300 wins Rightwing Film of the Year, Neonazis hail the film as triumphant...

[Slapper]

Spartan history, as well as that of the Vikings, has been distorted for many years. It's glorious past amounts to a fistful of "heroic" battles. What people seem to forget is that the Vikings got their asses whooped, at least, 70% of the time. So did the Spartans.

I live in Astoria, NY; a mainly Greek neighborhood, and if you guys think, for a moment, that Spartans are an example of arian bullshit, you're in for a surprise.

I do, however, see how a modern human can easily pick up the wrong messages out of films like 300. But then again, you can pick up ANY message from any film. You can even say that The Wizard of Oz was about zoophilia if you want to. And you'd have a valid point.

The point is Hollywood's depiction of historical events is, by and large, mediocre. That, I believe, is what we should opine about movies like 300. If someone who's got the equivalent of 3 interconnected brain cells believes it is a good example of how they should run their lifes, then they need a reality check. That is, the reality of right now, not 2500 years ago.

Malakas.

[Nordic Superman]

Spartan history, as well as that of the Vikings, has been distorted for many years. It's glorious past amounts to a fistful of "heroic" battles. What people seem to forget is that the Vikings got their asses whooped, at least, 70% of the time. So did the Spartans.

I live in Astoria, NY; a mainly Greek neighborhood, and if you guys think, for a moment, that Spartans are an example of arian bullshit, you're in for a surprise.

I do, however, see how a modern human can easily pick up the wrong messages out of films like 300. But then again, you can pick up ANY message from any film. You can even say that The Wizard of Oz was about zoophilia if you want to. And you'd have a valid point.

The point is Hollywood's depiction of historical events is, by and large, mediocre. That, I believe, is what we should opine about movies like 300. If someone who's got the equivalent of 3 interconnected brain cells believes it is a good example of how they should run their lifes, then they need a reality check. That is, the reality of right now, not 2500 years ago.

Malakas.

I agree the reality of historical events like this have moved away from fact in Hollywood, but 70% (AT LEAST) of the battles undertaken by Vikings resulted in defeat?

Have you got any sources for that statement?

[Hugo Chavez]

Spartan history, as well as that of the Vikings, has been distorted for many years. It's glorious past amounts to a fistful of "heroic" battles. What people seem to forget is that the Vikings got their asses whooped, at least, 70% of the time. So did the Spartans.

I live in Astoria, NY; a mainly Greek neighborhood, and if you guys think, for a moment, that Spartans are an example of arian bullshit, you're in for a surprise.

I do, however, see how a modern human can easily pick up the wrong messages out of films like 300. But then again, you can pick up ANY message from any film. You can even say that The Wizard of Oz was about zoophilia if you want to. And you'd have a valid point.

The point is Hollywood's depiction of historical events is, by and large, mediocre. That, I believe, is what we should opine about movies like 300. If someone who's got the equivalent of 3 interconnected brain cells believes it is a good example of how they should run their lifes, then they need a reality check. That is, the reality of right now, not 2500 years ago.

Malakas.

You underestimate the desires of a lot of filmmakers.  That you can pick up ANY message from a movie is not a valid point.

[headhuntersix]

Hollywood has a few anti-war flicks coming out and more in the pipeline. I liked 300, it was fun, nothing more.

[Slapper]

I agree the reality of historical events like this have moved away from fact in Hollywood, but 70% (AT LEAST) of the battles undertaken by Vikings resulted in defeat?

Have you got any sources for that statement?

Well, the Vikings were known for using an assault technique called "raid and plunder". Their main targets were monasteries and rural areas that offered little defense. They went in, scared the shit out of monks or the local population and, before you know it, back on the ships with all the gold and things they had stolen.

Now, the reason why they were so successful in terrorizing people is that their modus operandi was to avoid standard armies at all costs. And this was so because they knew that they were easy "meat" for a regular soldier.

Don't get me wrong, they were kinda successful in norther Europe, specially England and Ireland. But this was so because England had just been invaded by the Anglos and Saxons (the Celts were pushed out to the fringes of the island: Wales, Isle of Man, scotland and Cornwall), who were mostly farmers and not fighters. Ireland was a different case. Eire was a breeze. They even went into northern France.

Now, that is as far as they got. As soon as you get to Spain, their asses got whooped big time in Asturias, Galicia, Andalusia (which at the time was under moorish rule), and in Sicily (Italy). Don't get me wrong, they still plundered some small localities, but if they found out the army was waiting for them, they'd run like a fat kid after an ice cream truck.

So, this is precisely my point, when fighting a standard army, they lost 70% of the time. When fighting a defenseless town or monastery, their success rate (and bestiality by the way) was very close to 99.99%.

[Hugo Chavez]

Hollywood has a few anti-war flicks coming out and more in the pipeline. I liked 300, it was fun, nothing more.

If there are a few coming out, they come against a mountain of war flicks, that's a fact.  and the 300 is clearly intended to be more than fun   I just listened to one of Miller's interviews and the guy is all over the war thing and how our country is going to die from within and duty and honor and freedom isn't free and they're the enemy, we're the good guys on and on, his voice was shaking so much he sounded fanatical.

[headhuntersix]

GOOD...look man what war movies do u think aren't really anti-war. Hollywood should portray our guys in a good light. They use the US military an awful lot to make their films. Generally WW2 movies are pretty positive, Vietnam, the opposite. I guess there are some directly anti-war (Iraq) films coming and I will try and find some links. Not documentaries but real films. Some showing the war, which is hard without military help, while others show the result back here.

[Camel Jockey]

The Iranians 2,000 years ago were pretty different race wise.

My aunt lived in Iran for some time. She said it was a beautiful place prior to the Islamic revolution. She used to work there as a teacher and she got the hell out after the revolution.

[Hugo Chavez]

GOOD...look man what war movies do u think aren't really anti-war. Hollywood should portray our guys in a good light. They use the US military an awful lot to make their films. Generally WW2 movies are pretty positive, Vietnam, the opposite. I guess there are some directly anti-war (Iraq) films coming and I will try and find some links. Not documentaries but real films. Some showing the war, which is hard without military help, while others show the result back here.

Are you serious?  All these movies that have military cooperation in making their films did so by one path and one path only... The scripts were cleared through the pentagon...

Here's a few since 2000, there's probably more but these are the one's I'm familiar with.
Behind Enemy Lines
Windtalkers
Black Hawk Down
We Were Soldiers
Hart's War
Master and Commander
Flags of our Fathers
Men of Honor
Pearl Harbor
The Sum of all Fears
Jarhead (some positive, some stupid)
Annapolis
Band of Brothers
Saints and Soldiers
Under Black Skies
The Patriot
Tears of the Sun
U-571

[Hedgehog]

Perhaps Berserker haven't seen "Three Kings" with Ice Cube and Mark Wahlberg.

Great movie, and it also happens to be slightly anti-war.

I'd recommend it to anyone who'd like to see a war movie, although this is about the first Gulf War.

[Hugo Chavez]

Perhaps Berserker haven't seen "Three Kings" with Ice Cube and Mark Wahlberg.

Great movie, and it also happens to be slightly anti-war.

I'd recommend it to anyone who'd like to see a war movie, although this is about the first Gulf War.

I have seen it.  It also came out before 2000.  The majority of the movies coming out since 2000 have been pretty favorable and most antiwar movies are done around Vietnam.  Not easy to find anti-WWI, WWII movies.  Mash is the best antiwar movie ever made.  The only antiwar movie I can think of since 2000 is that Nicolas Cage movie where he's the arms dealer.  There's been a few documentaries, fog of war and F911, but if we're talking big name hollywood stuff, it's been primarily pro-war.

[Hugo Chavez]

I guess some consider Flags of our Fathers to be antiwar, but I do not.  It contains criticism sure, it is definitely a support the troops movie and doesn't paint a pretty picture of the higher ups but nothing unusual with that, that sentiment has been in the enlisted ranks for a long long time.  Bringing light to it doesn't make this film antiwar, it's not.

[Hedgehog]

I guess some consider Flags of our Fathers to be antiwar, but I do not.  It contains criticism sure, it is definitely a support the troops movie and doesn't paint a pretty picture of the higher ups but nothing unusual with that, that sentiment has been in the enlisted ranks for a long long time.  Bringing light to it doesn't make this film antiwar, it's not.

Generally, I think Pentagon has zero input on script.

But a movie which depicts the US military in a positive light will IMO have a much better chance of getting to use authentic military property/ to loan or hire various stuff for the film.

So in essence, it's easier, and cheaper, to do a pro-war, pro-US Military movie IMO.

In comparison to a movie that would be critical.

Unless the producer had some kickass connections, and were the slickest salesman south of the North Pole.

[Hugo Chavez]

actually Hedge, we covered this before.  If memory serves, you angrily called it a disgrace.


Operation Hollywood

To keep the Pentagon happy, some Hollywood producers have been known to turn villains into heroes, remove central characters, change politically sensitive settings, or add military rescues to movies that require none. There are no bad guys in the military. No fraternization between officers and enlisted troops. No drinking or drugs. No struggles against bigotry. The military and the president can’t look bad (though the State Department and Canada can).

“The only thing Hollywood likes more than a good movie is a good deal,” David Robb explains, and that’s why the producers of films like “Top Gun,” “Stripes” and “The Great Santini” have altered their scripts to accommodate Pentagon requests. In exchange, they get inexpensive access to the military locations, vehicles, troops and gear they need to make their movies.

