Yet depictions of it on film are romanticized, super-inaccurate PG-13 hogwash. So little of it is correctly depicted, it pisses me off.
There's a ton of actual Civil War research. Do your homework Hollywood and get it right.
>>30597344
This sounds like a /pol/ thread. I'm not seeing anything referencing weapons here, just some pissy bullshit about politics.
Just convince Hollywood that Gone with the Wind is ready for its remake.
>>30597364
Well they certainly don't get the weapons right.
Cannons don't knock people down bloodlessly, for one thing.
Civil war rifles became quite difficult to fire over time, as they kicked back into the user's shoulders and became increasingly dirty. Some people even loaded multiple rounds into the gun, without even firing. They simply were too distressed by the fighting to function properly.
And the only thing /pol/ would discuss about the Civil War would be race, and you know it.
>>30597402
Though you were just as likely to get killed by a surgeon, thinking diseases were the work of mysterious swamps and such. You'd get operated on by a bone-saw that hadn't even been sterilized. But you might get lucky and get a STD from all the brothels that Civil War soldiers went to, or merely get a mild injury and become a morphine addict.
The Civil War produced a big wave of drug addicts.
>>30597375
There was nothing romantic about the Civil War.
Your feet bled because your shoes didn't fit, you were constantly about to pass out because the wool uniforms trapped heat, your rations were completely insufficient, I'm pretty sure you were sunburned too, you didn't get earplugs in battle so you were deafened by the noise, plenty of your comrades were dying of diseases all around you, there was NO indoor plumbing, your food had maggots, and your hair had lice in it.
Yes Hollywood, keep telling us how romantic the conflict was.
>>30597402
>>30597478
>>30597554
Yeah, I read a lot of Civil War books as a kid. I can't help but feel a great deal of pity for the average Civil War soldier.
All this whitewashing feels like a disservice to what they actually endured.
>>30597554
Is this a picture of you?
>>30597586
Is this your sonic oc?
>>30597586
>know about the horrors of war
>hurr UR POTATO!!1111
>>30597478
the concept of morphine addicts epidemic from the civil war is largely bullshit
>>30597620
>Gone with the Wind is a movie for edgy teenagers
So you admit, you are 100% retarded.
Tell your handler to stop you from posting again, so you don't make an even bigger idiot of yourself, somehow, next time.
>>30597647
literally what?
An excellent flurry of bullshit you've got there friend.
>>30597344
What about Gettysburg? Glory's story is pretty Hollywood revisionist, but the actual battle scenes are okay as far as I can remember. It's been a few years.
>>30597681
I'm sure you're used to not understanding anything that anyone is saying. You're absolutely fucking retarded. Let me sum up the posts, so far, in a simple way so your proto-chimp brain can follow it:
>If we want a good Civil War movie, tell Hollywood to remake Gone with the Wind
>GONE WITH THE WIND ISN'T GRIMDARK ENOUGH!!! NEEDS TO BE BLOOD AND MUD AND DISEASES!!! WHAT WOULD OLD PEOPLE THAT WROTE GONE WITH THE WIND KNOW ABOUT THE LATE 1800'S?!?!!
>Are you retarded?
>YOU ARE JUST AN EDGEMASTER!!!! EDGY 2 THUH MAX!!!!!
Please explain how someone with more than a dozen functioning braincells could possibly follow your trainwreck of thought, you fucking dumbass.
>>30597344
>Tfw when you'll never storm into Yankee lines firing your trusty LeMat revolver into their swarms from horseback
>>30597586
To quote Chico Marx from "Horse Feathers", "I don't think so it doesn't look like me."
>>30597719
Glory seemed realistic, especially the black union troops getting BTFO in a frontal assault after all the kumbaya of them getting to fight. My 5th grade teacher made us watch it in class.
>>30597719
I wasn't impressed by "Gettysburg". It's inordinately enamored by "Muh Generals!".
It completely neglects the plight of the common man.
"Glory", by contrast, is very much about the plight of the ordinary soldier. It's not perfect, but it's easily the best Civil War film.
>>30597792
The Union did get Fort Wagner, contrary to the text saying, "The Fort was never taken."
That's a technicality. Fort Wagner fell to the Union after the Confederates abandoned it.
And then as if God rewarded the 54th's sacrifice, the explosives the Confederates set failed to detonate.
Fort Wagner was taken intact by the Union.
