Zombine3D said:
Is "Iron Sky" banned in USA for showing the country in a bad light?
Well, "Iron Sky" is also a comedy, compared to a serious treatment of pretty much anything, and thus it gets a pass of sorts.
That said, the way the military is portrayed in "Battleship" really isn't much differant than say "Top Gun" or any other similar movie, to the point of it being painfully stereotypical more than anything else.
As far as how the character in question managed to hold Officer rank, understand that in the US the officers and enlisted are seperated from each other. While there are exceptions, they are two seperate entitites for purposes of advancement, training, etc, you do not start out as say an army private, or enlisted sea man, and then get promoted to Lieutenant. Rather you pass the tests, get accepted into the officers corps, and then come out as a Lieutenant to which there are grades. This guy as a Lieutenant is pretty much at the bottom, to wind up in charge he pretty much has to be the only remaining officer left with no chances of being replaced by a new commander (an issue created by the force field).
As much of a problem as it is, the guy is also banging the daughter of a senior officer AND his brother is also supposed to be a respected senior officer, and that can get someone fast tracked whether they like the person or not. Plenty of arseholes get by in the military with a surprising amount of authority for very similar reasons, not flattering, but it is true.
To be honest I'll also say that I think the military likes to cultivate that maverick image from Top Gun, Navy SEALS (old Charlie Sheen vehicle), and other sources. Kids look at that and figure the military won't be that bad, and see it as a place where they will have a lot of freedom. Then when they actually sign the papers and enlist, real world boot camp pretty much knocks it out of them, which is kind of the point of boot camp (to basically dehumanize and deconstruct what you were before, and rebuild it into an obeidient soldier).
Yeah, no matter what connections someone might have, the behavior exhibited in a lot of military movies would probably wind up with them in a brig, if not facing military justice and spending their lives in prison or being shot (if the behavior was in a combat zone). Of course by the time they get to the point of one of those movies they probably already had the crap knocked out of them to the point of at least being able to play the game enough to get by.
While kind of unrelated, one of my big problems with the "Star Trek" reboot was that they took this stereotype to the extreme in how they portrayed the new version of "James T. Kirk", to the point where the situation and his conduct was so totally out of line he should have been dumped out an airlock, or shot on the spot. A guy facing dishonorable discharge from the military who stows away on a military ship entering a combat situation is probably going to face death (on the spot), the guy acts insubordinate and out of control to the acting bridge officers (and arguably flag officers, exile to a planet is not viable, never mind promotion. Even if Spock was bordeline lobotomized to the point of not killing him, someone else would have, the problem probably would have been handled at a lower level. It made the entire thing kind of implausible, especially seeing as it would have meant The Federation would be incapable of functioning as a military organization.
Of course then again this was tenatively set in the same universe where they had Wesley Crusher scampering around in what should have been high security areas. Not to mention the whole "lol, what" situation of them bringing the entire families of soldiers onto the ship, and that was just TNG which actually had a better track record of common sense than most as far out of line as it got with the concepts.
I suppose if people can deal with the newest Trek, they aren't going to bat an eye at "Battleship", and the military itself has supported other similar takes on their own attitudes in the past.