Brad Pitt's WWII Tank movie, "FURY"

Worf said:

No... I remember in "Night of the Generals" with Peter O'Toole as the General leading punitive raids in the Warsaw Ghetto. He stood on or next to what had to be a real Tiger I. Nothing looks or squeeks like it.

Worf

Click to expand...

The general consensus among tanker fans is that those tanks in NOTG were also heavily modified T-34/85's, as no running Pz.Kw.VI Sd.Kfz.181 'Tiger' was in existence at the time (1967).

Rob

Ghostsoldier said:

The general consensus among tanker fans is that those tanks in NOTG were also heavily modified T-34/85's, as no running Pz.Kw.VI Sd.Kfz.181 'Tiger' was in existence at the time (1967).

Rob

Click to expand...

Welp, you very well may be correct and know more about the matter than I. If so... thanks for the information.

Worf

As far as i know, there are only seven complete Tiger I tanks left in the entire world, four of which are on static displays and in pretty bad condition. There's one in really good condition at a tank museum in Moscow, but I'd don't know if it's in working order. The French Army's tank museum has an original late-war Tiger I working condition and the Bovington Tank Museum in the U.K. has "Tiger 131", which was used in Fury. Until the frame off restoration of Tiger 131 was competed ~10 years ago, the only running Tiger I in the work was the one in France.

It's a complex situation, getting everything set up to make a film. You look for tax incentives/cast and crew rebates, a place that will put up with whatever it is you want to do (with a war movie that can be a scary number of things like environmental impact surveys), where your starring cast will be willing to go, who has the available crews ... crews that are not allocated to other shows are living locally and who have the necessary hardware. Sometimes that is military hardware or just production hardware (cranes, stadium lights, etc). It used to be pretty common, until CGI allowed you to substitute a few men for a hundred, to try to find a country who would let you use their army just to get enough bodies in the shot. Having real soldiers as soldier extras can be really useful, especially if you are in a place where they don't speak the filmmaker's language. Soldiers know how to look like soldiers.

When I was doing that sort of thing I had some experience using museum "exhibits" in films (trains in my case) and the institution is often very picky and protective of their hardware (as they should be) ... costs for using and insuring it can be very high. I always found that, no matter the budget, movies are always a lot of juggling costs and barely being able to afford what you need. There's always something special you want to do but the simple cost of everything else you want to do makes it seem unaffordable. I'm amazed at what I see in films sometimes ... sometimes I wonder if they made the director pay for something out of his own pocket. More than likely it was just a really good Unit Production Manager or effects department.

I think the comment about "using what was available" is correct. Now that it's not so easy to find any sort of tank that looks like it's in the ball park, it's easier to justify the real thing or building something that has been made to look like it. I'm also guessing a fair number of 3d world militaries have finally stopped using WWII ordinance and that may have freed up parts for the various armor collectors around the world. There are more than I thought.

When I was recording sound effects for the audio drama I'm about to finish we actually found a Soviet T-34, exactly what we needed, in LA. It was, however, in a lot near a freeway and we couldn't even consider the cost of taking it somewhere else. Another collection we contacted was in the boonies of central California. They didn't have a T-34 but had a couple of other tanks. Unfortunately, the owner had died several years earlier and the estate was in turmoil. Finally we found this Motorized Howitzer in Washington State, right near where we were recording many other effects ...



On our budget finding anything like a tank at all, in a quiet place, was like scoring a real Tiger! Or so we thought. Actually, this unit was too well maintained. We really wanted the squeaky bogey effect. It turned out that the old Case bulldozer on the family farm sounded 100% better. What I needed was right in front of me all along. As Charles Schultz so often wrote: Sigh.

Looks like an M109 with a 155 gun with muzzle brake barrel. That was privately owned?

MikeKardec said:

...On our budget finding anything like a tank at all, in a quiet place, was like scoring a real Tiger! Or so we thought. Actually, this unit was too well maintained. We really wanted the squeaky bogey effect. It turned out that the old Case bulldozer on the family farm sounded 100% better. What I needed was right in front of me all along. As Charles Schultz so often wrote: Sigh.

Click to expand...

Besides which, you could spend a small fortune and a ridiculous amount of time finding the genuine article and getting a perfect recording of it, and only maybe 1-2% of the audience would know the difference.

Ghostsoldier said:

Speaking of replica 1:1 Tigers, this one is almost spot-on, made for the 2014 Russian film White Tiger....it runs rings around the disguised T-55's of SPR and those monstrosities in Kelly's Heroes:

[video=youtube;Wlv6iuLT6-s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wlv6iuLT6-s[/video]

I haven't seen the movie, but I understand they ended up not using it, in the end and after all that work...they used some godawful ugly behemoth that doesn't even look like a period tank...go figure. :eusa_doh:

Rob

Click to expand...

White Tiger is an absolutely dreadful film. It makes almost no sense.

Harp said:

Looks like an M109 with a 155 gun with muzzle brake barrel. That was privately owned?

Click to expand...

Yup. I assumed it was deactivated but I suspect there are some out there with the full destructive device permit or tax stamp or whatever. We heard rumors of an "artillery event" in eastern WA in the winter but couldn't get ourselves invited. There was also a Sherman that does avalanche mitigation in the Steven's Pass area that we couldn't get access to either. I have a feeling that If I'd pulled out all the stops more would have been possible but it was becoming obvious how we could create possibly "better than" real tank effects by using our dozer and the sound of the winch on my Jeep as the turret traversing.

Because of that 1 to 2% of the audience issue (very correct) I'll accept "emotionally convincing" if the real thing just isn't accessible. I always like to try, however. The hardest part is getting a time and place with no aircraft, traffic, wind, sometimes even birds. Audio drama is pretty demanding, if you see something happening and there is a crummy recording of it playing at the same time, your brain compensates for the bad recording ... but if there is no visual your ears become extremely critical as to quality and specifics. Effects that work well in films are sometimes a joke in pure audio.