>>30597736
I actually have a different memory of these events.
1. You suggested a movie which was not exactly very realistic in a movie about movies not being realistic enough.
2. Someone made an argument as to what he thought a realistic movie would be like. It was fairly well made, and include good imagery, important in a conversation about film.
3. You, like the memeing sperg you seems to be, made fun of him.
4. I made a point that you sounded like a child.
5. You have now completely flipped out, leaving all dignity behind you
You understand why I may be confused?
>>30597897
Keep it up, dumbass.
>4. I made a point that you sounded like a child
by calling me Edgy, you ultra-stupid fucker. "Edgy" describes the asshole screaming that "Gone with the Wind isn't an accurate movie! Not enough blood and guts! Nobody's entrails are wrapped around a butcher's table while prying out lead pieces!" -- perhaps you should understand your own fucking images before you attempt to include them as your stand-in for a real argument. Your inability to grasp the irony is only demonstrated further with every post.
Gone with the Wind was practically written as a second-hand account, by a girl that had grown up around Civil War vets and their families. What you saw on your youtube channel "History Nobody Knew Until 2016!" pales as total bullshit in comparison.
So fuck off and take your retard with you. "It's a Romance!!! It's NOT DARK ENOUGH" is the bullshit that children say, so don't even try to play that card with me, faggot.
My dream Civil War film is a small, tight-focused unit character study.
We spend time with a group of Civil War soldiers, who are waiting for the next battle. We get to know these people.
Then we see the horror of what they experience, in one long borderline-NC-17 (i.e hard R) rating slaughterhouse. And because we know them, we care when they die.
>>30598001
The first part is funny in places, because of the true-to-history ways Civil War soldiers goofed off.
Like throwing water down a chimney when someone yelled in the morning, "Scotland's burning! Cast on water!"
A soldier got tired of hearing it every morning and one day just trolled the announcer.
>>30597976
Alright, I see that you have decided to take this personally. I'm sorry you feel this way about an online image board. Let me again explain my confusion.
The OP wants a realistic civil war movie, and presumably one about the war and the battles in it, as this is a weapons forum.
You suggested a movie that is not realistic, and as you say, is not even about the battles when you get right down to it. When he explained this to you, you decided to be a child, so I pointed out that you sounded like a child.
You really should accept this. I don't know why you are so attached to gone with the wind. It is a good movie, but it is clearly not what OP wants.
Anyways, my last post as I am 90% sure you're bait posting. I write this because I know you can be a better person, and hope this explanation allows you to be so.
>>30598055
The stupid fucker (and you) is claiming that Gone with the Wind isn't realistic enough because nobody fucked during the Civil War!
That's literally ALL YOU KNOW about Gone with the Wind is that it has romantic elements -- yet you're ready to write all this fucking diatribe out while attempting to adjust your eye glasses with your ass cheeks.
So read a fucking book, do some fucking research, go fuck yourself, then come back here and apologize for what a fucking idiot you've been.
P.S. Eat shit.
>>30598042
>>30598001
Only bad thing is that it will inevitably be a limited-release, so not many people will see it.
Even with the tight focus keeping the budget pretty low, it won't be enough to get a wide release.
And yes, soldiers fucked women in the Civil War.
Prostitution was everywhere, and with it came various sexual transmitted diseases. You could indulge your urges, but you'd pay a price for it.
If you believe the Union were the good guys you should consider:
A) Not reading state-approved, brainwashing material
B) Killing yourself
>>30598361
I said Civil War depictions on film are grossly inaccurate.
>>30598361
Dixie literally went full secessionist over the expansion of slavery into new territories. They were being reactionary idiots.
>>30598361
I think simplifying the Civil War to a "Good Vs. Evil" narrative is a horrible thing to do because it kind of just shits on all the people involved.
The North weren't saints, and the South weren't demons.
>>30598437
>and the South weren't demons
unless you happened to be a slave
>>30598432
>They were being reactionary idiots
They were also hypocrites, expecting the North to respect their right to retain slaves, while also expecting them to ignore their own laws and returns any escaped "property".
>>30598361
I do think the Union gets an unfair reputation based on its performance when it attacked the Confederacy at its strongest point, and against its best military.
If you look at the Western theater and elsewhere in the Confederacy, the Union did much better.
Honestly the Union should have attacked the Confederacy where it was weakest at the start.
