Brad Pitt Will Tank You Very Much in Fury

Brad Pitt Will Tank You Very Much in Fury

First trailer debuts for David Ayer's macho WWII actioner

Writer/director David Ayer has a reputation as an old-fashioned tough guy who makes old-fashioned guy action/dramas like Dark Blue, Training Day, Harsh Times, Street Kings, End of Watch and Sabotage. Now he's turning his eyes to World War II with the Brad Pitt vehicle Fury, which has debuted its first trailer.

In the film, Pitt commands a motley crew of American soldiers moving a Sherman Tank through the final push into Germany at the tail end of the war; eventually finding themselves outnumbered against a larger than expected enemy force. Despite the setting, it has been stressed that Pitt's character and the tone of the film are entirely different from the actor's last visit to the German Front in Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds.

The film is still in post-production, and is targeting a November release date. It has been speculated as a possible awards-season contender.

Source: Sony Pictures

Permalink

To be honest, Tank Girl did it better.

As a former 19K (M1 Abrams Tank Crewman) in the US Army I approve of this movie wholeheartedly. Always good to see some recognition of tanking crews during war time, we tend to be forgotten since tanking isn't as glamorous to portray as paratroopers or special forces in movies. We spend most of our time in the motor pool fixing the damn tank then operating it but that is just how it goes with military equipment.

In any case, a part of my sighs at the prospects that this'll be another "Let's make another glorify-the-US WW2 movie" and all that military heroism porn. But at the same time; woooo tanks and explosions and action yay!

Coreless:
As a former 19K (M1 Abrams Tank Crewman) in the US Army I approve of this movie wholeheartedly. Always good to see some recognition of tanking crews during war time, we tend to be forgotten since tanking isn't as glamorous to portray as paratroopers or special forces in movies. We spend most of our time in the motor pool fixing the damn tank then operating it but that is just how it goes with military equipment.

Not to mention that the cramped, stinky, noisy and shaky interior of a tank (especially in WW2) isn't exactly the most glamorous place to be compared to, say, the open sky with soaring fighter planes. It does, however, make a perfect breeding ground for human drama. As long as it won't devolve into melodrama.

Reminds me a bit of Band of Brothers and a more serious Kelly's Heroes

I think I shall enjoy this movie

If only the movie makers did not leave the Sherman tank damaged...

Why the hell must the museum now pay for the repairs on the tank and NOT the movie crew that damaged it? Jeez, this is NOT right.

Source:
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/06/21/regarding-the-bovington-packages/

Looks ok except for Shia LaBeouf and the scene at the end where they have their obligatory last ditch heroic "Can't belive we all pulled together and pulled that off" one on one with what appears to be a Tiger I. Sorry, unless that is a Firefly, it has zero chance of happening. Even then, pretty much no chance. The Germans didn't call the Shermans "Tommy Cookers" for nothing.

All the burning bridges that have fallen after me
All the lonely feelings and the burning memories
Everyone I left behind each time I closed the door
Burning bridges lost forevermore...

A Sherman can give you a very nice...edge!

British tank had a better gun than the USA tank for attacking German tanks due to the German tank having greater main gun power and armour protection. Though i would also say its more down to the strategy and tank operators than the actual vehicle. Though not saying this movie wont be great if they play on that fact that they are facing an enemy with far superior vehicles. Lets hope they take into account their were other countries involved instead of the usual lies and rewriting history that USA war movies normally do.

Hoping its realistic in the same vein as Saving Private Ryan. Should be a fun movie.

(Edited so i dont sound like a tank troll. lol)

Frost27:
Looks ok except for Shia LaBeouf and the scene at the end where they have their obligatory last ditch heroic "Can't belive we all pulled together and pulled that off" one on one with what appears to be a Tiger I. Sorry, unless that is a Firefly, it has zero chance of happening. Even then, pretty much no chance. The Germans didn't call the Shermans "Tommy Cookers" for nothing.

