independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Fri 14th Dec 2018 7:00pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > The Pentagon Collaborates With Hollywood to Glorify War
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 12/04/18 1:54am

hausofmoi7

avatar

The Pentagon Collaborates With Hollywood to Glorify War

”When a writer or producer approaches the Pentagon and asks for access to military assets to help make their film, they have to submit their script to the entertainment liaison offices for vetting. Ultimately, the man with the final say is Phil Strub, the Department of Defense’s (DOD) chief Hollywood liaison.

The movie ‘Countermeasures’ was rejected by the military for several reasons, and consequently never produced. One of the reasons is that the script included references to the Iran-Contra scandal, and as Strub saw it ‘There’s no need for us to… remind the public of the Iran-Contra affair’

The documents reveal [via the Freedom Of Information Act] for the first time the vast scale of US government control in Hollywood, including the ability to manipulate scripts or even prevent films too critical of the Pentagon from being made’ - Tom Secker


https://medium.com/insurg...433107c307



https://www.collective-ev...llaborate/
Excerpt from an article by Andrew Martin from ‘Collective Evolution’
Thoughts?

”Back in 1986 the movie Top Gun was released. As a young kid I remember watching Maverick and Goose chase down Russian MiGs. The film went on to become a box office success, turning into the highest grossing film in 1986 and going on to take $353 million in total world box office receipts.(1) I didn’t realize at the time, of course, that I was being subject to some good old fashioned propaganda. War propaganda comes in a few forms — the first being a tool for the military to recruit, the second being in glorifying war and keeping the military industrial complex in business.

While Top Gun was not overt propaganda, since it distorted any historical facts, it did have a significant influence on young people. Top Gun was made in collaboration with the Pentagon. It was released in the mid-1980s, when polls showed many Americans voicing doubts about the post-Vietnam military experience. The movie’s success of presenting sweaty jocks flying jets not only generated millions at the box office but proved to be a major force in reviving the military’s image. Enlistments went through the roof. The Navy capitalised by setting up recruitment tables at theatres playing the movie. Opinion polls showed rising confidence in the military as America fell in love with Maverick, Iceman, and Goose as they travelled at Mach 2. (2)

Top Gun is not alone as a propaganda tool for the military. There have been numerous other collaborations which promote the theme of war. Recent movies such as Man of Steel gained access to use military hardware, while state of the art fighter jets were featured in both of the Iron Man movies. The criteria for use of military equipment is pretty straightforward: make the military look good. The movies Pearl Harbour and Golden Eye were other films that received the support of the military. With billions of dollars of tax payer funded military equipment at hand, it is difficult for production houses to produce military films which don’t have the support of the Pentagon. The Pentagon worked closely with the filmmakers in the production of Top Gun, giving the producers access to high-end equipment such as warplanes and aircraft carriers for a meagre $1.8 million. (2a)

Not All Films Are Supported By the Pentagon

Not all films get the green light from the Pentagon, however. Oliver Stone, a military veteran himself and eight times an Academy Award winning filmmaker, has made numerous films about the reality of war. Stone knows all too well how the Hollywood Industrial Complex works. Stone wrote Platoon — the story based upon his experiences as a U.S. infantryman in Vietnam — to counter the glorified vision of war portrayed in John Wayne’s The Green Berets. It was the first Hollywood film to be written and directed by a veteran of the Vietnam War.171 Stone suggests that Eisenhower was correct in his assessment of the power the military-industrial complex, stating it is the single largest economic entity in the United States.”





.
[Edited 12/4/18 2:48am]
"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 12/04/18 2:10pm

IanRG

hausofmoi7 said:

”When a writer or producer approaches the Pentagon and asks for access to military assets to help make their film, they have to submit their script to the entertainment liaison offices for vetting. Ultimately, the man with the final say is Phil Strub, the Department of Defense’s (DOD) chief Hollywood liaison. The movie ‘Countermeasures’ was rejected by the military for several reasons, and consequently never produced. One of the reasons is that the script included references to the Iran-Contra scandal, and as Strub saw it ‘There’s no need for us to… remind the public of the Iran-Contra affair’ The documents reveal [via the Freedom Of Information Act] for the first time the vast scale of US government control in Hollywood, including the ability to manipulate scripts or even prevent films too critical of the Pentagon from being made’ - Tom Secker
https://medium.com/insurg...433107c307 https://www.collective-ev...llaborate/ Excerpt from an article by Andrew Martin from ‘Collective Evolution’ Thoughts?
”Back in 1986 the movie Top Gun was released. As a young kid I remember watching Maverick and Goose chase down Russian MiGs. The film went on to become a box office success, turning into the highest grossing film in 1986 and going on to take $353 million in total world box office receipts.(1) I didn’t realize at the time, of course, that I was being subject to some good old fashioned propaganda. War propaganda comes in a few forms — the first being a tool for the military to recruit, the second being in glorifying war and keeping the military industrial complex in business. While Top Gun was not overt propaganda, since it distorted any historical facts, it did have a significant influence on young people. Top Gun was made in collaboration with the Pentagon. It was released in the mid-1980s, when polls showed many Americans voicing doubts about the post-Vietnam military experience. The movie’s success of presenting sweaty jocks flying jets not only generated millions at the box office but proved to be a major force in reviving the military’s image. Enlistments went through the roof. The Navy capitalised by setting up recruitment tables at theatres playing the movie. Opinion polls showed rising confidence in the military as America fell in love with Maverick, Iceman, and Goose as they travelled at Mach 2. (2) Top Gun is not alone as a propaganda tool for the military. There have been numerous other collaborations which promote the theme of war. Recent movies such as Man of Steel gained access to use military hardware, while state of the art fighter jets were featured in both of the Iron Man movies. The criteria for use of military equipment is pretty straightforward: make the military look good. The movies Pearl Harbour and Golden Eye were other films that received the support of the military. With billions of dollars of tax payer funded military equipment at hand, it is difficult for production houses to produce military films which don’t have the support of the Pentagon. The Pentagon worked closely with the filmmakers in the production of Top Gun, giving the producers access to high-end equipment such as warplanes and aircraft carriers for a meagre $1.8 million. (2a) Not All Films Are Supported By the Pentagon Not all films get the green light from the Pentagon, however. Oliver Stone, a military veteran himself and eight times an Academy Award winning filmmaker, has made numerous films about the reality of war. Stone knows all too well how the Hollywood Industrial Complex works. Stone wrote Platoon — the story based upon his experiences as a U.S. infantryman in Vietnam — to counter the glorified vision of war portrayed in John Wayne’s The Green Berets. It was the first Hollywood film to be written and directed by a veteran of the Vietnam War.171 Stone suggests that Eisenhower was correct in his assessment of the power the military-industrial complex, stating it is the single largest economic entity in the United States.”
. [Edited 12/4/18 2:48am]

.

The problem with reading propanda from your side against your perceived enemy is that you may not realise that propaganda being used on you by your own side.

.

These 1 1/2 and 3 year old articles are no exception. The only way to combat propaganda is with actual facts and analysis of the tricks used.

.

Firstly, there is not anything unusual or unexpected in a government organisation, business or even an individual wanting to work with a film producer so they look good (or even just less bad) in a film. This is trick to make you think there is something neferious when this is just normal.

.

Secondly, propaganda uses tricks like getting you to agree with points along the way so you agree with the end conclusion - This is no different from advertising, cold calling and conspriracy theorists. Your second article does this poorly: It asks us to believe that the certain films make the miliary look good. The listed films do not. In the Man of Steel, the military does not look good because it fails against the Kryptonians and the military nature of Superman's enemy is shown as the evil antithesis of Superman. In the Ironman movies, that the Starks made so much money from military sales is not presented as a positive and the military industrial complex is strongly criticised several times in both movies. Pearl Harbor is about how the military seriously failed with multiple errors. Golden Eye starts with the military not being able to prevent a helicopter from being stolen and shows the military failing to prevent weapons being knocked out by EMP like devices and is based on a theme of the risk of the miitary being taken over by terrorist nationalist people. The movie Clear and Present Danger was clearly not US military propanda and is based on the themes from things like Iran-Contra but it clearly thanks the US military for their involvement in the end credits.

[Edited 12/4/18 20:33pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 12/04/18 2:59pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

Hollywood glorifies war absolutely. But sometimes as with “Paths of Glory” it kinda does right.
(probably only because it was portraying a foreign country that it could criticize it)
[Edited 12/4/18 15:01pm]
CROOKED TRUMP. LOCK HIM UP!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 12/04/18 4:57pm

IanRG

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

Hollywood glorifies war absolutely. But sometimes as with “Paths of Glory” it kinda does right. (probably only because it was portraying a foreign country that it could criticize it) [Edited 12/4/18 15:01pm]

.

Yes, there are many films that glorify war, espionage, crime, violence, revenge etc. There are also many movies that are anti-military, anti-war etc. The implication of the articles is that this is a collaboration between the Pentagon and hollywood. The case is not made - hollywood is about entertainment, not reality and is not a propanda arm of the Pentagon.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 12/04/18 5:01pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

IanRG said:



Ugot2shakesumthin said:


Hollywood glorifies war absolutely. But sometimes as with “Paths of Glory” it kinda does right. (probably only because it was portraying a foreign country that it could criticize it) [Edited 12/4/18 15:01pm]

.


Yes, there are many films that glorify war, espionage, crime, violence, revenge etc. There are also many movies that are anti-military, anti-war etc. The implication of the articles is that this is a collaboration between the Pentagon and hollywood. The case is not made - hollywood is about entertainment, not reality and is not a propanda arm of the Pentagon.



True. Hollywood only cares about making money.
CROOKED TRUMP. LOCK HIM UP!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 12/04/18 10:22pm

hausofmoi7

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

IanRG said:



Ugot2shakesumthin said:


Hollywood glorifies war absolutely. But sometimes as with “Paths of Glory” it kinda does right. (probably only because it was portraying a foreign country that it could criticize it) [Edited 12/4/18 15:01pm]

.


Yes, there are many films that glorify war, espionage, crime, violence, revenge etc. There are also many movies that are anti-military, anti-war etc. The implication of the articles is that this is a collaboration between the Pentagon and hollywood. The case is not made - hollywood is about entertainment, not reality and is not a propanda arm of the Pentagon.



True. Hollywood only cares about making money.

Yep, and the military has the most money.
So that’s where movie studios capitulate to.
It’s also how TV works, and news and so on and on.
It’s how everything works in our society.
Money rules over ethics, as it does in this situation.








.
[Edited 12/4/18 23:18pm]
"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 12/04/18 10:45pm

hausofmoi7

avatar

D/p
[Edited 12/4/18 22:45pm]
"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 12/04/18 11:14pm

IanRG

hausofmoi7 said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:
True. Hollywood only cares about making money.
Yep, and the military has the most money. So that’s where movie studios capitulate to. It’s also how TV works, and news and so on and on. It’s how everything works in our society. Money rules over ethics, particularly in the case of movie production companies and the military. Only way you can get a movie made that goes against such large institutions is if you fund it yourself. That’s not an option for most creatives. Or perhaps you could get it made independently. Which is fine, but wouldn’t it be great if such messages could be given a platform where it could have the kind of impact that it couldn’t independently? . [Edited 12/4/18 22:47pm]

.

So, how do you explain that mainstream, non-independent and normally funded movies like "Clear and Present Danger" and all the disaster movies that show the military in a poor way way exist? The top grossing film of all time is "Avatar" and it was not a self-funded film - the enemy in this was the military.

.

Look at the list of top grossing films of all times and they are not glorifying the military movies.

.

The military are not the funders of movies, they are not the programmers of TV or movies, that is silly.

[Edited 12/4/18 23:19pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 12/05/18 12:02am

hausofmoi7

avatar

Marc Lamont Hill had a platform on CNN.
We all see how that went.

Independent media voices are crucial.
Let’s not deny that they are marginalised which affects the impact of thier message though.

I think independent media is great, I would still like to see those voices have the platform that mainstream outlets provide.
If they are allowed to be authentic I don’t think it is selling out if they are on mainstream outlets because of the impact they could have.
But clearly that is a challenge.






.
[Edited 12/5/18 0:17am]
"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 12/05/18 12:23am

IanRG

hausofmoi7 said:

Marc Lamont Hill had a platform on CNN. We all see how that went. Independent media voices are crucial. Let’s not deny that they are marginalised which affects the impact of thier message. I think independent media is great, I would still like to see those voices have the platform that mainstream outlets provide. I don’t think it is selling out if they are on mainstream outlets. If they are allowed to be authentic. . [Edited 12/5/18 0:12am]

.

Are we talking about old articles that unconvincingly claim hollywood only makes movies as propanda that you claim are funded by the military or the need for wide exposure of different types of media outlets?

.

They are two different topics - the new topic is just your standard MO of shifting the topic when you cannot answer a question.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 12/05/18 12:37am

hausofmoi7

avatar

IanRG said:



hausofmoi7 said:


Marc Lamont Hill had a platform on CNN. We all see how that went. Independent media voices are crucial. Let’s not deny that they are marginalised which affects the impact of thier message. I think independent media is great, I would still like to see those voices have the platform that mainstream outlets provide. I don’t think it is selling out if they are on mainstream outlets. If they are allowed to be authentic. . [Edited 12/5/18 0:12am]

.


Are we talking about old articles that unconvincingly claim hollywood only makes movies as propanda that you claim are funded by the military or the need for wide exposure of different types of media outlets?


.


They are two different topics - the new topic is just your standard MO of shifting the topic when you cannot answer a question.


I wasn’t even talking to you.

But it’s clear of the larger point I’m making about this discussion.
I really didn’t feel like like dealing with your usual overt disgenuousness and attempts to misconstrue what is being said. Although you’re free to post your opinion.


These are not different topics.
This discussion was framed around Hollywood and the department of defence (DOD) and thier Hollywood liaison team, but it fits into a larger conversation on these issues, such as opposition to war and how money and power controls that narrative and what people can express or not about these issues.

If the most you can do is criticise that the article I posted was 18months old. which doesn’t change that it is still an highly accurate and reflective article of the situation now.
Then I’m doing ok.


You can put your cape on for the military and do your thing.
I’ll do mine.





.
[Edited 12/5/18 1:22am]
"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 12/05/18 1:54am

IanRG

hausofmoi7 said:

IanRG said:

.

Are we talking about old articles that unconvincingly claim hollywood only makes movies as propanda that you claim are funded by the military or the need for wide exposure of different types of media outlets?

.

They are two different topics - the new topic is just your standard MO of shifting the topic when you cannot answer a question.

I wasn’t even talking to you. But it’s clear of the larger point I’m making about this discussion. I really don’t feel like like dealing with your usual overt disgenuousness and attempts to misconstrue what is being said. But you’re free to post your opinion. I think mine is quite clear that I don’t need to engage with the nonsense you posted. These are not different topics. This discussion was framed around Hollywood and the department of defence (DOD) and thier Hollywood liaison team, but it fits into a larger conversation on these issues, such as opposition to war and how money and power controls that narrative and what people can express or not about these issues. You can put your cape on for the military and do your thing. I’ll do mine. . [Edited 12/5/18 1:05am]

.

You post was made without reference to any other comment by anyone else containing something for the first time that people were supposed to guess was the unspoken larger conversation you always meant! You were not talking to anyone else or you would have referenced what the only other person who has responded discussed - but you did not. Covering your attempt to move the topic away from your claims about because you cannot support these claims with facts by calling me disengenuous is just being abusive.

.

You lie with a false accusation that I am defending the military for pointing out that your conspriacy theory that the military is funding hollywood to make all these mainstream pro-military movies. Resorting to accusations is just another way you always use to avoid the question. It really is an extremely poor and dishonest argument to say a person is defending the military by pointing out things like that Avatar is mainstream, normally funded and highly anti-military.

.

Your opinion is clear. That does not make it convincing. What hollywood movie was the Pentagon funding that resulted in Marc Lamont Hill being sacked?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 12/05/18 2:09am

hausofmoi7

avatar

IanRG said:



hausofmoi7 said:


IanRG said:


.


Are we talking about old articles that unconvincingly claim hollywood only makes movies as propanda that you claim are funded by the military or the need for wide exposure of different types of media outlets?


.


They are two different topics - the new topic is just your standard MO of shifting the topic when you cannot answer a question.



I wasn’t even talking to you. But it’s clear of the larger point I’m making about this discussion. I really don’t feel like like dealing with your usual overt disgenuousness and attempts to misconstrue what is being said. But you’re free to post your opinion. I think mine is quite clear that I don’t need to engage with the nonsense you posted. These are not different topics. This discussion was framed around Hollywood and the department of defence (DOD) and thier Hollywood liaison team, but it fits into a larger conversation on these issues, such as opposition to war and how money and power controls that narrative and what people can express or not about these issues. You can put your cape on for the military and do your thing. I’ll do mine. . [Edited 12/5/18 1:05am]

.


You post was made without reference to any other comment by anyone else containing something for the first time that people were supposed to guess was the unspoken larger conversation you always meant! You were not talking to anyone else or you would have referenced what the only other person who has responded discussed - but you did not. Covering your attempt to move the topic away from your claims about because you cannot support these claims with facts by calling me disengenuous is just being abusive.


.


You lie with a false accusation that I am defending the military for pointing out that your conspriacy theory that the military is funding hollywood to make all these mainstream pro-military movies. Resorting to accusations is just another way you always use to avoid the question. It really is an extremely poor and dishonest argument to say a person is defending the military by pointing out things like that Avatar is mainstream, normally funded and highly anti-military.


.


Your opinion is clear. That does not make it convincing. What hollywood movie was the Pentagon funding that resulted in Marc Lamont Hill being sacked?



I hate that I’m taking your bait.
But the article above is not conspiracy theory.
The writer is using information obtain from freedom of information act.
It’s fact.

Your free to say that you find nothing wrong with promoting the military..
But it doesn’t change the fact that is happening. It’s a conspiracy technically as more than one entity are involved.
But it is a proven and you acknowledge this by claiming “there is nothing wrong about it, it’s normal”
Own it, don’t go back and forth from claiming it’s a conspiracy to making excuses for it.

Don’t aggressively repeatedly come at and be patronising and then whine when I clap back and point out facts.



.
[Edited 12/5/18 5:22am]
"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 12/05/18 2:16am

IanRG

hausofmoi7 said:

IanRG said:

.

Are we talking about old articles that unconvincingly claim hollywood only makes movies as propanda that you claim are funded by the military or the need for wide exposure of different types of media outlets?

.

They are two different topics - the new topic is just your standard MO of shifting the topic when you cannot answer a question.

.If the most you can do is criticise that the article I posted was 18months old. which doesn’t change that it is still an highly accurate and reflective article of the situation now. Then I’m doing ok.

.

That is a big if, pity it is not true.

.

To recap the points you have failed to answer

.

1 One of the articles is 3 years old - It does not take much effort for you to get this right, yet you failed.

.

2 The movies listed as pro-military are simply not pro-military. They are about superheroes taking on the military, outperforming the military and turning away from supplying the military as well as military failures like Pearl Habor, having helicopters stolen and attempting military coups.

.

3 None of the articles state the military funds hollywood movies - this is just your conspiracy theory. They only state that the military seeks to be shown in favourable ways - this is a normal position for most organisations, businesses and individuals, not just the military. It is also wrong - the military assisted with, and was publicly thanked for its contribution in "Clear and present danger" - a story based on Iran-Contra type affairs.

.

4 Despite your claim that anti-military films are all independent, lowly funded and not widely seen, I pointed out that Avatar is not independent, highly expensive and funded by mainstream hollywood, is the greatest grossing movie of all time and was highly anti-military. Indeed the top 50 grossing movies are not glorifications of war.

.

5 Your failure to be able to answer the above just lead to you seeking to change the topic to Marc Lamont Hill being fired and just throwing around accusations and abuse.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 12/05/18 2:25am

IanRG

hausofmoi7 said:

IanRG said:

.

You post was made without reference to any other comment by anyone else containing something for the first time that people were supposed to guess was the unspoken larger conversation you always meant! You were not talking to anyone else or you would have referenced what the only other person who has responded discussed - but you did not. Covering your attempt to move the topic away from your claims about because you cannot support these claims with facts by calling me disengenuous is just being abusive.

.

You lie with a false accusation that I am defending the military for pointing out that your conspriacy theory that the military is funding hollywood to make all these mainstream pro-military movies. Resorting to accusations is just another way you always use to avoid the question. It really is an extremely poor and dishonest argument to say a person is defending the military by pointing out things like that Avatar is mainstream, normally funded and highly anti-military.

.

Your opinion is clear. That does not make it convincing. What hollywood movie was the Pentagon funding that resulted in Marc Lamont Hill being sacked?

I hate that I’m taking your bait. But the article above is not conspiracy theory. The writer is using information obtain from freedom of information act. It’s fact. Your free to say that you find nothing wrong with promoting a death cult like the u.s military. But it doesn’t change the fact that is happening. It’s a conspiracy technically as more than one entity are involved. But it is a proven and you acknowledge this by claiming “there is nothing wrong about it, it’s normal” Own it, don’t go back and forth from claiming it’s a conspiracy to making excuses for it. Don’t aggressively come at and be patronising and then whine when I clap back. . [Edited 12/5/18 2:13am]

.

Why must you make up accusations? I am not promoting the US military at all. Please read my comments - Not one of them is a defence of the US military.

.

It is dishonest to quote me with something I did not say. I never said the words "there is nothing wrong about it, it's normal" This is quote that you made up. It shows your lack of integrity. I said "Secondly, propaganda uses tricks like getting you to agree with points along the way so you agree with the end conclusion - This is no different from advertising, cold calling and conspriracy theorists. Your second article does this poorly: It asks us to believe that the certain films make the miliary look good. The listed films do not. In the Man of Steel, the military does not look good because it fails against the Kryptonians and the military nature of Superman's enemy is shown as the evil antithesis of Superman. In the Ironman movies, that the Starks made so much money from military sales is not presented as a positive and the military industrial complex is strongly criticised several times in both movies. Pearl Harbor is about how the military seriously failed with multiple errors. Golden Eye starts with the military not being able to prevent a helicopter from being stolen and shows the military failing to prevent weapons being knocked out by EMP like devices and is based on a theme of the risk of the military being taken over by terrorist nationalist people. The movie Clear and Present Danger was clearly not US military propanda and is based on the themes from things like Iran-Contra but it clearly thanks the US military for their involvement in the end credits."

.

I am not whining, just showing your errors. As usual these errors remain unanswered by you. You asked us to discuss. That you only want discussion that agrees with you it not my problem.

[Edited 12/5/18 2:27am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 12/05/18 2:25am

hausofmoi7

avatar

IanRG said:



hausofmoi7 said:


IanRG said:


.


Are we talking about old articles that unconvincingly claim hollywood only makes movies as propanda that you claim are funded by the military or the need for wide exposure of different types of media outlets?


.


They are two different topics - the new topic is just your standard MO of shifting the topic when you cannot answer a question.




.If the most you can do is criticise that the article I posted was 18months old. which doesn’t change that it is still an highly accurate and reflective article of the situation now. Then I’m doing ok.

.


That is a big if, pity it is not true.


.


To recap the points you have failed to answer


.


1 One of the articles is 3 years old - It does not take much effort for you to get this right, yet you failed.


.


2 The movies listed as pro-military are simply not pro-military. They are about superheroes taking on the military, outperforming the military and turning away from supplying the military as well as military failures like Pearl Habor, having helicopters stolen and attempting military coups.


.


3 None of the articles state the military funds hollywood movies - this is just your conspiracy theory. They only state that the military seeks to be shown in favourable ways - this is a normal position for most organisations, businesses and individuals, not just the military. It is also wrong - the military assisted with, and was publicly thanked for its contribution in "Clear and present danger" - a story based on Iran-Contra type affairs.


.


4 Despite your claim that anti-military films are all independent, lowly funded and not widely seen, I pointed out that Avatar is not independent, highly expensive and funded by mainstream hollywood, is the greatest grossing movie of all time and was highly anti-military. Indeed the top 50 grossing movies are not glorifications of war.


.


5 Your failure to be able to answer the above just lead to you seeking to change the topic to Marc Lamont Hill being fired and just throwing around accusations and abuse.



I don’t agree with you and you are the most disingenuous person I have engaged with in discussion.
Perhaps we can work on that and I’m happy to help you.
You can be an honest person and I think you can achieve it.
I believe in you.
"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 12/05/18 2:34am

hausofmoi7

avatar

For anyone who wants a recent article which reinforces the information provided in the original articles.

Turns out it’s still relevant.
As prince would say “sign o the times”
Some things just haven’t changed.


https://www.mintpressnews...da/247154/





.
[Edited 12/5/18 2:35am]
"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 12/05/18 2:35am

IanRG

hausofmoi7 said:

IanRG said:

.

That is a big if, pity it is not true.

.

To recap the points you have failed to answer

.

1 One of the articles is 3 years old - It does not take much effort for you to get this right, yet you failed.

.

2 The movies listed as pro-military are simply not pro-military. They are about superheroes taking on the military, outperforming the military and turning away from supplying the military as well as military failures like Pearl Habor, having helicopters stolen and attempting military coups.

.

3 None of the articles state the military funds hollywood movies - this is just your conspiracy theory. They only state that the military seeks to be shown in favourable ways - this is a normal position for most organisations, businesses and individuals, not just the military. It is also wrong - the military assisted with, and was publicly thanked for its contribution in "Clear and present danger" - a story based on Iran-Contra type affairs.

.

4 Despite your claim that anti-military films are all independent, lowly funded and not widely seen, I pointed out that Avatar is not independent, highly expensive and funded by mainstream hollywood, is the greatest grossing movie of all time and was highly anti-military. Indeed the top 50 grossing movies are not glorifications of war.

.

5 Your failure to be able to answer the above just lead to you seeking to change the topic to Marc Lamont Hill being fired and just throwing around accusations and abuse.

I don’t agree with you and you are the most disingenuous person I have engaged with in discussion. Perhaps we can work on that and I’m happy to help you. You can be an honest person and I think you can achieve it. I believe in you.

.

Please don't patronise. I really do not care whether you agree with me or not. The list above clearly shows you are wrong - I gave you more commentary than one of the articles was 18 months old and if you think that is all I said, then you are not doing OK.

.

If you want me to help you and stop you from derailing your own thread then lets try one at a time: How is Man of Steel glorifying the US military?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 12/05/18 2:39am

IanRG

hausofmoi7 said:

For anyone who wants a recent article which reinforces the information provided in the original articles. Turns out it’s still relevant. As prince would say “sign o the times” Some things just haven’t changed. https://www.mintpressnews...da/247154/ . [Edited 12/5/18 2:35am]

.

What military proganda was there in Apollo 13?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 12/05/18 3:34am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

It is clear that the Federal government has a RIGHT to decide what projects to support or not support.

The fact that you may not LIKE them is not a basis for them to not be allowed to do so. The argument "but it's my tax dollars" is also bogus and with almost no merit.

The fact that you cite fringe sources and the anti-isrealie, pro-terrorist group (Hamas) Marc Lamont Hill makes me wonder about your overall attitude towards the US Military in general.

Were you mad that a movie whose total premise was a lie like "Stop-Loss" got made? You can not expect the Fed to help make movies that show the military in a bad light.

The federal government has a right and I would say a duty to promote military service. We have an all voluntary military and we need to have people in it. Movies like "Top Gun" do just that.

How about if you do not like a given movie... do not go see it?

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 12/05/18 3:57am

BombSquad

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

It is clear that the Federal government has a RIGHT to decide what projects to support or not support.

The fact that you may not LIKE them is not a basis for them to not be allowed to do so. The argument "but it's my tax dollars" is also bogus and with almost no merit.

hear hear. this all sounds differnt when you whine about your tax dollars being spent on let's say Obamacare

so just more hypocritical double standard trash talk

2013 Obama & Castro - "and barack has once again bowed down to a despot"
2018 Trump & Kim - "and it is happening now! after nearly 65 years and 11 presidents"
biggest fucking hypocrite around LOL only in da forum...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 12/05/18 4:05am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

BombSquad said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

It is clear that the Federal government has a RIGHT to decide what projects to support or not support.

The fact that you may not LIKE them is not a basis for them to not be allowed to do so. The argument "but it's my tax dollars" is also bogus and with almost no merit.

hear hear. this all sounds differnt when you whine about your tax dollars being spent on let's say Obamacare

so just more hypocritical double standard trash talk

I do not think I ever did that...

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 12/05/18 4:10am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

and I did say here that there was some merit to the argument. Just not very much.


but I am sure I never used that as the basis to argue against obamacare.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 12/05/18 6:00am

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

hausofmoi7 said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:



True. Hollywood only cares about making money.

Yep, and the military has the most money.
So that’s where movie studios capitulate to.
It’s also how TV works, and news and so on and on.
It’s how everything works in our society.
Money rules over ethics, as it does in this situation.

Gray area there. Hollywood loves money but they are librerals. The writers and directors.




.
[Edited 12/4/18 23:18pm]
CROOKED TRUMP. LOCK HIM UP!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 12/05/18 11:56am

IanRG

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

Gray area there. Hollywood loves money but they are librerals. The writers and directors.

.

What's gray? Liberals do things for money and many hollywood writers and directors has sold their souls for the almighty buck time and time again.

.

The question is: Is haus right when he says "Yep, and the military has the most money. So that’s where movie studios capitulate to" so hollywood has made over a 1,000 military funded propaganda movies like Apollo 13, Sleepless in Seatle and A Few Good Men just to make them look good? In most cases, it is far more likely that the film studio had to pay the military rather than the military paid the film studio.

.

The fact behind the 3 year, 18 month and 4 month old articles is only that when the military was asked for assistance to make films, the military reviews how this assistance will be used and its support or permission may be dependent on limitations and suggestions.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > The Pentagon Collaborates With Hollywood to Glorify War