"What war/battle movie would YOU make?"

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, I misspelled it. No idea why or how I got it so far off. Apologies.

Leyte Gulf is the correct spelling, obviously.

[Elheru Aran]

But a battle in a gulf full of baby clothes would be so cute!

[K. A. Pital]

Russia won't mind claiming Byzantine heritage as the Third Rome, so you can ask them for cash.

Well given they've had other historical epics to talk about, any Byzantine story would come after Russian stories.

Sure, but at the time Russia was not a state, and Byzantium was the only other Orthodox superpower in history.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Well seeing as Canadian history is almost always completely ignored and/or re-written by Hollywood *cough*Argo*cough*, something which actually depicted Canadians fairly would be nice. Any battle would do, the only Canadian battle I can think of which was turned into a film was Passchendaele, and there was more love making than actual fighting (can't blame the Americans for that one one though).

Not a war movie, but I'd love to do a biopic on Sir John Franklin and his failed Northwest Passage expedition. Failing that, either the siege of Tuyen Quang, or the Battle of Samar(Taffy 3 vs. Kurita's Center Force at Leyte Gulf).

[The Romulan Republic]

Some other Canadian options:

Seven Year's War: Battle of the Plains of Abraham.
American Revolution: America's failed invasion of Canada (good luck selling that to American studios, though).
WWI: Vimy Ridge.
WW2: The campaign to liberate the Netherlands was largely carried out by Canadian troops.
War on Terror: You could do something specifically focussed on Canada's missions in Afghanistan and against Daesh.

[Tribble]

IMO the career of Sir Isaac Brock would make a pretty good film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Brock

Seriously, the guy pretty much fills out the "war movie hero" checkbox. Were he American, there would have been movies made about him already. If he had done the same things over in Europe, there would have been movies made about him. It's only because he was stationed in the Canadian backwater that few people outside of Canada know about him.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

WW2: The campaign to liberate the Netherlands was largely carried out by Canadian troops.

The Second Battle of Dunkirk, as well. It featured both Canadian and Czech troops. Or, if one prefers, Canada's dealings with the Molly Maguires in the late 19th century.

Seriously, the guy pretty much fills out the "war movie hero" checkbox. Were he American, there would have been movies made about him already. If he had done the same things over in Europe, there would have been movies made about him. It's only because he was stationed in the Canadian backwater that few people outside of Canada know about him.

Could the fact that his forces humiliated the American invasion forces during the War of 1812 be a factor? Now, that would make a good war movie, the War of 1812, from the Canadian perspective, including the sack of York.

[Tribble]

Could the fact that his forces humiliated the American invasion forces during the War of 1812 be a factor?

Obviously things like the Siege of Detroit would be a factor because they were defining moments of his career, but that's not the only thing he did. He was considered to be a rising star in the British Army even before he was posted to Canada, and if you read his wiki I think you'll agree that his life does fill in the checkbox for the kinds of characteristics you want for a main character in a war film. Were it not for the fact that he was posted to what was essentially backwater, he'd probably would have been a lot more famous. In fact, IMO that's one of the things that kind of make him heroic - he wanted to go back to Europe and fight on the front lines for honour and glory, but when the offer finally came he turned it down because he knew that he was the only one in Canada able to prepare it (both physically and mentally) for an American invasion and he felt duty bound to stay.

Now, that would make a good war movie, the War of 1812, from the Canadian perspective, including the sack of York.

Yes, the sack of York would be included if the movie was about the "Great Lakes" portion of the War of 1812 in general and not just Isaac Brock's career (since he was killed leading a charge at Queenston Heights). Why wouldn't it be?

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Could the fact that his forces humiliated the American invasion forces during the War of 1812 be a factor?

