• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

Captain Marvel Controversies

Atlictoatl

Powered by the Apocryphal
Validated User
Let’s be clear - the Pentagon and other government organizations can’t actually prevent a movie from being made. They can only prevent a movie from being made with their cooperation.
The article cites movies like Top Gun 2 that were never made because they were so heavily reliant on military cooperation and had "politically controversial aspects of the scripts".

Additionally:
The CIA even sabotaged a planned series of documentaries about their predecessor, the OSS, by having assets at CBS develop a rival production to muscle the smaller studio out of the market. Once this was achieved, the Agency pulled the plug on the CBS series too, ensuring that the activities of the OSS remained safe from public scrutiny.
So it does seem they do have the power to scrub a production, as well as the will to do so.

Thanks for the article link, MeMeMe.
 

Atlictoatl

Powered by the Apocryphal
Validated User
The comments thread for the article also mentions the book Reel Power: Hollywood Cinema and American Supremacy (2010), written by one of the authors of the article (and the book it's based on, National Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood), that discusses other vectors of censorship, "like the disturbing overlap between many entertainment companies like Disney, Universal and Dream Works and corporations involved in weapons manufacturing, like GE and Boeing. (p. 26)"
 

bhu

Professional Cat
RPGnet Member
Validated User
Pretty much! She was a smartass throughout.

Hell, another thing, with all the ranting I was going in expecting the feminism to be far more textual than it actually was. There was indeed lots of feminist subtext, and I'm sure I missed alot, but if there was one political talking point that was placed front and center and handled with the subtlety of a sledgehammer it was refugees and immigration.

I'm honestly puzzled if they genuinely feel more threatened by feminism or if they actually learned that openly showing their racism is not really tolerable...
They learned nothing of the kind. They're throwing hissy fits that the Skrulls, one of "the most evil races in comics" is being "retconned to make people sympathetic to the dangers at our border." They didn't learn 'racism is unacceptable', they came away with "the left will do anything to make monsters seem human, and they're indoctrinating our children."
 

Sankarah

Not Quite a Grognard
RPGnet Member
Validated User
The complainers had me go in with the wrong impression of Carol entirely. I knew she was better than they said, but the way they described her made me think she was stoic and serious. Which is not at all the case! It’s like they have no idea how to read women- or just chose not to.
Doesn't this presume they actually saw the work and thought about it? Because given the review bombing I'm inclined to think they didn't and are just trying to spread hate.
 

Slivo

Registered User
Validated User
The studio could have made Captain Marvel with zero Air Force cooperation by removing a single scene - the one with Carol and Maria walking out of a hangar and up to some F-15s.
And the studio could probably have even kept that scene if they found another country to shoot in with an Air Force that was cool with the script. American made aircraft (especially models from the 80's) are all over the world. Back in the day that's how they ended up filming Iron Eagle with the Israeli Air Force when the USAF balked at the script.

And if you want to avoid cooperating with any Air Force at all -- there are fighters in private hands. I know there's a Canadian corporation operating Alfajets and A-4 Skyhawks. Or they could have used a museum piece/mockup and CGI'd everything else.
 

Leonaru

Taxidermic Owlbear
Validated User
And if you want to avoid cooperating with any Air Force at all -- there are fighters in private hands. I know there's a Canadian corporation operating Alfajets and A-4 Skyhawks. Or they could have used a museum piece/mockup and CGI'd everything else.
I don't think this would have been particularly difficult. From what I remember from the film, we most see fighters in front of a generic hangar, and cockpit shots. No much extensive dogfighting.
 

Narcisista

Social Justice NPC
Validated User
I don't think this would have been particularly difficult. From what I remember from the film, we most see fighters in front of a generic hangar, and cockpit shots. No much extensive dogfighting.
And the two scenes with dogfighting were full CGI.

Regarding Jingoism, the one scene I rolled my eyes was where Carol tell Monica they are on the same team with the prominent shot of the Air Force shirt, but it's easily something I could see a figher pilot do.
 

RedShark92

Registered User
Validated User
I know, right? She's a thoroughly fun-loving person the whole way through.
I really think this mostly comes down to something discussed earlier, which is that this crowd wants this movie to fail so badly that they interpret everything about it in the worst light possible, even when that directly contradicts reality.
 

Kurt McMahon

Academic Ninja
RPGnet Member
Validated User
The comments thread for the article also mentions the book Reel Power: Hollywood Cinema and American Supremacy (2010), written by one of the authors of the article (and the book it's based on, National Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood), that discusses other vectors of censorship, "like the disturbing overlap between many entertainment companies like Disney, Universal and Dream Works and corporations involved in weapons manufacturing, like GE and Boeing. (p. 26)"
I question whether the authors of that book have found much that's either "shocking" or "new". I mean, I guess it could be shocking if you haven't been paying attention. It's certainly not new. The U.S, Army Air Corps collaborated heavily on Wings (1927), the first movie to win an Academy Award for Best Picture.

The Pentagon declining to let the Top Gun 2 filmmakers play with their aircraft and aircraft carriers is not "censorship" by any useful definition of the word. They have no obligation to help. They will do so only if it's in their own self-interest, and they are totally upfront about that:

The following criteria are used to judge the possibility of fully supporting entertainment industry requests.
  • The production must benefit the Department of Defense or otherwise be in the national interest based on the following factors:
  • The production must help increase public understanding of the Armed Forces and the Department of Defense.
  • The production should help Armed Forces recruiting and retention programs.
  • The production must be authentic in its portrayal of persons, places, actual military operations or historical events. Fictional portrayals must depict a feasible interpretation of military life, operations and policies.
  • The production should not appear to condone or endorse activities by private citizens or organizations that are contrary to U.S. Government policy.
  • The producer must agree to sign and abide by the production agreement and DODI5410.16 (you will receive copies of both documents early in your coordination).
  • Military assets requested must be available when required.
That's straight off the web site of Office of the Chief of Public Affairs, Western Region, which is the U.S. Army's liaison to Hollywood. You can easily find similar statements for the other armed services if you're inclined to do so.

The corporate stuff is far more insidious, in my opinion, and extends way beyond anything having to do with the defense industry. At least you can check the credits to see if the film had cooperation from the military. You have no way of knowing if (or what) changes were made to a script to please the corporate overlords.
 
Top Bottom