Was The 2014 Film "Fury" Storyline Stolen From Real WWII Vets?
Did Brad Pitt, David Ayer and the Makers of Fury Plagiarize the Real Life Combat Stories of WWII Soldiers, Decorated Army Veterans, and Men Who Were Killed in Action and Cover it All Up?
This photo above and the following photographs are used for demonstrative purposes only and are not approved by Sony, David Ayer or anyone else affiliated with the creation of Fury, including the actors in Fury.
Why does the 2014 film Fury have so many striking similarities to real 3rd Armored veteran stories?
Why was Fury about the "2nd Armored" yet little to nothing in the film reflects the real exploits of the 2nd? Did they use the 2nd's name just to avoid copyright infringement?
Make your own conclusions...
Fury & the True Story of Louch (Loo-ch) & the 3rd Armored
(Note: Louch is the only documented true story of an American Sherman tank surviving from Normandy to Germany with the same crew and tank)
http://www.amazon.com/Louch-Simple-Story-Survival-Legacy/dp/1492115800
Why do these stories have so much in common?
The makers of Fury claim that their movie is a fictional story, but the director has reportedly made alternative claims and outright self-contradictory statements in interviews. Additionally, the writer/director of Fury, David Ayer only purportedly “wrote” one other WWII film (U571) and it was lauded by historians as highly farcical.[1] Other’s criticized Ayer’s earlier WWII movie as a significant manipulation of historical facts.[2] Tony Blair even personally denounced the film before Parliament.
“This 2000 film about a US submarine crew's attempt to steal an Enigma machine from a German U-boat was so inaccurate that it was damned by the UK parliament as an affront to the real sailors. And to make matters worse, it stars Jon Bon Jovi… At the time of its release, Tony Blair condemned U-571 in parliament as an insult to the Royal Navy…The only honest thing about U-571 is its tagline: "Nine men are about to change history." (The Guardian Article, by Alex von Tunzelmann First published on Thu 26 Feb 2009 04.55 EST : Titled, U-571: You Give Historical Films a Bad Name) https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/feb/25/u-571-reel-history
U571 was also reportedly an adaptation of another’s script[3] and an acknowledged adaptation of real history for the purpose of appealing to a US audience. U 571 portrayed Americans capturing an Enigma machine from a German U boat. In reality, the British captured the Enigma machine and cracked the code.[4] Moreover, the majority of the movies that David Ayer has been involved in are of a totally different genre and substance. Ayer has never done an accurate historical movie before and has no known historical research training.[5] Ayer found his first job in Hollywood working as a “script doctor” and the majority of his movies have been adaptations of other people’s scripts or collaborations.[6] U571 was so appalling to the UK that Bill Clinton himself had to apologize and David Ayer later made a public apology to the entire nation as well. https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2000-06-28-0006280024-story.html
In a BBC News Article dated, 18 August 2006, “Screenwriter David Ayer has admitted his 2000 film U-571 distorted history and that he would not do it again. Ayer told BBC Radio 4's The Film Programme that he "did not feel good" about suggesting Americans captured the Enigma code rather than the British. Ayer stated, "It was a distortion... a mercenary decision to create this parallel history in order to drive the movie for an American audience." At the time, Tony Blair publicly stated that the film was an "affront" to British sailors. US screenwriter Ayer also revealed his grandparents were involved in World War Two. "Both my grandparents were officers in World War Two, and I would be personally offended if somebody distorted their achievements," he told presenter Chris Tookey. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5263164.stm
Did Ayer once again play with history and distort the true stories of the “Greatest Generation”? Did he use our veteran’s true stories of combat just to sell movie tickets in another “mercenary decision”?
Does Ayer Really Care About Veterans or remembrance? His actions don’t seem to reflect that…
According to War History Online’s article of Nov 17, 2013 (written by) Mohammad Rafi Saad, Ayer seemed to care so little about history or Veterans that he continued to film Fury even during Remembrance Day or what we call Veteran’s day in the US, despite pleas from locals. “Poppy Day’' or Remembrance Day (Armistice Day) is one of the most revered Memorial days observed in the Commonwealth countries to commemorate the WWI armistice and honor the memory of the soldiers who died for their country. It is observed on 11th November as the hostilities of WWI officially ended at 11:00 am on 11th November 1918. The web edition of Britain’s renowned daily tabloid newspaper, Mirror, reported that Brad Pitt and Fury’s director David Ayer ignored the appeals from local citizens to refrain from filming the movie on Remembrance Sunday. Filming began in the English countryside in September of 2013.
Striking Photo Similarities Between Louch and Fury
All of the following photographs are used for demonstrative purposes only and are not approved by Sony, David Ayer or anyone else affiliated with the creation of Fury, including the actors in Fury.
