Personal Boycott of Hollywood Military Films

[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.

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.

Bad and misleading artistry should be suppressed when that bad and misleading artistry presents itself as being themed around something historical.

If a film is to be based around a historical theme it shouldn't contain falsehoods.

The "reasonable degree" would allow for fictionalized accounts of historical settings without presenting a blatantly false and dishonest account of history.

[Lady Scylla]

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.

Blackhawk Down was good, it didn't go too well into the deeper sides of the conflict though, which was disappointing. Some things weren't entirely accurate, either. Jarhead was a good, but at the same time kind of meh movie for me. There was a lot of unnecessary scenes that didn't add anything to the film, or the history surrounding the conflict that were really just filler. By the end of it, I didn't really care to go watch the second one. As far as glorifying America, American Nationalism has been on the rise since 2001, and Nationalism in general has a tendency to do that. The notion that a nation is superior at the expense of other nations is Nationalism, not Patriotism, as people will confuse the two. This has leaked into Hollywood films more significantly, the film surrounding Chris Kyle and his alleged notoriety was the apex of American Nationalism rearing its ugly head, and a prime example of over-inflated and farcical showings.

Other movies, however, have come out that have started to go against this trend. White House Down and Olympus Has Fallen were two very interesting movies, I thought, especially considering the government turmoil (and the shutdown that happened later). Attack on Wallstreet was another big example that stuck out to me, that went against the grain of the hyperbolic American egotism some other movies started to use.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

Bad and misleading artistry should be suppressed when that bad and misleading artistry presents itself as being themed around something historical.

If a film is to be based around a historical theme it shouldn't contain falsehoods.

The "reasonable degree" would allow for fictionalized accounts of historical settings without presenting a blatantly false and dishonest account of history.

I do not see a reasonable graduation that would take place here.
I only see letting through all examples, or a blanket ban.

[Alvecia]

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.

Bad and misleading artistry should be suppressed when that bad and misleading artistry presents itself as being themed around something historical.

If a film is to be based around a historical theme it shouldn't contain falsehoods.

The "reasonable degree" would allow for fictionalized accounts of historical settings without presenting a blatantly false and dishonest account of history.

Something like this could shut down a lot of media that is intentionally ahistoric that frames it as an account of history. Several of Paradox Interactive's games for example. Speculative fiction is another good example.
To avoid being overly restrictive, the ruling would have loopholes so big as to make it pointless.
"Reasonable degree" is also one of the most interpretable terms ever created.

[Rhodesialund]

Attack on Wallstreet was another big example that stuck out to me, that went against the grain of the hyperbolic American egotism some other movies started to use.

Attack on Wallstreet struck me as a gimmick movie about the whole "Rage Against the Machine" attitude. I mean, come on. Really?

I clicked on it hoping that it was a heist movie, not about a movie glorifying a serial killer that kills off people that work in the financial industry.

[Frank Zipper]

Perhaps they could add to content warnings:

This film contains mild peril and glaring historical inaccuracy.

[Alvecia]

Perhaps they could add to content warnings:

This film contains mild peril and glaring historical inaccuracy.

Mild peril.
My favourite warning.

[The Wastelands of Earth]

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.

Blackhawk Down was good, it didn't go too well into the deeper sides of the conflict though, which was disappointing. Some things weren't entirely accurate, either. Jarhead was a good, but at the same time kind of meh movie for me. There was a lot of unnecessary scenes that didn't add anything to the film, or the history surrounding the conflict that were really just filler. By the end of it, I didn't really care to go watch the second one. As far as glorifying America, American Nationalism has been on the rise since 2001, and Nationalism in general has a tendency to do that. The notion that a nation is superior at the expense of other nations is Nationalism, not Patriotism, as people will confuse the two. This has leaked into Hollywood films more significantly, the film surrounding Chris Kyle and his alleged notoriety was the apex of American Nationalism rearing its ugly head, and a prime example of over-inflated and farcical showings.

Other movies, however, have come out that have started to go against this trend. White House Down and Olympus Has Fallen were two very interesting movies, I thought, especially considering the government turmoil (and the shutdown that happened later). Attack on Wallstreet was another big example that stuck out to me, that went against the grain of the hyperbolic American egotism some other movies started to use.

Too bad the ways they took the White House was stupid. I didn't watch White House Down, because it's more or less the same as Olympus Has Fallen. I chose Olympus Has Fallen because I prefer the more gritty take. But seriously, there's no way those terrorists could've taken the White House that easily.

[Imperializt Russia]

Blackhawk Down was good, it didn't go too well into the deeper sides of the conflict though, which was disappointing. Some things weren't entirely accurate, either. Jarhead was a good, but at the same time kind of meh movie for me. There was a lot of unnecessary scenes that didn't add anything to the film, or the history surrounding the conflict that were really just filler. By the end of it, I didn't really care to go watch the second one. As far as glorifying America, American Nationalism has been on the rise since 2001, and Nationalism in general has a tendency to do that. The notion that a nation is superior at the expense of other nations is Nationalism, not Patriotism, as people will confuse the two. This has leaked into Hollywood films more significantly, the film surrounding Chris Kyle and his alleged notoriety was the apex of American Nationalism rearing its ugly head, and a prime example of over-inflated and farcical showings.

Other movies, however, have come out that have started to go against this trend. White House Down and Olympus Has Fallen were two very interesting movies, I thought, especially considering the government turmoil (and the shutdown that happened later). Attack on Wallstreet was another big example that stuck out to me, that went against the grain of the hyperbolic American egotism some other movies started to use.

Too bad the ways they took the White House was stupid. I didn't watch White House Down, because it's more or less the same as Olympus Has Fallen. I chose Olympus Has Fallen because I prefer the more gritty take. But seriously, there's no way those terrorists could've taken the White House that easily.

More correctly, amassing and deploying that level of firepower would not have been possible.

[Lady Scylla]

Too bad the ways they took the White House was stupid. I didn't watch White House Down, because it's more or less the same as Olympus Has Fallen. I chose Olympus Has Fallen because I prefer the more gritty take. But seriously, there's no way those terrorists could've taken the White House that easily.

More correctly, amassing and deploying that level of firepower would not have been possible.

Indeed.

[Teemant]

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.

Blackhawk Down was good, it didn't go too well into the deeper sides of the conflict though, which was disappointing. Some things weren't entirely accurate, either. Jarhead was a good, but at the same time kind of meh movie for me. There was a lot of unnecessary scenes that didn't add anything to the film, or the history surrounding the conflict that were really just filler. By the end of it, I didn't really care to go watch the second one. As far as glorifying America, American Nationalism has been on the rise since 2001, and Nationalism in general has a tendency to do that. The notion that a nation is superior at the expense of other nations is Nationalism, not Patriotism, as people will confuse the two. This has leaked into Hollywood films more significantly, the film surrounding Chris Kyle and his alleged notoriety was the apex of American Nationalism rearing its ugly head, and a prime example of over-inflated and farcical showings.

Other movies, however, have come out that have started to go against this trend. White House Down and Olympus Has Fallen were two very interesting movies, I thought, especially considering the government turmoil (and the shutdown that happened later). Attack on Wallstreet was another big example that stuck out to me, that went against the grain of the hyperbolic American egotism some other movies started to use.

You can't blame American movie industry making films that are patriotic. All movie industries do that.

I don't think there is anything wrong with glorifying America either.

[Trumpostan]

Accurate. You have to understand what role the Emperor served in Japan. The Japanese viewed him as a person of deification, and this level of formality was extremely important. This is also why, if you delve into the history, that the Emperor coming over the radio to order a surrender was such a massive deal to the people, and the military. Many in the war factions felt that the Emperor had forsaken them, and IIRC there was some major concerns about a potential coup.

General Anami Korechika, one of the leaders of the war faction, refused to join the younger officers attempted coup of august 15 citing the emperor's decision as final. He signed the documents of acceptance of the allied ultimatum and committed seppuku immediately after.

The coup failed because senior officers refused to join.

I do believe, however, that not making Japan a republic was a mistake. Hirohito's signature was on most of the declarations of war and on the document that created unit 731, the infamous medical research unit in Harbin, Manchuria. Also, prince Asaka was the formal leader of the Kwangtung army and almost certainly the brains behind most of its war crimes, especially Nanjing.

That general Yamashita was hanged and prince Asaka was not is a disgrace. Hirohito should have been tried at the very least, not doing so has inspired nationalist denial of Japanese guilt.

[Trotskylvania]

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.

Luftwaffe scoring didn't credit partial kills to everyone involved in an engagement, instead rewarding one pilot with full credit and the rest with none. Given that the Bf-109Fs and Gs that Hartmann flew only had between 120 and 200 rounds of cannon ammunition, i'm inclined to believe that there were multiple people coordinating for those kills, and Hartmann, with his already ace reputation and connections, was the won who got awarded credit.

[The Alexanderians]

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.

Ironically one of the greatest small group outnumbered "fury-esq" fights happened in the opening days of the war not by Americans but by Polish. Popularly said to be outnumbered 40 to 1 by the nazis the real number is more like 52 to 1. They held for 3 days, the Polish make the Spartans look like pussies. Yet they don't have a movie . It was thebattle of Winza. Events like in Fury, as you said, are not unrealistic.

