| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Redacted: Difference between revisions
(→Just a question...: new section) |
Spartan198 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
== Just a question... == | == Just a question... == | ||
I have never seen this movie, so I just have one question, why is this movie found to be so offensive? Also, Oliveria above stated that he found Platoon and Casualties of War to be offensive to him as well. Please don't dis on me, I've never seen any of these movies, I'm just curious to know why they are so offensive? | I have never seen this movie, so I just have one question, why is this movie found to be so offensive? Also, Oliveria above stated that he found Platoon and Casualties of War to be offensive to him as well. Please don't dis on me, I've never seen any of these movies, I'm just curious to know why they are so offensive?--Gunner5 | ||
== Please don't hate me... == | |||
First off, I just want to say that I have all the respect in the world for anyone in the military, and appreciate the sacrifices you make. Second, I have never seen this film so I don't know how negative it is to the military. Now (and I know you've hear d it before) do you all seriously need to bash this film, it isn't real. It is one mans view of war and how he believes it affects people in war. If it offends you, just avoid it, bashing on it doesn't help anyone especially yourself. I'm sorry if it offends you, but seriously, constantly bashing it is really childish and extremely unprofessional for a site like this. This site is for the identification of the firearms used in films, not for your hate mail. Go find a forum if you want to talk shit about this movie or any movie that offends you until the day is out, but don't waste your time here, we don't want it and really don't need it. I apologize again if what I have said offends you, I am not defending or attacking this film, I just think that this is the wrong place to argue about this. I repeat, this is a firearms site, not a pro military-red whit and blue-star spangled banner site. | |||
:As I recall, the main issue with this film is that jihadist recruiters show it to people as if it's a documentary. And it's a one-sentence disclaimer, that's hardly constant bashing. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 02:51, 20 January 2015 (EST) | |||
:: Given that you admitted you haven't seen the movie, don't see how you can judge against people that have, nor how you can claim to state what the film's viewpoint is - I haven't seen the movie either, but I'm not blindly defending against criticism of the film for the sake of it (nor am I blindly bashing it for the sake of it, either) and won't make any such comments as you have. As for it 'not being real', being fictional doesn't make a film's content more (or less) acceptable on its own. Furthermore, I don't recall asking you, let alone appointing you, to inform me or anyone else on here as to what 'we' on this site want. <br>Now, people are perfectly entitled to their own personal opinions, no matter how negative or harsh, to any piece of media we document here. I will grant you are right that this is hardly the most appropriate place to state such opinions, but they do happen from time to time and on a minor level I don't see the problem with that. In regards to this film, the large amount of criticism of the film has already been said to be to some extent inappropriate, and as far as I can tell, it concluded and that was that - Best I can tell, no one has made any further remarks about the film here. Aside from you. I agree with Tim, the main page is still as professional as any on the site (perhaps even more so than some). The single-statement disclaimer is hardly an all-out attack on the film - It was, as stated, the best possible compromise in regard to some members' views of the film, and is perfectly fine with me. In addition, I've seen other disclaimer-type statements on other films, so I don't see this page being anything particularly special. <br> As for your remarks, all I see here is someone bashing on other people without warrant for comments made years ago on a subject you have admitted to know nothing about. I'm not saying you're wrong, but frankly, your ire has long been moot. If all you wanted to do was to take it upon yourself to arbitrarily tell off other people for comments given and decisions made before you even registered on here, that to my mind, is something that is not needed. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 19:20, 20 January 2015 (EST) | |||
== I really feel bad for the technical advisor(s) and armorer(s) on this film == | |||
Many advisors and armorers are ex-military (Harry Humphries and Dale Dye, to name a couple examples), so I can imagine the ones working on this movie probably fought and fought to keep from pounding De Palma's face into mush. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 19:11, 21 May 2017 (EDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:11, 21 May 2017
