|
mugrim posted:The movie does not portray it as the "Wrong people for no good reason", that's kind of the point. Killing muslims in retaliation for 9/11 is pretty much the implied point of his service as portrayed by the movie. They are an evil people on screen, and every bullet in them saves American lives. have you EVER been deployed? Because killing Muslims is what people did during the invasion, and hating Muslims is what people did during the invasion. We even had nicknames for them that were much worse than anything said in the movie. It is unbelievable how accurate that particular plot point is.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
Smoothrich posted:I dont think soldiers are saints, they are trained killers. Are soldiers supposed to feel guilt about killing? No, we aren't. It's a huge portion of training that starts the day you head off to basic training/boot camp. But let all of the subject matter experts tell you instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Cole posted:No, we aren't. It's a huge portion of training that starts the day you head off to basic training/boot camp. I don't want to speak for anyone else but when someone says soldier's "should" feel guilt about killing, they are probably speaking more philosophically. In reality you're right of course, the training is designed to prevent guilt or doubt. For me that is a problem, and obviously not just an American problem. Its a very old problem though, and its not like there's any magical solution to it. As a pacifist I wish soldiers didn't exist at all but that's just a fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Cole posted:No, we aren't. It's a huge portion of training that starts the day you head off to basic training/boot camp. The point is that the training causes nearly as much damage as the war itself, and when people say that soldiers should feel bad for killing it is definitely in more of a philosophical sense. Killing the enemy should never be the fun, exhilarating thing Chris Kyle said it was in his book. War has always been Hell, but Chris Kyle depicted it as a day at Disney World and something he wishes he could do forever. That is the problem people have with how huge a difference there is between the movie and the book.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:The point is that the training causes nearly as much damage as the war itself, and when people say that soldiers should feel bad for killing it is definitely in more of a philosophical sense. We are arguing the accuracy of the movie, and killing being fun and exhilarating is accurate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Agreed, taking a human life is dope as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Cole posted:We are arguing the accuracy of the movie, and killing being fun and exhilarating is accurate. We're definitely all over the place and not everyone is arguing about the same thing. My specific complaint is that the movie doesn't really show that Kyle's training turned him into someone that enjoyed killing people. Its a big part of what makes the book interesting/important, and its not evident in the movie because he's supposed to be the hero of the story. The Kyle displayed in his own book is not someone to be lauded as a hero. You're arguing the realism of the movie versus actual combat, while some people in the thread are arguing that the story told in Kyle's book is not the same one told in the film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:My specific complaint is that the movie doesn't really show that Kyle's training turned him into someone that enjoyed killing people. I would say that's a very hard thing to put on film (probably impossible) and make it relatable to a large audience. How about this: in the context of the movie (not the book), had 9/11 never occurred, Chris Kyle would not have joined the military, and he would not have gone to Iraq. Ergo, 9/11 was directly responsible for him going to Iraq. In that context, 9/11 was directly responsible for him (who the movie is about, it is not about America as a whole) being in Iraq. Can you agree with that in the context of the movie? I still maintain that just because something is based on something, it does not have to 100% follow it to a T. Cole fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Cole posted:I still maintain that just because something is based on something, it does not have to 100% follow it to a T. You've made like 50 posts complaining about the inaccuracy of The Hurt Locker.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:You've made like 50 posts complaining about the inaccuracy of The Hurt Locker. The only accuracy in Hurt Locker is time and place. It is as accurate as this movie. But we can keep running around this wagon if you really want to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Cole posted:I would say that's a very hard thing to put on film (probably impossible) and make it relatable to a large audience. That may be true, but not every film has to be relatable to a large audience. The point is that marketability and financial concerns took priority over actually telling the true story of who Kyle was. Cole posted:
Yea I can agree with that, the use of the 9/11 footage isn't a major issue for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:That may be true, but not every film has to be relatable to a large audience. A fair assessment, but when you're on a $60m budget from a big studio you're generally stuck making a movie relatable to a large audience. Movies like Birdman or Pulp Fiction that have a relatively small budget are pretty rare and generally don't secure wide releases without going through film festivals and such. American Sniper was meant to be a wide release from the get-go. Had Birdman and Pulp Fiction bombed at their respective film festivals, they would not have secured a wide release due to their low budgets. When you push $60m at a movie, you're almost stuck with a wide release, regardless of your initial screen testings, so it better be relatable to a larger audience than a passion piece like Birdman seemed to be. Cole fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Cole posted:I would say that's a very hard thing to put on film (probably impossible) and make it relatable to a large audience. Maybe the fact that you can't portray Kyle accurately and make him relatable should be the point? Maybe we should be asking why the filmmakers felt the need to present a sanitized version of Kyle. And if most soldiers are like Kyle, as you argue, what is the point of making the audience relate with a version of "the average soldier" that doesn't line up with reality? This kind of ties into why people are calling it propaganda, because that's exactly the kind of thing propagandist media engages in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Maybe the fact that you can't portray Kyle accurately and make him relatable should be the point? Maybe we should be asking why the filmmakers felt the need to present a sanitized version of Kyle. And if most soldiers are like Kyle, as you argue, what is the point of making the audience relate with an version of "the average soldier" that doesn't line up with reality? This kind of ties into why people are calling it propaganda, because that's exactly the kind of thing propagandist media engages in. I don't know what you mean by sanitized version of Kyle, because I have seen the majority of people in this thread complain about how horrible the person in the movie was since he called people savages, killed a child, neglected his family, and had no remorse for anything he did. Maybe a less terrible version of Kyle, but I think sanitized makes the portrayal seem a bit too saintly. He did terrible things in the movie, but those terrible things actually happen in the Middle East. The difference is, based on the training you receive from day one (which could be considered propaganda in itself), it is justified. Maybe not to you, maybe not to a lot of people, but based on the rules of engagement that were in place at the time (shoot all military aged males or anyone posing a threat whether they are woman or child), and the mission that was given to troops over there, it is justified. They evacuated the city. They were told if they didn't evacuate, they would be considered enemy combatants. Whether or not that is disenfranchisement is not relevant to troops because they are not trained to think that way. They are trained to think "well, everyone was told to evacuate so if they stay they must be the enemy" and that gives a very, very clear justification for the actions committed, whether or not they were morally right or wrong. You aren't trained to think about morals, you are trained to think about killing the enemy, and in this case the enemy was spelled out for them, whether or not they were actually an enemy. I didn't, however, see him shoot anyone who would be considered a friendly in the movie. A child dying is a terrible thing, but children are used as weapons in the Middle East all the time, and when you are taught the "us vs. them" mentality in such an effective way, even killing a child is justified.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Cole posted:When you push $60m at a movie, you're almost stuck with a wide release, regardless of your initial screen testings, so it better be relatable to a larger audience than a passion piece like Birdman seemed to be. Why did they push $60m at this movie then when it should have been clear that Kyle is a not an appropriate hero and his story would have to be changed drastically to appeal to a wide audience? Nobody forced them to make this movie or to put that much money into it. These were decisions made by people who's #1 priority was financial gain. I'm not saying that's surprising, just sad and potentially harmful to young under-educated people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Why did they push $60m at this movie then when it should have been clear that Kyle is a not an appropriate hero and his story would have to be changed drastically to appeal to a wide audience? Nobody forced them to make this movie or to put that much money into it. These were decisions made by people who's #1 priority was financial gain. I'm not saying that's surprising, just sad and potentially harmful to young under-educated people. It isn't Hollywood's responsibility to educate anyone. The story is "based on" Chris Kyle. You are putting way too much stock in those words. Hurt Locker, as inaccurate as I say it is, is "based on" an EOD team in Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Cole posted:It isn't Hollywood's responsibility to educate anyone. Come on now, that's just ridiculous. The marketing of the film went extremely far out of its way to make sure everybody knew about the real Kyle. And I suppose we could get into what would amount to a semantics argument about what "responsibility" Hollywood has for the movies it produces. Regardless of that, films that have distasteful politics or portray history(even just one man's) inaccurately open themselves up to criticism, and that's what's happening with American Sniper. The list of films that have been criticized for attempting to whitewash or sanitize history is long, and that criticism is legitimate. If you personally don't care about that aspect of film, fine, but lots of others do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Come on now, that's just ridiculous. The marketing of the film went extremely far out of its way to make sure everybody knew about the real Kyle. Not really. And even if it did, Chris Kyle the person is not the Chris Kyle portrayed in the movie (right?), so knowing about the real guy doesn't make a difference other than the fact that, if you did find out about the real Kyle, you would know not to take "based on" so seriously. Basebf555 posted:And I suppose we could get into what would amount to a semantics argument about what "responsibility" Hollywood has for the movies it produces. Regardless of that, films that have distasteful politics or portray history(even just one man's) inaccurately open themselves up to criticism, and that's what's happening with American Sniper. The list of films that have been criticized for attempting to whitewash or sanitize history is long, and that criticism is legitimate. If you personally don't care about that aspect of film, fine, but lots of others do. If you are going to tell the story through the eyes of a character like Chris Kyle, which this movie does, you have to realize something: people who are in the military who go to Iraq or the anywhere else in the Middle East generally relish the opportunity to pull the trigger on an enemy. It is fun. They see the enemy as savages. They don't even see the enemy as human. This is the mindset of 90% of the troops in the Middle East. This isn't whitewashing anything, this is the loving reality of the majority of troops fighting over there. You are asking for a completely different movie to be made, in which case you would not base it on and tell it through the eyes of someone who has the typical mindset of most of the people over there. Or you just flat out don't think this movie should have been made at all. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't accurate. But hey, you're the subject matter expert I guess and I have no clue what I'm talking about. Cole fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Cole posted:
What you're describing is what I WANTED to see in the movie! Movie Kyle feels conflicted about killing people and is only doing it because he has to protect his fellow soldiers. Real-life Kyle admits he just enjoys killing the enemy and was sad that he couldn't continue killing. That's the part that's being whitewashed and sanitized. And look, I get that you've served and therefore you have a perspective on this that I won't ever have. If that means you're not going to have this discussion with an open mind then lets end this now, stop throwing out sarcastic remarks that seem to suggest you're the only person with enough knowledge to speak on this topic. Also I've never heard the term "subject matter expert" where are you even getting that from?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Well you're now getting into some real poo poo that would have made a great movie don't you think? If you show Kyle as a monster then he may be viewed as an outlier, a killer on a joyride that doesn't accurately reflect or represent our troops. It's a more powerful movie if despite his sniper skills he's still just one of the troops carrying out our foreign policy. It's not supposed to be the Chris Kyle story. He's symbolic. He doesn't have to be portrayed 100% accurately (as if that's even possible anyway, his own book is inaccurate and other people's opinions of him and his exploits surely diverge) for the movie to tell some truths about what war looks and feels like. The movie opens with him with a child in his scope. As the shot is fired we cut to him shooting a deer. Both scenes are powerful in themselves but the parallel is hard to miss. The movie isn't harmful because it dehumanizes Iraqis; war is harmful because it dehumanizes people. Eventually we're back in Iraq and we see him kill that child and a woman. I doubt many people in the audience were thinking "wow this guy's a real hero, go America." The scene repeats later in the movie and we see him agonizing over having to kill another child. Seems like something an audience can relate to. Why does the movie make such a big deal about this? Some people in this thread seem concerned about the movie's impact. I doubt that the opinions of anyone over a certain age is going to be changed by it, and that age may be lower than you think. If we're talking about kids who are still at an impressionable age, I wonder what they'd say about war after watching this movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Eventually we're back in Iraq and we see him kill that child and a woman. I doubt many people in the audience were thinking "wow this guy's a real hero, go America." The scene repeats later in the movie and we see him agonizing over having to kill another child. Seems like something an audience can relate to. Why does the movie make such a big deal about this? Military aged males are the enemy. Women (especially if you are familiar with the culture) and children are tools used by the enemy, they are not the enemy. Ask any troop, one of the things they fear the most if having to kill a child. Unfortunately it does happen, and sometimes it is deemed necessary. (Please don't actually ask anyone this.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Cole posted:Military aged males are the enemy. Women (especially if you are familiar with the culture) and children are tools used by the enemy, they are not the enemy. Women and children are casualties of war. My point is that this supposedly pro-war movie highlights this horrifying aspect. I think it's significant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Come on now, that's just ridiculous. The marketing of the film went extremely far out of its way to make sure everybody knew about the real Kyle. I think you're overstating the effect that movies have on history, but agree in general with your criticism of movies that whitewash it. In the case of American Sniper, I don't have an issue with Kyle's story being changed in the movie. I think it serves a larger purpose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:If you show Kyle as a monster then he may be viewed as an outlier, a killer on a joyride that doesn't accurately reflect or represent our troops. It's a more powerful movie if despite his sniper skills he's still just one of the troops carrying out our foreign policy. For me that would have been worth the risk in order to have a chance at showing what our foreign policy and militaristic culture does to our troops. By shying away from the monstrousness of the real Kyle the film becomes a cop-out, the "war is dehumanizing" message has been done to death and is trite at this point. I want to see a film about how we as a country are creating monsters and setting them loose on our "enemies". This movie, considering who Kyle was and what he wrote in his book, had the opportunity to be that movie and it isn't, so that is very disappointing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:For me that would have been worth the risk in order to have a chance at showing what our foreign policy and militaristic culture does to our troops. By shying away from the monstrousness of the real Kyle the film becomes a cop-out, the "war is dehumanizing" message has been done to death and is trite at this point. I want to see a film about how we as a country are creating monsters and setting them loose on our "enemies". This movie, considering who Kyle was and what he wrote in his book, had the opportunity to be that movie and it isn't, so that is very disappointing. But the movie was about one guy and his experiences with war and how he saw things, not about foreign policy. Again, you're asking for a completely different movie. A similar argument would be watching Bad Boys 2 and saying "I would've rather seen a movie that realistically depicts police brutality." Not from a realism sense, but from the perspective that you think the movie should have been done completely differently when, in reality, that isn't possible given this specific of subject matter. Cole fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Women and children are casualties of war. My point is that this supposedly pro-war movie highlights this horrifying aspect. I think it's significant. I think we are in agreement that this movie isn't as pro-war as this thread is making it out to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Cole posted:But the movie was about one guy and his experiences with war and how he saw things, not about foreign policy. Again, you're asking for a completely different movie. Well you're correct, I'm asking for a completely different movie. I wish a very different movie was made using the Chris Kyle story. Comparing Bad Boys 2 to a bio-pic of a real-life soldier who died less than ten years ago and who fought in a real-life war that ended so recently is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Cole posted:But the movie was about one guy and his experiences with war and how he saw things, not about foreign policy. No it's not, and that's the core of so many criticisms. Everything wrong with the movie is FINE as a movie if it's kept true to the source and shown from the pov of a single flawed person rather than that of omniscient Truth We as a country and frankly the world as a whole NEEDS a movie that shows that the whole mentality of killing sand niggers, hadjis, loving ragheads, and every other imaginable profanity begins with Red Week (the first section of basic training) and only gets worse. If even that little bit of truth can't be made public, maybe there's something wrong with the military as a whole. The fact that so many soldiers themselves are so thoroughly broken needs more light Sentient Data fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Sentient Data posted:No it's not, and that's the core of so many criticisms. Everything wrong with the movie is FINE as a movie if it's kept true to the source and shown from the pov of a single flawed person rather than that of omniscient Truth You need a movie like that, but it isn't Hollywood's responsibility to give it to you. You're also taking the whole concept of basing a movie on something as if it should be a documentary, when that isn't the case at all... like ever. From the same production company that brought you Tarzan and the Lost City, Saving Silverman, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, you're asking for a movie that makes insightful political commentary. Why do we absolutely NEED that from a loving movie? P.S. you don't hear very many profanities like the ones you described during red week. the only one i heard was "haji" and that was well after red week. hth Cole fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
A movie advertised as fact and given an omniscient point of view has no right being anything other than a documentary
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Sentient Data posted:A movie advertised as fact and given an omniscient point of view has no right bring anything other than a documentary where did the movie get advertised as fact rather than being based on the life of Chris Kyle? show me, don't tell me. and not some opinion piece article that agrees with you, either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Cole posted:You need a movie like that, but it isn't Hollywood's responsibility to give it to you. I'm not really interested in what Hollywood is "responsible" for. Kyle's story was an opportunity to expose a systemic problem and instead it was used for a completely different purpose, and that's unfortunate. That opportunity was wasted, and I wish it hadn't been.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I'm not really interested in what Hollywood is "responsible" for. His story was told in a book. A movie based on his story was made.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Cole posted:A movie based on his story was made. Yes and I'm expressing dissatisfaction with the way it turned out. It could have been an important film with an important message. Instead its the same old poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Yes and I'm expressing dissatisfaction with the way it turned out. It could have been an important film with an important message. Instead its the same old poo poo. I'm sorry the studio didn't call you for your input?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Cole posted:I'm sorry the studio didn't call you for your input? You know you're in a forum where people post opinions about movies right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:You know you're in a forum where people post opinions about movies right? Yeah but you're not getting it: what you wanted to happen doesn't mean dick. You're pissing against the wind every time you say "the movie should have been like this" when, in reality, movies should be made just how the person making them wants them to be made, plain and simple.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
You guys, there's absolutely nothing wrong with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_worst - they're all 100% perfect according to how the studios and directors wanted them to be made! Stop comparing the movies to what you wanted them to be, jeez
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
So you don't agree that movies should be made the way the person making them wants them to be? Kind of robbing people of their creativity with that mindset.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
Cole posted:Yeah but you're not getting it: what you wanted to happen doesn't mean dick. You're pissing against the wind every time you say "the movie should have been like this" when, in reality, movies should be made just how the person making them wants them to be made, plain and simple. So you've never had a criticism of any movie you've ever seen?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:29
|
|