Tom Hanks: Dumb as a box of rocks?
John Rogers
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1969606,00.html
"But the context for Hanks' history lessons has changed. Band of
Brothers, HBO's best-selling DVD to date, began airing two days before
9/11; The Pacific, his new 10-hour epic about the Pacific theater in
World War II, plays out against a very different backdrop, when the
country is weary of war and American exceptionalism is a much tougher
sell. World War II in the European theater was a case of massive
armies arrayed against an unambiguous evil. The Pacific war was mainly
fought by isolated groups of men and was overlaid by a sense that our
foes were fundamentally different from us. In that sense, the war in
the Pacific bears a closer relation to the complex war on terrorism
the U.S. is waging now, making the new series a trickier prospect but
one with potential for more depth and resonance. "Certainly, we wanted
to honor U.S. bravery in The Pacific," Hanks says. "But we also wanted
to have people say, 'We didn't know our troops did that to Japanese
people.' " He wants Americans to understand the glories — and the
iniquities — of American history...
And he is pleased that The Pacific has fulfilled an obligation to our
World War II vets. He doesn't see the series as simply eye-opening
history. He hopes it offers Americans a chance to ponder the
sacrifices of our current soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. "From the
outset, we wanted to make people wonder how our troops can re-enter
society in the first place," Hanks says. "How could they just pick up
their lives and get on with the rest of us? Back in World War II, we
viewed the Japanese as 'yellow, slant-eyed dogs' that believed in
different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was
different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were
different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what's going on
today?"
John M. Rogers
AU Class of 1985
The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
"And all the time - such is the tragi-comedy of our situation - we continue
to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can
hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our
civilization needs is more "drive", or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or
"creativity". In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand
the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and
enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.
We castrate and bid the geldings to be fruitful."
(C.S. Lewis, 'The Abolition of Man')
Cyclone Ranger
> their lives and get on with the rest of us? Back in World War II, we
> viewed the Japanese as 'yellow, slant-eyed dogs' that believed in
> different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was
> different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were
> different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what's going on
> today?"
What mothra-rsfcking left field did that come from? Boy's high.
Glen Heiman
"Cyclone Ranger" <damon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bbf968e4-cd7d-44b0...@g4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Actors are like a box of chocolates. You never...........................
Heiman
Bobs yer uncle
So you are saying there is a love fest between Americans, American
military and the Al-Qaida/Taliban terrorists?
J.C. Watts Enslin
I guess really the only type of military movie that you find exciting
is the "USA is GREAT, the rest of you suck!!!" type pieces that are
about as interesting as Soviet WWII pictures. What was great about
"Saving Private Ryan" is that it melded the horrors of war, with the
personal doubts and feelings of the soldiers, with the overall sense
of purpose. I am pretty sure that this will play out in the same way.
Jon
Tom Enright
> I read the article you linked to. I thought it was interesting.
>
> I guess really the only type of military movie that you find exciting
> is the "USA is GREAT, the rest of you suck!!!" type pieces that are
> about as interesting as Soviet WWII pictures.
Actually, as I have bitched many times, the current crop of war flicks
are like Soviet propaganda. American soldiers 9/10 times are either
drooling, moronic simpletons or blood-thirsty, raping and torturing
lunatics. I often hear of these supposed "USA is GREAT, the rest of
you suck!!!" movies as if they are everywhere but have there been any
made in the last 10 years? 25? 40?
Even the Soviets were rarely shown in a negative light. The "bad"
guys are almost always the CIA, FBI, conservative politicians, right-
wing Russians and, by far, Corporations.
> What was great about
> "Saving Private Ryan" is that it melded the horrors of war, with the
> personal doubts and feelings of the soldiers, with the overall sense
> of purpose. I am pretty sure that this will play out in the same way.
I thought SPR handled that all very well.
-Tom Enright
> Jon
deem...@aol.com
> On Mar 11, 1:55 pm, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > I read the article you linked to. I thought it was interesting.
>
> > I guess really the only type of military movie that you find exciting
> > is the "USA is GREAT, the rest of you suck!!!" type pieces that are
> > about as interesting as Soviet WWII pictures.
