|
astupiddvdcase posted:Colour color*
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
Armani posted:If GIP is to be believed: growing a beard is like' the first thing you do once you get out of service. its right up there with smoking pot.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
astupiddvdcase posted:So apparently the guy who killed kyle was an 'islamic sympathiser' and he saw no combat experience. He isnt muslim but just cause he wasnt muslim doesnt mean everything said about chris and this movie still does not stand. what does your first point have to do with your second point
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
astupiddvdcase posted:I think i was meant to say even if he was muslim and an islamic sympathizer everything about this movie and chris still stands. And we dont even know his beliefs maybe he is just disillusioned and that equals "islamic sympathizer" to consrvatives. Lol Yeah but how did you enjoy the movie because a movie can be about bad people and still be good. Like pulp fiction. Or hot shots.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
mugrim posted:That one was pretty unofficial and was essentially just shooting with dudes he knew and creating a relatively informal network. The Kyle family total paid out to charity as of a month or so ago was like 52k out of millions (with 100% promised, estimates hover around 6m right now). This was a completely separate thing. yeah the movie had all this in it that is why it belongs in this thread
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
mugrim posted:There was a claim earlier that 'the family' should be left out of discussion of the movie. My point is that the family (Specifically Taya) has very clearly put themselves in the public eye, and for quite a pretty penny, so pretending involving them at all is wrong is kinda odd. The narrative of the movie is so overwhelming that people were actually convinced that she's in dire need of funds to the point of raising cash to give her. yeah but who cares about politics, just talk about the movie bro this ain't d&d
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
people who have never been in or around the military psychoanalyzing the military itt your drunk grandpa doesn't count
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Armani posted:
first, let me just say i'm shocked that you are being cordial. i think i'm too used to dnd. It's just kind of offensive when people say "the military is like this" and they are very specific in their thoughts when really, they don't have a clue because they've never done anything like it. My thoughts on Chris Kyle: Excellent Seal, lovely person. Based on what I know of him, I would have loving LOVED to have that dude doing overwatch for us, but I wouldn't let him take care of my dog stateside. This "boring as gently caress" film that you guys have watched actually resonates with a lot of people who have served, and not necessarily because of the Iraq scenes. For me, the toughest scene to watch was when he was getting his car fixed or the oil changed or whatever, and that dude was thanking him for saving his life. That scene in particular is probably boring for a lot of people. But the discomfort on his face when he is saying "yeah.. yeah thanks" or whatever the lines were, are exactly what it is like for most people who have served or are still serving when you thank a veteran, especially one who has lost friends. It was tough because it hit true to home. The war scenes were fairly well made. The scene where he shoots the kid was pretty tough to watch. My biggest fear prior to deploying wasn't dying or my friends dying, it was having to shoot a kid. The movie did a great job showing how lovely that do-or-die situation was. But everyone is an expert on how it ~*~should~*~ have gone when really, their opinions aren't based anywhere in the realm of reality. For the record, my priorities shifted and my friends' well-being took the top spot after about a month into my deployment, when a 13 year old was strapped with a bomb and walked into a wedding, killing 40 and injuring 77. Combine that with friends dying? Trust me, it's very easy to see every single Muslim, Islamist, whatever name you want to give them, as the enemy. Or "savages," as it was put in the movie. That wasn't Eastwood saying Iraqis are savages, or the movie painting an unrealistic portrait of things. Just about every American troop thinks every Iraqi and Afghan that are still in Iraq and Afghanistan are savages through personal experience. Before my deployments, I didn't have much interaction with either and didn't think anything terrible about them. But imagine if your first 12-15 months of experiences with black people was nothing but violent, death, carnage, blood and destruction. You might start seeing black people in a certain light as well. Trust me, most of us don't go in thinking that way, it's just a symptom of war. For what it's worth, it took me over a year to let go of the grudges I unjustly held against an entire culture of people, but I finally have. You might say Eastwood glamorized war with this movie, you might say that it's poo poo or w/e and your opinions are fine. But don't speak for every swinging dick like your opinion is gospel. The reason you think it is glamorizing war is because you haven't actually been to war. Trust me, it didn't glamorize anything. Most people are just ignorant. Not a dig, they just think they know what they are talking about, but they don't. A lot of people signed up for the military because of 9/11. That was a very good reason for wanting to defend the United States. Those same people are not the ones who said to go to Iraq. They are not the ones who made it weapons free (if it moves, shoot it). They are just the messengers for the people in charge. Also, when you tell troops that "the entire city is evacuated, anyone there is there for a bad reason," what do you expect? They evacuated entire cities in Iraq and Afghanistan with the pretense that "if you stay, you will get killed, come back later." It's a lovely way to deal with people, yes, but when you're getting shot at you don't care how lovely it is anymore. Cole fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:No, the boring as gently caress parts were the parts set in Iraq. But what was so boring about them?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I'm coming from the perspective of someone watching a film, but I have to ask: have you ever seen one other movie about war? Every time I see this argument, I'm wondering if it's from someone who is bored or annoyed by the way other films depict warfare. I have no idea what you are trying to imply here? I actually watched Korengal last night. It's a documentary that is the follow-up to Restrepo. There are many times where the soldiers interviewed say things like "I would rather be [in Korengal] than here." It's one of the most realistic depictions of what war does to people, and one of the most unbiased documentaries I've seen on the subject (though I might be biased in saying that?) And even with that in mind, its pretty anti-war. The war movies I personally hate are things that just get it wrong. Hurt Locker is one of them. Waaaayyyy too many creative liberties were taken with that movie for it to be taken seriously from a military perspective. That one isn't pro/anti-war at all. It's just Hollywood set in the Middle East. Would you rather I said "imagine your first 12-15 months dealing with dogs" instead? Because then you would have just asked me if I'm saying Iraqis are dogs, right? What analogy that people can relate to would have been kosher enough for you to actually merit a decent response? Or do you just want to be a dickhead to be a dickhead?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Such as? Okay, I even said help me come up with another one... and you instead want to continue the lovely discourse instead of actually doing that. How about this: "What if, in your first 12-15 months of dealing with [insert whatever you want here because you clearly didn't get the point and instead are jumping on the racist wagon], it was nothing but...." and then finish my quote there. The Hurt Locker is one of the most unrealistic pieces of poo poo ever made dude. There are no three man EOD teams. There are no three man EOD teams that will go hunting for the bad guy. There are no three man EOD teams that will jump on a sniper rifle and try to wait someone out for several hours without actually trying to call it up to higher. Their uniform tapes were even on backwards in some scenes. You won't ever have a LtCol chaplain out on his own shooing some Iraqis away. The scene where he decides to go vigilante to find out who killed that kid? And then nothing happens to him? What the gently caress? That poo poo just doesn't ever happen.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I'm not calling you a racist, actually, I'm wondering what the value of unchallenged ignorance is. Bliss. But seriously, I'm just giving you the reason why troops see people from the middle east in a, generally, less than favorable light. Ignorant as it may be, it's just how it happens. I guess we can just keep it factual since you're dodging the question: what if, in your first 12-15 months of dealing with Iraqis, it was nothing but death, violence, carnage, and bloodshed? Even if your answer is something noble, can you not see how that would manipulate people into having a prejudice? Because that's exactly how it happened to me. My ignorance actually got challenged. I now go to a school that has one of the most diverse student bodies that I have ever seen. Currently I'm working on a peacebuilding project and one of the things I am stressing in it is that I, a former soldier, can get along with a friend of mine, who is from Baghdad. Kind of a message to people that "hey dipshits, just because they are brown-skinned doesn't mean they are bad people." More eloquently than that, but I don't feel like doing the sales pitch here. Luminous Obscurity posted:A lot has changed since 9/11. I came in about five years ago. Most of the people with me were straight out of high school and joined literally because their recruiters told them it was a good idea (or they wanted to kill brown people). There were a handful of people who came in with loftier ideals (serve your country, societal obligation, etc) but we were all like mid-twenties, so there was a pretty clear difference in mentality. This isn't to say there weren't exceptions, but generally, this seemed to be the trend. When DADT got repealed we actually got a brief about how getting married to your buddy isn't a sure ticket out of the barracks. The military knows how lovely things are for junior enlisted, they just don't do anything about it. Cole fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I'm already well aware of that, I'm black, and I live in America. Here's an undodgeable question: what was the United States military doing in Iraq? Finishing what Papa Bush started. No really, I think that was Bush's motivation and no, I don't think it was a just invasion. But really, I don't feel like derailing this thread into whether or not Iraq was just or not. I'll just say it wasn't.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:So then, what is the profundity of the story of the thoughtless professional warrior? I don't know, so I'm asking you because of your unique perspective. Would you say this film is remotely as good as Korengal? No. Korengal is much better if you're looking at what effects war has on people. It actually talks to those who were there. American Sniper is still Hollywood. It shows the affects that a lovely administration can have by sending people on a crusade to topple a regime... and then for some reason sticking around for a decade after the fact. If the message of "wow war can really gently caress people up" gets out because of this movie, then it helped more than Korengal did, because it reached a broader audience. But, unfortunately, I think it is tainted in the fact that it is still a Hollywood movie, so people aren't taking it as a serious anti-war message, which I think it is. Cole fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Why do you think it's not being taken seriously as antiwar? Why does this movie inspire such a fervent, patriotic reaction? Don't think I'm asking you a trick question, because I'm serious. Because on one hand, it's an America vs Them story (the Hollywood angle) and on the other hand, people don't actually have a grasp on just how war affects people, so they don't take that angle seriously because it isn't important to them. I think the saying went "The military is at war, America is at the mall."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Also, veterans have an unspoken bond between eachother, even if we don't know eachother. You had people like Michael Moore dogging Chris Kyle, which rallied troops and inflated the MERICA message of this movie even more.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
TG-Chrono posted:I just finished watching this film and as an ex-serviceman who struggled with losing colleagues, I felt it was sloppy, shallow, boring and pretty offensive. Reduces soldiers to characterless grunts, otherises objectors, and dehumanised the locals. Gross. The entire military's objective is to dehumanize the locals. As well as the media. The word "insurgent" has been used so greatly in the last 10+ years for that purpose alone. That part is pretty accurate. The movie wasn't about the grunts. It was about Chris Kyle with everyone else being set pieces. Giving everyone else substantial roles and giving them character would have diminished the fact that this is a movie about Chris Kyle. If you want a movie that gives a lot of characters character, watch a Tarantino movie, because you missed the point of this one. I don't know what you mean by otherises objectors because otherise is a made up word.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Why does a movie about Chris Kyle refuse to deal with Chris Kyle? In what way?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
TG-Chrono posted:http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/otherize http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/otherize what if you can find the definition of otherize in a legitimate dictionary i'll respect what you're saying. otherwise you're gonna have to reword it so i don't immediately think you're just kind of dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Well, his actual biography is full of poo poo that was clearly just made up, and the movie just ignore the fact that he's a huge dumb liar.. But the movie also invents things that contradict the actually believable parts of his biography too, and in ways that make him like a much worse person. He says he'd never shoot kids, for instance, which he does in the movie, and he said he respected the dead guy he talks poo poo about in the movie. I was being genuine in my question. I bought his book but haven't been able to read it yet due to schoolwork taking priority. I'll take a look at it though. For what it's worth, though, I think the movie did a fairly good job of showing how war can break someone down, and that's all I am commenting on. I've read several biographical pieces on the guy, good opinions of him and bad opinions, and that's where I get my source of information about Chris Kyle from.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:Otherizing would be when Kyle had a disapproving look on his face when his brother said "gently caress this place" or said that the other soldier (I can't remember which one because every non-Chris Kyle character in this movie was a cardboard cutout) deserved to die because he questioned the point of going to war. I didn't think it was him disapproving. It was more "holy poo poo, the war has hosed my brother up."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I've noticed that when anything gets near who he was, it's deflected as "well, it's about what it's like to be in war", so his thoughts, actions and feelings can be papered over and genericized. We can reduce his characterization to war stress being something that helps him push a good set of deadlifts. The most heated he gets is calling one of his comrades a pussy when he posthumously expresses his true feelings, which is also crucial - anyone who hasn't been in it can't understand, anyone who disagrees is no better than the enemy. The rest of the world is flat and uniform, full of people scared to do what's right, whether that's expressing anything other than total support or fighting for an unrighteous cause. I'm welcome to criticism. Sometimes criticism is the only way to let people know they are hosed up. Chris Kyle never got that (like I said, though, I've only read biographical information and not his actual book). Instead, he got propped up as a hero because of his kill count, and everything negative about him got put to the wayside. That is actually a very fundamentally flawed part of our military. Exposing it just isn't part of this movie because that wasn't the movie's objective. At the end of the day it's still Hollywood, and an anti-troop movie wouldn't make a studio much money right now. The movie shows how war breaks someone down, but, and I hate using this trope, unless you've seen it for yourself or lived it, you may not get that point. And as I said earlier, if this movie helps shed light on PTSD and how hosed up war can make people, then it served a good purpose, regardless of how it did it. Unfortunately it comes with people who have the message fly clear over their head (which is the majority) and think it's just American chest thumping.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
mugrim posted:"Oh poo poo, maybe some people really do just love killing people". yeah, 90% of people who serves in combat arms. chris kyle enjoying it doesn't make him a special snowflake, it makes him your average dude who went to war. the person who is in a combat arms job who doesn't enjoy it is actually the special snowflake.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
BigglesSWE posted:No mention of Saddam Hussein. You answered a completely different question than what was asked. socketwrencher posted:Was there anything good about the war or its effects shown in the movie? Anything positive that was achieved? Any romanticization of Kyle and his exploits?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Pretty much any movie about Iraq will be considered propaganda regardless of how you spin it, so you might as well try to justify the sky being blue while you're at it. And showing a dude having troubles dealing with life might be romanticizing, but that makes literally any war movie that has PTSD somewhere in there is the same thing. Should film makers just ignore PTSD completely from now on due to the risk of romanticizing a touchy subject? I don't think the movie showed anyone with a heart of gold until maybe the last 20 minutes. All of his stateside scenes were portraying a pretty lovely human. Cole fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:There are plenty of ways you could make a film about Iraq that isn't propaganda. They could have made a movie about Chris Kyle that wasn't propaganda. Eastwood just didn't. How? Because if you go the other way with the story and show Iraq for the colossal fuckup it was, you will have a completely different group of people saying it is anti-war and anti-troop propaganda.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
But Chris Kyle wasn't really involved with anything that would humanize anything. His job was to be perched on a rooftop and to shoot people, not to interact with the Iraqis who were getting the poo poo end of the stick. You're asking for a completely different movie at this point. And yes, going straight from 9/11 footage to Iraq was a bad mistake, but keep in mind a LOT of Americans thought we were in Iraq because of 9/11. If this movie was made ten years ago people would care a lot less about that plot device. People don't really pay attention. Cole fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
BigglesSWE posted:But this isn't "ten years ago". We're in 2015 and anyone who knows anything about anything knows better. It's those that don't have much knowledge of the circumstances that can get the wrong idea by such a juxtaposition. And THAT is a problem. Its those that don't have much knowledge of it that you shouldn't really listen to anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Who does it benefit to keep repeating this myth? Its Hollywood dude. 99% of the stuff in Hollywood has no benefit. Its not a documentary. Stop watching movies like they are news casts.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Or maybe, when you are watching films, you should ask yourself why the filmmakers might be making these deliberate choices to push a deliberate false narrative. Believe it or not, media has a pretty big influence on people's perceptions of history and politics. It's not like they made a mistake when they included those scenes. Yeah but if you are going to blame Hollywood movies (not the news) for people being misinformed why is that the movie's fault? When did movies suddenly get thrusted into a situation where they have to be 100% factual? I'm not disagreeing that it was a poor choice to make the movie that way, but I am disagreeing that movies need to change how they are made because people are dumb enough to see it and think it's real. If this movie was a documentary and not an "inspired by" piece then yeah, I could see your point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Do you not think there's a difference between "not being 100% accurate" and "being deliberately misleading"? Taking artistic license with plot elements and dialogue, spicing up the action, etc. is understandable, but that's a whole different ballgame than trying to reframe the entire historical and political context of a war that most Americans are already largely uninformed about. Whitewashing the Iraq war and lionizing Kyle under the guise of "Based on a True Story" is a bit different from what, say, the Amityville Horror is doing. Its a movie. If you're so seriously misled by a movie that it becomes an issue, that isn't the movie's fault, that's you being gullible to an unhealthy degree. If you seriously draw all of your conclusions about the Iraq war from a movie starring Bradley Cooper, I'm sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:
Nobody here knows, but they will tell you anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Like I said above, the problem is that literally 96% of Americans don't read more than 10 news articles (online or in an actual paper) in a 3 month period. What exactly do you think influences the opinions of those 96% of people? That isn't the movie's fault. That is people's fault for being lazy and gullible. Filmmakers who aren't making documentaries have no responsibility to anything but the MPAA and the studio that funds the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Explicitly deceitful thing deceives people, its makers have no responsibility for their actions. Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will had no real-world consequences and their makers bear no responsibility for making the world a shittier place because, whelp, people be dumb! Based on actual events isn't actual events hth
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Yes but you put that line there and you use the name of the book and the name of the guy for a reason. And that reason is to wrap your film in a perceived sincerity. No it isn't. Stop being so gullible when you watch movies. Now that you are aware of what "inspired by" means, you are better equipped to not think everything you see on the screen is fact.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Are you seriously arguing that creators do not put things in marketing materials and in films to have effects on the likely audience? Blair Witch did too. I guess the filmmakers had a responsibility to be factual with that one too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Fangz posted:You can't just ignore that aspect by saying 'don't be gullible'. Yes I can and that's exactly what I do because that's really what it boils down to.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Febreeze posted:Movies like this do nothing to challenge the common narrative It also isn't required to do that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:I submit that it does challenge it. But another poster said that it doesn't, which means iron clad that it doesn't. Unless people have different opinions, and yours just shows that hey, maybe it does change the common narrative for some people.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Every American war film since Vietnam has been about the effect of war on the troops, and yet... stop using hollywood to critique foreign policy and you'll be a LOT better off. seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 22:21
|
|