Obviously things like the Siege of Detroit would be a factor because they were defining moments of his career, but that's not the only thing he did. He was considered to be a rising star in the British Army even before he was posted to Canada, and if you read his wiki I think you'll agree that his life does fill in the checkbox for the kinds of characteristics you want for a main character in a war film. Were it not for the fact that he was posted to what was essentially backwater, he'd probably would have been a lot more famous. In fact, IMO that's one of the things that kind of make him heroic - he wanted to go back to Europe and fight on the front lines for honour and glory, but when the offer finally came he turned it down because he knew that he was the only one in Canada able to prepare it (both physically and mentally) for an American invasion and he felt duty bound to stay.

His career would make a hell of a biopic, no doubt of it. The question is, would Hollywood touch it, without major redactions that make Mel Gibson and America look like the unalloyed good guys at the expense of the Brits/Canadians?

Now, that would make a good war movie, the War of 1812, from the Canadian perspective, including the sack of York.

Yes, the sack of York would be included if the movie was about the "Great Lakes" portion of the War of 1812 in general and not just Isaac Brock's career (since he was killed leading a charge at Queenston Heights). Why wouldn't it be?

[/quote]

Cause it would make Murica look bad and less able to play the wounded innocents by bringing up the British burning Washington to the ground.[/sarcasm]

Frankly, the knuckledraggers amongst my countrymen would raise holy hell about any movie portraying the War of 1812 that didn't cast America as the innocent victims of and brave heroes against British imperialist aggression. I mean, forget the fact our trying to acquire your country was a thing throughout most of the 19th century, Tribble, what's important that America the Great was being menanced by those mean Royal Navy bullies trying to impress our sailors, and the mean old Brits hated our novel social experiment, and wanted to wipe us out, booga, booga, boooga.

You simply have to cruise the comments section of any given Boob Tube clip featuring America at war to find that kind of moronic jingoism.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Cause it would make Murica look bad and less able to play the wounded innocents by bringing up the British burning Washington to the ground.[/sarcasm]

Frankly, the knuckledraggers amongst my countrymen would raise holy hell about any movie portraying the War of 1812 that didn't cast America as the innocent victims of and brave heroes against British imperialist aggression. I mean, forget the fact our trying to acquire your country was a thing throughout most of the 19th century, Tribble, what's important that America the Great was being menanced by those mean Royal Navy bullies trying to impress our sailors, and the mean old Brits hated our novel social experiment, and wanted to wipe us out, booga, booga, boooga.

You simply have to cruise the comments section of any given Boob Tube clip featuring America at war to find that kind of moronic jingoism.

I think you are probably overstating things a bit. I mean, it's true that there ARE morons in America who would respond the way you are talking about, but I don't think that they would be a majority or the primary reasons a movie like this hasn't been made. I mean, there have been plenty of movies showing America as the villains against the Native Americans or otherwise showing the dark side of our history (slavery, etc.). Sure, America does broadly have a problem with critical self-evaluation, but it's not completely anathema to do so in a historical context. Honestly, I think the bigger obstacle is ignorance rather than malice as you suggest. Most Americans just don't really know anything about the War of 1812, and don't really care, either. It's just not broadly considered to be a particularly relevant historical event - the only thing that even survives about the war in the popular imagination is the Battle of New Orleans, and that has more to do with the weird mythical folk hero reputation of Andrew Jackson than it does with the war itself (I'd bet that most people you ask on the street would recognize the name of that battle, but wouldn't even necessarily know it was part of the War of 1812 at all).

[U.P. Cinnabar]

but I don't think that they would be a majority

The "love it or leave it" crowd are a minority. A very vocal and active minority. That's all they have to be, when the rest of us are either too busy working overtime to stay broke, or sitting on their asses doing nothing.

or the primary reasons a movie like this hasn't been made.

When the minority are the only ones speaking, they are the only ones Hollywood are listening to. Even then, that minority still complains about the "liberal" Hollywood establishment.

[The Romulan Republic]

You'd think they'd have a bit less influence, what with all the money to be gained from the overseas market.

I mean, do they really think "America fuck yeah!" is likely to be a major selling point for films outside of Red States?