Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hollywood tiptoes around terror
ny daily news ^ | 7/18/05 | john leo

Posted on 07/18/2005 3:32:19 PM PDT by rang1995

Hollywood tiptoes around terror

David Koepp, who wrote the screenplay for "War of the Worlds," says the Martian attackers in the film represent the American military, while the Americans being slaughtered at random represent Iraqi civilians. I see it differently. I think the Martians symbolize normal Americans, while those being attacked are the numbskulls who run Hollywood. Perhaps the normals went a bit too far in this easy-to-understand allegory, but think of the provocation.

Koepp made the "there-is-no-Internet" mistake, carefully masking his analysis in U.S. interviews, but saying it flat-out in Rue Morgue, an obscure Canadian horror magazine, which he apparently thought nobody would notice.

But as the movie makes clear, once the normals begin to track you with their newfangled technology, there is no escape. They can find you even in Canada.

Hollywood has grown eye-poppingly angry with the rest of the country, mostly over Bush and Iraq, but partly, at least, because the left-coasters apparently thought they were somehow entitled to a string of Democratic Presidents after Clinton.

"There is a tremendous drive in Hollywood to exculpate Islamofascist terrorists," columnist Michael Medved says. No movie has been made about the terrorists since 9/11, nothing on Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Daniel Pearl, Saddam Hussein, the USS Cole, the embassy attacks, the daring and impressive attempts to track down terrorists. Nothing.

Not even a movie about heroic action after 9/11 - the firemen who ran upstairs to their deaths to save others in the twin towers, the people who drove all night from Texas and the South to help New Yorkers cope with the disaster.

But wait. Help is on the way. Hollywood is still reluctant to irritate terrorists, but a few movies about 9/11 heroes are on the way.

And whom did Paramount pick for the highest-profile one? Oliver Stone, the unhinged director/screenwriter who refers to 9/11 as a justified "revolt" against the established order and the six companies he thinks control the world.

At a panel after 9/11, Stone said that the Palestinians who danced at the news of the attack were reacting just as people responded after the revolutions in France and Russia.

He thinks 9/11 may have unleashed as much creative energy as the birth of Einstein.

Internet commentators are going berserk over the idea of a wacky pro-terrorist paranoid directing the first big 9/11 movie. It will focus on two American heroes, not terrorists.

But it could well turn out badly. Besides, why pick Stone? What can be done about the Hollywood brain? And where are those Martian attackers when you really need them?

Originally published on July 18, 2005


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 911; americahaters; bushhaters; hollyweird; hollywood; hollywoodleftists; oliverstone; sorelosers; terror; waroftheworlds
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last
i cant believe the WAR OF THE WORLDS writer said that (i can) wow
1 posted on 07/18/2005 3:32:24 PM PDT by rang1995
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rang1995
Koepp, a hack screenwriter extraordinarre, is pandering to the international market. There's nothing in the film itself that would put it in any particular political camp. It's funny they quote Michael Medved here since he liked WOTW.
2 posted on 07/18/2005 3:38:29 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rang1995

Great, I haven't seen the movie, and now I'm not going to.


3 posted on 07/18/2005 3:40:14 PM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rang1995
Ain't Ntuhin, and I mean NUTHING even the color Blue about Steven "Drops-Boy-Scouts-Support-for-'Fag'-Support" Spielberg.

If he, or any of his screenwriters, producers, friends, actors/actresses, think that they are legit Americans...

We better pray that them Holly'wierds' invent an actual Time Machine first, so as to send themselves back in time to Any of our US war periods[ i.e., Pre-Vietnam War]...

...so that they can na'er return.

4 posted on 07/18/2005 3:43:37 PM PDT by ExcursionGuy84 ("I will Declare the Beauty of The LORD.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rang1995
I went and saw the movie on Saturday, and I was sorry I did. Absolute crap. My wife wanted to see it, so we went even though I'm not fond of Spielberg stuff.

Usually she's upbeat about most movies, but even she said it was a bad movie. Bad plot, bad dialog, bad acting, etc. It's a movie that never gets where it should be going, starts with people running scared, and never gets beyond that. No heroics, that would be a bad thing in their mind.

One guy (out of all the people in the movie) wants to fight back against the evil Martians aith a gun, and they portray him as a madman and Cruise ends up killing the sap. Cruise's son wants to join up with some soldiers to fight back, and Cruise is desperately trying to convince him that's wrong.

Hollyweird is wondering why people aren't bothering with going to the movies. But they're not listening to true Americans who are fed up with their crappy subliminal messages (and bad movies).

5 posted on 07/18/2005 3:45:26 PM PDT by roadcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExcursionGuy84

Actually Spielberg is a great American artist who has given millions of dollars to charity.


6 posted on 07/18/2005 3:45:29 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rang1995

Another stupid Hollyweird type opens his pie hole. The Hollyweird moguls don't seem to get it that most Americans are turned off by the offal that comes out on film these days.

BTW, when Tom Clancy wrote the Sum of All Fears the villains were Muslims. When the movie came out the villains had suddenly morphed into blond blue-eyed Norgwegians (my apologies to any Norwegian Freepers) or something like that. Another example of Hollyweird not getting it.


7 posted on 07/18/2005 3:45:42 PM PDT by billnaz (What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roadcat

Have you read the novel? There are no heroics in 'War of the Worlds'! This movie was quite faithful to the tone and spirit of the Wells text.


8 posted on 07/18/2005 3:46:29 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Borges
No, I haven't read the book. I was comparing the movie to the original from the 1950's. In that movie, Gene Barry was heroic, trying to organize a fight against the Martians. And there was a romance plot between him and a woman, quite absent from the new movie which portrays a dysfunctional divorced family.

Besides that, the new movie was plain stupid. The Martians supposedly buried thousands of ships underground a million years ago (conveniently in the cities we built later), and come back and pop into them in order to attack us? If they were here a million years ago, they would still be here and we wouldn't. And they would have terraformed the Earth to their liking back then (something they are trying to do in the movie present-day). And we never discovered a single ship, despite building lots of skyscrapers in the cities (we dig pretty deep for them, and it would be stupid to bury the Martian ships too deep). Also, our military is lobbing ordnance at the head of the tri-pod Martian ships, to no effect. Hello, blow out the earth under their legs and they crash to the ground!

Real bad logic in this movie.

9 posted on 07/18/2005 3:59:02 PM PDT by roadcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: roadcat
This movie wasn't a remake of the 1953 version but an adaptation of the novel. The points you make about plot holes don't really apply to this movie which is concerned with nothing more then generating tension. The novel doesn't give any information about the aliens either except that they were from Mars. The novel and this movie version are about the societal collapse and sheer terror that comes from some massive calamity. It succeeds on that front. The technological details and logical gaps are largely irrelevant in this dream like context. Much less so then they were in a 'Who-Done-It' like Minority Report.
10 posted on 07/18/2005 4:04:21 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Borges

I'm sorry, weren't we talking about this new movie, and not about the novel? Are you an apologist for Spielberg and liberal Hollyweird anti-Americans? After all, they're the ones who want to see a societal collapse and sheer terror that would come about from electing a Democrat to the White House.


11 posted on 07/18/2005 4:07:42 PM PDT by roadcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Borges

"Actually Spielberg is a great American artist who has given millions of dollars to charity."

Spielberg is just another muddle headed liberal sap.


12 posted on 07/18/2005 4:09:39 PM PDT by Stand W (Confusion to our enemies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rang1995

Hollywood glamour and Hollywood heroes are dead.

Today ther is only Hollywood nakedness and no heroes...only a bunch of self absorbed nobodies.

Good riddance hollywood.


13 posted on 07/18/2005 4:12:23 PM PDT by cubreporter (I trust Rush. He has done more for this country than any of us will ever know! :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges
Bono is an artist too and has given to charity...

..that has gone to Af-"risk"-a and lined polit-"burros" pockets thicker than the marble in Saddam's Tikrit Palace.

14 posted on 07/18/2005 4:19:08 PM PDT by ExcursionGuy84 ("I will Declare the Beauty of The LORD.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: roadcat
"One guy (out of all the people in the movie) wants to fight back against the evil Martians aith a gun, and they portray him as a madman and Cruise ends up killing the sap. Cruise's son wants to join up with some soldiers to fight back, and Cruise is desperately trying to convince him that's wrong."

Interesting twist on the book. Well interesting to see how the book gets twisted. The Mad guy was a former solider so that piece makes a little sense. The main character and he team up for a bit with thoughts of going back to the unit. I believe the main character declines because he's trying to find his family, but they end up hiding out together. The guy apparently does go a little crazy (as does hero, think about a worst room mate ever situation) and is being loud so I think the hero bops him on the head to get him to shut up. Thats where the movie and book part paths so Spielberg can inject some propaganda. I haven't watched the movie with no plans to, but on some level it's interesting how these idiots twist things to their agenda.
15 posted on 07/18/2005 4:38:30 PM PDT by tfecw (Vote Democrat, It's easier than working)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Borges

I read the novel more than once.

I believe you're forgetting about the Steam Ram "Thunderchild" that charged through enemy fire and rammed one leg of a Martian ships tripod. Thus toppeling it into the water and allowing many ships and thousands of people to escape to the open ocean.

How about the hidden batteries of artillery (Masked batteries.) who's most effective means of attack was to wait until point blank range and then volley fire. And then they'd generally be wiped out at point blank range once the Martians had aquired the target.

It's been a long time (Longer than a lot of people have been alive.) since I've read it. But FFFFFTTTTT to the amazingly french like hollywierd idiots.


16 posted on 07/18/2005 4:39:51 PM PDT by BubbaTex (Long time lurker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cubreporter

"Today ther is only Hollywood nakedness and no heroes...only a bunch of self absorbed nobodies."

Wait a minute! We still have Gary Johnston. He is the best actor I've ever seen, even if he is a Dick.

He knows that Freedom isn't Free.


17 posted on 07/18/2005 4:42:29 PM PDT by RazzPutin ("You have told us more than you can possibly know." -- Niels Bohr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RazzPutin

Who in the world is Gary Johnston????????????????


18 posted on 07/18/2005 4:44:56 PM PDT by cubreporter (I trust Rush. He has done more for this country than any of us will ever know! :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: roadcat

Spielberg is anti American? 'Saving Private Ryan' is anti American? BTW the military in the movie was played by actual members of the U.S. Military for whom Spielberg arranged a special screening and brought up on stage for an ovation at the end. And I'm an apologist for good art wherever I see it. If you want to limit what you see and hear to that produced by people who you agree with on every issue 100% then be my guest.


19 posted on 07/18/2005 4:45:32 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BubbaTex
The U.S. military behaves very honorably in this film as a counterpoint. I meant that very little heroism is successful in either the novel or this movie since the disparity in scale is so great as Wells intended.
20 posted on 07/18/2005 4:47:09 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson