Posted on 03/10/2002 4:07:31 PM PST by 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.
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.