Let's prove movie bob wrong : derive a moral from American Sniper

Ariseishirou

New member
Aug 24, 2010
443
0
0
Sanunes said:
tippy2k2 said:
Jeez...you know what, I didn't even think about that too but that's an excellent point. I think I was distracted at that scene because MILD SPOILER: (in real life), that is when Chris Kyle "allegedly" punches Jesse Ventura in the mouth for talking trash about the SEALS but with the ongoing court case and whatnot happening, it was probably a good call by Eastwood to let that one part of the book go...
Jesse Ventura won his defamation lawsuit against the book (I do believe it was concluded after filming was finished), but I think the studio would have been nervous of a lawsuit against them if they did decide to portray that one aspect of the book even if the decision was against Ventura the first time.
Oh it wasn't just that. He also "allegedly" shot 30 Katrina looters from the roof of a stadium (which has been shown to never have happened) and shot and killed two carjackers (which also never happened, according to the police). Between that the fact that apparently his SEAL buddies really didn't like him that much (several have since written memoirs and the compulsive liar/self-centered asshole theme comes up a lot) we didn't even get remotely close to what seems to have been the real Chris Kyle who, while he did other things that can be construed as heroic, was a deeply flawed man. Instead we got Captain America The Invincible Sniper of Awesome, Heartwarming Family Man.

And... eh. I can see why. Like Zhukov said, the family was heavily involved in making the film and between the whole "you don't speak ill of the dead" cultural more and potential lawsuits, it was easier to just chicken out and not include any of the controversial bits about his life. Though I, personally, think it would have made for a richer and more interesting film if they'd kept them.
 

beastro

New member
Jan 6, 2012
564
0
0
Lilani said:
The problem I have is when they begin to romanticize the events of war itself to make the soldiers look either more heroic or more justified in their actions. For example, Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor. The Japanese never deliberately attacked hospitals in Hawaii, yet apparently Pearl Harbor wasn't morally unambiguous for Michael Bay so he plopped a love interest character in a hospital and had it attacked. In fact, the only civilians killed at Pearl Harbor that day were killed by fires started by American anti-air shells. But you'll never catch that movie framing the collateral damage as something caused by friendly fire as well as hostile.
Exactly why people need to get their history from books and not film.

This is the problem I have with US war films. It is very rare for a war to be completely morally unambiguous, yet filmmakers, documentary makers, TV special makers, and everybody else who cashes in on America's patriotic nostalgia always prefer to take the easy route and make sure the conflict is as unambiguous as possible so that the soldiers are elevated from brave people to practically angels on earth. They always want to portray the war as something where the ends always justifies the means--that no matter what we did, it was always justified and always the best choice. I understand that films in general do things like this to drive up the drama and the stakes, but American war films in particular have a way of upping the ante by also driving up the patriotism so as to gloss over the sheer ridiculousness of what's been done to the story with stars and stripes and bombs bursting in air.
This is blowback from the Vietnam era and overcompensation for the treatment they received back then. Servicemen are actually the most annoyed by it when it's pointed out, they more than anyone else know how human (and trouble-making) their comrades are.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
Don't sweat it, Movie Bob pretty much always proves himself wrong on his own.
On just about every point, in fact. Or, in the very least, every other point.

He'll then spend a few months lecturing all of us on how we were wrong to accept his prior assertions in the first place. As if it were our fault he was wrong and made a colossal fool of himself.

But then some film directed by someone or on the topic of something he has a personal vendetta against will come along and he'll spend a few dozen videos beating that dead horse over and over.
 

The Choke

New member
Nov 5, 2014
52
0
0
The moral of the story is: All Bradley Cooper movies would be improved if he was playing a CG raccoon.
 

Armadox

Mandatory Madness!
Aug 31, 2010
1,120
0
0
I didn't get back to this thread til now, but.. how and who would I have to talk to, to get Reasonable Atheist's warning undone for the post he made? I actually feel he was in the right for his opinion, and would like to vouch for him to get that post unlocked. Also, I'd like very much to have an open dialog when someone feels in disagreement to me in a manner that isn't down right assailing, which it was not.

That being said, a rebuttal: Why people feel about a thing isn't necessarily always a solid state, and you can spin a positive or negative reinforcement onto that opinion by how you ask the question. By placing an aggressive "prove X wrong" statement in front of the question, you're no longer asking for simply that people need find narrative for something, but to specifically find narrative for something to be against someone. I simply wanted to know what the OP gained from proving Movie Bob wrong.. or right, or how their opinion at all has an effect on the opinion of someone who, quite happily, moved on from that subject weeks ago.

The ability to push a discussion along is a good thing, but I am far more curious as to why anyone would care to focus on only one person's opinion and choose to deem that opinion wrong as the basis of wanting that discussion in the first place.

It was solely an entertaining aside to a thread that has turned out to be a broad range of opinions in scope and clarity, and, also a mild curiosity of the OP's wording specifically because I found it amusing to ask. Answer not given, I simply ignored it as it wasn't so badly needed that I had to have him defend his choice in wording. Though, I'll gladly defend yours in calling me out on my aside...
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Armadox said:
I didn't get back to this thread til now, but.. how and who would I have to talk to, to get Reasonable Atheist's warning undone for the post he made? I actually feel he was in the right for his opinion, and would like to vouch for him to get that post unlocked.
I would guess he received that warning for the comment about trolling. It's against the site's rules to say another member is trolling, and even though Señor Atheist said he wasn't sure, it probably still counts.

NB, it's against the rules to troll, too, but that's a great deal harder to prove, of course.
 

psijac

$20 a year for this message
Nov 20, 2008
281
0
0
Movie Bob has released a follow up video.

Essentially he claims he is right but he understands how we can be confused into thinking this is a good movie, and forgives us if we think that his opinions can are anything but infallible.
 

TotalerKrieger

New member
Nov 12, 2011
376
0
0
Why was this movie made exactly? More specifically, why this particular soldier? Chris Kyle hardly seemed like someone who deserves the sort of fame he is currently receiving among certain circles in the US. I believe Texas has decided to honour him with a state holiday. In reality, he was a rampant self-promoter and made numerous false claims and slanderous accusations. Many believe he disrespected the entire UDT/SEAL community by carrying out a smear campaign against Jesse Ventura and cozying up to the talking heads on FOX news.

How many soldiers who have served in Iraq or Afganistan have written books? Surely others have equally compelling stories to be told while also demonstrating far less questionable conduct in both service and civilian life.

This all could have been forgiven if the movie addressed these aspects of Chris Kyle. Instead, the narrative opted to whitewash much of his past and portray him as merely a flawed hero with a tragic story. I cannot decide whether Eastwood's overly simplistic tale of service and sacrifice is just an objectionable artistic choice or a conscious effort to disseminate the sort of "ours is not to reason why" patriotism that one sees among this movie's biggest fans.
 

psijac

$20 a year for this message
Nov 20, 2008
281
0
0
Higgs303 said:
Why was this movie made exactly? More specifically, why this particular soldier? Chris Kyle hardly seemed like someone who deserves the sort of fame he is currently receiving among certain circles in the US. I believe Texas has decided to honour him with a state holiday. In reality, he was a rampant self-promoter and made numerous false claims and slanderous accusations. Many believe he disrespected the entire UDT/SEAL community by carrying out a smear campaign against Jesse Ventura and cozying up to the talking heads on FOX news.

How many soldiers who have served in Iraq or Afganistan have written books? Surely others have equally compelling stories to be told while also demonstrating far less questionable conduct in both service and civilian life.

This all could have been forgiven if the movie addressed these aspects of Chris Kyle. Instead, the narrative opted to whitewash much of his past and portray him as merely a flawed hero with a tragic story. I cannot decide whether Eastwood's overly simplistic tale of service and sacrifice is just an objectionable artistic choice or a conscious effort to disseminate the sort of "ours is not to reason why" patriotism that one sees among this movie's biggest fans.
People Have a hard-on for numbers. And Chris Kyle had the highest number of confirmed kills and the longest kill by an American. it could have easily been anyone else.