Movies and Films
This is the forum for Movie and Film discussions. Again, our topic is naval warfare in WWII for the most part.
Re: U-571
Posted by:
J.T. McDaniel
()
Date: December 12, 2003 11:59PM
<HTML>No such thing as a film board in the U.S. The only thing MPAA does is issue a rating that, in theory, determines how old you have to be to see the movie. Other than that, no controls on the subject matter, dialogue, or historical accuracy is imposed by anyone. A non-public individual could possibly sue for libel if he/she was portrayed inaccurately, but that's about it, and if all the characters are made up, well...
To highlight the Hollywood concern for accuracy, the same submarine the U-571 producers had built for their movie was used to portray U.S.S. Squalus (SS-192)(later renamed Sailfish) in a TV movie a while later. Including the interior sets, with everything relabeled in English. Didn't look a bit like a Sargo Class fleet sub from any angle whatsoever.
J.T. McDaniel</HTML>
To highlight the Hollywood concern for accuracy, the same submarine the U-571 producers had built for their movie was used to portray U.S.S. Squalus (SS-192)(later renamed Sailfish) in a TV movie a while later. Including the interior sets, with everything relabeled in English. Didn't look a bit like a Sargo Class fleet sub from any angle whatsoever.
J.T. McDaniel</HTML>
Subject | Written By | Posted |
---|---|---|
U-571 | Bruno Motta (Rio, Brazil) | 12/05/2003 11:52AM |
Re: U-571 | HWM | 12/05/2003 01:37PM |
Re: U-571 | Ken Dunn | 12/05/2003 01:42PM |
Re: U-571 | ROBERT M. | 12/05/2003 11:53PM |
Re: U-571 | David Thomas | 12/05/2003 06:56PM |
Re: U-571 | ROBERT M. | 12/05/2003 11:56PM |
Re: U-571 | Vin | 12/09/2003 04:03AM |
Re: U-571 | ROBERT M. | 12/09/2003 06:50AM |
Re: U-571 | tim2 | 12/09/2003 03:16PM |
Re: U-571 | ROBERT M. | 12/09/2003 04:50PM |
Re: U-571 | Ken Dunn | 12/09/2003 08:46PM |
Re: U-571 | ROBERT M. | 12/09/2003 10:51PM |
Re: U-571 | J.T. McDaniel | 12/09/2003 11:33PM |
Re: U-571 | Ken Dunn | 12/10/2003 12:49AM |
Re: U-571 | J.T. McDaniel | 12/10/2003 02:46AM |
Re: U-571 | ROBERT M. | 12/10/2003 02:52AM |
Re: U-571 | Steve Roberts | 12/10/2003 11:55AM |
Re: U-571 | kurt | 12/30/2003 09:30PM |
Re: U-571 | ROBERT M. | 12/31/2003 05:21AM |
Re: U-571 | ROBERT M. | 12/10/2003 02:46AM |
Re: U-571 | Paul K. Mengelberg | 12/12/2003 04:28AM |
Re: U-571 | J.T. McDaniel | 12/12/2003 11:59PM |
Re: U-571 | Paul K. Mengelberg | 12/12/2003 04:28AM |
Re: U-571 | tim2 | 12/10/2003 04:39PM |
Re: U-571 | Matt Brown | 12/16/2003 11:27AM |
Re: U-571 | Matt | 12/19/2003 07:50PM |
Re: U-571 | ROBERT M. | 12/10/2003 02:54AM |
Re: U-571 | Daryl Carpenter | 12/10/2003 03:14AM |
Re: U-571 | tim2 | 12/06/2003 06:35PM |
Re: U-571 | Steve Roberts | 12/10/2003 11:57AM |
Re: U-571 | Marc Lund | 12/18/2003 01:13AM |
Re: U-571 | ROBERT M. | 12/18/2003 01:49AM |
Re: U-571 | Ken Dunn | 12/18/2003 04:56AM |