During his years as a journalist for Daily Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, Robb heard about a quid-pro-quo agreement between the Pentagon and Hollywood studios, and decided to investigate. He combed through thousands of Pentagon documents, and interviewed dozens of screenwriters, producers and military officials. The result is his new book, "Operation Hollywood."

Robb talked with MotherJones.com about deal-making that defines the relationship between Hollywood and the Pentagon.

MotherJones.com: How far back does collaboration between the U.S. military and Hollywood go?

David Robb: The current approval process was established right after World War II. Before that, the Pentagon used to help producers, but it wasn’t very formalized, like it is now. They helped producers going back to at least 1927. The very first movie that won an Oscar, “Wings,” -- even that got military assistance.

cont... http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/09/09_403.html

[Hugo Chavez]

In a recent movie I watched, the directer was talking about how they couldn't get the pentagon's approval of the script.  He tried to change it a few time and ended up altering the whole thing because the Pentagon wouldn't agree with the script so the movie as was didn't happen.   I also remember recently the HBO documentary on Iraq about wounded troops, The pentagon was all over the documentary with their approval, loved the idea, last minute they pulled all support and the thing almost didn't happen.  There was a fight inside HBO on if they should go without pentagon approval and they decided the story needed shown.

[headhuntersix]

Are you serious?  All these movies that have military cooperation in making their films did so by one path and one path only... The scripts were cleared through the pentagon...

Here's a few since 2000, there's probably more but these are the one's I'm familiar with.
Behind Enemy Lines
Windtalkers
Black Hawk Down
We Were Soldiers
Hart's War
Master and Commander
Flags of our Fathers
Men of Honor
Pearl Harbor
The Sum of all Fears
Jarhead (some positive, some stupid)
Annapolis
Band of Brothers
Saints and Soldiers
Under Black Skies
The Patriot
Tears of the Sun
U-571

We have a guy in Hollywood, stationed there that works as the liason between the Army and Hollywood. The current guy helped with Transformers and got to rewrite parts of War of the Worlds. We had alot to do with Black Hawk Down and usually provide help if the movie doesn't make us look bad. We had no part of Annapolis, silly movie. You have to be in a certain career field to get that job. I'm in that field but i don't think i could work in Hollywood. There is a similar job in Chicago that works with Novelists as well as a bit of Hollywood. I might try that job next. Its pretty cool. We have a long history with Hollywood. Not as much out and out propaganda like WW2.

[24KT]

Generally, I think Pentagon has zero input on script.

Sorry Hedge, ...you are DEAD WRONG on this

But a movie which depicts the US military in a positive light will IMO have a much better chance of getting to use authentic military property/ to loan or hire various stuff for the film.

With so much army surplus available, producers rarely need to borrow equipment. In addition, the rigours of film making often make it preferable to make your own. it's much easier to have equipment made of thin plastic, and have the art department doctor it up in the proper colours than to use authentic equipment.

So in essence, it's easier, and cheaper, to do a pro-war, pro-US Military movie IMO.
In comparison to a movie that would be critical.

It's only easier in the sense that you encounter far less interference.

Unless the producer had some kickass connections, and were the slickest salesman south of the North Pole.

How do you think producers get to be producers... it's their kickass connections, and their slick sales techniques.

[Hedgehog]

actually Hedge, we covered this before.  If memory serves, you angrily called it a disgrace.


Operation Hollywood

To keep the Pentagon happy, some Hollywood producers have been known to turn villains into heroes, remove central characters, change politically sensitive settings, or add military rescues to movies that require none. There are no bad guys in the military. No fraternization between officers and enlisted troops. No drinking or drugs. No struggles against bigotry. The military and the president can’t look bad (though the State Department and Canada can).

“The only thing Hollywood likes more than a good movie is a good deal,” David Robb explains, and that’s why the producers of films like “Top Gun,” “Stripes” and “The Great Santini” have altered their scripts to accommodate Pentagon requests. In exchange, they get inexpensive access to the military locations, vehicles, troops and gear they need to make their movies.

During his years as a journalist for Daily Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, Robb heard about a quid-pro-quo agreement between the Pentagon and Hollywood studios, and decided to investigate. He combed through thousands of Pentagon documents, and interviewed dozens of screenwriters, producers and military officials. The result is his new book, "Operation Hollywood."

Robb talked with MotherJones.com about deal-making that defines the relationship between Hollywood and the Pentagon.

MotherJones.com: How far back does collaboration between the U.S. military and Hollywood go?

David Robb: The current approval process was established right after World War II. Before that, the Pentagon used to help producers, but it wasn’t very formalized, like it is now. They helped producers going back to at least 1927. The very first movie that won an Oscar, “Wings,” -- even that got military assistance.

cont... http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/09/09_403.html

I recall that too.