>
> Actually, as I have bitched many times, the current crop of war flicks
> are like Soviet propaganda. American soldiers 9/10 times are either
> drooling, moronic simpletons or blood-thirsty, raping and torturing
> lunatics. I often hear of these supposed "USA is GREAT, the rest of
> you suck!!!" movies as if they are everywhere but have there been any
> made in the last 10 years? 25? 40?
Anything made by Chuck Norris?
>
> Even the Soviets were rarely shown in a negative light.
Missed the Rambo sequels?
Tom Enright
Do we really have to go back a quarter-century to one or two comic
book violence movies to find such an example? It's worse than I
thought.
> > Even the Soviets were rarely shown in a negative light.
> Missed the Rambo sequels?
"Rarely" RARELY....
And who were the bad guys in the first Rambo movie?
-Tom Enright
Kyle T. Jones
> On Mar 11, 1:55 pm, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> I read the article you linked to. I thought it was interesting.
>>
>> I guess really the only type of military movie that you find exciting
>> is the "USA is GREAT, the rest of you suck!!!" type pieces that are
>> about as interesting as Soviet WWII pictures.
>
> Actually, as I have bitched many times, the current crop of war flicks
> are like Soviet propaganda. American soldiers 9/10 times are either
> drooling, moronic simpletons
Which movies are those?
> or blood-thirsty, raping and torturing lunatics.
Which movies are those?
I often hear of these supposed "USA is GREAT, the rest of
> you suck!!!" movies as if they are everywhere but have there been any
> made in the last 10 years? 25? 40?
>
Care to reciprocate?
>
Dan Bretta
Jeepers, I could name off half a dozen or more films that showed the
Russkis in a negative light. It seemed like every 1980's film had
that angle.
Rocky IV
Hunt for Red October
Air Force 1
Stripes
Red Dawn
Russkies
Moscow On The Hudson
Iron Eagle 1, and 2?
Top Gun
Dan
BillyZoom
But we all know what Top Gun was REALLY about:
Sid: You want subversion on a massive level. You know what one of the
greatest fucking scripts ever written in the history of Hollywood is?
Top Gun.
Duane: Oh, come on.
Sid: Top Gun is fucking great. What is Top Gun? You think it's a story
about a bunch of fighter pilots.
Duane: It's about a bunch of guys waving their dicks around.
Sid: It is a story about a man's struggle with his own homosexuality.
It is! That is what Top Gun is about, man. You've got Maverick, all
right? He's on the edge, man. He's right on the fucking line, all
right? And you've got Iceman, and all his crew. They're gay, they
represent the gay man, all right? And they're saying, go, go the gay
way, go the gay way. He could go both ways.
Duane: What about Kelly McGillis?
Sid: Kelly McGillis, she's heterosexuality. She's saying: no, no, no,
no, no, no, go the normal way, play by the rules, go the normal way.
They're saying no, go the gay way, be the gay way, go for the gay way,
all right? That is what's going on throughout that whole movie... He
goes to her house, all right? It looks like they're going to have sex,
you know, they're just kind of sitting back, he's takin' a shower and
everything. They don't have sex. He gets on the motorcycle, drives
away. She's like, "What the fuck, what the fuck is going on here?"
Next scene, next scene you see her, she's in the elevator, she is
dressed like a guy. She's got the cap on, she's got the aviator
glasses, she's wearing the same jacket that the Iceman wears. She is,
okay, this is how I gotta get this guy, this guy's going towards the
gay way, I gotta bring him back, I gotta bring him back from the gay
way, so I'll do that through subterfuge, I'm gonna dress like a man.
All right? That is how she approaches it. Okay, now let me just ask
you - I'm gonna digress for two seconds here. I met this girl Amy
here, she's like floating around here and everything. Now, she just
got divorced, right? All right, but the REAL ending of the movie is
when they fight the MIGs at the end, all right? Because he has passed
over into the gay way. They are this gay fighting fucking force, all
right? And they're beating the Russians, the gays are beating the
Russians. And it's over, and they fucking land, and Iceman's been
trying to get Maverick the entire time, and finally, he's got him, all
right? And what is the last fucking line that they have together?
They're all hugging and kissing and happy with each other, and Ice
comes up to Maverick, and he says, "Man, you can ride my tail,
anytime!" And what does Maverick say? "You can ride mine!" Swordfight!
Swordfight! Fuckin' A, man!
Unclaimed Mysteries, powered by Sparkling Garmonbozia(TM)
> Duane: What about Kelly McGillis?
> Sid: Kelly McGillis, she's heterosexuality.
Well, it was just a movie.
-cls
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
What Does A Yellow Light Mean?
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net/blog
Carl Lundstedt
Air Force 1 -- you're crazy. That was a film about how the US
deserves terrorism "You gave my home to pimps and the mafia" or
whatever.
Moscow On the Hudson? Did you watch the whole thing? Remind me what
happens to the character as he struggles with his freedom.
Stripes -- um...any movie with boobies doesn't count
In Rocky IV you see the Soviet Government is bad, not he people. They
come around in the end.
Red Dawn is the only one that really fits the bill.
Carl Lundstedt
UNL
Jim Brown
We didnt want to annihilate the Japanese because they were different.
They were not only our enemy, but they fought war with some of the
most evil means. Hitler at least had respect for opposing
soldiers...the japanese were cruel and inhumane even to POW's. They
fought using very unconventional methods and despite their evil, we
still have some handwringers crying about dropping the bomb on them
to avoid having to take Japan.
Jim Brown
Red Dawn showed the human side of the Russkies as well. I dont think
they were shown to be anything other than a nation at war.
Dan Bretta
Probably more than a decade since I've seen it...
>
> Moscow On the Hudson? Did you watch the whole thing? Remind me what
> happens to the character as he struggles with his freedom.
>
Probably two decades since I've seen it, but clearly recall the long
lines for food, and the soviet goons chasing him down.
> Stripes -- um...any movie with boobies doesn't count
>
> In Rocky IV you see the Soviet Government is bad, not he people. They
> come around in the end.
Well...uh..aren't we talking about the Soviet govt? I don't really
recall having negative feelings towards the Soviet people when I was
growing up.
>
> Red Dawn is the only one that really fits the bill.
>
You left out Russkies, Hunt For Red October, Iron Eagle and Top
Gun...and those were off the top of my head...I know there are a ton
more movies that show the Soviets in a negative light. There's an
argument to make for current movies not showing the terrorists in a
bad light, but to make an argument that the Soviets were rarely ever
shown in a negative way is absurd.
Dan
Jim Brown
Apparently "negative light" is very subjective. Being shown as an
aggressive nation at war does not in and of itself create "negative
light" AFAIC. Cruel and unusual treatment, starving, killing, etc is
really needed. Even then, some of those are natural events for man at
war, whether we want to wring our hands about them or not.
Dan Bretta
>Hitler at least had respect for opposing soldiers.
Over 3 million Russian POW's who were killed by the Nazis beg to
differ.
Dan
Jim Brown
Yeah, I was only thinking along the lines of US soldiers. I deserved
that.
J.C. Watts Enslin
>
> > I read the article you linked to. I thought it was interesting.
>
> > I guess really the only type of military movie that you find exciting
> > is the "USA is GREAT, the rest of you suck!!!" type pieces that are
> > about as interesting as Soviet WWII pictures. What was great about
> > "Saving Private Ryan" is that it melded the horrors of war, with the
> > personal doubts and feelings of the soldiers, with the overall sense
> > of purpose. I am pretty sure that this will play out in the same way.
>
> > Jon
>
> We didnt want to annihilate the Japanese because they were different.
Correct. Hanks never said that. The article says "The Pacific war
was mainly fought by isolated groups of men and was overlaid by a
sense that our foes were fundamentally different from us."
How is that inaccurate?
Jon
Jim Brown
Jim Brown
And we were correct to have the mindset to want to annihilate them.
It was apparent to us that they were never going to surrender...that
their individual military people were willing to give up their lives
without a second thought about it. It would TAKE annihilation to
defeat them. Or so we thought.
