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.
Not only PC - but untimely as well.
I'd rather have the real whack-o 's [Environmentalists, animal lovers, vegetarians, ---that bunch]. Oops...are poeple reading this?
Did they really need a film to prove they were villains? or did someone not have a clue and thoght they were a credible organization? [SARCASM remains on for truth]
You are much closer to the truth than you probably think. The neos are linking up with the jihadists fairly quickly. Many established links already, and new ones forming all the time.
Example: this is a snip from a post by a real neo-nazi at another, recently closed forum. The poster is also a member of Stormfront.
2. Our forum, wherever it ends up, need a strong European participation. We have members from UK, Denmark, and Holland. We need more. An example is: I would like to open a dissuasion of the possibility of a White Nationalist alliance with some part of Islam. From my perspective in Denver, Colorado, this seems like a reasonable idea to contemplate. The English, Dutch, and Danes may have a different perspective.
As we can see, some of the locals are only too happy to lick Mecca's a** for some quid-pro-quo.
As for Clancy, he is overrated as a writer. The dialogue in his books is clearly second rate and the dopey romantic scenes he tries to interject in the books are downright embarrassing. He seems really out of touch with reality as well. For example, he's got Jack Ryan working 100+ hours a week at CIA while his wife is a full-time eye surgeon at John Hopkins Hospital who appears to put in at least 60 hours. Yet they still apparently have time to raise kids together AND have a great marriage. C'mon, get real!
But he does tell a great story and the books are technically accurate, therin lies the appeal of his books to me. I'm currently halfway through Without Remorse" and so far it is the best of the series I have read. Debt of Honor is on deck.
That's what I've heard.
"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."
Hmm... maybe they could get a second opinion? :) ("Good news! He's not really dead!" :)) Or his twin brother, or cousin, or son?
If they can completely change the main character, they why can't they resurrect the supporting character?
Arab terrorists, aided by a Native American terrorist!
At least those two names are referred to now and then on TV. I have never heard a man Stalin called "my Eichmann", Kaganovitch--a killer of over 7 million--mentioned in the media.
I understand that Clancy has not been pleased with the deviations in other movies (hence the delay on this one). Needless to say, I won't go see this crap, it's utter implausible. The book was very plausible.
P.S. The Arab/Muslim terrorists used commy East German Nuke scientists to rebuild the fission bomb and convert it into a fusion (Hydrogen) bomb but then goofed up by killing them before the deuterium was purified. The enraged POTUS does order a retaliatory strike on Iran but cooler heads (i.e. Ryan's (head of CIA)) prevail. Saudi publicly beheads the arch villian in the end.
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.