StarDestroyer.Net BBS

And Jesus H fucking Christ it was the most boring four hours I think I've ever spent! Gah! There were hardly any battles, and those that did happen has about 50% recycled footage! And it might as well have been called "The Life and Times of Stonewall Jackson" for all the other characters got screen time! Ted Turner must really wank hard to ol' Stoney or something...

And good Christ, was the Union really that fucking stupid?? I mean, I know they had a rough start of it at the beginning, but the way that movie went, you'd think the South fucking won the war! There was not a single, solitary Union victory I could see, and they spent the whole damn movie engaged in one fuckup after another! Meanwhile, the COnfederates were perfect. They won it all, by God!

Of course, I just loved the Union "tactic" of walk up in a nice big formation, get shot to shit by cannons. Then, after awhile of this, start running. Then, 100 yeards from the enemy lines, enemies who are dug in behind a fucking stone wall, stop in your nice big line, and shoot, while you are getting your ass shot. Keep getting shot up, then finally run back a little bit, then kneel and take some kind of cover. Do absolutely no good there while still getting shot, then retreat. Rinse, wash, repeat, until the Generals get tired and give up.

Did they really fight like that back then?

The Rebels, of course, ran, and kept running, in their ambush of the Nothern camp. THey didn't stop or anything. They just kept on running, while the North ran like a buncha pansies (some did stop and fight, but not much, and it didn't have very much effect; they got shot for their trouble, while taking out less Southerners).

Is this a Ted Turner Southern wank-fest or something? Or was it really that bad for the Feds?

And then, of course, General "Stonewall" Jackson, which is who the movie was really about (the Civil War was kinda incidental to the whole thing). He's like the Civil War Osama bin Laden! "Desertion is a sin against the Army of the Lord (his group, it seems)." "Their deaths are of God's consequences (the deserters)." "Bayonet any stragglers."

And he spent over half the movie doing nothing but praying, really. He made Jerry Falwell look like a moderate.

Anyway, that's my two cents on this movie, and it may have some bias...I just watched the full-fucking-four hours of it. Four hours of my life I really want back.

The movie did indeed earn its rep as southern wank, with a capital W

RogueIce wrote:And Jesus H fucking Christ it was the most boring four hours I think I've ever spent! Gah! There were hardly any battles, and those that did happen has about 50% recycled footage! And it might as well have been called "The Life and Times of Stonewall Jackson" for all the other characters got screen time! Ted Turner must really wank hard to ol' Stoney or something...

And good Christ, was the Union really that fucking stupid?? I mean, I know they had a rough start of it at the beginning, but the way that movie went, you'd think the South fucking won the war! There was not a single, solitary Union victory I could see, and they spent the whole damn movie engaged in one fuckup after another! Meanwhile, the COnfederates were perfect. They won it all, by God!

Of course, I just loved the Union "tactic" of walk up in a nice big formation, get shot to shit by cannons. Then, after awhile of this, start running. Then, 100 yeards from the enemy lines, enemies who are dug in behind a fucking stone wall, stop in your nice big line, and shoot, while you are getting your ass shot. Keep getting shot up, then finally run back a little bit, then kneel and take some kind of cover. Do absolutely no good there while still getting shot, then retreat. Rinse, wash, repeat, until the Generals get tired and give up.

Did they really fight like that back then?

The Rebels, of course, ran, and kept running, in their ambush of the Nothern camp. They didn't stop or anything. They just kept on running, while the North ran like a buncha pansies (some did stop and fight, but not much, and it didn't have very much effect; they got shot for their trouble, while taking out less Southerners).

Is this a Ted Turner Southern wank-fest or something? Or was it really that bad for the Feds?

And then, of course, General "Stonewall" Jackson, which is who the movie was really about (the Civil War was kinda incidental to the whole thing). He's like the Civil War Osama bin Laden! "Desertion is a sin against the Army of the Lord (his group, it seems)." "Their deaths are of God's consequences (the deserters)." "Bayonet any stragglers."

Hey, you stupid fuck they did. You've ever seen potraits of Fredicksburg much less read about it? Dipshit, look at me my sideburns got logded into my brain Burnside decided to attack the Stonewall on Mayre Heights. And the Union's Eastern Theatre reputation was poor on the strategic level though tactics were decent. Due to the Bastard McCellean the Armies could have easily won at Seven Pines, but McCellean was far too cautious. I hated how Antienam was skipped and even though Union preformance was poor, Lee went in outnumbered. There was no real major highlight in the East many years. Where was the ambush of the camp? And on average the defenders would run without the coersion of a commander. And about stagglers bpoth sides tpook a hard hand to that, and I would too. It was an investment of money in a soldier, and him just runnng is waste. Dessertions were another casualty.

I only know of a few people here who'd ever see that film at the flicks or at all and most were doubtful that the film would warrant four hours of celluoid to tell a story that didn't bore after two hours.

The American civil war never interested me anyway, though I'm annoyed I missed a film this year on one of the English civil wars called To Kill A King.

I take it this is no Gettysburg then.

Captain Lennox wrote:Where was the ambush of the camp?

According to the movie, just before Jackson got shot by his own people.

Anyway, I never knew Civil War history was such a touchy subject for you...

I knew they fought in straight lines and stuff. I was unaware that they just stood there for awhile while people from behind cover shot at them, and only after awhile of this thought to take cover. And why did they never bother charging? The wall wasn't that high...

I don't know a whole bunch about the Civil War beyond the basics. All I know was I was practically screaming at the Feds to just fucking charge that damn wall instead of just stand there and get shot like they did.

Rougeice, your ignorance of the American civil war is astounding. I suggest you shut up on the matter and open a history book.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Rougeice, your ignorance of the American civil war is astounding. I suggest you shut up on the matter and open a history book.

Maybe. But fine, take apart my lack of Civil War knowledge. I still don't understand why they didn't just charge a stone fence in that movie. Regardless of whether or not they did it in history, it just made sense, at least to me, and I can't see why they wouldn't. But that's an opinion thing, probably. Even if there were a reason for it, I still would've tried. Better than just standing around getting shot.

Just because it happened that way doesn't mean I have to like it. I think I can post my opinion on the matter that, to me, it was dumb.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Rougeice, your ignorance of the American civil war is astounding. I suggest you shut up on the matter and open a history book.

It's not just the American civil war, the main tactics at the time were pretty much that fucking stupid. Formation charges at oncoming fire was a hobby for most men back in those days, those some wised up.

RogueIce wrote: Maybe. But fine, take apart my lack of Civil War knowledge. I still don't understand why they didn't just charge a stone fence in that movie.

Because they'd be slaughtered and the troops would break in the process. The Union attempted to take the position about eighteen times and did charge it several of those times. They failed and the whole fiasco was the result of the incompetence of the Union high command. It wasn't until after a long string of defeats under several different commanders that Grant was brought over from the western theater and began winning.

Yeah, the 'form up and charge a fortified posistion' style of warfare continued pretty much to the end of WWI.

If you want to see tact amongst idiocy, then watch the Sharpe TV movies with Sean Bean. That Irish regiment used camouflage and their brains as the Red Coats marched onward banging drums and carrying flags whilst also collecting numerous additional orifices.

RogueIce's ultimate point is still valid, however, in that "Gods and Generals" was a boring piece of tripe, and it was blatantly pro-South in its depiction of events. Joe Goebbels couldn't have written better propaganda for Dixie.

The only good thing about that movie was Bruce Boxleitner. Unfortunately, there wasn't nearly enough of him.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I saw It too. It was an okay movie. What they should have done was remove alot of Stonewall Jackson talking scenes and other pointless scenes and add in the Battle of Antietam Creek or at least Jackson's capture of Harper's Ferry.

Admiral, I believe it was that were fighting far too Napeleonicly so too speak. They could of broke up like skirmishes and isolated fighting like WWII but the lack of communiacations and coordination prevented. The manpower was defintely there but not the coordination through radio.

Captain Lennox wrote:Admiral, I believe it was that were fighting far too Napeleonicly so too speak. They could of broke up like skirmishes and isolated fighting like WWII but the lack of communiacations and coordination prevented. The manpower was defintely there but not the coordination through radio.

Officers where in such short supply the Union had to double the size of its infantry companies for much of the war. Napoleonic tactics where really the only option. Skirmishing could be effective, but only as long as you weren't concerned with advancing and being overwhelmed by a massed enemy would be a constant risk.

fgalkin wrote:The only good thing about that movie was Bruce Boxleitner. Unfortunately, there wasn't nearly enough of him.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Which one was he?

Vorlon1701 wrote:

fgalkin wrote:The only good thing about that movie was Bruce Boxleitner. Unfortunately, there wasn't nearly enough of him.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Which one was he?

Longstreet.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Sea Skimmer wrote:Because they'd be slaughtered and the troops would break in the process. The Union attempted to take the position about eighteen times and did charge it several of those times. They failed and the whole fiasco was the result of the incompetence of the Union high command. It wasn't until after a long string of defeats under several different commanders that Grant was brought over from the western theater and began winning.

Ah, well, they didn't show them charging in the movie. They didn't even attempt it, which made me want to scream. Even if they would've been slaughtered, it would've been better than just standing there, IMO.

And I agree on the idiocy of the early Union command. Not sure if it was accurate or not, but the guy who wanted to send his division ahead early, before the South could dig in, and the General saying he couldn't, made me want to step into the movie and beat his ass.

"I can't change my own orders." Not a direct quote, but that was, essentially, what he said. Chicken shit.

RogueIce wrote: "I can't change my own orders." Not a direct quote, but that was, essentially, what he said. Chicken shit.

Yeah, that part made me want to step in and beat the living shit out of him. numerous times. Maybe Hooker should've been in charge instead of that asstard.

RogueIce wrote: "I can't change my own orders." Not a direct quote, but that was, essentially, what he said. Chicken shit.

Let me guess...McClellen?

Kuja wrote:

RogueIce wrote: "I can't change my own orders." Not a direct quote, but that was, essentially, what he said. Chicken shit.

Let me guess...McClellen?

No, not him...

Fuck, I can't remember... I think it was a B-something.

RogueIce wrote: No, not him...

Fuck, I can't remember... I think it was a B-something.

Burnside?

RogueIce wrote:
Ah, well, they didn't show them charging in the movie. They didn't even attempt it, which made me want to scream. Even if they would've been slaughtered, it would've been better than just standing there, IMO.

They also didn't show all eighteen attacks, so what? You opinion has been shown to be flawed.

"I can't change my own orders." Not a direct quote, but that was, essentially, what he said. Chicken shit.

Failure of commanders to obey their orders has lost quite a few battles you know. The Union commanders where more conservative then ever after suffering several major defeats.

Kuja wrote:

RogueIce wrote: No, not him...

Fuck, I can't remember... I think it was a B-something.

Burnside?

That sounds about right...