Politics. Warning--Very Controversial and Sensitive

[Yukina123]

[COLOR=DarkOrchid]I have no idea why [u][i]Pearl Harbor[/i][/u] was on tv, but it was and I watched the last half of it. It brought back a lot for me. Once, when I was in the 5th grade, I did my History Fair report on Pearl Harbor, and my dad had me sit and watch [u][i]Tora! Tora! Tora![/i][/u]. It was the most emotional experience I had when I was a kid. I told my dad after the movie that I hated the Japanese and they made me sick. For those of you that have read [u][i]To Kill A Mockingbird[/i][/u], my father is a lot like Atticus Finch, and he explained to me that it wasn't the fault of the Japanese people, but the Japanese government and I shouldn't hate the innocent Japanese people who were killed by our A-bombs. I think that paved the way for me to become so in love with the Japanese culture and the respect I have for it today.
I can't tell you how hard I cried during the one scene when the U.S.S Arizona goes down, and they show the hands of the sailors through the holes in the ship as it filled with water and they died.
I hope that people who watch this movie, and especially with the new movie, [i][u]Flight 93[/i][/u] will have a greater respect for what happened then and during 9/11. I see lots of protests going on now to bring our troops home. And whether I want it to or not, politics are coming into my house. my life. When it happened, i didn't cry. I didn't feel it really. I haven't cried for the people of those planes yet or the towers, but I know that one day, I will feel the impact of that day. And I will respect not only America, for it's politics, it's policies, and it's 'warmongering' but also for the people of the world. Pleasant waves. I love you all.
[/COLOR]

[Albert Flasher]

[COLOR=Sienna]I don't get it...

Are you saying you won't be able to cry and feel for the victims in the Twin Towers until they make some soppy movie about it? Are you saying you actually cried during [i]Pearl Harbour[/i], the most notorious piece of over-patriotic exagerated garbage ever made into a feature-length movie?

Your post is confuzzling.[/COLOR]

[Touchstone]

[QUOTE=Ziggy Stardust][COLOR=Sienna]I don't get it...

Are you saying you won't be able to cry and feel for the victims in the Twin Towers until they make some soppy movie about it? Are you saying you actually cried during [i]Pearl Harbour[/i], the most notorious piece of over-patriotic exagerated garbage ever made into a feature-length movie?

Your post is confuzzling.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[FONT=Georgia]I second that; could you be more clear? This reads more like a journal entry than a forum post. [/FONT]

[The13thMan]

[QUOTE=Ziggy Stardust][COLOR=Sienna]I don't get it...

Are you saying you won't be able to cry and feel for the victims in the Twin Towers until they make some soppy movie about it? Are you saying you actually cried during [i]Pearl Harbour[/i], the most notorious piece of over-patriotic exagerated garbage ever made into a feature-length movie?

Your post is confuzzling.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]Over-patriotic exagerated garbage??? What gives you the right to say that? Did you experience the attack on Pearl Harbor first hand? Did anybody you love die when the japanese attacked??? I think it's absolutely ridiculous to have such a strongly negative opinion on a MOVIE. Movies are meant to entertain.

Good thing we live in America and we can express our own opinions, eh?

Later.
[/COLOR] [/FONT]

[Albert Flasher]

[QUOTE=The13thMan][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]Over-patriotic exagerated garbage??? What gives you the right to say that? Did you experience the attack on Pearl Harbor first hand? Did anybody you love die when the japanese attacked??? I think it's absolutely ridiculous to have such a strongly negative opinion on a MOVIE. Movies are meant to entertain.

Good thing we live in America and we can express our own opinions, eh?

Later.
[/COLOR] [/FONT][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=Sienna]
I'm allowed to say the movie sucked, because it did. It was not realistic at all, it was just some tripe love story under the guise of a bad war movie. T!T!T! is a great, realistic and powerful movie, but Pearl Harbour is just crap. It was just another of those movies where a handful Americans take on the entire Japanese/German army and win (I'm looking your way, Windtalkers!) and should not be taken seriously. T!T!T! is a different story, though, which was actually the point of me saying that; was she crying during Pearl Harbour or T!T!T!?

Oh, and I'm not American.[/COLOR]

[Touchstone]

[QUOTE=The13thMan][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]Over-patriotic exagerated garbage??? What gives you the right to say that? Did you experience the attack on Pearl Harbor first hand? Did anybody you love die when the japanese attacked??? I think it's absolutely ridiculous to have such a strongly negative opinion on a MOVIE. Movies are meant to entertain.

Good thing we live in America and we can express our own opinions, eh?

Later.
[/COLOR] [/FONT][/QUOTE]
[FONT=Georgia]I think you're taking that a bit too personally. He was just saying it was a bad movie, which I have to agree it was. The acting wasn't that good, the plot dragged on for hours, and got really boring by the end. It failed to entertain.

And thinking about Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, and 9/11 still make me cry. I can just distinguish between reality and crappy fiction.[/FONT]

[Albert Flasher]

[QUOTE=Touchstone][FONT=Georgia]I think you're taking that a bit too personally. He was just saying it was a bad movie, which I have to agree it was. The acting wasn't that good, the plot dragged on for hours, and got really boring by the end. It failed to entertain.

And thinking about Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, and 9/11 still make me cry. I can just distinguish between reality and crappy fiction.[/FONT][/QUOTE][COLOR=Sienna]

Speaking of which... imagine if they made a 9/11 movie and, instead of focusing on the human tragedy and the impact it had on the world, they focus on some sappy, unrealistic and just generally stupid love-story? It would be a travesty and an insult. It would be Pearl Harbour *gaspshockamazed*

Wait, why are we discussing Pearl Harbour again?[/COLOR]

[Yukina123]

[COLOR=DarkOrchid]Okay, what I intended to say originally, was that I was crying during both movies. And I'm guessing you're a guy. Did you ever stop to look past the 'crappy acting' and think, 'jee, I wonder how many guys actually went to war while their girlfriends/wives were pregnant and never got to see their children. Granted, the love plot was a little sappy, but you seemed to be a little to high on your soap box to get the meaning of what the director was trying to get across. There were several scenes, like when the planes explode, the ships sink, the president stands and the sailors drown in the U.S.S Arizona! C'mon!!! If you imagine your brother, your father, your grandfather dying that way, I don't know why you wouldn't cry. It's rude to criticize people's opinions. Criticize the movie all you want, but basically saying that someone is shallow because they take a deeper look and that's THEIR opinion, not yours is just having your head too far up your butt.[/COLOR]

[The13thMan]

[QUOTE=Ziggy Stardust][COLOR=Sienna]
I'm allowed to say the movie sucked, because it did. It was not realistic at all, it was just some tripe love story under the guise of a bad war movie. T!T!T! is a great, realistic and powerful movie, but Pearl Harbour is just crap. It was just another of those movies where a handful Americans take on the entire Japanese/German army and win (I'm looking your way, Windtalkers!) and should not be taken seriously. T!T!T! is a different story, though, which was actually the point of me saying that; was she crying during Pearl Harbour or T!T!T!?

Oh, and I'm not American.[/COLOR][/QUOTE][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]
I don't understand what part you see as unrealistic. Are you saying the love story was unrealistic? Or are you saying the battle scenes were?

You didn't say the movie sucked, you said it was over-patriotic exagerated garbage. And what i said was how can you know if it was exagerated if you weren't actually there? Of course i'm only assuming you weren't there, i guess it's possible that you were one of the survivors, let me know if you are.

I'm fine with you saying the movie sucked, i just have a problem if you're saying the movie was unrealistic when you don't actually know what it was like. Besides, i personally didin't care for the movie too much either.

And about the American thing, i shouldn't have just assumed you were American. What i meant was that you have freedom of opinion and you should value that. I suppose the main reason i brought that up though was because i had just got done reading 1984. If you had said something like that to an event that happened in Oceania you probably would have disappeared. XP

[/COLOR] [/FONT]

[QUOTE=Ziggy Stardust][COLOR=Sienna]

Speaking of which... imagine if they made a 9/11 movie and, instead of focusing on the human tragedy and the impact it had on the world, they focus on some sappy, unrealistic and just generally stupid love-story? It would be a travesty and an insult. It would be Pearl Harbour *gaspshockamazed*

Wait, why are we discussing Pearl Harbour again?[/COLOR][/QUOTE][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]
What makes a love story unrealistic??? It sounds to me like you've had some bad experiences with love and you just generally frown upon the whole concept of it. But that's just my personal opinion.

Don't compare 9/11 to Pearl Harbor. They're nothing alike except for that people died.

Also, i personally think saying it would be a travesty and an insult is overkill. Can a movie not focus on "the human tragedy and the impact it had on the world" and not also have a love story in it? I've seen it happen plenty of times before. Besides, if you don't like having a little fiction in a movie then you can turn on the History channel and watch that instead.

Later.

[/COLOR] [/FONT]

[Albert Flasher]

[quote name='Yukina123][COLOR=DarkOrchid']Okay, what I intended to say originally, was that I was crying during both movies. And I'm guessing you're a guy. Did you ever stop to look past the 'crappy acting' and think, 'jee, I wonder how many guys actually went to war while their girlfriends/wives were pregnant and never got to see their children. Granted, the love plot was a little sappy, but you seemed to be a little to high on your soap box to get the meaning of what the director was trying to get across. There were several scenes, like when the planes explode, the ships sink, the president stands and the sailors drown in the U.S.S Arizona! C'mon!!! If you imagine your brother, your father, your grandfather dying that way, I don't know why you wouldn't cry. It's rude to criticize people's opinions. Criticize the movie all you want, but basically saying that someone is shallow because they take a deeper look and that's THEIR opinion, not yours is just having your head too far up your butt.[/COLOR][/quote]
[COLOR=Sienna]
For the record, the movie Pearl Harbour was never made to be about Pearl Harbour, the director even said it was a love story that just happened to be taking place during the attack on Pearl Harbour. If I recall correctly it even says that at the start of the movie, but I havn't seen it in a while so I may be wrong. And I do have relatives who were in the war; one of my grandfathers faught in both WWI and WWII, and the other was a subhunter in the English Channel during WWII.

And The13thMan, please... your telling me a movie where, essentially, 2 American pilots fight off the entire Japanese air force isn't an over-exaggerated excuse for Americans to toot their own horn? I could have made a more realistic war movie if I was stoned. Sorry, I have nothing againts Americans, but this movie was just like National Treasure or Windtalkers; a chance to show as many closeups of the American flag as humanly possible. [/COLOR]

[KatanaViolet]

Do keep in mind that these movies come from the perspective of those who made it.

I watched parts of Pearl Harbour last night as well, but only the battle scenes. It made me sick knowing that this happened, and allthough it was a tactical victory for Japan, thousands of people lost their lives, and that sortie resulted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, probably one of the most horrifying acts of war in human history.

The rest of the movie, bah, it's crap. I'm gonna go with Ziggy on this one. Another work of pro-American propaghanda. I'm really hoping that Flight 93 won't be like that, but I won't be surprised if it is. People trying to drum up support for a pointless war. But I'm still going to see it, mainly because, we can't ignore the fact that it happened, and regardless of the controversy of a cover up (some think that Flight 93 was shot down) or the fact that this movie may not even be accurate, I think people should be able to face the tragedies that took place on 9/11 and learn from it. And hopefully this move won't try to brain wash me with propaghanda. Its interesting that this movie comes out in the mist of people accusing the American goverment that there is a cover up and that people knew about the attacks and did nothing.

It's funny how they say 9/11 is our generations Pearl Harbour (it was even put in Honolulu's headline). And in a way, it was. The Americans were blindsided, didn't see it coming, around the same amount of people died, then there was the propaghanda.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor_US_Propaganda.jpg[/IMG]

I also wanted to note, it's amazing what you find when you look up "attack on pearl harbour", "9/11" and "Flight 93(film)" on Wikipedia.

[Retribution]

[quote name='KatanaViolet']It's funny how they say 9/11 is our generations Pearl Harbour (it was even put in Honolulu's headline). And in a way, it was. The Americans were blindsided, didn't see it coming, around the same amount of people died, then there was the propaghanda.[/quote]
[size=1]9/11 and Pearl Harbor were completely different in that the Japanese attacked a military installation, while the Taliban primarily attacked civilians (granted, they did get the Pentagon too). I think that The13thMan was trying to say that an attack of two civilian-based towers is far more underhanded that attacked a military base.

I'm also looking forward to seeing Flight 93. I think that the people who died deserve a tribute, and I hope that the movie does them justice.[/size]

[The13thMan]

[QUOTE=Ziggy Stardust][COLOR=Sienna]
For the record, the movie Pearl Harbour was never made to be about Pearl Harbour, the director even said it was a love story that just happened to be taking place during the attack on Pearl Harbour. If I recall correctly it even says that at the start of the movie, but I havn't seen it in a while so I may be wrong. And I do have relatives who were in the war; one of my grandfathers faught in both WWI and WWII, and the other was a subhunter in the English Channel during WWII.

And The13thMan, please... your telling me a movie where, essentially, 2 American pilots fight off the entire Japanese air force isn't an over-exaggerated excuse for Americans to toot their own horn? I could have made a more realistic war movie if I was stoned. Sorry, I have nothing againts Americans, but this movie was just like National Treasure or Windtalkers; a chance to show as many closeups of the American flag as humanly possible. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]It wasn't 2 vs the entire japanese air force, that's an exageration. There were other planes in the movie, just not any involving main characters.

I don't think the movie was made for the purpose of promoting America at all. I think it was a work of fiction based on an actual event. Ultimately i believe what most people were worried about in the making of the movie was their salaries. They wanted to make something that people would want to see, hence the love story, and kinda wanted to make it in tribute to Pearl Harbor which will also attract customers, hence the battle scenes. If they were truly promoting America then they wouldn't have portrayed the Japanese as the humble and respectful men they were. Instead they would have made it out that they were blood thirsty brutes. As i remember the movie made it out so that the japanese pretty much had to implicate a suprise attack on America to even stand a chance in the war.

Movies are ultimately made to make money.

Somebody else said something about the A-bombs which reminded me of another thing that bothers me. The bombs were originally going to be planted on military bases which would have minimized civilian casualties, but for some reason at the last second the president decided to drop it on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It personally bothers me that our president decided to do that, there was no reason to. The bombs were mainly planted as a scare tactic to scare Japan into surrender. It would have been just as effective with no casualties. As long as people saw the big mushroom cloud and the destructive force i'm pretty sure Japan would have gave up.

And Retribution, yeah i was pretty much saying that. 9/11 was an act of terrorism, Pearl Harbor was an act of war. Innocent people dieing vs soldiers dieing. The intent of the terrorists to inflict pain among the American people vs the intent of the Japanese to win the war and preserve their way of life.

Later.
[/COLOR] [/FONT]

[Derald]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=1][COLOR=Sienna]First off, I do find it quite humorous that a movie on Flight 93 is coming out [B]5 years[/B] after it happened. I don't think the directors care too much. In fact, it is most likely all an attempt to make a hefty profit by exploiting the people's sympathy. Think this is wrong? Guess what, this is the "land of opportunity" and people will seize whatever profit they can manage.

Second, your thread so far has little to do with discussing politics, since all I am seeing so far is movie commentary and how others view it. Please, do something to back your title.

Third, I don't care for war movies. They always become biased due to someone's point of view.

I do indeed hope that someone can find themselves looking from somewhere near my perspective. That, and I do apologize if I offended anyone. After all, as The13thMan stated, you can freely express your opinion in this country.

Later.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Papa Smurf]

[quote name='The13thMan][font=Century Gothic][color=DarkOrange]I don't think the movie was made for the purpose of promoting America at all. I think it was a work of fiction based on an actual event. Ultimately i believe what most people were worried about in the making of the movie was their salaries. They wanted to make something that people would want to see, hence the love story, and kinda wanted to make it in tribute to Pearl Harbor which will also attract customers, hence the battle scenes.[/color'][/font][/quote] The movie starred Ben Affleck. Ben Afflect doesn't star in tribute movies. The battle scenes were used for eye-candy in the same way Ben Affleck was.

[quote][font=Century Gothic][color=DarkOrange]If they were truly promoting America then they wouldn't have portrayed the Japanese as the humble and respectful men they were. Instead they would have made it out that they were blood thirsty brutes. As i remember the movie made it out so that the japanese pretty much had to implicate a suprise attack on America to even stand a chance in the war. [/color][/font][/quote] You're saying that a Ben Affleck movie had meaningful and important character development.

[quote][font=Century Gothic][color=DarkOrange]Movies are ultimately made to make money.[/color][/font][/quote] Hence why Pearl Harbor starred Ben Affleck.

Let's use a proof for this:

Statement: Any movie that Ben Affleck stars in is awful and bloated, big-budget Hollywood garbage, like Paycheck and Daredevil.

Therefore, he does not star in meaningful and important movies, with the rare exception of Good Will Hunting and whenever Kevin Smith writes a role specifically for him that ultimately parodies Affleck's career.

Statement: Ben Affleck starred in Pearl Harbor, opposite Liv Tyler, who is also fairly useless in front of the camera and who, like Affleck, possesses very little, if any, actual performance talent.

Therefore, Pearl Harbor is just like Affleck's previous movies: bloated, big-budget Hollywood garbage with absolutely no redeeming thematic elements whatsoever.

Game. Set. Smurf.

[Albert Flasher]

[QUOTE=The13thMan][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]It wasn't 2 vs the entire japanese air force, that's an exageration. There were other planes in the movie, just not any involving main characters.

I don't think the movie was made for the purpose of promoting America at all. I think it was a work of fiction based on an actual event. Ultimately i believe what most people were worried about in the making of the movie was their salaries. They wanted to make something that people would want to see, hence the love story, and kinda wanted to make it in tribute to Pearl Harbor which will also attract customers, hence the battle scenes. If they were truly promoting America then they wouldn't have portrayed the Japanese as the humble and respectful men they were. Instead they would have made it out that they were blood thirsty brutes. As i remember the movie made it out so that the japanese pretty much had to implicate a suprise attack on America to even stand a chance in the war.

Movies are ultimately made to make money.

Somebody else said something about the A-bombs which reminded me of another thing that bothers me. The bombs were originally going to be planted on military bases which would have minimized civilian casualties, but for some reason at the last second the president decided to drop it on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It personally bothers me that our president decided to do that, there was no reason to. The bombs were mainly planted as a scare tactic to scare Japan into surrender. It would have been just as effective with no casualties. As long as people saw the big mushroom cloud and the destructive force i'm pretty sure Japan would have gave up.

And Retribution, yeah i was pretty much saying that. 9/11 was an act of terrorism, Pearl Harbor was an act of war. Innocent people dieing vs soldiers dieing. The intent of the terrorists to inflict pain among the American people vs the intent of the Japanese to win the war and preserve their way of life.

Later.
[/COLOR] [/FONT][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=Sienna]
Your right, that was hyperbole. Cuba Gooding Jr. was there aswell, although he wasn't really in a plane so I can't include him. And then there was Tom Sizemore and Co in that tower-thing...

If they have to do something stupid to make people go see a movie, like adding the cheesy love triangle, than they shouldn't be making a movie out of it. The movie was like a chick-flick with guns and explosions stapled on top.

Even from a purely entertainment standpoint this movie blows. Ben Affleck is only any good when Kevin Smith directs him, and Josh Hartnett was only good for the 30 seconds or so he was in Sin City. The special effects were ok but unspectacular, nothing that isn't in every single movie these days. The dialouge was hilarious ("I'll never look at another sunset without thinking of you." What lol?!) when it wasn't downright terrible. And mostly it was friggin [i]boring[/i]. The climax of the movie was the attack on Pearl Harbour, but than it's like the director thought that the audience wouldn't like it to end on an American defeat, so the movie grinds on for another 1 or so of pure tedium and painfully dull action sequences. I do respect it for showing the wounded, though, something T!T!T! wouldn't do.

The A-Bomb was dropped on a residential area because the Americans needed a high death toll to wave in Stalin's face. They knew that Stalin was a vigorous expansionist and wanted to stop him with threats... which I guess worked in the end.

Civilians died at Pearl Harbour to, y'know. And the Japanese weren't even at War with the US... the US was almost completely uninvolved in the war, they were just trying to profit off of it... I know for a time they were supplying the Germans aswell as the British, but I'm not sure how long that went on for. As I recall the Japanese attacked the US because they stopped supplying them with oil, but I'm a little foggy on the subject if somone would like to clarify.[/COLOR]

[Touchstone]

[FONT=Georgia]I think this argument is getting pointless! So let me sum it up here:

[list=1]
[*]Pearl Harbor was a big budget trivial Hollywood movie masquerading as something with substance.
[*]Pearl Harbor and the use of the atomic bomb were tragic events of WWII.
[*]These two points have no correlation whatsoever!
[/list]

Okay, I think I'm done.[/FONT]

[Albert Flasher]

[QUOTE=Touchstone][FONT=Georgia]I think this argument is getting pointless! So let me sum it up here:

[list=1]
[*]Pearl Harbor was a big budget trivial Hollywood movie masquerading as something with substance.
[*]Pearl Harbor and the use of the atomic bomb were tragic events of WWII.
[*]These two points have no correlation whatsoever!
[/list]

Okay, I think I'm done.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=Sienna]
Aaaaaa, once again the power of the bulleted list solves the problem...

What was this thread about again? [/COLOR]

[KatanaViolet]

[QUOTE=Ziggy Stardust][COLOR=Sienna]
Civilians died at Pearl Harbour to, y'know. And the Japanese weren't even at War with the US... the US was almost completely uninvolved in the war, they were just trying to profit off of it... I know for a time they were supplying the Germans aswell as the British, but I'm not sure how long that went on for. As I recall the Japanese attacked the US because they stopped supplying them with oil, but I'm a little foggy on the subject if somone would like to clarify.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
Well, Wikipedia supplies this as the background to the attacks on Pearl Harbor:

[QUOTE]After the Meiji restoration in 1868, Japan embarked on a period of significant economic, political, and military expansion in an apparent effort to achieve parity with the western powers who had influence or possessions in east Asia and/or the Pacific. The expansion was heavily influenced by ultra-nationalist members of the government, military, and general society (see also Causes of World War II). In order to fund this expansion, resource-poor Japan embarked on a series of moves that brought it into conflict with neighboring powers. These included a war with China in 1894 in which it took control of Taiwan and a war with Russia in 1904 in which it gained territory in and around China and the Korean peninsula. In 1910, Japan took all of the Korean peninsula and in 1931, forcibly established a "puppet" state in Manchuria which they called Manchukuo. In 1937, having made further progress in constructing a large and modern navy and army, Japan initiated a large-scale invasion of mainland China, attacking from Manchuria and at several points along China's Pacific coast.

The U.S. and UK disapproved of Japan's actions, and responded with diplomatic pressure, condemning Japan's aggression in China. Japan didn't back down, but instead continued its military campaign in China and formally aligned itself with the Axis Powers in 1940. The U.S. responded with economic sanctions, including partial or full embargoes of scrap metal and gasoline, renouncing previously signed trade agreements between the two countries, and closing the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping. Again, the Japanese didn't back down and, in 1941, invaded northern Indochina. The U.S. response was to freeze Japanese assets and initiated a complete oil embargo.[1]

Oil was the most valuable and crucial resource that Japan required. In addition to fueling Japanese military operations, oil was vital for core economic activities. 80% of Japan's oil imports came from the U.S.[2] Diplomatic negotiations climaxed with the Hull note of November 26, 1941, which Prime Minister Hideki Tojo described to his cabinet as an ultimatum. Therefore, Japan felt pressured to make a decision -- either comply with the U.S. and UK demands backing down from its aggression in China and the surrounding areas, or go to war with the U.S. and its allies. Concerned over losing their hard-earned status and prestige in the international community if they backed down ("loss of face") and the perceived threat to their national security posed by the western powers who controlled territory in the Pacific and/or east Asia, Japan decided to pursue the latter option.[3][/QUOTE]

Ziggy, I don't really know what this thread is about either, but since it is titled "Politics", I see it as a way to express views on various historical and political happenings: Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, 9/11, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Oklahoma City Bombings, Hitler.. and more.
Let's talk about it all.

[Papa Smurf]

[quote name='KatanaViolet']Pearl Harbor[/quote]
Talking about the event, not the movie. Or that's how it should be, at least.

[The13thMan]

[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]
I personally have a problem with people butting in on one of my conversations with useless points that are supposed to end our arguments. It's rude. Touchstone, i'm talking to you.

KatanaViolet, thanx for the history lesson. No seriously, no sarcasm.

Papasmurf....so let me ask you a question. On your list of things to do in your life is kill Ben Affleck on it? All you managed to do was denounce Affleck's acting talents, which weren't even being discussed to begin with. Just saying.

Derald: Yeah, i think people are trying to cash in on people's sympathy towards 9/11. But it doesn't mean the movie can't be made as a tribute to the people that lost their lives in the event. It's good and bad, what can ya do about it?

Ziggy: Haha, cheesy chick flick with guns and explosions stapled on to it. Yeeeep! That's what it is! I personally rate it as a mediocore movie. Not bad but not good either.
Anyways, let me clarify things for myself, the reason i started arguing with you was that you said it was exaggerated, and all i wanted to say was that you can't possibly know that unless you were there when the Japs attacked. Tha's all! Oh, and i also had a problem with you bad mouthing the movie when i'm sure there are some survivors or families of survivors/victims that the movie meant a lot to. You mine as well make fun of any monuments put up in honor of our soldiers that died in Vietnam too.

Later.

[/COLOR] [/FONT]

[KatanaViolet]

[QUOTE=The13thMan][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]
KatanaViolet, thanx for the history lesson. No seriously, no sarcasm.

Derald: Yeah, i think people are trying to cash in on people's sympathy towards 9/11. But it doesn't mean the movie can't be made as a tribute to the people that lost their lives in the event. It's good and bad, what can ya do about it?

Ziggy: Haha, cheesy chick flick with guns and explosions stapled on to it. Yeeeep! That's what it is! I personally rate it as a mediocore movie. Not bad but not good either.
Anyways, let me clarify things for myself, the reason i started arguing with you was that you said it was exaggerated, and all i wanted to say was that you can't possibly know that unless you were there when the Japs attacked. Tha's all! Oh, and i also had a problem with you bad mouthing the movie when i'm sure there are some survivors or families of survivors/victims that the movie meant a lot to. You mine as well make fun of any monuments put up in honor of our soldiers that died in Vietnam too.

Later.

[/COLOR] [/FONT][/QUOTE]
I'm hoping that wasn't sarcasm, Ziggy asked for someone to clarify the reasons why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. It's quite interesting, because I never really knew why either. As horrifying as it is, I can see why they would do that. And in turn, it's understandable that the US would resort to nukes to solve the problem. However, I abhor nuclear weaponry, and immensely hope that they will never have to be used again.

I don't disagree with what you or Ziggy say, I can see what both of you mean. Pearl Harbor (movie) can be compared to Titanic(movie): it's a fictional love story entwined into a tragic historical event.

One of the things I like about Flight 93 is that it actually talks about it. We need to acknowledge that something like this happened, and it happened in our lifetime. Now how can we learn from that and work towards a better understanding between cultures without having the after effects of the attack on Pearl Harbor (ie: nuclear war). Could this ever happen? Who knows, but anything is possible.

I hope that little tangent made sense.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f]I don't see why people are arguing over the movies made about these events just because they were mentioned in the first post. Honestly who the hell cares about Ben Affleck's bad acting? Save that for the music and movies forum.

The point is, war is terrible and results in loss of life and misery. And however much a movie is "a bloated piece of garbage", it still represents at least some of the reality of the terrors of war. These war movies serve to remind us of that terror people had to endure.[/COLOR]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]To respond to the original poster's comment...I think it's a little sad that we need movies to allow us to feel the true impact of an event. While I can understand that a movie can connect you to an event in ways that you otherwise couldn't experience (especially if you were not personally involved), it's also slightly disappointing that we need popular entertainment to allow us to feel anything for people involved in these situations.

In addition, I think there's always the potential for an event to be "twisted" or misrepresented, because film makers often have a particular agenda (although I suppose I'm probably referring more to someone like Michael Moore than fictional movies in general).

But having said that, it [i]is[/i] good that a film has the power to make people wake up and realize how people may have felt when going through these things. Sometimes I will stop after watching a film and I will actually realize how little I may have understood a particular issue, or how a film has put that issue in a new light for me. So it's not entirely bad that films have such power, even though sometimes it's a little disappointing that we rely on the entertainment media so much.[/font]

[Papa Smurf]

[quote name='The13thMan][font=Century Gothic][color=DarkOrange]Papasmurf....so let me ask you a question. On your list of things to do in your life is kill Ben Affleck on it? All you managed to do was denounce Affleck's acting talents, which weren't even being discussed to begin with. Just saying.[/color'][/font][/quote]
People were saying that Pearl Harbor (the movie) actually meant something. It didn't mean anything. It was empty and overblown. Its lead was nothing more than a Hollywood pretty-boy who's managed to (barely) keep his head above water by starring in mindless action movies that have barely done anything at the box office for the most part. The point that I'm making is this:

Ben Affleck does not star in meaningful movies. He's made a career of that.

That's why I don't take people seriously when they actually believe Pearl Harbor is something of a "film for the ages." It's not a film for the ages. It's only "historically relevant" because it's set against the backdrop of Pearl Harbor. But the events of Pearl Harbor don't mean anything at all when your leads are Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler and the focus of the movie is their trite and insipid love story.

See, the problem with Pearl Harbor (the movie) is that it was never about Pearl Harbor (the event), because you could very easily take the focus of the movie (the love story) and put it into a paintball arena, or football, or virtually anything, and the movie wouldn't change at all.

The event of Pearl Harbor was completely unrelated to the lead characters. It wasn't organic to the movie itself, so why try to convince us otherwise? Why try to use a lame and bloated Ben Affleck Hollywood "cash cow" as anything relevant in a thread about politics and war? It's just like the Dixie Chicks offering their views on the political arena.