J.C. Watts Enslin
Why are you arguing a point that I have never even introduced into the
conversation?
Jon
Cyclone Ranger
No, we don't want to wax AQ and the Toweliban because they're
different. We want to kill them because they want to kill us--and
they want to kill us because of batshit 12th-century reasons.
Jim Brown
Hanks DID say we wanted to annihilate them because they were
different. I'm just expanding on the whole thought process and how
that line of thinking was wrong.
John Rogers
filthy animal.
What the fuck are you talking about? Look at the title of my post...
I'm not even talking about the fucking movie.
John Rogers
filthy animal.
>On Mar 11, 8:06 pm, Jim Brown <jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maybe because from your very first post in this thread you did the
exact same thing?
J.C. Watts Enslin
> Hey, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net>... keep the change, you
> filthy animal.
>
> >I read the article you linked to. I thought it was interesting.
>
> >I guess really the only type of military movie that you find exciting
> >is the "USA is GREAT, the rest of you suck!!!" type pieces that are
> >about as interesting as Soviet WWII pictures. What was great about
> >"Saving Private Ryan" is that it melded the horrors of war, with the
> >personal doubts and feelings of the soldiers, with the overall sense
> >of purpose. I am pretty sure that this will play out in the same way.
>
> What the fuck are you talking about? Look at the title of my post...
> I'm not even talking about the fucking movie.
Oh silly me. I thought the title of the post had something to do with
the content of the post and the article you were linking to.
How could I have made that mistake???
Jon
J.C. Watts Enslin
I stand corrected....I re-read it and saw it at the end of the
article.
Jon
David Loewe, Jr.
Well, *I'm* offended by him putting forth the idea that "We, in turn,
wanted to annihilate them because they were different."
Um...
Rape of Nanking? Bataan Death March? Attack on Pearl Harbor without
formal declaration of war?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#List_of_major_incidents
--
"Will you come quietly, or must I use earplugs?"
- Russ Cage
Chris Bellomy
I think the winger contingent is justified on this one. That was
a pretty dumn thing for Hanks to say. I wonder if he'd like to
take that one back.
cb
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>On Mar 11, 1:57 pm, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 2:51 pm, Tom Enright <freddy_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Mar 11, 1:55 pm, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > I read the article you linked to. I thought it was interesting.
>>
>> > > I guess really the only type of military movie that you find exciting
>> > > is the "USA is GREAT, the rest of you suck!!!" type pieces that are
>> > > about as interesting as Soviet WWII pictures.
>>
>> > Actually, as I have bitched many times, the current crop of war flicks
>> > are like Soviet propaganda. American soldiers 9/10 times are either
>> > drooling, moronic simpletons or blood-thirsty, raping and torturing
>> > lunatics. I often hear of these supposed "USA is GREAT, the rest of
>> > you suck!!!" movies as if they are everywhere but have there been any
>> > made in the last 10 years? 25? 40?
>>
>> Anything made by Chuck Norris?
>> > Even the Soviets were rarely shown in a negative light.
>>
>> Missed the Rambo sequels?
>
>Jeepers, I could name off half a dozen or more films that showed the
>Russkis in a negative light. It seemed like every 1980's film had
>that angle.
>
>Rocky IV
>Hunt for Red October
Really? I thought the *hero* of Hunt For Red October was a Soviet?
>Air Force 1
First off, not 80s. Secondly, the villains are Kazakhs - after the fall
of the USSR.
>Stripes
>Red Dawn
>Russkies
>Moscow On The Hudson
>Iron Eagle 1, and 2?
>Top Gun
--
"Yes, John, but that is because you have to think the worst of everybody
else in order to avoid thinking about how much of a wanker *you* are."
David Chapman in <8kku9v$kee$4...@gxsn.com> on John S. Novak, III
Chris Bellomy
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:57:20 -0800 (PST), Dan Bretta<nud...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 11, 1:57 pm, "deemsb...@aol.com"<deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 11, 2:51 pm, Tom Enright<freddy_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 11, 1:55 pm, "J.C. Watts Enslin"<jens...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I read the article you linked to. I thought it was interesting.
>>>
>>>>> I guess really the only type of military movie that you find exciting
>>>>> is the "USA is GREAT, the rest of you suck!!!" type pieces that are
>>>>> about as interesting as Soviet WWII pictures.
>>>
>>>> Actually, as I have bitched many times, the current crop of war flicks
>>>> are like Soviet propaganda. American soldiers 9/10 times are either
>>>> drooling, moronic simpletons or blood-thirsty, raping and torturing
>>>> lunatics. I often hear of these supposed "USA is GREAT, the rest of
>>>> you suck!!!" movies as if they are everywhere but have there been any
>>>> made in the last 10 years? 25? 40?
>>>
>>> Anything made by Chuck Norris?
>
>>>> Even the Soviets were rarely shown in a negative light.
>>>
>>> Missed the Rambo sequels?
>>
>> Jeepers, I could name off half a dozen or more films that showed the
>> Russkis in a negative light. It seemed like every 1980's film had
>> that angle.
>>
>> Rocky IV
>> Hunt for Red October
>
> Really? I thought the *hero* of Hunt For Red October was a Soviet?
A Lithuanian. Not a Russian.
>> Air Force 1
>
> First off, not 80s. Secondly, the villains are Kazakhs - after the fall
> of the USSR.
See, if you can split that hair, so can I. :)
cb
David Loewe, Jr.
<jimbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mar 11, 4:28 pm, Dan Bretta <nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 4:02 pm, Jim Brown <jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Hitler at least had respect for opposing soldiers.
>>
>> Over 3 million Russian POW's who were killed by the Nazis beg to
>> differ.
>Yeah, I was only thinking along the lines of US soldiers. I deserved
>that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Crimes
"If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia,
New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4% chance of not
surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held
by the Japanese was nearly 30%."
--
"...a thousand promises, a thousand attacks..."
Bill Bradley on Albert Gore, Jr.
Chris Bellomy
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:42:08 -0800 (PST), Jim Brown
> <jimbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 11, 4:28 pm, Dan Bretta<nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 11, 4:02 pm, Jim Brown<jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hitler at least had respect for opposing soldiers.
>>>
>>> Over 3 million Russian POW's who were killed by the Nazis beg to
>>> differ.
>
>> Yeah, I was only thinking along the lines of US soldiers. I deserved
>> that.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Crimes
>
> "If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia,
> New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4% chance of not
> surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held
> by the Japanese was nearly 30%."
If you were a British or American airman shot down over
Germany after 1943, your chances of even becoming a POW
were not good. Hitler called on civilians to lynch airmen
on sight, and many did.
cb
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. wrote, On 3/12/10 11:42 AM:
>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:57:20 -0800 (PST), Dan Bretta<nud...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Mar 11, 1:57 pm, "deemsb...@aol.com"<deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 11, 2:51 pm, Tom Enright<freddy_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 11, 1:55 pm, "J.C. Watts Enslin"<jens...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I read the article you linked to. I thought it was interesting.
>>>>
>>>>>> I guess really the only type of military movie that you find exciting
>>>>>> is the "USA is GREAT, the rest of you suck!!!" type pieces that are
>>>>>> about as interesting as Soviet WWII pictures.
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, as I have bitched many times, the current crop of war flicks
>>>>> are like Soviet propaganda. American soldiers 9/10 times are either
>>>>> drooling, moronic simpletons or blood-thirsty, raping and torturing
>>>>> lunatics. I often hear of these supposed "USA is GREAT, the rest of
>>>>> you suck!!!" movies as if they are everywhere but have there been any
>>>>> made in the last 10 years? 25? 40?
>>>>
>>>> Anything made by Chuck Norris?
>>
>>>>> Even the Soviets were rarely shown in a negative light.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>> Missed the Rambo sequels?
>>>
>>> Jeepers, I could name off half a dozen or more films that showed the
>>> Russkis in a negative light. It seemed like every 1980's film had
>>> that angle.
>>>
>>> Rocky IV
>>> Hunt for Red October
>>
>> Really? I thought the *hero* of Hunt For Red October was a Soviet?