[Sediczja]

Jarhead was a good, but at the same time kind of meh movie for me. There was a lot of unnecessary scenes that didn't add anything to the film, or the history surrounding the conflict that were really just filler. By the end of it, I didn't really care to go watch the second one.

Wasn't Jarhead supposed to be boring, though? A kind of antithesis to the usual gung-ho action-packed war movie.

Plus the second movie was a work of fiction as I understand it, rather than being based on someone's memoirs. I also hear it was mostly crap.

[New Edom]

Blackhawk Down was good, it didn't go too well into the deeper sides of the conflict though, which was disappointing. Some things weren't entirely accurate, either. Jarhead was a good, but at the same time kind of meh movie for me. There was a lot of unnecessary scenes that didn't add anything to the film, or the history surrounding the conflict that were really just filler. By the end of it, I didn't really care to go watch the second one. As far as glorifying America, American Nationalism has been on the rise since 2001, and Nationalism in general has a tendency to do that. The notion that a nation is superior at the expense of other nations is Nationalism, not Patriotism, as people will confuse the two. This has leaked into Hollywood films more significantly, the film surrounding Chris Kyle and his alleged notoriety was the apex of American Nationalism rearing its ugly head, and a prime example of over-inflated and farcical showings.

Other movies, however, have come out that have started to go against this trend. White House Down and Olympus Has Fallen were two very interesting movies, I thought, especially considering the government turmoil (and the shutdown that happened later). Attack on Wallstreet was another big example that stuck out to me, that went against the grain of the hyperbolic American egotism some other movies started to use.

You can't blame American movie industry making films that are patriotic. All movie industries do that.

I don't think there is anything wrong with glorifying America either.

And I think that I and others here have pointed out that we don't necessarily disagree with the idea of patriotic films. The issue that I have is when it is at the expense of the history of even friendly and allied nations. A good example is U-571, where it was decided that it would be more interesting to Americans to show Americans capturing the sub rather than Brits. In one sense that just seems like a good business decision, but on another level it's insulting. So while it is the RIGHT of Hollywood to make such films I also contend that it's my right to boycott for a while because I'm tired of this kind fo thing happening.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.



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.

Luftwaffe scoring didn't credit partial kills to everyone involved in an engagement, instead rewarding one pilot with full credit and the rest with none. Given that the Bf-109Fs and Gs that Hartmann flew only had between 120 and 200 rounds of cannon ammunition, i'm inclined to believe that there were multiple people coordinating for those kills, and Hartmann, with his already ace reputation and connections, was the won who got awarded credit.

As well as cannon ammunition, 109s were full of machine gun ammunition, you know?

[New Edom]

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.

Blackhawk Down was good, it didn't go too well into the deeper sides of the conflict though, which was disappointing. Some things weren't entirely accurate, either. Jarhead was a good, but at the same time kind of meh movie for me. There was a lot of unnecessary scenes that didn't add anything to the film, or the history surrounding the conflict that were really just filler. By the end of it, I didn't really care to go watch the second one. As far as glorifying America, American Nationalism has been on the rise since 2001, and Nationalism in general has a tendency to do that. The notion that a nation is superior at the expense of other nations is Nationalism, not Patriotism, as people will confuse the two. This has leaked into Hollywood films more significantly, the film surrounding Chris Kyle and his alleged notoriety was the apex of American Nationalism rearing its ugly head, and a prime example of over-inflated and farcical showings.

Other movies, however, have come out that have started to go against this trend. White House Down and Olympus Has Fallen were two very interesting movies, I thought, especially considering the government turmoil (and the shutdown that happened later). Attack on Wallstreet was another big example that stuck out to me, that went against the grain of the hyperbolic American egotism some other movies started to use.

Yeah I know the real story around Blackhawk Down, and I also read the book. I think that Ridley Scott and the rest of the production team decided to create a cinematic film, and I get that. There were some decisions they made I agreed with, others were strange choices. (for example the casting for then Captain Steele was a bit odd, my understanding was that he had played a lot of football, hence his football analogies--so why cast someone short and not obviously a former player?) Another unfortunate change was that there was little reference to the failed previous mission where heavier ordnance and equipment was used and it backfired. There were for sure flaws in the Clinton Administrations foreign policy and ilitary policy, but it was not just a casual whim from Washington to send in a lighter mission. So there was a grain of truth in the briefing in the film but it was not completely true. Also the degree to which the American government was strongly connected to the UN mission is not made clear in the film.

My then gf started crying like a little girl shortly after the scattered Ranger units are starting to variously get pinned down or go searching for the crash sites. I asked her what was wrong and she said "Is this all this film is, just this big long battle?" I comforted her but rolled my eyes and said, "Yeah I TOLD you that." But it was a illustrative moment and our discussion after wards and subsequent ones helped me understand something. A lot of ordinary people don't know anything at all about military history or actions. For these people the standard Hollywood dramatic build up and charge is all that makes sense. The film was very confusing and upsetting to her. So I get why a film industry would simplify things and change some things. However I agree that the film doesn't tell the true story; I still enjoyed it.

[Valystria]

Bad and misleading artistry should be suppressed when that bad and misleading artistry presents itself as being themed around something historical.

If a film is to be based around a historical theme it shouldn't contain falsehoods.

The "reasonable degree" would allow for fictionalized accounts of historical settings without presenting a blatantly false and dishonest account of history.

Something like this could shut down a lot of media that is intentionally ahistoric that frames it as an account of history. Several of Paradox Interactive's games for example. Speculative fiction is another good example.
To avoid being overly restrictive, the ruling would have loopholes so big as to make it pointless.
"Reasonable degree" is also one of the most interpretable terms ever created.

Video games wouldn't be included. Only movies. Speculative fiction wouldn't be covered. Only movies based on historical accounts that are somehow entirely devoid of historical validity.

Bad and misleading artistry should be suppressed when that bad and misleading artistry presents itself as being themed around something historical.

If a film is to be based around a historical theme it shouldn't contain falsehoods.

The "reasonable degree" would allow for fictionalized accounts of historical settings without presenting a blatantly false and dishonest account of history.

I do not see a reasonable graduation that would take place here.
I only see letting through all examples, or a blanket ban.

There certainly is a way for it to take place. There's no need for choosing between the extremes of banning everything or letting everything through. The current process is deeply flawed. There should be oversight.

[Imperializt Russia]

What process? There is no "history censor". There is no process.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

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

1. it was infantry and 2. at the point in the war its far stranger to find an actual SS battalion rather then a bunch of teenagers and old men with the SS moniker attached. The SS reputation as a fighting force, with the exception of a few divisions, is very overblown.

[Trotskylvania]

Luftwaffe scoring didn't credit partial kills to everyone involved in an engagement, instead rewarding one pilot with full credit and the rest with none. Given that the Bf-109Fs and Gs that Hartmann flew only had between 120 and 200 rounds of cannon ammunition, i'm inclined to believe that there were multiple people coordinating for those kills, and Hartmann, with his already ace reputation and connections, was the won who got awarded credit.

As well as cannon ammunition, 109s were full of machine gun ammunition, you know?

The 7.92s had incredible difficulty shooting down modern fighters. There's a reason why MGs smaller than 12.7mm were universally phased out (later marks of the Bf-109s had 13.1mm MG131s, which were a bit better but still subpar).

Even during the Battle of Britain, the British were finding that 8 30 cals could unload into a German fighter and it could still make it back.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

As well as cannon ammunition, 109s were full of machine gun ammunition, you know?

The 7.92s had incredible difficulty shooting down modern fighters. There's a reason why MGs smaller than 12.7mm were universally phased out (later marks of the Bf-109s had 13.1mm MG131s, which were a bit better but still subpar).

Even during the Battle of Britain, the British were finding that 8 30 cals could unload into a German fighter and it could still make it back.

that had less to do with the guns and more to do with the fact that pilots were firing a good 200 meters past their synchronization point, leading to a lot of missed shots. Pilots that learned to hold their fire (most noticeable the foreign squadrons like the 303rd and 310, who's SOP was wait till you can hit him with a thrown shell casing) found far better success. Judging by the books I've read, most notably the amount of times he reported getting hit by the parts off his victims, it seems like that was Hartmanns MO as well. That and the fact that he was flying twice as many sorties a day as anyone else.

[Imperializt Russia]

As well as cannon ammunition, 109s were full of machine gun ammunition, you know?

The 7.92s had incredible difficulty shooting down modern fighters. There's a reason why MGs smaller than 12.7mm were universally phased out (later marks of the Bf-109s had 13.1mm MG131s, which were a bit better but still subpar).

Even during the Battle of Britain, the British were finding that 8 30 cals could unload into a German fighter and it could still make it back.

And yet 2300 airmen shot down 2300 enemy aircraft.

[Ayreonia]

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.

The Sherman had a vertical stabilizer, and IIRC it was very inaccurate on the move. Remember the first battle scene where the US tanks advance slowly in a line? The gunner shouts "on the way!" before firing, that's a warning for the driver not to do any wild maneuvers because if he did, they wouldn't hit shit.