‘Witch Mountain’ Remakes The Bad Guy Into The Military
by Chuck DeVoreThe “Race to Witch Mountain” is a Disney remake of Disney’s 1975 production “Escape to Witch Mountain.”
I took my 17 and 12-year-old daughters to see this PG-rated film. They liked it, especially the action sequences – many of which were fairly innovative, not something I expected in what I thought would be formula Disney entertainment.
Dwayne Johnson (The Rock) continues his able development as an actor. He plays Jack Bruno, a down-on-his-luck Las Vegas taxicab driver who, hoping to someday be a NASCAR driver instead became a wheelman for the mob and is trying very hard to stay out of trouble.
The film opens with an alien spacecraft crash-landing in the Nevada desert. Soon, the two very human-looking teenage aliens link up with Bruno and the pursuit begins in earnest.
The film would have been better without the gratuitous attack directed at America’s armed forces. The U.S. Department of Defense was shown throughout as being composed of a bunch of overbearing heavies. A more direct slam occurs when one of the alien kids says that their planet is dying and that there is a debate on their home world between those who favor a military conquest of Earth and those who want to study the Earth’s environment to learn of a way to repair the damage to their own world. It was as if Al Gore and Dick Cheney were battling off-world by proxy.
This conflict between “militarism” and science takes on an even greater significance when one realizes that it was completely absent from 1975 version of Alexander Key SciFi novel “Escape to Witch Mountain.” The original film hewed more closely to Key’s book, introducing a new character in millionaire Aristotle Bolt, a man who wants to use the alien children’s special powers to make money on the market.
It’s remarkable, given the 9-11 attack on America and the ongoing two-front war, that Disney would change the antagonist from a greedy millionaire to the Pentagon. Perhaps if the film was produced a year later, Disney would have struck more closely to the original script with the Aristotle Bolt character making an easy morphing into a master Ponzi schemer.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
103 Comments
What a surprise and yet a disappointment. Cleary, Disney is following the current media trends in developing stories. With most kids utterly indoctrinated, nothing here will be unfamiliar to them. I'll take a pass on this one.
Isn't this what ET did? Evil government. Well when it comes to gubbermint, libs hate it, until they want their free cheese.
That's why I've sworn never to write a novel with the military as the bad guy. I mean, aside from the fact that it butchers the truth, it's so completely cliche now. Can't Hollywood come up with a unique villian?
Chuck, no offense, but this article is not particularly useful.
Chase movies need bad guys. It is rational that the military would chase aliens if they were discovered moving among us. So in that regard, the use of the military is merely a logical dramatic device.
The real question is, are they used in an inappropriate way. You say they are made out as "heavies," so you hint that they are used inappropriately, but give us details. What did the filmmakers do wrong and how do you think they should have done it better?
I heard Michael Medved say something many years ago that has stuck with me: Nothing ever makes its way into a movie by accident.
Whether we're talking set design, or a disrespectful portrayal, or a smear, or a snide remark or wise-crack, or an image in the background, or a favorable or unfavorable character trait, or a clearly-stated monologue, or a painfully contorted screed… you can put money on the fact that it was placed into that movie ON PURPOSE!
Just last night, I watched the recent Beowulf… the CGI feature film that came out just in the past year or so. Of course, the most sniveling, ugly, duplicitous character in the movie was wearing a big cross around his next. (Fortunately, that plot development didn't offend me because I didn't realize that he was part of a religious order until the very end of the movie.) But, there it was, anyway. And, since it didn't really play into the storyline of the movie, I want to ask, "Why was it there at all?" But, as we know, there is no need asking. Because there is no answer.
(In this particular case – Beowulf – I was more offended by the fact that the movie-makers actually had to sanitize the original story by removing the many positive and traditional Christian commentary and references. "Now, we can't have any content that would suggest that God is a good and gracious Creator. We don't want to be accused of proselytizing." Argh!)
So, it is completely acceptable for us in the Conservative camp to see this "little" issue (where the US military is turned into the bad guy) as an explicit attack. It could have been… foreign powers… other aliens… some weird pscyho scientist guy… or a member of the mafia… or some Russian president that wants to regain his status as an international power. But, no. It just had to be the US military.
I suppose the only other alternative bad-guy that Hollywood might have come up with would have been some weird dooms-day Christian cult. Complete with kneeling prayers, and crazy-eyed recitations of scripture.
Patiently awaiting the arrival of the New Hollywood.
Go back at take a look at the Bourne Supremacy — all of the U.S. agents, police, FBI are all a big mess and disorganized bafoons — while EVERY European scene has their police forces running like a smooth and highly intelligent operation. That kind of deliberate creative choice to paint American law enforcement as dumb and incapable is just another subtle browbeat against American institutions. And in this case it was completely unnecessary to the overall plot.
Culturally there has been a significant shift in tone regarding anything representing the 'white power structure'-, if you look at the way sci-fi portrayed the military in the 50's (hugely supportive; they invariably bailed out clueless scientists), and since Vietnam and Hollywood's conversion to quasi-Marxist mouthpieces, they have become the bad bio-war guys and now are just oppressive(sometimes psychotic) and dumb. While a need for antagonists will always be necessary, at some point the military-industrial complex canard should collapse of it's own nuclear weight. Spielberg handled the military aspect of UFO stuff pretty well in 'Close Encounters'. They had their own agenda but were fully realized humans like everyone else, and ultimately just as excited as the civilians. Not having seen 'Witch Mountain' one suspects the shopworn depiction of the 'black helicopter' crowd. It is a convenient and not very clever cliche'.
"Patiently awaiting the arrival of the New Hollywood." – CJinMadison
It's coming, CJ, it's coming. Hang in there…
The military is portrayed as the enemy … but what happens if the socialists take control of the government?
I only worked in Hollywood for a year but it was an eye-opening. I was an Associate Producer so I often got to sit in on editing sessions of on-air segments and let me tell you, everything is deliberate. The ambient noise, background scenery, scripting– even stuff that seems like casual asides are very very planned. The attention to detail is amazing so I have no doubt that the anti-military message of this film was one of the main intents of the writers or the director.
Michael, don't get me wrong — I'm not saying Witch Moutain might not deserve criticism. My guess is that it does. I'm just saying, when you write an article like this, it's doesn't help to just complain: "they made the military the bad guys" and "they acted like heavies." That doesn't advance the debate and it sounds like whining. Your post, by comparison, makes very clear criticism that we can consider.
Regarding your post, by the way, I completely agree. The producers of the BS movies clearly set out to undermine the confidence of the American public in our crime fighting institutions. They made them out as in-fighting fools, as you point out. They also made them out as Big Brother — something to fear, with all the spy tech. And they made them out as evil, with the ease with which they kill people. Note also that all of the killers appeared to be of Mideastern decent, implying that the US might be "the real power" behind much of the terrorism we've experienced in the last 10 years.
"I suppose the only other alternative bad-guy that Hollywood might have come up with would have been some weird dooms-day Christian cult. Complete with kneeling prayers, and crazy-eyed recitations of scripture."
Yup, complete with the usual Hollywood cluelessness about Christianity: they would have evangelicals clutching rosary beads and having statues of the Virgin Mary in their homes, Catholic priests talking about the rapture, and all of them taking the book of Revelations ultra-literally.
The military, Christianity, and American South – three cultures that the bulk of Hollywood writers, producers, and directors have only the most superficial understanding of.
Not just our military was made out to be the bad guys but the aliens planet also had "bad military" as well. Geez.
It would be interesting to see a movie about military guys devoted to the Constitution and their socialist leaders trying to trample the Constitution with the military guys doing a huge amount of soul-searching amidst much fear and trembling about the consequences of military coups while the socialist leaders are depicted as blithely unconcerned. The movie ends with the socialists being voted out right before the military feels that it is absolutely forced to take action.
Come on Andrew, this is more tired, lazy screen writing. The military as bad guy? Tired cliche'. The story had a point and made it.
Any bashing of the miserable revisionist 'Bourne' series is welcome here; one remembers director Doug Limon (a real talent, too-sadly) telling Dimwit Damon the 'we've taken a Republican book and made it a Democrat movie'… and why? Robert Ludlum is doing cartwheels in his grave.
Portraying the U.S. military as the villain was a trend that started in the 80's. War Games, D.A.R.Y.L., Real Genius, and even The A-Team are examples. As a kid, I remember the messages of these movies severely conflicting with what I was taught.
As much as I dislike Michael Bay's campiness, he has made at least three movies where the U.S. military and individual U.S. soldiers are the good guys. The Patriot, Independence Day, and Transformers. It's a refreshing portrayal, and makes it worth putting up with all the other flaws in Bay's films.
It's the equivalent of teenagers who think all authority is fascist, except Obama, who is like that one "cool" teacher who lets the kids smoke in the bathroom.
You're missing my point. I'm not defending the military as bad guys cliche. Far from it, I'm as sick of that as anyone else. It's lazy, it's wrong, it's culturally destructive. I know lots of military guys and I know that most of them are dedicated professionals who perform their duties with a sense of honor that few in the civilian world will understand.
But I am asking, how am I supposed to know whether this movie is offering the tired old cliche? How do I know their portrayal of the military deserves criticism? The military in Close Encounters are the "heavies", but it's hardly a negative portrayal. This article tells me nothing that I can use to judge for myself. Or am I just supposed to accept what the article says and chant the appropriate "bad Hollywood" comments?