What the hell, I thought this was a professional encyclopedic site, to hell with this crap. You guys are children who can't handle a fictional film. I'm sick of the bias on this site, when John Wayne flinches it's a "nice touch of realism" when Mel Gibson does it he's a "chump" and "punk," christ, the worst part of being a gun owner is the other gun owners. You guys want to live in some fantasy world where wearing a uniform means you can do no wrong, be my guest.--Toadvine 21:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
GunMaster45 did an excellent job with the disclaimer, since this is such an insulting film to current and former veterans, that many don't even want to acknowledge it's existence. The next ASSHAT who removes or disparages this disclaimer will either get a tonguelashing from me (Especially those who either never served their country in uniform or are from a foreign country) or a ban if they persist. This was the best compromise and it satisfied people who are deeply offended by this film. MoviePropMaster2008 03:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just to tell you something MPM, this movie offended me too. So did Platoon and Casualties of War. I'm going to Serve the United States when i start to live there. I completely understand the bullshit Oliver Stone and his buddy De Palma are spitting out. Like i said, they are bullshit. They are horrible movies even if they weren't hippie propaganda. I removed the disclaimer because we have various pro-hippie movies on this site. This movie, along with Platoon and Casualties of War is Fictional. They are Made up bullshit that the AMPAS and other retarded movie "academys" eat up. Besides, who the hell would think we support De Palma and his bullshit crusade pf filmmaking against the US Military? We are historians, gun nuts and conservatives. Anyone with a Brain knows we don't support this crap. Also, just because some people aren't from America, doesn't mean they don't know shit about the United States. A lot of times, people that weren't born in the United States, understand more about American than a lot of Americans themselves. Remember that.-Oliveira 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Platoon wasn't so bad, mainly because Stone was there [and decorated for it, in fact] and couldn't bring himself to outright say the guys he'd fought alongside were evil. You want a really and truly, totally insane hippie propaganda, try any of Tom Laughlin's Billy Jack movies or any time someone was stupid enough to let Seagal near a director's chair. Vangelis 15:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- At least those are more pro-peace movies with Kung Fu moves and guns mixed in. Which is insane and totally hipocrital by the way and less Fuck the Troops anarchy bullshit.-Oliveira 15:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Platoon wasn't as offensive since it was based in real life incidents that Stone himself witnessed, plus the overall film wasn't an indictment against the entire U.S. military. It also was filmed some 12-13 years after we pulled out so there was no risk of backlash or violence against OUR forces, something DePalma doesn't realize. Casualties of War was again based on a real life incident and it again was made YEARS after the end of the war. Redacted is NOT, though it is loosely based on an actual incident, but we are still involved in that conflict and it is ridiculously irresponsible to foment hatred and violence against our own people during time of war. These are technically NOT pro hippie movies, or at least guys who are WAY OLDER THAN YOU don't see them that way. This was exceptionally offensive and I HAVE served, not just 'intend to serve when I get old enough' so take it from me. There is a vehement animosity against this film. So speak your peace. I'm glad you intend to serve the U.S. But don't fuck with the disclaimer on this particular movie. MPM20008
- Platoon wasn't so bad, mainly because Stone was there [and decorated for it, in fact] and couldn't bring himself to outright say the guys he'd fought alongside were evil. You want a really and truly, totally insane hippie propaganda, try any of Tom Laughlin's Billy Jack movies or any time someone was stupid enough to let Seagal near a director's chair. Vangelis 15:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- You are gonna pull the Age Call, man? Shit. And those movies are hippie bullshit. Code Pink and the Like parade those around like they are goddam masterpieces of truth. and journalism. I ain't gonna fuck with the disclaimer.
- Talk to me after you've pulled your DD-214. Your view of Redacted may have changed regarding it's potential to harm and offend. And some Nam Vets were offended back in the 1980s, but I know of NO Vets that are raging against those films (platoon, casualties of war) now. They're so 1980s. And yes, but Code Pink doesn't have a MOVIE on imfdb. :) MPM2008
- I hate Platoon and the like because they disperse misinformation. Especially in countries other than America. For Example, Here in Brazil, there are Two types of people that that know about the Vietnam War:
1. They don't know about, Don't know it happened or Doesn't care about. 2. Knows about it.
The ones that know about think shit went down in Vietnam Like in Platoon with War Crimes commited by the US all over the place. Think that ALL US troops were addicted to drugs. Most don't know shit about the South Vietnamise and the Other Foreign armys that fought in the War. If they don't think like that then they are like me, they understand what happened. They are mostly Teachers and historians but there are a few that are young like me that know about stuff.-Oliveira 20:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, but come on, every character in Platoon is a US soldier, good or bad. They don't all take drugs. They don't all commit war crimes. You can't blame Stone for what stupid people see in his movie. It's not like, say, Tigerland where the directors outright said the psychotic recruit was the "kind of guy the Army wanted" because he'd be good at killing. Because, you know, a psycho would be perfect for filling out after-action reports or standing in a guard box all day or any of the myriad other duties a soldier has that don't involve shooting everyone he doesn't like, friend or foe. Vangelis 20:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's a good argument there, Vangelis. Of course, my Platoon DVD doesn't have the DVD commentary so he may say that shit we see in the Movie was kinda of bullshit. Who knows. I still hate the movie because if i have to Listen to Adagio for Springs again, i'm blowning my fucking head off.-Oliveira 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- And incidentally on what you said about the Billy Jack movies earlier; in The Trial of Billy Jack, Laughlin seriously suggested that the My Lai massacre was ordered by Washington. Say what you like about Stone, at least he lives in approximately the same reality as the rest of us. Vangelis 20:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh....Seriously? I read the Plot of the second Billy Jack movie and i though it was like i said. Equality and Free Love mixed in with Kung Fu and Guns. Now that...that...i...i just don't know.-Oliveira 20:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- http://jabootu.net/?p=647 is Ken Begg sitting through the whole thing. Among other things, Laughlin suggested that, plus that campus shootings during that era were officially endorsed and considered of entire national guard squads firing repeatedly at students, resulting in a scene so ridiculously manipulative it's hard to describe it with a straight face. They shoot a one armed boy. While he's clutching a bunny rabbit and trying to protect his burro.
No, I did not make that up. They might as well have been shown to be commanded by Megatron and Skeletor. Vangelis 21:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- http://jabootu.net/?p=647 is Ken Begg sitting through the whole thing. Among other things, Laughlin suggested that, plus that campus shootings during that era were officially endorsed and considered of entire national guard squads firing repeatedly at students, resulting in a scene so ridiculously manipulative it's hard to describe it with a straight face. They shoot a one armed boy. While he's clutching a bunny rabbit and trying to protect his burro.
- That's a good argument there, Vangelis. Of course, my Platoon DVD doesn't have the DVD commentary so he may say that shit we see in the Movie was kinda of bullshit. Who knows. I still hate the movie because if i have to Listen to Adagio for Springs again, i'm blowning my fucking head off.-Oliveira 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's....That is....That is just INSANE. Holy Shit. Now Platoon seems Slightly better. Jesus. I'm sure De Palma and the Code Pink assholes would believe that shit.-Oliveira 21:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I find it funny how you describe "Casualties of War" as "bullshit hippie propaganda" even though it only describes an incident comitted by US troops, told from a US war veteran. I mean, after all you can't deny that there were war crimes in Vietnam, at both sides; and I think one thing the United States is standing for is free speech and free criticizing--WhiteSlift 21:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
when i saw this film in on DVD in the shops i thought it looked like a good action film with guns and explosions like hurt locker. thought that without reading the back. i saw it on TV (on at like 1 in the morning on channel 30-something). i was shocked and couldnt beleive this could be made. the climax-ish part with salazar made me feel physicaly sick. it was horrible. see i liked platoon and it was made after the war had endded. this war is still going on and things like this do occour .--Smish34 21:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Why is this disclaimer here? Were people calling for this page to be deleted just because they don't like the movie? Who is this disclaimer aimed at? BurtReynoldsMoustache
Casualties of War, but set in Iraq
Hah! Just watched this movie, and realized that it's pretty much Casualties of War but set in Iraq. You've got a normal group of generally un-homicidal soldiers except for a few who are basically Trombley from GK. Then a beloved comrade is killed in an ambush, they basically go homicidal rapist and hunt down the girl and her family as revenge. The big bad army tries to cover up the crime but in the end, justice is served! Yay!
Seriously now, it's way too political. DePalma does basically the exact same thing he did in Casualties of War; suggest that the war is responsible for these soldiers behavior. That's offensive bullshit. People who rape in the military are just like civilians who rape. It's not the army or an unjust war, it's just sickos who would have done it military or not. DePalma's just trying to insert his antiwar message and he shoves it down our throat. And you know what else is hilarious! That ending montage, one of the photos is from the movie. DePalma actually uses a photo from a fictional incident in his movie as "proof" of the heartlessness of the US military. How can he expect anyone to take him seriously after that? -- Crackshot 10:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Intro
I noticed that this page doesn't have an intro ("<insert film> is a <insert year> film starring <actor>, <actor> and <actor>.") Why not just incorporate any objections into the intro? --Funkychinaman 15:27, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
Page locked
I noticed that the Type 56 is under the "Kalashnikov variants". I would not call it a "variant", and I am pretty sure neither would Lieutenant General Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov. And since the page is locked, someone with access should move the AKM and the Type 56 apart. Thx. bozitojugg3rn4ut 16:22, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
- I locked it to keep from having to undo someone else's edits. It will be unlocked later. --Predator20 17:00, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
Correction needed
The laser module on the second pic of an M4 is a AN/PAQ-4 visible laser. It's too small to be a PEQ-2. Spartan198 23:23, 17 June 2011 (CDT)
Challenger
Since this was filmed in Jordan, most likely it's a local al-Hussein rather than a British Chally. They're got about four hundred of them. Evil Tim 01:52, 3 April 2012 (CDT)
Just a question...
