{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/14/2016 2:55:30 AM
23
Saving Private Ryan is a low grade WWII movie
Fury is 100x better
English
-
Saving Private Ryan was realistic enough to trigger PTSD for a number of WW2 vets that saw it.
-
All I know is that at the end of Fury, when he's sitting in the tank and they open up the hatch to see inside, I'd have panicked and shot. They'd then have fragged me.
-
Edited by NoD Spartan: 12/14/2016 4:39:44 PMI like the german title of fury "Herz aus Stahl" Directly translated it means "Heart of steel"
-
Agreed. [spoiler]Thats the girl's egg.[/spoiler]
-
Someone with sense
-
Fury is massively unrealistic
-
Edited by thottie: 12/14/2016 3:09:35 PMIts actually quite realistic in most areas If you think its less realistic than saving private ryan, you are clearly deluded
-
No, you clearly have no knowledge of WW2 weaponry you vacuous fool. How the -blam!- you think a Sherman can take out a Panzer I do not know, [b]you're[/b] the deluded one.
-
LMAO that's not a regular Sherman, that's a firefly with a more powerful gun. the tiger 1 was not invulnerable. It is also shown shooting the rear of the tiger which is where the armor is thinner. Name some more historical inaccuracies you have
-
Edited by Aarchon_Priest: 12/14/2016 3:22:27 PMIt doesn't matter, the panzer's amour is still too thick. The only one with "historical inaccuracies" is you. [spoiler]and I never said it was invulnerable, just that a Sherman wouldn't penetrate the amour[/spoiler]
-
Edited by thottie: 12/14/2016 3:38:36 PMThe armor is not too thick. Its either 50 to 80 mm thick and has almost no slope. It would be easily penetrated at close range And I wasn't insulting you when I said name some more historical inaccuracies you have, I meant historical inaccuracies with the movie Also stop calling it panzer meaning just tank, it is a Tiger 1
-
Okay, your point about the Tiger does make sense but it doesn't change that there are so many historical inaccuracies in the movie that make it seem like Hollywood trash compared to Saving Pvt. Ryan. For the last ten years, we've had unprecedented access to what 'real' ground combat looks like: a whole bunch of guys in cover, firing at other guys in cover. Obvs this is a huge generalisation, but it does illustrate how completely ridiculous it was for the film to portray waves of elite soldiers bum rushing a tank! And it went on and on - SS soldiers apparently running around in the open getting picked off by Fury's machine guns etc. Three other things: the sniper crawling right up on the tank to take a shot at the Pitt character: ridiculous. Pitt taking a sniper calibre bullet to the upper chest/shoulder: that shit would kill you within a few seconds or minutes. No calmly waxing poetic for the next five minutes, no sir. The Germany stick grens (TWO!) that go off in the confined space of the tank. Pitt's body would have been obliterated by the shockwave in that enclosed space. Instead he dies with a small gash on his cheek.
-
Edited by thottie: 12/14/2016 4:10:57 PMYes there are obviously huge tactical flaws in the movie for holly wood effect but Saving Private Ryan is 100x times worse The guy in the sniper tower kills like 8 people who just keep running one by one down the corroder He would have been lit up after 1 shot and wouldn't be able to just stay in the open and snipe The portrayal of Germans in saving private Ryan is also much worse, they don't even fire back for 80% of the movie. You only see American soldiers getting killed in the beginning and the end. Other than that Every squad member has at least a 20/1 kd and literally 2/10 are dead before they get to the final battle. And like you said, they just bum rush the Americans every time Why the literal -blam!- would they drive a tank down the road when they obviously know that the Americans are right there? Why does the tank never even shoot? Why aren't the Germans using the tank as cover or protecting it? The anti aircraft gun scene made absolutely no sense. Those American soldiers would not be firing back at it head on unless they wanted to be mulched. In the actual weapons performance and effects, Fury is far more realistic.
-
You mean the other way around? In Fury the grenade timers were like 10 seconds and they gave you a few cuts when they blow up in your face. I'd say that, performance of the [b]soldiers[/b] and tactics wise, Fury is more realistic.
-
The grenades didn't do shit in saving private ryan either... the machine gun nest that gets fragged? They just have dirt on them
-
Yes it did XD it killed the 2/3 people that were in there. At least in SPR the grenades would dismember the bodies or have an injury that was more lethal than a few nicks on the cheek.
-
no it didn't dude, saving private ryan has almost no gore the beach scene and the guy blowing up next to the tank and the aa gun are the only scenes. that's it
-
Edited by Aarchon_Priest: 12/14/2016 4:33:20 PMIt's not like the camera was always focusing on the soldiers that were amidst the few explosions that happened. It doesn't need to be gory to be realistic.
-
[quote]the sniper crawling right up on the tank to take a shot at the Pitt character: ridiculous[/quote] Id actually say that this is believable as there is clearly a lot of smoke that would lower visibility. Do you have any more issues with Fury?
-
That depends on if you have any more issues with SPR
-
I like the movie and think its very good but I like fury more and can clearly see fury is a more realistic and gritty war movie in comparison to SPR
-
You opinion, your choice.
-