I agree. I think it began as a backlash against Reagan and his military build up. Don't forget, that the 1980's brought us the first "defense contract" movies as well — movies like "Best Defense".
I can't stand Bay, but you're right that at least he gives a generally positive view of the military.
Guys I'm in agreement with you all but seriously all this hand wringing does no good. We are on boards that are in theory loaded with writers (myself included) yet there is no coordination between us, no forum boards where we can all work together on projects, this just ends up as griping for the sake of griping. Good frustration release undoubtedly but ultimately fruitless.
Until there is some coordination between us, some pooling of talent, some real sense of direction this will all be for naught. This is where libs have always beaten us, they coordinate better than we do. Mainly because they need the validation of others to feel "whole" but in this case it gives them a clear advantage.
That ending would make for a great reality show.
Why do Americans continue buying what Kingdom Hollywood is selling?
Aren't you all sick of consuming eye-candy entertainment?
I would like to see 'Brothers at War' on the big screen here in NYC unfortunately stupid stuff like re-tread 'escape to witch mountain' takes up all the space.
We are never going to get good stuff on the screen if everyone continues buying the eye-candy crap; stop bitching and take action, refuse to buy the crap being sold and Kingdom Hollywood won't be able to make it anymore.
So positive the Pentagon usually gives him whatever "toys" he wants for his sets
True, though the Pentagon has in the past also assisted movies that were much more negative.
Let's take all of this a step further. In the midst of the Obama takeover including socializing healthcare and proping up unions, here comes "Sicko" on Showtime, and pro union Walmart bashing in the for of "Walmart: the High Cost of Lower Prices". Would programmers at the pay channels be so "plugged in" as to program propaganda to "help out the cause"? Of course they would. We go in to Iraq and these guys dig up "Wag the Dog" which was made during "Bubba" Clinton's tenure. Coincidence? I think not. It's subtle, but noticeable.
I think this is an important point EVERYONE SHOULD READ — this is the point I was trying to make above (apparently not successfully). Come on guys, start coming up with ideas of how this can be fixed:
(1) under what circumstances would you suggest the military be used in a movie,
(2) what guidelines would you apply?
(3) what cliches would you avoid.
(4) ??
Agreed, although with those movies the Pentagon is usually in the mode of "Let's try to make this at least semi-reasonable instead of completely BS" whereas with Bay they're more like, "Dude, if you liked THAT, you gotta totally check THIS out!"
The military should be used realistically (this addresses both 1 and 2). The problem is, what a liberal thinks is realistic is not the same as what a conservative thinks is realistic.
That said, cliches to avoid would include: military operating on US soil, the military indescriminately targeting people, the 99% incompetence rate of the military in movies (seriously, how can the military promulgate such awesome conspiracies only to be so daft as to let our hapless hero wreck it all?). I could probably get a few more.
Instead of that, they should do what Wallace did for "We Were Soliders" which is to actually get together with the people who were, you know, THERE and all, and then film accordingly. "We Were Soliders" ranks as my favorite movie of all time precisely because it wasn't anti-military and it showed our troops doing what they actually did in a real battle pretty much historically accurately.
If you want to see a truly great look at the military I highly suggest watching the amazing documentary show that comes on the Military Channel. The exact title escapes me at the moment but I know it's along the lines of "Alpha Company: A Journal". It's just a reporter assigned to them (by the military not some hack from MSM) for seven months and he follows all of the monotony and frustration that comes with prolonged deployment and it shows how much these guys struggle with the way women are treated in Muslim culture.
There is one especially poignant part where the soldiers come across some neglected children who suffer from mental retardation and one of the soldiers explains to the father that if he doesn't start taking better care of the children he is going to kick his a**. This causes the father to become frightened and start crying. It's just a great look at the human side of these guys.
This weekend I saw what was certainly the most offen and unrealistic look at the US military, it was the god awful 28 Weeks Later. In this movie the US military is not only incompetent but prone to indiscriminantly killing everyone including fellow US soldiers. By the end of the movie I was p*ssed.
No, I get it Andrew. I understand that the U.S. military serves as a easy foil for many scriptwriters. I finally saw "Casino Royale" the other night and was "shocked" that the storyline featured villians other than the Americans or the U.S. military. Then I realized that it was a remake, right? At the start they refer to Bond's recent promotion to double O status. He blatantly kills Africans, Euro and even a rouge Brit. Cool. Equal opprotunity bad guys. Finally, someone other than middle age white guys. If we can get get ADT and Brinks to cast a few minorities as criminals in their advertisements we'll make some real progress.
dcase, if you want a really good portrayal of the military in modern Sci-Fi, check out (the now cancelled) Stargate SG-1. Their portrayal was so positive that even US Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper appeared in one episode.
