Is the traditional war film still...

I'm confused, what life was like or visual cliches?

Wouldn't 3.30am be a good time to read those links on active speakers?

It depends on what media you are personally comfortable with. They also serve two differant purposes aside from the basic work of entertainment. The fims you refer to are laughably un-realistic but at the same time entertaining, remember they are also a form of British propaganda.

I am personnally comfortable with both, on the understanding not to take the involvement with such media without a pinch of salt. I pride myself on understanding the real story behind most of these fims, which in certain cases is gruesome, so it is best that the film media smooth that out. Also to be in mind, the time when these fims were made, the audiences were aware of the horrors, they did not require a visceral reminder, the games fill that experiance gap now for the younger participants.

The film Battle Of Britain didn't do too badly - by the standards of it's time - in portraying...

that hundreds of allied pilots got shot down,

that boys fresh from school had an operational life expectancy of less than an hour and frequently died horribly,

that people got burned and maimed,

that many pilots were NCOs,

that no-one realistically expected victory beforehand and even during the battle,

that civilians died in even greater numbers,

that a crucial contribution (and sacrifice) was made by non-officers/non-British/non-Commonwealth pilots from places like Poland and Czeckoslovakia.

However I still cringe occasionally when watching it

Ultimately it was made to entertain and make money, so portraying 'life as it really was' would be a definite no-no unless you wanted family audiences traumatised and seeking counselling afterwards.

If you do want a realistic portrayal PP then watch Lebanon. 

Given that most of us were born a generation, some two generations after the war, the war film IMO is the only realistic window into that period. Some of the best films were the ones made in the 40s. Yes they are very grainy and cheap, but at least they give a flavour of audience attitudes at the time.

The likes of 'Coastal Command', made in 41 by the Crown film unit, only about 40 minutes long, and all the actors were service personnel; 'That Hamilton Woman' was the story of Nelson and Emma Hamilton (Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh) and if the audience thought it was just about the Napoleonic war, they couldn't be more wrong. The best of the films at the time was 'London Can Take It!' Still recognised as one of the finest films today, but it was wasn't an action film or thriller but a documentary made for American audiences. It still puts goosebumps over me now... http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/focuson/film/film-archive/player.asp?catID=2&subCatID=7&filmID=2

Books are another good way of learning but a film brings the whole thing to life.

Look at the end credits when it shows the nationalalities of the allied pilots and spot the mistake by Guy Hamilton and his crew. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLDZkypBHnw

If audiences need councilling after watching Michael Caine and a load of other big noises from the film world then something is definitely wrong.

My son is 11 and has been playing Call of Duty for a year now. We sat down with freinds and we watched the eldest of our freinds kids playing the game, he was 13 then. We mostly decided that because of the amazingly realistic graphics and game play, he and most of his pals could play. I do not regret that decision because he has become very interested in the actual history of WWII.

When we sat and watched Saving Private Ryan with him for the first time a few months back he was not fazed at all by the contents, especially teh open landings, which when my wife and I first watched in a cinema we were gobbed smacked.

I think that it was a very good decision to allow my son to experience Call of Duty as he at 10 found out as close as is possible to what war is like on a screen then, whereas I waited until I was in my 40s with the sheer realism of Saving Private Ryan.

I agree that the Battle of Britain was the most realistic of the 1960/1970s blockbusters, but in reality most war films are adventure fims with a war background. My favourite being Where Eagles Dare.

So for realism the game has won, but for adventure the war film still has a role.

Given the amount of aid the CIA gives to Hollywood, they are going to keep churning them out.

Saving Private Ryan realistic? To start with, the landings had to use British craft, as the American crafts were useless in choppy waters. Would Hollywood show that? Then the troops turned right for Cherbourg instead of joining Monty, who was left stranded and suffered terrible casualties. The Americans then strolled down the Atlantic coast fighting against, er, no-one. Would Hollywood show that? Noooooooooo.

Meanwhile, Oliver Stone is still trying to make Pinkville. It's the story of one of the biggest war crimes ever committed, 503 Vietnamese murdered. They even pinned a baby to the floor to shoot in the head after missing the baby with the first shot. Having been found guilty of 128 mueders, William Calley Jnr spent 3 days in jail before the President freed him. Will it see the light of day? We shall see.

I was talking about the realism of being there, rather than historical accuracy.

Yes, I know that. What I was refering to was the CIA use Hollywood to re-write history, especially war. Another example is the British general in We Were Soldiers, played by Mel Gibson. Somewhere in the transation Mel becomes a 5 star American general. Too many to list, but you get the idea. 

I understand, idc. When it comes to accuracy that's certainly true of the early to mid 50s films, purely because most were based on war memoirs, but were hammed up for dramatic purposes.

In the late 50s early 60s youngsters, generally, weren't interested in accuracy, they were looking for adventure films. Take 'Guns of Navarone', '633 Squadron', 'The Great Escape' and numerous others - agree with you - they were exciting film pieces. However, I have no issue with at all: It is the the propaganda flicks of the 40s, the officer class-based memoirs of the 50s and the exciting romps portrayed in the films of the 60s - they all give a window into the past IMO.

Heard a lot about 'Call of Duty' and the amazing experience it allows, and fair play to any nipper now who wants to explore that avenue.

My little'un has said: "Dad, why do like these old films?" Then a second later she asks, "Why did the war start?" Or "Why was Germany so nasty?" and stuff like that, and I have to explain, in simple terms, how it all came about.

One of her strongest subjects at school is history and literacy. Chip off the old block, perhaps?

I still watch the History channel, and no I don't like playing games on the playstation.   

I see the furture as being the war film as primarily an adventure film. I think Three Kings was classic example of how further genre bending can be worked into a war based film. The best more traditional war is bad, but the soldiers are heros in recent time IMO is the Russian film 9th Company, about the war in Afghanistan.

Going back to the original subject, regardless of whether it's films or computer games, these will outlast of all of us so that future generations can glimpse into a portal and remember the sacrifices the wartime generation gave, regardless of where you come from.