random item

Troperville

Tools

Find recent edits by troper:

back to: Main / TanksButNoTanks

edit article | go to discussion page

19th May '13 10:01:57 AM Jake

Send Jake a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 96 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 130 (click to see context) from:

to:

17th May '13 3:34:42 PM TomWalpertac2

Send TomWalpertac2 a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 60 (click to see context) from:

to:

13th May '13 2:55:14 PM LTR

Send LTR a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 18,19 (click to see context) from:

Finally, most armored fighting vehicles that don't meet their end on the battlefield will probably be scrapped before anyone else can get their hands on them. Tanks have never been particularly attractive on the surplus market since they are huge, heavy, fuel-guzzling lumps of steel that can easily cost more to restore and preserve than recycle. Contemporary vehicles in operating condition can be hard to find and incredibly expensive to hire, transport and maintain for filming, in part because tanks tend to be just so flipping ''big'' and in part because military vehicle collectors are often understandably leery of renting their rare and often irreplaceable treasures to people who are just itching to [[StuffBlowingUp crash them, burn them, blow them up or drive them off cliffs.]] To make it even harder, some of these vehicles are now historical artifacts belonging to museums and obviously cannot be used recklessly or destroyed. Then there's the matter of RealLife politics,where vehicles you'd ideally want for realism simply can't be obtained at all since they're currently being used or held by an unfriendly power.

to:

Finally, most armored fighting vehicles that don't meet their end on the battlefield will probably be scrapped before anyone else can get their hands on them. Tanks have never been particularly attractive on the surplus market since they are huge, heavy, fuel-guzzling lumps of steel that can easily cost more to restore and preserve than recycle. Contemporary vehicles in operating condition can be hard to find and incredibly expensive to hire, transport and maintain for filming, in part because tanks tend to be just so flipping ''big'' and in part because military vehicle collectors are often understandably leery of renting their rare and often irreplaceable treasures to people who are just itching to [[StuffBlowingUp crash them, burn them, blow them up or drive them off cliffs.]] To make it even harder, some of these vehicles are now historical artifacts belonging to museums and obviously cannot be used recklessly or destroyed. Then there's the matter of RealLife politics, where vehicles you'd ideally want for realism simply can't be obtained at all since they're currently being used or held by an unfriendly power.

13th May '13 2:53:53 PM LTR

Send LTR a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 14,19 (click to see context) from:

There are many very good reasons for this. Antique armored vehicles are actually quite scarce. Many vehicles -- particularly those from the defeated Axis nations -- were never exactly common in the first place. Fewer than 500 King Tiger tanks were produced (as opposed to 47,000 M4 Shermans) and many contemporary Italian or Japanese vehicles were produced in even smaller numbers, surviving examples simply may not even exist (Unless being scattered in small pieces across remote Pacific islands or buried in the Russian steppe counts as "surviving"). Next, as the Sherman production numbers above suggest, filmmakers naturally took advantage of the huge glut of cheap surplus U.S. Army equipment in the immediate postwar period. Simple convenience plays a part if a studio actually has dedicated film vehicles in their prop inventory they ''want'' to loan out, accurate or not. Finally, most armoured fighting vehicles that haven't met their end on the battlefield will probably be scrapped. Tanks have never been particularly attractive on the surplus market since they are huge, heavy, fuel-guzzling lumps of steel that can easily cost more to restore and preserve than recycle. Accordingly, surviving contemporary vehicles in operating condition can be hard to find and incredibly expensive to hire, transport and maintain for filming, in part because tanks tend to be just so flipping ''big'' and in part because military vehicle collectors are often understandably leery of renting their rare and often irreplaceable treasures to people who are just itching to [[StuffBlowingUp crash them, burn them, blow them up or drive them off cliffs.]] Many surplus vehicles are historical artifacts belonging to museums and likewise cannot be used recklessly or destroyed. Then there's the matter of RealLife politics, some of the vehicles you'd ideally want for realism simply can't be obtained at all since they're currently being used or held by an unfriendly power.

Similarly to its sister tropes this is often out of practicality more than anything else, especially if you're not BackedByThePentagon and just don't want reality to get in the way of TankGoodness. Just find something vaguely tank-like, add a coat of stereotypical (but historically inaccurate) panzer gray paint and a few crosses and ''voila''! instant Tiger. And--let's be honest here--aside from a few vehicle enthusiasts and history buffs, most viewers [[ViewersAreMorons wouldn't even notice (or care), anyway]]. If it has tracks and a gun, it's a tank as far as they are concerned and it doesn't violate their WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief. To those who know what to look for, however, it can quite jarringly break it.