And I stand by that opinion of course.

My only objection comes when the typical conspiracy theorist (no, not you Berserker, or even jag) post "thrilling" conspiracy theories without any facticity.

But always good to see hard facts on how the public is being deceived, and how the entertainment industry is on a tight leash. It's an eye-opener, and perhaps can help alternative news and Entertainment sources.


Edit: It's obviously the prerogative of the Military to make any demands they want if they're letting filmmakers using their machines. But it's also important that film makers tries to stay independent.

[headhuntersix]

Jag your not entirely correct.....It depends on what kind of movie your making and who the director is. Some guys don't like CGI to replace actualy vehicle etc. You can tell when they use mock-ups. The guys from Transformers wanted the real thing when possible. It was the first time that Osprey's and the F-22 had been showcased in a movie. In BlackHawk down they used Blackhawks from the 160th SOAR as well as the actual "Little Bird" piltos who fought in Somalia. In War of the Worlds they got alot of guys from FT Bliss as their soldiers, as well as vehicles. Mock-ups usually look silly. Hollywood always send their scripts over for a once over. If they can get authentic help, why not? There are a few companies that provide former military as advisors. Dale Dye runs one.

[OzmO]

I don't see anything wrong with the pentagon wanting to support movies that show our military in the proper light. 

however, in 10 years CGI will be so good that their endorsement and material support won't be needed.

[Fury]

I thought the movie was about as stupid as it gets.

It was a over-board dramatic C-G-I orgy.

The only thing they got right was that Spartans were involved in the battle.   Other then than the movie was grossly inaccurate.

As for the neo-con fascist undertones......Berserke r you are right on the money.

Brilliant deduction. I guess the fact it was written as a "graphic novel" and not a history book kind of implies that it's not going to be true to form. It was the author's creation, not 100% historically accurate,but we what he felt like drawing.

[OzmO]

Brilliant deduction. I guess the fact it was written as a "graphic novel" and not a history book kind of implies that it's not going to be true to form. It was the author's creation, not 100% historically accurate,but we what he felt like drawing.

How many people who saw that movie believe it happen the way it did in the movie?   

As a graphic novel is still sucked ass IMO. 

It was a over-board dramatic C-G-I orgy.

[24KT]

Jag your not entirely correct.....It depends on what kind of movie your making and who the director is.

That's a given, ...but if your script calls for your guys to be marching through the jungles during monsoon season in full gear, I can guarantee you those packs won't be genuine, and they're not going to be weighing 50lbs. or however much they weigh. Chances are it will be done inside an airconditioned studio, with rain & wind machines, and truckloads of silk foliage.
 

Some guys don't like CGI to replace actualy vehicle etc. You can tell when they use mock-ups.

Who is talking about CGI for a vehicle. You can use an actual vehicle. Just paint it up the way you wat it.

The guys from Transformers wanted the real thing when possible. It was the first time that Osprey's and the F-22 had been showcased in a movie. In BlackHawk down they used Blackhawks from the 160th SOAR as well as the actual "Little Bird" piltos who fought in Somalia. In War of the Worlds they got alot of guys from FT Bliss as their soldiers, as well as vehicles. Mock-ups usually look silly. Hollywood always send their scripts over for a once over. If they can get authentic help, why not? There are a few companies that provide former military as advisors. Dale Dye runs one.

I haven't seen Transformers yet, ...but again it does depend on the script. Often, the script changes to accomodate product placements, ...and make no mistake about it... the showcasing of military technology is 'product placement'. You'd be surprised at how prevalent it is. When shooting a bar scene, the props departments make sure the labels are showing just so. They'll announce 'smoke 'em if you got 'em' just before shooting the scene, but if your brand of cigarettes isn't the same brand they're looking to promote, they'll make you hide your cigarette pack, ...or they'll have you place your cigarettes in a box that says 'X' brand or whatever brand they're pushing.

[headhuntersix]

Sure, but some guys are sticklers, case in point the Transformers guy. They like to get it right. No doubt about the packs, thats the easy stuff. But look at Red Dawn, the mock-ups were so good that the CIA came down and asked where they got some of the equipment. Not many movies can produce accurate stuff. Look at that stupid movie with Denzel Washington, Matt Damon...about the femal in Desert Storm. I'm a Tanker, those MI's were'nt even close. Plus the tactics etc, ridiculous. Yet its easy to get thats tuff right. Mock-ups are one thing, but using correct jargon etc, way to easy. About the jungle...Apocalypse Now was filmed in your home country, as well as Platoon. They all looked miserable. Sometimes realism pays, just depends on the director. Coppola and Stone try and get it right, story line not withstanding, atleast with those guys u feel your there.