World War 1 vs World War 2, and the arts

World War 2 has been driven through the ground in popular media. Books, videogames, movies... there's no shortage of classic titles about World War 2. Hollywood and the videogame industry especially have raked in a goldmine from it over the last twenty years.

What about World War 1? What classic titles out there take place in the midst of it? And why does it receive significantly less coverage and attention than World War 2 by magnitudes?

Is it because the major figures involved (Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, FDR, Truman, Hirohito, and that fat greaseball whose name I forgot) were more interesting? Is it because World War 2 affected today's geopolitical landscape more than World War 1 did? But then again, I think Vietnam did more of that than World War 2 did, yet you still see only a small handful of creations considered classic staples of their respective mediums that pertain to Vietnam compared to that of World War 2. So I'm inclined to think it has to do with the fact that all the leaders I just mentioned look like cartoons. Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm also vaguely fascinated by the use of the war technology used in World War 1 and even the American Civil War, particularly early tanks and early submarines which resembled something you'd see in someone's steampunk art more than anything that's actually practical. I wonder if more people died just using these rusty clankety leaky things than they actually did using them in actual battle. They fucking used blimps in World War 1 for example. A child with a slingshot and good aim can destroy a fucking blimp. I'd really like to see a World War 1 movie, or even a Civil War movie, where this old crappy technology is featured extensively, and what life may have been like for a soldier who had to operate these devices.

world war 1 was too long ago, no one gives a fuck. too many people were anti-vietnam. ww2 is all about being american and all that, you know? We're americans, and we're here to save the world, fuck you germany

yeah, it's just too long ago for film, but there was some good literature. I read Robert Grave's "Goodbye to All That" when I was younger and liked it a lot. Some good poetry too; Sigfried Sassoon was a poet friend of Graves. I'm sure all the English people on the board are far better versed in this stuff than I am. Of course "All Quiet on the Western Front" is considered a classic.

But yeah, trench warfare, holy hell.Oh, the movie Gallipoli is set in WWI, haven't seen it in ages but it scarred me in Jr. High.

world war 1 scares the shit out of me. gas, trench warfare, germans on horses in gasmasks. what a weird war. i remember watching the young indiana jones chronicles and learning all about it. there's virtually no films though. some literature.

but I'll just repeat the recommendation of Gallipoli, as I think it is an underappreciated film. Lacks mustard gas, but packs a powerful punch nonetheless.

Johnny Got His Gun

Un long dimanche de fiançailles is a great world-war one movie by Jean-Pierre Jeunet.

p.s.: Audrey Tautou getting naked with each flickering of the light =

Ugh, the idea of Jeunet making a war film makes as much sense as him making an Alien movie.

  Quote

What about World War 1? What classic titles out there take place in the midst of it?

World War 2 has Hitler, the best villain ever.

World War 2 has The Nazis, the best enemy ever.

World War 2 has nukes, the best weapon ever.

And America Wins, so it's the Best Story Ever.

Also, Boomers love ww2 because their parents were in it, and being the television generation, they irreversibly shaped pop culture forever more.

  On 7/10/2009 at 7:19 AM, triachus said:

  Quote

What about World War 1? What classic titles out there take place in the midst of it?

 

exactly.

Well, there are plenty of great works of art about WWI, Paths of Glory, All Quiet on the Western Front, Johnny Got His Gun, and the war was a huge influence on the emergence of German Expressionism. However, a first person shooter set in the trenches would most likely suck balls. Unless it was an arcade game, in which case it would be a brilliant vehicle for quarter theft.

  On 7/10/2009 at 6:37 AM, my usernames always really suck said:

Is it because World War 2 affected today's geopolitical landscape more than World War 1 did? But then again, I think Vietnam did more of that than World War 2 did

sorry, i'm gobsmacked at this conclusion - please expand on why you believe this to be the case?

  On 7/10/2009 at 8:06 AM, ~ism said:

  On 7/10/2009 at 6:37 AM, my usernames always really suck said:

Is it because World War 2 affected today's geopolitical landscape more than World War 1 did? But then again, I think Vietnam did more of that than World War 2 did

 

sorry, i'm gobsmacked at this conclusion - please expand on why you believe this to be the case?

