JsARCLIGHT

Who? What? I thought this was the jerk-off on Agent ONE thread! Seriously... any movement on this?

Welcome to the world of politics.

what about viva las-vegas?!?!? I got my scale gt-40 from you so I know you loved that flic despite elvis... just for the cars Nope, all Elvis movies are pure crap. You could have Han Solo shooting Woody Allen in the groin while driving a Ferrari GTO in an Elvis movie and I'd still hate it. Elvis movies = for me to piss on

More "classics" I piss on are any movie starring Elvis Presley... the man may be the king of rock and roll but his movies suck king size blue suede shoes.

Every single Woody Allen movie. Sure I may have chuckled at one at one time in the past but almost all of them are just him being a neurotic weenie... even the ones he's not in.

... and Nero did play his fiddle while Rome burned all about him...

No, you can't... but smart people know that. Stupid people don't. When I say "stupid people" I'm not trying to insult anyone I'm just saying that a lot of people out there that watch a movie like Munich, or Blackhawk Down, or Saving Private Ryan, or Patriot Games and they instantly think that is an honest representation of how things work and how things go down. More people get their history, politics and views on the world through entertainment than anything else. A while back someone came out and said that more people in certain demographics get their news from The Daily Show rather than real news outlets. Smart people know to look into the matters behind the fiction they watch so they can know the truth, but the great majority of people don't. How many times have you watched a movie, fully believing everything you saw on screen, and then doing a little research afterwards to discover everything you just saw was totally made up? The sad fact is a lot of people are lazy and won't do that research... they want to be entertained before being educated. In all honesty, how many people went out and did reserach on the Mogadishu raid after watching Blackhawk Down? How many people went and looked into the whole "Landing Zone X-Ray" battle after the movie We Where Soldiers? My guess is very few... most just watched the movie and said "wow so that is how it happened". That sentence that I hear from so many people these days that grates my nerves, "wow that is how it was/happened/went down/came about". With the lines between truth and entertainment constantly blurred in people's minds movies like this one create a lot of havok. I know almost to a T that in the near future I will be talking with people about this subject at a party or other sort of thing and some numbskull will be using this movie as his historical basis. I've had it happen with BHD and this movie is rife for the same. Yes this movie is entertainment, yes it is meant to just get a dialogue going... but all that depends on intelligent people seeing the movie and taking the right steps afterwards. There are a lot of people out there who will exit that theater and file the movie away as fact in their brains subconsiously, doing to followup at all and it will affect how they feel and react to things in the future. I find that just scary.

That is a very salient point about Blackhawk Down. It is another movie based on a book that had only one source and is rife with "historical errors" but almost all the viewers who see it take it as gospel and believe that that is exactly how the situation went down. My whole point all this time was not really about the movie itself but the dangers of making a drama about real world events and viewers believing that is exactly how things happened. We are smart people who know better but a good deal of people are not... they believe everything they see on the screen. If I had a dollar for every person I've talked to who gets their facts from movies I'd be a billionare. There where many scenes in the movie that where brutal, brutal and "dangerous" to show in my mind. Spielburg and his scriptwriters took a few angles on things that I personally found to be in poor taste... mostly because stupid people will see those scenes and think that is how it happened and that will affect their feelings on other matters. As for the whole subtext of this thread all I can say is that in a time of "war" it is a necessary evil to dehumanize your enemy. It's very hard to pursue and kill a human but it is easy to hunt down and kill a monster. I will say that Munich took that ball and ran with it well (even if I feel it shoved that thought down my throat a tad too energetically). It is easy to see murderers as monsters, even though they maintain the same feelings and humanity as you... we laud the person who kills the killers. It has always been morally questionable to kill a killer but when it comes to punishment what is there to take from someone who has nothing? And more specifically what is there to take from someone as a punishment that will properly punish them for such a heinous crime as murder? Everyone has their own opinion on this... and I have found that people who's noses are not bloodied tend to favor leniency while those who are still wiping the blood from their face favor the code of hammurabi. The other topic that Munich really kept pounding on for me (and possibly others) is the strategem of the two sides... one side favors one single, quick and flashy op that gets their name out there and does severe damage while the other side favors the long game, the drawn out precise surgical operations that make no headlines and dissapear into the night. You could say that the two sides have to play this way due to their standing the world, one has to maintain dignity while the other has no dignitiy to loose and everything to gain.