Well they are really close, very unusual for a tank battle, so it migth work. It is an M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" if I have got the right one. So more armor and a better gun (not more damage!). Then again the Tiger is in a perfect position at this point (45° degree angle to target) and the 88 hit the tracks so that sherman will not go anywere. Also if it is an E8, than "Furry" never was to africa. Maybe he is not the first of his kind ;).
I`m still excitetd for this movie, it looks good and itīs about a tank(crew). I love these masterpieces of human engineering, though they only have one grim purpose. Hope it will be good!

Does Shia Lebouf take a tank shell to the face? I'd definitely watch it just for that alone. I'm a sucker for movies that tend to focus on one military vehicle. I'm glad this one is a tank as most seem to be submarines.

Brad Pitt in World War 2? Reminds me of Inglorious Basterds. Indeed, the one thing that would have improved that film is the application of tank goodness, and doubtless this film would likewise be improved by adding Christoph Waltz as the bad guy.

SonOfVoorhees:
But the Sherman was inferior to both British and German tanks. Though not

Hoping its realistic in the same vein as Saving Private Ryan. Should be a fun movie.

Depends on what and how you call a tank worse.
The M4 did well. The myth that German tanks were much better... really is getting old :(

Frost27:
Looks ok except for Shia LaBeouf and the scene at the end where they have their obligatory last ditch heroic "Can't belive we all pulled together and pulled that off" one on one with what appears to be a Tiger I. Sorry, unless that is a Firefly, it has zero chance of happening. Even then, pretty much no chance. The Germans didn't call the Shermans "Tommy Cookers" for nothing.

Now if you actually stated facts rather than myths you may have a point. The "Tommy Cookers" only applied to the earliest models and an M4 Sherman with the 76mm and the better 1944 HVAP rounds would have no problems against a Tiger 1 especially against the side (of course the same is true of the Tiger 1), the sloped front of a Panther or a Tiger 2(King Tiger) on the other hand.

SonOfVoorhees:
But the Sherman was inferior to both British and German tanks. Though not saying this movement wont be great if they play on that fact that they are facing an enemy with far superior vehicles. Lets hope they take into account their were other countries involved instead of the usual lies and rewriting history that USA war movies normally do.

Hoping its realistic in the same vein as Saving Private Ryan. Should be a fun movie.

British tanks were crap that's why the we here in the UK were so happy to get M3 Lee's and M4 Sherman's it's the gun's that sucked (at least by 1943) but we had the 17lb'er so no problem there.

Cowabungaa:
In any case, a part of my sighs at the prospects that this'll be another "Let's make another glorify-the-US WW2 movie" and all that military heroism porn. But at the same time; woooo tanks and explosions and action yay!

Even though WW2 was a fight for control of the world, which the Americans primarily won and thus became the most powerful empire in human history, it can be reimagined as a fight against the evil Nazis - just like the war in Iraq, which is primarily about regional domination and control of key resources (especially oil) can be reimagined as a fight against irrational terrorists or for the pseudo-intellectuals a fight against an emergent global caliphate.

Nazis made WW2 colonizable to the fantasies and imaginations of Americans who long to believe themselves noble. This colonizing has been such a success that "evil Hitler" became "evil Saddam Hussein" when Americans needed to feel noble over their actions in Iraq and "evil Osama bin Laden" when Americans needed to feel noble over their actions in Afghanistan.

The successful result of marketing shapes the definition of future marketing. The purpose is to construct a version of history useful to the beneficiaries of war - this version is neither true nor false - truth and lies become judged for how useful they are within the propaganda model and accepted, rejected, or more often twisted, accordingly.

One of the most terrifying aspects of reality to me is that individual Americans do precisely the same thing. They establish a propaganda model *for themselves* and then each piece of reality or fiction that they experience is manipulated to benefit the model, which fuels their sense of well-being. When confronted they explain that there's something called "subjectivity" which accounts for this - it's therefore totally fine. Reality serves US, not the other way around. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply not a "good citizen".

youji itami:

SonOfVoorhees:
But the Sherman was inferior to both British and German tanks. Though not saying this movement wont be great if they play on that fact that they are facing an enemy with far superior vehicles. Lets hope they take into account their were other countries involved instead of the usual lies and rewriting history that USA war movies normally do.

