Loading Facebook Comments ...

23 Comments

  1. I am so sick of seeing the hi-tech futuristic military being portrayed as bad guys and getting owned by some peace loving hippie tribal alien race! I mean it looks cool and all, but I can’t help but feel that James Cameron is still stuck in the post-Vietnam mentallity! Low tech Jungle dwelling indegenous people going up against a technologically superior military force? Sounds like another anti-war Vietnam analogy to me. Amazing how some people forget that the hi-tech U.S. miliatry actually WON the battles in Vietnam!

    If Hollywood really wanted to be original, they would make the hi-tech military guys would be the good guys. The low tech aliens the cunning and decietful bad guys that uses superior numbers and ruthless tactics to make up for their lack of technology. Fuck Hollywood and their anti-military ways!

    This is why I prefer my sci-fi (particularly military sci-fi) in the form of books these days. It’s the only sci-fi medium in which you’re not limited to preachy feel-good left wing views.

    That said, I’m still going to check it out, only to admire at the cool military tech which I think is done pretty well and realistically. Now I do play a lot of video games, but it’s nice to see awesome combat scenes like this on the big screen.

  2. – If Hollywood really wanted to be original, they would make the hi-tech military guys would be the good guys. The low tech aliens the cunning and decietful bad guys that uses superior numbers and ruthless tactics to make up for their lack of technology.

    Hmmm… kinda like Starship Troopers, eh?

  3. Sure, why not? It wasnt as good as the book though, but it’s one of very few pro-military films out there that’s not about WW2! How many Starship Troopers type storylines can you think of that was portrayed in film? How many sci-fi hollywood movies can you think of that isnt anti-tech or anti-military? Even “Aliens” was a Vietnam analogy! And pro-femmenist to boot! Somehow a single woman without any previous combat experience is better than a squad of US Marines at fighting monsterous aliens.

    Don’t get me wrong, I love Aliens. Would love it more if it wasnt for the blatantly femmenist storyline.

  4. Yeah, he is stuck in the 60s. All his messages are trite. Dated.

    Too bad, he is a great storyteller.

    The military is almost alwatys portrayed as bad guys these days. One of the things I hated about the 28 days later movies. Even though they were well done

  5. Yeah, they pretty much quit making movies with the military as good guys as soon as the Vietnam era hippies got out of college and took over Hollywood.
    It’s kind of weirdly mind-boggling that there have been something like 17 Hollywood films about the scum-sucking, murderous, raping, looting, military in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ZERO about the truth, which is that they have been the most professional and best-behaved military in history. All while chasing people who are literally worse than the SS around civilian areas, with practically no civilian casualties. Back in WW2 (“The last good war”) they would have firebombed Kabul into smoking rubble long ago.
    I was trying to think of recent movies that portray the military in a positive light, and all I could come up with was The Hunt for Red October. Which was a huge hit. Then they adapted Clancy’s Patriot Games and the Hollywood rot set in. The military weren’t bad, but only semi-competent. Then came Clear and Present Danger, where they were corrupt and inept. And then the movie that killed the franchise, The Sum of All Fears–where the military was stupid and the terrorists were white supremacists (because the original Islamic terrorists were just too damn unbelievable, I guess). Each movie earned less than the one before. So much for the belief Hollywood is all about money.

  6. GENERATION KILL was a decent HBO mini-series about the Iraq War. Based on the book of the same name which based on a true story. Also, don’t forget Blackhawk Down, IMO, is still the best protrayal of modern American Soldiers. And I’d also have to say, to a lesser extent,… Transformers 2. Sure it was a movie about giant robots, but the U.S. and the one Brit soldier(s) were portrayed as being an effective and heroic fighting force rather than just fucking cannon fodder like in the recent Day the Earth Stood Still movie.

  7. Generation Kill was good, but it kinda sorta showed our troops shooting innocents in a casual manner. Which is BS. Blackhawk down was good but it didn’t honestly portray Clinton’s cowardly withdrawal from the scene.

    Another recent movie that showed us in a good light was Rescue Dawn, which was a true Vietnam POW movie with Christian Bale.

  8. Rescue Dawn and We Were Soldiers are two of the few Vietnam War movies that portrays American soldiers in a positive light. The book of Generation Kill is a whole lot better than the mini series. Basically it’s whole point was to show this new generation of video game/media influenced young marines. As opposed to the WW2 generation that had no form violent media entertainment. There are conversations (betwen Marines) in the book that werent in the show that make references things like GTA Vice City and the Matrix.

  9. Also, I think Blackhawk Down wanted to stay away from politics and focus on the Soliers which is fine by me. No politics in a movie is better than being bombarded preachy lefty politics.

  10. Uhh…Starship Troopers was actually vehemently anti military…it was a satire lol!
    Please watch the movie again and listen to the director’s commentary.
    It was a “what if” the world became fascist and paramilitary scenario. Yeah the Troopers were lovable and awesome and the bugs well…bugs. BUT the movie made it clear that the humans STARTED the war and could end it at anytime except for their inhuman committment to war. The humans were meant to be metaphors for the hive minded soldier bugs they fought, and the bugs metaphors for the humans facism (brain bugs, soldier bugs etc.) It was a satirized version of the novel.
    Also, yes I feel the mlitary has all the goodness and badness of any other human organization. But lets be real Professional killing is WILD lol. Invading someone elses country is also NUTS. Even is it is justified (which is VERY rare) it is still represents a mutual descent into hell. Fighting for your life in a killzone is not sexy. War is hell. Invading a peace loving people which is also rare (who the hell is innocent lol?)is also NUTS. When it does happen the invaders often discover that being advanced enough to create peace also means you are advanced enough to kick ass.
    I know it stings but the Viet Cong kicked our ass. We lost. They beat us. We won some battels but lost the war. We were hanging off helicoptors fly out of Saigo beacause WE COULD NOT WIN. We killed MUCH more of them than they did of us and suffered a horrible toll for their victory but they still won.
    Tech lovers beware. There is a human dimension to war which is ultimately the sol determinant to victory. You make war into a video game tech race and your army is in for some hurt feelings…and an ASS WUPPIN. I’ll take 100 guys with sticks rightous hearts and brains over 1000 highly trained soldier drones with high tech armament any day of the week.

  11. We didn’t lose the Vietnam war. If you believe that, you’re misinformed. We won every battle. The last hurrah of the North was the Tet Offensive, which they lost. Then the Democrats pulled funding for the war. Meanwhile, we had a peace treaty with the North. We pulled out and that’s when the North attacked. We did not lose the war. The Democrats, however, are responsible for the debacle that followed. The millions of people who died, the refugee crisis, etc.

    I don’t know what Starship Troopers has to do with this discussion, It wasn’t mentioned. But the Book was not anti-military. The movie was obviously farcical.

    • I just mentioned Starship troopers because someone shouted it out as a pro-military (I think?).
      I’m sure you know more about Vietnam than me sir. I just heard from a bunch of people that we got whupped. I don’t even know what “winning every battle” means in a guerila war with no actual front nut I am sure military heads have devised some sort of rubrick.

  12. The Vietnam war wasn’t entirely fought as a guerrilla war. There were a lot of factions on both sides. The North Vietnamese had a traditional army that fought conventionally, then they also used sneak fighters. The way Hollywood portrays it in general isn’t entirely accurate, as you can imagine.

    The north had no chance of beating us. They knew that. So they tried the guerrilla approach because that is how small countries can dog the larger country until it gives up. The left in the US were the ones who made the politicians lose the political will to finish the job. They tried that in Iraq but Bush refused to give in and we ended up winning. We would have won in Vietnam, too. The North was in real bad shape after Tet.

    The left then made the same arguments about how inhumane the war was and how many people were dying etc. But the fact is, the way it played out was much worse than if it had continued a year or more later. Things like the Cambodian killing fields are a direct result of us pulling out of the region.

  13. That makes perfect sense.
    That makes perfect sense. It just goes to show you that poloitics and public relations can prevent a army’s objectives even if they are dominant on the field thus turning a military advantage into a defeat.
    And yeah people oftren demonstrate they are much more adept at killing “their own” than ” foriegn invaders”.
    Bush’s victory in Iraq is a good comparison. But the Iraqi army was not a determined enemy, hated their government and jumped at the chance to surrender . Not righting them off they were no Viet Cong lol.
    But yeah your point is well made.

  14. The South Vietnamese govt was corrupt, but so is the Iraqi one (and Afghanistan). The thing is, the north was worse than the south. Iraq’s govt and Karzai’s are way better than the alternative. The story in Apocalypse Now of NVA cutting off the arms of children Americans had inoculated really happened and that was an example of what they were about. The idea that the people of Vietnam wanted a brutal totalitarian state to rule them is BS. Many fled to other countries creating a huge humanitarian crisis.

  15. That makes sense.
    If it wasn’t their governement though the VC must have believed in SOMETHING that gave them a fighting spirit the Iraquis were not even close to having though.
    I mean all politics aside the VC really dug in and fought with maniacal vigor against (as you pointed out) crushing odds. I’m not from their culture so I really can’t even guess as to their motivations. Nor am I saying thier fighting spirit was good or bad just observing that it existed at levels I don’t believe the iraquis have. But again I’m no expert.

  16. The VCs were True Believer Communists. And as we’ve seen over the last 100 years, such people are very dangerous. The NVA (official North Viet Nam uniformed troops) were catspaws of the Chinese. It was the Chinese we were really fighting in Viet Nam, just as in Korea. It was the Chinese who wanted the country as a vassal state. They created and supplied both the NVA and the VC.
    If the US had had the nerve, the war would have fizzled out in a few years. All we needed to do was bomb the crap out of Haiphong and cut the rail lines and major roads leading in from China. Unfortunately, that was not done for political reasons, leading most war analysts to call “the war we could not win.”
    Yet even with all of that, we HAD won after the Tet offensive. The NVA were getting burned out and starved for supplies since China was getting fed up. The VC could see things falling apart and were forced to leave the safety of the villages they’d been terrorizing and hiding in and openly take over small towns hoping the locals would sign on to the program (unfortunately for them, the locals loathed the VC). Once they were out in the open it was all over. Another six months of dedicated fighting and the country could have been divided ala Korea, a small US force left to help guard the border, and a few years of materiel support for the mopping-up operation. Or if we’d be serious, we could have pushed the NVA/Chinese troops up to the Chinese border, wiped them out, and returned the entire country to the Vietnamese. The leftists and the media knew this, which is why they pulled out all the stops to portray Tet as a failure.
    Viet Nam was a political, not military failure, aided and abetted by the media. Most people I talk to don’t even realize we were not fighting “the Vietnamese,” but protecting them from the NVA and the VC.
    Afghanistan has largely been the same thing–a political, not military, failure. The place is ungovernable. We should have rolled in back in 2002, maybe into 2003, bombed the crap out of every Taliban/Al Qaeda stronghold we could find, then wrapped up and gone home. I see no reason why we should even be there any more. If Al Qaeda and/or the Taliban start rebuilding in any major way, well, that’s what air power is for.

  17. Makes senxe and is a good history less on (one you don’t hear much of).
    Its good toknow our country’s military is not guided predominantly by “evil imperialism” as portrayed by many films.
    One director who ALWAYS shows the militay as benfactors and protectors in times of crisis is Michael Bay. Sometimes it seems hokey and 1950’ish patriotic but heck why not? I mean who is better equipped to deal with problems a wll funded thik tank of experts or a band of rogue vigillante strangers? The latter is ofcourse sexier and more romanticized but the former also makes for good storytelling (if not more storytelling)..
    Often alot of great sounding leftist theories need rightist practice to implement. Conversely a lot of rightist theories which sound cold and hard end up leading toreal wold pratices that are pretty liberatarian.
    The is overlap and interchange between the left and right that is fluid and varied depending on the context. I guess the danger you point out is one side becoming monolithic in its dominance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *