The Big Picture: American Sniper Sucks (And It's Okay To Admit That)
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
On the subject of superheroes as modern allegory of current events:
I'd actually really appreciate it if many of them took more of a stand on these kinds of things or at least had more of a point and I find it ironic that Bob points out the Avengers (together and individually) as having nothing to do with reality when:
-Iron Man 3 deals with war veterans and the Iron Patriot as a symbol of global policing and failed foreign policy.
-Winter Soldier inherently urges audiences to question the government and at least begins talking about "the world as it should be versus the world as it is" (before the Nazis take over the 3rd act).
-The Avengers spitting in the face of dour, dreary action trends by focusing not on Loki's destruction of New York but on the stand-up group of people who, amid chaos and war, went out of their way to rescue civilians because that's the main and now seemingly forgotten point of superheroes.
I'd actually really appreciate it if many of them took more of a stand on these kinds of things or at least had more of a point and I find it ironic that Bob points out the Avengers (together and individually) as having nothing to do with reality when:
-Iron Man 3 deals with war veterans and the Iron Patriot as a symbol of global policing and failed foreign policy.
-Winter Soldier inherently urges audiences to question the government and at least begins talking about "the world as it should be versus the world as it is" (before the Nazis take over the 3rd act).
-The Avengers spitting in the face of dour, dreary action trends by focusing not on Loki's destruction of New York but on the stand-up group of people who, amid chaos and war, went out of their way to rescue civilians because that's the main and now seemingly forgotten point of superheroes.
You don't have to EARN Freedom of speech. The idea that people have to earn their rights and freedom, blindly glorifying the military, and disrespecting people's civil liberty are the philosophises of a fascist state.jacobbanks said:Enjoy your freedom of speech. Hopefully your piece of paper and its force field prevents anyone from punching you in the mouth for anything you say that may be offensiveWestonbirt said:
More over in resent years the military and the institutions around it has be a greater TREAT to the freedoms U.S. Freedoms and Rights then any terrorist.
Being English I can say with some assurance that this film isn't a thing over here, although I havn't seen any actual numbers on what the movie's grossed so I might be wrong.
We do have these sorts of debates here in England but a lot of it is so isolated that no one really gives it any attention, is this a big thing in America?
We do have these sorts of debates here in England but a lot of it is so isolated that no one really gives it any attention, is this a big thing in America?
Hmm so you just don't know. Alright. The 1st amendment is not freedom from reprisals for speech, it is not protected by soldiers. Its a contract between the government and the governed on the limits of the government, that limit being that the government cannot prosecute you if you safely voice your opinion no matter what that opinion is. It has since been adopted by other world organizations as a basic human right. The British government (which has no constitution) even holds it as that. It doesn't protect you from repercussions from other citizens which includes being punched in the face, which other other laws do protect you from that. What protects the 1st amendment is lawyers and organizations like the ACLU as well lawmakers themselves. The 1st amendment and the bill of rights does need to be protected but its not from terrorists on the otherside of the world. Soldiers do not protect people from the fear of violence that repeatedly allows the government violate the first amendment, and they do not prosecute the government when it does over step its constitutional limits. Soldiers do perform a service but protection of the bill of rights isn't it and there is no scenario that isn't simply fantasy in which they do.jacobbanks said:You're free to do what ever you like, just not free from reprisal of your actions. The Bill of Rights is documented protection from said reprisal, but is only ensured by those willing to fight for others. And it doesn't you could speak nothing but the truth, but if someone doesn't like that true there is nothing that a piece of paper can do to protect you, its fighters who protect against those who aim to do harm to others.Scorpid said:Its so bizzare to me comments like this. I mean what does freedom of speech and being punched in the face have to do with one another? Or why does the poster seem to think that freedom of speech is an ineffectial passage of the bill of rights thats protects nothing? OR how does the poster believe that violence against a speaker proves that the speakers point is invalid?jacobbanks said:Enjoy your freedom of speech. Hopefully your piece of paper and its force field prevents anyone from punching you in the mouth for anything you say that may be offensiveMicalas said:
Hmmmm...I wonder if it's because of the fact that this movie is "based on a true story" that Bob doesn't like the fact that people are attaching their ideologies to this film. That's the only thing I can think of considering he sung the praises of movies such as Elysium and White House Down almost specifically for the political commentary contained there-in. Or perhaps it's because American Sniper has people "imprinting" their views on the movie while the other two I mentioned are stuffing their views down the audience's throat (specifically "The Man" wants to keep health care from the poor masses for Elysium and anyone claiming to be a conservative is a racist nazi terrorist for White House Down).
It's reasons like this that I hate all movies that have a political tilt, even if that tilt is in my favor. I don't watch movies because I want people to tell me how they think the world is, I watch them to be entertained...and I find absolutely nothing entertaining about political propaganda. I can get enough of that by turning on the news if I so desire.
This is also why I don't watch very many movies these days.
It's reasons like this that I hate all movies that have a political tilt, even if that tilt is in my favor. I don't watch movies because I want people to tell me how they think the world is, I watch them to be entertained...and I find absolutely nothing entertaining about political propaganda. I can get enough of that by turning on the news if I so desire.
This is also why I don't watch very many movies these days.
That's not true at all. The Bill of Rights only protects the right to free speech insofar as it prohibits the federal government from passing laws restricting it. Originally that didn't even apply to state level governments, but there have been subsequent additions to the governing body of laws and rulings that enforce it from the top down. Nothing, at any point, prevents reprisal by private citizens as long as they don't violate other laws which prohibit things like assault, hacking etc. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, and there are some restrictions on freedom of speech like when it endanger public safety (shouting fire in a theater) or the applicable slander and libel laws. I've not seen the movie, and I've mostly avoided the fuss, but to say that there is a protection from the consequences of your actions or speech is ignorant at best. Not to mention the idea that the only valid opinion is that of veterans. It's like saying that only the opinions of hardcore gamers matter in these forums.jacobbanks said:
EDIT
Aww man, you beat me to it, but good to see someone else with a firm grasp of US law, and I'll stick to my point on the validity of opinions.Scorpid said:
I'm not saying everything they laid down was perfect, simply pointing out that your idea doesn't make sense. Look, I could drudge up innovations where someone from an entirely different specialty gave their opinion and it improved the field which they didn't belong to. (How about the use of drones vastly improving sports filming?) When you only depend on one viewpoint, you focus on what you know and miss the answer to a problem that someone with an entirely different way of thinking solves. Ah! How about in WW1, where a movie guy had an idea to put multiple high grade movie cameras on the wings/underside of the plane and then use the film to create a 3D effect that accurately gave raised surfaces? How about how no one could believe a missile could be so large or launch vertically? But they investigated on these non-military ideas which turned out to be true.jacobbanks said:As a veteran, your opinion on veteran related things counts
however, our forefathers allowed all land owning white men to vote... That said, you can have an opinion on any number of things... Just things your are not familiar with or have no knowledge are things in which your opinion hold no weight.
You seem reasonably intelligent, don't get so bogged down by those thoughts.
I also find it kind of perfect that "fancy pants" is my captcha. Thank you for reminding me of the ridiculous of arguing on the internet. That's the last I'll say about all this mess. As Varric says, "opinions are like balls, you kick them hard enough and it doesn't matter how many of them you have."
I said fighters, not specifically soldiers... and I have a lot to respond to. I can only convey a general idea with the given time. Laws are nothing without those willing to put themselves in harm's way to enforce them.Scorpid said:Hmm so you just don't know. Alright. The 1st amendment is not freedom from reprisals for speech, it is not protected by soldiers. Its a contract between the government and the governed on the limits of the government, that limit being that the government cannot prosecute you if you safely voice your opinion no matter what that opinion is. It has since been adopted by other world organizations as a basic human right. The British government (which has no constitution) even holds it as that. It doesn't protect you from repercussions from other citizens which includes being punched in the face, which other other laws do protect you from that. What protects the 1st amendment is lawyers and organizations like the ACLU as well lawmakers themselves. The 1st amendment and the bill of rights does need to be protected but its not from terrorists on the otherside of the world. Soldiers do not protect people from the fear of violence that repeatedly allows the government violate the first amendment, and they do not prosecute the government when it does over step its constitutional limits. Soldiers do perform a service but protection of the bill of rights isn't it and there is no scenario that isn't simply fantasy in which they do.jacobbanks said:You're free to do what ever you like, just not free from reprisal of your actions. The Bill of Rights is documented protection from said reprisal, but is only ensured by those willing to fight for others. And it doesn't you could speak nothing but the truth, but if someone doesn't like that true there is nothing that a piece of paper can do to protect you, its fighters who protect against those who aim to do harm to others.Scorpid said:Its so bizzare to me comments like this. I mean what does freedom of speech and being punched in the face have to do with one another? Or why does the poster seem to think that freedom of speech is an ineffectial passage of the bill of rights thats protects nothing? OR how does the poster believe that violence against a speaker proves that the speakers point is invalid?jacobbanks said:Enjoy your freedom of speech. Hopefully your piece of paper and its force field prevents anyone from punching you in the mouth for anything you say that may be offensiveMicalas said:
Couldn't it just be that People just liked the movie? Is it really that hard to admit that the reason it's a big success is because people just liked it. I think the problem with the video, and how Movie Bob comes of when making any of his video's, is that he says his thoughts on something, it is fact, not an opinion.
Your point is a fallacy for the same reason your other examples are fallacies. It is the same as saying only someone with experience with developing games can have an opinion on games, or only a movie director can have an opinion on movies and/or directing.jacobbanks said:
But let me put it this way, since I can find testimonials and opinions of veterans that disagree with the narrative you built on the movie, I guess your opinion is just as unimportant...
I would love to discuss this with other veterans... So with that... I guess I will have to get out of this forum hahaha.hermes200 said:
Yup, that it is.Charcharo said:*Looks at Movie Bob's opinion of FPS games, his opinion on that which must not be named, his opinion on PC Gaming...Sigmund Av Volsung said:I'll admit that MovieBob isn't the best in articulating his points correctly. That said, I'm pretty sure you can still enjoy the movie so long as after watching it you don't un-ironically go "FUCK YEAH AMERICA KILL THEM MUSLIMS THIS MOVIE IS AWESOME!!11!".Charcharo said:I honestly think it is both. That it is just a bad movie, nothing more and what you said.Sigmund Av Volsung said:
BTW, my father liked it. We arent American. He was in the military though. Then again he likes such movies
That would be a real problem since you're using your own enjoyment of the movie and your patriotism to cannonise it as some sort of symbol of the "war on terror".
I see what you mean. He really is bad at articulating. So bad that I am unsure whether it is not you and I that are giving his thoughts reasoning ...
I still chuckle at his "PC Gaming is Dead" video everytime I go on Rock Paper Shotgun.
Ironically enough, PC Gaming saw a resurgence shortly after that video aired
That you would automatically assume those disagreeing with you are not veterans - and by extension veterans would automatically agree with you and that everyone here is American to be covered by U.S. Freedom of Speech - speaks volumes.jacobbanks said:
Nah, there were more than a few veterans on here who disagreed with me, that's fine. About speaking to Americans... yes, I would rather speak to an American, I only like people who enjoy over-eating and shooting guns and other stereotypical American stuff, just like meTeoes said:
.... 'MURICA!!!