This message has been deleted.
-
Stirchley — 11 years ago(July 23, 2014 12:27 PM)
Your attitude is especially rich, coming from a citizen of a country that was created because the British shipped people halfway around the world for petty crimes like forging a bank note or stealing a few pairs of shoes. And that was AFTER they finally stopped just executing them for it.
Poor Aussies. They must get so sick of folks reminding them of this. -
annlevtex — 11 years ago(July 23, 2014 03:52 PM)
I like Australians. I say deportation ended up being a good thing for the descendants, frankly. A sunny climate, a less rigid class system, more opportunity. They say people call Australia "The Lucky Country."
-
foreverblu — 12 years ago(April 04, 2014 04:32 AM)
Oh another whining , complaining pom, the role of the British were important but minuscule in this film, yet you have found a way to make a film entirely about Somali pirates and an american merchant vessel all about Britain.
As for the examples you gave, oh wait I couldn't care less, I guess that's why I'm not on the "commando" board complaining about the villainous Australian.
i have to return some video tapes -
-
foreverblu — 12 years ago(April 04, 2014 05:46 AM)
Well I came onto this board hoping to read some interesting conversations, and one of the first post is a Brit complaining about the way Brits are being portrayed in a film that isn't about Brits. So I was just calling you out for yet another British thread complaining about how hard you done by by Hollywood. It gets actually a little bit tiresome, I guess it got your back up that someone wasn't saying "oh the poor Brits" I've watched a lot of English films and tv and you guys can give it out too. So stop complaining.
i have to return some video tapes -
braidenrobert — 12 years ago(April 04, 2014 06:21 AM)
Actually, I am an Australian, yet I can still recognise a prevailing trend in mainstream American movies that is conspicuously anti- British. Yes, the film in question is not about the British and certainly no one ever claimed it was. But the film does touch on British presence in that region of the world hence it is open to debate. Simply attacking the person who posed a legitimate question with nothing more than empty vitriol is a pointless exercise.
-
DendelionBlu — 11 years ago(April 16, 2014 09:45 AM)
Care to offer any words on the fact that the director - Paul Greengrass - is a Brit?
Is it all a conspiracy? Has the director decided to bend his will to the powers that be?
Cause honestly the dude is British and to the best of my knowledge no-one tied him to a chair and made Greengrass direct this
He also had quite a bit of input - as he always seems to - on the actual dialogue and tweaking of the dialogue
Does he secretly hate his own country? Did he decide that "Ah, let the Americans have this little moment about the Brits, who cares, I'm just British"?
It's a really poignant fact you know that the dude who directed every single scene of this film is British
Waiting on your illuminating reply
Follow the latest films around the world!!
http://7films.dendelionblu.me -
Stirchley — 11 years ago(June 11, 2014 02:42 PM)
Actually, I am an Australian, yet I can still recognise a prevailing trend in mainstream American movies that is conspicuously anti- British.
OMG, you're not even British! So what do you care about the way Brits are depicted? We Brits are not touchy about stuff like this. We are proud of being British and that's all there is to it. -
CGSailor — 11 years ago(June 11, 2014 04:58 PM)
I agree completely with your other comment on this thread.
Just had to post on this part of your comment here.
We Brits are not touchy about stuff like this. We are proud of being British and that's all there is to it.
Many aren't but quite a few are very much so, especially the sort that hangs out on IMDB apparently.
Try hanging out on the Saving Pvt Ryan or U-571 boards. Plenty of touchy Brits with their knickers in a twist.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! -
CGSailor — 11 years ago(June 11, 2014 05:58 PM)
Agreed. I got a good friend that's British and he feels the same way.
A lot of good men fought in the war on both sides of the Pond.
Yet some few take umbrage at the very Idea that they were not able to handle Hitler on their own and Needed the American's help.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! -
CGSailor — 11 years ago(June 11, 2014 06:19 PM)
You'll be surprise just how many Brits on these boards think exactly that.
That Britain was doing just fine on their own without America's help.
They look upon Americans as thinking that America won the war all by themselves.
Practically no one here thinks that except a handful of idiots just as delusional as the aforementioned Brits.
But what gets them thinking that about Americans is 2 things which are true.- They take the factual statement of "Without America's help, the war on the western front would likely have been lost". They misinterpret that as a statement of "We did it all on our own"
- The majority of fighting on the western front was done by Americans.
Brits really rile at this as an affront to those British that fought.
Not so. It is just a matter of record and it's no fault of Britains.
The simple fact is we had a fr larger military aged population to draw upon than Britain did. Being a small island barely the size of but one of our medium-smallish States. We simply had more manpower. Most nations in Europe are tiny by US standards and their population was already devastated by war.
The United States had the single largest Allied Army (manpower-wise and equipment-wise) in the war outside of the Soviets on the Eastern Front.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
-
Dan_Finn — 11 years ago(July 07, 2014 01:28 PM)
You'll be surprise just how many Brits on these boards think exactly that.
That Britain was doing just fine on their own without America's help.
They look upon Americans as thinking that America won the war all by themselves.
Practically no one here thinks that except a handful of idiots just as delusional as the aforementioned Brits.
But what gets them thinking that about Americans is 2 things which are true.- They take the factual statement of "Without America's help, the war on the western front would likely have been lost". They misinterpret that as a statement of "We did it all on our own"
- The majority of fighting on the western front was done by Americans.
Brits really rile at this as an affront to those British that fought.
Not so. It is just a matter of record and it's no fault of Britains.
The simple fact is we had a fr larger military aged population to draw upon than Britain did. Being a small island barely the size of but one of our medium-smallish States. We simply had more manpower. Most nations in Europe are tiny by US standards and their population was already devastated by war.
The United States had the single largest Allied Army (manpower-wise and equipment-wise) in the war outside of the Soviets on the Eastern Front.
You have to remember that the people who post on forums tend to be very opinionated and many times opinionated about things they dont actually know anything about.
The war would not have been won without the US, we could have defended the British isles indefinitely if we had chosen not to declare war on Germany, Hitler had little interest in going to war with Britain or America for that matter. We would have had to withdraw from Asia and the pacific because we were completely out manned. British people who think the US did nothing are just as stupid as the Americans who think they saved our British arses in the war. We didnt need to be fighting against the Nazi's in the first place; we went to war because there was nobody else in Europe left to fight the nazi's and the nation felt they couldnt stand by whilst our neighbours were invaded.
The Japanese certainly couldnt have been stopped without the US.
-
Razar_C-1 — 11 years ago(December 23, 2014 03:11 AM)
Another Aussie here. I HAD to respond to this one.
While I won't deny that American assistance in WW ii was invaluable, Germany had lost the war long before D-Day. Everyone seems to forget the legions of tanks, planes and soldiers that the Soviets threw at the Germans. Hell, the Germans didn't even know how to fight the T32/ T34 tanks, complaining that shells just bounced off its frontal armour.
Had the allies simply stayed put, the Soviets would have won the war eventually and crushed Germany. However, the Allies were very concerned with what that would mean for a post ww ii world; a world where all of Europe was under the thumb of communist Soviets. So the decision was made to get into the fight and to race against the Soviets for Berlin.
Sure enough, had the allies never landed an invasion force, the Russians would have had to fight a much longer campaign against Germany, and German innovations such as the ME 262 for the Luftwaffe, the STG 44 for the Sturmgewehr, and the Tiger II for the armoured divisions would have cost the Soviets dearly, but honestly, defeat for the Germans on the eastern front started when the Germans failed to capture Moscow in '42 (and Stalin along with it, as Stalin remained in Moscow at the time) and was all but decided in 1943 when the Soviets started pushing back after Stalingrad.
For the next year, the Germans concede more and more ground to the Soviets, unable to stem the tide of constant, unrelenting reinforcements of both men and hardware. The allies didn't storm the beaches at Normandy to beat the Germans. The Germans were already beaten. The allies landed at Normandy to beat the Soviets (to Berlin).
Peace
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most