Blackhawk Down... do you feel the movie showed a strong pro-US bias?

[Amused]

Actually, while it showed individuals as heroic, it showed us collectibely as idiots. What a stupid, stupid plan that mission to get Adid was.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
The movie that always bugs me is U-571. I think it's disrespectful to the British.

Don't even get me started on that pile of crap... Not to mention the battle between the destroyer and the sub

 

[nord1899]

Read the book. It contains significant amount of insight from the Somalian perspective. And it also has a very good review of the mission as a whole and what went wrong.

Many people ask why the Somalie's fought us so? Some believed the propaganda that the US had come to spread Christianity and replace Islam there. Some had friends and family killed by the US on previous missions. Some were just fanatical in following the warlords.

What went wrong is a bit more complex. The AC-130 gunship is a hotly contested part. But many people agreed that it would not have helped in any way. The "Little Birds" would have gotten in the way of the AC-130 gunship. And the "Little Birds" were probably more useful. They had a backup plan for one Blackhawk going down, another Blackhawk full of medics, PJ's, etc. But they didn't have a backup plan for two Blackhawks going down. They didn't have any real armor beyond the HUMVEE, but then again, they were a Quick Reaction Force that didn't traditionally use armor.

Read the book, it has a lot more info about the battle as a whole. Including views from the "opposition".

In view of the movie, it did a pretty damn good job of following the book. It did ignore the whole Somali viewpoint that the author of the book did present. But other than that, it was good and factual.

 

[desy]

I think Black hawk down described the event acurately.
I don't think it delved into the politics of the situation or even really tried to.
I read something the director said and that he wasn't trying to debate the right or wrong of the situation but to just try to depict that one event
in Somalia.
So thats it, if you watch the true story of Blackhawk down on A&E or whatever it was they delve into the politics a lot more.

 

[Whitecloak]

the book was excellent. It presented both the somali and american perspectives and their respective motivations.
the movie sucked big time in that respect

 

[MainFramed]

 

[csiro]

How about the movie 'The Patriot', when Mel Gibson stabs the British villian with the American flag. Ugh, American patriotism in the movies I think have gone too far...

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: csiro
How about the movie 'The Patriot', when Mel Gibson stabs the British villian with the American flag. Ugh, American patriotism in the movies I think have gone too far...

I couldn't help but think of the Simpsons episode with Mel Gibson when I saw that.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: csiro
How about the movie 'The Patriot', when Mel Gibson stabs the British villian with the American flag. Ugh, American patriotism in the movies I think have gone too far...

The sad part is, a man who grew up in Australia had to make that movie. No American has made a movie like that in years.

There is nothing wrong with partiotism in movies any more than there is with any other "ism."

 

[BooneRebel]

Of course US movies show a pro-US bias.

OK, everyone:
Movies are entertainment, made to sell tickets. People by tickets for things they like to see. No one is going to buy tickets for something that bashes the US.

Name a US-produced movie that put the US in a bad light....

....Now, compare that movie's box-office receipts to any pro-US flick.

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: csiro
How about the movie 'The Patriot', when Mel Gibson stabs the British villian with the American flag. Ugh, American patriotism in the movies I think have gone too far...

The sad part is, a man who grew up in Australia had to make that movie. No American has made a movie like that in years.

There is nothing wrong with partiotism in movies any more than there is with any other "ism."

Specific to Mel Gibson, I don't think it's "American patriotism" as much as it's anti-British. Look at Braveheart, Gallipoli, etc.. He's got a chip on his shoulder against the British. I seem to recall it having something to do with his dad...

 

[Amused]

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: csiro
How about the movie 'The Patriot', when Mel Gibson stabs the British villian with the American flag. Ugh, American patriotism in the movies I think have gone too far...

The sad part is, a man who grew up in Australia had to make that movie. No American has made a movie like that in years.

There is nothing wrong with partiotism in movies any more than there is with any other "ism."

Specific to Mel Gibson, I don't think it's "American patriotism" as much as it's anti-British. Look at Braveheart, Gallipoli, etc.. He's got a chip on his shoulder against the British. I seem to recall it having something to do with his dad...

Oh, I agree. Still, it IS sad that an American has not made a movie that celebrated our original independence and the ideals behind it in many years.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: csiro
How about the movie 'The Patriot', when Mel Gibson stabs the British villian with the American flag. Ugh, American patriotism in the movies I think have gone too far...

How dare they show American Patriotism in a Movie callled the Patriot about American Patriotism

Regarding "Black Hawk Down"; since it was made in the US for the American Audience I have no problem with there being an American bias. If you want to see it from a Skinny's perspective watch the Somalian version of the Movie "No Food For You!"

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: csiro
How about the movie 'The Patriot', when Mel Gibson stabs the British villian with the American flag. Ugh, American patriotism in the movies I think have gone too far...

How dare they show American Patriotism in a Movie callled the Patriot about American Patriotism

Regarding "Black Hawk Down"; since it was made in the US for the American Audience I have no problem with there being an American bias. If you want to see it from a Skinny's perspective watch the Somalian version of the Movie "No Food For You!"

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa........

 

[GermyBoy]

No, the movie sucked a$$.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: GermyBoy
No, the movie sucked a$$.

And as the Forum expert at sucking ass you are more than qualified to pass that kind of judgement.

 

[novon]

It was definetly pro-US, it was the Delta Team all over again

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: csiro
How about the movie 'The Patriot', when Mel Gibson stabs the British villian with the American flag. Ugh, American patriotism in the movies I think have gone too far...