Before Vietnam -- You don't see long haired freaky people very often.

During and after -- Long haired freaky people everywhere.

  On 7/10/2009 at 8:06 AM, ~ism said:

  On 7/10/2009 at 6:37 AM, my usernames always really suck said:

Is it because World War 2 affected today's geopolitical landscape more than World War 1 did? But then again, I think Vietnam did more of that than World War 2 did

 

sorry, i'm gobsmacked at this conclusion - please expand on why you believe this to be the case?

he's american.

what does hippies have to do with geopolitics?!

  On 7/10/2009 at 10:27 AM, azatoth said:

 

what does hippies have to do with geopolitics?!

how does babby formed?

I think the main reason there haven't been a lot of WW1 computer games is that there is limited fun to be had from playing a game where you spend 6 months sitting in a trench getting wet and muddy before finally going 'over the top' and getting torn to pieces by machine gunners in 5 seconds.

well for starters, there WAS tons of art made about WW1, because of the nature of the draft. The WW1 draft at least in england had a higher age cap than any draft in WWII. This caused a great deal of "professionals" or people who had already established their lives and their jobs to be sent to the trenches. This meant that many of them were already writers and poets and painters and sculptors. This caused a great influx of war literature and art. So it exists, but not the kind of blockbusters we see today. (actually the movie of all quiet on the western front was the most expensive movie ever made when it was released, and by a long shot)

Also, for americans, the war story is not nearly as interesting. During WWI Americans were so incredibly anti-involvement it was difficult for the government to rally any support. It didn't help that Wilson was a card-carrying pacifist. Honestly the general attitude towards the war was, "fuck europe they can figure their problems out, we're not helping." This attitude changed a little when Wilson saw Germany and Austria-Hungary was actually winning, (for a little bit) and that their import trade (how america made money) was in serious jeopardy. The scale of troops america sent over PALES in comparison to even D-day. America sent troops in 1917, which played a crucial role and made the difference ultimately, with the armistice treaty signed the next year.

So, a combination of less troops, older history, and much less interesting war story (from america's point of view) complete without D-day or nuclear bombs or an "epic" American victory that sent us into a golden age of political and economical dominance, makes WWI a less interesting subject in today's modern america.

Also the greatest generation, or the progeny of the greatest generation are the people making the war movies (this occurs a lot less now, as the video game makers are becoming the progeny of vietnam vets, but a groundwork was still laid)

but yeah trench warfare FPS style would suck.

ww2 had more action. one of the main killers of ww1 was diarrhea. 1/3 of the casualties in the war were not from combat, this includes technological accidents as well as disease (Spanish flu epidemic killed millions)

i think ww1 is just as interesting as ww2, but it seems more like ww1 = europewar1 (+US later to make sure the good guys won)

All true but one thing that makes the WWI as a story quite interesting is it was the dissolution of numerous empires and set the stage for everything WWII as a result of the enormous shifts in power in the region. WWI most definately changed the geopolitical climate more than WWII, the latter merely solidified the results. WWI Would be a shit game though, the story is all in the rise and fall of numerous empires (Austria-Hungary, Russia pre-USSR, the Ottoman Empire, Kaiser, etc). To have that many empires crumble and be reborn as republics is about as epic as it can get.

As far as games go, WWII warfare was much more mobile. It's more interesting playing a character that's able to move through a level instead of staying in the same trench for months. It would almost be like Oregon Trail: "You've contracted trench foot!"

WWII also has a back story with America. It pulled us out of the Great Depression, we were completely justified in going to war since we were attacked, and the Nazis made a great enemy, since Hitler was so evil. It's all in the makings of a great story.

WWI was, all-around, quite depressing. It also, indirectly, caused WWII by severely punishing Germany, throwing their economy into a depression worse than the United States'.

read BIRDSONG

  On 7/10/2009 at 7:12 AM, lumpenprol said:

but I'll just repeat the recommendation of Gallipoli, as I think it is an underappreciated film. Lacks mustard gas, but packs a powerful punch nonetheless.

it also has a Jean-Michel Jarre soundtrack (wtf...)