Shooter and Marc Walberg...
- Thread starter Mike Sr.
- Start date
- Status
Cosmoline
Member
I heard Hunter interviewed on NPR this morning. He says he didn't even read the script they sent him and only had minimal involvement with the production. They didn't go into the legal details but from the way he described it he sold the rights ages ago when a completely different team was going to produce it. It went through multiple incarnations and sets of hands before it was finally given a green light. He didn't bash on it, but it also didn't really sound like he'd seen it. The main topic was how seeing the inside of the film business might impact his work as a film critic.
To clarify, this is simply incorrect.
Our 'government' did no such thing - multinational corporations using Blackwater-esque mercenaries orchestrated genocide with the assistance of one rogue Senator and maybe some CIA black ops.
(loved the way it was casually noted that Wahlberg went and eliminated the "agency asset" directly responsible a couple of weeks later)
"I saw the film last night as well...and for the purposes of full disclosure I admit that I have never read any of Hunter's work. That being said, what you are showing here (in your above comment) is an inability to distinguish between a fictionalized indictment of those in power who abuse power and the philosophical and political foundations through which the United States was born.
It is pretty clear that Wahlberg's character is a highly principled individual...who LOVES his country. The bad guys in this film are people who use the love people have for the idea that is America against them...it isn't about how bad America is...at worst it is about how short we fall of fulfilling the promise of what we could be as a nation.""
------------------------------------------------------------
TRUE A FICTIONALIZED ACCOUNTING and the mention of Abo-Grab(sorry about the spelling) I suppose the implication and tone was fictionalized..............................
1) I think the movie platform used the MOH in a demeaning way: play on princples of those who have principles vs the non-principled use of the MOH
2) MW a principled character? So I suppose if a Senator or the Secretary of Defense asked you to set-up to snipe a sniper who is a rogue -pretentious and a set up- you'd say NO! Or would you say yes thinking all the while your about to waste a rogue who's taken the law into his own hands thus protecting you country...
NO... the MW character wastes his own, who are **unknowingly** protecting the crime bosses, the truly guilty....the snipers he wasted were used as he was used in Ethiopia!
The Merc's and the house assault.....loved that scenario!
It is pretty clear that Wahlberg's character is a highly principled individual...who LOVES his country. The bad guys in this film are people who use the love people have for the idea that is America against them...it isn't about how bad America is...at worst it is about how short we fall of fulfilling the promise of what we could be as a nation.""
------------------------------------------------------------
TRUE A FICTIONALIZED ACCOUNTING and the mention of Abo-Grab(sorry about the spelling) I suppose the implication and tone was fictionalized..............................
1) I think the movie platform used the MOH in a demeaning way: play on princples of those who have principles vs the non-principled use of the MOH
2) MW a principled character? So I suppose if a Senator or the Secretary of Defense asked you to set-up to snipe a sniper who is a rogue -pretentious and a set up- you'd say NO! Or would you say yes thinking all the while your about to waste a rogue who's taken the law into his own hands thus protecting you country...
NO... the MW character wastes his own, who are **unknowingly** protecting the crime bosses, the truly guilty....the snipers he wasted were used as he was used in Ethiopia!
The Merc's and the house assault.....loved that scenario!
Yes, Glover's character mis-used a powerful patriotic symbol. How does that demean the Medal of Honor?
Bob Lee says yes - that is, per your own argument here, the principled action. 'Attempting to take down the rogue sniper.'
He is thus misled.
Who does Mark Wahlberg 'waste'? He kills people working directly for Glover's organization - no American soldiers, citizens or police die. Not a single one.
I thought that was an interesting and un-noted facet of the movie - generally in the midst of action movie explosions, people are injured or die who are on the side of the good guy (or simply innocent) and that doesn't weigh on the hero's conscience.
But in Shooter, the only casualties (aside from the spotter) are 'bad guys.'
"To clarify, this is simply incorrect. 
Our 'government' did no such thing - multinational corporations using Blackwater-esque mercenaries orchestrated genocide with the assistance of one rogue Senator and maybe some CIA black ops."
The involvement of a US Senator and Secretary of Defense in direct planning and execution ...apparently you did not hear that remark by dg !
Our 'government' did no such thing - multinational corporations using Blackwater-esque mercenaries orchestrated genocide with the assistance of one rogue Senator and maybe some CIA black ops."
The involvement of a US Senator and Secretary of Defense in direct planning and execution ...apparently you did not hear that remark by dg !
Let's start with the Senator - if a single Congressman kills someone in a car accident, does that mean "our government" killed the person?
As to the Secretary of Defense line: Glover was duping Swagger. Do we see the Secretary at any point, is there any reason to believe Glover was telling the truth? If the SoD was involved, if the government was involved: why does the actual AG show up at the end investigating Glover?
As to the Secretary of Defense line: Glover was duping Swagger. Do we see the Secretary at any point, is there any reason to believe Glover was telling the truth? If the SoD was involved, if the government was involved: why does the actual AG show up at the end investigating Glover?
"Quote:
NO... the MW character wastes his own, who are **unknowingly** protecting the crime bosses, the truly guilty....
Who does Mark Wahlberg 'waste'? He kills people working directly for Glover's organization - no American soldiers, citizens or police die. Not a single one."
-------------------------------------------------
After writing and getting away from the forum for a few minutes I started thinking that which you write above and I see your point...but it was not the impression I came away with watching the movie...it seemed like there were too many hands in the till for the above to not be true!
_____________________________________________
NO... the MW character wastes his own, who are **unknowingly** protecting the crime bosses, the truly guilty....
Who does Mark Wahlberg 'waste'? He kills people working directly for Glover's organization - no American soldiers, citizens or police die. Not a single one."
-------------------------------------------------
After writing and getting away from the forum for a few minutes I started thinking that which you write above and I see your point...but it was not the impression I came away with watching the movie...it seemed like there were too many hands in the till for the above to not be true!
_____________________________________________
"If the SoD was involved, if the government was involved: why does the actual AG show up at the end investigating Glover?"
----------------------------------------------------------
Great question: and I thought about also and the first thought: CYA... especially when the AG gave the implicit go ahead for Swagger to finish the job!
Or for Swagger to take the trash out...and not worry.
Hmmmm?
----------------------------------------------------------
Great question: and I thought about also and the first thought: CYA... especially when the AG gave the implicit go ahead for Swagger to finish the job!
Or for Swagger to take the trash out...and not worry.
Hmmmm?
I think that's because it's not what we've come to expect from action movies.
We just assume that some cops who don't know better are going to get killed, or some soldiers told that the hero is a criminal are going to die, etc..
We just assume that some cops who don't know better are going to get killed, or some soldiers told that the hero is a criminal are going to die, etc..
"Let's start with the Senator - if a single Congressman kills someone in a car accident, does that mean "our government" killed the person?"
Frankly I don't see the connection/comparison as being that simple...???
What if the person in that car was taking evidence to a newpaper... 
What if,,,,whut if....too many what if's
I'm sick and tired of "US" being put in this light.
Frankly I don't see the connection/comparison as being that simple...???
What if the person in that car was taking evidence to a newpaper...
What if,,,,whut if....too many what if's
I'm sick and tired of "US" being put in this light.
Last edited:
Occam's razor - which is the more elegant (and simplest to write) solution: large parts of the White House are involved in a conspiracy to kill an Archbishop framing Swagger, etc. - or Glover name-dropped the SoD for credibility and the AG is pissed off at his many actions (but can't directly sanction 'finishing the job')?
Well, I wasn't going to see it in the theater, I was going to wait for video.
Now I'm not even going to rent it when it hits Blockbuster, I'll just wait until it's free on cable and until I'm bored someday, maybe then I'll watch it. Really it just looks like a generic modern shoot um up, where the man from nowhere who's trained to kill like an expert is running around doing manly things and throwing in quick witted remarks as he kills the "bad guys" action movie that substitutes stunts and explosions for a plot and dialogue.
Sometimes I'm in the mood for that, but usually I like a plot with my movie.
Now I'm not even going to rent it when it hits Blockbuster, I'll just wait until it's free on cable and until I'm bored someday, maybe then I'll watch it. Really it just looks like a generic modern shoot um up, where the man from nowhere who's trained to kill like an expert is running around doing manly things and throwing in quick witted remarks as he kills the "bad guys" action movie that substitutes stunts and explosions for a plot and dialogue.
Sometimes I'm in the mood for that, but usually I like a plot with my movie.
Stony Lane
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2005
- Messages
- 32
I read the book, I saw the movie
I read Steven Hunter's book Point of Impact last year and just saw the movie Shooter today.
I enjoyed the book AND I enjoyed the movie.
I don't agree with the actors' personal anti-gun views, but this is a pro-gun film. The Bob Lee Swagger character is a solid American patriot trying to do the right thing. The "bad guys" are outside the gov't or "rogue" elements.
(There were 2 brief Iraq "digs", they didn't ruin the film.)
I recommend the movie and the book.
I read Steven Hunter's book Point of Impact last year and just saw the movie Shooter today.
I enjoyed the book AND I enjoyed the movie.
I don't agree with the actors' personal anti-gun views, but this is a pro-gun film. The Bob Lee Swagger character is a solid American patriot trying to do the right thing. The "bad guys" are outside the gov't or "rogue" elements.
(There were 2 brief Iraq "digs", they didn't ruin the film.)
I recommend the movie and the book.
gunsmith
member
I read the book
and I say "do not see this movie"!
Especially do not pay to see or rent...if you really must see it pay for 300 and walk into shooter by "accident"
and I say "do not see this movie"!
Especially do not pay to see or rent...if you really must see it pay for 300 and walk into shooter by "accident"
PeteRR
Member
Saw it today. What I didn't like was how Swagger proved at the end he couldn't have shot the Archbishop. The FBI is a little more competent than portrayed and would have tested the rifle. You'd think the BG's would have done the same.
Generally, I'm not a fan of conspiracy movies. I only saw the movie because Wahlberg was excellent in The Departed.
Generally, I'm not a fan of conspiracy movies. I only saw the movie because Wahlberg was excellent in The Departed.
gunsmith
member
the "Departed"
was stolen from Hong Kong, rent "Infernal Affairs" and see for your self.
Being a very sophisticated gentleman, I saw it during it's limited Movie release a few years ago.
Hong Kong action films simply rule.
was stolen from Hong Kong, rent "Infernal Affairs" and see for your self.
Being a very sophisticated gentleman, I saw it during it's limited Movie release a few years ago.
Hong Kong action films simply rule.
hankdatank1362
Member
Isn't Glover the one who's all buddy-buddy with Chavez?
Okay, I saw it this afternoon. Decent action/conspiracy/revenge thriller, lots of guns and helicopters. I don't really care much about an actor's political views until they run for office. I understand some feel differently, and I respect that.
However, with all due respect to the original poster, many of the criticisms of the movie don't make sense. Are we supposed to skip Shooter because it features villains that are bad men who do bad things? That excludes a lot of movies from the acceptable list, unless you really like romantic comedies.
I don't see how Danny Glover's disingenuous recruitment of Mark Wahlberg, in which he deceives Wahlberg into thinking he is trustworthy by claiming to to be a holder of the Medal Of Honor, in any way demeans the medal and that for which it stands, any more than Bond supervillain Goldfinger's disguise as a US Army General in the movie of the same name dishonors our Armed Forces.
As for the plot, which concerns a shadowy clique of multinational corporations , rogue "black" government agencies, and a corrupt Senator misusing military force for personal power and gain - well, movies and novels about corruption and wickedness in high places are not a new thing. On this score, Shooter no more shows America in a bad light than does Tom Clancy's Clear And Present Danger - in which soldiers and intelligence professionals are illegally used in an ill-conceived operation and then cruelly abandoned on the grounds of political expediency by an administration concerned first and foremost with their own re-election. I haven't seen much of an outcry to boycott Tom Clancy.
However, with all due respect to the original poster, many of the criticisms of the movie don't make sense. Are we supposed to skip Shooter because it features villains that are bad men who do bad things? That excludes a lot of movies from the acceptable list, unless you really like romantic comedies.
I don't see how Danny Glover's disingenuous recruitment of Mark Wahlberg, in which he deceives Wahlberg into thinking he is trustworthy by claiming to to be a holder of the Medal Of Honor, in any way demeans the medal and that for which it stands, any more than Bond supervillain Goldfinger's disguise as a US Army General in the movie of the same name dishonors our Armed Forces.
As for the plot, which concerns a shadowy clique of multinational corporations , rogue "black" government agencies, and a corrupt Senator misusing military force for personal power and gain - well, movies and novels about corruption and wickedness in high places are not a new thing. On this score, Shooter no more shows America in a bad light than does Tom Clancy's Clear And Present Danger - in which soldiers and intelligence professionals are illegally used in an ill-conceived operation and then cruelly abandoned on the grounds of political expediency by an administration concerned first and foremost with their own re-election. I haven't seen much of an outcry to boycott Tom Clancy.
Lucky
Member
Where can I get some of those compact binoculars that see 2' FOW at 100 yards? And I wouldn't mind a scope that could read the label on a can at said distance. Or the ability to hold them steady.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
SHOOTER: The movie.
I just saw this movie today. It was "loosely" based on the Stephen Hunter novel, "Point of Impact".
The book "Point of Impact" is one of my favorites. It is a page turner, I couldn't wait to read it everynight. You should definitely read it if you get the chance. It took me 3 nights as a kid.
I will put the points here then detail below:
1.) Great movie. (Tons of action and it's non-stop.) I hate movies that have long boring scenes in between or all the good parts are in the last 4 mins.
2.) I do not care about actors/directiors political viewpoints. (I will see a movie if I want to see it. Most of Hollywood is ANTI-GUN anyway.....so any movie you see probably has someone who is anti-gun involved in it's creation.)
3.) This is Hollywood......they make movies.....Hollywood style. Don't expect tons of accuracy. Also don't expect them to follow any book 100%.
4.) It is NOT a politcal drama. People get upset and say this movie is anti-government. It is NOT anti-government. However watches a movie and says, there trying to over-throw this current gov't or that gov't are stupid. It's a MOVIE!!!! for pete's sake. That's like saying video games cause murders.
First off let me say this: THIS IS A HOLLYWOOD MOVIE.......rarely do they follow the BOOK. And rarely are they good as the book. Hopefully we all know that. Secondly, if it was exactly as the book, it'd be 4 hour movie.
In the book, Bob Lee Swagger was in the Vietnam war. A far different era.
Now let me say this: I thought the movie was GREAT. It had a solid plot. Good acting from everyone involved, tons of action, lots of cool weapons, a ton of explosions and fight sequences and some hot ladies. How can you not like that??????
I am also happy that there wasn't any stupid love scenes put in the movie between Mark Wahlberg and Sarah Fenn. That would have just been stupid. Like most movies where he falls in love after 2 seconds. So I'm happy they avoided that.
Third: I don't really care about what the actors political view points are. They are going to get paid either way. Most of Hollywood is ANTI-GUN. So you really can't see any movie today that is not going to some how involve someone who is anti-gun.
This movie is NOT ANTI-Government. That is so stupid. Why do people take so much from movies???? Like there's DEEP, DEEP MEANING in a HOLLYWOOD BLOW 'EM UP SUMMER BLOCKBUSTER????? :banghead:
That's like the anger from Iran over the movie "300" saying it puts Persian's in a bad light. It's a dang movie......not a politcal statement. Grow up.
Glover and the Senator are BAD GUY's who use there status as government agents to further their own agendas. It's not the whole US government as a whole anyway. Once they find out what their doing, the Attorney General tries to go after them. So there. Happy?
So this is a great movie, lots of non-stop action, and tons of great weapons. Go see it.
If you see the last showing of the movie before 6pm it's only $4. That's cheaper then a rental. And I will buy it as soon as it comes out on DVD. Just like the movie "300". I give it two THUMBS UP.
I just saw this movie today. It was "loosely" based on the Stephen Hunter novel, "Point of Impact".
The book "Point of Impact" is one of my favorites. It is a page turner, I couldn't wait to read it everynight. You should definitely read it if you get the chance. It took me 3 nights as a kid.
I will put the points here then detail below:
1.) Great movie. (Tons of action and it's non-stop.) I hate movies that have long boring scenes in between or all the good parts are in the last 4 mins.
2.) I do not care about actors/directiors political viewpoints. (I will see a movie if I want to see it. Most of Hollywood is ANTI-GUN anyway.....so any movie you see probably has someone who is anti-gun involved in it's creation.)
3.) This is Hollywood......they make movies.....Hollywood style. Don't expect tons of accuracy. Also don't expect them to follow any book 100%.
4.) It is NOT a politcal drama. People get upset and say this movie is anti-government. It is NOT anti-government. However watches a movie and says, there trying to over-throw this current gov't or that gov't are stupid. It's a MOVIE!!!! for pete's sake. That's like saying video games cause murders.
First off let me say this: THIS IS A HOLLYWOOD MOVIE.......rarely do they follow the BOOK. And rarely are they good as the book. Hopefully we all know that. Secondly, if it was exactly as the book, it'd be 4 hour movie.
In the book, Bob Lee Swagger was in the Vietnam war. A far different era.
Now let me say this: I thought the movie was GREAT. It had a solid plot. Good acting from everyone involved, tons of action, lots of cool weapons, a ton of explosions and fight sequences and some hot ladies. How can you not like that??????
I am also happy that there wasn't any stupid love scenes put in the movie between Mark Wahlberg and Sarah Fenn. That would have just been stupid. Like most movies where he falls in love after 2 seconds. So I'm happy they avoided that.
Third: I don't really care about what the actors political view points are. They are going to get paid either way. Most of Hollywood is ANTI-GUN. So you really can't see any movie today that is not going to some how involve someone who is anti-gun.
This movie is NOT ANTI-Government. That is so stupid. Why do people take so much from movies???? Like there's DEEP, DEEP MEANING in a HOLLYWOOD BLOW 'EM UP SUMMER BLOCKBUSTER????? :banghead:
That's like the anger from Iran over the movie "300" saying it puts Persian's in a bad light. It's a dang movie......not a politcal statement. Grow up.
Glover and the Senator are BAD GUY's who use there status as government agents to further their own agendas. It's not the whole US government as a whole anyway. Once they find out what their doing, the Attorney General tries to go after them. So there. Happy?
So this is a great movie, lots of non-stop action, and tons of great weapons. Go see it.
If you see the last showing of the movie before 6pm it's only $4. That's cheaper then a rental. And I will buy it as soon as it comes out on DVD. Just like the movie "300". I give it two THUMBS UP.
Professor K
Member
He seems like a nice guy.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
STILL BAD???
He did stupid stuff as a TEENAGER?????
Who hasn't??? He's 35 now. That's along time ago.
How many people here would be who they are today if they had not made mistakes and learned from them???
He obviously learned from them and moved on. Those who keep those same ways are now in jail. Obviously he's not in jail, so it would seem he has learned his lesson.
I'm not trying to be mean, or offend anyone. Bringing up something that is 20 years old against someone is a bit strange. And it doesn't affect how that person acts in a movie in my opinion.
He did stupid stuff as a TEENAGER?????
Who hasn't??? He's 35 now. That's along time ago.
How many people here would be who they are today if they had not made mistakes and learned from them???
He obviously learned from them and moved on. Those who keep those same ways are now in jail. Obviously he's not in jail, so it would seem he has learned his lesson.
I'm not trying to be mean, or offend anyone. Bringing up something that is 20 years old against someone is a bit strange. And it doesn't affect how that person acts in a movie in my opinion.
Browning said:
I was afraid of the same thing, when I sat down to see the movie with my girlfriend and her family. After the movie was over all I could do is shake my head and grin. It is a great movie, and I intend to read as much Stephen Hunter as I can because of what I saw on screen. It is very logical, and fairly well thought out. It also had some really excellent gun moments (mentions how difficult it would be to swing a discretely hidden shotgun into action)
To those that say the movie makes a negative statements about the govt. I disagree totally. As someone else mentioned it shows some really slimy individuals who happen t be in the employ of the govt., it also shows people who don't want to rock the boat aka play politics (but obviously don't like how things are), and it shows people who have firm core beleifs about the greatness of this country and how they put their life on the line to protect it.
Excellent movie.
Ps, the line about abu grabe is more aobut being critical of letting a pee on be the fall guy for something that "higher pay grades" obviously knew about (CIA visiting just before the "torture" took place)
- Status
