Movie

[Plane]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-muslims-threatened-after-american-sniper/ar-AA8yeUj


     An organization of American Muslims is worried that viewing of "American Sniper" is liable to increase the harassment of Muslim people.

"A majority of the violent threats we have seen over the past few days are (a) result of how Arab and Muslims are depicted in American Sniper," the ADC said.

The ADC notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and local police about the threats and asked the two Hollywood stars to condemn the violent rhetoric used by filmgoers.

"Your visibility, influence, and connection to the film would be a tremendous force in drawing attention to and lessening the serious dangers facing the respective communities," the letters signed by ADC president Samer Khalaf said.
 

       I am struck at how a movie might have greater effect showing simulation and recreation than news footage of the exact same thing did.

     

[Xavier_Onassis]

There are people that believe that anyone's life can be turned into a good novel. This is blatantly untrue: a novel can be written in such a way that there is a clear sense of direction to a character's life. This is almost never the case with actual people: life is chaotic, much of it makes no sense and has no logic.  It would be quite easy to make a movie of Kim Jung Il playing his perfect game of golf: 18 shots, 18 holes in one, fortified with special music and all manner of accompaniment of other actors. The ball could falter on its way to the hole: it might rain: there might be evil trained enemy falcons that were sent to prevent the triumph. You could easily do the same thing with an entire team of bowlers, all bowling a perfect 300.  A convincing film could be made of a quadriplegic winning the Iditarod as well, or Stephen Hawking winning an Olympic luge race. Compared to something like Avatar all these would be but a piece of cake.

Even if these happened in reality and were filmed as a documentary, the film would never be as good as a well dramatized one.

Of course, not all films represent a "what would happen if" situation can be convincing.  Tarantino's  Django Unchained and  his Inglorious Basterds are a couple of bad examples. I am pretty sure that the basic plot of both of these could have been made credible had several changes been made. As it was, both were too cartoonish. I am not sure that this was not Tarantino's intent.

O Brother Where Art Thou was similar, but it was a great film, because it was clearly a comedy.  Django Unchained and Inglorious Basterds were far too violent to be funny, though there was a bit of irony in both.

[Christians4LessGvt]

BOX OFFICE: "AMERICAN SNIPER" #1,
BREAKS SUPER BOWL WEEKEND RECORD

In its third weekend of wide release, director Clint Eastwood's "American Sniper" is expected to gross another $31.3 million, which breaks the record for the highest grossing film over Super Bowl weekend.

What's extraordinary about this feat is that previous record holder, 2008's "Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert," debuted on this weekend to $31.1. million.

At 84 years-old, Eastwood can still make liberals cry.

By Monday, "Sniper" is expected to be at $250 million, or close enough to pass the magic mark by Tuesday.

"Sniper" humiliated this week's second place. In its third weekend "Paddington" won?t crack $8 million, nor will the found footage, time travel drama "Project Almanac," which debuted to $7.75 million.

Kevin Costner's racial drama "Black and White" went wide with 1823 screens this weekend and earned $6.2 million.

Both "The Wedding Ringer" and "Taken 3" seem to be slowing down fast. After 3 weeks the Kevin Hart comedy earned just $5.6 million for a total of $48 million. "Taken 3" sits at just $81.5 million after 4 weeks, which puts it way behind pace with its two predecessors.

"Selma" dropped completely out of the top 10.  The Civil Rights drama sits at $43.6 million after earning $2.37 million this weekend.

http://deadline.com/2015/01/american-sniper-project-almanac-super-bowl-box-office-1201361696/

[sirs]

"Selma" dropped completely out of the top 10.  The Civil Rights drama sits at $43.6 million after earning $2.37 million this weekend.

Well there you go....proof positive that our nation is a bunch of racists......right?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Comparing films by their ability to earn money is not a useful way to judge their merit or the attitudes of theatergoers. People go to the movies to be entertained. I don't think a majority of people consider the events of Selma as entertaining as the events portrayed in American Sniper or in some entirely fictional film. Everyone knows what happened in Selma. Most people know nothing about the central character in American Sniper: not his name, not his experience, not whether he is dead or alive.

Of the three films mentioned, the Costner film Black or White is the one I would prefer to see, though I imagine I will eventually see all of these.
Eastwood is a grumpy old SOB, but the movies he has directed have always been excellent, in my opinion. Less so the ones in which he has the starring role, especially some of the early ones.  His chimpanzee movie was LOTS better than Reagan's chimpanzee movie. Neither was as good as most of the Planet of the Apes movies, but they were not so much chimpanzee movies as apesuit movies, as the apes were more human than simian.

[Plane]

       If I made a movie, could I get Howard Dean, Michael Moore and the first lady talking about it?

       This is terrific marketing.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I can agree that this film has received great publicity.
The life story of a sniper is surely worthy of an insightful  book and/or film.  Anyone who has a realization that the people he is killing have lives and loved ones just as he does should make for a serious inner conflict. Only a psychopath would not be conflicted a bit over this job.

A successful sniper lies in hiding and kills people that are unaware of his existence, often shooting them in the back. Shooting people in the back was pretty much against every Code of the West that has ever existed. If there are other snipers lurking about to shoot the sniper in question, then perhaps a sniper is brave.

But heroic?  Firemen are generally far more heroic than snipers in anyone's book.

[sirs]

That'd be your book

[Xavier_Onassis]

Most of the time, snipers are hidden from danger. Firemen are always near danger, and fires are always a threat.

They do not make that many fireman movies because house fires are commonplace, and society never questions the need to put out fires.
The wars that this country has fought after WWII have all been questionable, and sending soldiers off to fight them has required a lot of hoopla to convince the public to support these expensive and largely unnecessary wars.

It is like the Man Bites Dog phenomena. Fireman heroism is of the dog bites man variety: it is expected.

[sirs]

The issue here is not how public you are in the lives saved, but how many lives you save, regardless of if anyone sees you or doesn't.  Minus the obligatory insult about shooting people in the back, and the fact that the enemy goes out of its way to try and hunt down a sniper, where as a house doesn't target firemen to kill, one sniper can save hundreds, if not thousands of lives.  That defacto makes him a hero, just as much, if not more, than any fireman. 

It's a little like the firearms argument, that the left frequently tries to ignore, where despite what "evil" a gun does in taking a a life, in this country a gun saves far more, than taken.  Not my stats either....nor the NRA's.  That'd be referred to as the FBI's stats

Speaking of which, I happen to recall a certain professor opining a while back, how school shootings were supposedly increasing in frequency, in this gun crazy culture of ours.....once a month, I heard in fact.  Boy, are those gun nuts not getting the memo??

[Xavier_Onassis]

So are you going to tell me that snipers do NOT shoot people in the back?
 That is not an insult...it is a job description.

You have it backwards: shooting snipers saves lives. 

[sirs]

So are you going to tell me that snipers do NOT shoot people in the back?

IF they know that the person in question is heading towards who they're trying to protect with the intention of harming/killing those whom they are trying to protect.  Absolutely

That is not an insult...it is a job description.

Of course it is, when its made in the context, MM uses it, in that the tactic is supposedly standard procedure, where the bad guy isn't necessarily being a bad guy

You have it backwards: shooting snipers saves lives.

See?...you just made my point.  Depends on who's lives now, doesn't it.  Our American military or terrorists/insurgents/"bad guys".  Thank you  Shooting American snipers puts at greater risk American lives.  An American sniper shooting "bad guy" snipers saves American lives.  An American sniper shooting terrorists trying to shoot Americans saves American lives.  An American sniper shooting insurgents trying to get close with a high explosive saves American lives.  1 American sniper can save hundreds, if not thousands of American lives

[Xavier_Onassis]

You made no point at all.

Shooting people in the back is  a NOT an act of bravery, no matter who does it. It may or may not be necessary to win a battle.

Whether a battle is won is a good thing depends entirely on what the battle is about.

Rescuing people from a burning building cannot be described as anything other than heroic.

In Iraq, we have fought "bad guy" Sunnis to save "good guy" Shiites.
We have also fought "bad guy Shiites" in order to save "good guy" Sunnis.

The US invasion of Iraq was a terrible mistake.  Many more Americans could have been saved by just not engaging in this war.

Now if a sniper could have plugged Henry Kissinger, Zbignev Brzezinski or Dick Cheney at the appropriate moment, thousands of American lives could have been saved.

[sirs]

Shooting people in the back is  a NOT an act of bravery, no matter who does it.

You just can't help yourself.  I NEVER SAID THAT SHOOTING SOMEONE IN THE BACK WAS A BRAVE ACT.  I referenced that its insulting when you imply it with the context that its a cowardly act, as in "not necessary", or that its simply something snipers just do.  That's a direct insult to American snipers

Rescuing people from a burning building cannot be described as anything other than heroic.

AND WHO SAID THAT IT WASN'T??  Point being, that I HAVE MADE, is that 1 American sniper can save hundrends if not thousands of lives.  THAT's the point, despite your best efforts at misdirection 

[Xavier_Onassis]

When I say that snipers shoot people iun the back, that is not just an insult to American snipers. It is a description of ALL snipers, because it is not an act of bravery for any of them. You can say the same thing about submarines torpedoing ships, knowing that they cannot prevent passengers and others who now pose no threat to the submarine from drowning.

Sniping, poison gas, nukes, biological warfare, submarine attacks, terrorism and torture are all dastardly deeds that can easily be described as cowardly. Modern warfare is a whole assemblage of dastardly deeds. There is no longer such a thing as a fair fight.