Fighting about the battle of britan (no longeraboutmyscript)

[Zacatac927]

so here you can fight about the battle of britain

[DarkElastic]

Firstly, I think this should be:

JOHN HAMILL:

The year was 1945, and the World was at war.

Lets not have another saving Private Ryan with only Americans and Nazis.

Here are some title ideas:

'The General'

'Der General'

'Glory and Adventure'

'General X'

'Killing General X'

'Yanks Vs Nazis'

[maj_barnes]

Lets not have another saving Private Ryan with only Americans and Nazis.

Shut up! The story is following Americans, on a beach assigned to Americans to land on, through terrortory being secured by American paratroopers! We shouldn't have some wacky Affrimative Action for war movies just to statisfy every frickin' country! And why should he try to fake some accent for a British or Candian soldier that would sound like cr**?

Anyways: It sounds good, I'd just love to see where you would shoot half of this. Like the beach scene for one! I liked the grenade thing, that was cool had it played back again (And it's a patato masher, not smasher ). It sounds great, but I just be alittle afraid of people not understanding what a flashback was, they might think that is happening at that time (I had the same problem a few times). Like for normal parts in the movie, have it full color, then flashback in B&W or the other way around, some major difference that the audience can pick up.

And when they say they'll attack them if they shoot them, do they mean the little group or the army itself?

As for the title, I think "The General" sounds the best.

[DarkElastic]

Hey maj_barnes why don't you shut up! What I'm suggesting is to change one line and show some damn respect for the rest of the world. It wasn't just American Vs Nazis in WWII. Millions of people from many other countries died to stop the Nazis.

I do admit, that line is confusing, but I'm not saying put other characters in there from other countries, as this story is about an American team infiltrating the Nazi lines. As long as they don't go through occupied territories, where there would be other nations fighting as well, he will be fine with just Americans and Nazis. But, it would be better if we could show that this was a World War.

[Zacatac927]

Lets not have another saving Private Ryan with only Americans and Nazis.

yah its not....

Like the beach scene for one! I liked the grenade thing, that was cool had it played back again (And it's a patato masher,

yah i new that... actually funny story having to do with a potato smasher... since my grandma used to own doks my dad went to check on them with my older brother... and at low tide they say a small pipe thing and they thought it looked like a potato smasher..... SO the preceded to smash it against a concrete wall and it exploded!!!! turns out it was a mine activator ( a german one like in the water thoses balls with spikes in them... they found one of the spikes that was full of sulphur... they were fine just some burns

then flashback in B&W or the other way around, some major difference that the audience can pick up.

that was what i was planning on doing

As for the title, I think "The General" sounds the best.

yah idk... i have had only one "Seduosy" but yah.... cause the generals only in a few scenes......

i also changed it to the WORLD was at war!

[DarkElastic]

Thank you

[maj_barnes]

I'm talking about SPR. Sorry about the confusion. Every forum I go on that talks about SPR, someone comes on and yells about how their country fought in WW2 and was never represented in the movie. So I got a little ticked, sorry .

But if you think changing a line is showing respect for other countries, that's assanine: that's like Hitler saying sorry to Holocaust suriviors and then saying "we're still cool, right?" It like beating a dead horse, if you're comprehending a WW2 movie then you must under stand that it was being fought by many countries. I don't need a narrator telling me that more than one country fought in the war to know that.

If the story is being told through an American perpective then the narrator would most likely say "American at war;" because at the time that's all they cared for. That the only reason why they joined WW2, because they were attacked. They could care less if the world was at war since they stayed out of it for a good 4 years before joining.

I ranted too much.

[DarkElastic]

that's like Hitler saying sorry to Holocaust suriviors and then saying "we're still cool, right?"

It is no where near the same. Excluding the rest of the World when you are talking about a World War is just plainly ignorant.

[maj_barnes]

It is no where near the same.

By trying to honor somebody by saying a word isn't doing anything. The same as saying sorry for a massive loss doesn't do anything.

Excluding the rest of the World when you are talking about a World War is just plainly ignorant.

No, it's called getting into character.

[DarkElastic]

Put it this way: I am from Great Britain, you are from America. With your past record of disrespecting everyone else in the world, if I saw an American film about World War 2 and its opening words were 'it was 1942 and America was at war', I would think to myself 'Here we go again another Saving Private Ryan - f**k everyone else, WW2 was just America vs The Nazis and we won it all'. That's what I would think. There is nothing wrong in showing a bit of respect to the rest of the world, and yes an opening statement would do that. You have let people know that you are talking about a War being fought by the World, but you are going to concentrate on a small band of Americans infiltrating a German area.

[maj_barnes]

With your past record of disrespecting everyone else in the world,

And Great Britain doesn't?

If the opening words are a monologue of a character I wouldn't think twice. It's their character stating what they are thinking, not what everyone else wants them to think.

Here we go again another Saving Private Ryan - f**k everyone else, WW2 was just America vs The Nazis and we won it all'

The story is following Americans, on a beach assigned to Americans to land on, through terrortory being secured by American paratroopers! We shouldn't have some wacky Affrimative Action for war movies just to statisfy every frickin' country!

There is nothing wrong in showing a bit of respect to the rest of the world,

No there isn't; that why they have dedications at the end of the movie.

[DarkElastic]

Dedications at the end of a movie is no way to show respect - I have just changed your history, sh!t on everything that your people died for, but hey here's a dedication for you. It's wrong and should be against the law!!!

[maj_barnes]

Really?

properly the setting apart of anything by solemn proclamation... This latter practice, which formerly had the purpose of gaining the patronage and support of the person so addressed, is now only a mark of affection or regard.

I have just changed your history, sh!t on everything that your people died for,

So we should have British troops storming Normandy (besides the boat crews)? Making a movie with just Americans is now sh**ting on your country?

I hate Enemy at the Gates too for not having any American troops in it!

[DarkElastic]

No there isn't; that why they have dedications at the end of the movie.

My last post was just regarding this statement of yours, and not regarding Zacatac927 script.

properly the setting apart of anything by solemn proclamation... This latter practice, which formerly had the purpose of gaining the patronage and support of the person so addressed, is now only a mark of affection or regard.

Have you ever noticed that very few other people around the world do this but you. Most people don't even think of making a film about another country's history. Then changing it to suit themselves is even worse!

[maj_barnes]

Yea, I know.

Have you ever noticed that very few other people around the world do this but you.

Is it bad to have dedications at the end of movies?

Look at the 60's, and see how many knights and kings movies came out then. And all the overly action packed historic movies that come out today. It's not that they change it to suit themselves, but rather that they changed it for a public that has a short attention span.

[DarkElastic]

Dedications are no good if you change facts that will pi$$ people off just to suit your own public. Try making a film that is exciting and accurate. The directors of now have no excuses!

Back in the 60s budgets and capabilities would not allow great accuracy. Times have changed. We are more perceptive now, and require better stories, more accurate films. Tastes have changed dramatically since even the 80's where the Stallones and Schwarzenegger ruled with simple stories that were action packed, but now they would never be considered as good. But are classics.

[DarkElastic]

Would love to keep this discussion going, but that is the end of work. Will continue this after the weekend.

[Zacatac927]

heh geez.... im hiding

[Bodysnatcher]

I am interested to know if John Hamill is a Jedi like his brother?

[Zacatac927]

heh i was waiting for that.... when i came up with charchters i just had to add that one.......

[Bodysnatcher]

heh i was waiting for that.... when i came up with charchters i just had to add that one.......

lol from ww2 too Starwars in 3! yippe what do I win???

[MrHuffel]

Hey there! I read over your screenplay, and I have a few comments. I hope to provide you with a bit more in-depth look into how to make this piece of art more credible and believable. I do not feel the comments thus far have provided you with the kind of feedback you deserve.

My humble thoughts. You may take them or leave them, but please at least read them.
1. PLOT ISSUES. Historical films, generally, need to be based in a realm of plausible reality. In World War II, Germany was not in need of a 'young fresh smart General.' They had well trained, experienced, and highly competent Generals already. In addition, no military would promote a 'young' person to hold the power of a General. To do so would not only create problems within their military structure, but also there are problems with older officers not showing proper respect that an office like General deserves. To rectify this situation, may I suggest having the target be merely an important Colonel or Captain: someone you can easily add to and eliminate from history without causing any conflict of events with what actually happened.
The son: what is his purpose in this film? It seems to me that his presence in the film changes your American characters from protagonist to antagonist. This is a problem. It confuses the message of the film, and seriously underscores your characters. Now we no longer know who is in the right. At the start of the film, the mission was one of military importance, then half way through the film it becomes an ethical dilemma, and ends in a confused equilibrium between if they did the right thing or not. Then in the end, the American soldiers glorify the commander who forced them to make the unethical decision.
The General's death: why didn't they kill him? It appears, in the screenplay, that the Captain believes if they kill the General the Germans will invade America. I do not understand this line of logic on the Captain's part. In addition, where does the Captain get the authority to make this decision? His job was to kill the General. If he is this man who has been praised for his 'bravery in almost uncertain death' then why is he afraid to kill this General and why does he think he has the right to violate the Geneva Convention and kill civilian children? This could be a problem with historical accuracy.

2. INCONSISTENCIES (Continuity). Big problem: Mark. First, why is he a cook? Why mention it? Can nobody else open a K ration? That is unneeded information that will serve to only distract and confuse viewers as they contemplate why it is important that he was their cook. In addition, Mark's jobs as outlined at the beginning of the screenplay, were radio communications and cooking. Dray was identified as the demolition expert and expert in covert hand-to-hand combat. Yet, as they are establishing their perimeter at the house, Mark is instructed to set the explosives, and then does so. Additionally, I do not believe that radio operators in World War II were trained in more then how to send, receive, and encode messages. I do not believe they were trained to tap phone lines. Another problem arises out of this situation: does Mark, a farm-boy from America, understand German? If so, the language barrier is not addressed in the screenplay.

3. FACTUAL PROBLEMS. Can a steel helmet really protect a body from a grenade? My first thought when I read this was that the helmet would be ripped into several large pieces of shrapnel as the grenade exploded. Bullets can puncture a steel helmet, so theoretically, an exploding object in a confined space should rip the helmet to shreds, and probably rip into the body as well. My question is, is this necessary to the plot? It makes for a fun story, but it is something that could easily be disproved and then leave a black mark on the film.
How would one go about shooting a grenade out of the air? This is logistically improbable. It makes the Captain seem like Clint Eastwood, or John Wayne. Additionally, if the Captain can gun down a grenade, why can he not snipe the child himself? This seems more like a tall tale or rumor about the Captain.

4. SPELLING ERRORS, GRAMMAR PROBLEMS, AND MISUSED WORDS. There are many instances where words are misspelled. This becomes an important issue when I was trying to read the screenplay and had to re-read lines a couple times due to misinterpretations because of spelling errors. There are issues of grammar problems as well in this screenplay, they cause the same misunderstanding that spelling errors do. Also, a note on commas and colons and other misused grammatical tools: make sure you want them where they are. Too many commas can look spiffy and complex, but in reality they probably contain a run-on sentence that can confuse the reader, which is important to avoid when submitting to a producer. When you write a screenplay, you are extending you imagination onto paper. That is something we are all proud of doing. As such, we should make each edit of our screenplays the best we can - even the minute things like spelling are important - especially when posting or submitting for review. Another problem that I’ve seen is misused words. I do not mean just words that you didn’t use right, but also words that are generic and/or seem like they were rushed to be written. Scene descriptions should contain more than, “Open up on General and son talking, son is drawing.â€

[Zacatac927]

thanks for your thought, i have no idea how i am going to make people still like him... with mark i had forgotten to delet the cook thing and cr** like that..... i need to add a scene where the general leaves the office and the other generals are yelling "you can't do this! you will be killed!" and maybe with the captian it can turn into that cause maybe the grendae actually blew up in midair instead o him shooting it... but they made it up as he shot it.... idk

[Bodysnatcher]

My humble thoughts. You may take them or leave them, but please at least read them.

Bravo! there are many would would benefit from taking the time to read this, new and old alike.

[Zacatac927]

hey i re did some stuff at the top check it out