Hoping its realistic in the same vein as Saving Private Ryan. Should be a fun movie.

British tanks were crap that's why the we here in the UK were so happy to get M3 Lee's and M4 Sherman's it's the gun's that sucked (at least by 1943) but we had the 17lb'er so no problem there.

Yeah, should edit my comment a bit to read that the British tank had a better gun for attacking German tanks (USA had smaller rounds). The German tank was better in main gun power and armour protection. But from what i remember wasnt the German tanks overly complicated to make?

Charcharo:

SonOfVoorhees:
But the Sherman was inferior to both British and German tanks. Though not

Hoping its realistic in the same vein as Saving Private Ryan. Should be a fun movie.

Depends on what and how you call a tank worse.
The M4 did well. The myth that German tanks were much better... really is getting old :(

I guess id go for armour and main gun power as you can destroy the enemy and they cant do much to you. But then USA/UK had thinner armour but better maneuverability so I guess you could say they are better as they are harder to hit. But as you said, it does depend on what a person views what makes a better tank. I guess we can both agree it then comes down to strategy and the quality of the tank drivers.

SonOfVoorhees:

Charcharo:

SonOfVoorhees:
But the Sherman was inferior to both British and German tanks. Though not

Hoping its realistic in the same vein as Saving Private Ryan. Should be a fun movie.

Depends on what and how you call a tank worse.
The M4 did well. The myth that German tanks were much better... really is getting old :(

I guess id go for armour and main gun power as you can destroy the enemy and they cant do much to you. But then USA/UK had thinner armour but better maneuverability so I guess you could say they are better as they are harder to hit. But as you said, it does depend on what a person views what makes a better tank. I guess we can both agree it then comes down to strategy and the quality of the tank drivers.

Well, the Shermans were much more modable, much cheaper to maintain and use. Much more reliable against all but the latest models of battle tested German designs.

So, I as a battle commander, would prefer the M4 Sherman to Tigers and Panthers. And Panzer 4s thogh.

briankoontz:

Even though WW2 was a fight for control of the world, which the Americans primarily won and thus became the most powerful empire in human history.

Sorry, not sure if your talking reality or about how the movie world version America sees itself, but America is not and has never had an empire ever. The British still had the biggest empire.

Anyway, if i miss read what you wrote then i apologies (wasnt being an arsehole). Liked the rest of what you wrote though, history is written by the winners after all. For this movie, its not that big a deal if it leaves out other countries because its a bout an American tank crew predominately from what i gather. I do hope they spoke to American tank crew to get as close to the real deal as possible. I guess the only movies that annoy me are movies like U-571 which is sold as based on reality. When the reality is it was a British ship that captured a sub with the Enigma device. I think its just the movies take credit for something that was a historical turning point in WW2 that the British did. Damn Britain needs to fund some war movies instead of pouring cash into romantic comedies and period dramas. lol

I really hope Fury is on the same level as Saving Private Ryan. That movie was just unbelievable in showing what those soldiers had to face during WW2.

briankoontz:

Cowabungaa:
In any case, a part of my sighs at the prospects that this'll be another "Let's make another glorify-the-US WW2 movie" and all that military heroism porn. But at the same time; woooo tanks and explosions and action yay!

Even though WW2 was a fight for control of the world, which the Americans primarily won and thus became the most powerful empire in human history, it can be reimagined as a fight against the evil Nazis - just like the war in Iraq, which is primarily about regional domination and control of key resources (especially oil) can be reimagined as a fight against irrational terrorists or for the pseudo-intellectuals a fight against an emergent global caliphate.

Nazis made WW2 colonizable to the fantasies and imaginations of Americans who long to believe themselves noble. This colonizing has been such a success that "evil Hitler" became "evil Saddam Hussein" when Americans needed to feel noble over their actions in Iraq and "evil Osama bin Laden" when Americans needed to feel noble over their actions in Afghanistan.

The successful result of marketing shapes the definition of future marketing. The purpose is to construct a version of history useful to the beneficiaries of war - this version is neither true nor false - truth and lies become judged for how useful they are within the propaganda model and accepted, rejected, or more often twisted, accordingly.

One of the most terrifying aspects of reality to me is that individual Americans do precisely the same thing. They establish a propaganda model *for themselves* and then each piece of reality or fiction that they experience is manipulated to benefit the model, which fuels their sense of well-being. When confronted they explain that there's something called "subjectivity" which accounts for this - it's therefore totally fine. Reality serves US, not the other way around. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply not a "good citizen".

I'm pretty sure the Russian's would have a thing to say about the idea that the USA primarily won WW2 when it was the Russians who beat the Germans and that the western contribution was helpful but not essiential.

Look up Operation Bagration in the Eastern Front were in between 22 June - 19 August 1944 a less than 2 months long offensive a 1 million strong German army was crushed by the Russian's.

In comparison 1.5 million German soldiers fought the Allies throughout the entire 6th June 1944 - 8th May 1945 period.

SonOfVoorhees:

youji itami:

SonOfVoorhees:
But the Sherman was inferior to both British and German tanks. Though not saying this movement wont be great if they play on that fact that they are facing an enemy with far superior vehicles. Lets hope they take into account their were other countries involved instead of the usual lies and rewriting history that USA war movies normally do.

Hoping its realistic in the same vein as Saving Private Ryan. Should be a fun movie.

British tanks were crap that's why the we here in the UK were so happy to get M3 Lee's and M4 Sherman's it's the gun's that sucked (at least by 1943) but we had the 17lb'er so no problem there.

Yeah, should edit my comment a bit to read that the British tank had a better gun for attacking German tanks (USA had smaller rounds). The German tank was better in main gun power and armour protection. But from what i remember wasnt the German tanks overly complicated to make?

Well the Tiger 2 and Panther were overcomplicated and they are very famous but the Panzer 4, Tiger 1 and the multiple tank destroyers Germany fielded were no worse in reliability than what the US and UK used.

The problem was where the repair station's were kept. The German's kept there repair units in Germany with the idea being the damaged tanks would be sent back to be repaired and while that was fine over a short distance campaign like Poland or France once they invaded Russia and North Africa it didn't work so well while the Russians and Allies kept there repair units closer to the front.

Charcharo:

SonOfVoorhees:

Charcharo:

Depends on what and how you call a tank worse.
The M4 did well. The myth that German tanks were much better... really is getting old :(

I guess id go for armour and main gun power as you can destroy the enemy and they cant do much to you. But then USA/UK had thinner armour but better maneuverability so I guess you could say they are better as they are harder to hit. But as you said, it does depend on what a person views what makes a better tank. I guess we can both agree it then comes down to strategy and the quality of the tank drivers.

Well, the Shermans were much more modable, much cheaper to maintain and use. Much more reliable against all but the latest models of battle tested German designs.

So, I as a battle commander, would prefer the M4 Sherman to Tigers and Panthers. And Panzer 4s thogh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrlmaRvzsvw

This documentary makes me strongly disagree with you. In the trailer the Sherman and Tiger were just trading blows at point blank and the Sherman just took it. That came off as sketchy history unless they were deflecting the shots which it didn't look like they were.

Scorpid:

Charcharo:

SonOfVoorhees:

I guess id go for armour and main gun power as you can destroy the enemy and they cant do much to you. But then USA/UK had thinner armour but better maneuverability so I guess you could say they are better as they are harder to hit. But as you said, it does depend on what a person views what makes a better tank. I guess we can both agree it then comes down to strategy and the quality of the tank drivers.

