Personal Boycott of Hollywood Military Films

[Lady Scylla]

This. It reads like a whiny blog post.

Which, call me a cunt, I don't really care, but it's Hollywood. I'm not saying historically accurate movies or shows aren't entertaining, but they've a very specific audience that gives history nerds (like me) a stiffy. Out of all the people I run into day-to-day, maybe about 3-4 share in my history nerdom. It's not so much lazy or a shallow approach, but the fact that they're movies, and they can have creative license if they'd like. Fury was a damn good movie.

As far as not giving other countries the respect they apparently deserve, Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers directed by Clint Eastwood are two movies that focus on the battle of Iwo Jima from the Japanese perspective, and the American perspective and both did nothing but tug at my heart-strings. They were both amazing. Furthermore, it's Hollywood which rests in the United States. The majority of their audience are American, they don't have to pamper to other nations if they don't want to.

You're also talking about a film industry that exists in a world post-9/11 with American Nationalism. Which, this isn't anything new. The Stars over America campaign was a massive project done by Hollywood during the onset of WWII to get warbonds, which included propaganda. So, it's not anything new, bemoaning it now just seems odd. As such, I'm not going to stop watching them, which, even as Brit, the Americans make some damn good movies. If I want a historical documentary, I'll look for one, it's not that difficult.

Hey look, it's like this: if I say "I don't like going to McDonald's" I'm not trying to make people feel bad for going to McDonald's. I'm advising people who have also say regularly gotten sick or frustrated going there to not go until they feel either more satisfied with the products or indeed ever. I'm being a customer. For people who love Hollywood, great, go watch more movies. I'm tired of what I perceive as a trend.

So yeah they don't have to do a damned thing to please me, but I'm not giving them my money when it comes to films about military historical events until I see there's been some kind of change in the way that they commonly portray things. If as a Brit you don't care if they treat your country's history with contempt, good for you.

That's fine, and you outlined your point. I'm not saying you aren't entitled to an opinion of your own (Hopefully that's not how it was construed), I really don't care what you do. I outlined mine, and so the dance continues. I disagree.

[Hittanryan]

I understand why you want to boycott these, and you're free to do what you want, but this thread kind of feels like you're throwing a fit.
change the thread up a bit to encourage some discussion.

This. It reads like a whiny blog post.

Which, call me a cunt, I don't really care, but it's Hollywood. I'm not saying historically accurate movies or shows aren't entertaining, but they've a very specific audience that gives history nerds (like me) a stiffy. Out of all the people I run into day-to-day, maybe about 3-4 share in my history nerdom. It's not so much lazy or a shallow approach, but the fact that they're movies, and they can have creative license if they'd like. Fury was a damn good movie.

As far as not giving other countries the respect they apparently deserve, Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers directed by Clint Eastwood are two movies that focus on the battle of Iwo Jima from the Japanese perspective, and the American perspective and both did nothing but tug at my heart-strings. They were both amazing. Furthermore, it's Hollywood which rests in the United States. The majority of their audience are American, they don't have to pamper to other nations if they don't want to.

You're also talking about a film industry that exists in a world post-9/11 with American Nationalism. Which, this isn't anything new. The Stars over America campaign was a massive project done by Hollywood during the onset of WWII to get warbonds, which included propaganda. So, it's not anything new, bemoaning it now just seems odd. As such, I'm not going to stop watching them, which, even as Brit, the Americans make some damn good movies. If I want a historical documentary, I'll look for one, it's not that difficult.

To be blunt, this reads like you're complaining that the OP has a different opinion from you. Are you saying nobody should have any reason to hold opinions different to your own? Are you saying we just need to accept everything as is and not think critically about anything?

[Lady Scylla]

This. It reads like a whiny blog post.

Which, call me a cunt, I don't really care, but it's Hollywood. I'm not saying historically accurate movies or shows aren't entertaining, but they've a very specific audience that gives history nerds (like me) a stiffy. Out of all the people I run into day-to-day, maybe about 3-4 share in my history nerdom. It's not so much lazy or a shallow approach, but the fact that they're movies, and they can have creative license if they'd like. Fury was a damn good movie.

As far as not giving other countries the respect they apparently deserve, Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers directed by Clint Eastwood are two movies that focus on the battle of Iwo Jima from the Japanese perspective, and the American perspective and both did nothing but tug at my heart-strings. They were both amazing. Furthermore, it's Hollywood which rests in the United States. The majority of their audience are American, they don't have to pamper to other nations if they don't want to.

You're also talking about a film industry that exists in a world post-9/11 with American Nationalism. Which, this isn't anything new. The Stars over America campaign was a massive project done by Hollywood during the onset of WWII to get warbonds, which included propaganda. So, it's not anything new, bemoaning it now just seems odd. As such, I'm not going to stop watching them, which, even as Brit, the Americans make some damn good movies. If I want a historical documentary, I'll look for one, it's not that difficult.

To be blunt, this reads like you're complaining that the OP has a different opinion from you. Are you saying nobody should have any reason to hold opinions different to your own? Are you saying we just need to accept everything as is and not think critically about anything?

Where on Earth did you get this notion? I am complaining about his reasons, I find them daft, and I'm critical of everything everyone says. In no way did I mean it in a manner that he couldn't have said opinion. If I think your point of view is utter shit that I wouldn't give the upmost respect that cow manure deserves, I'm going to tell you, but I'm not going to say that you can't have said opinion. Since, it is ultimately my opinion, and that'd be rather hypocritical.

[New Edom]

Hey look, it's like this: if I say "I don't like going to McDonald's" I'm not trying to make people feel bad for going to McDonald's. I'm advising people who have also say regularly gotten sick or frustrated going there to not go until they feel either more satisfied with the products or indeed ever. I'm being a customer. For people who love Hollywood, great, go watch more movies. I'm tired of what I perceive as a trend.

So yeah they don't have to do a damned thing to please me, but I'm not giving them my money when it comes to films about military historical events until I see there's been some kind of change in the way that they commonly portray things. If as a Brit you don't care if they treat your country's history with contempt, good for you.

That's fine, and you outlined your point. I'm not saying you aren't entitled to an opinion of your own (Hopefully that's not how it was construed), I really don't care what you do. I outlined mine, and so the dance continues. I disagree.

You wrote this: "This. It reads like a whiny blog post". That's pretty contemptuous of my opinions.

Criticizing a film or a film industry doesn't mean that you don't see any good points about it. But from what I am reading you don't' want a discussion, you apparently want to scold me for daring to disapprove of Hollywood's portrayal of elements of military history. If I'm wrong, I'd be glad to continue a discussion, but if you are just being dismissive i have better things to do.

[Lady Scylla]

That's fine, and you outlined your point. I'm not saying you aren't entitled to an opinion of your own (Hopefully that's not how it was construed), I really don't care what you do. I outlined mine, and so the dance continues. I disagree.

You wrote this: "This. It reads like a whiny blog post". That's pretty contemptuous of my opinions.

Criticizing a film or a film industry doesn't mean that you don't see any good points about it. But from what I am reading you don't' want a discussion, you apparently want to scold me for daring to disapprove of Hollywood's portrayal of elements of military history. If I'm wrong, I'd be glad to continue a discussion, but if you are just being dismissive i have better things to do.

I apologise if that's the vibe you got. I'm not scolding you, I disagree with what you said. I think your OP could've been better written, which is why I mentioned the bloggyness. Let me put it this way, I'm open to new opinions, and I have in the past changed my stances on things because of people who have provided new and refreshing information that was more agreeable. I'm also very blunt and very brash with my own opinions, but I am always attacking your views, I try not to go after the person, that's just petty. (Which, mistakes happen). And in no way am I being dismissive, I was hoping the discussion would continue.

[The Two Jerseys]

This. It reads like a whiny blog post.

Which, call me a cunt, I don't really care, but it's Hollywood. I'm not saying historically accurate movies or shows aren't entertaining, but they've a very specific audience that gives history nerds (like me) a stiffy. Out of all the people I run into day-to-day, maybe about 3-4 share in my history nerdom. It's not so much lazy or a shallow approach, but the fact that they're movies, and they can have creative license if they'd like. Fury was a damn good movie.

As far as not giving other countries the respect they apparently deserve, Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers directed by Clint Eastwood are two movies that focus on the battle of Iwo Jima from the Japanese perspective, and the American perspective and both did nothing but tug at my heart-strings. They were both amazing. Furthermore, it's Hollywood which rests in the United States. The majority of their audience are American, they don't have to pamper to other nations if they don't want to.

You're also talking about a film industry that exists in a world post-9/11 with American Nationalism. Which, this isn't anything new. The Stars over America campaign was a massive project done by Hollywood during the onset of WWII to get warbonds, which included propaganda. So, it's not anything new, bemoaning it now just seems odd. As such, I'm not going to stop watching them, which, even as Brit, the Americans make some damn good movies. If I want a historical documentary, I'll look for one, it's not that difficult.

Hey look, it's like this: if I say "I don't like going to McDonald's" I'm not trying to make people feel bad for going to McDonald's. I'm advising people who have also say regularly gotten sick or frustrated going there to not go until they feel either more satisfied with the products or indeed ever. I'm being a customer. For people who love Hollywood, great, go watch more movies. I'm tired of what I perceive as a trend.

So yeah they don't have to do a damned thing to please me, but I'm not giving them my money when it comes to films about military historical events until I see there's been some kind of change in the way that they commonly portray things. If as a Brit you don't care if they treat your country's history with contempt, good for you.

Hollywood is a business. Entertainment makes money, documentaries don't.

That's why Pearl Harbor was a major hit, but Tora! Tora! Tora! was a box office flop.

[Hittanryan]

To be blunt, this reads like you're complaining that the OP has a different opinion from you. Are you saying nobody should have any reason to hold opinions different to your own? Are you saying we just need to accept everything as is and not think critically about anything?

Where on Earth did you get this notion? I am complaining about his reasons, I find them daft, and I'm critical of everything everyone says. In no way did I mean it in a manner that he couldn't have said opinion. If I think your point of view is utter shit that I wouldn't give the upmost respect that cow manure deserves, I'm going to tell you, but I'm not going to say that you can't have said opinion. Since, it is ultimately my opinion, and that'd be rather hypocritical.

Your post made a whole bunch of excuses for why the film industry does what it does. You said it didn't matter that movies were lazy or shallow. You started off by saying the OP was just being whiny. Your post read as being completely dismissive of the OP's opinion. It was as though you were seeking to invalidate his opinion and tell him he had to start watching Hollywood war films again. That's the tone I got from your post.

[Lady Scylla]

Hey look, it's like this: if I say "I don't like going to McDonald's" I'm not trying to make people feel bad for going to McDonald's. I'm advising people who have also say regularly gotten sick or frustrated going there to not go until they feel either more satisfied with the products or indeed ever. I'm being a customer. For people who love Hollywood, great, go watch more movies. I'm tired of what I perceive as a trend.

So yeah they don't have to do a damned thing to please me, but I'm not giving them my money when it comes to films about military historical events until I see there's been some kind of change in the way that they commonly portray things. If as a Brit you don't care if they treat your country's history with contempt, good for you.

Hollywood is a business. Entertainment makes money, documentaries don't.

That's why Pearl Harbor was a major hit, but Tora! Tora! Tora! was a box office flop.

I bought the two, and I liked Pearl Harbor better, admittedly.

[Hittanryan]

Hollywood is a business. Entertainment makes money, documentaries don't.

That's why Pearl Harbor was a major hit, but Tora! Tora! Tora! was a box office flop.

You say that like making money is a measure of quality. Pearl Harbor was garbage.

[Lady Scylla]

Where on Earth did you get this notion? I am complaining about his reasons, I find them daft, and I'm critical of everything everyone says. In no way did I mean it in a manner that he couldn't have said opinion. If I think your point of view is utter shit that I wouldn't give the upmost respect that cow manure deserves, I'm going to tell you, but I'm not going to say that you can't have said opinion. Since, it is ultimately my opinion, and that'd be rather hypocritical.

Your post made a whole bunch of excuses for why the film industry does what it does. You said it didn't matter that movies were lazy or shallow. You started off by saying the OP was just being whiny. Your post read as being completely dismissive of the OP's opinion. It was as though you were seeking to invalidate his opinion and tell him he had to start watching Hollywood war films again. That's the tone I got from your post.

Interesting. Then perhaps I should work on how I put things. He criticised the film industry, I defended it. I also didn't say that it didn't matter if they were lazy or shallow;

It's not so much lazy or a shallow approach, but the fact that they're movies, and they can have creative license if they'd like.

I don't think this is 'America' so much as it is Hollywood writers and producers being lazy and shallow in their approach to it.

This came off, to me, that war movies that didn't hold to historically accurate portrayal were lazy and shallow in approach. To which, I disagreed, suggesting that stretching things was a result of using creative license to make it more interesting to a viewer.

It was as though you were seeking to invalidate his opinion and tell him he had to start watching Hollywood war films again.

And I made no such statement or suggestion. If he wants to boycott them, by all means.

Hence;

As such, I'm not going to stop watching them, which, even as Brit, the Americans make some damn good movies. If I want a historical documentary, I'll look for one, it's not that difficult.

Due note, the term I'm not going to stop watching them.

[Lady Scylla]

Hollywood is a business. Entertainment makes money, documentaries don't.

That's why Pearl Harbor was a major hit, but Tora! Tora! Tora! was a box office flop.

You say that like making money is a measure of quality. Pearl Harbor was garbage.

I think he's implying money as in people who went to see it. Not necessarily the money that went into the movie during development. Hence, "[...]box office flop"

[The Two Jerseys]

Hollywood is a business. Entertainment makes money, documentaries don't.

That's why Pearl Harbor was a major hit, but Tora! Tora! Tora! was a box office flop.

You say that like making money is a measure of quality. Pearl Harbor was garbage.

It was.

It also earned three times its production cost at the box office, while Tora! Tora! Tora! barely broke even.

Which is why Hollywood makes more historically inaccurate crap like Pearl Harbor than historically accurate movies like Tora! Tora! Tora!.

[Trotskylvania]

You mean like in Fury where all the American tanks are destroyed and they lose the fight in the end and everyone but the rookie die? That invincibility?

The fact one tank crew holds against pretty much an entire, if I remember right, armored brigade (of the SS no less) is pretty overblown and American brovado-chestbeating-esque

It was a batallion of Volksturm SS. I.e., poorly trained fanatics, a lot of them Hitler youth kids, led by men who got their position not by military acumen, but by their fanatic devotion to Nazi ideology.

This is in the last month of war. Everyone knew the war was lost except the most diehard fanatics. There have been actual instances in war, even WW2, that were more extreme, where small groups triumphed against seeming impossible odds.

What was bullshit in the movie was the fight against the Tiger. Even a 75mm armed Sherman could kill a Tiger from the front in excess of 700m. The 76mm armed Easy 8s like the titular "Fury" would get a reliable kill at that range, even in the move, thanks to the gyrostabilized gun. The "Fury" wouldn't have had to get in the rear, it could have won the fight quickly.

The movie's historical consultant wanted it to be a Jagnpanther, which would have necessitated a side attack at the very least. But even a King Tiger would have been vulnerable to a Sherman's gun from the side, especially at point black range.

[New Aeyariss]

Not so long ago I watched Pearl Harbor - a movie apparently based on historical facts. Apart from an amazing soundtrack, what amazed me was the scene where a single American - after heroic coverage from his friends - manages to start a mustang and shoot down roughly an entire squadron of Mitsubishi Zero's, of course all while outmaneuvering them between the hangars...

There is something to mind in here for sure.

[The Two Jerseys]

Not so long ago I watched Pearl Harbor - a movie apparently based on historical facts. Apart from an amazing soundtrack, what amazed me was the scene where a single American - after heroic coverage from his friends - manages to start a mustang and shoot down roughly an entire squadron of Mitsubishi Zero's, of course all while outmaneuvering them between the hangars...

There is something to mind in here for sure.

Absolutely there is.

He should have been scrambling a P-36.

[Unnamed island state]

Movies like American Sniper piss me off because they are blatantly pieces of bullshit propaganda. I guess most movies are not anywhere near that bad though.

American Sniper wasn't propaganda at all. Can you elaborate?

[New Edom]

You wrote this: "This. It reads like a whiny blog post". That's pretty contemptuous of my opinions.

Criticizing a film or a film industry doesn't mean that you don't see any good points about it. But from what I am reading you don't' want a discussion, you apparently want to scold me for daring to disapprove of Hollywood's portrayal of elements of military history. If I'm wrong, I'd be glad to continue a discussion, but if you are just being dismissive i have better things to do.

I apologise if that's the vibe you got. I'm not scolding you, I disagree with what you said. I think your OP could've been better written, which is why I mentioned the bloggyness. Let me put it this way, I'm open to new opinions, and I have in the past changed my stances on things because of people who have provided new and refreshing information that was more agreeable. I'm also very blunt and very brash with my own opinions, but I am always attacking your views, I try not to go after the person, that's just petty. (Which, mistakes happen). And in no way am I being dismissive, I was hoping the discussion would continue.

Fair enough. Thanks.

I have really enjoyed a number of Hollywood war movies, and I didn't come to my decision lightly.

I liked for instance Blackhawk Down, Jarhead, and also older ones like Patton and a Bridge Too Far (which is more international). I don't dislike Hollywood for focusing on American things. I don't even mind them doing it to the exclusion of other nations. What does bother me is that some movies are made to glorify America at the unnecessary expense of other nation's history, and it seems to be increasingly happening.

[Napkiraly]

Not so long ago I watched Pearl Harbor - a movie apparently based on historical facts. Apart from an amazing soundtrack, what amazed me was the scene where a single American - after heroic coverage from his friends - manages to start a mustang and shoot down roughly an entire squadron of Mitsubishi Zero's, of course all while outmaneuvering them between the hangars...

There is something to mind in here for sure.

*P-40's not Mustang
*Two American pilots
*Historically eight American pilots got their aircraft in the air during the attack on Pearl Habor with six claiming one kill each

In which they directly only shoot down four (two each), use manoeuvres that destroy three, and lead one into concentrated AA fire to be brought down. Considering there have been cases where individual pilots have become aces in a single day (iirc there are even a few who met the ace requirement on a single day on more than one occasion), it's not entirely inaccurate, especially considering within the film they are considered some of the best pilots in the US Army.

It's not very plausable, but by no means is it impossible for two very, very skilled pilots to destroy eight enemy aircraft within a single engagement.

[Uxupox]

If you think Hollywood movies are historical inaccurate you should watch Russian military films. Though I absolutely love movies like Black Hack down (Rangers are beasts and should be portrayed as such), We were Soldiers, series like Band of brothers and the pacific one as well. One movie I never get tired of watching is Saving Private Ryan.

Not so long ago I watched Pearl Harbor - a movie apparently based on historical facts. Apart from an amazing soundtrack, what amazed me was the scene where a single American - after heroic coverage from his friends - manages to start a mustang and shoot down roughly an entire squadron of Mitsubishi Zero's, of course all while outmaneuvering them between the hangars...

There is something to mind in here for sure.

*P-40's not Mustang
*Two American pilots
*Historically eight American pilots got their aircraft in the air during the attack on Pearl Habor with six claiming one kill each

In which they directly only shoot down four (two each), use manoeuvres that destroy three, and lead one into concentrated AA fire to be brought down. Considering there have been cases where individual pilots have become aces in a single day (iirc there are even a few who met the ace requirement on a single day on more than one occasion), it's not entirely inaccurate, especially considering within the film they are considered some of the best pilots in the US Army.

It's not very plausable, but by no means is it impossible for two very, very skilled pilots to destroy eight enemy aircraft within a single engagement.

Erich Hartmann a German ace pilot once shot down 11 enemy combat aircraft in the same engagement. So like you said it's not impossible.

