Pop-A-Ganda

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Me, I happily paid my 8 bucks just to watch some of the world's most highly trained badasses show how badass they could be, and I was not disappointed. These are men I can not only admire, but respect, and that carries more weight than any acting credential, political opinion, or lack thereof of both.

As long as there are men like these, willing to lay down their lives for the people I care about, then they're the only ones worthy of my support.

My life's theme for this week was
"...and somehow, it involves Bronies."

SL33TBL1ND:
It's not that we're mad that you didn't say anything bad about the film. We were just annoyed at how you were clarifying every sentence with "Don't worry, people, I think think these guys are awesome."

You only needed to say it at the beginning and that would be the end of it.

Whatever, if he didn't really make it clear repeatedly, you can bet your ass (and he certainly did) that right wingers would be hammering him for political bias.

And you would be (and he was) right.

But seriously Internet, Bob.
*I*nternet.
**I**nternet!#@#

Daemonate:

SL33TBL1ND:
It's not that we're mad that you didn't say anything bad about the film. We were just annoyed at how you were clarifying every sentence with "Don't worry, people, I think think these guys are awesome."

You only needed to say it at the beginning and that would be the end of it.

Whatever, if he didn't really make it clear repeatedly, you can bet your ass (and he certainly did) that right wingers would be hammering him for political bias.

Well fuck them. I very much doubt that Bob would give a shit what they think, if he already made it clear in the beginning. If people are too stupid not to hear it the first time, then their opinions don't matter anyway.

SL33TBL1ND:

Daemonate:

SL33TBL1ND:
It's not that we're mad that you didn't say anything bad about the film. We were just annoyed at how you were clarifying every sentence with "Don't worry, people, I think think these guys are awesome."

You only needed to say it at the beginning and that would be the end of it.

Whatever, if he didn't really make it clear repeatedly, you can bet your ass (and he certainly did) that right wingers would be hammering him for political bias.

Well fuck them. I very much doubt that Bob would give a shit what they think, if he already made it clear in the beginning. If people are too stupid not to hear it the first time, then their opinions don't matter anyway.

Totally fine for you to say - you don't have a public profile and have to risk having your productive day hours wasted with bullshit from fights you didn't really want to be bothered fighting.

Daemonate:

SL33TBL1ND:

Daemonate:
Whatever, if he didn't really make it clear repeatedly, you can bet your ass (and he certainly did) that right wingers would be hammering him for political bias.

Well fuck them. I very much doubt that Bob would give a shit what they think, if he already made it clear in the beginning. If people are too stupid not to hear it the first time, then their opinions don't matter anyway.

Totally fine for you to say - you don't have a public profile and have to risk having your productive day hours wasted with bullshit from fights you didn't really want to be bothered fighting.

But that's the point, he doesn't have to fight them. The whole point of his work is that it's his opinion. He doesn't have to defend it. He says what he likes and what he doesn't and if people don't agree with him, they can go to a different critic for their needs. Some nut thinks Bob didn't say the SEALs were as cool as he wanted him to say? Who gives a fuck? Just ignore him.

You'll probably spot the irony in this post. If you do, you have proven my point.

"MovieBob: Can't Win for Losing" is such a better choice than "Intermission"...

Day One: "Commie Pinko Flag-buring MovieBob spits on U.S. Troops in yet another biased liberal agenda 'Anti-America' tirade that bolsters terrorism because he hates freedom."

Day Two: "MovieBob, back from his daily consumer spree at WalMart, wipes his McDonald's grease-ridden fingers on his American Flag tshirt and proceeds to spew Bush-Era, Fox News, Pro-Military-Industrial-Complex rhetoric out his sycophant-hole."

No possible chance whatsoever for a middle ground? This must be the Internet!

Bob, let's be honest: It was just designed as masturbatory material for Michael Bay (and his ilk) :)

I'm pretty sure Fox News has covered Bronies at some point, but I can't really confirm it.

wolfchylde:
Bob, let's be honest: It was just designed as masturbatory material for Michael Bay (and his ilk) :)

I think Michael Bay actually uses a picture of himself with some military hardware for that purpose. Not even a slightly pornographic one, just Michael Bay holding a gun, and he looks back on how it felt in his hands.

I really hope frontline does a story about how bronies are proof the feminist won first. Only because I am tired of Fox News being a strawman.

Sorry Bob, but my biggest issue with Act of Valor and your critique of it stems from the fact that I'm Canadian, but not just that, I'm also a Canadian who's not particularly fond of our southern neighbors. Don't take it personally, it's not you. I'd rather not get into the details of that here, but suffice to say a film like Act of Valor where REAL American military dudes are going around being self congratulatory and heroic really rubs me the wrong way.

Kitsuna10060:
so .... are people butthurt because its not a propaganda movie? o.o? ... funny, i was under the assumption that was a GOOD thing

I would've thought so too.

SL33TBL1ND:
It's not that we're mad that you didn't say anything bad about the film. We were just annoyed at how you were clarifying every sentence with "Don't worry, people, I think think these guys are awesome."

You only needed to say it at the beginning and that would be the end of it.

My thoughts exactly.

And about his movie I just find it cool they used REAL military.

Sylocat:
I think another source of discomfort might be that one of the possible the thirty-second ads before your review of Act of Valor was a recruitment ad for the U.S. Marine Corps, which further taints the thing.

The Marine Corps 'taints' things? I don't understand.

I feel like a weight's been lifted from my shoulders. It's been a long time, but I actually agree with Bob, and his reasoning behind it.

I think people are jumping the gun a tad bit too much these days.

It's funny how people only complain about propaganda when they disagree with the stuff. I mean, the Lorax is pretty clearly environmentalist propaganda (or at least is *really* preachy about its message), but you don't see anybody getting up in arms about it.
Well, except Fox, but does that really surprise anybody at this point?

Personally, I'm only annoyed when things get preachy and jingoistic and that's usually only because such movies are shallow, ill-thought out, but still have the ego to try and pretend they know all the deep truths of the universe like how (insert political party I don't like because I was raised in a place where other party is popular) is teh ebil.
Well, okay, I get annoyed by a whole host of other things as well, but penguins aren't relevant to the context.

almostgold:

Sylocat:
I think another source of discomfort might be that one of the possible the thirty-second ads before your review of Act of Valor was a recruitment ad for the U.S. Marine Corps, which further taints the thing.

The Marine Corps 'taints' things? I don't understand.

It makes it further come off as propaganda, or a recruitment ad. Was I really that vague?

almostgold:

Sylocat:
I think another source of discomfort might be that one of the possible the thirty-second ads before your review of Act of Valor was a recruitment ad for the U.S. Marine Corps, which further taints the thing.

The Marine Corps 'taints' things? I don't understand.

The American army in general taints things.

I think everything he mentions in this bit of commentary was already addressed pretty well in the thread regarding the original content before he even wrote it.

I'm more interested in hearing the reasoning behind "most divisive presidential election since the civil war". I know this website has plenty of non-US contributors, but even commonwealth citizens should be able to put together the general statistics on incumbent president + economic upswing + contested opposition primary with low general support + candidate that swept the polls the first time around. Generally that adds up to "boring, easy victory for the incumbent", not "hotly contested election", and I'm curious what he knows that we don't.

Though I guess it might be part of the usual media obligation to pretend that whatever the current politics is is the most exciting and terrible thing ever even when it's humdrum business-as-usual. I guess internet journalism is established enough that they're part of the tradition now, eh?

I think the negative response was more to do with folks feeling you were being too delicate; that you were tiptoeing around the sensitive subject matter. I don't think they genuinely wanted yo to come down hard on the movie for the sake of it.

All this "politicisation" of movies is getting very old. Just yesterday, people were shitting on The Lorax for having a liberal, pro-environment, anti-corporate message. They even went so far as to say it was an attempt to indoctrinate kids with liberal propaganda. They could have simply shat on the film for being a lousy interpretation of a kids classic, but instead they went with the argument "this movie has a 'liberal' message, therefore I mustn't like it". What makes it all the more astonishing is the way in which "pro-environment" has automatically become a smeer word, as though being concerned about te environment is a bad thing.

castlewise:

I fully expect "Bronies: What Has Feminist Academia Done To Our Boys?" to be a Fox News headline/story within a year.

Why would you even say that. Fox might be listening right now, looking for new terrible ideas that sound faintly plausible! *puts on tinfoil hat*

Fox has already beat you both to the punch

Jim_Callahan:
I'm more interested in hearing the reasoning behind "most divisive presidential election since the civil war". I know this website has plenty of non-US contributors, but even commonwealth citizens should be able to put together the general statistics on incumbent president + economic upswing + contested opposition primary with low general support + candidate that swept the polls the first time around. Generally that adds up to "boring, easy victory for the incumbent", not "hotly contested election", and I'm curious what he knows that we don't.

Though I guess it might be part of the usual media obligation to pretend that whatever the current politics is is the most exciting and terrible thing ever even when it's humdrum business-as-usual. I guess internet journalism is established enough that they're part of the tradition now, eh?

"Divisive" doesn't refer to how close an election is, but how high passions run on either side. Lincoln easily beat his opponent prior to the Civil War, for example, but it was a hugely split victory - after all, the Southern states were SO furious that a president could be elected without winning ANY of their electoral votes that it was a big contributing factor to their decesion to rebel and secede from the Union; hard to imagine any better definition of "divisive" than that.

Bob,
I am one of those who made a "negative" comment on last week's review; because I feel the need to expand and because you read all comments I am emboldened to type this.

I understood that you were criticising a movie, not the military, but if the movie is bad you should just come out and say it. It does not matter if the characters were believable at portraying themselves in the job they actually do! If the movie is not up to par you can just say it. The fear of coming across as criticising the armed forces as opposed to the "art" medium made you sound wishy washy.

On the propaganda aspect I will comment only that you are on the inside looking in; you may not see it as propaganda (and perhaps it isn't), but for other people outside the US this type of macho film falls right is with American's always saving the world with their super duper technology and incorruptible moral values. So portraying the Seals in a never-do-wrong light it kinda falls in a "we're awesome, come join us in fighting the rest of the evil-doers" category which some may call "propaganda".

Some other countries do not have the military muscle nor the desire to flex said muscle, so we do not get the infatuation that Americans in general have with their armed forces... or the need to avoid stepping on eggshells when reviewing an entertainment movie which should have been a documentary

I-Protest-I:

almostgold:

Sylocat:
I think another source of discomfort might be that one of the possible the thirty-second ads before your review of Act of Valor was a recruitment ad for the U.S. Marine Corps, which further taints the thing.

The Marine Corps 'taints' things? I don't understand.

The American army in general taints things.

I know what you meant, but MASSIVE peeve of mine: Marines AREN'T the army. You're thinking 'military'. Army is a branch of the military. The USMC is another (better) branch.

MovieBob:

"Divisive" doesn't refer to how close an election is, but how high passions run on either side. Lincoln easily beat his opponent prior to the Civil War, for example, but it was a hugely split victory - after all, the Southern states were SO furious that a president could be elected without winning ANY of their electoral votes that it was a big contributing factor to their decesion to rebel and secede from the Union; hard to imagine any better definition of "divisive" than that.

Point taken, but what makes this round more divisive than, say, 2004, where we had protesters directly calling for the incarceration of the incumbent, or, say, 1980 when we started the whole GOP = religion thing and the GOP blamed social programs for the recession somehow. Or, if you want to bend a bit more historical, 1900, where we ended up with the first progressive president (which at the time meant actively anti-business, putting the government on the worker's side of the industry/labor conflict for the first time in half a century).

It's just that every presidential election cycle we get "this is the one that'll change everything" and "politics has become more bitter and nasty than ever before", but I'm not seeing any more evidence that it's true this time than in 2008, 2000, 1996, 1992, etc when the same claim was made, and considerably less evidence that it's true than in 2004 (due to the "protesters calling for the arrest of a sitting president" thing).

almostgold:
I know what you meant, but MASSIVE peeve of mine: Marines AREN'T the army. You're thinking 'military'. Army is a branch of the military. The USMC is another (better) branch.

Technically, they're a branch of the navy, though the separation of the chains of command is very high up (the Marine commandant reports to the secretary of the Navy). Many marine officers come from the naval ROTC program as well instead of the more specialized Marine corps ROTC.

But yeah, the three branches of the military in the US are Army, Navy, and Air Force and the Marine Corps falls under the purview of the second group, not the first.

Jim_Callahan:

almostgold:
I know what you meant, but MASSIVE peeve of mine: Marines AREN'T the army. You're thinking 'military'. Army is a branch of the military. The USMC is another (better) branch.

Technically, they're a branch of the navy, though the separation of the chains of command is very high up (the Marine commandant reports to the secretary of the Navy). Many marine officers come from the naval ROTC program as well instead of the more specialized Marine corps ROTC.

But yeah, the three branches of the military in the US are Army, Navy, and Air Force and the Marine Corps falls under the purview of the second group, not the first.

Common misconception here: there are 5 branches (US Army, US Air Force, US Navy, US Marine Corps, US Coast Guard). The USMC is not under the command of the US Navy. Misconception comes because besides the "US Navy" (the military branch), there is an executive organization structure called the "Department of the Navy". Both the USMC and the USN (and the Coast Guard, in times of war, should the President or Congress decide) are components of the Department of the Navy. The Commandant of the Marine Corps does not report to the Chief of Naval Operations (the head of the US Navy). Both report to the Secretary of the Navy, who is a civilian.

To recap: US Navy =/= Department of the Navy. Department of the Navy is a civilian run oversight organisation. The USMC is not a branch of the 'Navy' (i.e., the military branch).

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here