OT - Über's Open Debate Thread

One or two have said 'how did I miss this?' so maybe just a change of title.

 

I've not watched it for a while. You have to say the SFX (if one could flatter them with such a term) haven't stood the test of time.

Also, I can't help thinking that if events really went as depicted in the fillum, the fate of the small company of soldiers probably had as much to do with the incompetence of the Zulu commanders as the bravery of the British. On film, you can't help but wonder why the British were not fully encircled early on, as what is shown here is an insufficient number of men able to fight superior numbers from all sides. Perhaps that's the point, though, eh?

 

I watched about 10 minutes of it, then had to get back to work. Loved the unintended slow motion almost blood free bayonetting though. Have to imagine that the Zulu's hearts weren't really in it, or it didn't happen as depicted in the fillum.

 

Yes, there was scene where a Zulu was bayonetted, fell to earth clutching his abdomen, but when his hand fell away as he died on the ground there wasn't a mark on him. In another scene, some plucky Brits were fighting back Zulus from atop an upended cart. Having tapped a few prodding spears with their rifles, apparently with such force to impel the Zulus to cower down, there was a call to retreat, but they remained crouched down behind the carts. Presumably death by spear-tapping.

Hilarious! (Sorry, Col)

I would love to see a modern remake, blood guts and all... but also a more truthful account... although Travis may then be deterred from watching.

 

I see your beloved France is 4 places below the UK in the latest list of places people are happiest to live. UK is 16th, France is 20th.

 

Bugger!! What channel was it on?

 

As others have alluded to, time constraints have forced people to contribute less on this Board.

But its good to hear Imaz has turned over a new leaf!

 

No need to apologies Ubes.

I have never argued that the film is a brilliantly realistic masterpiece. I just like it, that's all. It's also pretty old, so I'm not sure one can really expect much more from the special effects.
As for why didn't the Zulus win, I'm not sure. But it is undeniably true that around 150 British (mostly Welsh) soldiers held off around 4000 Zulus. I would imagine that if it was as simple as just surrounding the Brits, surely the Zulus would have done it?

 

Think it was Film 4 Col...sadly one that doesn't have a 'view again' website.

 

Oh well.....it'll be on at Xmas.

 

Now Imaz I do miss. He could be a completely bloody minded pain in the arse when the mood took him, particularly with you Travis, but also knowledgeable on some interesting stuff and has definitely lived a varied life. Last I heard he was moving house and wasn't sure about internet connection for a bit. But that was months ago. if you are looking in mate, hope everything is fine.

 

Just using your name in vain, Col.

I do find myself wondering why 4,000 warrior Zulus couldn't get the better of around 150 soldiers. Undoubtedly British training and firepower must have been a major factor, but maybe the Zulus were the fearless 'kamikaze' fighters I'd imagined in my childhood. Perhaps they really were just as scared as the soldiers?

There's an early scene where a line of Zulus stand in front of British lines, banging their shields and spears and making a lot of noise, whilst they're picked off by the rifles. Witt points out that the old man on the hill is using them to count the number of British rifles. I don't know whether this really happened, but if it did then the Zulu didn't fear death and followed orders without question or risk to their own safety, willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good, i.e. Zulu victory.

So, if this was the case, I wonder why their leaders didn't simply tell them to swamp the British? British firepower must have been decidedly more spectacular and effective than depicted in the movie.

They apparently lost at least 350 warriors in the battle, to British losses of only 16. Quite incredible.

 

I can't remember the last time I sat down and fell asleep in front of a film on Christmas Day. Do they do the big classic film any more? Our Christmas lunch has extended to an epic length nowadays by the time the cheese and port has been dealt with, and by the time I drag myself from the table various women are debating what crap to watch, Downton etc etc. I'll be taking the dog for a walk this year. Searching for an open pub.

 

Swansea, wasn't it?

 

Yes please Nines, to "Stan's talking, listen up, you might learn something' please.

 

I'm happy with Congleton's suggestion.

Afterthought: I have no problem with anybody coming in to join the debate(s) if they abide by the standards already set by the current participants. I rather like, however, the 'under the radar' way in which this thread has evolved and I wonder if by raising its profile it will attract the trolls.

 

I believe the sacrificing of warriors in order to count the British fire power is true.

The British did have the latest rifles and were very well trained. I think the Zulus tried to swamp the British, but found it very difficult to get over the barricades and their spears were too short to reach the British, who could reach the Zulus with their bayonets. The British also had their firing methods, where they formed three ranks. The front rank fired and then rearmed, followed in turn by the middle rank and then the third rank. This resulted in a continuous volley of quite awesome fire power.

I think it was called "volley fire".

 

Union Jack boxers and a Santa hat ?

 

Cheers Col. But its the three-rank firepower that baffles me when thinking about Zulu encirclement, i.e. its only probably effective if the enemy is only in front of you (using clock parlance: between say 'ten to' and 'ten past'). The way the film depicts it, its a relatively small set of troops lined up in the three ranks... and there's supposed to be 4,000 Zulus.

Probably just a shortcoming of the movie, I guess.