I hate you troony obsessed zoomers so fricking much. I don't know how your life is structured, but I barely ever see anything trans related in my day to day life, but I see you homos mention them every 5 minutes. Frick off.
Storm of Steel had to be edited down by people who were capable of feeling human emotions because the fetishistic descriptions of violence made people not want to read Junger's spank bank.
The true war experience as interpreted by a guy who grew up in a wealthy family, who ended up joining two different armies, one of which was the mortal enemy of his country, because he wanted to kill people, and somehow still didn't find a way to make it legal until the world erupted into global conflict.
I don't like it as an adaptation. By trying to be different from the 30s and 70s, it completely misses the point of one of the most famous German books due to some bizarre German guilt for 20th-century shenanigans. The fact that it's the first German adaptation is incredibly ironic in that regard. The soundtrack sucks. I was livid when that try hard shit got an Oscar.
Don't listen to the "le war le based" autists.
Pretty much this. It left out some key scenes which basically make the novel easily the most important German post-WW1 publication. Instead, they put in more Hollywoodesque action scenes in order to appeal to the modern CoD zoomer audience.
Remarque's entire purpose of the book wasn't to pretend like Germany or the Allies were bloodthirsty, moustache-twirling buffoons with egos bigger than their countries. It was about war from the POV of a soldier to showcase that any notion and memes about heroics and valor do not exist there, and most importantly, that YOU, specifically YOU, won't change shit, you won't die a heroic death, you won't make a difference for your country, and your death, just like Paul's, will be so insignificant it won't even be recorded anywhere. It also aimed to showcase the giant experience discrepancy of how war is seen for regular civilians in Paul's Leave segment, something that is basically erased from the movie for the sake of armistice talks.
Missed the point of the book and clearly made by people who have a grasp of WWI similar to some fantasy war.
The fact that the remake puts the story into 1917 instead of 1914 and pretends they were identical is awful enough. At some stupid shit like "le evil Prussian general orders a suicide charge 2 min before the end of the war for no reason except being evil".
>An example of the determination of the Allies to maintain pressure until the last minute, but also to adhere strictly to the Armistice terms, was Battery 4 of the US Navy's long-range 14-inch railway guns firing its last shot at 10:57:30 a.m. from the Verdun area, timed to land far behind the German front line just before the scheduled Armistice
>get blown to absolute fricking smithereens by a TNT naval shell fired into your remote pasture by an American railway gun as part of a planned timed symbolic bombardment to coincide with the conclusion of WW1 >?? >??????
The book is something else entirely.
Big baddy Prussian general and Fredrick Zoller's shenanigans were an insult to the central theme of the book.
The leaves scenes should've been longer and in the main character you should've seen a machine-like stare hiding visceral hatred for the oblivious civilians and the institutions selling a war they'll never fight themselves.
Hate to say this because it sounds pretentious but: it's a decent war film but a piss poor adaptation.
All Quiet 2022 features Marvel-tier fight scenes that seem like they were storyboarded by middle schoolers
>the flamethrowers all show up in a big line and they're like FWOOOSH >and then there's an explosion and the main character gets flung through the air! >and then he kills like 3 guys with his shovel!
even if the rest of the film was conceptually sound (no), it would still be ruined by its mediocre action slop
and of course it's gotta feature the classic >it's WW1 so there are random explosions every 30 seconds (but they don't actually kill anybody)
meanwhile, in real life:
the easiest way to make WW1 seem horrible is to just portray it the way it was. Instead, battle scenes are designed like cartoons where each shot contains some tired battle scene stereotype and everything fits perfectly in the frame.
The other movies are much better, and there's a few things that really fricked it up for me. >Too late in the war >No homefront return to show how fricked up Paul is, and how pointless the war is >Kat is killed by someone he personally wronged instead of by random chance >The "END OF DA WAR" shit they pulled so that Paul would have just almost made it >POLITICS ON A FRICKING TRAIN >Paul's death being reduced to such a cheap shot, literal stab in the back >The crater murder just doesn't work as well.
The book was a pretty good guide for the movies, but they decided instead to make it their own, but worse.
I don't think it's a bad movie but it's a massive downgrade from the original which is one of my favorite war movies of all time and because of that it heavily influenced my experience of it
I liked it, but it differentiates from the book in unnecessary and heavy handed ways
Especially the ending. Paul died on an irrelevant day near the end of the war. The point was that even though he died, amongst hundreds of others, it was considered insignificant and just the usual.
Hence the title
Making it that he died at the very last day in some major attack is both driving home the point too hard and missing it altogether
1. The battles felt like they were on a 200 by 200 Meter set fought by a hundred people. It's shot to macro so you never get the sense of scale required to do the story right. It's a part of the book. Human waves of thousands of men over miles. Not American gladiator dodge the tennis ball sized
2. It goes way off the book and misses how fricked up Paul is. He's done more or less by the end and commits suicide by wandering out in the middle of no man's land right at the end of the war.
3. The battles are small scale, and insanely inaccurate. I can usually ignore most things but every battle was completely off. The tanks, artillery, guns, uniforms, conditions, grenades, food, officers were all fricked up. Paul was living in a rat infested trench swamp with kids up to his waist for huge sections of the book
4. Action scenes are so far off reality they just ruin them.
Last but not least Paul was really badly cast. He's too old. Way way too old
Also why did they make it look like this was the first time tanks appear in the war? It’s the last day of the war and the Germans are looking at the tanks like they’re mysterious Oliphaunts and they’re even shocked to find out the tanks have guns on them.
Same with the flamethrowers. Whose idea was it to shoot the scenes as though the Germans are shocked that flamethrowers exist? Apparently in this timeline the French invented the flammenwerfer on November 9th 1918.
Did anyone else laugh at the scene where he was shoving dirt into the French soldier's mouth? There comes a point where these movies try so hard to prove the obvious that war isn't a fun time that they end up making it fun for the audience through desperate absurdity.
It’s time for everyone to admit this was a dumb movie made by dummies for dummies.
Not my problem. Moving to Denmark next year. Then I'll be the rude immigrant.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Not my problem either, I just love memeing the Britcucks. Good luck though anon, from what I've heard Denmark is probably one of the best countries to live in atm
3 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, it's a nice place. Already been there. Also really close to northern Germany, which is still about as white as it gets in Europe these days. + the nature is simply beautiful.
Did anyone else laugh at the scene where he was shoving dirt into the French soldier's mouth? There comes a point where these movies try so hard to prove the obvious that war isn't a fun time that they end up making it fun for the audience through desperate absurdity.
I really liked it as well. They did a really good job of putting you into the era. The food they ate, his buddy couldn’t read. The soundtrack was good too.
They basically just used the title while the content had almost nothing to do with the novel. The book is way more poignant about how war sucks. They also changed all the characters’ personalities for some reason.
Did not need another adaption, they should have finally made this into a movie or series.
Having read both Remarque and Jünger (in German), it's the more interesting book. You can read it at gloryfying the war, neutral or anti war. But I suppose that is too much to ask for today's audience.
>Why did Cinemaphile shittalk it so much?
This board is 99% jeets nowadays, what do you expect?
Discord troony is that you?
I hate you troony obsessed zoomers so fricking much. I don't know how your life is structured, but I barely ever see anything trans related in my day to day life, but I see you homos mention them every 5 minutes. Frick off.
>>>/b/
Pick a containment board and stay there.
Struck a nerve there, princess?
>war is ... le bad
Can we have another war movie? Is that OK?
>>war is ... le bad
It is.
I didn't say it wasn't, I just asked for a different flavor
Someone hasn't read storm of steel
Storm of Steel had to be edited down by people who were capable of feeling human emotions because the fetishistic descriptions of violence made people not want to read Junger's spank bank.
What I would do for the uncensored version. Bet it's based as shit. The TRUE war experience.
The true war experience as interpreted by a guy who grew up in a wealthy family, who ended up joining two different armies, one of which was the mortal enemy of his country, because he wanted to kill people, and somehow still didn't find a way to make it legal until the world erupted into global conflict.
>"I disagree"
Why did they add gay war politics and table talks and also that moronic general
Well, what do you think?
I don't like it as an adaptation. By trying to be different from the 30s and 70s, it completely misses the point of one of the most famous German books due to some bizarre German guilt for 20th-century shenanigans. The fact that it's the first German adaptation is incredibly ironic in that regard. The soundtrack sucks. I was livid when that try hard shit got an Oscar.
Don't listen to the "le war le based" autists.
Pretty much this. It left out some key scenes which basically make the novel easily the most important German post-WW1 publication. Instead, they put in more Hollywoodesque action scenes in order to appeal to the modern CoD zoomer audience.
When I read the novel, all I remember was everyone playing dead every time they were overrun, which was constantly
>The soundtrack sucks
It was irritatingly jarring
Every time the movie set the scene, the soundtrack pulled me out of it right away
>it completely misses the point of one of the most famous German books
Could you elaborate?
In the book the main character's death is completely uneventful, hence the title. In the film they make it into the very last second of the war
Remarque's entire purpose of the book wasn't to pretend like Germany or the Allies were bloodthirsty, moustache-twirling buffoons with egos bigger than their countries. It was about war from the POV of a soldier to showcase that any notion and memes about heroics and valor do not exist there, and most importantly, that YOU, specifically YOU, won't change shit, you won't die a heroic death, you won't make a difference for your country, and your death, just like Paul's, will be so insignificant it won't even be recorded anywhere. It also aimed to showcase the giant experience discrepancy of how war is seen for regular civilians in Paul's Leave segment, something that is basically erased from the movie for the sake of armistice talks.
>Why did Cinemaphile shittalk it so much?
I'd seen the original and the changes to the story make it worse.
It doesn't have to be faithful to another adaptation
Missed the point of the book and clearly made by people who have a grasp of WWI similar to some fantasy war.
The fact that the remake puts the story into 1917 instead of 1914 and pretends they were identical is awful enough. At some stupid shit like "le evil Prussian general orders a suicide charge 2 min before the end of the war for no reason except being evil".
Both sides fought to the last minute. 2700 soldiers died on the final day.
>An example of the determination of the Allies to maintain pressure until the last minute, but also to adhere strictly to the Armistice terms, was Battery 4 of the US Navy's long-range 14-inch railway guns firing its last shot at 10:57:30 a.m. from the Verdun area, timed to land far behind the German front line just before the scheduled Armistice
>be cow
>moooo
>eat grass
>get blown to absolute fricking smithereens by a TNT naval shell fired into your remote pasture by an American railway gun as part of a planned timed symbolic bombardment to coincide with the conclusion of WW1
>??
>??????
americans will take any excuse to murder
But only one of them was attacking, and it wasn’t the Germans. Weird isn’t it?
>why did Cinemaphile shit talk it so much
fork scene.
I just realized... I should have watched the german version with english sub. Why didn't that occur to me?
The book is something else entirely.
Big baddy Prussian general and Fredrick Zoller's shenanigans were an insult to the central theme of the book.
The leaves scenes should've been longer and in the main character you should've seen a machine-like stare hiding visceral hatred for the oblivious civilians and the institutions selling a war they'll never fight themselves.
Hate to say this because it sounds pretentious but: it's a decent war film but a piss poor adaptation.
All Quiet 2022 features Marvel-tier fight scenes that seem like they were storyboarded by middle schoolers
>the flamethrowers all show up in a big line and they're like FWOOOSH
>and then there's an explosion and the main character gets flung through the air!
>and then he kills like 3 guys with his shovel!
even if the rest of the film was conceptually sound (no), it would still be ruined by its mediocre action slop
and of course it's gotta feature the classic
>it's WW1 so there are random explosions every 30 seconds (but they don't actually kill anybody)
meanwhile, in real life:
the easiest way to make WW1 seem horrible is to just portray it the way it was. Instead, battle scenes are designed like cartoons where each shot contains some tired battle scene stereotype and everything fits perfectly in the frame.
>5 minutes of microphone clipping
i see
Contrarians thinking that hating things makes their tastes cultured, and that old always equals better, and everything new is shit.
Think it would have been better if they didn't make it about the Nazis. They really expect people to feel sorry for them?
American education.
The other movies are much better, and there's a few things that really fricked it up for me.
>Too late in the war
>No homefront return to show how fricked up Paul is, and how pointless the war is
>Kat is killed by someone he personally wronged instead of by random chance
>The "END OF DA WAR" shit they pulled so that Paul would have just almost made it
>POLITICS ON A FRICKING TRAIN
>Paul's death being reduced to such a cheap shot, literal stab in the back
>The crater murder just doesn't work as well.
The book was a pretty good guide for the movies, but they decided instead to make it their own, but worse.
because it's another bad remake for a movie that already had one
The climactic ending was literally the opposite of the point of the meaning of the books ending.
it was ww1 fan fiction that had nothing to do with the all quiet book for a start.
plus this
I don't think it's a bad movie but it's a massive downgrade from the original which is one of my favorite war movies of all time and because of that it heavily influenced my experience of it
I liked it, but it differentiates from the book in unnecessary and heavy handed ways
Especially the ending. Paul died on an irrelevant day near the end of the war. The point was that even though he died, amongst hundreds of others, it was considered insignificant and just the usual.
Hence the title
Making it that he died at the very last day in some major attack is both driving home the point too hard and missing it altogether
1. The battles felt like they were on a 200 by 200 Meter set fought by a hundred people. It's shot to macro so you never get the sense of scale required to do the story right. It's a part of the book. Human waves of thousands of men over miles. Not American gladiator dodge the tennis ball sized
2. It goes way off the book and misses how fricked up Paul is. He's done more or less by the end and commits suicide by wandering out in the middle of no man's land right at the end of the war.
3. The battles are small scale, and insanely inaccurate. I can usually ignore most things but every battle was completely off. The tanks, artillery, guns, uniforms, conditions, grenades, food, officers were all fricked up. Paul was living in a rat infested trench swamp with kids up to his waist for huge sections of the book
4. Action scenes are so far off reality they just ruin them.
Last but not least Paul was really badly cast. He's too old. Way way too old
this. thank you
>tanks used as a quick reaction force for counterattacks
was bullshit
Also why did they make it look like this was the first time tanks appear in the war? It’s the last day of the war and the Germans are looking at the tanks like they’re mysterious Oliphaunts and they’re even shocked to find out the tanks have guns on them.
Same with the flamethrowers. Whose idea was it to shoot the scenes as though the Germans are shocked that flamethrowers exist? Apparently in this timeline the French invented the flammenwerfer on November 9th 1918.
It’s time for everyone to admit this was a dumb movie made by dummies for dummies.
All Quiet on the Western Front (2022)
>portrays that war is bad by making a desensitizing spectacle of it, achieving the opposite effect
1917
>portrays that war is bad simply by introducing us to the many fine young men who won't come home from it
>1917
>portrays that Mendes is a hack by having a bunch of stupid, non-historical stuff in it
>1917
>is just a lame gimmick movie
>achieving the opposite effect
Desensitization feels good to you? That's abnormal.
Wasnt the army segregated during that time, did the French not have any army segregation?
I don't know what a jeet is.
Pajeet, NOOBIE. A brown skin
Pretty racist, innit?
Brexit is brexit, we allowed to be racist now I reckon
I feel like ever since brexit brown people have increased by like 20-30%. Not feeling it, mate.
It's so over anglobros
Not my problem. Moving to Denmark next year. Then I'll be the rude immigrant.
Not my problem either, I just love memeing the Britcucks. Good luck though anon, from what I've heard Denmark is probably one of the best countries to live in atm
Yeah, it's a nice place. Already been there. Also really close to northern Germany, which is still about as white as it gets in Europe these days. + the nature is simply beautiful.
Did anyone else laugh at the scene where he was shoving dirt into the French soldier's mouth? There comes a point where these movies try so hard to prove the obvious that war isn't a fun time that they end up making it fun for the audience through desperate absurdity.
I really liked it as well. They did a really good job of putting you into the era. The food they ate, his buddy couldn’t read. The soundtrack was good too.
They basically just used the title while the content had almost nothing to do with the novel. The book is way more poignant about how war sucks. They also changed all the characters’ personalities for some reason.
The original is one of the best films of all time, I have absolutely no interest in watching this slop.
Did not need another adaption, they should have finally made this into a movie or series.
Having read both Remarque and Jünger (in German), it's the more interesting book. You can read it at gloryfying the war, neutral or anti war. But I suppose that is too much to ask for today's audience.