Not only did they constantly make the point that the AF doesn't leave people behind, but they respected the chain of command, they showed commanders in a good light (even the jerks were eventually shown to be acting for the bests interests), and they showed tremendous bravery and camaraderie.
Ya, or cliches like those in "Stripes" and myriad other movies. I wasn't offended for a second about "Stripes" or even "Full Metal Jacket". I "got it". Watch for subtle, negitive critisism to creep in to entertainment in a cyclical, predicatable way. I have a little more in moderation, let's see if it makes it through.
Yeah, being a military guy, I am always amused by Hollywoods notions regarding the military and intelligence agencies of our government. The most clueless always show an "NSA operative" equipped with a silenced pistol walking around whacking people. If these people only knew.
A plotine showing the Code Pink protestors walking about with AK's and mowing down crowds of military families is more believeable….
My boys are old enough now to watch "Saving Private Ryan" so we watched the edited-for-tv version this weekend. I explained how the military men were portrayed as noble and caring, but not about the mission — just about each other. When Hanks's character opined that he "just wanted to get home to his wife" he was historically inaccurate. These men were there for the duration of the war, until the Nazis were defeated or we were. There was no "going home to the wife" until the war was over. The whole premise of the movie, that these men were being sent on a useless PR mission, tries to undermine the very blood and courage that our country spilled to free us from tyranny.
My boys enjoyed the movie but they are innoculated against Spielberg's message. So there, Stevie. We enjoyed your hard work and your message was rejected anyway. Ha.
Gosh, Andy- the portrayal of miltary in the show is so hackneyed and tone deaf that even though a fan of the flawed film (Kurt Russell is always good- and unlike McGyver he has a miltary bearing and knows how to wear a hat, at least) but I will defer to you on overall depiction… '24' used to do a real good job but now all of their Marines are just Wal Mart security easily taken out by the diminuitive Jack Bauer. It's really depressing how the near-universal depiction of our troops is as comic book doofuses or worse… but, on your advice I'll take anothert look at 'SG-1'…
Two of those movies weren't made by Michael Bay – you can tell, because they're the two good ones. "Patriot" and "ID4" were made by Roland Emmerich, a German director who I imagine is on a good deal of "boo! hiss!" lists 'round these parts for having also made "The Day After Tommorrow."
As for "Transformers…" A small team of about five-to-six U.S. soldiers and one official are good guys. The bulk of military/government entities seen in the film are a bunch of clueless 2nd-act heavies who rough up the heroes and torture the "cute" Transformer aimed at the kid audience – they only turn "good" when a precocious teenager shows them the light. Also, a new addition by Bay's production to the Transformer-mythos: The only robots who turn into military/police equipment are the bad guys.
When the aliens arrive they will not be investigated by the baristas at Starbucks or chased by Wal Mart greeters. Who else would chase after aliens on U.S. soil? It's got to be the military/government folks. Wasn't the military chasing E.T. too? I didn't see the military as evil, but someone to be avoided so the 'mission' could get accomplished. In the original "The Day the Earth Stood Still," the military was after Klaatu as well, and the audience is meant to sympathize with him and root for him to escape, but not hate the soldiers. I felt the same way when I saw E.T. (have no plane to see Witch Mountain unless I hear reports that Dwayne Johnson spends significant time with his shirt off.)
Not sure I get your point, Bonnie…are you saying no soldier wanted to go home to his wife? The sense of the importance of duty permeated that movie for me.
dcase, I didn’t like it at first either. The show seemed kind of campy. But it grew on me quickly — particularly the 3-5 seasons. They also have had some incredibly well written episodes. They did a comedy episode titled 200 that was hilarious — poked fun at the show itself.
With regard to the military, here’s what they did or didn’t do:
1. Never showed them as crazed killers or blood thirsty.
2. Never showed them as cowards — always brave people, even the extras.
3. They always strictly adhered to the military chain of command. One of the story lines actually involved two of the characters who fall for each but could not get together becaue that was illegal under military law and the two characters themselves respected that.
(cont)
4. The commanders are generally portrayed as trusting of their subordinates, and flexible, intelligent and creative in their thinking, though they always remain clearly in command.
5. Total respect for the uniform
6. The characters constantly make the point that they are not above the civilian government.
7. The characters constantly make the point that they never leave anyone behind.
8. The characters constantly make the point that military people often die without the civilian world ever knowing about their bravery, and that the reason the military does it is to protect the rest of us.
Over ten years, the show has had ups and downs. But it always maintained a very positive view of the AF. Like I said, the AF Chief of Staff even came on one show (Season 7). That says a lot.
I would like to see them first get the military parts right: the chain of command, the types of things that are appropriate or not, how the military would act if something happened, how the soliders would really react if something happened. I think that alone would got a long way to righting much of the wrong that you identify.
"Who else would chase after aliens on U.S. soil? It's got to be the military/government folks."
Try the police (more specifically, the FBI), and (if the governor declared a state of emergency) possibly the National Guard. The only time the US military would legally be allowed to do any sort of "chasing" after anyone is if we were at war and those we were at war with were on US soil.
Dwayn Johnson's a typical gettin-big-on-the-scene star – dumps his wife & dives into an anti-US leading role, laughing all the way to the bank. I'll keep my $10 rather than seeing this one thanks.
I have to agree. I am glad to hear that Chuck's kids liked the film, and overall it wasn't a butcher job, but I would like to know exactly how the military were "heavies." I don't like the fact they took out the evil rich guy, either. Of course, I was against the idea of them remaking this, anyway. I don't see anything wrong with the original. My daughter is only 20, and she loved the old ones, too. Everything doesn't have to be repackaged and remade as slick and new, kids are smart, they can follow a story, even if it has kids with 70's hair and clothes and bad special effects.
I liked the portrayal of the military in "Mars Attacks." General Powell (well, they didn't use his name in the movie) is chosen to meet with the Mars ambassador in the Nevada desert because he's such a reasonable man. The military is present, but standing down because we wouldn't want to offend our new friends. A beautiful white dove of peace is released, and the ambassador zaps it with a death ray, followed by vaporizing General Reasonable. Meanwhile, back at the Pentagon, the general portrayed by the wonderful scene-chewing Rod Steiger has been demanding all along that the President assume the aliens are hostile until proven otherwise. After he's shown to be right, it's "nuke 'em, nuke 'em, nuke 'em." He gets dispatched at the end, but his heart was in the right place.
Best line in the movie? The President goes on TV to tell the American people that the Martians have just wiped out Congress. But the White House and the Supreme Court are still OK. "And two out of three ain't bad!"
Amen! And what gets me, is they will have an actress or actor from the South, and STILL have the dialect wrong! How does that happen? I refuse to watch those idiotic movies where everyone sounds like a bad rip off of Scarlett O' Hara. I am from Georgia. Very thick Southern accent, and I sound nothing like the people in the movies, and it will be set in Georgia. AHHH Dooo Deee-claHHHH! Give me a frigging break. And I am a Chrisitian, but I don't live in a dirt shack and sleep with long haul truckers I pick up at the local Piggly Wiggly, then go pray at some wacky Evangelical Church, like none I've ever see, on Sunday to ask forgiveness.
Maybe you had impure thoughts?
cool beans… I'll watch one of the reruns on scifi channel (HD of course, being an HD snob) and let you know. Check out the production crew and make peace with the way they wear their class 'B's…
Bond has always been pro-US, thank God…
Jack Black's character wasn't too positive, though- and the bubble gum card set was WAY better than the film…
I know. I tend to have mental blackouts where it comes to Jack Black. Of course he got vaporized, too, so it wasn't all bad.
Isn't that a little bit of a stretch? Better to see if a pattern develops with regards to what roles he takes (like Cusack, Robbins, et al). And as for his wife, they separated two years ago but are still on good terms, hardly the stuff gossip rags are made of.
Isn't that a little bit of a stretch? Better to see if a pattern develops with regards to what roles he takes (like Cusack, Robbins, et al). And as for his wife (per Wikipedia), they separated two years ago but are still on good terms, hardly the stuff gossip rags are made of.
I lived in Mississippi for seven years; I don't remember seeing long haul truckers at the Piggly Wiggly
AndrewPrice –
First of all, you're quickly becoming my favorite poster here (no offense to everyone else).
Secondly, how does all this work with regards to a show like JAG? It's all about the military so inevitably we'll be exposed to some less than savory elements, from crazed soldiers to crooked contractors (just peruse the episode guide on Wikipedia). How does one reconcile these two ideas?
I wrote a screenplay a few years ago that has been pretty well-received by people who have read it, but of course, it's dead in the water as of this point. How does an "outsider" ever get a shot at having a screenplay read by somebody on the "inside" who matters?
Oh boy, I'm so far out of the business I can't help (15 years removed). I got lucky and met someone in the industry who took a liking to me. The way I hear it, it's not what you know it's who you know. I'm just not sure how you meet the right people anymore.
Thanks Scott! Talk about pressure though!
About JAG: The military, like all aspects of society, does have some evil people in it. There's no denying that. And I don't think it's necessarily anti-military to do stories that involve these people. After all, drama is about the unusual.
To me, where the story becomes either anti-military or pro-military (or simply not-anti-military) is in how the military itself responds to the evil people.
First, individual soldiers are not mindless drones. They're trained to not obey illegal orders. A not-anti-military film should take that into account. If it shows soldiers mindlessly slaughtering people or acting in a cruel, undisciplined manner, that's anti-military.
(cont)
Secondly, the military does not turn a blind eye to the actions of its own people. I know some JAGs and I can tell you that they actively prosecute all crimes — even things we civilians would never even consider a crime (insubordination, being late to work, AWOL, etc.). They are super dedicated to making sure that no one disgraces the military. What I liked about JAG was that it showed the military's dedication to rooting out the wrong-doers in its ranks. To me, that's a positive portrayal. Add in the fact that the characters were more concerned with getting at the truth than just securing a conviction and I think they presented a rather positive image of the military, even though they dealt with crime in the military.
Awesome — my kids wanted to see it and now I have a reason not to sit through 2 hours of torture. My kids are smart and don't like people slamming the military. Disney is just plain nuts. I am sending this around to my community website. Save money in a tough economy — don't go see Disney's trashing of our troops.
Great point regarding "Saving Private Ryan" — I made the same point in my review of Tom Cruise's Valkyrie. http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cdevore/2009/01...
Soldiers do fight for each other, but they also fight for a larger cause and that cause can be good or evil, or for king and country or for liberty.
Casino Royale was not a remake. It was an adaptation, and the best of all the Bond novels. The "original" Casino Royale was a spoof with David Niven made in the 60's or 70's, and doesn't have any plot similarities. Just FYI. But all you mention is in the novel as well as in the film, and throughout the Bond novels.
The police aren't even allowed to enforce laws against aliens from Mexico. On top of that, the US military has been operating inside the USA for over a decade offering operational support to DEA and border patrol, not to mention a secret signing statement in effect between Oct. 2001 and October 2008 that granted the military freedom to engage in warrantless operations on US soil in commission of anti-terrorism activities without any declaration of war against any country or entity. So, I mean, to a lesser or greater extent, the military already does operate inside the USA. And if there were space aliens inside the USA, there is no way this would be left up to law enforcement, only the FBI, or the national guard. It just wouldn't.
You are right about everything being done on purpose. When I watched iron man I about screamed in the theater. Do you remember the point where the good "middle eastern" man died after trying to help "iron man" out of the cave? What was he lying on? The American flag. It was on a bag of food or something but it was the red and white stripes with blue on top. Clearly a depiction of a middle eastern man bleeding to death on the flag. I said at that point, 'Can I leave now?' Several people (including some I didn't come with) turned and looked at me. Afterward my boyfriend scolded me for not enjoying the movie and he couldn't imagine what was wrong. When I asked him if he noticed he said, "No, I think you just look for those things…and it probably wasn't inentional anyway." I just laughed. Don't get me wrong, there were some pretty cool stuff in iron man, but really, I cringe every time I watch it.
I heard of one movie where they did this. I'm not saying that this was a great movie or anything but it was interesting to watch the behind the scenes. In the Sum of All Fears at the scene where the President's car is blown over or something the director said he just told the military, "Okay, this is the scene, do what you would do…go." It turned out quite well, at least, that part did.
You're welcome. I dooooo love posting.
I think your first point is a good one. I suspect that many people are so used to having Hollywood constantly slam the military that they basically "flinch" every time they see a new movie come out that involves some negative event related to the military. Frankly, it's hard to blame them. How many "second chances" should Hollywood get?
Hopefully, this website will move Hollywood back to the center and then people will be more willing to examine each movie on its own merits.
On the second point, I'm not in the industry, so hopefully some of our other posters can comment. But I can say that I have done a great deal of writing, and I know that every word I use is intentionally chosen to convey particular meaning.
Actually, given today's climate, they'd probably make him a Mormon…
Chicken and egg thing of broadcast standards and public acceptibility, you can't sell adventure without a publically accepted heavy. Example, the La Femme Nikita franchise is actually based on a very, very real Lenninist/Stalinist/Soviet Cheka/NKVD/KGB section of female hitters a number of whom defected and some of whom arranged to disappear. Communist heavy/sexy would not sell and the Franciscus movie lost money while the Brasson movie, with the heavys as SDCE/MI5 was a hit, as was the Fonda version with the CIA heavy and the TV series with CIA heavies. Oddly, the TV series, done by the crew that does "24", not only used the term "section", which is how the defectors actually referred to themselves, but gave an accurate history of internal CHEKA to KGB l ruthlessly violent history – all presented to our young as evil Washington beltway doings, and acceptible to the target audience as such. The lefty chickens may have laid the egg that hatched into that anti-us military thingee, but it really does effect what fiction makes money, and it is we who need to build a public awareness otherwise.
Exactly!
The writer(s) should work with the producer(s) and director(s) to make the script filmable and believeable, not an overt incorrect morality judgment. The FBI should be the lead in this (Mulder and Scully), not the US military, CIA or NSA, which are prohibited by posse comitatus. I swear, the lib brains in Hollywood must be in fevered overtime trying to blame traditional values and institutions. They should stick to what THEY know, like "Milk".