Well we just got back from seeing it... and I have no clue what to say, other than that I really, really did not like this movie. I don't know what I was expecting from it but just the execution of the movie... the way Spielburg shot and scripted the scenes, did not sit well with me. The dialogue seemed overly stilted, like it was trying so hard to make a point with every line. Most of the characters, no matter how "humanized" they where made, I found to be very unlikable... or at least I didn't care for very many of them. At it's core, I think that is where the movie failed for me... I just didn't care about any of the characters. As for my fears of this movie "writing history" for some people I still think that can be true. Without giving away spoilers a lot of scenes where just a tad too "staged", if you catch my drift. The movie just smacks of effort in the whole "paint the picture I want you to see rather than the picture of what most likely really happened"... the whole thing feels very, very fake to me. But all that is just my opinion. The guys I went to see it with felt the same way with some scenes and characters but they had the opinions of others in this thread. I guess I was right to a degree when I thought that people can and will take very different things away from this movie. My verdict on it (all opinion of course) is that the movie is very "Spielburg", very stilted and smacks of effort in making it's points. Subtle is a word unknown in this script, or at least it seemed that way to me. The pace is quite slow and plodding and the historical accuracy, whatever it may be in reality, just feels very off watching it on the screen. I also did not care for the final shot's connotation... but I'll avoid that argument on the grounds that it will reignite the bad sides of this thread. All in all, IMHO if you enjoy talky, slow, heavy-handed movies in which you never connect with the characters... go see it.

To get this back on track... hopefully... I've been talked into going to see it today. I'm taking some of my worker bees to a movie this afternoon rather than work (hey, nobody else seems to be at work today). I still do not really want to see this movie but everyone else wants to see it. I'll have to see what their thoughts are on it on the car ride back to the office.

OK then, if the actual Munich Olympics killings are shown then you have the required archetype for a revenge movie. Everyone I have talked with who says they saw the movie told me the Munich killings were either not shown or only mentioned/shown briefly in passing and that the weight of the movie was focused on the time after the Olympics and the Moussad Op.

I also do not see movies to be educated but I cannot swallow movies that portray or profess to portray real world events. I can enjoy movies like Saving Private Ryan because it is fiction, fiction with the backdrop of history. The same can be said for Apocalypse Now and many other war movies. The only war movie I have ever seen that tried it's best to portray the events as accurately and historically truthful as possible was the rambling and painfully long "The Longest Day". I will wholly agree that movies are meant to entertain, but when a movie uses a real world event that is filled with such polarizing stigma as this people like me take a step back... at what point is entertainment writing history or re-writing history? I know blockheads that to this day think Saving Private Ryan was a real story... and they think the movie treatment of Pearl Harbor was about a true story (the two guys/love story thing). Movies affect people, and when you dabble with history... especially politically and emotionally charged history such as this, bad things can happen. Spielburg knew this and I think that is why he is handling this movie the way he is handling it (no press, no ads, limited openings). Edit: What I am trying to say is that I have no issue with anyone telling a morality story, or a peace story, or any other kind of story... in so long as they do not inject real world heated political footballs into it. The whole Moussad "revenge" strikes to this day are shrouded in mystery and fuel hate for the Israelis and Palestinans alike. If Spielburg wanted to just tell a story of peace between Arabs and Jews he could have made one of his typical, shmaltzy "Spielburgian" plays that he wrote every element of using made up characters that make people say "hmm, I'll think about that message" rather than dramatizing real events that few people know much of anything about. It's the "making up" of historical events that I'm having a problem with... because I know people will take this movie as gospel for what happened on that Moussad mission.

I used the word propaganda because propaganda is something that makes you feel something about someone or something using slanted or incorrect logic. The whole truth is not known about the Moussad operation, anything Spielburg puts up on the screen is fiction outside of a handful of news blurbs that could be extrapolated into scenes. It's like someone making a movie about the American Phoenix Program in Vietnam... yes it exsisted, yes the CIA killed a lot of people both innocent and not, but any more than that is unknown to all but the government that holds the classified files. For someone to come out and make a movie called "Phoenix" supposedly telling the story of the Phoenix Program is bunk... it may have the shadow of truth behind it but it is someone's opinion piece designed to make the audience feel a certain way about the thing or event rather than present an honest, by the numbers impartial historical account. Very few honest historically accurate and truthful movies exsist depicting wars, covert operations and the like because to understand the whole dynamic in any sort of way that would honest to all sides is near impossible in a three hour theater format that the common man can digest. I'm not trying to badmouth Spielburg or sway people on this movie, I'm just trying to get people to see it for what it is: an op-ed piece with an agenda. What Spielburg's agenda is is unknown to me. Peace is a good agenda and I hope that's what he has in mind.

But to simply have the catalyst of the revenge as a "known fact" does not give even footing to the presentation of the story. To speak in EXO terms (not trying to snarl you EXO, just using your analogy), the common mythos for a "revenge movie" is to show the act that causes the protagonist to seek revenge... and in many cases of revenge movies they show the whole act, dramatized, so the audience can see what the character seeking revenge saw and feel what that character felt. A fine point is the Clint Eastwood movie Unforgiven... he shows you the cowhand cut up the whore and the audience sees and knows what happened and they know what they felt when it happened, so later in the movie when they hear the supporting cast spreading tall tales and exaggerations of the incident and when the final revenge comes they feel just as the protagonist feels. Munich is a revenge story without the catalyst in my mind... with the catalyst it seems the dynamic of the movie drastically changes, which makes me think the movie is supposed to be showing us something other than simple revenge. I also think it is supposed to be showing us something other than simple "both sides are inhuman/human" moral as he could have chosen a much less politically charged topic to tell a more poiniant story of that respect. To clear a few things up I myself have several Jewish friends but am not Jewish myself. I hear them talk of the struggles, the hardships and the problems they and their families face in Israel. They are all currently lit on fire about this movie, condemning it as Spielburg villifying the Israelis... but I think he is trying to show us something else but I don't know what. The other problem is that I really don't want to see the movie, while I have interest in knowing the truth of the Moussad operation I have no interest in seeing a dramatized, factually errant "made up" account of it... I just what to know what Spielburg wanted me to take from it.

You are not wrong but at the same time you are not right. That is your opinion and many people will disagree with you. And just as that is your opinion this movie is Spielburg's opinion on this whole affair... there is no "truth" in this. The "true truth" is hidden in the files of the Moussad. The problem is that mass media like movies tend to sway the opinions of others who watch them even when all the facts are not in. Munich is propaganda... but propaganda for what is my question? It seems everyone who sees it gets something different out of it. I just want to know what Spielburg intended this movie to be... what was in his head when he made this movie and what was his intent to show us? What we actually see and take from the movie is up to our own interpretation of it but every artist has a goal in mind when he stretches his canvas... who gets that goal in the end is up to their own eyes and ears. But this subject at this time is what I question.

My only point I wanted to make is that this topic is still a very, very sore subject for people and for Spielburg to make a movie about it now of all times, no matter how apolitical or "sideless" he is trying to make it, the movie is going to come off negative. Four Brothers is a revenge movie, Payback is a revenge movie, Unforgiven is a revenge movie... but they are all fake, made up. Munich is very real and rife with still festering politics. It's about horrible real world events, showing two hated and embattled groups at their worst and that is still an open wound to a lot of people. If this was just some run of the mill shootem' up revenge movie Spielburg would not be screening this for politicos, hiring members of the whitehouse international affairs staff to slick down ruffled feathers and trying to spin it like a top so people don't put a hit out on him. Personally I think this whole thing is just Spielburg trying to rub his thumb in someone's eye... who's eye it is I'm not sure.

Question for those who have seen the movie, or to those who go and see the movie: The actual killing of the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics is reported to not be shown in the movie, and that the movie only deals with the Moussad operation after the event. For those who see the movie, do you feel any more sympathy for the Israelis or for the Palestinians when the focus of the entire movie seems to be about the Israeli revenge and not the incident that spawned the revenge? It seems to me in order to properly balance this movie Spielburg needed to cover both events, the Munich terrorist attack and the Moussad retribution strikes in equal ground in order to show "both sides of the coin". Just hinting at the terrorism or showing snippets of it then putting all the focus on the followup actions is like only covering the fielding of a baseball hit by a bat and not showing the actual pitch and hit. Then again what is the intent of this movie? Is the intent to showcase the brutality of the follup "revenge" strikes? Is it to show how terrorists and the agents pursuing them are "alike"? I have heard every reason under the rainbow for Spielburg's choices that supposedly exsist in this movie... but my question is how is the viewer supposed to react? What are you supposed to feel and for whom?

I'll probably see this movie eventually but I have to say that the subject matter does not interest me in the least. Spielburg is walking a very narrow line with this movie and in all truth it has to turn out the way it does (portraying both sides as bad/good) because if it didn't then it would supposedly "show favoritism" to one side or the other in a very heated political area... The only problem is that the book this movie is supposedly based on (Vengence) is increadibly slanted and opinionated in not only it's position but many people claim it made up a good number of facts about the whole incident. (the book Vengence is based on only ONE man's side of the story with facts and items unable to be proven but are all denied by the Moussad and Israel) The only people that know the real truth are the Israeli operatives that where on the mission, all this new movie is and the book it is based on are speculation. Speculation that runs a terrible risk of ignighting new hate between the Israelis and the Palestinians... hence why he had to make it the way people say it is made. You just can't go and make a polarizing movie that might set off violence, no matter what sort of "artistic vision" you think you have... but at the same time to bend the truth to make the topic palatable to all sides is just as bad. The problem is that no one really knows what the truth is in this situaiton so Spielburg has taken it upon himself to "write history" for the world... and a lot of stupid people get their views and opinions from movies rather than facts. Hopefully this movie will be a catalyst for people to want to know what really happened in the wake of Munich rather than it becoming the accepted truth of what happened.

SkullyGR, aka Skullone, was banned because he pretty much lit every Robotech loving person on fire on here. He directly attacked them at first sight and came right out of the gate full of vitriol and hate... some of us (such as myself) liked him and loved his in your face, kill you on sight attitude about RT (what can I say he made me laugh)... others, well pretty much mostly everyone else, thought he was a punk and a troublemaker. He in fact actually was a punk and a troublemaker... just because some of us liked him did not mean he would not be banned for constantly breaking the ROE, and in most cases he would start unprovoked flame wars over RT. Not meaning to break my own request of getting this topic off of Agent ONE, but Skullone was a nuclear warhead compared to A1.

That deuce was most likely shooting normal .50 cal ammo, lead core with a copper jacket. That is all that is "legal" to use in war according to the Hauge and Geneva conventions and when it comes to belted .50 cal ammo that is about all you can find. The power of the .50 caliber round comes from the sheer mass of gunpowder behind the bullet. The funny thing is that only about 25% of the rounds fired actually hit the katana... an M2 is a "field of fire" weapon which releases a large beaten zone of bullet impacts. "Aiming" with Ma Deuce is pretty much a point and click sort of thing... point it at the target and push in the spade... then hold it on target. Even at that close range you can see on their backstop a trashcan lid size beaten zone. Uncle Sucker let me play with a deuce when I was in the army, they are very, very mean weapons... designed to take out light and medium vehicles. I am not suprised in the least that it blew that katana away with room to spare, I've seen M2's cut down trees. Them putting a katana up against Ma Duece is like them putting a compact car up against an 18 wheeler in a head-on crash.

Fuds' avatars where his original "TIM the sorcerer" (from Monty Python's Holy Grail) and a VF-1S "Scarface" trip... the only reason I know is that I made the VF Scarface for him.

Someone told me Abombz was involved in some sort of bad happenings at MW with another member... some things where said and both Abombz and the other member seem to have left MW.

I had to return something to Beast Buy tonight on the way home and noticed that they have a sign up on their return counter saying something to the effect of "All Xbox 360 returns, open or otherwise (systems, hardware, games, etc), are accepted". What is the deal with that? Why are they waiving the open item return clause for the Xbox 360?

Oh my freaking god was that Fudrom? First I hallucinate Abombz and now Fudrom... Is everyone else seeing this or am I too drunk to drive again?

Joking and the "A1 factor" aside, I think the real truth under this thread is that a new admin is needed. Graham already said he is contacting Shawn about the issue. I'll be the first to admit that A1 is not the best of choices for such a role but others like Mechamaniac and Azreal are. I know from talking with A1 that that was his true desire out of all his shenanigans... to address the MW Admin issue. He may not have the tact to come out and say it but that was his agenda. This thread was started as a joke but it brings up a valid point that is being addressed somewhere between all the A1 talk. We should at least put this A1 thing to bed for now and think about the supposed Admin issue... it's not a joke and it's not going away.