Lone Survivor...

[Larry Gude]

Are you going to watch the Lego movie larry? I dont think it follows the book either.

You probably think you're funny.

If we just accept things, if we just say "Aw, that's nice" we get soccer games with no score keeping, movies that make a sham of the book and legos. With faces painted on them.

This stuff matters.

 

[Larry Gude]

That said, I've seen interviews with Axe's mother and Murphy's father..and both were quick to say the movie was an accurate portrayal of events and their sons..:shrug:

It is HEART breaking to hear her say that she told Ben Foster, the guy played her son, 'thank you for bringing my son back to life for a few hours"

 

[Toxick]

I can't take 5 minutes of 'Lincoln'.

How about Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter?

 

[Larry Gude]

How about Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter?

"Abraham Lincoln; Vampire Hunter" Entertaining as hell and the perfect place to take all the 'artistic license' you like. Fiction is fiction, have at it.

I don't like history dicked with. I don't like fiction based on fact IF the fiction part starts encroaching too much on the facts. I have no problem with Gone With the Wind. Great movie. I don't like Harry Turtledove stuff, at all. I despise Oliver Stone for JFK. I am fine with movies 'based on a character'.

In fact, that's what Lone Survivor should be, a made up movie based on macro factual events; there were, are, US Navy SEAL's in Afghanistan.

 

[Bann]

I would never see Lone Survivor because I find those movies way too harrowing. Give me a Platoon and I'm okay, but Black Hawk Down disturbed me for....well, it's disturbing me right now because I'm thinking about it. I don't like realistic movies based on something real, and I also don't like Hollywood playing fast and loose with real events.

In fact, I don't care for Hollywood's modern war movies at all. The Hurt Locker effing pissed me off to the point I wanted to go beat the #### out of everyone involved with that movie - note that it's pissing me off now just thinking about it. Even movies that aren't predominantly "war" movies but revolved around war piss me off: Stop-Loss, Brothers...grrrrr.....

It annoys the piss out of me to have these pampered elitist drug addicted freaks putting their distorted vision of military life and combat out for consumption by morons who don't know #### about it.

I'm going to tend to agree with this overall. Especially about Hollywood playing fast & loose with real events. I have been paying a lot more attention to the Luttrell interviews and stories about this movie since I saw it, and will be reading the book soon. We've downloaded the E-version and as soon as I have a few things out of the way I am going to read it. I cannot critique Larry's review except to say it's a movie and they're going to make movie magic happen in order to sell tickets.

Luttrell and US Navy SEALS on the set have given their approval of the overall integrity of the story. Of course, they have vested interests, but even the parents of the other SEALS in this story have thanked Luttrell for telling their sons' stories. Time will tell what the overall reviews will be. I liked the movie and at the same time I hated the movie. (but for different reasons, than Larry hated it!)

Thing2 recommended the book to me when he read it. It was on the summer reading list when he was going into his Sophomore year in HS. He's a big military history reader, he loves all things military, and he wanted to see this on opening night, which happened to be his 18th birthday. So we went. Oh, my. What did I do?

I watched the movie sitting right next to him and I watched it through my fingers for a good portion of the time. It was affecting me rather viscerally, and I found myself crying a lot towards the end. It was very emotional for me. I know this was my mother's heart watching the movie, and I was irrationally putting my son in the situations those men were in. (He's enlisting in the Navy soon, and while he's not going into the SEALs and will probably not be on "front lines", and those guys were at least 5 years+ older than he will be when he first goes in - but I said these were irrational thoughts!) I'm never going to watch another one of those movies with him! Probably won't even watch another one for a long time.

 

[Larry Gude]

I cannot critique Larry's review except to say it's a movie and they're going to make movie magic happen in order to sell tickets. :

But, that is at core of my argument; the changes do not, can not, affect ticket sales in a positive way! The changes they made materially change the story and do so in a fashion that the casual viewer is not going to notice, or care about, one way or the other!!!

If anything, it affects sales negatively because there are jerks like me running off at the mouth, jumping up and down about bastardizing the story.

 

[Larry Gude]

I watched the movie sitting right next to him and I watched it through my fingers for a good portion of the time. It was affecting me rather viscerally, and I found myself crying a lot towards the end. It was very emotional for me. I know this was my mother's heart watching the movie, and I was irrationally putting my son in the situations those men were in. (He's enlisting in the Navy soon, and while he's not going into the SEALs and will probably not be on "front lines", and those guys were at least 5 years+ older than he will be when he first goes in - but I said these were irrational thoughts!) I'm never going to watch another one of those movies with him! Probably won't even watch another one for a long time.

And see, had they gotten the story right, had they emphasized the REAL story of the villagers and their ancient code of protecting and defending a guest, as it happened, instead of a quick reference to it in the closing credits, I would argue it gives you and other folks who were so viscerally affected by the rest of the movie, who may not go again, give you this enormous, wonderful human connection to the movie, a giant life raft, so to speak, of universal human good will and decency, even in an unexpected and remote part of the world, pretty much the very goodness those mothers sons gave their lives for.

I do NOT get it!!!! It infuriates me. Those guys died for ideas, for concepts of good. The movie throws it all away in this inane 'good guy/bad guy garbage and, in the end, tells no more story than 'BANG!' some heroes fought the good fight and got killed.

Killed for WHAT??????

I thin the REAL story would have given the thing some redemption a mother, especially a mother whose son is enlisting, a rock solid, for lack of a better word, 'goodness' to take away after seeing it. As it is, it's just some pointless war movie; fighting and dying for fighting and dying's sake.

:

 

[Bann]

But, that is at core of my argument; the changes do not, can not, affect ticket sales in a positive way! The changes they made materially change the story and do so in a fashion that the casual viewer is not going to notice, or care about, one way or the other!!!

If anything, it affects sales negatively because there are jerks like me running off at the mouth, jumping up and down about bastardizing the story.

:shrug: Don't know what to say, Larry. Lots of other folks disagree with you. Bo time to banter with you - got a big ROTC function to attend this am at the HS.

 

[GURPS]

By the way did you read, We were soldiers once, and young?

I did it was awesome ...
and the movie was as harrowing as BHD ...

 

[GURPS]

The second half of the battle that was not in the movie, when US brass decided to march the replacement battalions the five miles to LZ Albany, through unscouted territory, was the really insane, murderous part displaying the epitome of arrogance and idiocy of American leadership. The bloodletting of American troops those two days doubled the US losses suffered by Moore and his battalion at LZ X-ray.

wasn't it

 

[GURPS]

..... that WILL annoy people like me who want as factual as possible, because we have plenty of fiction, .....

because YOU are in a Small Minority

 

[Larry Gude]

because YOU are in a Small Minority

And Bann? Are moms also a small minority? Never see it again? Nor movies like it for a LONG time to come?

The vast majority are not the minority nor do they know the real story nor do they have ANY opinion on the accuracy because they don't know nor care that much. It's just a movie. It would not sway them one way or anther if it is authentic or entirely made up and sold as authentic. It is, however, sold as the real story.

So, there is NO economic argument to be made in favor of the changes. None. There is a HUGE argument, or ought to be, in favor of telling the real story based on the LONE argument that it is being presented as the TRUE story. This isn't nit picking. They changed several key elements.

 

[glhs837]

I think, perhaps, Larry, I know the reason for the change, and indeed, it's a cultural thing. It's a product of the disconnect between the coastal dwellers and the inhabitants of the inland. See, in Hollywood, they cannot conceive of the audience for this movie, in the minds of the Hollywood set, Duck Dynasty with about 50 less IQ points per person (some of those guys are pretty smart) getting the point about hospitality.

So, to the makers of the movie, loading it up with all that "obligation to the guest" crap, as they think of it, because such a mindset is foreign to them, a thing for those who live in mud huts only, would just confuse the rebel flag pickup truck crowd. They think of the inhabitants of flyovers as the simple folk, easily confused.

What they don't get is that not understanding that marks them as the less humane, regardless of how much they drop at the next gala. A guy with a pickup in Texas is much more likely to understand why those villagers did what they did, and more likely to do it himself.

 

[Larry Gude]

I think, perhaps, Larry, I know the reason for the change, and indeed, it's a cultural thing. It's a product of the disconnect between the coastal dwellers and the inhabitants of the inland. See, in Hollywood, they cannot conceive of the audience for this movie, in the minds of the Hollywood set, Duck Dynasty with about 50 less IQ points per person (some of those guys are pretty smart) getting the point about hospitality.

So, to the makers of the movie, loading it up with all that "obligation to the guest" crap, as they think of it, because such a mindset is foreign to them, a thing for those who live in mud huts only, would just confuse the rebel flag pickup truck crowd. They think of the inhabitants of flyovers as the simple folk, easily confused.

What they don't get is that not understanding that marks them as the less humane, regardless of how much they drop at the next gala. A guy with a pickup in Texas is much more likely to understand why those villagers did what they did, and more likely to do it himself.

But, my argument, humanizing the villagers, in that view, only plays TO their bias'. It's quite a concept from the book, Luttrell's constant reference to the enemy as savages and 'less' and then the irony that one of them, many of them, saved his life, this modern age warrior, based on an ancient custom.

THAT, to me, is a HUGE concept, especially from the view you are arguing, gone wasting.

 

[glhs837]

But, my argument, humanizing the villagers, in that view, only plays TO their bias'. It's quite a concept from the book, Luttrell's constant reference to the enemy as savages and 'less' and then the irony that one of them, many of them, saved his life, this modern age warrior, based on an ancient custom.

THAT, to me, is a HUGE concept, especially from the view you are arguing, gone wasting.

Never let a good point get in the way of making more money. They were not making this movie to reinforce how they view the villagers, but to sell movie tickets. The point I'm making is that the changes illuminate how Hollywood feels about the average patriotic person. They don't view them as intelligent enough to get that point and so it was dropped.

 

[GURPS]

And Bann? Are moms also a small minority? Never see it again? Nor movies like it for a LONG time to come?

90% of the people want a good story, and care about historical fact

 

[Foxhound]

Okay here is what I took away from the movie...

1. These guys were willing to go through hell to save each others arses.
2. These guys had incredible honor.
3 They were outnumbered but not outwitted or outskilled.
4. There is humanity even in the basest (sp) of places.

Just started reading the book last night. Wish I had more time to devote to it. Was only able to finish chapter one.

I did watch an interview with Luttrell on TV last night, (while reading the prologue), he has nothing but positive things to say about the movie, and I don't get the impression he is just doing that for a buck. He seems, as I would expect from a S.E.A.L., honorable.

 

[Larry Gude]

Okay here is what I took away from the movie...


2. These guys had incredible honor.
.

Would it have been honorable to kill the goat herders as two SEAL's, in the movie, clearly wanted to, and a third, the leader, was vacillating over?

And, as you read it, I remember Luttrell describing them as 'just goat herders' and not Taliban, as the movie tells you and this is CRITICAL when you consider the villagers, most likely the village the goat herders came from, were THIS close to getting murdered by the SEAL's, according to the movie, never close, as I recall the book, and, in either case, the villagers who saved Marcus.

 

[Bann]

And see, had they gotten the story right, had they emphasized the REAL story of the villagers and their ancient code of protecting and defending a guest, as it happened, instead of a quick reference to it in the closing credits, I would argue it gives you and other folks who were so viscerally affected by the rest of the movie, who may not go again, give you this enormous, wonderful human connection to the movie, a giant life raft, so to speak, of universal human good will and decency, even in an unexpected and remote part of the world, pretty much the very goodness those mothers sons gave their lives for.

I do NOT get it!!!! It infuriates me. Those guys died for ideas, for concepts of good. The movie throws it all away in this inane 'good guy/bad guy garbage and, in the end, tells no more story than 'BANG!' some heroes fought the good fight and got killed.

Killed for WHAT??????

I thin the REAL story would have given the thing some redemption a mother, especially a mother whose son is enlisting, a rock solid, for lack of a better word, 'goodness' to take away after seeing it. As it is, it's just some pointless war movie; fighting and dying for fighting and dying's sake.

:

And Bann? Are moms also a small minority? Never see it again? Nor movies like it for a LONG time to come?

The vast majority are not the minority nor do they know the real story nor do they have ANY opinion on the accuracy because they don't know nor care that much. It's just a movie. It would not sway them one way or anther if it is authentic or entirely made up and sold as authentic. It is, however, sold as the real story.

So, there is NO economic argument to be made in favor of the changes. None. There is a HUGE argument, or ought to be, in favor of telling the real story based on the LONE argument that it is being presented as the TRUE story. This isn't nit picking. They changed several key elements.

Sheesh, you're getting extremely carried away over a movie.

I said I would probably not watch another movie like this again with HIM, my son, who is about to go into the US Navy. (Or watch another one again.) The reason I hated the movie is it hit me too close to home. I love my son and I am 200% behind him going into the Navy - but the movie made me think about that possibly being him, and it bothered me.

That's all. No big literary review and debate here - just an observation from a mom.

 

[Larry Gude]

Sheesh, you're getting extremely carried away over a movie.

I said I would probably not watch another movie like this again with HIM, my son, who is about to go into the US Navy. (Or watch another one again.) The reason I hated the movie is it hit me too close to home. I love my son and I am 200% behind him going into the Navy - but the movie made me think about that possibly being him, and it bothered me.

That's all. No big literary review and debate here - just an observation from a mom.

Your comment is the ENTIRE point of getting things right from an historical point of view; so as to not repeat the same mistakes because we didn't learn the right lessons the first time.

A guy I know who is in the know said, when the book came out, that his concern was that the entire event would become this hero worship thing and the wrong lessons would come from it and the right lessons lost.

This is exactly what is happening.

"Allegedly" a lot of people thought it, and some others, was a bad mission before hand, that some higher ups wanted it anyway and in true US military leadership style, when something goes wrong that shouldn't (Pat Tillman) if you can't throw it under the bus or outright lie about it, you make 'em hero's and the people responsible for, needlessly, getting folks killed get promoted and move on leaving no one responsible and the door wide open for the same mistakes.

And THAT is why it's worth getting accurate. Red Wings was a dumb mission from the get go.

Take my comments and ignore them and just ask yourself why four of the most highly trained soldiers on the planet, with all the gear and support, SPECIAL operations people, are on a freaking mountain, alone, in very difficult terrain, support, at best, tenuous and not anywhere near enough to actually help, being compromised by goat herders and then run down by, BTW, another lie in the movie, 30, not 200, of the enemy. Mistakes put them there and they made some of their own.

Bad things happen, stuff just happens, all the time. Not 'all the time' do we make movies about it. And get key points totally wrong.

Your son is why the truth matters.