My Thread Got Fat Fingered! Hollywood & Gun Myths Redoux

[alistaire]

I don't go to Blockbuster because they prohibit guns in the store.

 

[buzz_knox]

Hollywood has two goals: make money and influencing people to accept their point of view. In reference to LW3, Donner specifically put in anti-gun BS because he wanted to drive that message across. When they can achieve both goals (make money and send a message), it's the perfect win for them.

 

[BruceRDucer]

What say you? Is it mindless entertainment or is Hollyweed pushing an anti-gun agenda?

There are a number of TV & Film dilemmas in morality which work like this. There are usually at least 3 people professing conflicting moral dilemmas.

One of the best examples in film for this, is the Western, HOMBRE, with Paul Newman as the Anti-Hero.

Everybody wants to push moral checks that their butt won't cash; but HOMBRE becomes the one to sacrifice himself for each idiot, who should have been allowed to die, because they were unethical and immoral dumbbunnies.

[Oh, IMMORAL DUMBBUNNIES is a psychological term I just invented, for its scientific accuracy and social relevence.]

___________________________________________________________________________________

But seriously, if you study movies carefully, you might notice that the film industry presents Moral Confusion as a kind of Wisdom.

In other words, the script calls for people to express vague moral viewpoints that are not entirely consistent with their character.

In HOMBRE, almost all of the people targeted by the bad guys, are very selfish; but like idealistic sheep, they always claim that "somebody" [vaguely] must DO SOMETHING to save everyone else.

To be consistent and in character, nobody would recommend "saving" anybody.

Also in HOMBRE, this is shown early in the film, when HOMBRE is in the stage coach office (if I recall correctly) and Richard Boone shows up to bully people out of their ticket.

/

/

/

 

[hankdatank1362]

I don't go to Blockbuster because they prohibit guns in the store.

The one closest to my house is next to the worst drug neighborhood in the area, and has been the victim of armed robbery twice in recent years. And a third by a crackhead with a hammer.

The wife is forbidden to go there without me. I prefer Netflix, but if it's a spur of the moment thing, then I load up like I expect something to happen.

 

[ColinthePilot]

In the first version, the bounty hunter announces his intention to kill Solo, even saying "Goodbye, Solo." Han blasts him before he can do it.

In the remastered version, the BH shoots first, and misses, at a distance of 2 feet.

HAN SHOT FIRST!

There were t-shirts made (for those with an even higher nerd coefficient than me) after the "special edition" came out with that phrase. I love Solo's "modified" Broomhandle Mauser.

ETA: Someone already posted one being worn by George Lucas.

 

[COMPNOR]

Yep, I saw that south park episode.

 

[herohog]

I don't go to Blockbuster because they prohibit guns in the store.

My local one doesn't. I carry there concealed and openly...

 

[Cosmoline]

It does go back a long way. There's a bit from "The Rifleman" where he quips about handguns only being for killing men. Nevermind that he kills hundreds with that tricked out Winchester.

"Shane" and "High Noon" have always bugged me, though I appreciate them as important films. They strike me as westerns by people who had no interest in westerns, but wanted to make some Big Statement. Contrasted to a Ford or Hawks western, they are pretty hard to believe and seem very distant from any reality. As Hawks complained, the idea that townsfolk would cower in fear is absurd. The real problem, as he posited in "Rio Bravo," was townsfolk trying to help but ending up getting killed. Or worse yet taking the law into their own hands, as posited in "El Dorado."

 

[spuscg]

anyone notice how in movies nobody stops to get a sight picture they just fire exremely fast and hit moving targets from 100 feet with a beretta or some bs.

 

[blackcash88]

And all this time I thought that was just my bad memory. They also took out the scene where Luke looks at Liea and says " Carrie! "

What scene was that in? I must have seen Star Wars a billion times and never caught that.

 

[Treo]

Or worse yet taking the law into their own hands, as posited in "El Dorado."

Thanks, now I'm going to have to watch El Dorado again

 

[Duke Junior]

As Hawks complained, the idea that townsfolk would cower in fear is absurd. The real problem, as he posited in "Rio Bravo," was townsfolk trying to help but ending up getting killed. Or worse yet taking the law into their own hands, as posited in "El Dorado."
__________________

Look at the Kitty Genovese case in 1964.38 eye witnesses at minimum stood by and did nothing while she was being murdered.Just last week a man was hammered into insensibility on the subway and no one did anything.Until Bernie Goetz people took what they got on the subway and did nothing.
People cower in fear and don't fight back in community's ever day.Look at south side Chicago,south central L.A.,Camden,NJ.
Shane and High Noon hold up over the decades,not because they're unrealistic, but quite the reverse.Look at the Russian,Polish and German minorities before WWII.Sitting back,being disarmed and doing nothing....until it was too late.
And no Shane or Marshall Will to come along and bail them out.

Kiity Genovese:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/kitty_genovese/1.html

 

[Phil Lee]

Treo asks:

Wouldn't it be more positive if the innocent were able to protect themselves?

If the movie is depicting armed self defense in a positive light why must Shane be stigmatized by the killing of 3 bad men to the point that he must leave the valley at the end of the movie

You must not have seen the movie Shane, or you'd know that Shane was a professional gunfighter and so was the hired gunfighter Wilson in the enemy camp who had already killed one of the innocents with his superior skill.

The character Shane was written to be honorable and in love with Marian who is married to Joe the father of Joey. Shane was drawn into the battle with Wilson in the climax because he couldn't let Joe throw away his life (part of the film climax is a fistfight between Joe and Shane over who will face Wilson).

So, to answer your questions in order 1) The movie is a classic tale of a noble knight in armor protecting the beautiful queen of the valley -- change that story line and you don't have the story filmed; 2) Shane wasn't stigmatized by the killing of three men to the point he had to leave. He had to leave because staying would have compromised his and Marian's virtue.

Really, all you should see the movie.

 

[Duke Junior]

Really, all you should see the movie.

Agree,Phil.And even though I've seen Shane numerous times since I first viewed it as a child of 9,the ending, with Brandon de Wilde playing the young son of Marian pleading, "Come back,Shane!" as the imperturbable hero rides into the distance, still chokes me up.
It is a must see for us "children" of all ages.Truly unforgettable.And Jack Palance created one of the most evil characters in film history in a classic performance.

 

[Treo]

You must not have seen the movie Shane, or you'd know that Shane was a professional gunfighter

I've actually seen the movie and read the book several times.( most recently about a month ago) In the book Shane very clearly tells Bob that he must leave the valley because you can't go back from a killing. He alludes to this in the movie as well. The Shane/ Marion subplot is pretty minor.

Louis L'amour mentions how ridiculous the concept of the town's citizens cowering before the evil outlaw is. Considering that the majority of men in western towns had military experience, were combat vets ( civil war) and veterans of indian fights.

I see the book as much more pro- gun than the movie. In the book is stopped from throwing down on Fletcher ( Ryker) at least twice because Marion begs him not to.

I recommend you watch the movie again.

 

[blackcash88]

Treo, I asked you a question.