In honor of the religion thread.

I can count on one hand the number of movies I've seen in the past decade that portrayed our military men and women in a positive light, ID4 being the most obvious. But for every one of those we get a string of films like 'Rules of Engagement', 'Basic', 'Jarhead', 'Valley of Elah' and 'The General's Daughter' that show military people to be vile, dishonorable, violent and borderline psychotic.

Much of it is due to the fact most Hollywood lefties never served. Sure, 'The Final Countdown' was a two-hour Navy recruiting film, but it was directed by a WW II veteran. Then we got Oliver Stone, a Vietnam vet who parlayed his PTSD into 'Platoon' and it was all downhill from there. At least we waited for the Vietnam War to be over for a few years before shiating all over the vets. With the Iraq war, Hollywood didn't wait for the soldiers to come home before insulting them.

I see less and less of Dale Dye and Lee Ermy every year. Clearly they aren't interested in helping Hollywood insult the very military they served. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of ex-military people working in Hollywood is at an all-time low. So I guess it's easy to be ignorant of something you don't know.

(Yeah, that last line will be turned on me, I know that. I'm an Army brat, I know what serving did for my father and how it set him up for the good future he, and eventually I would have.)

Because war is hell, and they are not helping to recruit like in WWII

You'll have to elaborate on what movies exactly have insulted Iraq vets. The only really mainstream film was Stop-Loss.

Could it be, now bear with me now, but could it be these films are criticizing the war and not the soldiers, sailors, and airmen fighting it? Nah, that would be too open-minded an idea...

And god knows, recent super ultra mega blockbusters like Transformers or Iron Man just absolutely NEVER show the military in a positive light.

This thread is a joke, right?

Psst..he listed some in his post...

I actually thought Jarhead was pretty true to life. Granted I've never served in the military, but from everything I've seen Jarhead seems pretty right on. Oh and it was based on a book by Anthony Swofford who was in the Marines.

Let's also not forget Black Hawk Down which showed the military (at least the fighting men) in a darn positive light.

There's also The Kingdom, Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, The Great Raid, Letters From Iwo Jima, U-571, and Pearl Harbor that all portray the military in a positive light.

Saving Private Ryan was a non-stop, bloody, liquid defecation in the faces of our fighting men.

Nearly as funny as the Why Does Hollywood Hate Christianity thread!

Flags Of Our Fathers... again, that was straight up, no lube, crammed in sideways, forgetting to wet the sponge, bloody third-trimester abortion shoved in the faces of our military personnel.

Look at it this way: Some people make war movies. Some people make anti-war movies. The end.

Yeah, but I thought the war in Iraq ended way back in 2003. Wasn't that the point of Bush's victory speech?

The disgusting way Hollywood treated the Air Force in Independence Day was absolutely fucking abominable.

Again I dont know why but I for one am sure as hell glad Hollywood isnt making pro-military propaganda films especially in the midst of the pointless exercises in death and chaos in the middle east. You are gonna have problems finding someone talented in Hollywood who wants to portray the current military (and their morally reprehensible invasions and behavior) in a positive light. This isnt just a hollywood thing. Films made from around the world reflect this view.

I know that most films set in and around WW2 portray the military in a much more positive light because veterans from that war are looked at by the majority of people as either heroes or soldiers who were fighting for something positive.
Vietnam and Iraq set films are generally known for portraying the soldiers as multiple murderers and rapers of children. Why? Because documented events of these activites have been reported even if this isnt representative of the actions of the majority of veterans/soldiers of these wars.
I know that myself get pretty disgusted when I think of our current military. I am sorry to admit this but when I see films like Redacted, In the Valley of Elah, Battle for Haditha, etc. I get almost physically sick and disgusted at how these events could happen and it makes me root for all these monsters committing these acts to be killed. Movies like this are all based on actual events and news articles and other articles (like one I read earlier this year concerning this crazy guy who was dating another military officer who he eventually killed before committing suicide and then the military covered this up blaming frendly-fire instead or some sick shit.) are just stunning to me enough so to make me hate the American military.

SO i am glad we dont get positive portrayals of the current military because that would be untruthful propaganda and lies and I for one wouldn't want to see that kinda garbage.

It's 'safe', even in the far-left circles of Hollywood to portray WW2 as a 'good' war. Though it wasn't.

I can't think of a major motion picture showing the men who are fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq as heroes. Kind of pathetic.

As usual some of the self delusion and rationalizing in this thread is hilarious.

There may not be such a thing as a "good" war. But in some cases there are necessary wars. WWII was one of them. Iraq was not.

Body of Lies?

Just think how the Germans feel.

"One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once 'The Unnecessary War'." - Sir Winston Churchill

Let's not get into a politics debate in Movie Talk. Suffice it to say I see very few other alternatives to how they could have stopped the Nazis without war.

"Every year, Hollywood producers ask the Pentagon for help in making films, seeking everything from locations and technical advice to Blackhawk helicopters and nuclear-powered submarines. The military will happily oblige, it says in an army handbook, so long as the movie "aid[s] in the recruiting and retention of personnel." The producers want to make money; the Defense Department wants to make propaganda. Former Hollywood Reporter staffer Robb explores the conflicts resulting from these negotiations in this illuminating though sometimes tedious study of the military-entertainment complex over the last 50 years. Robb shows how, in the Nicholas Cage film Windtalkers, the Marine Corps strong-armed producers into deleting a scene where a Marine pries gold teeth from a dead Japanese soldier (a historically accurate detail). And in The Perfect Storm, the air force insisted on giving the Air National Guard credit for rescuing a sinking fishing boat, instead of the actual Coast Guard heroes. Even seemingly flawless recruiting vehicles had troubles: in Top Gun, the navy demanded Tom Cruise's love interest be changed from a military instructor to a civilian contractor (fraternization between officers and enlisted personnel being a no-no). At its worst, the author argues, the Pentagon unscrupulously targets children; Robb reveals how the Defense Department helped insert military story lines into the Mickey Mouse Club. To help, Robb suggests a schedule of uniform fees by which producers could rent aircraft carriers, F-16s and the like. It's an intriguing idea, though producers can go it alone: as Robb points out, blockbusters Forrest Gump, An Officer and a Gentleman and Platoon were all made without military assistance."

Documentary (58 min.):

http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=103

The Navy was so disgracefully portrayed in Top Gun, I wanna kick a pigeon.

Rendition
Redacted
In the Valley of Elah
Fahrenheit 9/11 (why the frak did military people even speak one word to Moore?)

Haven't seen Lions for Lambs or Stop-Loss but they certainly could fall into that category.

This doesn't surprise me, really. I mean, do you expect the military to help Hollywood make it look bad?

Hollywood, (like San Francisco) doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between the people who decide to go to war vs the people who carry it out. You can disagree with the Iraq war by hating on the Republican and Democratic Congress who authorized it without hating on the people carrying it out. San Francisco, a city of supposed openness, has such a disdain for the military it is a joke - their issue should be with the President and Congress!

How does putting the military in a negative light make it an anti-war movie... put the people who decide to go to war in that light. The anger at times seems misplaced - sure there are bad apples in the military like there are bad apples in any area, but focusing on that actually takes away from the true source of the problem.