Whatever happened to depth in War movies?
 

Link

So you remember those old movies by Oliver Stone or Stanley Kubrick that explored the psyche of being a soldier? The every day soldier having to face impossible odds, the temptation of drugs on the battlefield, and losing their minds in training?

Ever notice that those types of stories aren't being told today? There's a reason for it. The reason that Michael Bay has such a hard on for the military, the reason that X-Men first class seems more like an ad for Army service, is because the CIA has scripts for good PR campaigns when their name is bad.

I believe that this new "Code" is just like the Hays Code on a government to Hollywood level. There's certain rules to follow if you want the Pentagon's help and you have to follow it for government assistance. So guess who has all of the control for Transformers and why it focuses on the military's boys instead of the robots?

From what Alyona has to say about this, it's all the more intriguing. The Main Stream Miss is talking about the gossip corners of CNN, Fox, and NBC rather than the poverty, hard times, and actual news around the US.

well for the record I doubt transformers would be less military heavy even without this. But yes, since military has to approve the script for the films to have their tech, cant really do anything but romanticize military. Though there are ways around this, all the producers have to do is not show modern day weaponry. Though you know how much people like their "realism"

I don't want to spoil anything for you, but have you ever watched anything else by Michael Haneke?

White ribbon not really a war film as such.

As for the main point- hasn't this pretty much always been the case. Like you refer to Kubrick and Stone- I guess you are referring to Platoon and Apocalypse now. Neither of those used American equipment, they borrowed them from the crazy dictators in the phillipines. Michael Bay should just ring up the Koreans to get stuff for his nextmovie.
The army obviously aren't going to lend their equipment to people making themlook back but if you're a film maker you don't need it.

Apocalypse Now is Coppola, not Kubrick. I assume the reference was rather to Full Metal Jacket.

Brain fart there. But Full metal jacket wasn'tmade with American equipment either- point still stands.
Though the argument couldbe made- this is taxpayer funded equipment, the arts should be able to use it too.

No sir.

There are two kinds of war movies: good war movies apparently made with foreign equipment, and The Delta Force made with whatever the hell, robots? that Chuck Norris dreamed up.

I mean it's not like there weren't a bunch of "bad" war movies back in the day with zero "depth".

Anyway, just watch The Deer Hunter again. Plus it's not like they aren't making movies like that nowadays. There's stuff like Stop-Loss or The Hurt Locker and Green Zone and other crap like that.

Actually Green Zone was heavily anti-Iraq War and anti-CIA but appeared to have all the modern military stuff, so I dunno how that fits into this policy where movies don't get military equipment if they're anti-military.

EDIT: The White Ribbon is unwatchable, and it's not a war movie at all, as Smarty pointed out. People are confused by the synopsis' "pre-WWI German village", it has nothing to do with WWI or any war, it's just telling you the setting.

It's also unwatchable, or at least for me, as I have started watching it three times and have been unable to put up with it.

I really liked White Ribbon for what its worth. But you got to know what you're in for. If you like Chekov I reckon you'd like White ribbon.