Well, the Shermans were much more modable, much cheaper to maintain and use. Much more reliable against all but the latest models of battle tested German designs.

So, I as a battle commander, would prefer the M4 Sherman to Tigers and Panthers. And Panzer 4s thogh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrlmaRvzsvw

This documentary makes me strongly disagree with you. In the trailer the Sherman and Tiger were just trading blows at point blank and the Sherman just took it. That came off as sketchy history unless they were deflecting the shots which it didn't look like they were.

Uhmmmm where did I talk about the trailer and the M4 deflecting a shot :P ? Its possible, of coarse, if the Tiger fired a VERY poor quality round and it hit at an angle. Though tanks fighting at this range :P ...

That documentray is fine. I have watched it before. Disagree with sone conclusions. The actual video is VERY good though.

Its hard to know who to trust though. I trust current day historians like Yuri Pasholock (example) and others on these matters.
The Ronson thing is mostly a myth though, atleast for all med and end war vehicles.
For an example, most people with at least some interest in tank warfare believe the myth that Germans achieved a 5:1 K/D ratio against Soviets...
Yet the two warring states calculated a loss differently from one another. Same with penetration of guns. Same with air superiority and how many armored tanks it managed to kill (very few, only made em panick and destroyed the MORE IMPORTANT THEN TANKS: APCs, back up and support machines)

youji itami:

briankoontz:

Cowabungaa:
In any case, a part of my sighs at the prospects that this'll be another "Let's make another glorify-the-US WW2 movie" and all that military heroism porn. But at the same time; woooo tanks and explosions and action yay!

Even though WW2 was a fight for control of the world, which the Americans primarily won and thus became the most powerful empire in human history, it can be reimagined as a fight against the evil Nazis - just like the war in Iraq, which is primarily about regional domination and control of key resources (especially oil) can be reimagined as a fight against irrational terrorists or for the pseudo-intellectuals a fight against an emergent global caliphate.

Nazis made WW2 colonizable to the fantasies and imaginations of Americans who long to believe themselves noble. This colonizing has been such a success that "evil Hitler" became "evil Saddam Hussein" when Americans needed to feel noble over their actions in Iraq and "evil Osama bin Laden" when Americans needed to feel noble over their actions in Afghanistan.

The successful result of marketing shapes the definition of future marketing. The purpose is to construct a version of history useful to the beneficiaries of war - this version is neither true nor false - truth and lies become judged for how useful they are within the propaganda model and accepted, rejected, or more often twisted, accordingly.

One of the most terrifying aspects of reality to me is that individual Americans do precisely the same thing. They establish a propaganda model *for themselves* and then each piece of reality or fiction that they experience is manipulated to benefit the model, which fuels their sense of well-being. When confronted they explain that there's something called "subjectivity" which accounts for this - it's therefore totally fine. Reality serves US, not the other way around. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply not a "good citizen".

I'm pretty sure the Russian's would have a thing to say about the idea that the USA primarily won WW2 when it was the Russians who beat the Germans and that the western contribution was helpful but not essiential.

Look up Operation Bagration in the Eastern Front were in between 22 June - 19 August 1944 a less than 2 months long offensive a 1 million strong German army was crushed by the Russian's.

In comparison 1.5 million German soldiers fought the Allies throughout the entire 6th June 1944 - 8th May 1945 period.

We didn't so much "Win and become the most powerful empire..." As we bounced back and experienced the greatest post war cultural boom out of everyone on earth because out of everyone that fought the war, we were the only ones that didn't get our infrastructure crippled and cities wiped out by it. The U.S. had nowhere to go but up. So while we were experiencing the "Baby Boom" and a post war cultural explosion, our allies like Great Britain still had rationing in effect on some resources until the 70's and 80's.

Essentially, the U.S. got lucky because the war was fought there, not here, and left us with no rebuilding.

Ok, everyone trolling here from the WOT forums, this is about a movie, not a historical debate, get out of the pool and go home... Now.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here