[The Two Jerseys]

Not so long ago I watched Pearl Harbor - a movie apparently based on historical facts. Apart from an amazing soundtrack, what amazed me was the scene where a single American - after heroic coverage from his friends - manages to start a mustang and shoot down roughly an entire squadron of Mitsubishi Zero's, of course all while outmaneuvering them between the hangars...

There is something to mind in here for sure.

*P-40's not Mustang
*Two American pilots
*Historically eight American pilots got their aircraft in the air during the attack on Pearl Habor with six claiming one kill each

In which they directly only shoot down four (two each), use manoeuvres that destroy three, and lead one into concentrated AA fire to be brought down. Considering there have been cases where individual pilots have become aces in a single day (iirc there are even a few who met the ace requirement on a single day on more than one occasion), it's not entirely inaccurate, especially considering within the film they are considered some of the best pilots in the US Army.

It's not very plausable, but by no means is it impossible for two very, very skilled pilots to destroy eight enemy aircraft within a single engagement.

On the other hand, since all the well-trained and competent Japanese pilots were still very much alive at this stage of the war, one could argue that they would have had enough sense not to follow The HeroesTM into the Death Star trench in the first place, because sacrificing yourself for the Emperor on the account of two measly fighters just isn't worth it.

[Frank Zipper]

The trouble is when people start believing the fiction to be what really happened.

We laugh at some of the stupid things people believed in the past, but the processes that produced those beliefs are still working.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

The way I see it is they're just movies that shouldn't be taken for anything other than entertainment.

[Imperializt Russia]

That's fine, and you outlined your point. I'm not saying you aren't entitled to an opinion of your own (Hopefully that's not how it was construed), I really don't care what you do. I outlined mine, and so the dance continues. I disagree.

You wrote this: "This. It reads like a whiny blog post". That's pretty contemptuous of my opinions.

Criticizing a film or a film industry doesn't mean that you don't see any good points about it. But from what I am reading you don't' want a discussion, you apparently want to scold me for daring to disapprove of Hollywood's portrayal of elements of military history. If I'm wrong, I'd be glad to continue a discussion, but if you are just being dismissive i have better things to do.

Your opinion, that you feel that Hollywood is portraying films in a damaging light, is a fine opinion to hold.

How you put this across came across as "a whiny blog post", because it's about you and what you're doing. For the record, NS tends to not look favourably on "bloggy" OPs, so it was a valid criticism to put across.

If you think Hollywood movies are historical inaccurate you should watch Russian military films. Though I absolutely love movies like Black Hack down (Rangers are beasts and should be portrayed as such), We were Soldiers, series like Band of brothers and the pacific one as well. One movie I never get tired of watching is Saving Private Ryan.

*P-40's not Mustang
*Two American pilots
*Historically eight American pilots got their aircraft in the air during the attack on Pearl Habor with six claiming one kill each

In which they directly only shoot down four (two each), use manoeuvres that destroy three, and lead one into concentrated AA fire to be brought down. Considering there have been cases where individual pilots have become aces in a single day (iirc there are even a few who met the ace requirement on a single day on more than one occasion), it's not entirely inaccurate, especially considering within the film they are considered some of the best pilots in the US Army.

It's not very plausable, but by no means is it impossible for two very, very skilled pilots to destroy eight enemy aircraft within a single engagement.

Erich Hartmann a German ace pilot once shot down 11 enemy combat aircraft in the same engagement. So like you said it's not impossible.

There were tens of thousands of fighter pilots in the Luftwaffe. One elite squadron at the end of the war totaled well over 1000 kills.
One elite squadron out of the Luftwaffe.

[Valystria]

Boycotts won't help with this. The only way to force Hollywood to make historically accurate movies would be by creating a regulatory oversight body to ensure films stay within a reasonable margin of historical accuracy.

[Imperializt Russia]

Boycotts won't help with this. The only way to force Hollywood to make historically accurate movies would be by creating a regulatory oversight body to ensure films stay within a reasonable margin of historical accuracy.

Which would be suppressing artistry.
Many, in fact the overwhelming majority of historically-themed films do not purport any degree of historic accuracy of realistic content.
How would one establish "reasonable degree"? I do not believe this would be possible to reasonably ascertain.