Eight-hundred quintillion WWII movies

>Eight-hundred quintillion WWII movies
>Like twelve WWI movies
Why? I understand WWII being more popular, but WWI was almost as grand in scale and also has neat shit to make movies out of.

too morally ambiguous for the average viewer

There was no Holocaust in ww1 so there is no reason to make films about ww1.

There are lots of WW1 movies you're just too stupid to know that.

didn't half of them die due to harsh conditions/disease?

Because the history of World War I goes way back into the mid 1800s and requires a fair amount of research to fully understand. World War II is easily exploitable because you have a clear enemy who are seen as inherently evil whether it be the Japs and the Krauts. Also this

Actual answer:

1.) The high-budget film industry, both historically and today, is based essentially entirely in the US. The US arrived late in WW1 and didn't do all that much and it doesn't have much influence on the American consciousness

2.) WW1 was a dreary non-romantic war. No glorious stormings of the beaches, no big decisive battles, etc.. The actual battles themselves were repetitive, anti-climatic and visually horrifying. The only romantic aspect is the air war, of which a number of films have been made (more than any other theatre)

3.) The war is more morally grey and has ambiguous roots.

4.) It's a bizarre war for today's audiences, between european absolute monarchies, empires, and nations which no longer exist.

5.) No living veterans

6.) War movies in general have died out as a genre after a brief reassurance after 9/11. Audiences won't see them anymore.

Or, if you have a double-digit IQ, we can say "the jews did it".

the jews did it

the jews did it

the jews did it

the turks did it

>no big decisive battles
Actually WWI had some absolutely enormous battles in which as much as 750,000 people died in those individual battles (Verdun for example). They weren't decisive though and they lasted for months.

Trench combat is boring. Hunker down. Hunker, hunker, jump up and get gunned down by the thousands.
Hunker....

>There were no big decisive battles
>Actually you're wrong, there was this big battle but it wasn't decisive

Do you even know how a logical conjunction works

>750,000 dying just in a single battle
thats fucking insane, why did they just throw away bodies like confetti back then?

Can't be used to spread propaganda

It's called "honour". You might want to look it up sometime.

>essentially entirely
Well that's wrong. England is huge in the industry as well

Why do americans make war movies only about themselves? Sure, they had large roles to play in them but other countries have their own epic tales that should be given the hollywood red carpet treatment. Battle of Vinny Ridge anyone?

you mean that in the era of WWI the media technology wasn't sufficient enough to make the losers look cartoonishly evil after the fact

"big" was referring to the scale of how decisive it was.

The only decisive battles of WW1 in Western Europe was Marne which just set up the stagnation and Amiens by which point Germany had lost the war anyway

dunkirk just came out dummy

I've never seen an English war movie not about the English, a Russian war movie not about the Russians, and a French war movie not about the French.

US does the same thing as everyone else

Maybe that could be a selling point for a movie about WW1. The world accidentally sliding into the apocalypse. WW1 is also interesting because it marks the overturning of various older war traditions, such as the use of horses, and the beginning of trench warfare. So a WW1 movie could show the shifting in the order of the world from pre-modern to modern.

>It's a bizarre war for today's audiences, between european absolute monarchies, empires, and nations which no longer exist.

That makes it exotic.

It's called the leadership (fat detached bastards like Churchill) being so far removed they see war as a game.

Nolan is english

Churchill was misled by his admirals about the prospects at the Dardanelles, and the attack could have worked if the army commanders at the landing site had taken more decisive action. There were huge mistakes in leadership but try looking a little deeper than just the typical Sup Forums meme of churchill = fat cigar-chomping jew

because no >MUH 5.9 BAJIILLION

the jews did it

Read how many Russian movies are there about the US on the Pacific front of WWII? Yet Americans made Enemy at the Gates.

Except that's sidestepped by an American presence within the Russian front helping them downplaying the Russian struggle against the Nazis.

No they did try with the "Corpse Factory" bit. Similar to what came later, but that's probably just a coincidence.

hate this wave of 'i listened to a dan carlin podcast and now im a ww1 enthusiast' teencrowd

State propaganda and revisionism were the order of the day for pretty much all of human history, and radio and newspapers broke new ground in how shamelessly the state can lie to its people; during WW1 the propaganda machine on both sides went into such overdrive that the soldiers on the ground invented new jargons so they could curse it, their superiors and the civilians back home without getting caught.

So no, making the other side look cartoonishly evil is as old as clay.

> Except that's sidestepped by an American presence within the Russian front

Who

It was over several months, each big "battle" (like the Somme) made up of many smaller, "regular" battles.

>i hate kids for trying to learn history
Fuck outta here, homo.

I wish there was a movie about the German spy network during World War 1. From what I read they were almost everywhere.

if they want diversity, Korean War is a grate subject

nah die teennorm

they've been around on Sup Forums forever. I've always wondered why theres so many history buffs on Sup Forums and I found out because its one of the easiest subjects to learn.