man” on a tank is around thirty. The oldest tank commander in a battalion would be around 40 something, and he’s the battalion commander.
I was walking past the open door to another in the complex the other day, on the way out after having met my wife after work to see a “feel good” movie, and the trailer to “Fury” was running. I stopped to watch, she (my wife) said: “What’s that?” I told her, and since Brad’s from the same town as my wife, it’s on the “see” list. There’s an angle I hadn’t considered.
Yep, it’s fiction, for sure, but I’m still going to go see it. I bet “The Beast” is fiction, too, but I have it on disc and pull it out every now and then. No getting the wife to watch that one though.
Sorry Karl…about 1:45 in the trailer the new guy is in what appears to be a dimly lit room with a gal so there’s gonna be at least a bit of romance in it
LOL The Final Countdown time warp was a bit of a stretch. But it was enough to tick me off that the Tomcats had to turn back right when they had the chance to wipe out the Vals and Zeroes!
As long as they don’t have those T-34 ersatz Tigers in this movie…I’m down. I understand they actually used the restored Bovington Tunisian Tiger in this film?..I hate those goofy movie Frankenstein Tigers built on T-34’s…i.e. Kelly’s Heroes…Saving Private Ryan etc.
Ok, gentlemen I saw Fury today. I can’t speak for the accuracy of the M4, but it was a good movie. Not any real romance. Only one kiss in the whole movie. Lots of shots of US and German equipment. Could not tell if it was FX or the real thing. I can tell you one thing the Tiger 1 was not a T-34 dressed up.
Even “The Longest Day” had a kiss in it So MK, in your experience, and knowing the varied movie tastes of members here, do you recommend this movie for tread heads among us?
I would say yes. If your a rivet counter you may be disappointed because I am sure some small piece of equipment is not right. But that being said they got most of it right. I thought it was good.
So MK, in your experience, and knowing the varied movie tastes of members here, do you recommend this movie for tread heads among us?