Act of Valor is a movie that was made using active duty personnel currently serving.
The bulk of the movie's action scenes consist of real life training footage with the use of live ammunition.
How do you feel about this nation's elite class military personnel being featured within a movie?
Does the loss of anonymity concern you?
How about the fact that this actually started out as a SPECOP training film that somehow morphed into a full blown action movie?
What about the fact that paid, on duty, military personnel are being used as a means to obtain personal material wealth for the movies makers?
http://www.actofvalor.com/ (http://www.actofvalor.com/)
I'm not sure.
The movie looks very interesting. The behind the scenes video was great.
One point, it may show the world just how BA our military elite truly is....
The loss of anonymity is a great point too....
What do you think?
i couldn't get it to load so I haven't watched it, but generally I would worry about the troops loss of anonymity. I don't like someone getting a lot of money from this. Does it say who approved this? I would think someone high up in the military or government would have to approve the filming.
Quote from: Anne on February 09, 2012, 03:50:30 PM
i couldn't get it to load so I haven't watched it, but generally I would worry about the troops loss of anonymity. I don't like someone getting a lot of money from this. Does it say who approved this? I would think someone high up in the military or government would have to approve the filming.
Another thing about nothing. For years and years Hollywood has worked with the Armed Forces to use air planes, battle ships, aircraft carriers, tanks, guns, submarines and yes soldiers. It is good for the armed forces and America.
After "Top Gun" the enlistments to the air force increased tremendously. All of the war movies has had corporation from the Armed Forces. How could a war movie be made without their help. Why worry about nothing. :doh:
Quote from: The Troll on February 09, 2012, 04:13:38 PM
Another thing about nothing. For years and years Hollywood has worked with the Armed Forces to use air planes, battle ships, aircraft carriers, tanks, guns, submarines and yes soldiers. It is good for the armed forces and America.
After "Top Gun" the enlistments to the air force increased tremendously. All of the war movies has had corporation from the Armed Forces. How could a war movie be made without their help. Why worry about nothing. :doh:
Good points Troll.... :yes:
I'm sure that it was all appropriately vetted by the people in charge and doesn't pose a risk to national security.
I am not particularly worried about national security. I was not able to watch the video so I don'tknow if the personnel were identified. That is what would worry me.
Just want to point out that most of the characters in this movie are active military personnel.
Whether or not they are named in the credits I do not know at this time.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 09, 2012, 05:35:56 PM
I'm sure that it was all appropriately vetted by the people in charge and doesn't pose a risk to national security.
Yes. IIRC secnav and JCS signed off on it and left it to the team members surrounding green lighting it. All of them said no out of the box, but eventually went along with it.
Quote from: Palehorse on February 09, 2012, 08:55:16 PM
Yes. IIRC secnav and JCS signed off on it and left it to the team members surrounding green lighting it. All of them said no out of the box, but eventually went along with it.
I know it is something I would like to watch and enjoy. One thing can be said, We have one hell of a good military and we can kick ass over any enemy. :4th3:
Quote from: The Troll on February 12, 2012, 11:04:07 AM
I know it is something I would like to watch and enjoy. One thing can be said, We have one hell of a good military and we can kick ass over any enemy. :4th3:
Except in Korea, Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. . .
that would only because Washington and the Pentegon will not let them fight to thier fullest capabilities.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 12, 2012, 11:42:32 AM
that would only because Washington and the Pentegon will not let them fight to thier fullest capabilities.
We'll never know that. . .
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 12, 2012, 11:42:32 AM
that would only because Washington and the Pentegon will not let them fight to thier fullest capabilities.
Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the orchestrator of the Vietnam conflict disagrees. Here are his lessons from that war that can also be applied to subsequent military actions:
• We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries ... and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
• We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience ... We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
• We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
• Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
• We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine...
• We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
• We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement ... before we initiated the action.
• After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course ... we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.
