"Neo-Nazis" are now the villains in the film version of Tom Clancy's THE SUM OF ALL FEARS

Aint-it-cool-news and other websites ^ | 3/10/02 | self

[denydenydeny]

The first inkling that I can find reporting that the villains in the film version of Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears had been changed was on Harry Knowles's aint-it-cool-news website, on 3/14/01. The report, from an extra on the film, indicated that he'd seen the shooting script and

I glanced at the page it was opened on, and it said something about "Ukraine not producing much but being all over online". i guess that confrims that the "enemy" isn't Muslim but East European.

Most of the comments on the site at the time were negative remarks concerning the casting of Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan, replacing Harrison Ford. Only a few of the people complained about the change of villains at the time:

Well, apparently they are changing so far: 1) the enemy 2)Jack's age 3)his job 4)his marital status 5) his life experiences. Great. Just great. I guess he never was a Marine, or a stockbroker, or a teacher, or a FATHER. He's just some punk in the CIA. Oh yeah. This movie will be awesome. "pun" intended.

Later, another website reported the full summary of the script, confirming that the movie changes the villains from Muslim terrorists to neo-nazis:

A shady neo-nazi group headed by a mysterious Austrian billionaire (Alan Bates) is trying to set up World War III. To begin the onslaught, they set off an atomic bomb in Chechnya. The American government is shocked thinking the Russians did that themselves. The President (James Cromwell) issues a warning to Russia not to aggravate the situation. Investigating the situation in Russia is a lowly CIA agent, Jack Ryan (Ben Affleck), who's being mentored by a presidential advisor (Morgan Freeman). Looming in the background is the next step of the plan, setting off an atomic device on American soil.

I had not been following the progress of the film, so I was not aware of this change. The trailer for the movie was released on 2/28/02, and is linked here.

By the time the trailer was ready, of course, the events of September 11th had pushed the issue of Islamic terrorism into public consciousness. The comments on aint-it-cool-news were pretty much unanimous on the subject:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't SUM OF ALL FEARS(the book) have the villians as ARAB TERRORISTS?? If so, doesn't having them as Nazis in the movie make Paramount's sum of testicles zero? CAN WE AT LEAST BE ACCURATE AND HONEST ABOUT WHO THE TERRORISTS REALLY ARE???? I'm sorry if it offends good-meaning Arabs, and I'm not defending Nazism at all, but the fact is the WTC wasn't destroyed by the NEO-NAZI'S!!! While Neo-Nazi's are definately evil people, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that they have the skill, the will, or the means to carry out an attack of nuclear magnitude. 9-11 proved that Islamic Fundamentalist Arabs do have the skill, the means, and the motivation to attack the U.S. and Israel with such devestation. Clancy knew that when he wrote it and Paramount sold him out.

Obviously the story here has caved in to the conventions of political correctness. But, remember the terrorists due manage to succesfully detonate the nuke during the super bowl. Can you imagine the backlash against pandering terror hysteria? Scaring people is one thing, depriving them of sleep is quite another. Even entertainment disguised as hyper-real political thrillers must have a conscience.

Talk about plot inconsistency - can anyone, anyone give me a valid explanation for why European neo-Nazis would want to quote-unquote "Rekindle the Cold War"? Deep-seeded vengeance for WWII? Come on, that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE!!! It's PC Garbage!!! Comment: The moment it was announced that the studio changed the ISLAMIC terrorist antagonists into Neo-Nazis, this movie was destined for failure. The reson why Tom Clancy made the terrorists ISLAMIC RADICALS, is because he writes real-world political fiction! The books are semi-beieveable because the readers know these scenarios are possible! Thats what makes Tom Clancy novels good. Has anyone in the USA and UK turned on the TV and seen the middle east?? All of Assyria are murdering each other over a thousand year holy war! They are obviously insane and are bent on GENOCIDE! The last group to do this were the Germans and They are considered to be evil. Maybe Neo-nazis were the antagonists in the screenplay because they are white and we all unfortunatey know what happens when you have non-white stereotypes...outrage. The reason that middle-east people are depicted as terrorists is that 95% of them are bent on world destruction! Sorry Affleck, I want you to succed, but I refuse to see this Politically Correct propaganda...

The myriad ways they've changed SoaF around for the movie version must make it the suckiest adaptation of all damned time. And I'm not just talking about trying to avoid pissing off the whole Muslim world either. Fucking arrogant Hollywood shitheads. Clancy himself should have done the script for a mini-series on HBO.

Only white racists make realistic villains in the fantasy land that is Hollywood Comment: As far as I am concerned, Neo-Nazi fascists can burn in hell. However, I am convinced that that movement consists of about 10 inbred idiots living in a shack in rural Idaho. Meanwhile, 75 percent of people in the Arab world believe that Jews are responsible for the WTC and Pentagon attacks and that there are a lot of them who would like to see a nuke go off during the Superbowl. It is obvious that these spineless Hollywood bastards think that only white, racists make good villains. I am glad to see that my fellow geek brothers and sisters see through this crap. Semper Fi

They changed the Islamic terrorists to NEONAZIS? Why the heck would neonazis want to nuke the Super Bowl? The end of the book has the President deciding to wildly nuke the Middle East in retaliation and Jack Ryan talking him out of it. Making the terrorists neonazis totally ruins the end dynamic of the story! God, what typical Hollywood pandering. I'm right in the target demographic for this movie: young male, Tom Clancy fan, Ben Affleck fan. But because of this PC crap, I refuse to see this movie. I hope the reduced box office for this film was worth the ass kissing of the Muslim activists. PS: This is even worse than what they did with "Rising Sun," making the killer an American instead of Japanese.

I saw the trailer today before We Were Soldiers, and it makes very clear who the terrorists are, with a prominent shot of Alan Bates's swastika watch--what all the neo-Nazis are wearing this year, apparently.

[sheik yerbouty]

I heard this when they were in the production phase, but it wasn't written in stone. I personally will not see this revisionist, bend over for the jihad film.

[rbmillerjr]

TOM CLANCY used to have principle and not sell out this badly on a movie. GREED KILLS

[rbmillerjr]

bump I'm not seeing it.

[veronica]

Aw gee now...how unfair. One would not want to make villians out Neo-Nazis now, would one!?

[VOA]

Fundamentalist Arabs do have the skill, the means, and the motivation to attack the U.S.
and Israel with such devestation. Clancy knew that when he wrote it and
Paramount sold him out.

I'm sorry I can't give you a link to a transcript, but I heard Clancy on the radio
soon (within a week?) on radio after 9-11.
And at that time he related that the villans had been changed to Neo-Nazis...and that
Ben Affleck was taking over the Harrison Ford slot.

I nearly puked.

Otherwise Clancy gave a good interview and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt...
he's probably under contractual obligation to not dis the film or it's lame
"star", otherwise he probably could be sued by Paramount for a gazillion dollars.

He probably never imagined that such damage would be done to his work.

I saw the trailer when I saw "We Were Soldiers" on opening day.
I WON'T be seeing the flick. Just like I didn't see "Pearl Harbor"...as I realized
it was IMPOSSIBLE to tell the whole story of what happened there without at least
an "R" rating for what happened.

[gg188]

Do I understand this correctly: Tom Clancy wrote it, that Arabs and moslems were the bad buys in the book, but for the movie, this has been changed to "neo-Nazis"?

[ArcLight]

When Clancy was on C-Span a few weeks ago, he said that he doesn't try to exercise control over what Hollywood does with his books. He just sells them the rights, cashes the check and moves on. So he has no control over what they do with Sum of All Fears, and doesn't mind it. He seems to be unashamedly saying, I'm in it for the bucks. Considering the steady deterioration in his books, I can believe it.

[genefromjersey]

The big problem is: when you sell rights to a film,the buyer can do just about anything he/she wants with it. A good example was the very conservative novel Advise and Consent which film maker Otto Preminger turned into a "liberal" movie.

[sheik yerbouty]

Have you read the book, Veronica/ I have no love for nazi pinheads, but the story was about a bunch of jihadist lunatics that got hold of a nuclear bomb.

[jrewingjr]

I have read every Clancy novel and love them for their reality. If Tom wants to have his books made into movies, he needs to retain creative control or not bother having them made. All the movies so far have been disappointing compared to the novels, but this blatant butchery on so many levels is way too much. I will boycott this PC movie.

Clancy has enough money to produce the movies himself; he doesn't need Hollywood's spin. Quit selling the film rights, Tom. You will make more money producing YOUR vision of YOUR novels.

[veronica]

This is done every day I am sad to say. Expect more of it. It's a very PC business.

[l33t]

Substituting Neo-nazis for Muslim terrorits is not only patently PC, it is also idiotic as it concerns commercial success of the movie.

[My Favorite Headache]

Well this movie sounds like total ass. I hate Ben Afflack Insurance as it is. Total sell out...change everything to "Blame Whitey"

[hattend]

Ben Afleck is enough incentive to make me stay away.

[Miss Marple]

Well, although I am quite irritated at Harrison Ford, the casting of Ben Affleck in this is ridiculous. Now that I know that they have completely changed the book, I can cheerfully save my money to buy another Clancy novel, and too bad for Paramount.

If they are going to change the plot, location, and characters, why do they even buy the book? It would be cheaper just to pay for an original screenplay.

Affleck will be as successful in the Ryan role as George Lazenby was in the Bond movie.

[rbmillerjr]

Aw gee now...how unfair. One would not want to make villians out Neo-Nazis now, would one!?

You're missing the point. Clancey's novels have a sense of realism which this takes away. Secondly, it's a PC argument. The radical leftists in Hollywood will not let the Arabs be portrayed as, in fact, they are...and was written in the book.

[aomagrat]

[denydenydeny]

Aw gee now...how unfair. One would not want to make villians out Neo-Nazis now, would one!?

That's not the issue.

The issue is political correctness. The novel of TSoaF was a perfectly good thriller with villains whose motivation makes sense. The film version isn't.

[PoisedWoman]

, he needs to retain creative control or not bother having them made.

If his movies are distorted to this extent, he has only himself to blame. I don't read his books or watch movies made from them, but do know of problems in dealing with HoWood studios. One client of mine who had absolutely NO clout whatsoever sold her story to a studio and demanded and got a clause inserted stating that the woman who played her in the film would have to be Hispanic, as she was herself. If unknown people can insist on such integrity, a mega-HoWood player like Clancy should insist on quite a lot and expect to get it.