Shooter and Marc Walberg...

Status
Not open for further replies.
dingleberyy glover and marky mark

are just to politically active, it has ruined the movie experience for me.
I do not see the character they play, I see the activist.
I can not pay the salary of those who wish to destroy my rights and my country.
ymmv.

Thats why I like real action flicks from hong kong that h'wood steals from.
why I prefer to see unknowns too.
I hate to hear tim robbins and sean penn even speak.

They have the right to free speech and I have the right to never use their products.

Shooter looks like just the kind of movie I would enjoy too, it's a shame.

Actors go through a lot not to get typecast because it interferes with the enjoyment of their craft.
they have typecast themselves as brain dead morons, it their own fault I refuse to buy their koolaid.
 
back story

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.
Click to expand...

In the previously mentioned NPR interview, Hunter talks about understanding how movies have to eliminate the majority of the back-story and essentially show you " a series of post-cards from the book". The point quoted above is even clearer if you know the back-story from Hunter's books: that Earl, Bobby Lee's father, was a Medal of Honor winner from the Pacific campaign in WWII. Earl has several books that feature him. Anyway, the fact that his dad was a MOH winner was used by Glover's character to manipulate Bobby Lee. It shows both how low and how calculating Glover's character is. Does not demean the Medal in my eyes - just demeans the character.

Big thumbs up for all of Hunter's books - and I really liked the movie, too.
 
And, if you think about it, shady behavior by members of the government is actually in keeping with the book. In the book, which is set in the 80s, the bad guys were School of the Americas types propping up corrupt regimes and watching death squads commit village massacres in Central America. Although I am also hypersensitive to snide "blood for oil" jabs in movies, it kind of fits with the updated story.
 
Stupid teenage stuff would be like, smoking weed, tresspassing when checking out an abandoned building, driving reckless, ect. Not getting high on angel dust, and almost murdering 2 Vietnamese men, and leaving one blind in one eye. If you blind a man, doing something stupid like that, you deserve way the hell more than 45 days in juvie. They wanted to put me in a group home for 1.5 years for truancy, just for staying home from school, did nothing bad while not in school. It's another example of how people that actually commit crimes get nothing, and people who break a rule get super harsh punishments.

Also, he was 21 when he attacked his neighbor for no reason, that's not "teenage" anymore.

I know he's turned out to be a sucessful actor, but you cant dismiss almost murdering someone in an unprovoked racially motivated attack as "stupid teenage stuff."

And then, with his record of violence, he has the nerve to call Charles Heston, who's probably the least villain-like guy ever just because he likes guns. Charles Heston has never done anything like he did, yet he has the nerve to call him a villain.

Here's Heston in villain form....

5750_15157_1.jpg


But wait, here he is in his ultimate final form, complete with 1800s children killing flintlock that shoots through schools!111 :eek:

heston%20nra.jpg

:barf:
 
Last edited:
It was fun action, the diagloge was just crap, anti-war, anti-gun. I have not had a chance to read the books, but I doubt that all that was in the books. Good action that was about it.
The conspiracy theory was added as anti-gun crap to make us look bad as far as I am concerned. I know its fiction but othes don't see it that way.
 
I think I'll just re-read the books. Or maybe I should say re-re-read the books.

I've seen some film clips and I think they totally blew the casting all the way around (and not just for political reasons either.) For example, the guy they hired to play Nick Memphis don't look like no 'Pork' to me.

And one review states "Three weeks out of the FBI academy, Nick Memphis (Michael Peña)is standing around on detail assignment when he is accosted by a fleeing Swagger." That's just weak and ruins the entire backstory. They changed Nick's history?????? Weak, weak, weak.

Read the book.

John
 
SHOOTER: The movie.

I always thought this would be good casting.

Bob Lee Swagger = Tom Berenger.

Nick Memphis = Nicholas Cage. (A young Nicholas Cage.) I don't know why. LOL.

Danny Glover, I think he's always good. Like I said earlier....basically all of Hollywood is ANTI-GUN......whether it's a director, actor, production company, studio, whatever. So you really can't avoid it.

I thought the casting was good. I was impressed by Wahlberg. I thought he was going to ruin it. But he didn't.

The woman were hot in the movie. Can't say no to that.

In the book Nick Memphis wasm't a hispanic.........but that guy did a good job. He was pretty funny.
 
Mark Wahlberg did an interview on a local radio station last week. He talked about how much fun he had shooting all the guns and going through marine sniper training, etc..

Maybe working on this movie changed his mind? Well, it's okay for him and his elitist friends to have guns, but not us common serfs...
 
Why give a review about a movie with a lot of spoilers??? Spoilers really deter people from seeing a movie you know, or keeps them from reading the rest of your post. Just tell people if its good or not, no need go in to grave details...or at least post a warning saying "SPOILER".
 
Maybe working on this movie changed his mind?
Click to expand...

Nope. From the Metro in Philly, today, 3/26/07:

Despite the “tough
guy with a gun roles,” don’t
expect Mark Wahlberg to
pull a Chuck Heston and go
all NRA on us anytime soon.
“I don’t think I’ll be picking
up a gun until I do a film
that requires it,” Wahlberg
says. “I certainly know my
way around guns, I’m comfortable
with them, but if
we could make them all disappear
that would be a
beautiful thing.”

http://metropoint.com/cgi-bin/WebOb...tion?countryName=USA&editionName=Philadelphia
 
I'm not a fan of Mark Walberg, but went to see the movie last night because it had GUNS. I was surprised when the opening credits said it was based on Steven Hunter's "Point of Impact" which is one of my favorite books.

The movie followed the general outline of the book in an updated time frame (Viet Nam was fast-forwarded to Ethiopia and Bob Lee's Remington 700 became a Barrett 50, etc)

Mark W would not have been my choice to play Bob Lee. Bob Lee was a lean country boy from Arkansas. However, I thought MW did a credible job.

The most disappointing deviation from the plot of the book was the elimination of Bob Lee's friend, the old lawyer and changing the courtroom scene to the meeting with the Attorney General.

Having said all this, I enjoyed the movie. Thought the best line in the movie was Bob Lee saying "These boys killed my dog."

Jim
 
I don't see how it was anti-gun. If fact, the movie ultimately boils down to a story about a free citizen, skilled in the use of small arms, refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting. :)
 
SHOOTER: The movie.

One GOOD THING about the movie being different then the book is the corny begining.

In the book, it starts out with Bob Lee Swagger shooting a monster buck with a wax bullet.....to stun it. So that he can cut it's antlers off and save it from being shot by trophy hunters.

Once he shoots the deer and the antlers are tossed in the woods, the deer wakes up and runs away unharmed.

I always thought that part was stupid.
 
After reading this thread yesterday I went and bought a Steven Hunter book.
Really great reading by a guy who is, obviously, part of the gun culture.
The reason 'celebrities' like Glover and Mark W are being paid for films is because people see them. STOP SEEING THEM. If their popularity goes away so do their movie roles. Rather support the good guys like Steven Hunter by buying his books.
 
Many actors are of the ANTI-GUN culture. So is much of Hollywood.

Not to dissolution anyone.....but by not watching movies.....probably not going to change much.

:banghead:
 
It all starts with you. Do you pay the wages of anti-gun Hollywood "stars," who would deprive you of the very thing that brings you to this forum, or do you make a conscious, informed decision to actively choose not to fund these bastages, and their elitist policies?

Give a damn, it all starts with you.
 
I will repeat what I said earlier.


"Most of Hollywood is ANTI-GUN. You have directors, actors, producers, studios, and many others."

So even if the main actor isn't ANTI-GUN, someone else involved with the movie probably is.

So tell me:

HAVE YOU STOPPED SEEING ALL MOVIES YET?????

HAVE YOU STOPPED WATCHING T.V. YET????

Because that's the only way you will do it. So when you start doing those TWO things.........Tell me. I will be impressed.
 
In many ways, this is just like the flap over Casino Royale. Many complained that Daniel Craig was an anti and they wouldn't support our enemies by seeing the movie. I imagine Walther/S&W were utterly delighted by the warm reaction of critics and audiences.
 
HAVE YOU STOPPED SEEING ALL MOVIES YET?????

HAVE YOU STOPPED WATCHING T.V. YET????

Because that's the only way you will do it. So when you start doing those TWO things.........Tell me. I will be impressed.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I thoroughly enjoyed "300." Again, it's your choice whom you support. As was suggested long ago in this thread, purchase a ticket to 300 and then watch the anti-gunners.

Someone else mentioned waiting to see this movie on cable. Good choice. Your choices do make a difference in this world. Are you convinced your actions have no consequences? Now, I'm going to avoid the use of all caps and enlarged font.
 
TV Channels get paid by ad/commercial companies. They find out which channel has the most viewship and then pay the Channel and have advertisements put on.

So if your watching a movie on tv, their still getting paid. Also actors/directors/producers get paid on ROYALTIES. So everytime their movie or show is played they get paid.

Also if you get those special channels that you pay for like HBO and whatnot, you have to pay for them. So you are once again paying to help.

I'm not for it or against it. I'm just saying it's nearly impossible NOT to support ANTI-GUN people if you watch TV or movies.
 
I enjoyed 300 too. I assume you confirmed that the director, producer, actors, and studio (in the case of 300, Warner Brothers, distributors or producers of various George Clooney and Tim Robbins movies) were staunchly pro-RKBA before shelling out for the ticket? I mean, you didn't just assume that, because there was no notorious anti-gunner (notorious at least to gun forum participants like us, even if they are embarrassingly invisible to the general public in their capacity as spokespersons for gun control) in the top half of the credits, that it was therefore a sound way to spend a few bucks that might perhaps have been better donated to the NRA? ;)
 
They wrote out the old lawyer? Sheesh.

I haven't paid to see a first-run movie in more than 10 years because the crowds were full of rude, noisy, yappy, cellphone-talking, self-centered...but I repeat myself.

OTOH, I will sometimes go to a cut-rate theater a few blocks from my house that has uncomfortable seats. If you're ever in Richmond catch a Saturday evening show - it doesn't matter what's showing - and see Bob Gulledge play the Byrd's Mighty Wurlitzer. Surprise someone and don't tell them about it - it rises up out of the stage. He can also play the grand piano in the alcove remotely from the organ.

byrd_in.jpg
 
300 did not broadcast an anti gun/freedom message, but quite the opposite. If 300 starred vocal lefties like George Looney or Hanoi Jane or Markie (Felon) Mark I would not have paid to see that movie no matter the message. I see, maybe, 3 movies a year and I choose content carefully. I watch 0 hours of network TV.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
A reply from my Senator Re: Holder
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Jeff White
J
G
  • Locked
"Average Joe" in America
Replies
0
Views
668
Glock-A-Roo
G
J
  • Locked
An EXCELLENT Speech!
Replies
10
Views
409
cool45auto
C
G
  • Locked
interesting pro gun editorial
Replies
1
Views
542
TimRB
T
T
  • Locked
An Excellent Quote
Replies
5
Views
544
armoredman
armoredman
Back
Top