Why arent more WW1 films being made?

[JokerLedger]

WW1 and the Korean War seem to be the two wars that Hollywood never touches.

 

[04nbod]

^they are too horrific to be put on film but I think Horror movies today could allow us to withstand it. WWI wiped out a generation. The trenches were a hive of disease and the fields covered in rotting corpses. Men would run to their deaths in battle or face being shot by their own side. Its not really hollywood glamour.

The last WWI movie I saw was Regeneration starring Johnny Lee Miller. It was about the poets Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen in mental institution. It highlighted the dire effect of war and at times was gruesome but very little takes place in the trenches.

The Second World War is understandably an important period of time, and that makes it popular for film treatments. But the First World War is just as vital to world history. It ended many European monarchies, brought Communism to Russia, set the stage for the Great Depression and WW2 and saw tens of millions of people die in one of the first "modern style" wars.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last film to deal with this era was Flyboys. I cant think of the last Hollywood film to deal with the subject. Is it just that it was too long ago for people to be interested?

Its a new generation. My grandfather loves those war films but none of the guys i know would pay to see them. However now that the veterans are passing i think we could see a resurgence in the reality of the war and the horror without worrying about upsetting people who took part

Your lucky! you know how many wars Britain has thought? a hell of alot. We don't even have time to study all of them in the British education system.

Your lucky if you learn

conveniently split into subsections-
Wars taught when British children still have one digit ages!-
Saxon invasions
Roman Invasion- Good ol' Boudicca! She was Wonder Woman.

Battle of 1066- taught at the age of 12. One in the eye for Harold Godwinson
Crusades- taught at the age of 12. I remember nothing
English Civil War- taught at the age of 13. The futile war. It made us better at war!
War Of The Roses-taught at the age of 13. Brought the Tudors to power
100 Years War- taught at the age of 12. Fun fact- It lasted longer than 100 years. Damn French
Napoleonic Wars- taught at the age of 13. I was on holiday at the time
Crimean War - never taught, well vaguely its concequences on Russia when I was 18

taught constantly from the age of 14-18!
World War 1
World War 2

I was also lucky to learn the history of Social reform in great britain like social security acts passed by parliament, important budgets put through parliament and education acts. How was all this relevant to my life?

 

[bunk]

Wasn't Lucas going making a WWI period dog fighting movie? Maybe I'm remembering that wrong.

 

[nocomics]

Wasn't Lucas going making a WWI period dog fighting movie? Maybe I'm remembering that wrong.

He's supposed to but not sure if hes still gonna do it. I think it was about the black pilots. Tuskegee(sp) Air Men or something like that

 

[LadyVader]

The trouble with WW1 is that there are no clear bad guys. It's not as simple as blaming it on the nazis. WW1 was the result of years and years of political frustrations that had been buidling up between the dominating nations of Europe at the time and between the people and the Governments themselves. That's very complicated to present in a 2 hour movie.

Although the Americans did join the war in 1917, they didn't have as big of an effect on the proceedings, they weren't asinvolved and I guess it's seen as a predominantly European War, even if it's called a World War.

Wasn't that movie with Chris O'Donell and Sandra Bullock where O'donell plays Hemingway about World War 1?

 

[Hobgoblin]

Wasn't that movie with Chris O'Donell and Sandra Bullock where O'donell plays Hemingway about World War 1?

I hadnt heard that. I didnt know either one had been in a war film.

I guess, from reading all of the comments,and looking at it from a studio's POV, they dont need the financial risk to make a WW1 movie while they almost certainly have a sure hit in any WW2 movie. A WW1 film would be costly to make, with less returns. But people love WW2, as sick as that sounds. We (the Allies) were against an evil army trying to conquer the world. Its almost a fairy tale, but its all true.

Sad that thats all people want. No medicine with their sugar. By medicine, at least a WW1 flick might trigger someone's interest in studying history.

 

[wellsy]

I haven't seen Flyboys, but I think it would certainly be interesting to delve more into the air war, given that many called them 'knights of the sky'. It would be a fascinating look at chivalry and honour in a world in which Machiavellian tendencies are taking over, particularly in Britain and Germany (who provided much of the combat strength).

A good film that's a lot like this is Joyeux Noel, which depicts the Christmas truce of 1914. I've also seen The Lighthorsemen, the last great cavalry charge of history.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Probably has to do with how the wars were fought. Trench warfare was heavily used in WWI. Most people probably would not consider it to be as exciting as the type of battles that occurred in WWII.

 

[LadyVader]

Well WW1 soldiers didn't have automatic weapons, they had baionettes, so they still got charge like idiots once in a while. I'd figure that's more exciting that staying at a distance and firing your rifle.

And really now, war is war. It involved a level of conflict, violence and brutality that is totally uncharacteristic to what we experience in our daily lives. I figure a war story from the Middle Ages can be just as interesting as a war story from the Vietnam War. It depends on the quality of the story and the depiction of the characters.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I was wondering: Does it make me a complete ***hole that sometimes I'm more interested in the political and military leaders stories than those of the men on the ground? I mean, to a certain extent, isnt every war essentially the same? War is hell, good people die, young idealists become hard hearted, etc. The people making the decisions are usually eccentric, delusional, oblivious and sometimes even reluctant to fight. The First World War had that in spades. Sometimes I think that would make a more interesting film than just the usual battle movie.

 

[wellsy]

Indeed it would Demogoblin, and you're not a dick for thinking like that. You want to understand the why, rather than the what happened, and that's not a bad thing.

However, films that are heavy on politics like this one need to be careful, and they're usually not blockbuster material. There's also the need for historical accuracy, which can really wrinkle the noses of some people.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Indeed it would Demogoblin, and you're not a dick for thinking like that. You want to understand the why, rather than the what happened, and that's not a bad thing.

However, films that are heavy on politics like this one need to be careful, and they're usually not blockbuster material. There's also the need for historical accuracy, which can really wrinkle the noses of some people.

Its too bad that "why" war films dont do well financially. People just want the guns and big explosions. Like someone said before "WW2 is cooler." The only problem with political films like this is that they get preachy, but then again, so do the ones that focus on the average soldier. I guess thats a good thing and a bad thing.