Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Why no more war films out of Hollywood?


FlyBackTransformer
 Share

Recommended Posts

> We've had plenty of new material in recent years like the iraq war. They could call it A War Too Long ...with an international cast of several. I would peg Dean Stockwell for Tony Blair and say Fred Thompson as Norman Schwarzkopf.

 

 

Schwarzkopf was in the first iraq war under Bush 41. Okay, Tommy Lee Jones for Petraeus! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess maybe the box office failure of "The Hurt Locker" in spite of the deserved critical raves and even winning Oscars for best picture and direction, for crying out loud, killed any inclination for Hollywood to make any more war movies soon.

However maybe "Argo" though not really a war movie, which was like "Locker" a critical success and best picture winner, but also a hit, may border enough on being a war themed movie and help encourage that genre getting Hollywood interested again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last several modern war films I've tried watching, were just too irritating.

 

Seems to me that all the directors told their crews:

 

Ok, I want wiggling hand-held cameras ALL the time. No tripods, and no dollys!

 

For the sound track, I want constant tension music and lots of gunfire and explosions.

 

For visuals, I want to see body parts. Remember, teenagers like to see flying body parts, and lots of blood.

 

Also, we always kill the good guys in our war films, and we blame every war on the US, and we always go easy on the suicide bombers, terrorsts, etc. Any WW II film we make about the Pacific war, we always take the side of the Japanese soldiers, and never the American soldiers.

 

So, I just don't usually watch modern war films. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could the reason war movies don't do well at the box office is because American viewers want to see war movies where we win?

 

All the wars we have been in since WWII didn't result in a traditional type of win. The post WWII conflicts resulted instead in what I would define as a stalemate.

 

Now this type of conflict should result in a more complex nuanced type of war film but one that might be hard to sell to viewers looking for a more clear cut type of war film.

 

Note that Argo did have a 'win' at the end when the 6 hostages were released. Is that type of 'win' necessary for this type of film to be a box office hit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Could the reason war movies don't do well at the box office is because American viewers want to see war movies where we win?

 

Sure, I think that's the way it is with most audiences in most countries.

 

Why would German or Japanese audiences want to see WW II films in which they lose?

 

Hey, how about some good Canadian war films?? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Also, we always kill the good guys in our war films, and we blame every war on the US, and we always go easy on the suicide bombers, terrorsts, etc. Any WW II film we make about the Pacific war, we always take the side of the Japanese soldiers, and never the American soldiers.

 

> So, I just don't usually watch modern war films.

 

Nothing wrong with a country second-guessing it's own motives...just so long as the debate remains constructive and not ultimately destructive to said country..

 

We won the iraq war so I say go for it. Of course, today the situation in iraq be devolving because some self-appointed genius thought it would be a good idea to bail out before a long term stabilization could be indefinitely secured. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you got it , James. I also think there's too much worry about offending people. Many of the "enemies" in recent wars have too close a resemblance to many immigrants from those regions, and anger over perpetrating stereotypes might worry film makers away from that subject matter. When the film's "villian" looks a lot like the guy you buy your beer from, it makes it hard to seperate the two.

 

America still thinks 9/11 was too recent to let go of certain animosities, and some from both sides might view such movies as more provacative than mere entertainment.

 

But still, there was much that was not honestly presented by war movies of yore. The showing of flying body parts and rivers of blood might seem like gratuitious gore to some, but an honest depiction of war nonetheless. A man I knew who was an Omaha Beach survivor said that "Saving Private Ryan", while gory and brutal, looked to him as if they actually filmed it during the real landing. And as shocking as it was, his feelings were that if war movies were that brutally honest in the first place, there might not have been rallying cries for bloodshed in Korea and Viet Nam.

 

Movies about all the previous wars could be redone with this level of honest presentation, so that people could get the idea that war, no matter who wins or loses technically, actually HAS no "winners". Only those who happened to hold out longer.

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...