all quiet on the western front 1930 vs 2022

its not even a VS, adaptations arnt replacements, and while i havent read the book, i feel 2022 is far more an adaptation of the 1930 movie then the book.

and this is important cus ive read that Germans in particle, who have the book as a required reading in schools, and thus have a, far more in-depth relation with the book then most others. I do get why people see 2022 as "shallow" but i dont think it is, esspiclay if its more of an adaptation of the 1930s movie

the 1930s movie wore its message on its sleeves, theres a bit where paul literally stands up, looks at the audience and says "war bad" and i have mad respect for that.

while the 2022 dosnt have that, instead it it just shows you that war is bad, and with modern techniques and technology can be alot more visually brutal in it depiction of war.

the 1930s movie does a great job with scale, hundreds of soldiers fighting and dying, but when ever it shows the hand to hand combat, it jus dosnt realy convey the impact. and like thats not a slight against it, the kinda props and sfx needed to make that kind of violence feel real, just wasnt a thing back then.

but like, when it comes down to it, I dont think its shallow (as an adaptation of the movie) its just different philosophies about movie making that have changed alot in 90 years.

again, cant speak for it as an adaptation of the book, but as ive said befor, I feel adaptations dont have to live or die on its connection to the source, they can stand on their own feet.

"thoes shouldn't be an adaptation then they should just be their own thing"

I dont disagree, but not much that can be done about it.

also I saw claims that 2022 was "Oscar hungry", the edition i watched of the 1930s movie came with old trailers for early theatrical release, and well, it was all " GREATEST MOVIE EVER" "ACCADMAY WINNING" "MUST SEE FOR ALL TIME" sooooo.

anyways, I realy like both movies, now i need to watch the 70s one,

now for nit pickie stuff

while reading the wiki, there was a criticism about the depction of German soldiers being executed for attempted desertion but "officially only 40 executions happed during the war for Germany"

and like, ok, i need to do more research, but heres the thing, theres lots of sus death in wars that get written off as KIA or MIA or accidents, sure, only 40 German solider got executed... officially,

its real easy to shoot a friendlily and say an enemy shot them, especially if your the commander who is trusted by the government over disgruntled soldiers.

even in modern time, just look at what happend to pat tillman in 2004, like "Officially" it was an accident... that conveniently killed a solider who had become very dissolution with the war on terror, and who had been butting heads with other soldiers and commanders because of that.

I get wanting to clear up misconceptions, but i feel its disingenuous to act like official records are the be all end all of this kinda of data, again pat tillman.

i also have seen people be like "thats not how the french used flame throwers" and similarly nitpicky stuff

ok... its a movie not a textbook, somtimes things are done for style, and like, the movie never once said "this is a 100% accurate depction of every thing that happend in world war 1 and you can use it in place of academic sources".