• We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
• We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action ... should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
• We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions ... At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
• Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 12, 2012, 11:42:32 AM
that would only because Washington and the Pentegon will not let them fight to thier fullest capabilities.
You sure got that one right. Johnson planning bombing raid at night in his bedroom and no letting us mine the harbor until it was to late and not bombing the river dikes when it flooded in North Vietnam. You can't win a war with on arm tied behind our backs.
Also the United Stated military learned a real lession in Vietnam and you sure seen the difference in the Desert Storm War. General Norman Schwarzhopt and Air Force General Chuck Horner. "you box them in and you kill them" :thumbsup: :tiphat:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 12, 2012, 12:25:23 PM
Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the orchestrator of the Vietnam conflict disagrees. Here are his lessons from that war that can also be applied to subsequent military actions:
• We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
• We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
• We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
• Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
• We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine…
• We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
• We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.
• After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.
• We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
• We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
• We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
• Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.
I think what he said was interesting and true....and supports what I said.
I think our politicians make situations WAY more complicated than is necessary....and make things much worse on our soldiers.....but our troops are among the best in the world, capable of fulfilling any military act needed to accomplish any given task...at least that is MY personal opinion.
Actually, what he was implying is that we never should have been there in the first place.
I would be interested, though, in hearing your perspective of what we could have done in Vietnam, short of nuking them, that could have significantly changed the outcome?
Quote from: Exterminator on February 13, 2012, 03:52:05 PM
Actually, what he was implying is that we never should have been there in the first place.
I would be interested, though, in hearing your perspective of what we could have done in Vietnam, short of nuking them, that could have significantly changed the outcome?
Okay, here is my two cents....and I know you will jump on me for not serving, but IF, we had went into Hanoi, Laos and Cambodia , with a massive shock and awe.....and OCCUPIED them.......chocked off all military aid and support to the Viet Cong in South Vietnam....set up shop, and went after the likes of Pol Pot and destroyed him as soon as he was a threat....THEN turn vietnam into a free land and made it a tourist island, it would have been a rich and prospours nation.
But, that is just a lousy opinion.....and we probably should NOT have even got involved in the first place.....
As we did, we lost men and won nothing.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 13, 2012, 04:54:38 PM
Okay, here is my two cents....and I know you will jump on me for not serving, but IF, we had went into Hanoi, Laos and Cambodia , with a massive shock and awe.....and OCCUPIED them.......chocked off all military aid and support to the Viet Cong in South Vietnam....set up shop, and went after the likes of Pol Pot and destroyed him as soon as he was a threat....THEN turn vietnam into a free land and made it a tourist island, it would have been a rich and prospours nation.
But, that is just a lousy opinion.....and we probably should NOT have even got involved in the first place.....
As we did, we lost men and won nothing.
Correct; we lost men...58,000 of them and won nothing. We threw shit at these people like no war previously had ever seen and in the end it turned out exactly like it would have if we had never lost a single serviceman or had never spent a dime. We left, the communists took Saigon...fast forward to the future and Vietnam embraced capitalism and is an emerging democracy!
Same deal with the cold war...your ilk likes to pretend that Ronald Reagan somehow caused the fall of the Soviet Union but that couldn't be further from the truth. The Soviet Union imploded with absolutely no American influence...that system simply doesn't work. Unfortunately, history proves that the democratic/capitalistic model doesn't work either. While we are the longest existing example of such a system, it isn't by much and the income disparity that is inherent in such a system and that historically causes its collapse manifests itself more profoundly every day. The difference now is that we have media, funded by the wealthy, who have managed to convince the unwashed masses that giving them more money benefits society as a whole. It doesn't.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 13, 2012, 04:54:38 PM
Okay, here is my two cents....and I know you will jump on me for not serving, but IF, we had went into Hanoi, Laos and Cambodia , with a massive shock and awe.....and OCCUPIED them.......chocked off all military aid and support to the Viet Cong in South Vietnam....set up shop, and went after the likes of Pol Pot and destroyed him as soon as he was a threat....THEN turn vietnam into a free land and made it a tourist island, it would have been a rich and prospours nation.
But, that is just a lousy opinion.....and we probably should NOT have even got involved in the first place.....
As we did, we lost men and won nothing.
You damn liberal peacenik.
Had you said that at the time, you would have been labeled a "hippie freak commie" that ought to be in jail for treason, and you probably would have had the shit beaten out of you if you said that in the wrong place.
Trust me.
Been there, done that.
Ah, yes, hind sight being 20-20 and all.
A conservative looks back and adopts a stinkin' liberal point of view.
Quote from: followsthewolf on February 14, 2012, 05:59:39 AM
You damn liberal peacenik.
Had you said that at the time, you would have been labeled a "hippie freak commie" that ought to be in jail for treason, and you probably would have had the shit beaten out of you if you said that in the wrong place.
Trust me.
Been there, done that.
Ah, yes, hind sight being 20-20 and all.
A conservative looks back and adopts a stinkin' liberal point of view.
look, it was democrats that got us INTO that war and republicans that took us out of that war.........the only thing I had AGAINST the so-called 'Hippy' crowd was they took it out on the soldiers .... spitting on them and calling them baby killers.
It was conservative Barry Goldwater who said "Either win the [Vietnam] war in a relatively short time, say within a year, or pull out all our troops and come home.".... he also is quoted as saying "We entered (that country) with considerable ignorance"
It was the brilliant liberal democrat LBJ who said crap like ""If we quit Vietnam tomorrow we'll be fighting in Hawaii and next week we'll have to be fighting in San Francisco."
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 14, 2012, 08:57:28 AM
It was conservative Barry Goldwater who said "Either win the [Vietnam] war in a relatively short time, say within a year, or pull out all our troops and come home.".... he also is quoted as saying "We entered (that country) with considerable ignorance"
He is also one of the few people who could claim that his name could be represented by symbols from the periodic table: Ba AuH
2O!
Quote from: Exterminator on February 14, 2012, 09:47:43 AM
He is also one of the few people who could claim that his name could be represented by symbols from the periodic table: Ba AuH2O!
now THAT is very very cool.......... 8)
i watched a two part series on the training of army special forces. it was brutal. they were real people too. maybe hollywood has charmed our military.
hey, who wants cookies?
Quote from: damfast on February 14, 2012, 11:05:07 AM
i watched a two part series on the training of army special forces. it was brutal. they were real people too. maybe hollywood has charmed our military.
hey, who wants cookies?
chocolate chip?
Quote from: damfast on February 14, 2012, 11:05:07 AM
i watched a two part series on the training of army special forces. it was brutal. they were real people too. maybe hollywood has charmed our military.
hey, who wants cookies?
In the service, I went through some rather rigorous training as a nuclear weapons specialist -- control of weapons, etc.
It made me appreciate all the more what some guys went through in much tougher training than mine.
Oh, and I'm not particular about cookies -- any will do. :smile:
Quote from: followsthewolf on February 14, 2012, 11:33:04 AM
In the service, I went through some rather rigorous training as a nuclear weapons specialist -- control of weapons, etc.
It made me appreciate all the more what some guys went through in much tougher training than mine.
Oh, and I'm not particular about cookies -- any will do. :smile:
I was in the Chemical Corp. Tho we did work with the actual agent the training, lectures and films we had on it. I think in some ways that chemical and biological warfare is worse than Nuclear weapons
You drop a nuke and nobody and I do mean nobody live there for years. :science: :science: :science:
well being the sissy i am, i suffered from muscle cramps, and blisters just watching.
am looking for some great cookies....
so far choc chip are the winner
Quote from: damfast on February 14, 2012, 07:49:53 PM
well being the sissy i am, i suffered from muscle cramps, and blisters just watching.
am looking for some great cookies....
so far choc chip are the winner
OK, Cookie. I do love cookies. COOOKIESSSSS. :slap: :wink: :smile: