> On Aug 8, 5:37 pm, nick AOL.com> wrote:
>

>>On Aug 8, 11:18?am, "Kingo Gondo" gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>>hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>

>>>news:1186585410.046985.204410@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

>>

>>>>is it cuz of the republican/democrat propertarian pressure lobbies?
>>>>vietnam for instance only had green berets during the entire 15 years
>>>>of war. mash was produced off-hollywood.

>>

>>>It was? In what sense?

>>

>>>Also, technically, it was set in Korea, although I don't think you hear the
>>>word, but it was scrolled by, once, at the very beginning, I think ("And
>>>then there was Korea....").

>>

>>>Hollywood had no previous experience (is there any other kind?) in making
>>>films about increasingly unpopular wars that the US was losing. Maybe they
>>>will do better this time with one under their belt. But it is more
>>>chickenshit than it was then, so don't count on it.

>>
>>Chickenshit, maybe, but how many war movies make money anyway?
>>Eastwood's Iwo Jima movies tanked even with the good reviews. And
>>it's maybe too much to expect audiences to pay money to see something
>>about a war they can see for free every day on the news (except for
>>maybe Fox, where it's buried under a mountain of stories about missing
>>teenage girls and celebrity meltdowns). It's the same reason we
>>don't get more movies about Arabic terrorists. Movies are escapist.
>>It doesn't have anything to do with political correctness or kow-
>>towing to pressure groups no matter what people like Rich say. We
>>don't want to be reminded about how crappy things are when we go to
>>the movies.

>
>
> Also, for better or worse, the concepts of (e.g.) "Fox news" and
> "liberal media" have forced into the public awareness that
> fictionalizations about this stuff aren't really the commodity that's
> in short supply...