Hollywood takes it on the chin w/ Anti- war movies

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, March 14, 2025 17:13
VIEWED: 2546
PAGE 3 of 3

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Not being a neo con, i wouldn't know. But since ...

Ahh, the dodge and feint.

Ok, so how do you get around the strongly anti-interventionist ethos of Serenity and Firefly? How did you dodge the pointed criticism of the Bush administration's GWOT and their attempts to remake the middle east, to 'make people better'? How do you square Firefly's firmly anti-authoritarian message with your own enthusiasm for the 'Alliance' style tactics of our own government?

SergeantX

Easy. I wasn't comparing plots, just how well they premiered. Firefly / Serenity are fiction, where as what is going on in the Middle East is real life. Real life men are really trying to blow up innocent folks to force them to convert to their religion , or die.

Big difference.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Yeah... I'm not sure if the 'Islamo-Fascist' angle is a good tact for you Finn. Honestly. Auraptor's 'plausible deniability' is probably a better bet. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the Reavers were stand-ins for the terrorists, but that leads you into all kinds of thorny questions, like how the Reavers/terrorists were created or why the Alliance was hiding the truth from it's citizens, etc ...

I can understand why you want to ignore that angle, but the fact remains that it renders your whole point moot. You notice how no one in Serenity or Firefly ever seemed concerned about the civil rights of Reavers. They were just ruthless monsters for which there was only one recourse for dealing with - kill or be killed. The second problem with your analogy is that no one is trying to make anyone in Iraq “better,” at best we are liberating them from a ruthless tyrant, at worst we are trying to put their country into a stable position after deposing a ruthless tyrant. I can believe Saddam was a rotten dictator who needed to be removed and that Iraq should be stabilized and given a chance for success after doing so, while simultaneously believing that there is a limit to the extent that the government should practice social engineering. There’s really nothing to reconcile.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 5:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You notice how no one in Serenity or Firefly ever seemed concerned about the civil rights of Reavers. They were just ruthless monsters for which there was only one recourse for dealing with - kill or be killed

Exactly, just like no one is concerned about the terrorists' civil rights now. Still, the crew saw the injustice in what the Alliance did to the people who were turned into Reavers - and sought to expose it.

Quote:
second problem with your analogy is that no one is trying to make anyone in Iraq “better,”...

I'm fairly certain the Iraqis would agree with you, but it was on the sales brochure for the war. Or was that covered by the disclaimer? It's not easy to tease apart the real reasons for the war from the litany of shifting excuses.

This is fun.

Are you seeing GW as the Operative? I got Ron Paul all lined up for Mal. Maybe Cheney could be that doctor guy at the start, 'cause it'd be cool to see Bush kill Cheney with a sword.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 5:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Exactly, just like no one is concerned about the terrorists' civil rights now. Still, the crew saw the injustice in what the Alliance did to the people who were turned into Reavers - and sought to expose it.

And I see the injustice in Middle Eastern dictators and warlords that create terrorist lords.

Then of course the question can be turned toward you - how do you reconcile your beliefs with Serenity and Firefly, if you believe that the Reavers represents Islamo-fascists and that they should have civil rights?

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm fairly certain the Iraqis would agree with you, but it was on the sales brochure for the war.

Yes, stabilizing Iraq under a representative government was a condition of removing the previous government. That seems only fair, and as long as the Democrats can keep from throwing a wrench into the deal, hopefully it will be a condition we won’t renege on.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
This is fun. Are you seeing GW as the Operative? I got Ron Paul all lined up for Mal. Maybe Cheney could be that doctor guy at the start, 'cause it'd be cool to see Bush kill Cheney with a sword.

I can’t see George Bush as the Operative. The whole personality of the Operative was that he had a demeanor that was 007-ish. I have a hard time, seeing Bush with a vodka martini and Katana. I can’t see Ron Paul as Mal either. I suspect that they might share similar political philosophies, but Ron Paul doesn’t strike me as much of a swashbuckler.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

HERO

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 5:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Not really. It just shows people aren't into seeing stories set in that theatre, yet. The series "Over There" wasn't anti-war, and it still bombed. Musicals were the genre of choice durring WWII. Movies depicting that was weren't popular untill it was over.

Lets ask the Duke:

The Flying Tigers, 1942
The Fighting Seabees, 1944
Back to Baatan, 1945
They Were Expendable, 1945 (if you loved PT boats...)

and there are other classics:
Destination Tokyo, 1943 w/Cary Grant
Gung Ho!, 1943 w/Randolph Scott (not in a Western?)
Lifeboat, 1944 a Hitchcock classic
Objective Burma, 1945 w/Errol Flynn
Sahara, 1943 w/Bogart
Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, 1944 w/Spencer Tracy (an all time favorite of mine)

I think the reason why movies like these did well and became classics while today's movies fail, is because..."all this stuff you’ve heard about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big league ball player, the toughest boxer. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans."

Edited to add: Shouldn't Hollywood make at least one movie that shows America kicking ass for God and Country? One movie that shows the bravery and fighting prowess of the American fighting man and leaves the enemy exposed for what they truly are, cowards and thugs who are better off dead. How about a movie that shows the American flag raised in triumph standing for freedom and justice rather then sorrow and regret? Thats a movie I'd go to see.

Why not a movie like 'We Were Soldiers'? That movie is just about the greatness of the American soldier (and in many ways the Vietnamese soldiers too) without comment to the political context of the fight. That movie is as true to what happened as can be...funny how in that truth we find out more about the character of the conflict then in any of the fictionalized movies out there.

H

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 5:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
... if you believe that the Reavers represents Islamo-fascists and that they should have civil rights

As I stated very clearly in my previous post, no one is worried about the terrorists' civil rights, just as no one was concerned about the Reavers civil rights - except you apparently. What are you getting at?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

JAYNEZTOWN

Friday, March 14, 2025 5:13 PM

today's problem is all the DEI tranny gay Lesbo Diverse 'Message' stuff

and why did the Cuckservative Zionist Neocon ChickenHawks Love the idea of 'War' so much?

these days the hits seem to be Horror movies and Video-games made to film but as long as you don't have something in these films that offends Hollyweird

‘Minecraft Movie’ Tracking for Decent $58M Opening
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/minecraft-movie-tr
acking-decent-box-office-opening-1236162789/

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3