6 ms·

So in exchange for production support, DOD and IC reserve the right to back out if certain topics are broached, or if they’re represented in a way they don’t ap

So in exchange for production support, DOD and IC reserve the right to back out if certain topics are broached, or if they’re represented in a way they don’t approve of. The movies and tv shows come to them, and they’re subsequently influenced as part of the deal. Am I reading this correctly? They’ve really tried to make it scary but I’m left feeling “well, yeah I guess that makes sense, sucks tho I guess”...

Tactic 9y ago
I agree the article overplays it. Any organization, be it governmental, corporate or private, would probably do the same. If you want their help and they aren't in the business of movie making, are going to probably refuse it if it casts them in a light they don't like. Hollywood is fully capable, I'm certain, of providing mock-ups and stand ins for much of what the military provides. I'm sure when it comes to the bottom-line though, this is a much better deal from them. I just don't see a vast propaganda conspiracy.
- dTal 9y ago
  You don't need an actual vast conspiracy for the world to behave as if one exists, through emergent effects. Discrimination against blacks, for instance; okay, there was an evil cabal there (the KKK), but it wasn't required for the overall effect, which emerged out of large numbers of individuals acting in what they believed was their own self-interest.
- fixermark 9y ago
  Also, if you're talking Hollywood specifically: To a first approximation, movies that cast the government in a positive light sell better, because Americans think of the government as a reflection of themselves and want to feel good. Exceptions exist, but you rarely hit blockbuster numbers with a downer movie with a downer ending.
  - Ajedi32 9y ago
    > Exceptions exist, but you rarely hit blockbuster numbers with a downer movie with a downer ending. And that's true regardless of the topic of the film. It doesn't matter whether the movie involves the US military or not.
autokad 9y ago
yeah exactly. also you didn't need a freedom of information act to know this. I remember generals / DOD officials talking about it in a TV interviews (1996 independence day, 2007 transformers). directors are overly focused on realism for better or for worse, so a lot also goes to providing stock footage for inspiration, advice, and fact checking like 'is this aircraft meant for the role its portrayed in the movie'. etc. and as they said openly in the interviews: they often do it for free, but if they dont like the content they will pull out.
- protomyth 9y ago
  To give a source: Watch some of the behind the scenes on The Stargate TV series for a practical primer on what the Air Force required. It surely wasn't some requirement that everyone in the AF was a saint.
  - tnecniv 9y ago
    Yeah, traitors in both civilian and military leadership as well as just plain red tape were pretty common plot elements in that show. That's a show I should watch again.
- neurotech1 9y ago
  In Top Gun (1986) the studio reimbursed the US Navy for flight time during filming. $7,800/Hr for the F-14 in 1986. The tech advisor was recently retired Radm. Pete "Viper" Pettigrew, a TOPGUN instructor who shot down a MiG over Vietnam. He was paid for his technical advisor role by the studio. One key change at the Navy's request is Maverick dating a civilian instructor, not a women in the Navy, as that is against Navy regs. In Independence Day (1996) The Pentagon withdrew support over references to "Area 51", the location of the USAF Flight Test Center (Detachment 3) that officially didn't exist. Decisions regarding Pentagon support for movies are sometimes made by the Secretary of Defense, personally. If he doesn't like it, they withdraw support.
  - compuguy 9y ago
    Independence Day was released in 1996, not 1986.
kstenerud 9y ago
"The CIA even sabotaged a planned series of documentaries about their predecessor, the OSS, by having assets at CBS develop a rival production to muscle the smaller studio out of the market. Once this was achieved, the Agency pulled the plug on the CBS series too, ensuring that the activities of the OSS remained safe from public scrutiny."
- specializeded 9y ago
  That stood out to me as well, but not in a positive way. Their sole example of the sort of proactive scheming and weaving I was expecting from our spooks, and it happened in the 40s/50s? Again it sounds scary on the face of it, but I'm just not quite feeling it.
  - Chardok 9y ago
    Since its entertainment, I can hardly think that "scared" would be an appropriate reaction to take anyways. Some good things to take from this article though: 1. The integrity of writing and original scripts are being altered to fit a specific message. 2. Propaganda is being inserted into our media with no disclaimer or way to discern it. 3. These institutions are essentially subsidizing film budgets, which seems like an inappropriate use of funds (in my opinion of course) Of course it isn't anything to be worried about, but it does bring into light how these 3 letter agencies are very aware of their not-so-patriotic actions, and are taking measures to try to erase or distract people.
- cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
  The fact the the CIA has assets at a US broadcasting company is a scary thought.
chiph 9y ago
I agree. If they wanted to film at any major corporation, one of the major points in the agreement will be something like: "The film will present Acme Corporation in a positive light" with the consequence if they don't, the studio loses the right to film there and won't have access to corporate people & resources.
- sgift 9y ago
  This ignores the not so small difference that the government is not a company and shouldn't behave like one.
bjourne 9y ago
These orgs are supposedly there to serve the interests of the American people. It's none of their fucking business how movie writers decides to portray them. History reeeeally seriously tells us that it is a big deal when the state is able to influence the media in a pro-military fashion.
- fixermark 9y ago
  Movie writers are free to portray them any way they want to. But writers who portray them in a positive light get favors and get their tickets bought by mainstream audiences.
- specializeded 9y ago
  I mean, agreed and understood. This is bad in the sense pro-military influence & "rub my back I'll rub yours" is bad in general, but I'm not seeing the directed efforts that would justify the tone or title of the article. It smells like clickbait, and now I smell like military apologism from saying so!
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

Tactic 9y ago

I agree the article overplays it. Any organization, be it governmental, corporate or private, would probably do the same. If you want their help and they aren't in the business of movie making, are going to probably refuse it if it casts them in a light they don't like. Hollywood is fully capable, I'm certain, of providing mock-ups and stand ins for much of what the military provides. I'm sure when it comes to the bottom-line though, this is a much better deal from them. I just don't see a vast propaganda conspiracy.

dTal 9y ago
You don't need an actual vast conspiracy for the world to behave as if one exists, through emergent effects. Discrimination against blacks, for instance; okay, there was an evil cabal there (the KKK), but it wasn't required for the overall effect, which emerged out of large numbers of individuals acting in what they believed was their own self-interest.
fixermark 9y ago
Also, if you're talking Hollywood specifically: To a first approximation, movies that cast the government in a positive light sell better, because Americans think of the government as a reflection of themselves and want to feel good. Exceptions exist, but you rarely hit blockbuster numbers with a downer movie with a downer ending.
- Ajedi32 9y ago
  > Exceptions exist, but you rarely hit blockbuster numbers with a downer movie with a downer ending. And that's true regardless of the topic of the film. It doesn't matter whether the movie involves the US military or not.

autokad 9y ago

yeah exactly. also you didn't need a freedom of information act to know this. I remember generals / DOD officials talking about it in a TV interviews (1996 independence day, 2007 transformers). directors are overly focused on realism for better or for worse, so a lot also goes to providing stock footage for inspiration, advice, and fact checking like 'is this aircraft meant for the role its portrayed in the movie'. etc. and as they said openly in the interviews: they often do it for free, but if they dont like the content they will pull out.

protomyth 9y ago
To give a source: Watch some of the behind the scenes on The Stargate TV series for a practical primer on what the Air Force required. It surely wasn't some requirement that everyone in the AF was a saint.
- tnecniv 9y ago
  Yeah, traitors in both civilian and military leadership as well as just plain red tape were pretty common plot elements in that show. That's a show I should watch again.
neurotech1 9y ago
In Top Gun (1986) the studio reimbursed the US Navy for flight time during filming. $7,800/Hr for the F-14 in 1986. The tech advisor was recently retired Radm. Pete "Viper" Pettigrew, a TOPGUN instructor who shot down a MiG over Vietnam. He was paid for his technical advisor role by the studio. One key change at the Navy's request is Maverick dating a civilian instructor, not a women in the Navy, as that is against Navy regs. In Independence Day (1996) The Pentagon withdrew support over references to "Area 51", the location of the USAF Flight Test Center (Detachment 3) that officially didn't exist. Decisions regarding Pentagon support for movies are sometimes made by the Secretary of Defense, personally. If he doesn't like it, they withdraw support.
- compuguy 9y ago
  Independence Day was released in 1996, not 1986.

kstenerud 9y ago

"The CIA even sabotaged a planned series of documentaries about their predecessor, the OSS, by having assets at CBS develop a rival production to muscle the smaller studio out of the market. Once this was achieved, the Agency pulled the plug on the CBS series too, ensuring that the activities of the OSS remained safe from public scrutiny."

specializeded 9y ago
That stood out to me as well, but not in a positive way. Their sole example of the sort of proactive scheming and weaving I was expecting from our spooks, and it happened in the 40s/50s? Again it sounds scary on the face of it, but I'm just not quite feeling it.
- Chardok 9y ago
  Since its entertainment, I can hardly think that "scared" would be an appropriate reaction to take anyways. Some good things to take from this article though: 1. The integrity of writing and original scripts are being altered to fit a specific message. 2. Propaganda is being inserted into our media with no disclaimer or way to discern it. 3. These institutions are essentially subsidizing film budgets, which seems like an inappropriate use of funds (in my opinion of course) Of course it isn't anything to be worried about, but it does bring into light how these 3 letter agencies are very aware of their not-so-patriotic actions, and are taking measures to try to erase or distract people.
cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
The fact the the CIA has assets at a US broadcasting company is a scary thought.

chiph 9y ago

I agree. If they wanted to film at any major corporation, one of the major points in the agreement will be something like: "The film will present Acme Corporation in a positive light" with the consequence if they don't, the studio loses the right to film there and won't have access to corporate people & resources.

sgift 9y ago
This ignores the not so small difference that the government is not a company and shouldn't behave like one.

bjourne 9y ago

These orgs are supposedly there to serve the interests of the American people. It's none of their fucking business how movie writers decides to portray them. History reeeeally seriously tells us that it is a big deal when the state is able to influence the media in a pro-military fashion.

fixermark 9y ago
Movie writers are free to portray them any way they want to. But writers who portray them in a positive light get favors and get their tickets bought by mainstream audiences.
specializeded 9y ago
I mean, agreed and understood. This is bad in the sense pro-military influence & "rub my back I'll rub yours" is bad in general, but I'm not seeing the directed efforts that would justify the tone or title of the article. It smells like clickbait, and now I smell like military apologism from saying so!
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]