Yes. There is obviously "Der Untergang" , which deals with the fall of Berlin. Then there's "Stalingrad", a German/Russian movie about the siege of Stalingrad.BlackStar42 said:
Yes, thank you, that's already been pointed out. But does the real Port Royal actually bear any resemblance to the fictional one? It's such a generic name that if they don't I really see no reason to believe they are the same place.books of war 13 said:
Yes and I am fairly certain that there was no blue giants exploding Viet Cong during the Vietnam War. But I am pretty certain Watchman was supposed to show an alternate history where masked heroes actually roamed the streets kicking the crap out of criminals. Therefore I am uncertain that that movie qualifies as historically correct.8-Bit_Jack said:except that the spartans did not participate in the war after thermopylae, 300 was all their tiny little slave-state of pedo-flavored angry gay men could afford without losing control of their own country. much less send a contingent of ten thousand soldiers.Lt_Bromhead said:Just wondering what you mean by the Zulu track in the background...?
OT: 300. The whole damned thing, pretty much.
Then again, one could argue against this - as the story of 300 was the battle as told by Dilios, and as first hand accounts by Spartans go, that was likely pretty much how they would have told the tale. Especially if appealing for help...
here's one: that watchmen movie! almost NONE of that happened in the 80s, and i checked, nixon was only elected twice!
*rolls away in laughter-propelled sportscar*
Yup, but i liked the fact that they added the detail that he was shot by a boy (or in the films case, a cook) wielding a pan to fend off arrows and such. They didn't go into the detail that the captain of Richard's mercenaries later had the boy skinned alive, but frankly i don't blame them.Agow95 said:
Fair point, although they did have historical consultants on hand to try and create an authentic setting. That's the key distinction to make I think; authenticity rather than accuracy.Fangobra said:
Yeah, that was what I was just saying to the last guy who said that. "Port Royal" is too generic a name to imply a specific place because it sounds like the archetypal British colony name for any franchise using that era: undescriptive, shamelessly imperious and Neo-english. So unless the location in the film does actually mimic the real port in some meaningful way (which you have just said it doesn't) then I see no reason to presume they are the same place.Dusty Fred said:
When I saw the first film I did think "Port Royal" was a generic name so, yeah, I agree it does have that kind of ring to it. Indeed, there were/are several other places so-named around the globe. I just assumed it was meant to be the Jamaican Port Royal because that puts it square in the Caribbean and near to Tortuga. On the other hand, I note from IMDB that the film wasn't shot in Jamaica at any point and the island isn't mentioned by name that I can recall. I'm therefore content to file it under 'uncertain'.Fangobra said:
Aye, but in the film it's 2 members of the american airforce flying with the RAF, not actual volunteers.Jake Lewis Clayton said:
And Europe's history isn't steeped in war after war after war? Most of them for conquering land and people, and because some guy in a rather large hat told them toxXAsherahXx said:
Yeah, but Europe has less stupid reasons for going to war, we don't have the large hat, just to idiot who told us it was a good idea to go to war.artanis_neravar said:
"Following Henry Morgan?s appointment as lieutenant governor, Port Royal began to change. Pirates were no longer needed to defend the city. The selling of slaves took on greater importance. Upstanding citizens disliked the reputation the city had acquired. In 1687, Jamaica passed anti-piracy laws. Instead of being a safe haven for pirates, Port Royal became noted as their place of execution. Gallows Point welcomed many to their death, including Charles Vane and Calico Jack, who were hanged in 1720. Two years later, forty-one pirates met their death in one month." This seems to describe the Port Royal in the film, and the film took place around 1740. So it is very reasonable to assume that it was Port Royal Jamaica. Also in the 18th century there were at least a dozen female pirates so that "no women on the ship" thing doesn't always apply. Although at the beginning of the first one Gibbs does mention that it is bad luck, and Jack has never been one to care, and Barbossa was already cursed adn had a reason to bring her along. Oh and Jack isn't bumbling he has been shown time and time again to be using that as an act to throw people off from how good he really is at what he doesFangobra said:
Yes plenty. Big portion of the ones I know are Finnish.BlackStar42 said:
Less stupid reasons then wanting our freedom and wanting to end slavery? like what? Conquering France? Attempting to conquer the world, over and over and over. Killing all of the Muslims and Jews that they could find?xXAsherahXx said:
Alfred Nobel actually hoped that people would stop waging wars when a complete army could be wiped out in moments with explosives. Ah if he only had known how that particular theory would work out...RoBi3.0 said:That guy was a wank. Of course Alfred Nobel invented dynamite. He invented it to aid in mining and was completely horrified when humans started using it to kill each other. This is the main reason why Alfred established the Nobel Peace Prize.Heimir said:Don't remember when but someone told me I was a moron when I said Alfred Nobel invented dynamite.
http://inventors.about.com/od/dstartinventions/a/Alfred_Nobel.htm
He then told me to go f**k myself and that I was a communist.
Americans, you need to put those guys in the looney bin asap
Not all Americans are wank myself included.
That actually wouldn't be too far off either. There were a lot of what we now would call 'military consultants' being passed back and forth among England, China, and the US. It came out a few years back that (big surprise) the Flying Tigers were actually a US military black op, much as the Condor Legion was a German military op in Spain. With the same paper thin excuse even: 'volunteers' and 'mercenaries'.Airsoftslayer93 said:
Most of our wars have been for bad reasons (Spanish American, WWI, Philippines, Vietnam, Korea, 1812, all of those were for literally no good reason at all, containment my ass America you want to stay on top). Ending slavery and becoming independent were our only good ideas. It should have been common sense to end slavery anyways.artanis_neravar said:
WWI was aiding our allies while defdnign our trade routes and preventing Germany from convincing Mexico to invade us, Vietnam and Korea we were defending countries from hostile invasions, and France was involved in Vietnam. Korea was a UN conflict, including countries like England, Spain, Germany, and France. WWI was all of Europe as was WWII. The Spanish American War was in response to the way Spain was treating Cuba and the sinking of the USS Maine, which at the time was believed to have been a Spanish attack. 1812 was in response to England's illegal pressing of American soldiers into service in their navy. The Philippines was a revolution of them against the US after we bought the territory from Spain.xXAsherahXx said: