The Big Picture: American Sniper Sucks (And It's Okay To Admit That)

[Scorpid]

Haven't seen the movie, don't care to.

If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

This is ridiclous. I'm a huge supporter of the military and even work for the DoD, but I'm tired of this line. The last vets that fought for our freedoms were from WW2. And the freedoms "protected" in that war for the US was tenuous at best. We only got involved after Pearl Harbor was bombed, which wasn't much worse than a modern terrorist attack.

You're out of your mind if you think any of the people in the middle east are threatening our freedoms. You can definitely say that troops right now are working to ensure that we don't get attacked in a large scale way again. But what you can't say that our "freedoms" are being defended.

Until we get invaded, there are very few things that will be classified as protecting our freedoms when it comes to armed response.

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 offensive

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?

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.

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.

 

[RJ 17]

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.

 

[shirkbot]

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.

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.

EDIT

-Snip-

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.

 

[PetiteMoogle]

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.

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.

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."

 

[jacobbanks]

Haven't seen the movie, don't care to.

If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

This is ridiclous. I'm a huge supporter of the military and even work for the DoD, but I'm tired of this line. The last vets that fought for our freedoms were from WW2. And the freedoms "protected" in that war for the US was tenuous at best. We only got involved after Pearl Harbor was bombed, which wasn't much worse than a modern terrorist attack.

You're out of your mind if you think any of the people in the middle east are threatening our freedoms. You can definitely say that troops right now are working to ensure that we don't get attacked in a large scale way again. But what you can't say that our "freedoms" are being defended.

Until we get invaded, there are very few things that will be classified as protecting our freedoms when it comes to armed response.

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 offensive

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ironbat92]

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.

 

[hermes]

If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

done nothing to earn it huh? so by that definition, anyone who does not want to or can't fight in a war have done nothing to earn a right that was granted to us by the Bill of Rights rectified in 1791, well before you and I were born.

Also, this movie was not given a limited release to VA organizations or military camps but to the public. As such, I would think that the public, having been the people who watch it, can have an opinion on it regardless of if it's about a veteran or not?

Oh you can have an opinion... it just doesn't matter... and yes... compared to the men and women who have died protecting that piece of paper that says you can say what ever you want, Yes! you've done nothing for it.

You signed up just to spark this debate? Well done.

Also, thanks for dismissing 99.9% of the current population of the Earth as having opinions which don't matter. That's cool too.

I actually did... And oh no, you misunderstand. When it comes to things that are about the effects of coming back from war and the effects of war. Non war veterans and their opinion of said portrayals don't matter. I'm sure if we we're talking about fixing a car or preforming lab research you wouldn't care about the opinion of a non mechanic or non scientist.

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.

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...

 

[jacobbanks]

If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

done nothing to earn it huh? so by that definition, anyone who does not want to or can't fight in a war have done nothing to earn a right that was granted to us by the Bill of Rights rectified in 1791, well before you and I were born.

Also, this movie was not given a limited release to VA organizations or military camps but to the public. As such, I would think that the public, having been the people who watch it, can have an opinion on it regardless of if it's about a veteran or not?

Oh you can have an opinion... it just doesn't matter... and yes... compared to the men and women who have died protecting that piece of paper that says you can say what ever you want, Yes! you've done nothing for it.

You signed up just to spark this debate? Well done.

Also, thanks for dismissing 99.9% of the current population of the Earth as having opinions which don't matter. That's cool too.

I actually did... And oh no, you misunderstand. When it comes to things that are about the effects of coming back from war and the effects of war. Non war veterans and their opinion of said portrayals don't matter. I'm sure if we we're talking about fixing a car or preforming lab research you wouldn't care about the opinion of a non mechanic or non scientist.

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.

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.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

I feel this will turn into an American politics war soon.
lysis is done.
Conclusions are drawn at the end. Not at the beginning.

I think it's less so "American Sniper is just bad, stfu" and more so "please stop using American Sniper as a political weapon".

I'd say it's bad titling at fault here, since the video revolves around how American Sniper is a hit in America because it feeds into the insecurity spurred on by their recent wars by giving them a certain, moral righteousness on the "War on Terror".

I honestly think it is both. That it is just a bad movie, nothing more and what you said.

BTW, my father liked it. We arent American. He was in the military though. Then again he likes such movies

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!".

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".

*Looks at Movie Bob's opinion of FPS games, his opinion on that which must not be named, his opinion on PC Gaming...

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 ...

Yup, that it is.

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

 

[JPArbiter]

I almost reflexively closed the video when Sarah Palin showed up, but fought that urge to hear the point.

I was not disappointed.

 

[Teoes]

I would love to discuss this with other veterans... So with that... I guess I will have to get out of this forum hahaha.

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]

I would love to discuss this with other veterans... So with that... I guess I will have to get out of this forum hahaha.

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.

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 me .... 'MURICA!!!

 

[J Tyran]

its fighters who protect against those who aim to do harm to others.

So when will they be shooting The US and UK governments then? Because the Iraq War has done nothing but put you, me and the whole region in greater danger than ever.

 

[jacobbanks]

its fighters who protect against those who aim to do harm to others.

So when will they be shooting The US and UK governments then? Because the Iraq War has done nothing but put you, me and the whole region in greater danger than ever.

How so? how are we put in danger from the invasion of Iraq?

 

[remnant_phoenix]

If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

This position is predicated on one buying into the philosophy of "freedom isn't free." This is the idea that freedoms are earned/won by service men and women and then granted to civilians out of the goodness of the hearts of said service people.

I myself believe that freedom of speech is a natural right. It's something exists in and of itself. That freedom is suppressed by tyrants. Righteous governments create laws and policy to preserve and protect natural rights. From this perspective, freedom isn't earned and then granted by those who serve in the armed forces. On the contrary, servicemen and women have the honor of preserving and protecting something that exists on its own.

Which of these two perspectives do you think is more "American"?

Well, the founders of the U.S.A. overwhelmingly subscribed to the latter one. The American experiment was based on the philosophies of John Locke, who argued for natural rights; he argued that governments (and by extension, the military that they create) don't create and distribute freedom. On the contrary, he argued that freedom is the natural state of humanity and that governments (and military) are created to keep tyranny at bay.

The whole "freedom isn't free" mentality wasn't a normal thing in American culture until the Cold War, and then spurred back into the popular psyche in a post-9/11 world.

To top it all off, no matter which view one subscribe's to, the freedom of speech includes the right to criticize one's government, and all military actions are government actions, so that includes criticism of military actions. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (Thomas Jefferson)

 

[J Tyran]

its fighters who protect against those who aim to do harm to others.

So when will they be shooting The US and UK governments then? Because the Iraq War has done nothing but put you, me and the whole region in greater danger than ever.

How so? how are we put in danger from the invasion of Iraq?

Not all that up on current events I take it, the region has become the largest breeding ground for terrorists in the world. Far worse than Afghanistan ever was, people have been already been there, radicalised and then taught how to fight by groups that operate in Iraq (amongst other places) and set loose on the streets of Europe where they amassed a tragic body count.

The United States won't be immune from this.

 

[jacobbanks]

If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

This position is predicated on one buying into the philosophy of "freedom isn't free." This is the idea that freedoms are earned/won by service men and women and then granted to civilians out of the goodness of the hearts of said service people.

I myself believe that freedom of speech is a natural right. It's something exists in and of itself. That freedom is suppressed by tyrants. Righteous governments create laws and policy to preserve and protect natural rights. From this perspective, freedom isn't earned and then granted by those who serve in the armed forces. On the contrary, servicemen and women have the honor of preserving and protecting something that exists on its own.

Which of these two perspectives do you think is more "American"?

Well, the founders of the U.S.A. overwhelmingly subscribed to the latter one. The American experiment was based on the philosophies of John Locke, who argued for natural rights; he argued that governments (and by extension, the military that they create) don't create and distribute freedom. On the contrary, he argued that freedom is the natural state of humanity and that governments (and military) are created to keep tyranny at bay.

The whole "freedom isn't free" mentality wasn't a normal thing in American culture until the Cold War, and then spurred back into the popular psyche in a post-9/11 world.

To top it all off, no matter which view one subscribe's to, the freedom of speech includes the right to criticize one's government, and all military actions are government actions, so that includes criticism of military actions. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (Thomas Jefferson)

Right, I didn't say he shouldn't exercise his free will and speak his mind. Only that I thought his opinion was invalid. Also, I feel that people do earn the freedom they enjoy. Does that mean that I think those who do not contribute should be imprisoned until they do? No, not really... I just have no respect for them and I feel they often take their freedom for granted.

 

[jacobbanks]

its fighters who protect against those who aim to do harm to others.

So when will they be shooting The US and UK governments then? Because the Iraq War has done nothing but put you, me and the whole region in greater danger than ever.

How so? how are we put in danger from the invasion of Iraq?

Not all that up on current events I take it, the region has become the largest breeding ground for terrorists in the world. Far worse than Afghanistan ever was, people have been already been there, radicalised and then taught how to fight by groups that operate in Iraq (amongst other places) and set loose on the streets of Europe where they amassed a tragic body count.

The United States won't be immune from this.

Immune to what? Radicalized Muslims? I see your Charlie guy and raise you one Boston bombing.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Right, I didn't say he shouldn't exercise his free will and speak his mind. Only that I thought his opinion was invalid. Also, I feel that people do earn the freedom they enjoy. Does that mean that I think those who do not contribute should be imprisoned until they do? No, not really... I just have no respect for them and I feel they often take their freedom for granted.

You said that his opinion doesn't matter. While that isn't a direct suppression of his freedom, that is saying that his opinion should be disregarded in public forum, which is, in the end, the same result. If his opinion, according to you, should not be a part of the conversation, then the underlying purpose of the freedom of speech, to have one's opinion be accounted for in the public voice, is lost.

 

[jacobbanks]

Right, I didn't say he shouldn't exercise his free will and speak his mind. Only that I thought his opinion was invalid. Also, I feel that people do earn the freedom they enjoy. Does that mean that I think those who do not contribute should be imprisoned until they do? No, not really... I just have no respect for them and I feel they often take their freedom for granted.

You said that his opinion doesn't matter. While that isn't a direct suppression of his freedom, that is saying that his opinion should be disregarded in public forum, which is, in the end, the same result. If his opinion, according to you, should not be a part of the conversation, then the underlying purpose of the freedom of speech, to have one's opinion be accounted for in the public voice, is lost.

Right, whats so bad about that? If you were at a NAACP meeting, discussing ways to improve schools and community outreach to a black neighborhood, you wouldn't be taking suggestions from the grand dragon would you? He would likely be asked to leave, even though he is exercising his free speech, regardless of how offensive it is.

Now, I am in no way saying Bob (or anyone who dislikes the movies) is anywhere close to that bad, in fact I like most of Bob's videos. However, certain forums should disregard certain voices.