>
>A Lithuanian. Not a Russian.
So? The statement was about Soviets, not Russians, Ukrainians, Latvians
or any other ethnicity.
>>> Air Force 1
>>
>> First off, not 80s. Secondly, the villains are Kazakhs - after the fall
>> of the USSR.
>
>See, if you can split that hair, so can I. :)
Which part of "the Soviet Union was no more (and, therefore, there were
no Soviets in Air Force One)" did not get through?
--
"I took a shower and I put on my best blue jeans,
I picked her up in my new VW van.
She wore a peasant blouse with nothing underneath,
I said, Hi, and she said, Yeah, I guess I am."
Dean Friedman
The BorgMan
news:rqtkp5pjrjl9vjh71...@4ax.com:
Yes... and those atrocities were some of the very differences between us
that made us want to annihilate them.
--
Aaron
Chris Bellomy
^^^^^^^
Now we shake hands and call it a draw?
cb
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
Maybe I should just go and metaphorically slap Bretta around a bit.
--
"The worst crime against working people is a company which fails to
operate at a profit."
- Samuel Gompers (1908)
David V. Loewe, Jr
What color is the sky on your planet?
Seriously.
That is the kind of sophistry that leads to genocides.
--
"Khan...I'm laughing at the superior intellect."
Admiral James T. Kirk
Carl Lundstedt
Hunt for Red October was a push. I didn't see political 'rightness or
wrongness' put forth in that film. Same for Top Gun
The others, I admit I haven't seen.
Carl Lundstedt
UNL
deem...@aol.com
> David Loewe, Jr. wrote, On 3/12/10 11:46 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:42:08 -0800 (PST), Jim Brown
>
> >> On Mar 11, 4:28 pm, Dan Bretta<nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Mar 11, 4:02 pm, Jim Brown<jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Hitler at least had respect for opposing soldiers.
>
> >>> Over 3 million Russian POW's who were killed by the Nazis beg to
> >>> differ.
>
> >> Yeah, I was only thinking along the lines of US soldiers. I deserved
> >> that.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Crimes
>
> > "If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia,
> > New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4% chance of not
> > surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held
> > by the Japanese was nearly 30%."
>
> If you were a British or American airman shot down over
> Germany after 1943, your chances of even becoming a POW
> were not good. Hitler called on civilians to lynch airmen
> on sight, and many did.
>
Actually, the majority became POWs. Either way, it's really pretty
hard to blame the civilians.......
Kyle T. Jones
>> Rocky IV
>> Hunt for Red October
>
> Really? I thought the *hero* of Hunt For Red October was a Soviet?
>
So you can't make a movie with a Soviet hero that is also anti-Soviet?
You realize you've just blown Tom's initial argument out of the water,
right? I'm positive in most of the movies he claims are anti-American
Military, the hero is, well, an American Soldier.
Tom, do you have something you want to say to David?
David, do you want to rethink the leap in "logic" you just made?
Cheers.
David V. Loewe, Jr
Which Soviets were shown in a negative light in HfRO? You never really
got to know Putin (the political officer). The GRU agent, Loginov, is
just doing his duty. So is Tupelov. The only truly negatively
portrayed Soviet that is not in league with Ramius is the off-screen
doctor who botches the operation on Natalia Ramius which results in her
death.
So, no. I see no need to rethink anything.
--
"I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've
always worked for me."
- Hunter S. Thompson
John Rogers
filthy animal.
>On Mar 12, 1:25 am, John Rogers <tiger7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hey, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net>... keep the change, you
>> filthy animal.
>>
>> >I read the article you linked to. I thought it was interesting.
>>
>> >I guess really the only type of military movie that you find exciting
>> >is the "USA is GREAT, the rest of you suck!!!" type pieces that are
>> >about as interesting as Soviet WWII pictures. What was great about
>> >"Saving Private Ryan" is that it melded the horrors of war, with the
>> >personal doubts and feelings of the soldiers, with the overall sense
>> >of purpose. I am pretty sure that this will play out in the same way.
>>
>> What the fuck are you talking about? Look at the title of my post...
>> I'm not even talking about the fucking movie.
>
>
>Oh silly me. I thought the title of the post had something to do with
>the content of the post and the article you were linking to.
>
>How could I have made that mistake???
Maybe because you didn't have sense enough to read the title of my
post which made clear I was talking about TOM FUCKING HANKS?
John Rogers
animal.
>David Loewe, Jr. wrote, On 3/12/10 11:38 AM:
"THE PACIFIC" SUXORS!!@@!!!
(Yeah... I know that didn't make any sense. Except to Jon Enslin.)
Kyle T. Jones
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:20:28 -0600, "Kyle T. Jones"
> <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote:
>
>> David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>>> Rocky IV
>>>> Hunt for Red October
>>> Really? I thought the *hero* of Hunt For Red October was a Soviet?
>> So you can't make a movie with a Soviet hero that is also anti-Soviet?
>>
>> You realize you've just blown Tom's initial argument out of the water,
>> right? I'm positive in most of the movies he claims are anti-American
>> Military, the hero is, well, an American Soldier.
>>
>> Tom, do you have something you want to say to David?
>>
>> David, do you want to rethink the leap in "logic" you just made?
>
> Which Soviets were shown in a negative light in HfRO? You never really
> got to know Putin (the political officer). The GRU agent, Loginov, is
> just doing his duty. So is Tupelov. The only truly negatively
> portrayed Soviet that is not in league with Ramius is the off-screen
> doctor who botches the operation on Natalia Ramius which results in her
> death.
>
> So, no. I see no need to rethink anything.
As usual, you confuse content with form. You argue that a movie cannot
have a hero from some country, yet still cast that country in a poor
light, overall.
Dan Bretta lists The Hunt for Red October as a movie that casts the
Soviets in a negative light (like, duh - the whole movie is about a
courageous group of SOVIET DEFECTORS!!!)
Your reply to that point, in it's entirety:
>>> Really? I thought the *hero* of Hunt For Red October was a Soviet?
I objected - because the argument you make, that having a Soviet hero in
a movie means the movie just cannot possibly cast the USSR, as a whole,
in a negative light, is ridiculous to anyone who, well, watches movies.
Lets stay focused. Lets not talk about all the other stuff you want to
bring in - will you defend your argument, that a movie with a Soviet
hero cannot cast the Soviet Union in a negative light?
If you concede that the argument is invalid, there is nothing less to
discuss. But you won't draw me into discussing other, not even loosely
related issues.
Cheers.
David Loewe, Jr.
<KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote:
The problem is that, in the movie, you never really see *why* they are
defecting.
Even in the book, it more or less left as "Natalia died due to
incompetence."
>Your reply to that point, in it's entirety:
>
>>>> Really? I thought the *hero* of Hunt For Red October was a Soviet?
>
>I objected - because the argument you make, that having a Soviet hero in
>a movie means the movie just cannot possibly cast the USSR, as a whole,
>in a negative light, is ridiculous to anyone who, well, watches movies.
>
>Lets stay focused. Lets not talk about all the other stuff you want to
>bring in - will you defend your argument, that a movie with a Soviet
>hero cannot cast the Soviet Union in a negative light?
>
>If you concede that the argument is invalid, there is nothing less to
>discuss. But you won't draw me into discussing other, not even loosely
>related issues.
--
"Novak's First Rule (more formally known as 'Novak's First General
Rule') is that people are stupid."
John S. Novak, III 'The Humblest Man on the Net'
in <slrn76mac...@207.155.184.72>
Antonio Veranos
[<6fe813d3-bbe9-440e...@e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>]
[Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:42:55 -0800 (PST)]
: Oh silly me. I thought the title of the post had something to do with
: the content of the post and the article you were linking to.
:
: How could I have made that mistake???
Is this you being contentious, Jon, trying to start a pissing match?
I hear that's not allowed... insufferable, even.
--
Antonio Veranos
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run
out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
--Margaret Thatcher, 'This Week', 5 February
1976--Margaret Thatcher, 'This Week', 5 February 1976