> On Aug 8, 7:52 pm, Derek Janssen nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>

>>moviePig wrote:
>>

>>>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...

>>
>>
>>...Why, it's Gaza/Blob Amnesia Day, again! :)
>>
>>Goodness, how a year flies by!--
>>Well, let me just get out the party things...Wait for me, don't let the
>>"Utter sucker for retired troll we've ignored for the past three years
>>because we can spot his thread headers a hundred miles off" thread get
>>too far ahead of me!
>>
>>(it'll be such FUN!!)

>
> Oops. I can't speak for the other miscreants here, but *I* was
> deceived by the thread's being, despite its ancestry, an apparently
> interesting question that's provoked primarily coherent responses and
> is, astronomical odds notwithstanding, current-movie related...