NeoGAF

duckroll · (05-08-2012, 09:43 AM)

Originally Posted by AnathemicOne:

I find it hard to believe they support Transformers but not the Avengers, I mean come on

Why not? Transformers was a Bay movie, it's straight up FUCK YEAH USA. The chain of command and the depiction of the military is done with a lot of respect and propaganda. Avengers has none of that.

davepoobond · (05-08-2012, 10:01 AM)

Originally Posted by Teh Hamburglar:

The military in the Transformers were not subordinate to anyone else but the President/Generals. In The Avengers we have military being answerable to Nick Fury, a spy master in a covert branch of the military, whose authority is ambiguous in the big picture. Thats what I see anyways. They probably take this stuff very seriously in the military.

yeah i think the issue is more about them being "subverted" and not the ultimate authority. It doesn't help them improve their image at all by promoting conspiracy, even if it is fictional.

Metalic · (05-08-2012, 10:20 AM)

...

This is a movie that contains a giant green man fighting aliens from outer space, and you care of how realistic it is towards the military?

Alx · (05-08-2012, 10:24 AM)

Well it's true that the SHIELD seemed to answer to a mysterious "commitee", that wasn't clearly identified. Or at least it's supposed to, except when Fury decides otherwise.

ScreenSplitter · (05-08-2012, 10:35 AM)

...wait, your military funds films?

duckroll · (05-08-2012, 10:39 AM)

Originally Posted by ScreenSplitter:

...wait, your military funds films?

The US military doesn't fund movies, they get paid for collaborations they approve of. It's the opposite. Basically when Michael Bay films a Transformers movie, he gets direct access to film on military bases, shoot actual military hardware, and even use military personnel who are off-duty for scenes. The military and the soldiers get compensated for their time and contributions.

DonMigs85 · (05-08-2012, 10:42 AM)

Nothing can touch Transforminators in this regard, IMHO

Kinyou · (05-08-2012, 10:53 AM)

lol, they actually do sound kind of butthurt.

"But we're the good guys! Who's that Nick Fury anyway!?"

A Human Becoming · (05-08-2012, 11:00 AM)

Originally Posted by Teh Hamburglar:

Avengers was not enough of a recruitment film for the US military.

First post, as usual, nails it.

Sentry · (05-08-2012, 12:34 PM)

I consider this a good thing. SHIELD is almost above the Pentagon in many ways, and tbh I rarely see Pentagon involvement in Avengers comics anyway, so it's not like a loss in any way.

I'm glad they kept it to "the council".

tarius1210 · (05-08-2012, 12:43 PM)

Originally Posted by duckroll:

Why not? Transformers was a Bay movie, it's straight up FUCK YEAH USA. The chain of command and the depiction of the military is done with a lot of respect and propaganda. Avengers has none of that.

So the US government didn't want to show itself defending the homeland from a foreign threat because of chain of command...in a movie? UGH.

shadyspace · (05-08-2012, 12:46 PM)

It would be more interesting if SHIELD answered to the US. But the reasons that would be interesting would not be reasons the US military would approve of anyway.

Glass Rebel · (05-08-2012, 12:47 PM)

Originally Posted by tarius1210:

So the US government didn't want to show itself defending the homeland from a foreign threat because of chain of command...in a movie? UGH.

Why are you acting surprised?

duckroll · (05-08-2012, 12:48 PM)

Originally Posted by tarius1210:

So the US government didn't want to show itself defending the homeland from a foreign threat because of chain of command...in a movie? UGH.

No, they didn't want to be directly involved with a film that did not serve to promote the military in a way that suits their propaganda. It's no different from how there are rules if you want approval and access to shoot in foreign countries. It's not hard to understand. No one is stopping them from showing the US military in the film, they just don't have access to the military helping them with it.

MisterHero · (05-08-2012, 01:14 PM)

Obama kept Norman Osborn as the Director of SHIELD

they should've used that

LiK · (05-08-2012, 01:27 PM)

Originally Posted by ReturnOfTheRAT:

Michael Bay's powers of persuasion were enough to get the Pentagon into Transformers 1 and 2 weren't they?

Came to post this. The military has cooperated with Bay on every crazy movie he's made. What's the difference this time?

duckroll · (05-08-2012, 01:27 PM)

Originally Posted by LiK:

Came to post this. The military has cooperated with Bay on every crazy movies he's made. What's the difference this time?

Read the thread?

LiK · (05-08-2012, 01:29 PM)

Originally Posted by duckroll:

Read the thread?

yea, you guys are speculating.

Nerfgun · (05-08-2012, 01:30 PM)

cmd-f "Halliburton"
cmd-f "Blackwater"
cmd-f "Xe"

hmmmm

duckroll · (05-08-2012, 01:31 PM)

Originally Posted by LiK:

yea, you guys are speculating.

No. That's how it works. Have you never watched any of the interviews with military supervisors involved in these shows? They make it really clear why they collaborate with some projects and not others. It's not speculation.

industrian · (05-08-2012, 01:35 PM)

Originally Posted by Razgriz-Specter:

They wouldn't do Independence Day because of Area 51 guys.

Came here to post this.

Originally Posted by ScreenSplitter:

...wait, your military funds films?

They assist with making the movie look authentic.

I believe that a lot of police departments in the USA have teams/people to help out with movies too.

BobsRevenge · (05-08-2012, 01:53 PM)

Potential 1st amendment issues, just saying.

Copernicus · (05-08-2012, 05:18 PM)

Originally Posted by LiK:

yea, you guys are speculating.

You sure are.

Tobor · (05-08-2012, 05:27 PM)

Does anyone actually care or have an issue with this? I liked that they had futuristic cool looking jets for a change instead of boring realistic ones.

duckroll · (05-08-2012, 05:33 PM)

Originally Posted by Tobor:

Does anyone actually care or have an issue with this? I liked that they had futuristic cool looking jets for a change instead of boring realistic ones.

Nope. I'm actually surprised that Marvel approached them at all.

LiK · (05-08-2012, 05:35 PM)

Originally Posted by Copernicus:

You sure are.

what?

Callo Merlose · (05-08-2012, 05:37 PM)

Who answers to who... this is why there'd be an actual superhero Civil War.

Joni · (05-08-2012, 05:37 PM)

Wouldn't want those terrorists to think America was weak, would you?!

Originally Posted by jaxword:

The "unrealistic" excuse is just that, an excuse. Transformers was allowed because it showed how awesome and noble and Good the US military was for fighting the evil robots. There was no moral ambiguity, we had brave American soldiers shooting the bad guys.

Didn't an American jet portray Starscream? They obviously don't mind showing something American as bad.

duckroll · (05-08-2012, 05:39 PM)

I think there's a misunderstanding about the title. The problem has nothing to do with realism in the film. It has to do with realism (read: accuracy) with regards to military protocols.

MrPliskin · (05-08-2012, 05:39 PM)

Because of this...

Avengers was a considerably better film.

LiK · (05-08-2012, 05:45 PM)

Originally Posted by MrPliskin:

Because of this...

Avengers was a considerably better film.

at least we don't need to spend 5 min each time seeing soldiers gear up and roll out.

Angry Grimace · (05-08-2012, 05:48 PM)

They should have had Chris Evans just look right into the camera and say, "BUY WAR BONDS"

IceCold · (05-08-2012, 05:50 PM)

I'm happy they weren't in the movie. This is the Avengers. They have Hulk. They don't need the military to help them out.

Copernicus · (05-08-2012, 06:25 PM)

Originally Posted by LiK:

what?

You're the one speculating about the relationships between the military and movie makers.

LiK · (05-08-2012, 06:41 PM)

Originally Posted by Copernicus:

You're the one speculating about the relationships between the military and movie makers.

no I didn't, Bay himself said in commentaries that he and the military have a good relationship and all the docs in his movies showed the military helping him out. what's to speculate?

Divvy · (05-08-2012, 06:43 PM)

Wasn't it the military that wanted to put the railgun in Transformers 2? I don't think that was originally in the plan.

Speevy · (05-08-2012, 06:46 PM)

So many movies feature that "You guys can't get this under control. Despite the casualties, we're dropping a bomb on the whole city." storyline.

How many times has this actually happened?

Dragon · (05-08-2012, 06:47 PM)

I have the same question for you Pentagon...

Copernicus · (05-08-2012, 06:52 PM)

Originally Posted by LiK:

no I didn't, Bay himself said in commentaries that he and the military have a good relationship and all the docs in his movies showed the military helping him out. what's to speculate?

The military doesn't "help people out" for making movies. Studios pay the military for their consulting services for authenticity, and they will pull support for movies if it doesn't meet their standards(Like the avengers).

Bay is just a military whore and will do whatever to see the military blow shit up in his movies.

Dreams-Visions · (05-08-2012, 06:57 PM)

Considering the military was basically depicted as shady, and a quasi-enemy entity to peace...it certainly comes as no surprise.

In Transformers, the military is always the helping, wonderful party supporting the good guys...and perhaps its a few governmental entities that are causing complications. In Avengers, they're developing weapons based on Nazi/Hydar designs and making shit to supplant nuclear weapons with the help of the Tessaract. And naturally defensive about it all since it wasn't supposed to be discovered.

So yea.

Indrid Cold1 · (05-08-2012, 07:15 PM)

Originally Posted by MisterHero:

Obama kept Norman Osborn as the Director of SHIELD

they should've used that

Norman Osborn is the director of SHIELD in the comics? That's the Green Goblin, right? Sounds like some wacky shit has gone down since I last picked up a funnybook! I'll have to read more into this.

Of All Trades · (05-08-2012, 07:50 PM)

Originally Posted by Cozzy:

Norman Osborn is the director of SHIELD in the comics? That's the Green Goblin, right? Sounds like some wacky shit has gone down since I last picked up a funnybook! I'll have to read more into this.

He isn't currently (and probably never will be again). It's kinda complicated (although not as much as you'd think), but if you want to read the rise and fall of Osborn start with the Ellis run on Thunderbolts and follow from there.

HP_Wuvcraft · (05-08-2012, 08:07 PM)

Originally Posted by MisterHero:

Obama kept Norman Osborn as the Director of SHIELD

they should've used that

Why?

That would defeat the purpose of Nick Fury.

GungHo · (05-08-2012, 08:48 PM)

Originally Posted by Teh Hamburglar:

Avengers was not enough of a recruitment film for the US military.

Never underestimate how sensitive American military brass are to feeling like everyone loves them and sees them as big goddamn heroes. Never understimate how vindictive they will be if they feel they're being marginalized or disrespected.

Originally Posted by duckroll:

No, they didn't want to be directly involved with a film that did not serve to promote the military in a way that suits their propaganda.

Yeah... the US military is very savvy about the use of mass media as a tool for recruitment and promotion. Why do you think all the USMC had all the crazy Dungeons and Dragons commercials? They want you to believe that they're the knights... because that's what they believe.

TAJ · 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by Speevy:

So many movies feature that "You guys can't get this under control. Despite the casualties, we're dropping a bomb on the whole city." storyline.

How many times has this actually happened?

We were ready to shoot airline planes down on 9/11. It's just an escalation of the same idea.
Also, arguably Hiroshima.

Originally Posted by Dreams-Visions:

Considering the military was basically depicted as shady, and a quasi-enemy entity to peace...it certainly comes as no surprise.

In Transformers, the military is always the helping, wonderful party supporting the good guys...and perhaps its a few governmental entities that are causing complications. In Avengers, they're developing weapons based on Nazi/Hydar designs and making shit to supplant nuclear weapons with the help of the Tessaract. And naturally defensive about it all since it wasn't supposed to be discovered.

So yea.

lol...
In the first half of Revenge of the Fallen, the Autobots are clearly worse than the Decepticons.

industrian · (05-09-2012, 01:54 AM)

Originally Posted by Joni:

Didn't an American jet portray Starscream? They obviously don't mind showing something American as bad.

Two things:

1) Shows American technical superiority.

2) It's a kid's movie.

jaxword · (05-09-2012, 06:39 AM)

Originally Posted by Joni:

Didn't an American jet portray Starscream? They obviously don't mind showing something American as bad.

You mean the Starscream that the American army fired 10000000 rounds of ordnance at and The Heroic Soldier Man bravely shot in the crotch?

SmartBase · (05-09-2012, 07:02 AM)

The real question is "who gives a shit?"

Loofy · (05-09-2012, 08:17 AM)

I can see why. In the movie SHIELD was pretty much above the military.
And fury didnt just answer to the US. He answered to the chinese, russians, british, and US presidents.

CorvoSol · (05-09-2012, 08:37 AM)

Originally Posted by Carbonox_Ratchet:

Probably because they think they can get Darpa to create actual shape-shifting robot warriors for war duty but not a Norse God. :P

IT'S A CONSPIRACY.

Didn't Shield have a robot Thor at one point?

Also: If SHIELD basically answers to whoever the hell they want to when they want to, why were they hell-bent on enforcing the SRA? It's not like SHIELD isn't full of undercover people anyway.

And why didn't the Heroes all just say "Screw you America, if you don't like us saving your butts you can welcome your new Latverian/Skrull/Mutant overlords, and don't come crying to us."