Louch Photo pg. 33 (Notice that the Fury photo below has an identical angle of shot, gun angle, cable location, and the man who plays the driver is sitting in the exact same location and stance as Louch who was a real Sherman driver)
Louch Pg 72. (In the images below - notice that Pitt is sitting in exactly the same manner and has an identical facial expression and stance Joe Cady (on left of Louch) pictured above who was a Sgt. and tank commander)
Take a Closer Look…
Does it seem strange that Brad Pitt posed for movie posters in the exact same pose as the real 3rd AD tank commander Sgt. Joe Cady? In fact, Cady was the commander of the only documented American Sherman crew who fought from Normandy to Germany in the same Sherman tank. Would Executive Producer Brad Pitt use a real life WWII hero’s story and not even tell the world his name?
If he did, then that would mean that Pitt and “writer” director David Ayer didn’t give a damn about veterans or those killed in action because the real Sgt. Cady died in combat with the SS (just like Pitt’s character). Sgt Joe Cady was awarded the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Croix de Guerre posthumously and for a time he was listed as Missing in Action. Would the beloved Brad Pitt be willing to steal from US tankers like Cady who died for their country or from veterans who’s wartime experiences scarred the survivors for life? Would they be so callous as to use the worst moments of these soldiers lives in their “fictional” tale just to make money and not even have the decency to tell the world where they derived the story from?
Well, perhaps it would interest readers to know that the book Louch was sent in the winter of 2014 to Brad Pitt’s production company many months prior to the release of the film. Despite a variety of letters sent asking why there were so many similarities, no one from Brad Pitt’s company, Sony, or David Ayer has ever said anything about these strange similarities. To this day, no major media outlet will even investigate the matter and despite a year or more of multiple lawyers looking into the issue no case was ever filed.
Ask yourself, is it just pure coincidence that the book Louch and the film Fury have all of the following things in common when you now know that a book was sent to Brad Pitt and that his director was a known “script doctor” with a history of making poorly researched WWII films? Don’t forget “writer” and director David Ayer publicly stated according to the NYT that he wrote Fury in “two weeks.”
1) Both are stories about a Sherman tank crew who survive from the Normandy invasion to the end of the war. Louch’s story was true and extremely rare, as most crews lasted only weeks on average. As reported in Belton Cooper’s Death Traps, Sherman crews in the 3rdAD had a 580 percent loss ratio, and each time a tank was destroyed between 1 and 3 men perished. As such, there are literally no other books that discuss multifaceted first-hand accounts of the war where the same tank crew survives all the battles from Omaha Beach to Germany. http://www.amazon.com/Louch-Simple-Story-Survival-Legacy/dp/1492115800
2) Both Louch and Fury use the terms “staggering losses” when it comes to tanks. Fury states, (at 1:05) “US tank crewmen suffered staggering losses against the superior enemy vehicles” Louch states on pg. 255, “3rd Armored included, had taken staggering losses” and on pg. 108 “Despite the German’s superior equipment.”
3) Fury states, (at 57 seconds in) “In WW2 American tanks were outgunned and outarmored by the more advanced German tanks.” Louch states on pg. 36 “the outgunned and outmatched Sherman”
4) Both tanks have a 76mm cannon on their tank, while most Sherman tanks (especially those that landed in the Normandy invasion) had a short barrel 75mm.
5) Both have a battle scene where a group of tanks are destroyed until only one remains.
a. In the “fictional” story of Fury, 5 tanks are reduced to 1 in a battle in Germany and the surviving characters are the focus of the story-line.
b. In the true story of Louch, 10 Tanks are reduced to 1 in a real battle that took place in Cherain, Belgium in January 1945. The survivors are the focus of the story-line.
6) Both stories mention a Sgt. Humphries during the engagement that results in one tank being left. In Fury his name is stated in the radio chatter at the beginning of the movie when the tank battle is depicted. In Louch, Sgt. Humphries is the real commander of one of the tanks in the attack on Cherain, Belgium.
7) Both have Sgt. tank commanders who are tough, capable leaders that also show little respect for inept officers.
8) Both stories have a green lieutenant who is not respected by his men.
9) Both stories include situations where the Sgt. and the green lieutenant argue over the map.
10) Both allude to a premonition of the main tank commander’s own death (Fury in its script and deleted scenes) https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-script-for-fury-gave-norman-psychic-powers-ea4bfdaccf6c
11) Both have a Captain who was burned. In the movie, Capt. Waggoner has visible burns, while Louch tells the true story of Captain Stallings who was hit with a flamethrower attack in Normandy.
12) Both stories show that the Captain and the Sgt. tank commander both agree on tactics and have a mutual respect for one another.
13) Both Louch and Fury depict the Captain being shot (in Fury’s deleted scenes & script)
14) Both stories have a father / son type relationship in their themes.
15) Both have a tank driver who drinks in combat and stores the liquor specifically near the instrument panel of the tank.
16) Both have a driver who is bilingual and very calm under fire.
17) Both tank crews have a driver from Illinois.
18) Both have a crew member that speaks in a backwoods manner.
19) Both have a tanker who prays often and is extremely religious.
20) Both have dinner scenes where the driver discusses the Battle of Falaise and the death of horses and the carnage strewn about “for miles.” Fury 105:00 (dinner scene) [driver states], “…was dead Krauts and horses, busted up tanks, and cars for miles, miles!” Louch Pg. 111 “The hulls of German tanks, trucks, jeeps and artillery lay strewn about for miles, burning and smoldering.”
21) Both show the driver becoming emotional and discussing the smell of Falaise battle’s aftermath. (note the 2nd Armored was not near the Falaise battle)
22) Both have scenes where a soldier breaks under the pressure of having to go into battle. (in Fury's script and deleted scenes.)
23) Both show tankers looting a town and chasing women in a German city after the city falls with minimal damage or resistance in the spring of 1945.
24) Both depict the tank crew discovering a room filled with Nazi regalia in the spring of 1945.
25) Both discuss the brutality of the SS and discuss the summary execution of SS soldiers captured in battle.
26) Both have a scene where the tank crew passes a bottle around the tank and then engage in prayer, right before they enter combat.
27) Both have a scene where the tank crew is hit and one of the crew members hops out, inspects the tracks and states that they have a damaged bogey wheel.
28) Both tank crews have a tank crew member who has his head blown off.
29) Both tank crews get a replacement who didn’t get tank training and his incompetence angers the crew.
30) Both replacements are tasked with operating a 30 caliber machine gun but don’t know how to do it. In Louch the man’s name is Pitman, in Fury his name is Norman from Pittsburg
31) Both drivers get angry with the new recruit over doing his job properly.
32) Both tell stories about burning up the barrel of a 30 Caliber machine gun (Fury’s deleted scenes & Ayer’s interviews)
33) Both tank crews encounter an ambush in Germany where a 88mm gun (which can easily destroy a Sherman) is involved and the tank commander yells to the driver, “backup, backup, backup” exactly three times during the ambush.
34) In this same ambush in Fury, the “88” is actually a Tiger tank – in Louch it is actually 2 88’s. Pitt states (even though the target is a Tiger tank, Pitt’s character exclaims “it’s a goddamn 88!”) If the Fury commander identified the enemy target a Tiger tank, military training would have required him to call it by its correct name, to enable the crew to properly prepare to fight it correctly. More than likely the crew would have run, as Sherman crews knew (especially late in the war) to avoid direct battles with Tiger tanks. So why did Pitt’s character call it an 88 instead of a tiger? A Tiger tank has an 88mm, but that wouldn’t be what a trained tank commander would yell at his crew as it would have required a whole different method of attack or defense.
35) Both stories have the line “fight it out.”
a. In Louch this directive to “fight it out” was made by an Army Colonel to one of the remaining tank crew members from the sole surviving tank (out of ten) from the battle in Cherain. This Colonel had the gall to chastise the crew for retreating after witnessing nine other Shermans meet their end all around them.
b. In Fury, Pitt states this when his tank crew is lone tank left after a Tiger tank battle, they instead choose to stay and “fight it out.” (Fury deletes part of the battle where Fury destroys a second Tiger tank – that was probably too ridiculous for even David Ayer.)
36) Both have scenes where the tank commander physically attacks a SS trooper in a heated rage and the SS trooper is pulled away from the tank commander and taken captive.
37) Both have scenes where a SS trooper fires a Panzerfaust at a column of tanks in a futile attack.
38) Both have a scene where a civilian cuts the meat off a dead German horse used to pull artillery, which is sitting specifically in the mud and muck of a street filled with the aftermath of a battle.
39) Both depict a late war attack where the outfit’s headquarters is vulnerable.
40) Both have scenes where they are surrounded by SS troopers (Louch, in the Battle of the Bulge, and Fury in late war Germany)
41) Both show still heavy fighting in late war Germany.
42) Both discuss the use of horse drawn artillery and the use of horses in detail.
43) Both discuss the massacre of civilians by the SS.
To watch the award winning documentary Path of the Past based on the TRUE story of Louch go to https://vimeo.com/ondemand/pathofthepast