Watching LONGEST DAY as 6 June approaches

[Griff Murphey]

A lot of the crummy hardware is excusable but U.S. Airborne jumping from British LANCASTERS??? And crummy models at that. Sometimes I wish they would go back and fix these shortcuts with CGI. And C-47s were VERY common back then.... Arrgh!

Actually no worse than a lot of movies back then but Germans firing quad 50's and 40 mm Bofors, using ME-108 communications light aircraft for 109's, WW-2 CL's converted to missile cruisers as part of the D-Day fleet overflown by AD Skyraiders (well they had props)... Just a few things.

[Guamsst]

I normally refrain from commenting on this as I feel most of the fans of the movie sit around masturbating to the image of themselves as John Wayne. Lets just say I have never been impressed by this movie or its status as a "Classic war movie" and I assume you are probably not as far off from my opinion of this film as most people.

[ebeeby]

I remember seeing Patton in 69 when it came out. A WWII vet sitting behind me very LOUDLY had to comment to his wife EVERYTIME he saw a tank or a plane or an anything that was not right. "Martha that's not a such and such, that's a such and such painted with German colors to look like a such and such"

Ruined the whole freakin movie for me.

[Art]

Any movie made before 1980 that even got the small arms and web gear correct was ahead of the game. Somehow it just didn't seem to be as big a deal and when that was coupled with the lack of availability of the bigger items and the fact that computer animation hadn't been invented you see the problem. Some movies, like Tora, Tora, Tora, made very good use of model building which was central to special effects at the time. Some, like In Harms Way, tried the model building thing and came up way short. It's amazing that people like Stephen Spielberg who not only wasn't alive during WWII but wasn't in the military gets the details more correct than Darryl F. Zanuck who served with the Army in France in WW I, a Col. in the Signal Corps in WW II and was actually at Normandy.

I think The Longest Day's main claims to fame are that it was the first of the multi star (almost every male actor who was anybody seemed to be in it,) huge budget movies trying to present a major WW II event in documentary style. In 1963 attention to detail was sadly lacking in almost all war movies.

[Col. Colt]

There's the Story - and then there's the Hardware. I think the Story is what's important. Sure, we'd all like it to be perfectly "just as it was" but that is seldom possible. Hollywood has gotten better at it, but many of the events no longer have eyewitnesses to tell them what was "right". The closer in time the movie is to the event, the more criticism they will get from the people who were actually there. Later, not so much.

If a movie catches the Spirit of the Event or Time successfully, I don't kick them too hard about things they could not fix logistically or financially. They have to be somewhat believable, or the movie fails. But most people don't know much about what they are watching - and so the story and the acting become more important, as they should. I've had a spouse or family member get upset with me because I became the "technician" - and damaged the enjoyment for them! Sometimes we "know to much" to get the most out of an experience. CC

[budster]

I always thought it was a John Wayne Classic and always will be for me.

[Barryeye]

As one with a lifelong interest in the military and various conflicts I like to get lost in films about my topic of interest. Alas I get slammed back to reality when I see the odd or at times common errors made with the props used. However I accept that it is the price I must pay for having a bit more knowledge in this area than the average cinema goer. I don’t look for mistakes but when they happen it does produce a blip in the leisure experience. By the same token I get pleasure from seeing a director get it right with some minor detail that makes me feel that I am the only person in the cinema that appreciates the accuracy.
I am far from being a WWII expert and although I know now that there were errors in “Saving Private Ryan” and “Band of Brothers” I did not spot them. However something struck me as being wrong with both of them that I could not put my finger on. And then it struck me. The condition of the arms and uniforms looked too new. Then it dawned on me. 70 years ago they were new and little like the majority of collector’s items I am familiar with today. Also takes a while to come to terms that WWII took place in colour and not black and white. Wasn’t “The Longest Day” filmed in black and white so as real war footage could be used?
Barry

[edpm3]

If the movie inaccuracies bother you, ditch the movie and read the book. More action, more background, and all the equipment is correct.

[Guamsst]

I find it funny that people will make excuses for this movie but bash a more modern movie for the slightest error. The truth is, they could make a giant crab look like it was clawing a man to death but couldn't be bothered with decent models or even a cardboard housing over the turret so the American and German tanks didn't look identical except for markings....LOL

[Barryeye]

I guess they can do things now with CGI that could not have been done back in 1962. With budget restrictions being what they are I think it is better that they made the film with “prop errors” than no make it at all. Can’t help but think that back in 1962 there would have been a large number of “experts” with firsthand knowledge of the correct props in the audience. I wonder what they made of it.