You hit Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia....and you cut the Confederacy in half.
Attacking the Confederacy at its strongest point, repeatedly, against its strongest army was just stupid.
>>30598518
Also the Confederacy's leaders had an unfortunate tendency to lead from the front, getting themselves cut down more readily.
>>30598518
in my humble opinion where the union went wrong was Sherman's march to the sea at least morally. The amount of collateral damage was unacceptable and the behavior of the troops reprehensible. Now for as my judgement of the south. They were cucking themselves, I say this as a brown man why would the white men support slavery all it did was eliminate jobs that white men could have been paid for, the south had a terrible chronic employment issue with under employment among young white men as the small family farms could not compete against the large scale plantations which employed thousands of slaves This system put the poor farming class at an extreme disadvantage, think of it like modern day outsourcing where we are losing a large amount of available jobs because those in charge want to save a few bucks because they are cheap SOB. I mean this is just the economic argument and not the moral argument for owning a person. Technically you could have a perfectly acceptable form of slavery in which an individual enters a contract with the master in exchange for performing listed duties and is protected from abuse by a neutral third party which over sees the process and will award damages to either individual if the contract is breached. They would also have to ensure that the contract is feasible for both parties and make sure that they understood it.
>>30597364
Fuck off and die you fucking fag faggot.
Wars, battles, military history in general is very /k/ related you faggy faggot faggotry fag.
>>30598483
>unless you happened to be a slave
Fully 25% of the slaves starved to death after they were "freed"
There are many records of slaves who thought emancipation was a mistake, who thought they were better off with a master rather than the fucked up sharecropping system.
Slavery in the south was not like you think it was. Slaves were generally treated well and cared for. Not saying that the institution didn't have to go at some point, but answer me this: name one other country that had to have a civil war to free their slaves. Just one country. Everybody else managed to do it gradually and peacefully.
>>30598483
My point was that it was a complex conflict.
Is slavery abhorrent? Yes, I would say so, but it was also a different era and there was so much more to the Civil War than just slavery, the North would not have gone to war with the South or vice versa, on slavery alone.
>>30597344
>american empire built on blood and tears
>ever thinking they'll depict war in any way other than in a way that gets your dick hard
Soldiers are still needed OP. You don't want to scare them off.
>>30598624
Yes. Slavery took jobs away from poor whites.
>>30598769
The war was in 1860. It's 2016.
We can show the correct details.
>>30598744
>Slavery in the south was not like you think it was. Slaves were generally treated well and cared for.
Really, they cared for the property that was responsible for the bulk of their wealth. No shit?
The bulk of all the evil shit that happened to the slaves falls at the feet at the southern states who immediately after emancipation set about legislating their persecution and exploitation.
>>30597344
Presenting the Civil War as the tragedy that it was for both sides doesn't serve the modern Hollywood/Democratic Party objectives.
So the Confederates get to be comic book villains, Lincoln gets to be a peace loving dove and the North gets to fight to end slavery (rather than defending the federal government's authority) so that the black people will feel loyal to the federal government.
>>30597344
*War of Northern Aggression
>>30599109
Both the Union and Confederacy had pro-Southern and pro-Northern elements within their borders.
>>30599109
Even political correctness will demand that Lincoln be portrayed as villainous, either by making him sound like a hypocrite, or make him look like a bully to Indians (Which doesn't have anything to do with the civil war).
I suspect it's because he's white, and the fact Democrats don't like to admit it's the Republicans who have historically been the pro-black party.
>>30597802
I like the fact that it balanced a historian perspective with a Band of Brothers-esque perspective with the individual soldiers. Most civil war movies only do the former.
>>30597802
>"Glory", by contrast, is very much about the plight of the ordinary soldier. It's not perfect, but it's easily the best Civil War film.
Pfffft....
>>30597344
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZxMDZ3TdZM
>>30598097
lolumad
>>30597375
>Clark Gable's part played by Idris Elba.
>>30599190
My nigga
>>30599581
>Vivien Leigh's part played by Neil Patrick Harris.
>>30599433
It also is incredibly memorable. So much images that stick with you.
Poor Charlie Morse's demise is one of them.
What branch would you want to be if you were a Civil War soldier?
Personally, I'd want to be an artilleryman.
>>30600846
If I was in the Civil War, I'd like to be a casualty
>>30597364
