DoomedMantis
Posts: 1922
Joined: 8/24/2002 From: Sydney, Australia Status: offline
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rbrunsman [B]Just my two cents but, as long as you keep out the idiotic "love interest" in a war movie then it won't be that bad of a movie. Pearl Harbor was made that much worse because of the "love interest." . [/B][/QUOTE] How true, there is so much emphasis on love interests in movies these days that it distracts from the real issues (that is that this is meant to be a war movie). Every time I see a love scene in a war movie I want to throwup. If I wanted to see that then I would go with my wife and see one of those movies that are catered for that. How many times have you read a good book, then gone to see the movie and seen that they have deviated massively usually by adding that love interest that wasn't there. By trying to please everybody you end up pleasing nobody. People don't watch war movies for the love interest. They watch it because it either has a good story line or it is a war film. By trying to appeal to our (usually female) other half by putting in the love part doesn't fool anyone. We get pissed off because of something in the film detracting from it, and they are only there because we are, because they know that if they see this one with us they can drag us along to one of their girlie moves - or at least thats how it works for me:D Now if they are making a film where the war is part of the background then that is totally different from a war movie, but then again these are usually marketed this way as well. Obviously the one major exception of course is Pearl which I refused to watch once I saw that it was being marketed as Pearl Harbour - The Love Story, give me a break. Another point while I'm having a gripe is it would be nice to see a movie that hasn't been totally Hollywoodised. Most people (and most probably mostly non US people will know what I mean). Why is it that every time that the US fight in a battle it follows the casualty reports read 3000 bad guys dead 3 US dead, but were the 3 US dead (all usually individullay named) worth the masiive victory that they achieved. I know that I am slightly exagerating here, but probably by not that much. By the way I'm having a go at Hollywood here for trying to make us believe that these odds are not only realistic, but fact - they must take us for fools. It would also be more realistic if Hollywood actually included some of the otehr countries that were involved and didn't change history to suit themselves as well. When basing a movie on historical fact, why is it so hard to stick to the facts. I understand artistic license, but then don't try to convince us that it is real. Right now that I have vent my spleen, I release the floor
_____________________________
I shall make it a felony to drink small beer. - Shakespeare
|