Posted on 03/10/2002 4:07:31 PM PST by denydenydeny
I did at first. Got it now. :) This does not surprise me one bit. There is a lot pressure out there from advocacy groups to pretend what is, is not, if you get what I mean.
You don't think a little thing like realisim to enter into their world.
Besides the ending of the story show a real working peace in the middle east.
BTW you remember that twit in FLA who flew in the building, he mentioned the plot of Sum of All are Fears as a real story.
**But the key here is that liberals/socialists have won control over the vast majority of our culture wars.....Media,Entertainment, Literary form, much of religion, they teach our children (private and public, colleges etc.)
;-)
I read the book too. Good one. They did have to change it a little if they were going to set the film in the present day. The Jihadists were the chief villains, but a supporting character was a post-fall-of-the-Berlin Wall East German terrorist. The Soviet Union was still around when Clancy wrote this book. (Must've been 1990).
One of the more intriguing characters was a Russell Peletier-esque American Indian Movement thug.
But there were Religion of Peace Jihadists in 1990, and there are in 2002. The screenwriters didn't have to change too many things.
The point is not any sympathy for Neo-Nazis, but the political correctness involved in "not offending the Muslims". I would not have thought you would object to Arab fanatics as bad guys.
Other points from the book that I expect to see messed with: the president's political advisor (who's also his mistress) going hysterical over the nuking of the Super bowl and urging WW III; the (Democrat) prez freaking out and attempting to nuke an arab city to demonstrate he has balls, with WW III having to be avoided by the intervention of ex-Marine CIA deputy Jack Ryan; and Israel getting yelled at for "misplacing" the nuke that the terrorists use and not telling us about it.
Have you ever read the book THE FIFTH HORSEMAN by Larry Collins and Dominic LaPierre? It's also about a gang of Islamic terrorists (led by Moammar Kaddafy) who hide a nuclear bomb in Manhattan. The book was written in the 1970's. Kaddafy hasn't made a peep since President Reagan kicked his butt, but other than that the book is still relevant.
Fiction:
"The President (James Cromwell) issues a warning to Russia not to aggravate the situation."
Reality:
The President would contact the Russians, and ask, "Do you have enough Potassium Iodide for your troops? Do you need us to rush some out to you?"
"Investigating the situation in Russia is a lowly CIA agent, Jack Ryan (Ben Affleck), who's being mentored by a presidential advisor (Morgan Freeman)."
They got rid of James Earl Jones too? Is he on the Hollywood sh*tlist because they found out he's a pro-RKBA conservative?
James Earl Jones a conservative? Really?
In any case, remember that his character, the CIA director, dies of cancer in Clear and Present Danger. Kinda weird to have him popping up again.
I too have read everyone of his books...and I agree with you and everyone who is saying he needs to become more involved in the "Hollywood" versions. IMHO the only really good one was "Clear & Present Danger" and even that was butchered!
But, while his books are good, filled with interesting (if not just a little too perfect) characters, and intersting story lines; they do stretch the imagination a bit too far regarding the eventual outcomes. His work has gone down hill in his last couple of books (The Bear & the Dragon" and "Rainbow 6").
I think he's getting a bit lazy, or has cut a deal to be paid by the number of words (What was the point of inserting the "sub-story" about the militiamen in "Executive Orders?"). "The Bear & The Dragon" did not have a satisfactory ending...it just ended when Tom appeared to get bored with the writing.
Finally, my last "peeve:" Clancy couldn't write a "love scene" if his life depended on it! For goodness sake he was an Irish Catholic Insurance Agent! His love scenes seem like they were written by a... well, to put it mildly: An Irish Catholic Insurance Agent! (Don't flame...I'm Irish Catholic.)
Won't benefit from my money. If it fails, it fails. The most dangerous people in the world right now are Arab or Muslim or both. To pretend otherwise is to pretend.
The point is, why change the villains from what the author intended?
It's actually an old Hollywood device to substitute far-right villains for the left-wing villains in the original book. EG, Ian Fleming's novels had SMERSCH - a Russian communist organization - as a villain. Hollywood, in From Russia with Love, changed the villain to independent operators who weren't tied to either the East or the West. Hollywood resists making communists villains, andm, apparently, is also reluctant to make arab terrorists villains, even though that's how Clancy had it.
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.