• 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

Q99

Genderpunk
Staff member
Moderator
RPGnet Member
Validated User
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.
I know one on another forum who actually tried to ‘gotcha’ me by not only saying they’d seen it, but daring me to name any other character traits she had.

People ripped ‘em apart but this person claimed to have both seen the movie and felt confident enough to challenge others on a SF forum over it.

This person I do think was just so up themselves that they didn’t let themselves see anything they didn’t want to and missed a darn good movie they would’ve enjoyed if it weren’t for their hang ups.
 

Atlictoatl

Powered by the Apocryphal
Validated User
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.
Again, the material within the new book that the article references is procured from the exhaustive FOIA requests and research that the authors conducted which reveals that the breadth and depth of Pentagon, CIA, and NSA interference is far larger and more influential than anyone supposed. As the author states in the comments, in response to someone asking, "In what parallel naïveté universe was this unknown?" ... "If you can point me to anyone else who has recently shown that the Pentagon works on hundreds, if not thousands, of episodes of TV and precise details of how they censor and rewrite scripts for political reasons then go ahead. Because from my experience a lot of people claim that Hollywood is the Pentagon/CIA’s propaganda machine, but no one else compiled the breadth and depth of evidence Matt and I have put together."

Further commentary on what is exceptional about their research: "I’m not denying other people have written on this subject — we reference a lot of their books in our book. But no one else followed up, filed hundreds of FOIA requests, got thousands of documents, read them all and then presented their findings like we did. [...] The substantive point is this: Since Robb, no one has published an extensive, up to date expose on how the government rewrites movies. Others have written about the DOD-Hollywood connection, but not like this. You mention Roger Stahl, whose book on this topic is very good but I imagine even he’d admit we took it a couple of steps further. That’s why the three of us are now working on a documentary." Scholars on this topic don't find the actual data to be broadly common knowledge nor inconsequential.

It seems there are many who are quick to confront this information with, "yeah, we already knew this, quelle surprise" when the point is that nobody knew either the scope or the full degree of the rewriting/blocking behavior, because nobody had previously done the full research.

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:
As the author of the article and book refutes in the comments: "The film-makers pay for access to these assets (for Transformers, for example, they paid over $600,000 to the Pentagon). Why should they also have to submit their script for approval? That’s what makes it censorship, rather than just part of the creative process." The author goes on to make an analogy in another comment: "It’s much more like hiring a billboard from a conglomerate who owns McDonalds and using it to promote healthy eating. If the conglomerate refused to let you do that, even after you’d paid for it, that would be censorship." I'll add that these military assets belong to the people of the US. We paid for them. The filmmakers are paying for access to assets for a period of time, effectively taking them out of rotation, etc. Were this a private company, then it should perhaps not be criticized for wanting script approval for access to its facilities, etc. (Though the author refutes this, as abovel). But the military is not a private company. It is part of government and publicly funded. There should certainly be allowances made for state secrets and the like, but one of the purposes of a strong citizenry is to police abuses by government, and the authors of this book assert that the military should not be censoring scripts because they don't like their contents. I, and others, agree.

Your comments also fail to address the evidence of the CIA sabotaging a documentary about the OSS by developing a rival production that "muscled" the smaller studio out of the market, then scrapping the asset they created, effectively canceling any production on the subject. That's pretty clearly heavy-handed obstruction with the purpose of censoring information from getting to the public.
 

Law Orc

Quasi-Possum
Staff member
Moderator
RPGnet Member
Validated User

Moderator Text:

At this point the conversation about military cooperation or lack thereof in movies is pretty off-topic. Take it to a different thread.
 

SunlessNick

Mildly Darkened One
Banned
Validated User
I know one on another forum who actually tried to ‘gotcha’ me by not only saying they’d seen it, but daring me to name any other character traits she had.
Well let's see. She's got good deadpan snark - in action as well as words - it's not a coincidence that she stole that guy's bike, and I bet she smiled when she did it. She's brave, sometimes in a slightly arrogant way. She's determined as all get out. She loves her powers. She doesn't hold things in - what Yon-Rogg mistakes for being too emotional - but also being kinda terrible at being covert. She's wholehearted when it comes to karaoke. It's not really a character trait per se, but she totally does rock the grunge look. She's willing to face when she's been wrong.
 

Sankarah

Not Quite a Grognard
RPGnet Member
Validated User
Well let's see. She's got good deadpan snark - in action as well as words - it's not a coincidence that she stole that guy's bike, and I bet she smiled when she did it. She's brave, sometimes in a slightly arrogant way. She's determined as all get out. She loves her powers. She doesn't hold things in - what Yon-Rogg mistakes for being too emotional - but also being kinda terrible at being covert. She's wholehearted when it comes to karaoke. It's not really a character trait per se, but she totally does rock the grunge look. She's willing to face when she's been wrong.
IOW, pretty dang cool!
 

Q99

Genderpunk
Staff member
Moderator
RPGnet Member
Validated User
Well let's see. She's got good deadpan snark - in action as well as words - it's not a coincidence that she stole that guy's bike, and I bet she smiled when she did it. She's brave, sometimes in a slightly arrogant way. She's determined as all get out. She loves her powers. She doesn't hold things in - what Yon-Rogg mistakes for being too emotional - but also being kinda terrible at being covert. She's wholehearted when it comes to karaoke. It's not really a character trait per se, but she totally does rock the grunge look. She's willing to face when she's been wrong.
Nice. The list I ended up giving overlapped with, but was different, than that. Mine was the deadpan angle (which Fury picks up on more as they get to know each other) and her as a caring parent-esque figure to Monica and all the signs of that.

In terms of first-movie types, Carol's pretty well-rounded! And all that without really getting to see her downtime.
 

SunlessNick

Mildly Darkened One
Banned
Validated User
Mine was the deadpan angle (which Fury picks up on more as they get to know each other) and her as a caring parent-esque figure to Monica and all the signs of that.
Which was evident even before Carol remembered Monica, as she tried to be gentle about "not being" who Monica thinks.
 

Capellan

Member
RPGnet Member
Validated User
Literally the only thing I can find to complain about the film is that we didn't get a
Spoiler: Show
"Monica gets powers"

credits scene. And I fully recognise that this is a totally nerdy and pointless thing to complain about :)
 

Q99

Genderpunk
Staff member
Moderator
RPGnet Member
Validated User
Literally the only thing I can find to complain about the film is that we didn't get a
Spoiler: Show
"Monica gets powers"

credits scene. And I fully recognise that this is a totally nerdy and pointless thing to complain about :)
Spoiler: Show
Monica would wreck so much stuff if she got her powers now instead of when she's older ^^
 
Top Bottom