|
Byzantine posted:The Martian wasn't pandering, any more than 2010 or Armageddon was. It's either Russia or China, or you give Europe a big spaceship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrEQOj4ep8U
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
christmas boots posted:So like, if I were to go back and bang Confucius and give him some Doritos. That kind of disrespect? Man sounds like China was really freaked out by the original Bill and Ted movies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 05:48
|
|
|
Kevin DuBrow posted:It's not quite the same, though. While many U.S. films are propagandistic, especially about the military, plenty of them, especially from the '80s and onwards have had themes of how the government fails its citizens, victimises other countries or is downright corrupt. China can't be depicted that way without having the movie be banned from the largest international market. Like from my post earlier about Transformers, it's silly when the first half is about corrupt government actors and then there's a scene jammed in about the decisive and competent central government coming in to save Hong Kong. Theyre propagandistic about the military though because tanks cost a poo poo-ton to rent and the US military will let you use its tanks for almost nothing IF you let them have a look through your script to see if theres any troubling anti-military themes in it. Its the same thing self-censorship done for the sake of money
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 06:14
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:Theyre propagandistic about the military though because tanks cost a poo poo-ton to rent and the US military will let you use its tanks for almost nothing IF you let them have a look through your script to see if theres any troubling anti-military themes in it. Its the same thing self-censorship done for the sake of money I mean, " you get the money and tanks if you do x, y, and z to glorify the mighty United States Armed Forces" is pretty loving different from "you will only be allowed if you do x and y, while forbidding a and b." I don't know the exact laws around US vs China propaganda or film making but at least in the US, even now, you can dunk all over the government and military and impersonate american military for footage and even drive around a tank in your communist prop film. The tank will be the only challenge because they are expensive. There's transformers-style military-sponsored jerkoff films but there's an equal amount of unsponsored films that show the military in an awful light, with the same production values and easily watchable, that were released in theatres before the plague times. You can still buy military uniforms on the internet for your poo poo student film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 06:27
|
|
|
Also, it should be noted that basically none of the moviegoing audience in China likes the China pandering, because they can see right through it. It's literally only there to either get product placement money from Chinese companies, or to placate the Chinese government so they might let you onto their list of 'international films we'll allow people to see this year'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 06:57
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I mean, " you get the money and tanks if you do x, y, and z to glorify the mighty United States Armed Forces" is pretty loving different from "you will only be allowed if you do x and y, while forbidding a and b." I don't know about there being an equal amount.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 07:10
|
|
|
BogDew posted:
There were tons of sold out showings to empty theatres, which kind of sounds like a line to Alanis Morrisette’s Ironic. The requirements for Chinese involvement in media is why a ton of game companies also sold a certain part of themselves to Tencent, which is a whole other fan of worms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 11:07
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:Theyre propagandistic about the military though because tanks cost a poo poo-ton to rent and the US military will let you use its tanks for almost nothing IF you let them have a look through your script to see if theres any troubling anti-military themes in it. Its the same thing self-censorship done for the sake of money I have a bit of begrudging respect for Michael Bay for managing to convince the Pentagon to let him have Starscream turn into an F-22 despite their ban on having their tech associated with the villains by telling them that "Well of course Starscream would choose to turn into the DEADLIEST MOST POWERFUL machine in the WORLD". Edgar Allen Ho posted:I don't know the exact laws around US vs China propaganda or film making but at least in the US, even now, you can dunk all over the government and military and impersonate american military for footage and even drive around a tank in your communist prop film. The tank will be the only challenge because they are expensive. There's transformers-style military-sponsored jerkoff films but there's an equal amount of unsponsored films that show the military in an awful light, with the same production values and easily watchable, that were released in theatres before the plague times. You can still buy military uniforms on the internet for your poo poo student film. The amount of those films took a nosedive post 9/11 though. Try watching the 1998 Godzilla and ask yourself if any Hollywood movie would ever show the American military as a bunch of bumble fucks who arguably do more damage than Godzilla and have to be bailed out by FRENCH Intelligence these days. AceOfFlames has a new favorite as of 12:21 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 12:18
|
|
|
The first Avengers film didn't get military support because the US military didn't like the suggestion they were subservient to SHIELD.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 12:31
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:The first Avengers film didn't get military support because the US military didn't like the suggestion they were subservient to SHIELD. Do we know that reasoning for sure? I know the MCU went from having a lot of military funding in phase one to suddenly having none at all until Captain Marvel, but I didn't know if we knew why. I assumed it was because of something around the first two Captains America. I could see someone getting mad about some stuff in the first one, and DEFINITELY the second.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 12:44
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:Do we know that reasoning for sure?  It's what they said at leastWired posted:THE PENTAGON HALTED its cooperation with Marvel Studios' blockbuster movie The Avengers because the Defense Department didn't think a movie about superheroes, Norse Gods and intergalactic invasions was sufficiently realistic in its treatment of military bureaucracy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 12:49
|
|
|
Even Avatar had scenes changed whole cloth at the whim of the Pentagon. You can maybe squint and say "ah yes but things are clearly more free in the good ol' us of a" but the truth is that these films won't get made if they can't get their hands on the free military equipment. Doesn't seem like much of a difference from outright banning a film
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 14:00
|
|
|
Are studios forbidden from just using CGI tanks or what? You guys are saying renting tanks is expensive is that like the physical vehicle or are you not allowed to use even the image?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 15:04
|
|
|
Avengers CG'd in stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 15:05
|
|
|
Humerus posted:Are studios forbidden from just using CGI tanks or what? You guys are saying renting tanks is expensive is that like the physical vehicle or are you not allowed to use even the image? renting tanks isn't that expensive, it's a lot cheaper and quicker than CGI, especially if the tank is interacted with people like they stand on it and stuff but if the military doesn't want to rent you tanks then you've got very few other options honestly i don't even think you rent the stuff i think the military just loans you the use of their facilities and gear because it's good PR and they've got enough of it lying around
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
Avengers was done without Pentagon aid and input because they didn't like how SHIELD was depicted as above the US Military's chain of command. So Disney just hired the services of companies that own military vehicles to rent to big box office pictures. Yeah, the US Military does a huge propaganda push by offering good deals on military props/consultants to Hollywood studios in exchange for positive coverage. But they're not the only game in town, and plenty of studios don't bother working with them—adding another group that has input on the script is a huge pain in the rear end and can cost more money in time lost (a huge source of cost overruns) than you save by getting a discount on military vehicles. Really, it's just another form of product placement, only instead of money, the military offers to let the director and actors watch actual SEAL training so the studio can tout how "realistic" the film is when promoting it, or let them use one of the Army's endless surplus Humvees as cheap rear end props. Hell, Avengers 2 even had actual MIC product placement with Jankel supplying armored vehicles for their initial action scene.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 15:52
|
|
|
Humerus posted:Are studios forbidden from just using CGI tanks or what? You guys are saying renting tanks is expensive is that like the physical vehicle or are you not allowed to use even the image? It's often not just the vehicles, but also the people who operate them, and even extras. To give an example, for Black Hawk Down, the studio paid $3 million for eight Black Hawk helicopters and 100 soldiers to use during filming, which included a platoon of Rangers for all the scenes of them roping down, and a few of the pilots who actually had been in the battle (Keith Jones, the Little Bird pilot who lands at the first crash site, plays himself, for example). In exchange for that, the script almost entirely removed the inter-unit rivalry between the Rangers and Delta Force, as well as parts where the Americans just fired into crowds of people, removing Somali women and children almost entirely, and other stuff that wouldn't show the military in a positive light (And included a line about them being denied tanks and heavier equipment which never happened and was never requested  ). When the movie was made in 2001 it was pretty much impossible to get access to Black Hawk helicopters anywhere else, so they willingly made some changes to get access to stuff like that. Basically, the DoD can provide varying levels of support to movie, from full cooperation where they give men, equipment, and nearly anything, to just technical advice, stock footage, or no support at all, assuming it's ever asked for in the first place. It can allow the film access to stuff they'd otherwise never get, such as the helicopters in Black Hawk Down or the F-14s, carriers, and everything else in Top Gun, for which they paid like $2 million (An F-14 was like $37 million at the time and obviously not available privately), but the military has to sign off on the script first. In theory there is a back and forth on this stuff, but you'll also get cases like Platoon where Oliver Stone basically made like one token effort at getting Army support, knew they'd want to change a fuckton, and then went to the Philippines where the appropriate equipment (Namely small arms and Huey helicopters) were easily available and fairly inexpensive to get from the government IIRC without even waiting to hear back from them since he didn't want to make major changes that they'd inevitably request. Another example is Courage Under Fire, where the script was edited four or five times before it was clear the Army would never be happy with the basic plot of the movie enough to give them real Abrams tanks and significant support, so they went and visually modified old British Centurions and did almost everything on their own. Somehow, that movie cost $46 million while Top Gun a decade earlier only cost $15 million, so maybe equipment really is that expensive? There's also been an industry in foreign countries and militaries who are very willing to provide support to film studios who don't want to deal with the U.S. military. A ton of World War II movies were filmed in Spain, Czechoslovakia, and places like that in the 60's and 70's because they still had a fair amount of World War II-vintage (Or looking) equipment, usually had locations that could work reasonably well, and were perfectly willing to almost literally hand over a menu with prices for tanks, guns, and even soldiers (Price based on rank) to serve as extras for stuff like Battle of the Bulge, Patton, Kelly's Heroes, and various others, and basically had little to no interest or concern of the specifics of the scripts. There's a really good book on the whole subject of American movies and their relationship with the military called Guts and Glory by Lawrence Suid, which even includes a pretty lengthy list of movies and the level of support they got from the DoD and all sorts of details on how a bunch of movies got or didn't get support, as well the image and poo poo some of them presented. fartknocker has a new favorite as of 16:06 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 16:00
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:renting tanks isn't that expensive, it's a lot cheaper and quicker than CGI, especially if the tank is interacted with people like they stand on it and stuff A fun little story from the 1986 Tobe Hooper Invaders from Mars remake: They were attempting to get the Air Force to help them out for some scenes where the military shows up, so they sent them a script, and time just passes. So they start getting nervous, and call up the Air Force, and ask them what's up. The Air Force replies that it is their position that there are no such thing as Martians. One of the production people was apparently an ex-marine, who gave them the number for the Marines PR department. The Marines had the script over night, and basically replied with "son, the US marines have no qualms about killing Martians."
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 16:10
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:The first Avengers film didn't get military support because the US military didn't like the suggestion they were subservient to SHIELD. and made beaucoups bucks which is the point. and lmfao does anyone who has ever watched a movie in the past 40 years think that hollywood films have skewed pro-military since then? Hollywood, 1980: Ex-marine punches government spook in the face to end war crime tribunal. Guns down hundreds. Finally gets the evil guy. Evil guy learns that even his poo poo country might be good if they just practiced American Values. Edgar Allen Ho has a new favorite as of 18:55 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
Can’t help but think about the first Rambo movie where a bunch of cops provoke an unstable veteran into a killing spree
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 18:58
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:Can’t help but think about the first Rambo movie where a bunch of cops provoke an unstable veteran into a killing spree Rambo doesn't kill anyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
Really? I could have sworn he dropped a couple cops. Lame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:Really? I could have sworn he dropped a couple cops. Nope. The only cop who dies fell from a helicopter. He does injure a few with traps in the forrest (And maybe kill the tracking dogs?), but it’s always a neat little bit of trivia that the body count for First Blood is just one, while the sequels have him mowing down enemies by the dozen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
That first movie was so good. Didn't Stalone want the movie to end like the books where his character is killed, but the studio veto'd it so they could make more movies and then they got turned into action films?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
fartknocker posted:Nope. The only cop who dies fell from a helicopter. He does injure a few with traps in the forrest (And maybe kill the tracking dogs?), but it’s always a neat little bit of trivia that the body count for First Blood is just one, while the sequels have him mowing down enemies by the dozen. I mean technically the dude that got spikes through his legs wasn't killed by Rambo, but he probably died or at least had to have his legs amputated and probably committed suicide due to being unable to be a cop after that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
That was put down as a COVID death
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
Stallone wasn't even originally destined to be the B-plan for Arnold, the guy almost won an Oscar with Rocky and the first Rambo, as said, was about PTSD veteran and way the system treated him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:That first movie was so good. Didn't Stalone want the movie to end like the books where his character is killed, but the studio veto'd it so they could make more movies and then they got turned into action films? That ending was shot and ended up being used as a dream sequence in one of the recent Rambo movies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn187skbynQ
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:That first movie was so good. Didn't Stalone want the movie to end like the books where his character is killed, but the studio veto'd it so they could make more movies and then they got turned into action films? To be fair I heard it as more of a “telling a story where the only thing to be done for the PTSD vet is put him down like Old Yeller is kinda bad” which... seems reason enough not to do it. Can’t speak for the action film sequels of course, God knows that’s a major change in tone from the first film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
MadDogMike posted:To be fair I heard it as more of a “telling a story where the only thing to be done for the PTSD vet is put him down like Old Yeller is kinda bad” which... seems reason enough not to do it. Can’t speak for the action film sequels of course, God knows that’s a major change in tone from the first film. The whole movie could have been avoided if the cops weren't assholes. Some things never change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:The whole movie could have been avoided if the cops weren't assholes. Some things never change. That's like expecting fish not to swim to avoid the problems in Finding Nemo
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
pentyne posted:That's like expecting fish not to swim to avoid the problems in Finding Nemo confusing av/post combo
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
MadDogMike posted:To be fair I heard it as more of a “telling a story where the only thing to be done for the PTSD vet is put him down like Old Yeller is kinda bad” which... seems reason enough not to do it. Can’t speak for the action film sequels of course, God knows that’s a major change in tone from the first film. Ehhh. Both the film and the original story were about a man who gets pushed to that point specifically because of vagrancy laws and poor treatment of returning vets. The original story does frame killing him as the only resolution at that point, but there were a million ways "that point" could have been avoided.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 21:41
|
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:Stallone wasn't even originally destined to be the B-plan for Arnold, the guy almost won an Oscar with Rocky and the first Rambo, as said, was about PTSD veteran and way the system treated him. Having seen his other artistic endeavours, I believe that the original cut was Citizen Kane. buddhist nudist posted:Ehhh. Both the film and the original story were about a man who gets pushed to that point specifically because of vagrancy laws and poor treatment of returning vets. The original story does frame killing him as the only resolution at that point, but there were a million ways "that point" could have been avoided. There was the contrast between the treatment of Koreas vets and Vietnam vets running through the film, too. E: Correction, there was a lot more of Stallone talking in the longer version, so I am clearly wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTDwtHhR5qA Moo the cow has a new favorite as of 22:01 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
It is wild that a movie written by Sylvester Stallone was nominated for 10 Oscars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 23:58
|
|
|
buddhist nudist posted:Ehhh. Both the film and the original story were about a man who gets pushed to that point specifically because of vagrancy laws and poor treatment of returning vets. The original story does frame killing him as the only resolution at that point, but there were a million ways "that point" could have been avoided. Yeah, but again, "sometimes the only way to deal with a vet who's been abused to breaking is a mercy kill" is a hosed UP moral of the story to preach, even indirectly, when you've got a bunch of real world vets with similar issues. I don't think putting the potential idea of "the only end to your suffering is death" out there for them is terribly responsible, and I gather there was a similar argument at the time. Not like the change really undercuts the point that Rambo shouldn't have been treated like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 01:24
|
|
|
The whole point of the book is maybe both sides are bad. Though you could arguein the books the cops are much more sympathetic than the war veteran.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 01:41
|
|
|
MadDogMike posted:Yeah, but again, "sometimes the only way to deal with a vet who's been abused to breaking is a mercy kill" is a hosed UP moral of the story to preach, even indirectly, when you've got a bunch of real world vets with similar issues. I don't think putting the potential idea of "the only end to your suffering is death" out there for them is terribly responsible, and I gather there was a similar argument at the time. Not like the change really undercuts the point that Rambo shouldn't have been treated like that. "In order to save the veteran it became necessary to kill him." Kind of on the nose wrt the Vietnam thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:It is wild that a movie written by Sylvester Stallone was nominated for 10 Oscars. (I haven't seen Sling Blade in like 20 years and it may very well belong in this thread by this point)
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
On the Rambo/Rocky talk: There is a weird parallel between the two sets of films. Where the first in the series is an actual movie. Where a sad broken man deals with trauma, and internalized toxic masculinity. Battling a world that tells him he doesn't belong. But as the films progress, they turn into rah rah stories about a big strong tough manly superhero who overcomes the evil baddies, (be they the Russians or Mr T), by punching/shooting them. And he wins because he is so tough and muscly and manly YAY!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 03:19
|
|
