NationStates Jolt Archive

In doing damage control in my apartment after an early Christmas weekend with my kids, I was putting away my collection of DvDs (We were watching "Transformers") I came across my copy of "Red Dawn."

The movie was considered highly controversial for its time and made some political statements that were rather unusual for Hollywood (anti-gun control, for example).

I think it's one of my all time favorites in that it tells a believeable story and doesn't rely on flashy effects to get the point across. It also borrowed heavily from historical details of occupied territories. I also like it because it is a hopeful statement of American spirit as well as a poignant idea of what war would be like in our own backyard. (One of the final scenes in the film takes place in a children's playground.)

What's your take on the movie?

In doing damage control in my apartment after an early Christmas weekend with my kids, I was putting away my collection of DvDs (We were watching "Transformers") I came across my copy of "Red Dawn."

The movie was considered highly controversial for its time and made some political statements that were rather unusual for Hollywood (anti-gun control, for example).

I think it's one of my all time favorites in that it tells a believeable story and doesn't rely on flashy effects to get the point across. It also borrowed heavily from historical details of occupied territories. I also like it because it is a hopeful statement of American spirit as well as a poignant idea of what war would be like in our own backyard. (One of the final scenes in the film takes place in a children's playground.)

What's your take on the movie?

I only watched about half of it about 4 years ago. What happens after they meet up with the pilot who tells them Denver is under siege?

That it was a fun watch. I haven't seen it in years though.

I only watched about half of it about 4 years ago. What happens after they meet up with the pilot who tells them Denver is under siege?

I'd recommend looking at the Wiki entry on that for a synopsis. If I tried to type it all out I don't know if I could do it justice.

I meant to include in my OP that the only real issues I had with the movie are the translations... In vading characters speak Russian and Spanish, both of which I speak in addition to English and the translations in the movie are fair at best. Sometimes clever dialogue is lost in translation even though the gist does get across.

Pretty entertaining at the time it was released 2 decades ago,... I was raised watching various movies.

Very real scenario about rounding up the arms of the locals. I have filled out that very same form many times, that scene always makes me think "what if ?". I don`t think the commies will directly invade us, they will probaly be invited in by President Hillary.

It's a great documentary :)


That it was a fun watch. I haven't seen it in years though.
*Dodges huge sig*

2 words
zero credibility.

I remember it. I thought it was boring the first time I saw it, 'cause I was like...six.
Later on I watched it again and was pretty impressed. I thought it was quite a good movie.

On a somewhat related subject...
Anybody watch the History Channel thing on Charlie Wilson?
Man, that is easily one of THE most biased productions I've seen. Including some Cold War propeganda films :P
Apparently when the Russians plant mines, theyre evil, child-eating, murdering, SOB's.
When the Afghans plant mines, theyre using 'innovative tactics'.
They practically come out and accuse the Russians of 'cheating' for using helicopters too.

They practically come out and accuse the Russians of 'cheating' for using helicopters too.Helicopters? all you need is a crossbow :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n1hKQULa9Y

I remember it. I thought it was boring the first time I saw it, 'cause I was like...six.
Later on I watched it again and was pretty impressed. I thought it was quite a good movie.

On a somewhat related subject...
Anybody watch the History Channel thing on Charlie Wilson?
Man, that is easily one of THE most biased productions I've seen. Including some Cold War propeganda films :P
Apparently when the Russians plant mines, theyre evil, child-eating, murdering, SOB's.
When the Afghans plant mines, theyre using 'innovative tactics'.
They practically come out and accuse the Russians of 'cheating' for using helicopters too.

I liked Red Dawn, the only thing that bugged me was Europes apparent 'Uninvolvment' WTF! NATO anyone? Wasn't supposed to try to stop shit like that...

Anyway, I saw that thing on Charlie Wilson, and yes it is the most biased, slanted thing I've seen in ages. It was war and the Soviets (They kept saying russians even though there were 15 republics in the USSR and they all contributed to the military) did what needed to be done to kick some Afghani ass.

And if anyone cheated it was the US when we invaded. Planes, Tanks, big-ass-bombs, etc...

I liked Red Dawn, the only thing that bugged me was Europes apparent 'Uninvolvment' WTF! NATO anyone? Wasn't supposed to try to stop shit like that...
If you read the little preview text before the movie you find out that NATO dissolved on itself.

And anyone who says this didn't help inspire Red Alert 2 or World in Conflict must be joking.

I liked Red Dawn, the only thing that bugged me was Europes apparent 'Uninvolvment' WTF! NATO anyone? Wasn't supposed to try to stop shit like that...
Well of course, its a well known fact that Europe was totaly powerless without the US there to prop them up ;)

Anyway, I saw that thing on Charlie Wilson, and yes it is the most biased, slanted thing I've seen in ages. It was war and the Soviets (They kept saying russians even though there were 15 republics in the USSR and they all contributed to the military) did what needed to be done to kick some Afghani ass.

And if anyone cheated it was the US when we invaded. Planes, Tanks, big-ass-bombs, etc...

Ah, but the RUSSIANS were the badguys. All the other ones were the Combat Slaves of the Evil Empire.
I also found it amusing that they talked about how badly the Soviets treated their prisoners and villages, without mentioning what the Afghanis did to THEIR prisoners and civilians who supported the Soviets.

Always wanted to see it, but never got around to. I think it was on Spike TV once. I just look it up on Wiki for now.

Always wanted to see it, but never got around to. I think it was on Spike TV once. I just look it up on Wiki for now.

I liked "The Russians are Coming! The Russians are Coming!" more.
Its about a Soviet submarine crew that runs aground in a small town in America. Its pretty funny, especially since it applies its stereotypes to EVERYBODY, not just the Russkies.

In doing damage control in my apartment after an early Christmas weekend with my kids, I was putting away my collection of DvDs (We were watching "Transformers") I came across my copy of "Red Dawn."

The movie was considered highly controversial for its time and made some political statements that were rather unusual for Hollywood (anti-gun control, for example).

I think it's one of my all time favorites in that it tells a believeable story and doesn't rely on flashy effects to get the point across. It also borrowed heavily from historical details of occupied territories. I also like it because it is a hopeful statement of American spirit as well as a poignant idea of what war would be like in our own backyard. (One of the final scenes in the film takes place in a children's playground.)

What's your take on the movie?

Well I enjoyed it, even though the whole idea of Nicaraguans invading the US was was utterly ludicrous. It does actually look at the kind of issues that arise during occupation, to which one of them I think answers "its our country" or something...which is what I always said justifying various acts of armed resistance....Anyhoo...

I think it's one of my all time favorites in that it tells a believeable story and doesn't rely on flashy effects to get the point across. Um, no.

Interesting fact: Red Dawn was the first movie to use the PG-13 rating.

Interesting fact: Red Dawn was the first movie to use the PG-13 rating.

PG-13 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504E1DA1038F937A3575AC0A962948260)?

I couldn't help but feel it had an agenda...

and not just the Gun horseplay it fails to show collaboration as anything more than some act of evil, evil treason

I think it was a mainstream movie meant for mass entertainment during the Reagan era. That means that it was a glorification of all things perceived by (real) Americans to be American (see also Stallone and/or Schwarzenegger films of the era). As such, I don't think it qualifies as anything better than speculative fiction. It was, perhaps, a more hopeful response to the far more bitterly-themed nuclear war TV movie, The Day After (1983).

I only watched about half of it about 4 years ago. What happens after they meet up with the pilot who tells them Denver is under siege?
well maybe not...
the pilot joins the group and one of the female characters has a 'thang' for him. he gives them some tatical training and they rescue people from the concentration camp. he dies when they get caught in a tank battle.

the group continues on but they get ambushed where all but 4 die.

two make their way out of occupied territory while the other two (the brothers) make one last raid on the enemy's main camp. the general is killed as is one brother and the other is seriously hurt. the Purto Rican officer let's them go as he realizes that they were boys about the age of his sons.

The movie ends with the last two making it out of the occupied zone.

Well I enjoyed it, even though the whole idea of Nicaraguans invading the US was was utterly ludicrous. It does actually look at the kind of issues that arise during occupation, to which one of them I think answers "its our country" or something...which is what I always said justifying various acts of armed resistance....Anyhoo...

Matt: "What's the difference, huh? What's the difference between us and them?"

Jed:"We live here."

*BANG*

Um, no.

Is that it? Can you elaborate?

I couldn't help but feel it had an agenda...

and not just the Gun horseplay it fails to show collaboration as anything more than some act of evil, evil treason

I disagree. I think the way the collaborating mayor was portrayed suggested a guy who would much rather have remained anonymous but was being used by the occupiers as a way to pacify the locals by keeping a familiar face in "power." The actor did a resonable job of looking scared the whole time.

Is that it? Can you elaborate?

I think the whole Europe pulling out of NATO and the whole conquest of South America comes to mind

as would the idea that the Soviets would go about picking the biggest fight ever for no apparent reason

I disagree. I think the way the collaborating mayor was portrayed suggested a guy who would much rather have remained anonymous but was being used by the occupiers as a way to pacify the locals by keeping a familiar face in "power." The actor did a resonable job of looking scared the whole time.

I got the impression that he was painted a just a guy who was out for a power grab (I believe to imitate Nazi collaborators in western Europe) it really doesn't go into this guys motives or personnel feelings but merely shows him as some sort of coward

really the whole movie would of been allot better had it focused more on those living in occupation, the thought and feelings as well as the portrayal of occupation would of made a much more in depth and realistic movie

I couldn't help but feel it had an agenda...

and not just the Gun horseplay it fails to show collaboration as anything more than some act of evil, evil treasoninteresting.

Open question -for All-:
Collaboration: are you for? against?... is it treason or not?
and please try to give a semblance of an answer not just a "Depends" ;-)

interesting.

Open question -for All-:
Collaboration: are you for? against?... is it treason or not?

depends on circumstance and very much the eyes you are viewing it from, had the film been viewed from a peasant conscripts tale it would no doubt have the mayor as a good guy out to save lives and the wolverines as dangerous kids putting lives at risk for there own little adventure

depends very much the eyes you are viewing it fromfrom your eyes.

Collaborators, are they saving lives?.. or are they selling out?

It's entertaining but not too realistic.

The attack on the convoy for example.....

My eyes?

Whether or not they're out to protect the innocents,... you could say that they're taking the easy way out, by selling out.

Then again what about Oskar Schindler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Schindler)? He's certainly a treasonous Jewish collaborator if you see it from the Nazi's point of view. Yet, he doesn't took the easy way out.

So, I guess I'll go with other statement from another topic: that everybody basically is trying to do what they think is right. Though, I do admit, that I hold very little respect for collaborators.

from your eyes.

Collaborators, are they saving lives?.. or are they selling out?

in this case I'd hazard that the mayors motives are he genuinely is doing this for the greater good of not turning peoples very homes into a war zone which is oddly the adult thing to do

though by all means how he is meant to be played is as a power grabbing coward that much is known by the rather thin story

My eyes?

Whether or not they're out to protect the innocents,... you could say that they're taking the easy way out, by selling out.

Then again what about Oskar Schindler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Schindler)? He's certainly a treasonous Jewish collaborator if you see it from the Nazi's point of view. Yet, he doesn't took the easy way out.

So, I guess I'll go with other statement from another topic: that everybody basically is trying to do what they think is right. Though, I do admit, that I hold very little respect for collaborators.Schindler is not a collaborator.

A collaborator is someone who accepts to accommodate/help the -better armed- occupation forces.

there is 3 main sides for a occupied/colonized people:

<<The ones who accept to collaborate with the Foreign force (for personal gain or for other reasons).
<<The ones who decide to -openly or not- resist (idealism)
<<The ones who are passive (usually because they are not forced to take sides yet)

<<The ones who accept to collaborate with the Foreign force (for personal gain or for other reasons).
<<The ones who decide to -openly or not- resist (idealism)
<<The ones who are passive (usually because they are not forced to take sides yet)

... umm, misinterpreted then,... okay, blot it out, since I don't see any collaborators entries/articles that doesn't portray them in a positive light.

Well, maybe this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration_during_World_War_II#Jews), but it's a weak ass example.

... umm, misinterpreted then,... okay, blot it out, since I don't see any collaborators entries/articles that doesn't portray them in a positive light.

Well, maybe this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration_during_World_War_II#Jews), but it's a weak ass example.thank for the research and all... but...


Most of all, I am asking for your opinion on the issue.. and -if you want- debate your opinion.

thank for the research and all... but...


Most of all, I am asking for your opinion on the issue.. and -if you want- debate your opinion.

My eyes?

Whether or not they're out to protect the innocents,... you could say that they're taking the easy way out, by selling out.

So, I guess I'll go with other statement from another topic: that everybody basically is trying to do what they think is right. Though, I do admit, that I hold very little respect for collaborators.

I'll try to include visual aids next time to show you how my very little respect could also mean "DEATH TO TRAITORS". :)

..my very little respect could mean also mean "DEATH TO TRAITORS". :)I guess I could take that for a clear answer. ;)

Matt: "What's the difference, huh? What's the difference between us and them?"

Jed:"We live here."

*BANG*
Thank you. It appears I've been misquoting.

Helicopters? all you need is a crossbow :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n1hKQULa9Y

Actually, that was a compound bow, not a crossbow.

I thought the title said Red Dwarf movie...

But no. Never seen Red Dawn.

Matt: "What's the difference, huh? What's the difference between us and them?"

Jed:"We live here."

*BANG*
"This is Sparta!"
*Shoves*

I thought the title said Red Dwarf movie...

But no. Never seen Red Dawn.

Well, Red Dwarf is practically a documentary compared to Red Dawn. :p:D

Red Dawn was pretty entertaining for propoganda, however.:cool:

RED SAUCE ON PASTA!

I just couldn't take it seriously when I first saw it 14 years after it was made. don't get me wrong, I'd have tried to do the same but at most I'd be one insurgent against the second best army in the world. What would it have mattered if they kill 10 or 200? They'd still be hopelessly outnumbered. It was like a zombie movie but the zombies had guns. I like zombie movies, there aren't enouigh good ones, but yiou eventually would run out of ammo and bombs and get eaten.

Commies are like zombies, mindless drones that try to leech off others and convert people to zombies/commies through force/killing.

The ending of the movie implies the US eventually won.

Which means if those high school kids just sat back and waited out the invasion they wouldn't have been killed.

Well, that's natural selection for you. It's the tallest nail that gets the hammer.

Still haven't seen it, but the summary tells me how ridiculously unrealistic it is. If anything, the US would be invading the Soviet Union and Siberian sniper kids would pick off the invaders one by one.

Still haven't seen it, but the summary tells me how ridiculously unrealistic it is. If anything, the US would be invading the Soviet Union and Siberian sniper kids would pick off the invaders one by one.
Why? Why would we bother? The Soviet Union was collapsing. All we had to do was wait. Government controlled economy + zero personal/politcal freedom = collapse. Communism sucked, the Soviet Union sucked, the only thing that didn't suck was the Soviet military which was so first rate that it was the second best military in the whole world.

Why? Why would we bother? The Soviet Union was collapsing. All we had to do was wait.

well actually starting with Churchill there was a long line of leaders who wanted to launch a war on the Soviets and no though in the 80's the Soviet union was not doing all that dandy nobody actually thought this was the end

Government controlled economy + zero personal/politcal freedom = collapse.

China has lasted a rather long time and though its only recently became communist it has never really been an Athenian democracy either

the only thing that didn't suck was the Soviet military which was so first rate that it was the second best military in the whole world.

now, now we can't go around waving the British flag everywhere or the colonials will start an arms race ;)

also your troll parts are showing

well actually starting with Churchill there was a long line of leaders who wanted to launch a war on the Soviets and no though in the 80's the Soviet union was not doing all that dandy nobody actually thought this was the end.

Well, the USSR was going to last as long as oil prices remaind high; the rest of the economy was more or less decrepit, but oil profits provided enough funds to meet all obligations. Once the boom ended in the early 80's, the USSR's economy was in free fall. I don't think anyone felt it would fall so quickly, however...remember, it had been quite well off back in the 1950's and 1960's, enough to be considered a real economic challenge.

The ending of the movie implies the US eventually won.

Which means if those high school kids just sat back and waited out the invasion they wouldn't have been killed.

Well, that's natural selection for you. It's the tallest nail that gets the hammer.

What if the high school kids had formed just enough of a distraction for the US forces to win? What if sitting back and waiting out the invasion helps the Russians/Nicaraguans win? After all, the invading forces had to devote more forces to hold that town than would normally be necessary. Not to mention the moral boost to the US side, and the opposite to the invading side.

What if the high school kids had formed just enough of a distraction for the US forces to win? What if sitting back and waiting out the invasion helps the Russians/Nicaraguans win? After all, the invading forces had to devote more forces to hold that town than would normally be necessary. Not to mention the moral boost to the US side, and the opposite to the invading side.

From a realistic point of view, such a small band of poorly trained, unacclimatized (how many had survival training?), entry level guerrillas would have had at best, a negligible impact on the strategic level.

Based on Soviet actions in Afghanistan, they would just assigned a gunship or two for sweep and/or bait and ambush operations after local resistance proved to be more than a minor annoyance to local commanders and that would have been that except for maybe shooting the families of the resistance.

What if the high school kids had formed just enough of a distraction for the US forces to win? What if sitting back and waiting out the invasion helps the Russians/Nicaraguans win? After all, the invading forces had to devote more forces to hold that town than would normally be necessary. Not to mention the moral boost to the US side, and the opposite to the invading side.

Well, given the utter lack of importance that region presumably posed to the Soviet forces, it was unlikely they had any effect on the outcome of the conflict. That being said, there was probably a small morale boost; those kinds of small actions, even if they're tactically meaningless, usually have a pretty significant strategic benefit above and beyond their absolute effect.

I don't think it would've swayed the conflict either way; the US would've mobilized and driven out the Soviets after a while, even if they couldn't take the fight in to the USSR.

Also, Merry Christmas. :)

i think the main thing that would be useful about this movie is for americans to realize that that invading force is what our american military looks like to people in the places like iraq and afghanistan that we have gone in and destroyed their infrastructure and taken over. and that those 'wolverene' kids, is what those who resist our occupation of their countries see themselves as. even the so called terrorists.

i think that's what people need to understand. and we can't try and pretend america and other dominant countries haven't or don't enguage in precisely those kinds of invasion tactics. innumerable such occurances have been well and thoroughly documented. so much so that journalists have been deliberately targeted by supposedly legitimate military forces to prevent word of such attrocities from getting out.

and of course the corporate media, which is an arm of the corporatocracy which ultimately controls the military forces of the most powerful governments which have all but completely become their puppets, to use them as their 'musscle' and 'hit forces' won't show you much of this, but the information is out there.

it was of course, at the time, patially generic and partially a vailed reference to russian action in afghanistan, but the tactics of western powers have been and remained alarmingly similar.

i'm not trying to suggest that brutality is the unique property of anyone. obviously it is not. only that likewise, no idiology is any real assurance of not practicing and being guilty of it.

=^^=
.../\...