There are several ways to get around this trope. One is to use surplus or 'backup tanks' from modern armies such as Russia or Spain: Most T-34 and Sherman tanks used in WWII films were not actually from the war but modernized vehicles from the immediate postwar period. Another is to take a more common modern or contemporary vehicle and give it a cosmetic makeover to give it the appearance of the correct historic vehicle; sometimes these conversions can be quite sophisticated with only a few detail differences such as turret location and suspension design that only dedicated military vehicle enthusiasts would likely notice (these folk are often called "rivet counters" in the trade and are usually considered to be very annoying people). Finally, there are always models of both the real and the Computer Generated variety, which naturally come with [[SpecialEffectsFailure their]] [[ConspicuousCG own]] sorts of problems.

to:

There are many very good reasons for this. Firstly, antique armored vehicles are actually quite scarce. Some vehicles -- particularly those from the defeated Axis nations -- were never exactly common in the first place. Fewer than 500 King Tiger tanks were produced as opposed to 47,000 M4 Shermans, and many contemporary Italian or Japanese vehicles were produced in even smaller numbers, surviving examples simply may not even exist (Unless being scattered in small pieces across remote Pacific islands or buried in the Russian steppe counts as "surviving").

Next, as the Sherman production numbers above suggest, filmmakers naturally took advantage of the huge glut of cheap surplus U.S. Army equipment in the immediate postwar period. If a studio has running vehicles in their prop inventory that are available for filming without much hassle, then simple convenience means they'll get used, accurate or not.

Finally, most armored fighting vehicles that don't meet their end on the battlefield will probably be scrapped before anyone else can get their hands on them. Tanks have never been particularly attractive on the surplus market since they are huge, heavy, fuel-guzzling lumps of steel that can easily cost more to restore and preserve than recycle. Contemporary vehicles in operating condition can be hard to find and incredibly expensive to hire, transport and maintain for filming, in part because tanks tend to be just so flipping ''big'' and in part because military vehicle collectors are often understandably leery of renting their rare and often irreplaceable treasures to people who are just itching to [[StuffBlowingUp crash them, burn them, blow them up or drive them off cliffs.]]  To make it even harder, some of these vehicles are now historical artifacts belonging to museums and obviously cannot be used recklessly or destroyed.  Then there's the matter of RealLife politics,where vehicles you'd ideally want for realism simply can't be obtained at all since they're currently being used or held by an unfriendly power.

Similar to its sister tropes, this one happens out of practicality more than anything else, especially if you're not BackedByThePentagon and just don't want reality to get in the way of TankGoodness. Just find something vaguely tank-like, add a coat of stereotypical (but historically inaccurate) panzer gray paint and a few crosses and ''voila''! instant Tiger. And--let's be honest here--aside from a few vehicle enthusiasts and history buffs, most viewers [[ViewersAreMorons wouldn't even notice (or care), anyway]]. If it has tracks and a gun, it's a tank as far as they are concerned and it doesn't violate their WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief. To those who know what to look for, however, it can quite jarringly break it.

For producers who care, there are a number of ways around it. One is to use surplus or 'backup tanks' from modern armies such as Russia or Spain: Most T-34 and Sherman tanks used in WWII films were not actually from the war but modernized vehicles from the immediate postwar period. Another is to take a more common modern or contemporary vehicle and give it a cosmetic makeover to give it the appearance of the correct historic vehicle; sometimes these conversions can be quite sophisticated with only a few detail differences such as turret location and suspension design that only dedicated military vehicle enthusiasts would likely notice (these folk are often called "rivet counters" in the trade and are usually considered to be very annoying and hard-to-please people). Finally, there are always models of both the real and the Computer Generated variety, which naturally come with [[SpecialEffectsFailure their]] [[ConspicuousCG own]] sorts of problems.