BriarWolf said:

Having just returned from the cinema I felt the need to pop in on this thread and offer my thoughts.

This film...was superb. I do not give praise like that lightly. It was very well executed; well shot, good score, technical detail was accurate down to the last rivet as best I could tell, and the cast was strong with good chemistry executing a good script. The film is utterly raw, without being hamfisted about it; it lays a horrid canvas before you without shame or consolation. There is no cartoon villainy from perfidious Nazis being conquered by the righteous heroes of the Greatest Generation. The film does not dehumanise anyone; rather it focuses on how war dehumanises people. The film is, in so many ways really, a portrait of post-traumatic stress. It focuses on war, and World War II specifically, in a way rarely confronted in American cinema; the film is part war-tale, part psychological horror story. See it. It stands on par with Saving Private Ryan and in some ways I think almost surpasses it.

Click to expand...

I finally saw Fury today, and I have to say I agree with the opinions you expressed here. I thought a few moments were predictable (particularly the ending), and some scenes are definitely not for the squeamish even though they're presented in a matter-of-fact manner (i.e. not gratuitous). Also, I felt Norman's (Logan Lerman) transformation from "Boy Scout" to "Jaded Veteran" was too abrupt, but I've never served in the military and have certainly never been in a combat situation, so that may have been more realistic/true-to-life than I imagine. Other than that, solid and believable performances from the entire cast, good pacing, and a very atmospheric tone throughout make this an entertaining movie (as long as you have an interest in the subject matter, that is) and perhaps provide some insight into what it might have been like to be a member of a U.S. tank crew in Germany during World War II.

Zombie_61 said:

I finally saw Fury today, and I have to say I agree with the opinions you expressed here. I thought a few moments were predictable (particularly the ending), and some scenes are definitely not for the squeamish even though they're presented in a matter-of-fact manner (i.e. not gratuitous). Also, I felt Norman's (Logan Lerman) transformation from "Boy Scout" to "Jaded Veteran" was too abrupt, but I've never served in the military and have certainly never been in a combat situation, so that may have been more realistic/true-to-life than I imagine. Other than that, solid and believable performances from the entire cast, good pacing, and a very atmospheric tone throughout make this an entertaining movie (as long as you have an interest in the subject matter, that is) and perhaps provide some insight into what it might have been like to be a member of a U.S. tank crew in Germany during World War II.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The most surprising part for me is that Shia's character was not a complete jackass like him.
The scene with "grandfather where are the German soldiers" shocked the whole audience......:eeek:

jamespowers said:

Agreed. The most surprising part for me is that Shia's character was not a complete jackass like him.

Click to expand...

He can act when the role calls for it and his co-stars set the bar higher, but most of the time he's in movies where "phoning it in" would be over-acting. Of the few movies I've seen that LaBeouf was in, I'd have to say Swan was the most likeable character he's played.

jamespowers said:

The scene with "grandfather where are the German soldiers" shocked the whole audience......:eeek:

Click to expand...

That and a few other similar scenes had the audience gasping when I saw it, but I appreciated the way they handled such scenes. Violence in war is inevitable, but they didn't dwell on it or beat the audience over the head with it; okay, that happened, time to move on.

Zombie_61 said:

He can act when the role calls for it and his co-stars set the bar higher, but most of the time he's in movies where "phoning it in" would be over-acting. Of the few movies I've seen that LaBeouf was in, I'd have to say Swan was the most likeable character he's played.

That and a few other similar scenes had the audience gasping when I saw it, but I appreciated the way they handled such scenes. Violence in war is inevitable, but they didn't dwell on it or beat the audience over the head with it; okay, that happened, time to move on.

Click to expand...

The Sail German that had been run over about 50 times before they ran him over was one of those scenes.

jamespowers said:

The scene with "grandfather where are the German soldiers" shocked the whole audience......:eeek:

Click to expand...

That scene also shocked the audience when I saw the movie. I've read about such things happening very frequently, so I kinda expected it to happen, but it was still disturbing to see...

Another Tank Movie that has some interesting material is The Beast directed by Kevin Reynolds. Adapted from a play (of all things) by William Mastrosimone it deals with a Soviet Tank crew in Afghanistan. Though it veered off into some strange terrain, I did like the bits where the Afghans are following it's leaking oil and tracks like a wounded animal and I loved seeing veteran character actor George Dzundza in a more central role and in the sort of shape that would allow him to leap on an off a moving tank!

MikeKardec said:

a Soviet Tank crew in Afghanistan. Though it veered off into some strange terrain, I did like the bits where the Afghans are following it's leaking oil and tracks like a wounded animal....

Click to expand...

A Soviet T-72 is vulnerable on the left side from a LAW-not a glass jaw target but the Mooj tactic was to strike and isolate
the tail end of a column or track a disabled lone wolf 72 to kill its crew. Armor is not an objective easily taken by partisan/infantry
but tactics and terrain are more often favored especially if enemy air cover isn't a factored variable within the equation.

jamespowers said:

The scene with "grandfather where are the German soldiers" shocked the whole audience......:eeek:

Click to expand...

I rather appreciated that scene in a morbid way, for the way it was executed but also, when looking at it from the perspective of the German soldier that shot that old man, were I in that same awful position I could see myself doing the same thing. One of your own people, whether you view them as someone you're trying to protect or just another damn civvie, just outed you and your buddies to the column of enemy armour that wants to turn you into hamburger. Any soldier would be angry at that, and if you're a blooded killer and an SS Mann to boot...it was one of the many little things that brought home the horror of the whole situation.