• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

why did pearl harbor suck?

GoldenAgeHero

Avenger
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
12,337
Reaction score
1
Points
31
im watching it now on ABC,it looks like a pretty damn good film, the action sequences are awesome as hell.
 
Michael Bay tried to a Titanic thing with it and it failed.
 
The director's cut, while not a great film, is much better than the theatrical cut.
Plus the action scenes are AMAZING.
 
Like someone else said, they tried to turn it into a Titanic. The action was great, but the love story was forced.
 
Yeah, a good Pearl Harbor movie should have been dead serious Black Hawk Down near-documentary style. It should have been all tactics and been as historically accurate as possible.
 
It makes me feel like United 93. Pearl Harbor and 9/11, the two worst attacks in american history. Greengrass makes a powerful amazing film, while Bay makes exploitive action garbage. I'll shake my head in shame when I'm 80 and see a Bay-like film about September 11th.
 
I didnt like Pearl Harbor.
It wasnt as good as United 93.
 
it sucked because trey parker and matt stone say so. probably b/c the poor acting and some inaccuracies. i think at one point i remember seeing a cordless phone in the movie. they weren't invented then.
 
I think, in part, that it didn't do as well as it might have is because it happened over 50 years ago and most people have no connection with WWII. People tend to be most interested in what affects them most.
 
There is a Fan Edit out there that makes it an AMAZING MOVIE. The Love Story was Edited out among a few other things that really helped it
 
Action was awesome, but the whole movie was going to garbage!
 
TOO much romance, not enough bullets.
 
It wasn't really about Pearl Harbor. The attack, though amazing on screen, was only shown for about ten to fifteen minutes, if that long, but the movie was three hours long.
 
Well, the atack in real life was only about ten to fifteen minutes long. Still, my dad, a historian, said that while the movie as a whole sucked, the atack seen was the most acurate. Tora Tora Tora was still a vastly superior film, though.
 
The movie doesn't suck. I think that a lot of people were just dissapointed because it had a rather ho-hum love story based on fictional characters, and that was the center of the plot.
 
Timstuff said:
The movie doesn't suck. I think that a lot of people were just dissapointed because it had a rather ho-hum love story based on fictional characters, and that was the center of the plot.

And that's one of the main reasons it sucked. :) :up:
 
I liked it ok. They did try to make it a lot like Titanic, but didn't...which is why I liked it. They actually acknowledged there was a historical event going on, and didn't rely on two bogus characters to carry the film. And also, they focused on events that led up to the main event. Titanic did not.

I liked Pearl Harbor.
 
I liked it when I saw it in theaters. Was kinda obvious how they were gonna end it when they made a point to show that trick in th' planes early on.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"