Shoot, my reply vanished. I'll try this again…
I think you make a good point. I think that many people have become so gun-shy about Hollywood "military" movies that they no longer consider them fairly. They see hints of the usual cliches and they tune out. But truthfully, it's hard to blame people for doing this because Hollywood's been so consistently negative above the military. After all, how many "second chances" should Hollywood get?
On the second point, I'm not in the industry so it would be great if some of our other posters could chime in on that one. I can tell you however, that I write a LOT, and I choose every single word with care to convey particular meanings because I've learned that individual words can win or lose arguments.
Yeah, it should be rational and believable, like "Left Behind" or "The Ten Commandments".
Actually since greedy corporate bastards, power-hungry militaristic goons, and Jesus freaks got us into this current mess why shouldn't we point that out from time to time?
Will your god strike us down? Or just the Pentagon?
BTW – Your pals took down "posse comitatus" years ago and since when did a movie have to follow anyone's rules?
Why name yourself after the tool of an archaic Norse god's hammer? Aren't you a christian? Don't you have traditional values? Or should we ask which traditions?
Medved is right about the deliberation of what you see on the movie screen. The process is called mis-en-scene ("mees on sehn"), which literally means "To put into the scene". Every prop, costume, background set, and the lighting are lending to a purposeful visual message. One can never assume that it's strictly filler and not related to (liberal) subtext.
I'm fascinated by the conviction in all this discussion that "Race to Witch Mountain" is hardline anti-military. What the film suggested to me was that there are elements within the government that put national interest over the values of the country. It was a shame to see Ciaran Hinds wasted as such a one-dimensional villain, but I don't think that an anti-military bias was the primary metaphor at work there. I found it more interesting that there was an elusive parallel in the aliens to the way a lot of the U.S. perceives foreign powers: good guys and bad guys. It reminded me of the constant battle facing Muslims in the West to prove that they're good people (when they shouldn't have to prove anything in a free society), while there are Islamic leaders in the Middle East advocating the destruction of the West. This relationship was symbolized in the kids and the alien hunter. The overall thrust was that there were elements in the alien military (again, not the whole establishment) that regarded invasion as a more viable alternative to a more peaceful solution based on logical (scientific) investigation. That resurrected the specter of the bad intel that moved the U.S. into the Iraq invasion. Instead of focusing on the possibility that there's an anti-military message in this film, perhaps it would be more valuable to focus on how the film illustrates that a defense force can be used for good or evil, and that good people can suffer the consequences of bad policy. I don't think anyone would disagree that any powerful nation has to guard against bad apples corrupting and undermining its values.
Let me suggest two more examples:
The remake of “The Manchurian Candidate”. The original, an excellent movie, makes the bad guys out to be the communist Chinese (hence, Manchurian). The remake, an awful film, makes the bad guys big business and Republicans.
The movie, “The Sum of All Fears”, based on the Tom Clancy novel of the same title. In the book the bad guys are a radical Palestinian terrorist organization. The movie, like a punch in the stomach, awkwardly and stupidly makes the bad guys modern day, secret, Nazis.
Ridiculous.
What in hell is there to moderate? People from Africa are Africans, right? They are CHARACTERS in a movie!
Give it time, the way England is going, they'll find a way to make Bond anti-US.
That's a great point.
Ya, I guess! I was trying, and eventually passed muster with said brownshirts, to make the point that the Bond character is not p.c. By the way the stunt work was spectacular in that chase scene in Africa, amazing athleticism by both actors. Running movie style and running full out like they were doing are two differnt things, WOW!
Yes, I loved "Mars Attacks", and yes great line. How topical for today's world. Nice to hear from you, b t w! I had mid-terms last week, and my advanced basketweaving, history of the hot lunch, and liberal mindcontrol (Obama good, GOP BAAAAAD) exams were kicking my butt!
Agreed. The first movie was well done, even if the end of the movie was very anti-(British)military, but 28 Weeks Later was just poorly done. There was nothing in that movie in the way of military discipline, procedures, or manners. The whole story only worked if you believed the military was totally imcompitent. A circus crew could have set up a better protection zone than the military they showed.
Disney's been disappointing for years now.
I read the book for an English class and I still really don't know what happened CJ. I might try the movie to clear that up. Or maybe not.
I haven't seen the movie either and I agree that I'd like to know more about what they did to make the military guys the bad guys before I get upset, but odds are it's the usual cr..p
Unfortunately, Pearl Harbor was about as historically accurate as The Patriot and as realistic as ID4. Which isn´t good. Both Emmerich and Bay are complete hacks. The difference is that Emmerich started out in the mid-1980s as a wannabe Spielberg/Carpenter/Scott clone (reconstructing a suburban environment as seen in E.T. or Poltergeist in a quarry near Stuttgart, lighting and all). His best ideas were stolen. But these are not bad models and I find him stylistically far superior. Bay seems to have been weaned entirely on MTV videos and ads with the resulting 15 second (on a good day) attention span. Bay´s movies gave me a headache, with the exception of The Island and Transformers. On the other hand, Bay doesn´t have Emmerich´s Germanic bombast and condescension.
Since Movie Bob pointed out your errors, I'll point out your omissions. Bay also did the patriotic Pearl Harbor. Although Ed Harris in The Rock is rogue military, he's presented as a misguided man of honor.
I wasn't defending the quality of the film-making, just supporting the statement that Mr. Bay seems to respect our military, which is appreciated. I do think The Rock is a terrific action movie, but sadly that one good film seems to be all he had in him.
Words cannot describe how much I hated The Patriot, and flag-wavers like me were the target audience.
So, how did you do?
Maybe I should have said "ONE OF my favorite posters" instead.
Thanks for the reply. Sometimes the impression I get around here is "if a movie or TV show shows a soldier doing something even remotely bad, it must be anti-military" without taking into account anything else. Of course, movies like Redacted don't help the cause either. As always, the keyword is "balance."
And this leads to another thing I've been thinking about. While Brisco County and some other posters refer to the mise-en-scene of a film, I'm wondering how conscious some of the filmmakers really are of this stuff. I seriously doubt the writer woke up one morning and said, "I want to portray the military in a bad light!" Of course, if the filmmakers aren't big fans of the military (or the war, or Bush, etc.), I could see how that viewpoint would inform their work, whether they're conscious of it or not. Of course, it's not always appropriate to mention such things, especially if the movie doesn't support it (example: badmouthing Bush in a movie that has nothing to do with him or politics – a.k.a. "the potshot"). But that's all for another, more relevant article.
Hopefully you have beaten some sense into this boyfriend? If not, might I recommend a nine iron?
It´s true, Bay does seem to respect the military more than most (just not so much that he felt compelled to tell their story accurately in Pearl Harbor). Oh well. For all my complaints I´ll stand in line for Transformers 2 just like everybody else.
Yes, The Patriot was a travesty.
[...] and spinning some wheels. Ever see those overviews, where they look down on a room full of toys ‘Witch Mountain’ Remakes The Bad Guy Into The Military – bighollywood.breitbart.com 03/16/2009 by Chuck DeVore The “Race to Witch Mountain” is a [...]
[...] View original post here: ‘Witch Mountain’ Remakes The Bad Guy Into The Military [...]
Oh, fine thank you. Made a nice basket, reguritated liberal mantra, good boy me!
Excellent. We could use more basket-weavers and fewer polticians. Now all you have to do is learn how to weave different colored strands into the baskets so they will sport a nice red, white and blue "O." Then after graduation, you can teach a course entitled "The Politicization of Basket Weaving 101—-How Hemp Freed the Patriarchy to Utilize Their Skills Wisely, Freeing Women to Assume Their Proper Role of Running the Country." It will be in the Department of Women's Studies.
I'd settle for accurate insignia on general officers.
I'm fortunate enough to travel with the history department to Europe this summer and so I have to transgress into Women's Studies dept occasionally. Wow, I thought the island of Lesbos was of the coast of Turkey. It's not! It's in Women's Studies departments on universities around the country.
I'm fortunate enough to travel with the history department to Europe this summer and so I have to transgress into Women's Studies dept occasionally. Wow, I thought the island of Lesbos was of the coast off Turkey. It's not! It's in Women's Studies departments on universities around the country.
I'm fortunate enough to travel with the history department to Europe this summer and so I have to transgress into Women's Studies dept occasionally. Wow, I thought the island of Lesbos was off the coast of Turkey. It's not! It's in Women's Studies departments on universities around the country.
So you're a history major? Mine was American history with emphasis on the growth of the Nineteenth Century American city. Minor, political science (which, like Christian Science, is neither).
LOL!!! For your own personal protection, however, don't ever repeat that on campus! ;-P
After having watched the trailer for "Race to Witch Mountain" I have no desire to go and watch it once it airs on my side of the Atlantic Ocean. I realize it's a kids' movie, but I find no dramatic appeal in it. The stereotypical "military = bad guys" also does not help in that regard, especially as it concerns both sides here, alien and human. The supercool alien kids with their telekinetic, matter-shifting abilities and tech gizzmos also turn me off. It just gives them too much leverage and does not create an atmosphere where it feels like they are truly outclassed, alone and on the run. A more serious approach to the topic might have worked for me. The way it is, it's just green anti-military propaganda hidden in the set of a kids movie.
[...] the screenwriter they’re assigning was involved in the Witch Mountain remake, which, as Big Hollywood argued, was insulting to the US military. One more reason I wouldn’t trust this planned movie [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.