If it's gonna be as crappy as the "Europe" version, I'm less than interested.

I liked Band of Brothers, especially knowing it's a true story.  I guess we're so used to Hollywood spicing up a story to keep the audience's interest that reality seems dull by comparison.

Quote:


Well, what do you watch for true stories?

Quote:

And they dont have  Mel gibson or bruce Willis defeating the whole German military with an uzi
Definatly alot of the old British war movies are worth watching. Theres some good movies on the dambusters raid. Another I cant remember the name now, i think it was 633 sqdrn? about a squad of Mossie who were tasked to destroy I believe a U-boat facility by destroying a cliff above it.

Quote:




When you say equally do you mean accurately, or do you mean spend as much time telling both sides of the story?

I seen this one British movie about British prisoners of war in a Japanese camp that also included Keifer Sutherland in a less than flattering role of an American who looked out for only himself.  I thought the premise the storyteller had was more to do with present-day political sensabilities than the reality of the southeast asian jungles in 1942.

I felt like the storytelling was more about moralizing than anything.

Quote:



It certainly is, however I remember being in a discussion about the Battle of Britain some time ago, and another poster who definately was more read-up on the subject than me pointed out even the movie, Battle of Britain had inaccuracies.  In fairness, you sometimes have to make compromizes when you have just 2 hours to tell a story.

But my question is are we discussing historical accuracies in the storytelling or spending as much time telling the story from the perspective of both sides of the conflict?

I love Band of Brothers and will surely buy this when it comes out.