Posted: 9/23/2009 8:43:57 PM EDT
| Some people at work were talking about it today, they were saying that it was pretty good. They were also saying that it was realistic but the ones saying that were never in the military. How realistic is it? I hate military movies that try to be real but there are so many inconsistances. |
|
Just remember that it's a narrow perspective that's further filtered through a Rolling Stone journalist's eyes and mind.
It's something like if Bama-Shooter attended a kennel club dog show and then wrote a post about his experience there. (This comment refers to the book.) |
|
Quoted: Just remember that it's a narrow perspective that's further filtered through a Rolling Stone journalist's eyes and mind. It's something like if Bama-Shooter attended a kennel club dog show and then wrote a post about his experience there. I'm pretty sure that Rudy played himself and helped direct/write the thing. Not the reporter. |
|
Quoted:
What was that "interrogative" thing they said before every question they asked on the radio? Never heard it so much before, is that realistic? I think it means they were asking a question. ETA:and yes, Rudy does play himself in the series, and I'm sure he had much input with the directors. The biggest thing I took away from the series is that there are some real fucktards in positions they shouldn't be in (Encino Man, Captain America) in our armed forces, but of course, you can find that in all areas of life. |
|
Quoted: What was that "interrogative" thing they said before every question they asked on the radio? Never heard it so much before, is that realistic? Sometimes you can't make out how someone is talking (posing a question), he's specifying beforehand so they know that he's -asking- something. Just asked a buddy who's DASC in the USMC, that was his quick answer. |
|
horrible tactics link
This is the absolute "Spot 15 things wrong" clip EVER! Between the "Call for fire" of the Mk-19, to abandoning the up guns in an ambush, there is nothing realistic in this clip. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What was that "interrogative" thing they said before every question they asked on the radio? Never heard it so much before, is that realistic? Sometimes you can't make out how someone is talking (posing a question), he's specifying beforehand so they know that he's -asking- something. Just asked a buddy who's DASC in the USMC, that was his quick answer. Right, I understand the purpose, but just thought it odd that they said it almost every time they asked a question. |
|
If BoB had been filmed in 1948 and a couple of the real men in Easy Co. had either played themselves,Reyes,or were an adviser and oddly played someone else,Kocher, I bet the same criticisms would be aired about it IRT realism.The real Sgt.Espera commented that watching the series caused him to blur television and his own memories.That should tell you that the Marines it portrayed found it a close enough telling.
I think some people didn't or don't want to hear some of the uglier realities and would prefer to rewrite or ignore some aspects.For example,it's pretty easy to imagine how up in arms people would be if Babe Heffron was shown masturbating because the Greatest Generation would never do such a thing.OTOH,the guys in GK will never be able to remove certain things that are known about them.Would you,if you were to be Trombley's kid in the future,want to know exactly what your dad did in the war? |
|
Quoted:
How realistic is it? I hate military movies that try to be real but there are so many inconsistances. There's a guy at work who was in Marine Recon in Iraq. He wasn't there during OIF as portrayed in Generation Kill, but in al-Anbar around 2006-2007. I wanted to know how realistic Generation Kill was too, so I asked him if he wanted to watch the DVD's I rented. He wasn't interested, which disappointed me because I was curious what a guy in Recon would have thought of the production. Oh, he wasn't just some dude at work I knew had been in Iraq. We had gone out drinking, gone camping together with our girlfriends, so it wasn't like he declined because he didn't know me. |
|
I just looked at the amazon reviews for the book, and they tend to support what I said, including a couple reviews by 1st recon personnel. It's not so much that Evan Wright gets a lot of stuff wrong, but that he doesn't understand basic aspects of military life, so he takes all the bitching as pure, objective, gospel, and fails to grasp the fact that low level enlisted guys have a limited perspective and relatively little authority.
The best example concerns the 1st recon review that says that Wright betrayed them by misquoting and taking comments out of context and such. You and I take that review with a huge grain of salt, knowing that almost any journalist will write up a story that only vaguely resembles our expectations. Evan Wright, however, would take that review at face value, and craft a several paragraph section on how the embed program is a failure due to the disconnect between media and military personnel. And that's just absurd to anyone who's ever seen a soldier or marine talk about a reporter. Wright takes NO comments with a grain of salt, and does little external research. So, it's a strange read. Almost the opposite of Stephen Ambrose or Mark Bowden. Spectacle over content. Not terrible, just weird. The miniseries may well be better, as content doesn't usually translate well to TV, and particularly if Wright was less involved in the production. |
|
Quoted: I just looked at the amazon reviews for the book, and they tend to support what I said, including a couple reviews by 1st recon personnel. It's not so much that Evan Wright gets a lot of stuff wrong, but that he doesn't understand basic aspects of military life, so he takes all the bitching as pure, objective, gospel, and fails to grasp the fact that low level enlisted guys have a limited perspective and relatively little authority. The best example concerns the 1st recon review that says that Wright betrayed them by misquoting and taking comments out of context and such. You and I take that review with a huge grain of salt, knowing that almost any journalist will write up a story that only vaguely resembles our expectations. Evan Wright, however, would take that review at face value, and craft a several paragraph section on how the embed program is a failure due to the disconnect between media and military personnel. And that's just absurd to anyone who's ever seen a soldier or marine talk about a reporter. Wright takes NO comments with a grain of salt, and does little external research. So, it's a strange read. Almost the opposite of Stephen Ambrose or Mark Bowden. Spectacle over content. Not terrible, just weird. The miniseries may well be better, as content doesn't usually translate well to TV, and particularly if Wright was less involved in the production. I haven't read the book, but in the mini series, "Hitman" sits down with the reporter before he ships home for a little heart to heart, and basically says exactly what you're saying. |
|
Ya'll need to watch the BR "extra's" where they have a round table discussion with many of the real Marines characterized in both the book and movie. They all express the opinion that the movie was pretty much spot-on to what they experienced. That being said, GySgt Wynn (SNCO with 1stLt Fick) took pains to make clear he thought the officer depiction in both the movie and book was for the most part unfair, exaggerated, and fictionalized for sensational purposes. None of the other Marines disagreed.
As a member of said officer corps, I can tell you I served with some jack-ass officers, but none as incompetent as portrayed in the movie. The vast majority of the Marine Officers I served with, and under, were professional, dedicated, and had more than a modicum of common sense. Junior Marines bitching about officers (and the decisions they make) is nothing new. It is simply the inability of the micro level operator to understand the macro level picture. |