How dare they show American Patriotism in a Movie callled the Patriot about American Patriotism

Regarding "Black Hawk Down"; since it was made in the US for the American Audience I have no problem with there being an American bias. If you want to see it from a Skinny's perspective watch the Somalian version of the Movie "No Food For You!"

Dead on.

If I wasn't such a burnt out stoner I might have been able to say it so succinctly.

 

[StageLeft]

Of course it did.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Queasy
During the making of the movie, they actually took out a part that directly blamed the Clinton Administration for denying them the use of the AC-130 gunship and armored vehicles during the Black Hawk Down incident.

From what I know, wasn't Clinton being kept more or less in the dark when it came to Somalia? He was being assured that gunships and/or armor was not needed and that it would just make things worse.

I said Clinton Administration not just Clinton.

The gunships may have been a bit much what with the attack helicoptors flying cover (I don't know) but Armored Personnel Carriers could have definitely been used down on the streets.

One thing you must admit is that the person in charge of that position did RESIGN after somalia, he didn't stay is his position. So i would think he realized that he made a huge mistake and seems that his resignation is a half-hearted attempt to apoligize with apoligizing. But i could be to optimistic about that.
But it also shows you that israelies are MORE than justified to use TANKS and heavy armor--for their soldier's protection; also to prevent another somalia, where many soldiers and civilans (israelie and palastinean) could be killed.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Queasy
During the making of the movie, they actually took out a part that directly blamed the Clinton Administration for denying them the use of the AC-130 gunship and armored vehicles during the Black Hawk Down incident.

From what I know, wasn't Clinton being kept more or less in the dark when it came to Somalia? He was being assured that gunships and/or armor was not needed and that it would just make things worse.

I said Clinton Administration not just Clinton.

The gunships may have been a bit much what with the attack helicoptors flying cover (I don't know) but Armored Personnel Carriers could have definitely been used down on the streets.

One thing you must admit is that the person in charge of that position did RESIGN after somalia, he didn't stay is his position. So i would think he realized that he made a huge mistake and seems that his resignation is a half-hearted attempt to apoligize with apoligizing. But i could be to optimistic about that.
But it also shows you that israelies are MORE than justified to use TANKS and heavy armor--for their soldier's protection; also to prevent another somalia, where many soldiers and civilans (israelie and palastinean) could be killed.

A VERY good point!

 

[nord1899]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Queasy
During the making of the movie, they actually took out a part that directly blamed the Clinton Administration for denying them the use of the AC-130 gunship and armored vehicles during the Black Hawk Down incident.

From what I know, wasn't Clinton being kept more or less in the dark when it came to Somalia? He was being assured that gunships and/or armor was not needed and that it would just make things worse.

I said Clinton Administration not just Clinton.

The gunships may have been a bit much what with the attack helicoptors flying cover (I don't know) but Armored Personnel Carriers could have definitely been used down on the streets.

One thing you must admit is that the person in charge of that position did RESIGN after somalia, he didn't stay is his position. So i would think he realized that he made a huge mistake and seems that his resignation is a half-hearted attempt to apoligize with apoligizing. But i could be to optimistic about that.
But it also shows you that israelies are MORE than justified to use TANKS and heavy armor--for their soldier's protection; also to prevent another somalia, where many soldiers and civilans (israelie and palastinean) could be killed.

If you read the book, every person interviewed agreed that the AC-130 gunships would not have helped. The "Little Birds" would have to clear out of the area before the AC-130's could start firing. Then there would be all the civilian casualties as a result of those guns on that plane.
Why would you need real armor, not HUMVEE's, when you are on a supposed humanitarian mission? You shouldn't need tanks and APCs. That was the argument. Also, the Delta Team and the Rangers don't tend to work next to tanks and APCs, the Army and Marines do that, and they had been pulled out by this point.

Basically, the biggest thing in the mission that caused all the problems was the second Blackhawk going down. The mission plan was working, and the contigency plan was in place for a single Blackhawk going down. But not two of them.

That and we didn't inform the UN forces in the area that we were going on a mission and might need back up.

 

[coolVariable]

... aside from the fact that it was just a BAD movie.

 

[tcsenter]

Name a US-produced movie that put the US in a bad light....

Some very popular Vietnam movies have caste the US in a bad light, almost as a bunch of blood thirsty killers who were in Vietnam for no apparent good reason.

I will not speculate about whether this was by intent or unintended effect, but I have my suspicions of certain producers and directors.

When you deliberately avoid giving any kind of perspective of the conflict, for the alleged purpose of "wanting to show the harsh realities of war" without 'taking sides', you not only run the risk of promoting an "antiwar" perception which holds that no cause is worthy enough to fight or die for, but you also run the risk of allowing uninformed members of the audience (which describes most of them) to draw their own distorted conclusions based on factors which are irrelevant to the nature of the conflict such as who appears to be doing most of the killing or dying.

Without attempting to give some perspective of a conflict for the benefit of those who are deficient in the history department, it would be very easy to show the Nazi's as being 'victims' of 'unprovoked US aggression'.

In the absence of any perspective, it simply becomes senseless killing, the audience is likely to conclude the conflict being portrayed (e.g. The Vietnam War) was just 'senseless killing', the audience attempts to find empathy for one side or the other. They will often empathize with which ever side seems NOT to be the aggressor or is suffering the most casualties. In Vietnam, the US - North Vietnamese casualty ratio was about 1:12.

Another line along which audiences will attempt to find empathy is based on the old game of "which one of these doesn't belong". Let's see, asian people 'belonged' there, but whites, hispanics, and blacks didn't. So the US might reasonably be perceived as 'invaders' ergo 'aggressors' because this was not 'our' homeland to defend, regardless of our motives or reasons for being there.