I have never seen this movie, so I just have one question, why is this movie found to be so offensive? Also, Oliveria above stated that he found Platoon and Casualties of War to be offensive to him as well. Please don't dis on me, I've never seen any of these movies, I'm just curious to know why they are so offensive?--Gunner5
Please don't hate me...
First off, I just want to say that I have all the respect in the world for anyone in the military, and appreciate the sacrifices you make. Second, I have never seen this film so I don't know how negative it is to the military. Now (and I know you've hear d it before) do you all seriously need to bash this film, it isn't real. It is one mans view of war and how he believes it affects people in war. If it offends you, just avoid it, bashing on it doesn't help anyone especially yourself. I'm sorry if it offends you, but seriously, constantly bashing it is really childish and extremely unprofessional for a site like this. This site is for the identification of the firearms used in films, not for your hate mail. Go find a forum if you want to talk shit about this movie or any movie that offends you until the day is out, but don't waste your time here, we don't want it and really don't need it. I apologize again if what I have said offends you, I am not defending or attacking this film, I just think that this is the wrong place to argue about this. I repeat, this is a firearms site, not a pro military-red whit and blue-star spangled banner site.
- As I recall, the main issue with this film is that jihadist recruiters show it to people as if it's a documentary. And it's a one-sentence disclaimer, that's hardly constant bashing. Evil Tim (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2015 (EST)
- Given that you admitted you haven't seen the movie, don't see how you can judge against people that have, nor how you can claim to state what the film's viewpoint is - I haven't seen the movie either, but I'm not blindly defending against criticism of the film for the sake of it (nor am I blindly bashing it for the sake of it, either) and won't make any such comments as you have. As for it 'not being real', being fictional doesn't make a film's content more (or less) acceptable on its own. Furthermore, I don't recall asking you, let alone appointing you, to inform me or anyone else on here as to what 'we' on this site want.
Now, people are perfectly entitled to their own personal opinions, no matter how negative or harsh, to any piece of media we document here. I will grant you are right that this is hardly the most appropriate place to state such opinions, but they do happen from time to time and on a minor level I don't see the problem with that. In regards to this film, the large amount of criticism of the film has already been said to be to some extent inappropriate, and as far as I can tell, it concluded and that was that - Best I can tell, no one has made any further remarks about the film here. Aside from you. I agree with Tim, the main page is still as professional as any on the site (perhaps even more so than some). The single-statement disclaimer is hardly an all-out attack on the film - It was, as stated, the best possible compromise in regard to some members' views of the film, and is perfectly fine with me. In addition, I've seen other disclaimer-type statements on other films, so I don't see this page being anything particularly special.
As for your remarks, all I see here is someone bashing on other people without warrant for comments made years ago on a subject you have admitted to know nothing about. I'm not saying you're wrong, but frankly, your ire has long been moot. If all you wanted to do was to take it upon yourself to arbitrarily tell off other people for comments given and decisions made before you even registered on here, that to my mind, is something that is not needed. StanTheMan (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2015 (EST)
- Given that you admitted you haven't seen the movie, don't see how you can judge against people that have, nor how you can claim to state what the film's viewpoint is - I haven't seen the movie either, but I'm not blindly defending against criticism of the film for the sake of it (nor am I blindly bashing it for the sake of it, either) and won't make any such comments as you have. As for it 'not being real', being fictional doesn't make a film's content more (or less) acceptable on its own. Furthermore, I don't recall asking you, let alone appointing you, to inform me or anyone else on here as to what 'we' on this site want.
I really feel bad for the technical advisor(s) and armorer(s) on this film
Many advisors and armorers are ex-military (Harry Humphries and Dale Dye, to name a couple examples), so I can imagine the ones working on this movie probably fought and fought to keep from pounding De Palma's face into mush. Spartan198 (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2017 (EDT)