Zero Dark Thirty

[Matchanu]

Originally Posted by SOW_0331

Saving Private Ryan was so well received because it was so brutal. Yes, the plot was a fictional story. But the depiction of WWII soldiers in combat in that theater was so incredibly accurate it brought the survivors to tears. The talk, the gear, the technology, all of it was researched over and over again for authenticity. THAT is why it was such a testament to how a war movie can be made.

Hurt Locker was none of those things. Not only was the plot fictional, it was so stupid unrealistic that it hurt to see. Beyond that, it was flat out disrespectful. It took a CURRENT setting where our troops are/were still getting killed and made an entertainment piece out of it for fucking profit. You mean to tell me after X amount of years at war, they couldn't find a single vet of theater (war theater, not acting class) to say "hey uh, this shit is gay, we don't get drunk and sneak out into town in civvies, we don't stay in nice hotel rooms in country and play x box and such. EOD doesn't go running through Baghdad chasing baddies in buddy pairs without comms or anything". NO efforts were made to ensure that the movie did anything realistic.

.

To be fair, movies that are 100% authentic would be boring and unwatchable. There are some basic scriptwriting/screen play measures that need to happen to make a movie worth watching. Drama needs to present, some action, an antognonist, a build up, a climax, and an epiloge of some sort.

I'm no film maker, but rather I really enjoy well made movies.

Personaly, I really enjoyed "Hurt Locker", not for the realism (I wouldn't know, I wasn never EOD nor was I ever in a line unit) but rather all the aspects of good story telling was there. I didn't feel it put the military in a bad light at all.

I thought "Act of Valor" sucked and sucked bad. The story was crap, predicticible, boring. I won't flame the acting too much as they wern't actors, and I won't delve into the fact using AD SEALs is just a bad idea all around for a plethora of reasons.

No war movie is ever going to cover all the angles, unless it's a documentery.

I thought "Apocolypse Now" was an epic movie. Realistic" not in the slightest. Did it show the military in a bad light? You bet your ass it did. Was it an entertaining adventure/action/drama? aboslutely!

My heart burn with "Zero Dark Thirty" is how it all came about, how the POTUS alowed film makers into a secret meeting with the guys who did the hit, how some Penatagon officials gave them classified information for the movie. Is this Bigelow's fault? No, I don't expect a civilian to know the ins and outs of why things are classified, why some information should never see the light of day. They are not one of us, their job is to make movies and make a buck, they are going to take every advantage possible as well they should.

You will probably never see war movies made in the same respect of war movies of WW2. "The Longest Day", "The Sands of Iwo Jima", etc.. It wouldn't sell well to the current audience who has no use for the patriotic ""Merca can dun no wrong" genre. It's a different social dynamic now.

Besides, film studios know their target audiences now. Who goes to movies, when, and why. The biggest audience (I'm paraphrasing here) is the 17-25 year old range. Movies that have an anti-authoritan genre play well to this kind of audience. Every "blockbuster" movie has the same basic premise, sticking it to the man. It's one of the reasons women are the hero roles now in a lot of movies, or at least are not the typical "damsel in distress" in need of rescue.

Leading men for "tough guy" movies are scarse now. I personal feel it's largely because of the actors that studios use and their personal backgrounds. You simply cannot act yourself into a role when you don't already have that kind of thing inside of you. Actors that have never served in the military (or at least have a greater understanding) are going to have a hard time conveying the kind of mindset on screen, so they don't really bother to try.

American made movies largely suck. They all pretty much follow the same, played out story line. Throw in a bunch of special effects and CGI and BAM, you just made a million.

The social climate plays a lot into this. Would "Lawrence of Arabia" be made today? What do you think the reception would be?

When it all comes down to it, it's about making money. When millions are on the line, you go with what works and leave the "taking chances" to the independant film makers.

[SaloSV]

Originally Posted by Walken1

^^^It's ironic that these sentences come back-to-back....
Saving Private Ryan was beat for Best Picture by "Shakespeare In Love" that year.

Oscar statues lie all the time.

I knew someone was going to say that, and I started to get into that cultural issue. Sure, that pisses me off too, but that's a biased opinion for all of us.

Based on the culture of our society and specifically, the Academy voting members, HL wins because of the character element. They very reason you hate it, as has been stated. It's why Shakespeare In Love won too.

Ryan was still too niche to win against a more universal theme (which weren't necessarily excluded from Ryan, just were present in different ways) like the struggles present in SIL.

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by Matchanu

You will probably never see war movies made in the same respect of war movies of WW2. "The Longest Day", "The Sands of Iwo Jima", etc.. It wouldn't sell well to the current audience who has no use for the patriotic ""Merca can dun no wrong" genre. It's a different social dynamic now.

Besides, film studios know their target audiences now. Who goes to movies, when, and why. The biggest audience (I'm paraphrasing here) is the 17-25 year old range. Movies that have an anti-authoritan genre play well to this kind of audience. Every "blockbuster" movie has the same basic premise, sticking it to the man. It's one of the reasons women are the hero roles now in a lot of movies, or at least are not the typical "damsel in distress" in need of rescue.
.

You got that right.

[Spinner]

Originally Posted by SaloSV

I've been working on a WWII script for a while that is based off of an actual memoir from a 32nd Infantry Div. grunt who fought in the south Pacific, and I can tell you, it is impossible to tell the exact truth AND compress everything into two hours AND maintain a quick pace that we're accustomed to today AND a few other things that are required that, if missing, send the critics screaming "shitty movie" or "why did this film get made."

The other issue that comes up when working off of somebody's individual account is that they saw things through their eyes, and others who were there perhaps had a different perspective. They may have experienced the same situation, but perceived it differently.

That's to be expected. Not unlike guys who landed pretty much on the same real estate on D-Day, but were separated by 100 yards. It's amazing that people that close to each other would experience things so much differently, and in some instances that day, guys were getting hammered by the Germans on one stretch of beach, and not too far away other guys were advancing inland without nearly as much resistance.

Same place, basically, same day, but you'd get two vastly different accounts depending on where you were in relation to the other guy.

[Doc P]

After reading the other threads about the outrage of the anti-Islam film I wonder what might kick off when this movie comes out and shows UBL get shot in the face.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Originally Posted by Doc P

After reading the other threads about the outrage of the anti-Islam film I wonder what might kick off when this movie comes out and shows UBL get shot in the face.

Osama is not the prophet of their religion.
The Muslims that loved Osama are already pissed off.

[Doc P]

Originally Posted by Bravo Five Romeo

The Muslims that loved Osama are already pissed off.

Good point.

[Colonel Flagg]

Originally Posted by Matchanu

your post

And on top of that, it would appear that the big blockbuster American studio movies are deriving increasing % of total revenue from OCONUS.

Which means they have to pander to global audiences rather than just US audiences(which as you stated have changed).

Meh.....entertainment is changing.

100 years ago we watched a couple people live on stage
75 years ago we got movies, and then with sounds/colour
50-60 years ago we got TV
15 years ago we got the interweb.

A single video game can rake in more revenue in 24 hours than the biggest blockbuster can in 12 months.

I say just look at porn.....wherever porn goes...so will entertainment.......it helped drive the movie industry, and it REALLY drove VHS/Beta home entertainment(including how the movie industry released it's movies), and it has been a HUGE driver of technological and commercial development of the interweb.

Wherever porn goes....so will the entertainment industry I reckon.

Where that is, I haven't a clue, but that's where I'd look.

I though Act of Valor was cool from a technical perspective....not the film itself....but the WAY they made the movie was cool.

A couple of kids with $25k can purchase a LOT of film making technical capability today.

Like what's been said by a few here....look for the next-gen Scorceses.....it will be far easier and cheaper to make and produce higher quality films thanks to the price democratization of low cost high quality DSLR HD video film gear.

F going to the movies......I like to find cool stuff on Youtube and Vimeo.

Like these two:

Why we Jump(folks passionate about skydiving using off the shelf kit combined with decent sounds):
https://vimeo.com/44007931

Joy Ride(showpiece for the capability of a Nikon DSLR HD video camera...and it's got bikes....check out 2:30 when he's scanning arcs for cameras):
https://vimeo.com/36305675

To me, that's the future of film-making......and there's no reason why a bunch of veterans turned actors can't display their talent and share their stories.

Low cost, high capability tools are available for production and distribution. All it requires is enough talent.

[Kip]

A teaser trailer has just been released. Link

Looks decent, but since it's by the chick that did that other movie it'll probably suck.

[bmbsqd]

Originally Posted by Kip

Looks decent, but since it's by the chick that did that other movie it'll probably suck.

Point Break?

[Massgrunt]

As pointed out above, Hurt Locker was such a lazily stupid production that I assume this will suck too.

[Hostile0311]

FWIW IMHO, these movies to me are just mindless entertainment for the masses. Some are better than others. Those that have been there like most on this board are the toughest critics, because we were there. Movies like this one put the viewer there... At least for a couple hours. I, for one am glad movies about these wars and ops are made, even if they suck. It keeps us, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines in the spotlight and maybe, just maybe, remind Joe Public that we are there to pick up the tab for the freedom they take for granted.

[SOW_0331]

Originally Posted by Hostile0311

FWIW IMHO, these movies to me are just mindless entertainment for the masses. Some are better than others. Those that have been there like most on this board are the toughest critics, because we were there. Movies like this one put the viewer there... At least for a couple hours. I, for one am glad movies about these wars and ops are made, even if they suck. It keeps us, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines in the spotlight and maybe, just maybe, remind Joe Public that we are there to pick up the tab for the freedom they take for granted.

Unless they are so lazy they make no effort to represent any of us accurately, then it's just blatant exploitation.

And it stops becoming entertainment when White House teams are "advising" the film makers with confidential information. Releasing information via propaganda films is bullshit.

[Kip]

Originally Posted by bmbsqd

Point Break?

Hurt Locker. Couldn't think of the name.

Never seen Point Break. Bigelow or whatever her name is directed that movie, too?

[Hostile0311]

Originally Posted by SOW_0331

Unless they are so lazy they make no effort to represent any of us accurately, then it's just blatant exploitation.

And it stops becoming entertainment when White House teams are "advising" the film makers with confidential information. Releasing information via propaganda films is bullshit.

It is what it is Bro. You can't stop it. Nor can I. I just hope they do the boys on the ground justice. They deserve nothing less. If they wanted realism, they could follow a section of 81's and their shenanigans. Would you rather the real world see that shit from a Friday night, the depravity, even in Helmand Province, or see Osama get ventilated? Spades only go so far. They are like my kids. You can't keep them occupied for long before they find some other shit, usually not good... to occupy their time. You MG fuckers usually ain't far behind. Monkey see...monkey do.

[SOW_0331]

While true, I think it should be highly discouraged that this movie be promoted as fact. I don't know the details, but I don't like the idea of the gov, especially this administration, being allowed to tell "their side" as fact, while keeping the rest of the information in their pocket.

It sets a dangerous information control precedent.

[Hostile0311]

Originally Posted by SOW_0331

While true, I think it should be highly discouraged that this movie be promoted as fact. I don't know the details, but I don't like the idea of the gov, especially this administration, being allowed to tell "their side" as fact, while keeping the rest of the information in their pocket.

It sets a dangerous information control precedent.

You ain't wrong dude. But this is the "information age". And this Admin will milk it for all it is worth. They vieiw it as a "win" in their favor because the ball was in "their" court. Right or wrong...they will put the tit out for the masses...and the masses will suckle. Heartily.

[Oldguy]

I see the release date is pushed back in order to

A) Not interfere in the election( read cause riots or help Romney

B) Add POTUS to the stack

C) No good reason.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217035/Zero-Dark-Thirty-The-heart-stopping-moment-U-S-Navy-SEALS-prepare-storm-Osama-bin-Ladens-compound.html?ITO=1490

Moved from its October release date to a post-election slot on December 19th to avoid accusations of political bias for President Obama, the movie charts the decade-long search and successful apprenhension of the al-Qaeda leader.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217035/Zero-Dark-Thirty-The-heart-stopping-moment-U-S-Navy-SEALS-prepare-storm-Osama-bin-Ladens-compound.html#ixzz29Di3bQIh
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Originally Posted by Oldguy

I see the release date is pushed back in order to

A) Not interfere in the election( read cause riots or help Romney

B) Add POTUS to the stack

C) No good reason.

The original teaser trailer that was released in August ended with the word "December" across the screen for the release date.
I'm pretty sure that the release was always set for December.
December is the prime month for releasing films for awards consideration.
I don't believe there was any political consideration for the release date.
I suspect the only "O" name the film makers are interested in is "Oscar."

[Massgrunt]

It was pushed back.