...........but here goes anyway......satan is the prince of the power of the air. The ether is under his power at the moment, and he thrives on lies and twisted information. satan attacks us on 4 fronts, and the media is one of those four.
In the great book of Zechariah we find that in the last days, satan performs the majority of his work through four hidden dynasties. They are: the world monetary or banking system, the educational system, the information, or media system and of course the organized church systems.
I don't consider, I teach what God wrote to us in His letter, and have dedicated my life to snuff out Biblical illiteracy....just sayin' is all.........
I've found that whenever someone tries to question the monetary/banking systems, he gets called a lot of names, like "conspiracy nut," or "goldbug." The name callers seem to think truly wise men would have given baby Jesus pretty green pieces of paper instead of that nasty old "barbarous relic," gold. I find it "I told you so" fascinating that various members of the CFR have belatedly discovered gold might actually be good stuff.
JMR
The tax & spend drugwar looks racist in the real world.
Hollywood is a long way from NY, PA, ad DC. They treated it as a sad event for about a month and then forgot about it. When it was cool to be patriotic they supported the war effort in Afghamistan.
But when it was no longer chic to be associated with it they turned their backs on the effort and the soldiers. Since then they have used it as a political punchline to bash Bush.
Well Gat, they are the ones who decided that it was no longer chic to be associated with it.
I always say they only care about our soldiers when they are dead or captured. When they are kicking butt, Hollywood types consider them little less than war criminals.
....before all of the "we hate the military" movies started pouring out. It was filmed in 1967 and released in 1968, just when all of the hell started to kick in on college campuses. The general public hadn't been weened on all of the anti-miltary and "PR" that was coming in the 70's. So their cynicism about their country and the military as well as the glorification of all things marxist and libertine as being the American way hadn't been bred through for two generations like we have now. Remember, Viet Nam was about imperialism and hegimony of the US, not the attempt to prevent the spread of Communism and brutality toward the people in the region. The fact that we were against dictators and Communists in Viet Nam makes the US automatically the bad guy in Hollywood's eyes. John Wayne was just riding the last few flames of the general public actually liking their military and the values of true Americanism before all of that got washed away in the sea of Hollywood's social engineering of the next three decades.
"The moment you give up your principles and your values, the moment you laugh at those principles and those values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period." - Oriana Fallaci
Kirch, John Wyane had just visited Ft Bragg before the movie. There was already alot of anti war and anti military sentement around at the time. VNVATW were already forming, tho they had no real vets at the time. The number one thing most of us did after HS, was join the military, or they got drafted. The movie was made to show what was going on in vietnam and what the Green Berets were doing there. Contray to the anti war press that was already calling us brutes and murders.
You purty much nailed the head on the hit. If it aint the socialist dimocrats, nazi-libs war it's gotta be wrong. The last war they started, Vietnam, all of a sudden they realized, due to the draft, they were expected to fight in it, and they turned tail and ran and justified themselves by claimin it was an immoral war. They been scared of war ever since but because of they're guilt about they're yellow streak and all the harm they did to the U.S.A. and the people they hung out to dry and get slaughtered in Vietnam and surroundin countries, they have to oppose any war they don't agree with, to assauge their guilt and justify they're cowardice.
(GRINS) kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
Vietnam gave birth to the far left-wing liberals who then proceeded to impose their values (or lack thereof) on Hollywood, education, politics, religion and society in general. What makes this so tragic is that the Vietnam war was started by a Democrat based on an indicdent that never happened (just try telling a liberal that a Democrat president lied us into a war that, so far, has lasted longer than Iraq, caused 14 times as many US deaths, had no exit strategy and that we were forced to lose by the liberals).
You said it more and more better than i did. It's the same bunch of anti-war leftist and they're offspring who dam near ruint this country after Vietnam, and they're tryin to do it again.
kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
Hollywood's dislike for the military has little to do with heros. Hero's make for great copy. Hollywood's disdain for Bush, republicans, christians and conservatives is monumental. Not to mention John Kerry ran shamelessly as the heroic Vietnam war vet.
I think it's both A and B. I think people in Hollywood look down on those in the military. For one I don't think they understand why anyone would want to go into the military and two they think those who serve must not be very well educated. Look at the comments from Stephen King. I also think they feel they must make movies that portray Iraq in a negative light because they hate Bush and the Republicans. They would do anything to make him look bad...even at the military's expense. I just have one question for Democrats and Hollywood....Why is it that they only care about the military when they can be used for propaganda?? My husband has been in the navy for almost 18 yrs and Hollywood and the Dems never cared about what happened to him and others until the Iraq war. Where was their concern back when Clinton was cutting troops levels and deployments got longer and longer because of lack of ships and subs?? Where was their concern when half of the military was on welfare?? I could go on and on. My point is that the Dems and people in Hollywood only care about the troops when they can be used to bash Bush and the Republicans. I have one question for them...If the Republicans are so bad then why do most of the military vote for them??? Ohh...that's right...it's because they aren't that educated.....eye roll.
I would have picked A and B myself, but B was the stronger answer for me.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
I think that A is the strongest long term motivator for the Baby Boomer cowards. I think B just racheted up their current response to the war and the military.
Kilrod and the folks above have rightly laid out the real reason for the Viet Nam war protests. It was all about Baby Boomers cowardice. I (like others here) served during that time. In '62 when I went in you couldn't find anyone that could find Viet Nam on a map with hints. As soon as Loser Boy Johnson started sending Baby Boomers to Jungle Hell, all of a sudden it became an "evil war of imperialism", etc. "Hell no, we won't go," says it all about the Baby Boomers in general.
One caveat... there were many very brave Boomers that did serve and served honorably. I salute them for they are few amongst the many of their generation.
Its a combination of A, B and D. Hollywood is anti-military, anti-war and anti-republican anything. And with a Republican President, nothing is right. There are plenty of good movie subjects out there that are true and would make great movies. Lone Suvrivor would be a great movie and demonstrate the love of team mates and country shared by the vast majority of those who serve. But I dont think Hollywood will ever make the movie, simply because Marcus will not allow them to show an anti military/war slant.
This is a pretty complex matter. What is a "good war movie"? Is it one that shows the bravery of men in uniform, and immortalizes the finest characteristics of such people, or is it one that shows the other side... the death, misery, violence, and human toll? I guess it all depends on your point of view.
One of my all-time favorite war movies is The Flying Tigers. I've also read just about every book about the AVG ever written, and I know about the only truth in the movie is the footage of P-40s. Everything else, from the names to how the men were housed, is Hollywood imagination. So, can a movie that's 99.99% bogus be considered "good"? Is the sacrificing of what really happened really good movie making?
I also like Tora, Tora, Tora, Midway, and The Battle of the Bulge a lot as well. And all of these tell a more accurate story of events, but they by no means tell the whole story. Someone could make an equally accurate movie that would show how terrified our sailors and airmen were, how they lost so many of their best friends, and paint all three battles as tremendous losses on a personal level. Would these be good war movies? Again, it goes to your point of view.
As to the War on Terror, I think there's also an issue IRT to media coverage. There were hundreds of movies made about WWII, but their purpose was to provide a visual representation of what was happening as all folks had to work with were theaters. Nowadays we can get 24/7 video of the war from the soldiers fighting it, constant new coverage on the TV, etc., so there isn't much that hasn't been told that needs to be covered by a movie.
There has been a great "change" in America since the greatest generation. John Ford, the great director & producer - he did a lot of work with John Wayne - did films for the Navy during WWII, so called propaganda films. This man loved his country dearly and did all he could to help stir patriotism in the US during wartime. In a little documentary about his life, I saw Oliver Stone say he was dead wrong to do films to help the war effort. I think this shows where Oliver Stone's heart is and people that think like him. They don't really give a rats rear end about this country but would rather show their view of war. They'd rather do films like Platoon or whatever focusing on the evils of war than show how great America is. Move Mr. Stone to China and see what kind of freedom he has to make his films.
Does anyone remember the film version of The Sum of All Fears, with the book on Middle Eastern terrorists smuggling a nuke into an American football game changed? The bad guys in the film were European Nazis-yes, a major threat in 2008. I'd say PC has a part in the decision. I've seen reviews mocking 80s action movies involving terrorists for similar reasons (Invasion USA with Chuck Norris, etc).
...because the HollyWood types cannot objectively articulate the reality of war and its heroes; especially when a Repub is in office.
The many, many flops from the "left coast" since the Iraq war began proves this. Nevertheless they continue to fund and produce the same sort of left leaning, Bush bashing, military loathing garbage even though they are losing money hand over fist.
It is quite interestesting in fact; just goes to show, that the military, Bush hating liberals have more money than brains.
What Mel Gibson did for my generation with "We Were Soldiers" was a 'good' war movie IMHO. It covered the bases (forgive the pun). All along it showed the soldiers as people trying to do their best being led by a commander who gave a damn in the face of military intelligence (those who served will get that phrase) and a horrible tactical situation. It showed American soldiers rising to the occasion. It even showed the enemy as human while still portraying them as "The Enemy".
Why can't anyone do the same for today's troops? I know there's story after story of exceptionalism. Where's Mel when you need him? I feel sorry for these folks. They are trying so damn hard to do the job right. Many of them are giving their very lives for the effort and yet the cowards in Follywood turn their collective back to them. Shame, shame, shame.
Hollywood cannot DO a movie about a hero anymore. You see, the only movies they can do is remakes, mad killer movies, and mentally unstable character movies.
A hero is a good guy. Hollywood cannot do movies about any "good" anything anymore.
Because Hollywood is filled will whiny, limp-noodle, low-life, hedonistic, uneducated, moronic scumbags of limited and/or questionable talent engaged in propaganda - not entertainment.
In the 40s and 50s the Commies tried to take over the studios and control the content of movies and TV. Reagan (as head of the screen actors guild) stopped them. But they eventually wormed their way into control and are now pumping out leftist propaganda on a daily basis.
Movies - especally war movies - need heroes. Heroes need bad guys. The only allowable bad guys are Christians and smokers. The citizenry, in general, is afraid of everybody else, including their neighbors.
1. Hollywood doesn't dislike the military, they "loathe" it ala Bill Clinton.
2. Hollywood doesn't want to do a single thing that in any way, shape or form just might shine a positive light on what the libs all refer to as "Bush's War."
3. Support Our Troops is a slogan and not to be actually intended to be put into practice other than by criticizing the Administration that IS supporting the troops.
This is shameful action on the part of Hollywood. There are truly many heroes who have done extraordinary feats in the Global War on Terror. America needs to hear of these young men and women. Where are the Frank Capra's? You can say it's about money but Hollywood has lost a bunch of money on movies that have been borderline treasonous.
They fear being killed by Terrorists, so they have to make them look good.
The producers of movies are like the guy in the first Die Hard movie who thinks he can broker a deal with the terrorists and gets killed soon after.
Hollywood, as all "good" liberals do, think that wars are choices and that all conflicts can be handled with the use of force. Ironically most of these liberals have been married a dozen times and have no idea how to handle conflict other than running the other way and hire a lawyer to deal with it for you.
They are also afraid of being seen as "different" despite the fact that they thrive and "being different" and "pushing the envelope" all they are really doing is going with the flow. A fairly well-known conservative script writer was on a talk-show and said that if you want your script made into a movie you have to go along with the group-think.
You could come into a meeting with a script for a movie that would be the next greatest movie and if it's positive about Bush, the Military and the US, it would just get passed on for a much worse movie that did the opposite.
Good movies were made during Reagan's tenure. I just think there's allot of BDS and the fact that there is 24/7 news to repeat lies and propaganda against Conservatives is not helpful until more people tune out to the lib media.
Hollywood is made up of a bunch of people who are so much like high school students that just want to be seen as cool. They are always trying to get in with the in crowd or "A" listers. There is very little "Art" in Hollywood. It's all group think just like the media.
As I've said on other threads, Foreign films are much better in terms of Art and having their own voice. They still have liberal influences, but they are deeper and not so blatantly political.
Producers want to have a blockbuster every time out. They're very hesitant to take chances. Making huge money then enables them to do some "pet" projects so they can be thought of as artists.
Directors want to do the artsy movies or movies where they can "leave their mark," but they know they have to prove themselves on bankable movies. Look at Steven Sodebergh. He did Erin Brokovich, etc., which enabled him to do movies he wanted to do. But it's starting to have a backlash effect because he hasn't had a real bonafide hit in a while. Some directors, like Bay and Ratner, just want to make big "event" movies.
The studio system doesn't always work, which led to the indie movement, but even that has proven hit or miss. For every Little Miss Sunshine there's a movie no one wants to see.
Sadly, bal, the truth is out and we see clearly that H-Wood Does NOT CARE about hitting it big $$ every time. I would not be surprised if, as they do in the music industry, purposely expect more than half of their product to fail in order to have a certain quota of tax write-offs. (The un-told dirty story of the entertainment industry).
As such, they put of many movies that fit their world-view and are basically trying to influence people's morals and values. Watch Pleasantville for the most heinous example.
On another note.
IFC has recently had a bunch of Documentaries on about "Sex" in the cinema. I think Sundance has a series as well.
While some of it is outright porn, the comments from directors is downright offensive.
Many of these "young" directors they showcased feel it is there job to not just push-the-envelope but to make material that will incense conservatives.
The funniest, yet typical, part of one of the shows was when they were talking about how in the 70s some conservative religious people picketed movies. They of course had the typical liberals claiming censorship but never delved into the reasons why people were picketing other than to suggest they losers who had not point but trying to tell others what to do.
Hollywood is all about crying "different", "against the grain", "cutting edge" "censorship" Yet they are going with the flow, copying/remaking tons of flicks and censoring a while slew of movies that deal with issues conservatives are interested in.
suck up most of the profits here. They make money even if the films don't so they have no incentive to be choosy.
It may be just because I see so many films from different countries, but I don't recognize many foreign stars.
I think that their stars are not treated as over the top as ours are.
The actors in Foreign films seem to be much more like real people. Here, there are a few A listers that are in tons of movies and that usually have little artistic value.
exLib, certain people don't care about making dough constantly, but the majority want the majority of their projects to make big moolah, barring the exceptions I've noted.
Some people are concerned with "different," and some of them even mean it. :-) But some just want to try and make huge bucks off Speed 2 and crap like that. Studios are different from directors are different from writers are different from actors.
I picked B...but if I could of I would of picked both A and B...just look at the movies from Hollywood that have come out since at least the late sixties, early seventies...the majority of them have had a detrimental slant against the big bad military one way or the other...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
As it appears you have had your head (along with its three remaining operational brain cells) buried in a sand dune since God knows when, it surprises me not at all that you are completely ignorant of the fact that the Islamic barbarian horde poses a far greater threat to this country, as well as this planet, than Adolf and Hideki did combined.
Then again, you probably attended a government school and do not know any better.
Maybe Clint Eastwood will do a Movie about those poor Marines accused of "The Haiditha Massacre", the sixth of whom was recently acquitted . . .
They can call it "MSM vs. Marines"
Oh yeah. We'll be hearing alot about this injustice and the subsequent acquittals from the MSM. Right about the same time that JXCKXSS Murtha appologizes . . .
That's right! I said Murtha is a JXCKXSS !
"Don't forget to vote this fall. Not for McCain, not ever, but there might be a Conservative Rep or Senator that Needs Your Vote" --Free Stinker
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Ya'll already know what I'm going to say.........
June 6, 2008 - 04:52 ET by sentforth5...........but here goes anyway......satan is the prince of the power of the air. The ether is under his power at the moment, and he thrives on lies and twisted information. satan attacks us on 4 fronts, and the media is one of those four.
Betcha didn't see that comment comin',eh?
Have a great weekend, everybody!
Profound, sf5
June 6, 2008 - 07:17 ET by Mearlinewhat do you consider to be the other fronts?
KFC. That stuff is like
June 6, 2008 - 08:20 ET by Hero SquadKFC. That stuff is like crack.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
the other 4 fronts are also
June 6, 2008 - 13:08 ET by TruthMongerthe other 4 fronts are also the media - strangely enough
according to God
June 6, 2008 - 16:25 ET by sentforth5In the great book of Zechariah we find that in the last days, satan performs the majority of his work through four hidden dynasties. They are: the world monetary or banking system, the educational system, the information, or media system and of course the organized church systems.
I don't consider, I teach what God wrote to us in His letter, and have dedicated my life to snuff out Biblical illiteracy....just sayin' is all.........
Interesting 4 choices
June 7, 2008 - 11:26 ET by sarcasmoI've found that whenever someone tries to question the monetary/banking systems, he gets called a lot of names, like "conspiracy nut," or "goldbug." The name callers seem to think truly wise men would have given baby Jesus pretty green pieces of paper instead of that nasty old "barbarous relic," gold. I find it "I told you so" fascinating that various members of the CFR have belatedly discovered gold might actually be good stuff.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Other
June 6, 2008 - 05:13 ET by Gat New YorkHollywood is a long way from NY, PA, ad DC. They treated it as a sad event for about a month and then forgot about it. When it was cool to be patriotic they supported the war effort in Afghamistan.
But when it was no longer chic to be associated with it they turned their backs on the effort and the soldiers. Since then they have used it as a political punchline to bash Bush.
Well Gat, they are the ones
June 6, 2008 - 05:48 ET by motherbeltWell Gat, they are the ones who decided that it was no longer chic to be associated with it.
I always say they only care about our soldiers when they are dead or captured. When they are kicking butt, Hollywood types consider them little less than war criminals.
I remember the Hollywood anti troop movies
June 6, 2008 - 07:26 ET by ChiefE9I remember the Hollywood anti troop movies during and after the Vietnam War.
The World War II and Korea war movies was the last time the troops were supported by Hollywood.
John Wayne in Green Beret a
June 6, 2008 - 10:03 ET by Dan The Man 2John Wayne in Green Beret a Vietnam era movie with a positive spin for the military. It was during the war and John Wayne was behind it.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
This movie came out....
June 6, 2008 - 14:41 ET by kirch66....before all of the "we hate the military" movies started pouring out. It was filmed in 1967 and released in 1968, just when all of the hell started to kick in on college campuses. The general public hadn't been weened on all of the anti-miltary and "PR" that was coming in the 70's. So their cynicism about their country and the military as well as the glorification of all things marxist and libertine as being the American way hadn't been bred through for two generations like we have now. Remember, Viet Nam was about imperialism and hegimony of the US, not the attempt to prevent the spread of Communism and brutality toward the people in the region. The fact that we were against dictators and Communists in Viet Nam makes the US automatically the bad guy in Hollywood's eyes. John Wayne was just riding the last few flames of the general public actually liking their military and the values of true Americanism before all of that got washed away in the sea of Hollywood's social engineering of the next three decades.
"The moment you give up your principles and your values, the moment you laugh at those principles and those values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period." - Oriana Fallaci
Kirch, John Wyane had just
June 6, 2008 - 14:49 ET by bassndudeKirch, John Wyane had just visited Ft Bragg before the movie. There was already alot of anti war and anti military sentement around at the time. VNVATW were already forming, tho they had no real vets at the time. The number one thing most of us did after HS, was join the military, or they got drafted. The movie was made to show what was going on in vietnam and what the Green Berets were doing there. Contray to the anti war press that was already calling us brutes and murders.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
10-4
June 6, 2008 - 05:56 ET by kilrodYou purty much nailed the head on the hit. If it aint the socialist dimocrats, nazi-libs war it's gotta be wrong. The last war they started, Vietnam, all of a sudden they realized, due to the draft, they were expected to fight in it, and they turned tail and ran and justified themselves by claimin it was an immoral war. They been scared of war ever since but because of they're guilt about they're yellow streak and all the harm they did to the U.S.A. and the people they hung out to dry and get slaughtered in Vietnam and surroundin countries, they have to oppose any war they don't agree with, to assauge their guilt and justify they're cowardice.
(GRINS) kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
Hollywood has made a 180 degree detour since Vietnam
June 6, 2008 - 05:35 ET by SGriffisVietnam gave birth to the far left-wing liberals who then proceeded to impose their values (or lack thereof) on Hollywood, education, politics, religion and society in general. What makes this so tragic is that the Vietnam war was started by a Democrat based on an indicdent that never happened (just try telling a liberal that a Democrat president lied us into a war that, so far, has lasted longer than Iraq, caused 14 times as many US deaths, had no exit strategy and that we were forced to lose by the liberals).
Yo, SGriffis
June 6, 2008 - 06:05 ET by kilrodYou said it more and more better than i did. It's the same bunch of anti-war leftist and they're offspring who dam near ruint this country after Vietnam, and they're tryin to do it again.
kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
Why "SO FEW" movies...that
June 6, 2008 - 05:38 ET by gopsteveWhy "SO FEW" movies...that kind of implies that there have been some...have there been any?
The Kingdom.
June 6, 2008 - 11:48 ET by balboaThe Kingdom.
The Kingdom is an exception - it's one not some
June 6, 2008 - 12:20 ET by Dee BunkIt answers the any question with one. So I guess you admit there are not "some". It's also a film that was more pro-CIA agent than pro-military.
No willing white guys
June 6, 2008 - 05:47 ET by ThisnThatIt's because Hollywood can't find any white guys to play the role of terrorist.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
As McLaughlin would say ...
June 6, 2008 - 07:21 ET by Crash"WRONG ... The answer is B!"
Hollywood's dislike for the military has little to do with heros. Hero's make for great copy. Hollywood's disdain for Bush, republicans, christians and conservatives is monumental. Not to mention John Kerry ran shamelessly as the heroic Vietnam war vet.
"Bye,bye."
A and B
June 6, 2008 - 07:32 ET by DaieI think it's both A and B. I think people in Hollywood look down on those in the military. For one I don't think they understand why anyone would want to go into the military and two they think those who serve must not be very well educated. Look at the comments from Stephen King. I also think they feel they must make movies that portray Iraq in a negative light because they hate Bush and the Republicans. They would do anything to make him look bad...even at the military's expense. I just have one question for Democrats and Hollywood....Why is it that they only care about the military when they can be used for propaganda?? My husband has been in the navy for almost 18 yrs and Hollywood and the Dems never cared about what happened to him and others until the Iraq war. Where was their concern back when Clinton was cutting troops levels and deployments got longer and longer because of lack of ships and subs?? Where was their concern when half of the military was on welfare?? I could go on and on. My point is that the Dems and people in Hollywood only care about the troops when they can be used to bash Bush and the Republicans. I have one question for them...If the Republicans are so bad then why do most of the military vote for them??? Ohh...that's right...it's because they aren't that educated.....eye roll.
I would have picked A and B
June 6, 2008 - 07:45 ET by NewsbusterbrownI would have picked A and B myself, but B was the stronger answer for me.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
A and B for me too
June 6, 2008 - 10:07 ET by wizardjrI think that A is the strongest long term motivator for the Baby Boomer cowards. I think B just racheted up their current response to the war and the military.
Kilrod and the folks above have rightly laid out the real reason for the Viet Nam war protests. It was all about Baby Boomers cowardice. I (like others here) served during that time. In '62 when I went in you couldn't find anyone that could find Viet Nam on a map with hints. As soon as Loser Boy Johnson started sending Baby Boomers to Jungle Hell, all of a sudden it became an "evil war of imperialism", etc. "Hell no, we won't go," says it all about the Baby Boomers in general.
One caveat... there were many very brave Boomers that did serve and served honorably. I salute them for they are few amongst the many of their generation.
Its a combination of A, B
June 6, 2008 - 07:45 ET by bassndudeIts a combination of A, B and D. Hollywood is anti-military, anti-war and anti-republican anything. And with a Republican President, nothing is right. There are plenty of good movie subjects out there that are true and would make great movies. Lone Suvrivor would be a great movie and demonstrate the love of team mates and country shared by the vast majority of those who serve. But I dont think Hollywood will ever make the movie, simply because Marcus will not allow them to show an anti military/war slant.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
This is a pretty complex
June 6, 2008 - 07:58 ET by BruzillaThis is a pretty complex matter. What is a "good war movie"? Is it one that shows the bravery of men in uniform, and immortalizes the finest characteristics of such people, or is it one that shows the other side... the death, misery, violence, and human toll? I guess it all depends on your point of view.
One of my all-time favorite war movies is The Flying Tigers. I've also read just about every book about the AVG ever written, and I know about the only truth in the movie is the footage of P-40s. Everything else, from the names to how the men were housed, is Hollywood imagination. So, can a movie that's 99.99% bogus be considered "good"? Is the sacrificing of what really happened really good movie making?
I also like Tora, Tora, Tora, Midway, and The Battle of the Bulge a lot as well. And all of these tell a more accurate story of events, but they by no means tell the whole story. Someone could make an equally accurate movie that would show how terrified our sailors and airmen were, how they lost so many of their best friends, and paint all three battles as tremendous losses on a personal level. Would these be good war movies? Again, it goes to your point of view.
As to the War on Terror, I think there's also an issue IRT to media coverage. There were hundreds of movies made about WWII, but their purpose was to provide a visual representation of what was happening as all folks had to work with were theaters. Nowadays we can get 24/7 video of the war from the soldiers fighting it, constant new coverage on the TV, etc., so there isn't much that hasn't been told that needs to be covered by a movie.
Why so few movies about heroes in war on terrorism
June 6, 2008 - 08:05 ET by PeacolaAll of the above
"change"
June 6, 2008 - 08:42 ET by ort777There has been a great "change" in America since the greatest generation. John Ford, the great director & producer - he did a lot of work with John Wayne - did films for the Navy during WWII, so called propaganda films. This man loved his country dearly and did all he could to help stir patriotism in the US during wartime. In a little documentary about his life, I saw Oliver Stone say he was dead wrong to do films to help the war effort. I think this shows where Oliver Stone's heart is and people that think like him. They don't really give a rats rear end about this country but would rather show their view of war. They'd rather do films like Platoon or whatever focusing on the evils of war than show how great America is. Move Mr. Stone to China and see what kind of freedom he has to make his films.
I went with other because
June 6, 2008 - 08:59 ET by BuffNBoneI went with other because they can't make up their minds who they want to look the worst.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
Films
June 6, 2008 - 09:34 ET by ProudAmerican33Does anyone remember the film version of The Sum of All Fears, with the book on Middle Eastern terrorists smuggling a nuke into an American football game changed? The bad guys in the film were European Nazis-yes, a major threat in 2008. I'd say PC has a part in the decision. I've seen reviews mocking 80s action movies involving terrorists for similar reasons (Invasion USA with Chuck Norris, etc).
missing key word
June 6, 2008 - 09:40 ET by acumenBecause Hollywood envisions Iraq war was wrong.
And who dares feign more knowledge about foreign policy than people that work in an imaginary world?
Other...
June 6, 2008 - 09:40 ET by ontheright...because the HollyWood types cannot objectively articulate the reality of war and its heroes; especially when a Repub is in office.
The many, many flops from the "left coast" since the Iraq war began proves this. Nevertheless they continue to fund and produce the same sort of left leaning, Bush bashing, military loathing garbage even though they are losing money hand over fist.
It is quite interestesting in fact; just goes to show, that the military, Bush hating liberals have more money than brains.
IRAQ WAR HEROS AND HOLLYWOOD
June 6, 2008 - 10:08 ET by jjd123A Hollywood producer was recently overheard saying " What, there are heroes in the the Iraq war? Are they Iraqis or Iranians?"
Where's Mel Gibson when you need him?
June 6, 2008 - 10:19 ET by wizardjrWhat Mel Gibson did for my generation with "We Were Soldiers" was a 'good' war movie IMHO. It covered the bases (forgive the pun). All along it showed the soldiers as people trying to do their best being led by a commander who gave a damn in the face of military intelligence (those who served will get that phrase) and a horrible tactical situation. It showed American soldiers rising to the occasion. It even showed the enemy as human while still portraying them as "The Enemy".
Why can't anyone do the same for today's troops? I know there's story after story of exceptionalism. Where's Mel when you need him? I feel sorry for these folks. They are trying so damn hard to do the job right. Many of them are giving their very lives for the effort and yet the cowards in Follywood turn their collective back to them. Shame, shame, shame.
don't think Mel ain't
June 6, 2008 - 13:12 ET by TruthMongerdon't think Mel ain't thinkin quite a bit about it:)
Other...
June 6, 2008 - 11:14 ET by Warner Todd HustonHollywood cannot DO a movie about a hero anymore. You see, the only movies they can do is remakes, mad killer movies, and mentally unstable character movies.
A hero is a good guy. Hollywood cannot do movies about any "good" anything anymore.
There are plenty of heroes
June 6, 2008 - 12:03 ET by balboaThere are plenty of heroes in Hollywood movies.
He's talking about American war Heroes
June 6, 2008 - 12:15 ET by Dee Bunknot action figure heroes
Other
June 6, 2008 - 11:30 ET by mattmBecause Hollywood is filled will whiny, limp-noodle, low-life, hedonistic, uneducated, moronic scumbags of limited and/or questionable talent engaged in propaganda - not entertainment.
In the 40s and 50s the Commies tried to take over the studios and control the content of movies and TV. Reagan (as head of the screen actors guild) stopped them. But they eventually wormed their way into control and are now pumping out leftist propaganda on a daily basis.
Movies Need Heroes
June 6, 2008 - 11:57 ET by CurtMovies - especally war movies - need heroes. Heroes need bad guys. The only allowable bad guys are Christians and smokers. The citizenry, in general, is afraid of everybody else, including their neighbors.
Curt
Why No Hero Movies?
June 6, 2008 - 13:19 ET by HawgdrvrIn no particular order:
1. Hollywood doesn't dislike the military, they "loathe" it ala Bill Clinton.
2. Hollywood doesn't want to do a single thing that in any way, shape or form just might shine a positive light on what the libs all refer to as "Bush's War."
3. Support Our Troops is a slogan and not to be actually intended to be put into practice other than by criticizing the Administration that IS supporting the troops.
This is shameful action on the part of Hollywood. There are truly many heroes who have done extraordinary feats in the Global War on Terror. America needs to hear of these young men and women. Where are the Frank Capra's? You can say it's about money but Hollywood has lost a bunch of money on movies that have been borderline treasonous.
Hollywood is in Fear...
June 6, 2008 - 18:40 ET by exLibThey fear being killed by Terrorists, so they have to make them look good.
The producers of movies are like the guy in the first Die Hard movie who thinks he can broker a deal with the terrorists and gets killed soon after.
Hollywood, as all "good" liberals do, think that wars are choices and that all conflicts can be handled with the use of force. Ironically most of these liberals have been married a dozen times and have no idea how to handle conflict other than running the other way and hire a lawyer to deal with it for you.
They are also afraid of being seen as "different" despite the fact that they thrive and "being different" and "pushing the envelope" all they are really doing is going with the flow. A fairly well-known conservative script writer was on a talk-show and said that if you want your script made into a movie you have to go along with the group-think.
You could come into a meeting with a script for a movie that would be the next greatest movie and if it's positive about Bush, the Military and the US, it would just get passed on for a much worse movie that did the opposite.
Good movies were made during Reagan's tenure. I just think there's allot of BDS and the fact that there is 24/7 news to repeat lies and propaganda against Conservatives is not helpful until more people tune out to the lib media.
I agree 100% ex lib
June 6, 2008 - 18:51 ET by Dee BunkHollywood is made up of a bunch of people who are so much like high school students that just want to be seen as cool. They are always trying to get in with the in crowd or "A" listers. There is very little "Art" in Hollywood. It's all group think just like the media.
As I've said on other threads, Foreign films are much better in terms of Art and having their own voice. They still have liberal influences, but they are deeper and not so blatantly political.
Producers want to have a
June 6, 2008 - 19:09 ET by balboaProducers want to have a blockbuster every time out. They're very hesitant to take chances. Making huge money then enables them to do some "pet" projects so they can be thought of as artists.
Directors want to do the artsy movies or movies where they can "leave their mark," but they know they have to prove themselves on bankable movies. Look at Steven Sodebergh. He did Erin Brokovich, etc., which enabled him to do movies he wanted to do. But it's starting to have a backlash effect because he hasn't had a real bonafide hit in a while. Some directors, like Bay and Ratner, just want to make big "event" movies.
The studio system doesn't always work, which led to the indie movement, but even that has proven hit or miss. For every Little Miss Sunshine there's a movie no one wants to see.
Bal Do you watch the IFC Docs?
June 6, 2008 - 19:33 ET by exLibSadly, bal, the truth is out and we see clearly that H-Wood Does NOT CARE about hitting it big $$ every time. I would not be surprised if, as they do in the music industry, purposely expect more than half of their product to fail in order to have a certain quota of tax write-offs. (The un-told dirty story of the entertainment industry).
As such, they put of many movies that fit their world-view and are basically trying to influence people's morals and values. Watch Pleasantville for the most heinous example.
On another note.
IFC has recently had a bunch of Documentaries on about "Sex" in the cinema. I think Sundance has a series as well.
While some of it is outright porn, the comments from directors is downright offensive.
Many of these "young" directors they showcased feel it is there job to not just push-the-envelope but to make material that will incense conservatives.
The funniest, yet typical, part of one of the shows was when they were talking about how in the 70s some conservative religious people picketed movies. They of course had the typical liberals claiming censorship but never delved into the reasons why people were picketing other than to suggest they losers who had not point but trying to tell others what to do.
Hollywood is all about crying "different", "against the grain", "cutting edge" "censorship" Yet they are going with the flow, copying/remaking tons of flicks and censoring a while slew of movies that deal with issues conservatives are interested in.
exlib - plus I think the air-headed big stars
June 6, 2008 - 19:48 ET by Dee Bunksuck up most of the profits here. They make money even if the films don't so they have no incentive to be choosy.
It may be just because I see so many films from different countries, but I don't recognize many foreign stars.
I think that their stars are not treated as over the top as ours are.
The actors in Foreign films seem to be much more like real people. Here, there are a few A listers that are in tons of movies and that usually have little artistic value.
exLib, certain people don't
June 6, 2008 - 21:54 ET by balboaexLib, certain people don't care about making dough constantly, but the majority want the majority of their projects to make big moolah, barring the exceptions I've noted.
Some people are concerned with "different," and some of them even mean it. :-) But some just want to try and make huge bucks off Speed 2 and crap like that. Studios are different from directors are different from writers are different from actors.
I picked B...but if I could
June 6, 2008 - 19:38 ET by bigtimerI picked B...but if I could of I would of picked both A and B...just look at the movies from Hollywood that have come out since at least the late sixties, early seventies...the majority of them have had a detrimental slant against the big bad military one way or the other...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Me too BT
June 6, 2008 - 19:51 ET by Dee BunkI think the Republican part is the biggest reason, but they also don't care for the military.
I chose the last option, other
June 6, 2008 - 21:08 ET by DEVILDOCMOMbecause I honestly feel the majority in hollywood dislike America and all it stands for, this includes our military. Oh, all except huge profits. :)
Too many good WWII movies
June 6, 2008 - 21:28 ET by Biff McCain[X] Too many good WWII movies, a just war.
[__] Hollywood dislikes the military.
[__] They're filming "WMD Hunter" now. That should be a good one.
Biff... You are just so
June 6, 2008 - 21:43 ET by bigtimerBiff...
You are just so priceless...what would we do without you...
Hmmmm....let me count the ways...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Just what one would expect from a surrender monkey.
June 6, 2008 - 22:52 ET by R D HelmAs it appears you have had your head (along with its three remaining operational brain cells) buried in a sand dune since God knows when, it surprises me not at all that you are completely ignorant of the fact that the Islamic barbarian horde poses a far greater threat to this country, as well as this planet, than Adolf and Hideki did combined.
Then again, you probably attended a government school and do not know any better.
Sucks to be you, I guess.
To steal from Leno-----
June 6, 2008 - 23:15 ET by misterbillTerrorism???? I thought you said tourism!!!!!!
Hollywood has turned
June 6, 2008 - 22:59 ET by BDHollywood has turned virtually every 1970's cartoon and sitcom into a major studio picture, usually with sequals--they do terribly.
But Biff thinks we can't redo a war movie because we have too many WWII flicks?
Please....
That's right! I said Murtha is a JXCKXSS !
June 6, 2008 - 23:06 ET by Free StinkerMaybe Clint Eastwood will do a Movie about those poor Marines accused of "The Haiditha Massacre", the sixth of whom was recently acquitted . . .
They can call it "MSM vs. Marines"
Oh yeah. We'll be hearing alot about this injustice and the subsequent acquittals from the MSM. Right about the same time that JXCKXSS Murtha appologizes . . .
That's right! I said Murtha is a JXCKXSS !
"Don't forget to vote this fall. Not for McCain, not ever, but there might be a Conservative Rep or Senator that Needs Your Vote" --Free Stinker
Jack-ass is putting it way
June 6, 2008 - 23:19 ET by bigtimerJack-ass is putting it way to polite FS.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Why So Few Movies About Heroes in War on Terrorism?
June 7, 2008 - 11:14 ET by rdjjpmHollywood opposes the war and is unable/afraid to portray Islamic Terrorism accurately.
Why so few heroes in Hollywood?
June 7, 2008 - 23:34 ET by LiveFreeOrDie1776Two things. The absence in a belief in Christ Jesus and liberalism is a dangerous mental disorder. Simple.
That was simple!
June 8, 2008 - 04:44 ET by sentforth5Why can't I be that succinct? Very well put. I go on and on about the scripture, and forgot about the sickness. Very well stated indeed.