22nd Apr '13 5:14:03 PM TargetOnMyBack

Send TargetOnMyBack a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 116 (click to see context) from:

to:

21st Apr '13 10:02:46 AM EarlOfSandvich

Send EarlOfSandvich a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Already here

Changed line(s) 27,28 (click to see context) from:

to:

Deleted line(s) 33 (click to see context) :

Changed line(s) 36,37 (click to see context) from:

to:

Deleted line(s) 58 (click to see context) :

Deleted line(s) 64 (click to see context) :

Changed line(s) 67,68 (click to see context) from:

to:

Deleted line(s) 71 (click to see context) :

Changed line(s) 74,75 (click to see context) from:

to:

Deleted line(s) 87 (click to see context) :

Changed line(s) 90,91 (click to see context) from:

to:

Deleted line(s) 93 (click to see context) :

Changed line(s) 96,98 (click to see context) from:

to:

Deleted line(s) 107 (click to see context) :

Changed line(s) 110,111 (click to see context) from:

to:

Deleted line(s) 132 (click to see context) :

Changed line(s) 135,136 (click to see context) from:

to:

Deleted line(s) 144 (click to see context) :

10th Apr '13 7:19:15 PM LTR

Send LTR a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 14,19 (click to see context) from:

There are many very good reasons for this. Antique armored vehicles are actually quite scarce. Tanks have never been particularly attractive on the surplus market since they are huge, heavy, fuel-guzzling lumps of steel (and therefore can be sold for scrap), useful for little else beyond waging war or making war movies. Surviving contemporary vehicles in operating condition can be hard to find and incredibly expensive to hire, transport and maintain for filming, in part because tanks tend to be just so flipping ''big'' and in part because military vehicle collectors are often understandably leery of renting their rare and often irreplaceable treasures to people who are just itching to [[StuffBlowingUp crash them, burn them, blow them up or drive them off cliffs.]] Many surplus vehicles are historical artifacts belonging to museums and likewise cannot be used recklessly or destroyed. Some of these vehicles may belong to countries you are technically at war with. And if you're filming a wartime propaganda movie at least half of these vehicles are going to belong to the enemy.

And many of these vehicles -- particularly those from the defeated Axis nations -- were never exactly common in the first place and survivors may not even exist: fewer than 500 King Tiger tanks were produced (as opposed to 47,000 M4 Shermans) and many contemporary Italian or Japanese vehicles were produced in even smaller numbers. (Even being BackedByThePentagon won't help if all of the vehicles you need are scattered in small pieces across remote Pacific islands or buried in the Russian steppe.) Next, as the Sherman production numbers above suggest, filmmakers naturally took advantage of the huge glut of cheap surplus U.S. Army equipment in the immediate postwar period. Finally most contemporary armoured fighting vehicles have either been scrapped or met their end on the battlefield. Even Hollywood cannot destroy a tank twice.

to:

There are many very good reasons for this. Antique armored vehicles are actually quite scarce. Many vehicles -- particularly those from the defeated Axis nations -- were never exactly common in the first place.  Fewer than 500 King Tiger tanks were produced (as opposed to 47,000 M4 Shermans) and many contemporary Italian or Japanese vehicles were produced in even smaller numbers, surviving examples simply may not even exist (Unless being scattered in small pieces across remote Pacific islands or buried in the Russian steppe counts as "surviving").  Next, as the Sherman production numbers above suggest, filmmakers naturally took advantage of the huge glut of cheap surplus U.S. Army equipment in the immediate postwar period.  Simple convenience plays a part if a studio actually has dedicated film vehicles in their prop inventory they ''want'' to loan out, accurate or not.  Finally, most armoured fighting vehicles that haven't met their end on the battlefield will probably be scrapped.  Tanks have never been particularly attractive on the surplus market since they are huge, heavy, fuel-guzzling lumps of steel that can easily cost more to restore and preserve than recycle.  Accordingly, surviving contemporary vehicles in operating condition can be hard to find and incredibly expensive to hire, transport and maintain for filming, in part because tanks tend to be just so flipping ''big'' and in part because military vehicle collectors are often understandably leery of renting their rare and often irreplaceable treasures to people who are just itching to [[StuffBlowingUp crash them, burn them, blow them up or drive them off cliffs.]] Many surplus vehicles are historical artifacts belonging to museums and likewise cannot be used recklessly or destroyed. Then there's the matter of RealLife politics, some of the vehicles you'd ideally want for realism simply can't be obtained at all since they're currently being used or held by an unfriendly power.

5th Apr '13 2:42:01 PM AgProv

Send AgProv a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Added line(s) 123 (click to see context) :

5th Apr '13 2:32:58 PM AgProv

Send AgProv a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

corrections

5th Apr '13 2:32:56 PM AgProv

Send AgProv a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

corrections

Changed line(s) 59 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 63 (click to see context) from: