/military/

USA came in the parade game too late for them not to be considered facist and nationalist.

>>53227139

Because life in America is already basically a non-stop patriotic parade, and we don't want to overdo it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGkHJ13-9ng

File: 1449867294133469874.jpg (367KB, 1279x851px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1279x851px

>>53229905
But why you don't want to show some steel to your society?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jox5vMFASLA

File: Screen Shot 2016-01-07 at 8.37.13 AM.png (2MB, 1440x760px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x760px

>>53230369

We have jets that fly over stadiums before games, but our parades are pretty lame. The public relations wing of the armed forces must not think it's a good idea for some reason. Even the national memorial day parade, though it has a lot of service members in uniform marching, has a lot of shit like picrelated.

One of the reasons why public opinion soured on Vietnam was that they were broadcasting war footage on television, so families would eat dinner, then sit down in front of the tv and watch people die horrible deaths. The military wised up after that and control how it's presented. Even in movies, they offer support and access, letting people use tanks, vehicles, and equipment in exchange for script approval, which usually means putting a spin on it. People still make movies without their cooperation, but it's a lot more expensive.

>>53230369
they showed enough steel during iraq you perv

File: uid_cbce02554d367f8b72ae3b2945c59ed11447237663389_width_1200_play_0_pos_1200_gs_0.jpg (78KB, 1012x570px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1012x570px

>>53231148
>Even in movies, they offer support and access, letting people use tanks(...)
Interesting

>>53231240
I'm thinking about live parades, where soldiers and military vehicles drive in front of your president and nation.

File: Screen Shot 2016-01-07 at 10.06.36 AM.png (52KB, 681x160px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 681x160px

>>53232081

Yeah, it's a secret that's not really a secret. If someone wants to make a movie about soldiers in Iraq, it usually plays out that the Pentagon will let them use all the equipment they need, as long as they remove that one subplot where a soldier is an alcoholic who hits his wife, or at least gives him a redemption. It makes perfect sense, because the Pentagon isn't going to help make a movie that makes them look bad, but it has a real effect on the military movies being made.

If you make a movie without their assistance, you're left either renting vehicles and stuff from foreign countries or finding a way to make a military movie without any of that stuff, and nine times out of 10, studios make the changes and save their budgets. Every once in a while someone will make something like Apocalypse Now, but for the most part, it's an easy choice for producers. Submit your screenplay to the Department of Defense, adjust for any changes they request, and they'll save you millions of dollars.

The Hurt Locker went through the process and got approved and was largely made with cooperation, but the Department of Defense pulled out at the very end of shooting. Wasn't too bad, because they and the CIA collaborated with Bigelow for Zero Dark Thirty not too long after.