View Full Version : Lone Survivor, the movie.
A friend of mine told me hes having dinner with Marcus Luttrell, Glenn Beck, and others; in discussions revolving around the Lone Survivor foundation. He also mentioned that Jim Caviezel would be there who will be playing Mr. Luttrell in the movie. Pretty cool.
I hope the movie will honor and esteem the members of our armed forces and not be tarnished by Hollywood.
i agree it will be tough to find a cast worthy of playing all those heros.
Caviezel looks nothing like Luttrell.
My first choice has always been Kevin Durand.
When is it scheduled to come out ?
Not even in production. Could never come out.
SeriousStudent
06-16-10, 18:43
I would love to see it, especially if Marcus has a controlling voice it how it portrays his fallen teammates.
Damn fine book about some truly heroic Sailors. I was very pleased to hear that the Navy named a new ship after Lt. Murphy.
Trailer (http://news.moviefone.com/2013/07/31/lone-survivor-trailer-mark-wahlberg-video/) is out. Release is for 27 Dec in LA and New York and 10 Jan everywhere else. Something I loved about Black Hawk Down and Act of Valor was that most of the lead characters were fairly unknown (aside from Josh Hartnett maybe). After having read the book and seeing some many movies with Mark Wahlberg, I'm not sure I really see him as Luttrell. And any time I see Ben Foster I think of his role in 3:10 to Yuma. I like Eric Bana a lot though, and I've read that Luttrell is having a pretty significant impact on the movie which should go a long way. One other thing that always drove me nuts, however small, was the transition in the name from OP Redwing (as on the cover of Lone Survivor) to Red Wings. I read some armchair commando's post as to why it is supposed to be the latter, but Luttrell called it the former in the book so that's what I assume was the actual name for the OP. Again, nit-picky, but for some reason it always bothered me.
theblackknight
07-31-13, 18:32
STAND BY: The butt hurt comments about Marky Mark's gun views are on the march.
Operation Red Wings is the proper name for the operation.
Moose-Knuckle
07-31-13, 19:22
STAND BY: The butt hurt comments about Marky Mark's gun views are on the march.
I still can't get past his musical career, he liked guns then . . . :lol:
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/Mark-Wahlberg_510x317_zpsc02e9116.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/Mark-Wahlberg_510x317_zpsc02e9116.jpg.html)
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/mark-wahlberg_zpsb0f23177.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/mark-wahlberg_zpsb0f23177.jpg.html)
I would love to see it, especially if Marcus has a controlling voice it how it portrays his fallen teammates.
Damn fine book about some truly heroic Sailors. I was very pleased to hear that the Navy named a new ship after Lt. Murphy.
Be sure and follow up with his 2nd read SERVICE...another page turner, but kinda stings every time you see Kyle's name.
Good thing is I know nothing of the actor's political views and hope it stays that way...as I noted, still worried about hollyweird direction they could take the story. It must have been over ten years since I went to the movies, but I'll support this & do hope Luttrell had a hand in keeping train on the tracks.
I kinda dig the cast so far...if 5% of the people who go see the film & get a true grasp of the ROE's and how it affects our SO / boots on the ground...to me, it's already a success.
I remember going to see Platoon in HS & seeing all those grown men in tears when the lights came up was a vision I will never forget...it was moving, but looking back and seeing some of the actors today makes me realize there are very few entertainers in this world worthy enough to even pretend to be warriors.
Oh well...it is what it is and hope their losses are represented in the most respectful manner that market can muster up.
sinlessorrow
07-31-13, 20:31
I wonder if they will make it hollywood like his book, or real life and portray 7-10 attackers?
SeriousStudent
07-31-13, 20:40
Artos - yes, I do have a copy of "Service" and agree that it's an excellent book. For those who have not read it, it's sort of a prequel to "Lone Survivor" in some ways.
I'm planning on hearing him speak in next month.
MountainRaven
07-31-13, 20:43
Trailer (http://news.moviefone.com/2013/07/31/lone-survivor-trailer-mark-wahlberg-video/) is out. Release is for 27 Dec in LA and New York and 10 Jan everywhere else. Something I loved about Black Hawk Down and Act of Valor was that most of the lead characters were fairly unknown (aside from Josh Hartnett maybe). After having read the book and seeing some many movies with Mark Wahlberg, I'm not sure I really see him as Luttrell. And any time I see Ben Foster I think of his role in 3:10 to Yuma. I like Eric Bana a lot though, and I've read that Luttrell is having a pretty significant impact on the movie which should go a long way. One other thing that always drove me nuts, however small, was the transition in the name from OP Redwing (as on the cover of Lone Survivor) to Red Wings. I read some armchair commando's post as to why it is supposed to be the latter, but Luttrell called it the former in the book so that's what I assume was the actual name for the OP. Again, nit-picky, but for some reason it always bothered me.
Characters or actors?
Because I'm pretty sure most of the actors in BHD were (and are) well-known.
I kinda dig the cast so far...if 5% of the people who go see the film & get a true grasp of the ROE's and how it affects our SO / boots on the ground...to me, it's already a success.
Killing captive civilians isn't reasonable. A wiser move would have been to call for extraction and then turn them loose when the chopper was in sight.
I have an acquaintance who was present for Operation Red Wings II, what he has to say about the SEALs is pretty damning.
Characters or actors?
Because I'm pretty sure most of the actors in BHD were (and are) well-known.
Many were little known at the time, or are people we recognize but don't know.
MountainRaven
07-31-13, 21:00
Many were little known at the time, or are people we recognize but don't know.
Just thinking with electrons here....
Famous at the time:
Josh Hartnett
Ewan McGregor
Tom Sizemore
Orlando Bloom
George Harris
Know but don't know:
Sam Shepard
William Fichtner
Kim Coates
Jeremy Piven
Famous after:
Eric Bana
Tom Hardy
Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (perhaps best known today for playing Ser Jaime "The King-Slayer" Lannister in Game of Thrones... portrayed MSgt Gary Gordon in BHD)
And now I'm bored, so I'm not looking up any one else in the case, because there were waaay too many people in BHD. :P
I wonder if they will make it hollywood like his book, or real life and portray 7-10 attackers?
What?
Characters or actors?
Because I'm pretty sure most of the actors in BHD were (and are) well-known.
Sorry, actors.
Just thinking with electrons here....
Famous at the time:
Josh Hartnett
Ewan McGregor
Tom Sizemore
Orlando Bloom
George Harris
Know but don't know:
Sam Shepard
William Fichtner
Kim Coates
Jeremy Piven
Famous after:
Eric Bana
Tom Hardy
Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (perhaps best known today for playing Ser Jaime "The King-Slayer" Lannister in Game of Thrones... portrayed MSgt Gary Gordon in BHD)
And now I'm bored, so I'm not looking up any one else in the case, because there were waaay too many people in BHD. :P
And obviously this is subjective, but IMO none of them were that well known.
I had to look up George Harris. He's not well known even now.
Hartnett and Bloom were known then mostly to teenaged girls.
Just thinking with electrons here....
Famous at the time:
Josh Hartnett
Ewan McGregor
Tom Sizemore
Orlando Bloom
George Harris
Know but don't know:
Sam Shepard
William Fichtner
Kim Coates
Jeremy Piven
Famous after:
Eric Bana
Tom Hardy
:P
Sam Shepard was by far the most experienced and well known actor in the movie. He won a Pulitzer in the 70s and was nominated for an Academy Award for the Right Stuff.
As is often said on this site, you do not know what you do not know. Not that there is anything with that when it comes to keeping up with who is who in Hollywood....:D
sinlessorrow
07-31-13, 23:35
What?
Sorry, actors.
And obviously this is subjective, but IMO none of them were that well known.
The book was written by a spy novel guy and made action packed by making the force 100+.
In real life the group that attacked was somewhere between 4-10.
The book was written by a spy novel guy and made action packed by making the force 100+.
In real life the group that attacked was somewhere between 4-10.
What do you base this on?
sinlessorrow
07-31-13, 23:50
What do you base this on?
The truth? I'll have to dig up the book that details what really happened that day. I have it here. Give me a few minutes and I'll get it.
theblackknight
07-31-13, 23:58
I still can't get past his musical career, he liked guns then . . . :lol:
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/Mark-Wahlberg_510x317_zpsc02e9116.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/Mark-Wahlberg_510x317_zpsc02e9116.jpg.html)
That shirt is baller. Googling now
Marcus Luttrell estimated after the initial firefight (right after falling back/falling down the first mountainside that "Sharmak had closer to 200 men as opposed to the 80 minimum advised in the op briefing"-paraphrased from page 248 of the paperback edition. I do remember him mentioning, more than once, that he estimated being outnumbered approx. 35-1.
-Jax
sinlessorrow
08-01-13, 00:16
Marcus Luttrell estimated after the initial firefight (right after falling back/falling down the first mountainside that "Sharmak had closer to 200 men as opposed to the 80 minimum advised in the op briefing"-paraphrased from page 248 of the paperback edition. I do remember him mentioning, more than once, that he estimated being outnumbered approx. 35-1.
-Jax
http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar/misinformation.php
For instance, the book describes "hundreds" of Taliban, when in Luttrell's after action report, he stated 20 to 35. While analysis of intelligence later revealed a number somewhere in the range of 8 to 10
domestique
08-01-13, 04:23
http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar/misinformation.php
For instance, the book describes "hundreds" of Taliban, when in Luttrell's after action report, he stated 20 to 35. While analysis of intelligence later revealed a number somewhere in the range of 8 to 10
http://www.navy.mil/moh/mpmurphy/oc.html
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL P. MURPHY
UNITED STATES NAVY
FOR SERVICE AS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING
CITATION:
FOR CONSPICUOUS GALLANTRY AND INTREPIDITY AT THE RISK OF HIS LIFE ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CALL OF DUTY AS THE LEADER OF A SPECIAL RECONNAISSANCE ELEMENT WITH NAVAL SPECIAL WARFARE TASK UNIT AFGHANISTAN ON 27 AND 28 JUNE 2005. WHILE LEADING A MISSION TO LOCATE A HIGH-LEVEL ANTI-COALITION MILITIA LEADER, LIEUTENANT MURPHY DEMONSTRATED EXTRAORDINARY HEROISM IN THE FACE OF GRAVE DANGER IN THE VICINITY OF ASADABAD, KONAR PROVINCE, AFGHANISTAN. ON 28 JUNE 2005, OPERATING IN AN EXTREMELY RUGGED ENEMY-CONTROLLED AREA, LIEUTENANT MURPHY’S TEAM WAS DISCOVERED BY ANTI-COALITION MILITIA SYMPATHIZERS, WHO REVEALED THEIR POSITION TO TALIBAN FIGHTERS. AS A RESULT, BETWEEN 30 AND 40 ENEMY FIGHTERS BESIEGED HIS FOUR-MEMBER TEAM. DEMONSTRATING EXCEPTIONAL RESOLVE, LIEUTENANT MURPHY VALIANTLY LED HIS MEN IN ENGAGING THE LARGE ENEMY FORCE. THE ENSUING FIERCE FIREFIGHT RESULTED IN NUMEROUS ENEMY CASUALTIES, AS WELL AS THE WOUNDING OF ALL FOUR MEMBERS OF THE TEAM. IGNORING HIS OWN WOUNDS AND DEMONSTRATING EXCEPTIONAL COMPOSURE, LIEUTENANT MURPHY CONTINUED TO LEAD AND ENCOURAGE HIS MEN. WHEN THE PRIMARY COMMUNICATOR FELL MORTALLY WOUNDED, LIEUTENANT MURPHY REPEATEDLY ATTEMPTED TO CALL FOR ASSISTANCE FOR HIS BELEAGUERED TEAMMATES. REALIZING THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF COMMUNICATING IN THE EXTREME TERRAIN, AND IN THE FACE OF ALMOST CERTAIN DEATH, HE FOUGHT HIS WAY INTO OPEN TERRAIN TO GAIN A BETTER POSITION TO TRANSMIT A CALL. THIS DELIBERATE, HEROIC ACT DEPRIVED HIM OF COVER, EXPOSING HIM TO DIRECT ENEMY FIRE. FINALLY ACHIEVING CONTACT WITH HIS HEADQUARTERS, LIEUTENANT MURPHY MAINTAINED HIS EXPOSED POSITION WHILE HE PROVIDED HIS LOCATION AND REQUESTED IMMEDIATE SUPPORT FOR HIS TEAM. IN HIS FINAL ACT OF BRAVERY, HE CONTINUED TO ENGAGE THE ENEMY UNTIL HE WAS MORTALLY WOUNDED, GALLANTLY GIVING HIS LIFE FOR HIS COUNTRY AND FOR THE CAUSE OF FREEDOM. BY HIS SELFLESS LEADERSHIP, COURAGEOUS ACTIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY DEVOTION TO DUTY, LIEUTENANT MURPHY REFLECTED GREAT CREDIT UPON HIMSELF AND UPHELD THE HIGHEST TRADITIONS OF THE UNITED STATES NAVAL SERVICE.
SIGNED GEORGE W. BUSH
--------------------------------------------
While 100-200 fighters may have been a stretch by Marcus…. None of us were there INCLUDING Ed Darack whose book is discrediting Marcus’ and the Medal of Honor Review board’s account.
An Author's job and motive is to sell his book. He was also embedded with the Marines and may be bias. I haven't read his book but will add it to my "next to read" list. I encourage others to do their own digging and do not automatically discount Marcus' EYE WITNESS account because of one author.
GeorgiaBoy
08-01-13, 05:02
I just can't figure out how there have been THREE feature length movies produced in the last 2 years about a special forces group that used to lie in the shadows...
Producing movies is normal. That they are based on books and accounts directly from military personnel is different.
WRT the OBL raid, if they didn't want anyone to hear the story they would have sent Delta...
brickboy240
08-01-13, 10:00
Isn't Peter Berg directing this movie? He did "The Kingdom" and seems like a director that could do Luttrell's story justice.
I have seen Marcus interviewed on Glenn Beck's program and he seems to be heavily involved in the making of the movie.
I read the book many years ago and look forward to seeing it.
-brickboy240
The truth? I'll have to dig up the book that details what really happened that day. I have it here. Give me a few minutes and I'll get it.
If you want the truth, just ask the guy who was there and posts on this forum.
ETA:
My bad here, I thought he was referencing BHD, upon re-read I see he was referencing RW.
Killing captive civilians isn't reasonable. A wiser move would have been to call for extraction and then turn them loose when the chopper was in sight.
I have an acquaintance who was present for Operation Red Wings II, what he has to say about the SEALs is pretty damning.
Would you mind clarifying this?
Conjecture and rumors....here we go. Whether or not LT. Murphy's team engaged with 7 men or the entire Taliban it does not take away one bit the behemoth firefight and the bravery that closely followed. I don't care what the exact number is or I heard this or that about this or that.
To me this dishonors what these men did. Come on guys let's not go there. Marcus Luttrell has my utmost respect. Unless he shows up on YouTube with a justice for Treyvon shirt on screaming "kill whitey" I doubt my view of him or SEAL Team 10 during that operation will change.
-Jax
Would you mind clarifying this?
I won't attempt to recreate his story because I can't do it justice, but he describes a series of errors from the planning stage right to the end. Like several other people I know who are well placed to have an opinion, he considers SEALs to be ill suited to ground combat.
If I see him again I'll ask.
Conjecture and rumors....here we go. Whether or not LT. Murphy's team engaged with 7 men or the entire Taliban it does not take away one bit the behemoth firefight and the bravery that closely followed. I don't care what the exact number is or I heard this or that about this or that.
To me this dishonors what these men did. Come on guys let's not go there. Marcus Luttrell has my utmost respect. Unless he shows up on YouTube with a justice for Treyvon shirt on screaming "kill whitey" I doubt my view of him or SEAL Team 10 during that operation will change.
-Jax
I won't attempt to recreate his story because I can't do it justice, but he describes a series of errors from the planning stage right to the end. Like several other people I know who are well placed to have an opinion, he considers SEALs to be ill suited to ground combat.
If I see him again I'll ask.
I think we should keep in mind who was saying that. While I do not know, I'd venture a guess as to his profession as I have heard a similar statement. However, its important to note that this was more out of competition I'd say, than disrespect. SEALs are ****ing awesome, so are any of our other SOF units. They all have their respective AO's and as most know, none can be a master of all trades. I think that is more what it boils down to, as opposed to accusing of incompetence or the like.
Of course, I can only speak for myself and am not trying to guess what anyone really meant, more-so hope this is what they meant.
I haven't read his book but will add it to my "next to read" list. I encourage others to do their own digging and do not automatically discount Marcus' EYE WITNESS account because of one author.
You should definitely read the book. It will certainly create more than sliver of doubt in your mind about several of the events recounted in Lone Survivor. I don't believe Darack started out to discredit anyone or that he was biased to the point of exaggeration or outright lies. I will admit he does come across as a bit of a cheerleader when given the opportunity to fill in the blanks. If he had simply chronicled the events and forgone opining when the opportunity presented itself, he wouldn't have marginalized the credibility of his book.
http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar/misinformation.php
For instance, the book describes "hundreds" of Taliban, when in Luttrell's after action report, he stated 20 to 35. While analysis of intelligence later revealed a number somewhere in the range of 8 to 10
In regards to your link, here's a thread from another forum of guys (who are much closer to the action than most of us here are) talking about it: http://www.socnet.com/showthread.php?t=99824
Most succinct post from the above link that summed up my thoughts after reading the link you provided - (Post #7):
http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar/
This explains a lot.
The auther of the article is selling a book.
Nuff said
As for the actual numbers of fighters, who really knows. I would bet that the numbers are closer to what's in Murphy's MOH Citation than the 8-10 number. And even if it was "only 30-40" vs 100+, you're still fighting a force that outnumbers you 10-1...fighting from high ground no less.
There's also a guy in the above linked thread who claims to have seen the UAV feed of the fighting and confirms that it's way more than 8-10.
So, sorry, not buying some obscure journalist's story about an event that he wasn't a part of and didn't even talk to the only person who was. He's a disgrace for trying to put those men in a bad light all for the purpose of personal gain. Shameful.
I won't attempt to recreate his story because I can't do it justice, but he describes a series of errors from the planning stage right to the end. Like several other people I know who are well placed to have an opinion, he considers SEALs to be ill suited to ground combat.
If I see him again I'll ask.
I can honestly say that that is the first time I've heard that. I'm not saying that he/you are wrong by any means, just saying that it's different than everything I've heard from various guys close to the Teams. And the fact that they've been on the ground from about day 1 doing land ops, and are continually called upon to do so. If they were that bad, why would they still be doing it after 12 years of warfare? (again, not being combative here)
Conjecture and rumors....here we go.
Exactly. This Ed Darack guy is currently writing a book, and obviously trying to stir things up to boost his book sales. Until proven otherwise, the most accurate account of what happened will most likely come from the guy who was ACTUALLY THERE, not some reporter who didn't even interview the only living eye witness to the events.
At any rate, the movie looks like it should be good, especially with how close Luttrell has been involved with it's making.
In regards to your link, here's a thread from another forum of guys (who are much closer to the action than most of us here are) talking about it: http://www.socnet.com/showthread.php?t=99824
Most succinct post from the above link that summed up my thoughts after reading the link you provided - (Post #7):
As for the actual numbers of fighters, who really knows. I would bet that the numbers are closer to what's in Murphy's MOH Citation than the 8-10 number. And even if it was "only 30-40" vs 100+, you're still fighting a force that outnumbers you 10-1...fighting from high ground no less.
There's also a guy in the above linked thread who claims to have seen the UAV feed of the fighting and confirms that it's way more than 8-10.
So, sorry, not buying some obscure journalist's story about an event that he wasn't a part of and didn't even talk to the only person who was. He's a disgrace for trying to put those men in a bad light all for the purpose of personal gain. Shameful.
That's exactly what I've been thinking WRT this "author" and his claims. 10-1 is still a hell of a fight as you said, and if so much of Luttrell's story is BS, than there would have been a significant outcry from the SOF community because most of them don't tolerate that shit.
I can honestly say that that is the first time I've heard that. I'm not saying that he/you are wrong by any means, just saying that it's different than everything I've heard from various guys close to the Teams. And the fact that they've been on the ground from about day 1 doing land ops, and are continually called upon to do so. If they were that bad, why would they still be doing it after 12 years of warfare? (again, not being combative here)
Also what I was trying to address, I think its all relative. A badass SF dude may say that the SEAL's should stick to maritime ops, but he'd be biased for one, and two, its not like they're bad by any means. They all kick ass and do the job exceptionally well, but I would expect the Army's SOF to be a little better (and different) at land ops than the SEALs, and vice-versa for maritime but they're all highly competent and capable of doing either job.
Regardless of any mistakes made, this story is about the heroism and bravery of a close group of skilled men, some who gave all. I will enjoy watching it.
________________________________________________
-------------------------------------------------------
LANE CHECK, PLEASE
________________________________________________
Until proven otherwise, the most accurate account of what happened will most likely come from the guy who was ACTUALLY THERE, not some reporter who didn't even interview the only living eye witness to the events.
First, I like the book. Second, regardless of 5,000 booger-eaters or five, the fact that the SEALs were in an impossible situation given the terrain and being defensive against the bad guys does not detract from their heroism, bravery, and upholding the highest traditions of the brotherhood. That said...eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable unless confirmed by other (and hopefully multiple) sources. I think even in the book Luttrell said that the book was written from his perspective and therefore biased by that (i.e., the truth as he remembers it). I tend to overlook specific numbers and specific details unless corroberated; we have all (or many of us) had that 'fog of war.'
What matters is that Luttrell lived to write the book about his experience and shed light on amazing feats of courage, bravery, and selflessness, not the numbers of the bad guys.
OK...back to the movie:
http://www.militarymoviesandnews.com/category/lone-survivor-movie/
-Jax
OK...back to the movie:
http://www.militarymoviesandnews.com/category/lone-survivor-movie/
-Jax
Didn't it happen in '05?
Didn't it happen in '05?
Yep. June (I think) of 2005
brickboy240
08-01-13, 15:55
Will there ever be a military movie that comes out...based on a true event...where everyone does NOT pick it totally apart?
I mean, after seeing interviews with Peter Berg and Marcus Luttrell...this is head and shoulders above what most other military movies have gone to ensure accuracy.
Still...some are going to nitpick it to death.
To me it looks like they did a pretty good job with it...considering how Hollywood does everything these days.
-brickboy240
MountainRaven
08-01-13, 20:02
Sam Shepard was by far the most experienced and well known actor in the movie. He won a Pulitzer in the 70s and was nominated for an Academy Award for the Right Stuff.
As is often said on this site, you do not know what you do not know. Not that there is anything with that when it comes to keeping up with who is who in Hollywood....:D
The only movie I recognized from his filmography prior to Black Hawk Down was Steel Magnolias, which I've never seen.
And I pretty much discard people who get awards if I've never heard of the movie. Because the awards are not for popularity, they're nominally for what Hollywood thinks is important to Hollywood, not to the audience.
:p
The only movie I recognized from his filmography prior to Black Hawk Down was Steel Magnolias, which I've never seen.
And I pretty much discard people who get awards if I've never heard of the movie. Because the awards are not for popularity, they're nominally for what Hollywood thinks is important to Hollywood, not to the audience.
:p
If you haven't seen The Right Stuff drop all further life plans and rent it. Love that movie. Whether or not Shepherd's depiction of Chuck Yeager is accurate or not I love the guys 'style' in movie. Its worth watching just for the interaction between the German scientists and the ready to launch yesterday mentality of the astronauts. One of my favorites.
-Jax
If you haven't seen The Right Stuff drop all further life plans and rent it. Love that movie. Whether or not Shepherd's depiction of Chuck Yeager is accurate or not I love the guys 'style' in movie. Its worth watching just for the interaction between the German scientists and the ready to launch yesterday mentality of the astronauts. One of my favorites.
-Jax
Well said...
And I pretty much discard people who get awards if I've never heard of the movie.
You are entitled to your prejudices but if you have never heard of "The Right Stuff" that explains a lot about your views on who is and is not famous in Hollywood.
MountainRaven
08-01-13, 20:22
So I hear that The Right Stuff might be worth watching, guys, I was wondering what you all think of it.
:laugh:
So I hear that The Right Stuff might be worth watching, guys, I was wondering what you all think of it.
:laugh:
Adapted from a book if you prefer.
Just to briefly add to the thread
http://cupertinoveteransmemorial.org/
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-02-13, 00:07
Read the book(s), Right Stuff and Lone Survivor. Marcus is a nut, stalking alligators and jumping on their backs??? From the book and the interviews I've seen he reminds me a lot of a good friend that passed away. Plus the story about him chasing the jack-asses that killed his dog? Can't wait to see the movie.
The Right Stuff convinced me that Chuck Yeager is at the top of the pyramid when it comes to pushing the edge of the envelope. To me the mercury astronauts were cookie snarfing glory hounds and John Glenn's political life bore that out. My favorite way to watch The Right Stuff is to watch the beginning when Yeager breaks the sound barrier and the end where he flies the F104.
Kind of like watching 'Heat' with out all the chick/relationship stuff.
Moose-Knuckle
08-02-13, 02:26
Will there ever be a military movie that comes out...based on a true event...where everyone does NOT pick it totally apart?
Ever see interviews by Paul Howe and Kyle Lamb about Gothic Serpent and the film Black Hawk Down . . . they were there. ;)
Exactly. This Ed Darack guy is currently writing a book, and obviously trying to stir things up to boost his book sales. Until proven otherwise, the most accurate account of what happened will most likely come from the guy who was ACTUALLY THERE, not some reporter who didn't even interview the only living eye witness to the events.
At any rate, the movie looks like it should be good, especially with how close Luttrell has been involved with it's making.
I would agree, except for the fact there was AAR done by Lutrell that somewhat matches the Darack's view and not the ghost writer of LS's
Just about anyone with a clearance can find it or excepts from it using high side google
MountainRaven
08-02-13, 08:56
Ever see interviews by Paul Howe and Kyle Lamb about Gothic Serpent and the film Black Hawk Down . . . they were there. ;)
I'd like to see those. Where can they be found?
Read the book(s), Right Stuff and Lone Survivor. Marcus is a nut, stalking alligators and jumping on their backs??? From the book and the interviews I've seen he reminds me a lot of a good friend that passed away. Plus the story about him chasing the jack-asses that killed his dog? Can't wait to see the movie.
That story was so sad. That must've taken so much restraint on his part not to fire because he "couldn't get a clear shot."
I'd like to see those. Where can they be found?
LINK (http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BNzQxMzU3OTQwNF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNDUyNTE5._V1_SY317_CR4,0,214,317_.jpg).....to Paul Howe discussing it.
Also, the Philly Inquirer still has the original site and content up from before the book...Be sure to see the DoD videos and interviews, especially with 'Delta Steve'....;)
Moose-Knuckle
08-02-13, 15:25
I'd like to see those. Where can they be found?
Paul Howe and Kyle Lamb where interviewed by Discovery/Military Channel for a recent recent documentary entitled Delta Force: Tier 1.
http://military.discovery.com/tv-shows/delta-force-tier-1/delta-force-tier-1-video/the-real-black-hawk-down.htm
Paul Howe has done an entire documentary entitled The Battle of the Black Sea.
http://www.panteaoproductions.com/products/battle-black-sea
The Right Stuff convinced me that Chuck Yeager is at the top of the pyramid when it comes to pushing the edge of the envelope. To me the mercury astronauts were cookie snarfing glory hounds and John Glenn's political life bore that out. My favorite way to watch The Right Stuff is to watch the beginning when Yeager breaks the sound barrier and the end where he flies the F104.
Kind of like watching 'Heat' with out all the chick/relationship stuff.
Slight hijack, but thought based on the thread content, you guys would like this.
Circa March 1946: Chuck in the middle, my grandfather (a real Hatfield) on the left. I believe they are second cousins. My grandfather said Chuck could see like no one he'd ever known. This is one of my most treasured pics.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/kry226/March1946.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/kry226/media/March1946.jpg.html)
Moose-Knuckle
08-02-13, 17:22
Slight hijack, but thought base on the thread content, you guys would like this.
Circa March 1946: Chuck in the middle, my grandfather (a real Hatfield) on the left. I believe they are second cousins. My grandfather said Chuck could see like no one he'd ever known. This is one of my most treasured pics.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/kry226/March1946.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/kry226/media/March1946.jpg.html)
That is awesome! :cool:
SeriousStudent
08-02-13, 19:57
.....
Paul Howe has done an entire documentary entitled The Battle of the Black Sea.
http://www.panteaoproductions.com/products/battle-black-sea
I have that DVD. MSG Howe's recounting of that battle makes me appreciate those men's bravery all the more.
I find it odd but interesting that the film choose to use a peter gabriel cover of a David Bowie song as the soundtrack in the trailer...
Magic_Salad0892
08-04-13, 01:03
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/kry226/March1946.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/kry226/media/March1946.jpg.html)
That's awesome.
That is awesome! :cool:
That's awesome.
Thanks, gents. This pic was taken in Huntington, WV. My grandfather, or "papaw", was home on leave from the Navy after basic training, and Chuck must have been home on leave as well. Anyone notice the crazy kid on the porch over Chuck's left shoulder? :p
Based on the failed June 28, 2005 mission "Operation Red Wings". Four members of SEAL Team 10 were tasked with the mission to capture or kill notorious Taliban leader Ahmad Shahd. Marcus Luttrell was the only member of his team to survive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMFLzf-DXXU
brickboy240
11-15-13, 11:10
Saw it last night....sneak preview at local theater...I give a review in other thread.
-brickboy240
Gunfighter.45
12-31-13, 11:24
Has anyone here seen it yet? Just curious if it's worth the trip to go see it.
JBecker 72
12-31-13, 11:55
Isn't it just NY and LA until the 10th? I'm gonna see it once it's in the normal theaters. Read the book, it was a great read. Looking forward to the movie.
I heard it was great from guys who saw a sneak peek.
Isn't it just NY and LA until the 10th? I'm gonna see it once it's in the normal theaters. Read the book, it was a great read. Looking forward to the movie.
Correct JB
-Jax
A group of us went to a screening on the 17th. I will keep it short and say it is a must see. I will see it again when guys at work decide they'd like to go see it.
SeriousStudent
12-31-13, 16:40
Merging this Lone Survivor movie thread with one of the other Lone Survivor movie threads already in GD.
JBecker 72
12-31-13, 17:15
Merging this Lone Survivor movie thread with one of the other Lone Survivor movie threads already in GD.
Thanks.
After reading the whole thread, and the subsequent talk about "The Right Stuff" I have a fun little tid bit to add. My grandfather, Bill Becker, was the pilot of the B-29 they used when filming the movie. In the beginning of the movie, you can briefly see him in his gold aviator shades piloting FiFi (the last air worthy superfortress in existence), and the man sitting behind him is Chuck Yeager.
Heartland Hawk
12-31-13, 17:30
He's also the guy in Pancho's that has the hat, asking if the government boys wanted any wiskey.
Thanks.
After reading the whole thread, and the subsequent talk about "The Right Stuff" I have a fun little tid bit to add. My grandfather, Bill Becker, was the pilot of the B-29 they used when filming the movie. In the beginning of the movie, you can briefly see him in his gold aviator shades piloting FiFi (the last air worthy superfortress in existence), and the man sitting behind him is Chuck Yeager.
JBecker 72
12-31-13, 17:49
He's also the guy in Pancho's that has the hat, asking if the government boys wanted any wiskey.
Really? I never noticed. I'm gonna have to watch it again.
Just watched lone survivor today. Having already read the book and being familiar with operation red wings, it was and excellent movie. The end had me weeping like a baby. Must see in my opinion.
I saw it the other night online... but I'm going to see it in the theatre as well for the experience.
Its been added to my list of movies I could watch more then twice
That is awesome! :cool:
Cool - one of my childhood hero's. I think I read his autobiography when I was around 10. I'm pretty sure Yeager had 20/10 vision (or better) - he describes in his book seeing German planes 50+ miles away. Also an ace-in-a-day. I was lucky enough to get a signed letter from him congratulating me on my Eagle Scout (though I'm sure it was a form letter).
Back on topic, how does movie compare to others in the genre? I liked Blackhawk Down and parts of Saving Private Ryan (more for cinematography than anything). Better/worse than Act of Valor? Hopefully not as "great" as Navy Seals or Tears of the Sun ...
ClearedHot
01-01-14, 21:58
I saw an advanced screening of the movie last month and thought it was pretty good overall. Although there were some minor technical goofs, such as the fact that all the guys had Ops-Core VAS shrouds on their lids, despite the fact that those shrouds didn't exist back in 2005.
Doc. Holiday
01-02-14, 12:46
I'm so stoked to see it. Comes out on my birthday so I'm in for sure!
Just watched it....Peter Berg's best film ever imho for sure.
One EPIC gunfight....and everyone in America is gonna want a Mk12 after watching this film!
Kevin and High Caliber Sales did an amazing job with the Mk12 rifles for the movie.
I could give a huge review, but I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone.... bottom line, it's an amazing film.
Anyone read both Lone Survivor and Victory Point?
http://www.darack.com/victorypoint/
Doc. Holiday
01-03-14, 09:08
Just watched it....Peter Berg's best film ever imho for sure.
One EPIC gunfight....and everyone in America is gonna want a Mk12 after watching this film!
Kevin and High Caliber Sales did an amazing job with the Mk12 rifles for the movie.
I could give a huge review, but I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone.... bottom line, it's an amazing film.
OMG Trident, you're killing me here! I don't want to wait another week... I was able to get prescreening tickets to Act of Valor, but this one was tougher...
JBecker 72
01-03-14, 09:44
Just watched it....Peter Berg's best film ever imho for sure.
One EPIC gunfight....and everyone in America is gonna want a Mk12 after watching this film!
Kevin and High Caliber Sales did an amazing job with the Mk12 rifles for the movie.
I could give a huge review, but I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone.... bottom line, it's an amazing film.
I haven't seen it yet, and I already got the itch for a MK12.
brickboy240
01-03-14, 11:31
Won't give anything away but the first big tumble down the mountain that Axe and Luttrell take is really hard to watch. You almost feel every bump and thud on the way down.
the first large gunfight scene is also reminiscent of the opening beach scenes in "Saving Private Ryan."
I think everyone here will be pleased with the movie. Ten times better than Blackhawk Down or Act of Valor.
-brickboy240
Doc. Holiday
01-03-14, 11:34
Ten times better than Blackhawk Down or Act of Valor.
-brickboy240
People give Act of Valor crap cuz the acting. They were real SEALs, they are not going to be good at acting. (Not saying that you were giving it crap Brick)
brickboy240
01-03-14, 11:54
Oh I did not think Act of Valor was awful. In fact, it is one of the better recent military movies.
However, Lone Survivor is much better all the way around. It is very gritty and dirty and you really get a feel for what they went through. parts of it are very hard to watch and there in zero Hollywood gun handling or acting nonsense in this film. The end also shows a touching tribute to all men that died in that incident and is very moving.
I really cannot wait to hear what most here will say about it because I think most will be surprised at how well it was done. I read the book years ago and knew the story well before the film and was not disappointed.
Doc. Holiday
01-03-14, 11:56
Awesome, yea my biggest beef with Hollywood is reloading (I wish my 30 round mag lasted as long as they do in Hollywood!) and the way they would hand their guns. Oh and of course cardboard boxes provide great cover too!
WickedWillis
01-03-14, 12:15
Oh I did not think Act of Valor was awful. In fact, it is one of the better recent military movies.
However, Lone Survivor is much better all the way around. It is very gritty and dirty and you really get a feel for what they went through. parts of it are very hard to watch and there in zero Hollywood gun handling or acting nonsense in this film. The end also shows a touching tribute to all men that died in that incident and is very moving.
I really cannot wait to hear what most here will say about it because I think most will be surprised at how well it was done. I read the book years ago and knew the story well before the film and was not disappointed.
Very good little summary. I have yet to see the film but I will go as soon as it's released. I do need to read the book however as I am on a big reading kick currently anyway. I have heard it's very moving.
Awesome, yea my biggest beef with Hollywood is reloading (I wish my 30 round mag lasted as long as they do in Hollywood!) and the way they would hand their guns. Oh and of course cardboard boxes provide great cover too!
If you like realism and actors actually that actually get trained properly, Michael Mann usually does a very good job in his films. He still does however have some scenes where it looks like there is 100-rds in a mag. He also nails the ambient sounds of firearms as they are brash and loud and not dumbed down like in other films. Tom Cruise went through some training with a former SAS officer for his role in collateral (my personal favorite Mann film). Peter Berg does a good job of this as well, I'm excited to see this movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8-P8sJNHk0
Anyone read both Lone Survivor and Victory Point?
http://www.darack.com/victorypoint/
already read lone survivor and reading victory point now. saw a 30 minute "behind-the-scenes" special on this movie last night. one thing Luttrell and the families of those who did not survive explained was they the WANTED this movie made to tell the story and so those men's deeds would not be lost or forgotten.
the director was constantly talking to the actors about how they had to develop this team and brotherhood mentality because it would not translate to the screen if they didn't and they were only here to respectfully memorialize these men...
In a way I knew this movie would not be a typical Hollywood movie, but I was still kinda worried it might disappoint. It's really cool that all of the reviews I've read thus far are extremely positive. Since someone said it's better than Blackhawk Down really makes me excited to see this movie.
Moose-Knuckle
01-03-14, 18:01
Any source with comments by Marcus Luttrell on the film?
WickedWillis
01-03-14, 18:06
Any source with comments by Marcus Luttrell on the film?
http://undertheradar.military.com/2013/12/marcus-luttrell-talks-lone-survivor/
In a way I knew this movie would not be a typical Hollywood movie, but I was still kinda worried it might disappoint. It's really cool that all of the reviews I've read thus far are extremely positive. Since someone said it's better than Blackhawk Down really makes me excited to see this movie.
Definitely not better than Blackhawk Down imho. It's not even in the category of Saving Private Ryan.
WickedWillis
01-03-14, 18:14
Definitely not better than Blackhawk Down imho. It's not even in the category of Saving Private Ryan.
What were your gripes about the film? I have not seen it yet so I have no opinion on it. I did however love both Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down.
No gripes about Lone Survivor per say. It's just that it's an incredibly sad story about a really small moment in history. On the other hand, you have the entire European theater in WWII as the backdrop story for Saving Private Ryan, and you have the EPIC Battle of Mogadishu as the backdrop story for Blackhawk Down.
Peter Berg VS. Steven Spielberg (Saving) / Ridley Scott (BHD)........ Two best action Directors ever arguably, vs. Peter Berg.
Lone Survivor was easily one of the most "anti-feel good" movies I've ever seen. I know tons, and tons of Nazis, and skinnies were killed in real life, whereas in Lone Survivor it's just hard to know the final tally. Also it's tough not to get chocked up during the end of Lone Survivor.....didn't have a huge problem with that on the other two films were talking about. All that said, it's still an amazing film that everyone especially on M4C should thoroughly enjoy.
SeriousStudent
01-03-14, 19:34
Anyone read both Lone Survivor and Victory Point?
http://www.darack.com/victorypoint/
Just ordered Victory Point from Amazon, thanks for the tip.
Moose-Knuckle
01-03-14, 19:53
http://undertheradar.military.com/2013/12/marcus-luttrell-talks-lone-survivor/
Gracias amigo!
4DAIVI PAI2K5
01-04-14, 06:29
It is a great movie! Having read the book there was a few difference but i think they were done to make the movie not be 3 hrs long. I was surprised to cameos by Marcus. Gun handling looked really good compared to other films. Man those crashes down the mountain were brutal! Will be watching it again for sure! If you haven't read the book go get it now, and while your at it get Service as it tells a bit more in depth about his extract.
TurretGunner
01-10-14, 08:03
Fantastic Book & Great Movie (even if 80% of it is fiction).
I really wish more people would do their own research and see whats out there about this Op, and the preceding ones. It should a lesson of what not to do, from planning to execution. I still am trying to wrap my head around Marcus going along with the book and story. He seems like a man of integrity and honor. How he could endorse a book with so many innacurracies, false statements and outright lies is really beyond me.
It doesn't take away from what the guys on the ground went through, and surely the ordeal that Marcus had to endure. Another example of poor planning, ignoring the advice of the guys from the AO, JSOC/Conventional pissing matches, and guys (SEALS) who really had no business doing RSTA or DA up in the mountains of a landlocked country. The origional plan of Red Wings was to have a 6 man Scout/Sniper element (2 extra for security......duh), but JSOC got into a juvenille game about the use of their ground and aviation assets. The recon team was only a small part of the larger overall OP Red Wings, and what happened to those men could have and should have been easily avoided. I really do feel for the guys on the Teams that are put into these kinds of situations and missions.... what a collosal waste of precious rescources and assets.
Not that I have looked at it or anything, But the AAR and supporting info is out there on wikileaks if any of you without a clearence are so inclined to do a bit of digging. Incorporate that with other open source and open statements and you quickly see that the Lone Survivor Story smells to high heaven, and at the very least.... takes extreame liberties with the truth.
Edit: It was nice to see Marcus's cameo in the movie. He seemed really akward and had poor delivery with his few lines. Ive seen him speak in person and have seen most of his online speaking engagements and he really is a good public speaker. Would have been nice to see more of him in the moive. The ending really did piss me off. If anything, the ending of the Book seemed to be the most accurate, and I don't know why they had to use Apache Runs on the village (that they had no idea who was fighting who) to apease the mouth breaking public. That crap was unneeed and made zero sense in the context of the book, movie, or anything for that matter.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-10-14, 08:33
I was surprised about how much of the book was about his SEAL BUDs class. Is that a significant part of the movie? At first I thought it was filler in the book, but after the main story, it seemed that the training was included to show how people fall out of the training- as tough as it is- and how that doesn't compare to the adversity of real missions. What I took away from the book is the old Yoda saying "There is no try, only do." You have to have the internal reservoir of determination and just keep going.
Looking forward to the movie....
TurretGunner
01-10-14, 08:36
The movie is very good for what it is... just don't go in thinking its some sort of doccumentry of recreated actual events. For pure entertainment value.... its very well done.
I kinda think the movie shoulda been split into two parts.
First Movie: Marcus upbringing, BUDS, some workup to the mission,ect. They really did not develop any of the characters, which does the Men an injustice. Have the 1st movie go up to the point of the soft contact
Second Movie: The ambush, Marcus's ordeal and finnaly the rescue (Rangers Lead the Way).
Fantastic Book & Great Movie (even if 80% of it is fiction).
I really wish more people would do their own research and see whats out there about this Op, and the preceding ones. It should a lesson of what not to do, from planning to execution. I still am trying to wrap my head around Marcus going along with the book and story. He seems like a man of integrity and honor. How he could endorse a book with so many innacurracies, false statements and outright lies is really beyond me.
It doesn't take away from what the guys on the ground went through, and surely the ordeal that Marcus had to endure. Another example of poor planning, ignoring the advice of the guys from the AO, JSOC/Conventional pissing matches, and guys (SEALS) who really had no business doing RSTA or DA up in the mountains of a landlocked country. The origional plan of Red Wings was to have a 6 man Scout/Sniper element (2 extra for security......duh), but JSOC got into a juvenille game about the use of their ground and aviation assets. The recon team was only a small part of the larger overall OP Red Wings, and what happened to those men could have and should have been easily avoided. I really do feel for the guys on the Teams that are put into these kinds of situations and missions.... what a collosal waste of precious rescources and assets.
Not that I have looked at it or anything, But the AAR and supporting info is out there on wikileaks if any of you without a clearence are so inclined to do a bit of digging. Incorporate that with other open source and open statements and you quickly see that the Lone Survivor Story smells to high heaven, and at the very least.... takes extreame liberties with the truth.
Edit: It was nice to see Marcus's cameo in the movie. He seemed really akward and had poor delivery with his few lines. Ive seen him speak in person and have seen most of his online speaking engagements and he really is a good public speaker. Would have been nice to see more of him in the moive. The ending really did piss me off. If anything, the ending of the Book seemed to be the most accurate, and I don't know why they had to use Apache Runs on the village (that they had no idea who was fighting who) to apease the mouth breaking public. That crap was unneeed and made zero sense in the context of the book, movie, or anything for that matter.
Have you spoken with Marcus regarding these questions?
TurretGunner
01-10-14, 11:52
Have you spoken with Marcus regarding these questions?
No, But I would love to if given the chance. I think he is in a tough situation, doing his best..... The Military has a history of spinning up lies and propganda for their own use (Jessica Lynch, Patt Tillman, ect) and you either go with the company line, or you find yourself on a island with no job, no retirment, and a legion of very powerfull people with the ability to make your life/ability to earn a living.... hell. Truth is, very few people know the actual truth and can put all the pieces together..... and many of those would have an interest in not putting NSW into a bad light or showing their failures.
There is way too much conflictiing information out there and trusted sources/leaked info reveals that the story as told by the book/movie..... is not very accurate. Hell the book and the movie contradict each other. Truth is not black and white, it is grey...
Maybe one day the truth in its entirety will come out? Maybe we will be speculating and debating this 25 years from now..... who knows..... Either way, the current story/naritive just not pass the sniff test.
sinlessorrow
01-10-14, 12:05
No, But I would love to if given the chance. I think he is in a tough situation, doing his best..... The Military has a history of spinning up lies and propganda for their own use (Jessica Lynch, Patt Tillman, ect) and you either go with the company line, or you find yourself on a island with no job, no retirment, and a legion of very powerfull people with the ability to make your life/ability to earn a living.... hell. Truth is, very few people know the actual truth and can put all the pieces together..... and many of those would have an interest in not putting NSW into a bad light or showing their failures.
There is way too much conflictiing information out there and trusted sources/leaked info reveals that the story as told by the book/movie..... is not very accurate. Hell the book and the movie contradict each other. Truth is not black and white, it is grey...
Maybe one day the truth in its entirety will come out? Maybe we will be speculating and debating this 25 years from now..... who knows..... Either way, the current story/naritive just not pass the sniff test.
Did you read the socnet link that was given to me in reply to the darrack thing?
supposedly the military wanted to make this film, he didn't but went along. So you know they was some CYA from the .mil. He said it was fairly accurate though, but there were 2 or 3 'concessions made' per him in the film, he did not detail what they were.
No, But I would love to if given the chance. I think he is in a tough situation, doing his best..... The Military has a history of spinning up lies and propganda for their own use (Jessica Lynch, Patt Tillman, ect) and you either go with the company line, or you find yourself on a island with no job, no retirment, and a legion of very powerfull people with the ability to make your life/ability to earn a living.... hell. Truth is, very few people know the actual truth and can put all the pieces together..... and many of those would have an interest in not putting NSW into a bad light or showing their failures.
There is way too much conflictiing information out there and trusted sources/leaked info reveals that the story as told by the book/movie..... is not very accurate. Hell the book and the movie contradict each other. Truth is not black and white, it is grey...
Maybe one day the truth in its entirety will come out? Maybe we will be speculating and debating this 25 years from now..... who knows..... Either way, the current story/naritive just not pass the sniff test.
Just curious. I thought he did a pretty good job in his book, and in presentations, that much of what he wrote was first person and was subject to be incorrect, and that his sources for the book (have not seen the movie) were also "collections" (my word) of anecdotal history. I thought that by reading the book from that vantage that he did a pretty good job based on his recollection and what he was told.
But you are right...the differences beitween the books and movies of BHD, We Were Soldiers, etc., are def written/produced from a certain perspective, and often not entirely accurate. All books (regarding history) are that way.
TurretGunner
01-10-14, 13:55
Did you read the socnet link that was given to me in reply to the darrack thing?
Yea I read that a few years ago. It was more of EGO stroke and guys who think they are superman. Notice that a few QP's are quickly piled on and hammered by the supermen who think that its somehow impossible for a group of 8-10 "goat ****ers" to catch a team of superstars in a ambush. These are not unseasoned , untrained insurgents. They have been conducting warfare since before the USA was even a country, and many lessons and tactics were refined durring the soviet occupation. They were hardended men, who knew the terrain.
Truth is.... IF ANYONE was in a complex ambush with limited cover, with ACM's using interlocking fields of fire and heavy weapons..... There is nothing any man alive could do that would make a difference. Take the 4 greatest warriors of all time, and they would be shredded. The fact that Marcus even lived through that event....is astonishing in itself. I am just thankfull that he lived to be able to tell the story and give his fallen brothers the respect and honor they deserved.
Personaly, I think Marcus just wants his guys core story told. The story of what they went through through the firefight, how brave they fought, and Murphy's actions. The rest is just fluff and white noise. It is also from his point of view.... 10 guys shooting at you from high ground with heavy and diverse weapons would feel like 1000. Afgan Math as they call it.
TurretGunner
01-10-14, 14:00
Just curious. I thought he did a pretty good job in his book, and in presentations, that much of what he wrote was first person and was subject to be incorrect, and that his sources for the book (have not seen the movie) were also "collections" (my word) of anecdotal history. I thought that by reading the book from that vantage that he did a pretty good job based on his recollection and what he was told.
But you are right...the differences beitween the books and movies of BHD, We Were Soldiers, etc., are def written/produced from a certain perspective, and often not entirely accurate. All books (regarding history) are that way.
Marcus did not write the book. It was written by a dude who wrote military fiction. The reports I heard was He had a short interview with marcus, and pieced the rest of the story together through the Navy's account and his own liberties.
All those men live under NDA's. They don't speak about anything in public (especialy on/in any time of media) unless they are given the green light. They also would never come out and damage the reputaion of their Teams, even if true... do to pride and a the need to protect their brothers.
Notice how the Navy , the book, and the movie show very little to no fault of the military for this chain of events. The Navy ****ed up, JTFSOC ****ed up, The mission planners ****ed up, and Murphy's team ****ed up..... That is why those men are dead. That doesn't take away from the bravery and sacrifices they made, but it does not change anything.
I was surprised about how much of the book was about his SEAL BUDs class. Is that a significant part of the movie?.
Not at all, it was in the intro but that was it.
sinlessorrow
01-10-14, 14:31
Yea I read that a few years ago. It was more of EGO stroke and guys who think they are superman. Notice that a few QP's are quickly piled on and hammered by the supermen who think that its somehow impossible for a group of 8-10 "goat ****ers" to catch a team of superstars in a ambush. These are not unseasoned , untrained insurgents. They have been conducting warfare since before the USA was even a country, and many lessons and tactics were refined durring the soviet occupation. They were hardended men, who knew the terrain.
Truth is.... IF ANYONE was in a complex ambush with limited cover, with ACM's using interlocking fields of fire and heavy weapons..... There is nothing any man alive could do that would make a difference. Take the 4 greatest warriors of all time, and they would be shredded. The fact that Marcus even lived through that event....is astonishing in itself. I am just thankfull that he lived to be able to tell the story and give his fallen brothers the respect and honor they deserved.
Personaly, I think Marcus just wants his guys core story told. The story of what they went through through the firefight, how brave they fought, and Murphy's actions. The rest is just fluff and white noise. It is also from his point of view.... 10 guys shooting at you from high ground with heavy and diverse weapons would feel like 1000. Afgan Math as they call it.
What about the guy claiming to have seen the feed?
As a point of trivia, the Beretta M9 featured prominently in a few scenes. Was this accurate? I was under the impression that the SIG P226 was the preferred SEAL sidearm.
Mauser KAR98K
01-11-14, 00:04
Saw it, loved it. The ending, though was disappointing (plot line, not the memorial bit, which was moving). For those who have read the book will understand this. In the end, Hollywood went Hollywood.
Overall, though, great film. Weapons handling was very descent. Great MK12 Mod1 action. Banter between the actors was very touching and how Marcus, and Chris Kyle, have described it in their books.
Question: When did Trijicon come out with the RMRs?
ClearedHot
01-11-14, 00:27
As a point of trivia, the Beretta M9 featured prominently in a few scenes. Was this accurate? I was under the impression that the SIG P226 was the preferred SEAL sidearm.
I noticed that too. The movie had some goofs when it came to guns and gear. Berettas instead of Sigs, Ops-Core NVG mounts instead of Norotos.
sinlessorrow
01-11-14, 00:33
Saw it, loved it. The ending, though was disappointing (plot line, not the memorial bit, which was moving). For those who have read the book will understand this. In the end, Hollywood went Hollywood.
Overall, though, great film. Weapons handling was very descent. Great MK12 Mod1 action. Banter between the actors was very touching and how Marcus, and Chris Kyle, have described it in their books.
Question: When did Trijicon come out with the RMRs?
Not sure but they did have RMR's on their ACOG's. You can see them in the horrible video they released after the attack.
Moose-Knuckle
01-11-14, 00:36
I noticed that too. The movie had some goofs when it came to guns and gear. Berettas instead of Sigs, Ops-Core NVG mounts instead of Norotos.
I realize that we are all gun geeks and gear whores but you would think that the film makers would have had a technical consultant(s) that would have sorted this type of thing out.
Mauser KAR98K
01-11-14, 00:58
I realize that we are all gun geeks and gear whores but you would think that the film makers would have had a technical consultant(s) that would have sorted this type of thing out.
I thought about this as well, but Marcus was their primary on this.
I'm guessing, only a guess, but reading what Marcus and his team had been doing in Iraq with the other branches (Army and Marines) they might have elected to use the M9 as they were compatible with the other services secondary weapons. Marcus wrote of this in "Lone Survivor" and "Service." Thus, them using it in the film under Marcus' direction, unless he stated it in the book. Just a thought.
I was moved by the part right at the end, before the credits.
SilverBullet432
01-11-14, 01:10
Hey guys. Just wanted to thank all of you that have been out there risking your life for us. That movie really put a new perspective of warfare into my head. :sad:
ClearedHot
01-11-14, 01:15
I thought about this as well, but Marcus was their primary on this.
I'm guessing, only a guess, but reading what Marcus and his team had been doing in Iraq with the other branches (Army and Marines) they might have elected to use the M9 as they were compatible with the other services secondary weapons. Marcus wrote of this in "Lone Survivor" and "Service." Thus, them using it in the film under Marcus' direction, unless he stated it in the book. Just a thought.
In this pic you can see Matt Axelson and James Suh have Sigs in their holsters.
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg51/mole_81466/CivilBeards.jpg
I think the filmakers screwed up and no one caught it during editing. They probably figured no one would notice anyway...
wild_wild_wes
01-11-14, 02:10
Great movie. The memorial to the fallen at the end made the audience applaud, which I have hardly ever seen in this city.
Marcus did not write the book. It was written by a dude who wrote military fiction. The reports I heard was He had a short interview with marcus, and pieced the rest of the story together through the Navy's account and his own liberties.
All those men live under NDA's. They don't speak about anything in public (especialy on/in any time of media) unless they are given the green light. They also would never come out and damage the reputaion of their Teams, even if true... do to pride and a the need to protect their brothers.
Notice how the Navy , the book, and the movie show very little to no fault of the military for this chain of events. The Navy ****ed up, JTFSOC ****ed up, The mission planners ****ed up, and Murphy's team ****ed up..... That is why those men are dead. That doesn't take away from the bravery and sacrifices they made, but it does not change anything.
Why this axe to grind?
Are you pissed because some ghost writers embellished a little about the importance of the target, the number of ACM and omitted the grander aspect of RED WINGS?
How do you know that there have been NO LESSONS IDENTIFIED and NO LESSONS LEARNED in the military communities involved in this operation?
You could spin the piece written by Darack to come across as some USMC officers feeling left out, not getting any attention.
http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar/ED-DARACK-RED-WINGS-MISINFORMATION.pdf
As you probably know, there is no guarantee for mission success just because you conduct proper MDMP/IPB/TLP.
I don't know what the planned actions-on were for soft compromise of the S&R team, do you? Did they mess up, in your opinion, because they continued with the mission after the soft compromise? Do you feel they should have killed the goat herders? Did they have prior intel on the population in the area to help their decision making on the ground?
You are coming dangerously close to MMQB'ing an OP that you were not on, and that you probably have very little insight about. Were you privy to hot wash-ups after the operations? Internal AARs?
The story is told from Marcus' perspective, it is not a narrative about the RC (E) OPORD laying the framework for US operations in the area.
You say take the movie for what it is, I say take the story for what it is; it is the story about that 4-man team.
9 am showing today at movie tavern. Pancakes at the theater and then LS....great way to start the day
Watched it tonight. Kept thinking how useful it would be for that team to have some language abilities.
Why this axe to grind?
Are you pissed because some ghost writers embellished a little about the importance of the target, the number of ACM and omitted the grander aspect of RED WINGS?
How do you know that there have been NO LESSONS IDENTIFIED and NO LESSONS LEARNED in the military communities involved in this operation?
You could spin the piece written by Darack to come across as some USMC officers feeling left out, not getting any attention.
http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar/ED-DARACK-RED-WINGS-MISINFORMATION.pdf
As you probably know, there is no guarantee for mission success just because you conduct proper MDMP/IPB/TLP.
I don't know what the planned actions-on were for soft compromise of the S&R team, do you? Did they mess up, in your opinion, because they continued with the mission after the soft compromise? Do you feel they should have killed the goat herders? Did they have prior intel on the population in the area to help their decision making on the ground?
You are coming dangerously close to MMQB'ing an OP that you were not on, and that you probably have very little insight about. Were you privy to hot wash-ups after the operations? Internal AARs?
The story is told from Marcus' perspective, it is not a narrative about the RC (E) OPORD laying the framework for US operations in the area.
You say take the movie for what it is, I say take the story for what it is; it is the story about that 4-man team.
I was going to say much the same thing. He seems to have a real hard-on for the mil, kind of a conspiracy-theorist thing.
Anywho....
I am looking forward to the movie. You take the bad with the good (editing hundreds of hours to a couple, throw in some historical/operational inaccuracies, some wrong weaps/gear, etc), but at the end, was the story worth it? Based on the people who have seen it I would say so.
TurretGunner
01-11-14, 08:13
Why this axe to grind?
Are you pissed because some ghost writers embellished a little about the importance of the target, the number of ACM and omitted the grander aspect of RED WINGS?
How do you know that there have been NO LESSONS IDENTIFIED and NO LESSONS LEARNED in the military communities involved in this operation?
You could spin the piece written by Darack to come across as some USMC officers feeling left out, not getting any attention.
http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar/ED-DARACK-RED-WINGS-MISINFORMATION.pdf
As you probably know, there is no guarantee for mission success just because you conduct proper MDMP/IPB/TLP.
I don't know what the planned actions-on were for soft compromise of the S&R team, do you? Did they mess up, in your opinion, because they continued with the mission after the soft compromise? Do you feel they should have killed the goat herders? Did they have prior intel on the population in the area to help their decision making on the ground?
You are coming dangerously close to MMQB'ing an OP that you were not on, and that you probably have very little insight about. Were you privy to hot wash-ups after the operations? Internal AARs?
The story is told from Marcus' perspective, it is not a narrative about the RC (E) OPORD laying the framework for US operations in the area.
You say take the movie for what it is, I say take the story for what it is; it is the story about that 4-man team.
There is no axe to grind, just the seeking of the truth. When you and many other read and and research a subject that is close to your heart (This story should be close to any American's Heart, and It is fortunate that they were able to make a movie about it).
You are kind of muddling the waters. On one hand, you have a foundation (WWP ring a bell) that is bringing in massive revenue from charitable donations....People deserve the truth. Playing hypothetical... What if everything that Darack has researched is true? Does it not do those men a bigger disshonor by lying and being dishonest about the situation and events? I am not talking about inconsequential stuff, but meat and potatos. Step back and look at this from the big picture. The American People deserve the truth, no debate, no arguement. If you don't agree then I hear Pyongyang has nice sking this time of year.
That mission was damn near doomed from the begining. From element size, to inadaqute coms, it goes on. Last week, after seeing the movie, I called up a very close buddy of mine who was a former member of A/2/75. 5 deployments between afg/iraq and most of that spent in the Korengal. He said flat out that NO unit (He was with recce & snipers and was a SOTIC grad) would go out that light. They also sure as hell wouldn't do it in an area where they KNEW there was no radio coms with a MBITR, with little/no support. Then again Rangers have never had much love lost with SEALS. Would it not have been wise to task an AC with repeater ability (This was the legendary HVT Shah they were after, wasn't it).
There are just too many huge discrepencies here. Shah was a HVT? 150-200 ACM? Why were the SEALS there in the first place?
The book and the movie are based on a tale/story that Marcus has endorsed. For whatever reason, I think we can all safely assume based on leaked info/other sources that the story as told by both is not completely factual. Where do the , liberties with the truth start, and stop. I never once called out Marcus, as I believe he is between a rock and hard place. Maybe one day someone will come out and speak up. By then American public will already have made their minds up, and We will have to listen to drum beating ignorance about this subject forever.
This is the last thing I will say about this, in this thread. You can make up your own opinions.
ClearedHot
01-11-14, 08:52
There is a post on Tactical Forums about this very subject from a vetted SEAL that was there. His post somewhat echoes what TurretGunner has said. The thread is here: http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=001075#000005
For those that aren't registered on that forum and cannot see what was written, here it is:
A member here recently pointed me to a thread concerning this book at SOCNET. There are folks there who have no intimate knowledge of the subject other than having read the book or having attended a speech by the book's author. Some of them are speaking up and in doing so are talking me down for my previous comments regarding the whole Red Wing debacle. Someone even claimed I was jealous. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I stand by my previous statements. That mission was flawed from it's inception. There were serious failures in leadership. Men died. Men were heroes. Errors were covered with awards. No one was reprimanded. This type of tragedy will probably happen again, because the failures that caused it are not widely known.
The book is not an accurate reflection of the events. How do I know? Because I was there in the wake of the event to pick up the pieces and move on operationally. The residue left behind by the previous group does not support the book. The book has serious omissions and conveniently portrays the author as a leader, except for every single time a real decision had to be made. I know the author, and he is a brave man. I have no idea how much responsibility the author and his co-author bear in regard to the book's inaccuracies. I don't sit around thinking about it much, either, but I'm sure there are those that do. Since, there are plans to make this into a movie, the topic will certainly stay hot for a good long while.
I will not explain on the world wide web the particulars of why I challenge the details of the story told in this book. I am confident that time will most likely set the record somewhat straighter. My concern is that while this version is being told and believed the structure to cause another major tragedy just like it remains intact. For years after "Rogue Warrior" was written there was a dip in the quality of some of the applicants to the SEAL program. Some of those kids just believed everything they read and brought those expectations with them.
It is very naive of people to claim that the author was the only survivor of that battle. That is absolutely incorrect. The enemy was also there and they survived quite well. While the enemy's thoughts on this matter have not reached the public, I also think it extremely naive to believe that they never will.
Between now and then I'd really like to see the Navy square this away.
Until that day...
Frogman
The firearms angle from IMFDB:
http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Lone_Survivor
Saw it yesterday afternoon. Frankly, I was expecting it to be "B" movie-ish, but was pleasantly surprised. It was better than I expected. Some significant things that were in the book were left out of the movie.
The rifles looked basically correct with a few minor quibbles here and there. The Mk12 looked good. It's hard to get a really good look at any of the rifles because the scenes change too quickly. I am sure it will be further analyzed after it comes out on DVD. Thought I saw one LaRue rail in there. The rail nut was the tell tail sign.
I do think they should have developed the characters more.
There is a post on Tactical Forums about this very subject from a vetted SEAL that was there. His post somewhat echoes what TurretGunner has said. The thread is here: http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=001075#000005
For those that aren't registered on that forum and cannot see what was written, here it is:
Just to add, Frogman is the real deal and a true BTDT type of the highest order. He's well known and highly respected in that community. I'd put weight on what he says.
Does anyone really think the book would be 100% truthful. They aren't going to admit any mistakes and certainly not divulge precisely how and what happened, especially given that shit went south. I appreciate the movie for what it is and the men who died that day, but I'm not foolish enough to know there is a lot more to the story than we will probably ever know
I would hope that people seeing the movie realize that movies are made for entertainment value, and not as a documentary record of what actually happened.
Does anyone really think the book would be 100% truthful. They aren't going to admit any mistakes and certainly not divulge precisely how and what happened, especially given that shit went south. I appreciate the movie for what it is and the men who died that day, but I'm not foolish enough to know there is a lot more to the story than we will probably ever know
I think the only people that have a real right to take issue here - have a dog in this fight - on details being altered, are those in the community such things can directly impact/impacted. My interpretation is that in their view, it was a FUBAR op from the start, and got good people killed, and the end result is a book and movie putting those involved in a positive light to the degree they are.
Obviously, they don't take issue with details/facts being altered for OPSEC/PERSEC reasons or even if the guns carried, etc are accurate.
That's strictly my interpretation of it. Questioning the details is out of my lane and above my pat grade, so strictly my interpretation of it as an outsider.
Personally, any books of the ilk, I tend to take with a big grain of salt knowing human nature, the malleability of memory, the need to alter details to protect PERSEC/OPSEC, protect egos, editors taking liberty to "spice" up the book, input/changes from co authors or ghost writers, and all the other confounding things that can and will enter the equation in the end product we see.
Obviously, some are going to be much closer to the factual events than others, but unless you're actually there in some form, and or talk to them directly, you just don't know where the truth starts and those aforementioned confounding human issues end.
Personally, any books of the ilk, I tend to take with a big grain of salt knowing human nature, the malleability of memory, the need to alter details to protect PERSEC/OPSEC, protect egos, editors taking liberty to "spice" up the book, input/changes from co authors or ghost writers, and all the other confounding things that can and will enter the equation in the end product we see.
Good word.
As a point of trivia, the Beretta M9 featured prominently in a few scenes. Was this accurate? I was under the impression that the SIG P226 was the preferred SEAL sidearm.
I don't know what they did over there but it seems pretty clear what ML favors over here. This is the 911 call after his dog was shot... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=I3UFIkqx3Jg#t=105
Good word.
Like all things of that nature (which I do have personal experience with) it often takes on a life of its own, and one really has to think long and hard before they put out such a book. It also becomes damn near impossible to stand up and say "well, after all said and done between what I wrote and what ended up published and made into a movie was nothing close to what actually happened, my bad" once that horse leaves the gate. I have known a few people who agreed to do a book, and what came out all said and done was a POS. Have had it happen to me directly per interview done for Sports Illustrated some years back.
I have no idea if that's the case here, just a general observation people should keep in mind.
Going slightly OT:
My personal feeling is, I'm uncomfortable with events being made into books and movies what seems like days after they happen now for public consumption and entertainment, but again, I do feel the only people who have a legit dog on that fight are those in that community who are directly impacted by it.
Me, I tend to send my message by simply not giving my $$$ to such things. Just seems to me it's gotten out of hand between the op and the book-> movie and knowing real people died (good guys and bad) and having no idea what % of it's even accurate to the op, I tend to pass on it.
I also tend to wait until the community at large (either via personal communication or public) weighs in on such things before I'm interested. That is, some book or movie comes out, and those in the know say "That's how it happened other than some non important changes for OPSEC reasons" then I'm interested to read it or see it. A good example of that was Black Hawk Down. I spoke to a few gents who were in the middle of that, and they felt it was, in the most important aspects, true to the event.
Your mileage may vary.
I think the only people that have a real right to take issue here - have a dog in this fight - on details being altered, are those in the community such things can directly impact/impacted. My interpretation is that in their view, it was a FUBAR op from the start, and got good people killed, and the end result is a book and movie putting those involved in a positive light to the degree they are.
Obviously, they don't take issue with details/facts being altered for OPSEC/PERSEC reasons or even if the guns carried, etc are accurate.
That's strictly my interpretation of it. Questioning the details is out of my lane and above my pat grade, so strictly my interpretation of it as an outsider.
Personally, any books of the ilk, I tend to take with a big grain of salt knowing human nature, the malleability of memory, the need to alter details to protect PERSEC/OPSEC, protect egos, editors taking liberty to "spice" up the book, input/changes from co authors or ghost writers, and all the other confounding things that can and will enter the equation in the end product we see.
Obviously, some are going to be much closer to the factual events than others, but unless you're actually there in some form, and or talk to them directly, you just don't know where the truth starts and those aforementioned confounding human issues end.
I'm with you a 100% Will, that's basically what I was alluding to with less words :)
I'm with you a 100% Will, that's basically what I was alluding to with less words :)
Oh, so now you're calling me wordy?! Bastad. :dance3:
Saw the movie this morning. Great show. The end definitely choked me up a bit.
wild_wild_wes
01-11-14, 20:56
I don't know why, but I'm continually surprised how many liberals really HATE the US military. Yahoo News has a "Lone Survivor" review, and the un-censored comments on the story are flabbergasting. Leftists really hate this movie. Based on their comments, my theory is because they know the guys depicted in the movie are better men than they are, and it eats them up.
I just saw it a few hours ago. To me, the fight scene on the mountain shows you how having some scope magnification could be an asset at first, but once it becomes close in having too much X become a liability real quick. Also in the places and terrain where the fight scenes took place, I would see no advantage to having a .308/7.62 weapon, even if ammo resupply was not an issue.
JBecker 72
01-11-14, 21:51
Me and my girlfriend saw it last night and both thought it was very well done. The tribute at the end was moving and hard to not get emotional when watching. There was also a round of applause when the credits started. I'm sure I will be buying it on Blu Ray when it comes out as well.
Cylinder Head
01-11-14, 22:52
I just saw it a few hours ago. To me, the fight scene on the mountain shows you how having some scope magnification could be an asset at first, but once it becomes close in having too much X become a liability real quick. Also in the places and terrain where the fight scenes took place, I would see no advantage to having a .308/7.62 weapon, even if ammo resupply was not an issue.
Not to mention EVERY shot was a headshot.
Saw it yesterday and loved the film. Regardless of the liberties taken in the book and especially the movie, it's one of the best films of 2013.
When studying Operation Red Wings last year for some PME, one of the questions brought up was that of the ROE and the vote that LT Murphy called for regarding how to deal with the goat herders. Basically I was asked "what would you do and why?" and relating it to the ROE.
What I asked was "why did they even have a vote? it's the military, decisions are downward directed by the person in charge." Someone in the movie (I can't remember who) also mentioned that. Turns out, that whole event is somewhat controversial in that many believe it didn't happen at all.
I wonder if, in 20/20 hindsight, another option besides 1) kill them, 2) let them go, or 3) tie them up, could have been 4) take them with us as we exfiltrate until nightfall, then let them go.
Otherwise, very powerful movie.
Leonidas24
01-12-14, 01:26
When studying Operation Red Wings last year for some PME, one of the questions brought up was that of the ROE and the vote that LT Murphy called for regarding how to deal with the goat herders. Basically I was asked "what would you do and why?" and relating it to the ROE.
What I asked was "why did they even have a vote? it's the military, decisions are downward directed by the person in charge." Someone in the movie (I can't remember who) also mentioned that. Turns out, that whole event is somewhat controversial in that many believe it didn't happen at all.
I wonder if, in 20/20 hindsight, another option besides 1) kill them, 2) let them go, or 3) tie them up, could have been 4) take them with us as we exfiltrate until nightfall, then let them go.
Otherwise, very powerful movie.
Eric Haney and a few other former CAG authors have detailed that that was a common question back in the day on psychological evaluations for operators. There wasn't really a correct answer if I remember correctly, but it served as a window into the mind of that particular candidate.
I wonder if, in 20/20 hindsight, another option besides 1) kill them, 2) let them go, or 3) tie them up, could have been 4) take them with us as we exfiltrate until nightfall, then let them go.
That thought crossed my mind as well when I watched that scene.
That thought crossed my mind as well when I watched that scene.
Me too
Cagemonkey
01-12-14, 07:01
That thought crossed my mind as well when I watched that scene.
I've felt the same way when I read the book. A very similar situation compromised the mission of Bravo Two Zero in the first gulf War.
Magic_Salad0892
01-12-14, 07:52
That thought crossed my mind as well when I watched that scene.
That's what I thought of when I read the book. I remember my brother talking to me about it as well, and saying something like "When you're compromised on a recon mission, I thought SOP was to abort? Not let your spotters go, then stay in the area."
Does anybody have any response to that?
POW-handling:
Should be adressed as part of Section 3 of the OPORD, Execution, in the sub-section called Coordinating Instructions -POW handling. Should not be something that is improvised if/when it happens during a mission, one should follow the plan.
You are obligated to bring POWs with you, or hand them over to MPs or other units, unless there are other factors that do not allow this. Then you can disarm them and let them go; the base principle is based on honor, and the released POWs are supposed to cease further fighting.
Recon elements will always face a dilemma with regards to this.
Actions on compromise:
This should be adressed as part of Section 3 of the OPORD, Execution, under the subsection called Coordinating Instructions - Abort Criteria.
Many different aspects must be adressed here. Soft compromise might have been on the Go-list. Soft compromise does not neccessarily mean that you must abort. Neither does contact with the enemy, if you are able to break contact.
Mission completion will always be the primary focus, but Abort criteria lists items that will help the commander to assess the likelyhood of mission success, thus knowing when to continue and when to abort; lost comms, casualties, compromise etc.
When studying Operation Red Wings last year for some PME, one of the questions brought up was that of the ROE and the vote that LT Murphy called for regarding how to deal with the goat herders. Basically I was asked "what would you do and why?" and relating it to the ROE.
What I asked was "why did they even have a vote? it's the military, decisions are downward directed by the person in charge." Someone in the movie (I can't remember who) also mentioned that. Turns out, that whole event is somewhat controversial in that many believe it didn't happen at all.
I wonder if, in 20/20 hindsight, another option besides 1) kill them, 2) let them go, or 3) tie them up, could have been 4) take them with us as we exfiltrate until nightfall, then let them go.
Otherwise, very powerful movie.
It seems like goat herders are what geese and dogs were in Vietnam in that they acted as early warning for the enemy and were/are a real PITA. The geese and dogs could be dispatched however.
It's become a instant response now when reading any mil related book and seeing the term "goat herder" shows my heart sinks expecting the op to be compromised.
I don't care much for movies ,Hollywood garbage.
Cylinder Head
01-12-14, 14:11
Didn't Marcus elaborate on this more in the book, or am I confusing it with my memory of him telling the story in person? Regardless, he's said that the issue wasn't taking the goat herders with them, it was the fact that they would in turn take the goats with them as well. The goats would follow the herders anywhere. If they tied I the herders up, that's where they'd stay and then people would come looking for their food when it went missing. If they took the goat herders with them to exfil, they'd be a four man element with three prisoners and a herd of braying animals with bells on their necks.
Didn't Marcus elaborate on this more in the book, or am I confusing it with my memory of him telling the story in person? Regardless, he's said that the issue wasn't taking the goat herders with them, it was the fact that they would in turn take the goats with them as well. The goats would follow the herders anywhere. If they tied I the herders up, that's where they'd stay and then people would come looking for their food when it went missing. If they took the goat herders with them to exfil, they'd be a four man element with three prisoners and a herd of braying animals with bells on their necks.
That brings up an additional problem. If you separate the herder from the goat, a bunch of goats wondering around without any herders would likely draw attention too I'd think. I assume that too is something they have to take into account in making such decisions.
I saw the movie last night. My problem is (and it's with me), that I pay to much attention to details, to a fault sometimes....when I'm interested is something that is. My dad always said that if I paid half as much attention or gave a third the effort to my school work when I was a kid as I did to cars, trucks, atv's, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, guns and other stuff I was interested in, I could've gotten an academic scholarship. I don't know about that one dad. I just read both books. Finished Lone Survivor two weeks ago and I'm on the last chapter (#24 Links in the Chains) of Service now.
I'm not a book reader at all. I have to really be interested in something to read a book about it. So I've always heard that "the movie will be different then the book was". And I was surprised at how much different the two were. At first it seemed to be going the same way, until after the gunfight. Then it was a lot different then both books. Before the movie was released, everyone involved in making it made a huge deal as to how real it was and how Marcus was there to call BS when ever something wasn't right. It makes me wonder why Marcus let there be such a difference between the books and the movie. It was more then just differences to make it fit a certain time frame so it wasn't to long.
I'm not at all, in any way saying anything bad about the operation itself or anyone involved in it. I'm saying it was a let down for me because I was expecting to see a certain set of events and saw something different. In some cases a lot different.
NYH1.
I'll just leave this here.
http://hitthewoodline.com/patriotica/2014/1/11/lone-survivor-and-truth
I'll just leave this here.
http://hitthewoodline.com/patriotica/2014/1/11/lone-survivor-and-truth
what a dumbass blogger
Wouldn't they have only needed to bring the goat herders along until they established radio contact?
Wouldn't they have only needed to bring the goat herders along until they established radio contact?
Yeah, that, or they get ~1/2 way to a base or something.
what a dumbass blogger
Please, do tell what made you come to that conclusion.
what a dumbass blogger
Considering his (claimed) experience and background to that event, your comments seems an overly quick dismissal. It also does not seem far off what some others who were close to the event have indicated.
It has been awhile since I read the book; WRT the radio issues, was it established directly after insertion that their comms were down?
In any case, no comms coverage is not neccessarily an abort criteria. Usually recon teams operate with "transmission windows", ie pre-planned time slots or intervals where they need to report in. That means that there is time to shift position in order to establish radio contact, or set up a different antenna.
With regards to bringing them along, it would be a question of whether or not they thought it likely that the goat herders would report them to local ACM. But yeah, they could have, but they decided to continue with the mission.
Considering his (claimed) experience and background to that event...
He's vetted.
He's vetted.
Rgr rgr. Not knowing the man, I take nothing at face value. Thanx.
Rgr rgr. Not knowing the man, I take nothing at face value. Thanx.
Wholeheartedly agree man. No worries.
With regards to bringing them along, it would be a question of whether or not they thought it likely that the goat herders would report them to local ACM. But yeah, they could have, but they decided to continue with the mission.
Continue with the mission? The movie makes it out as if they abandoned the mission as soon as they were compromised. Is that not accurate?
That brings up an additional problem. If you separate the herder from the goat, a bunch of goats wondering around without any herders would likely draw attention too I'd think. I assume that too is something they have to take into account in making such decisions.
I heard that conversation as well. Probably when Glenn Beck was interviewing him. I think that is the real problem. Not so much the goats would follow. I''ve know people that raised goats in Jamaica and they didn't follow them home. But I could certainly see them wandering off all over the place depending on what time of day it was, if they had eaten or whatever. If a villager saw that and then realize 3 other villagers are missing, that's going to go bad pretty fast.
I heard that conversation as well. Probably when Glenn Beck was interviewing him. I think that is the real problem. Not so much the goats would follow. I''ve know people that raised goats in Jamaica and they didn't follow them home. But I could certainly see them wandering off all over the place depending on what time of day it was, if they had eaten or whatever. If a villager saw that and then realize 3 other villagers are missing, that's going to go bad pretty fast.
Maybe, but I think not as fast as letting them go so they could go warn the enemy. The whole point of bringing them along, even only to the top of whatever ridge they were on, would be simply to buy some more time and increase their distance from the town with the enemy fighters.
I honestly think bringing them along, even for a short distance, makes the most sense, and I'm wondering why it was not even mentioned as a possible option 4. And several other posters here also have stated that that thought immediately crossed their minds as well.
When studying Operation Red Wings last year for some PME, one of the questions brought up was that of the ROE and the vote that LT Murphy called for regarding how to deal with the goat herders. Basically I was asked "what would you do and why?" and relating it to the ROE.
What I asked was "why did they even have a vote? it's the military, decisions are downward directed by the person in charge." Someone in the movie (I can't remember who) also mentioned that. Turns out, that whole event is somewhat controversial in that many believe it didn't happen at all.
I wonder if, in 20/20 hindsight, another option besides 1) kill them, 2) let them go, or 3) tie them up, could have been 4) take them with us as we exfiltrate until nightfall, then let them go.
Otherwise, very powerful movie.
I'd argue that most small SOF element deal with some issues in a Chinese Parliament - the Leader has the final say - but everything gets discusses if there is time.
The radio that the herder had - those batteries still liter mountainsides - they transmit any incoming choppers and teams locations.
Decisions on an ROE card are all well and good in a pristine environment but get tougher in the cold reality of life.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I saw the movie last night -- I thought it was extremely powerful and moving. Regardless of the issues the mission had from the outset, it is a phenomenal film (the ending to me was poorly done but...). The ending really choked me up. Perhaps it meant more to me as I've been to Afghan and knew folks who died in those hills, before and after this mission.
Please, do tell what made you come to that conclusion.
Considering his (claimed) experience and background to that event, your comments seems an overly quick dismissal. It also does not seem far off what some others who were close to the event have indicated.
Because he doesn't know the difference between a documentary, a docudrama, and a motion picture.
Continue with the mission? The movie makes it out as if they abandoned the mission as soon as they were compromised. Is that not accurate?
As I said in my previous post, it has been a while since I read the book.
I read the part where they were compromised just now, and they stayed on mission, they just moved to an alternate position and stayed on a higher level of alertness - shorter notice to move.
Because he doesn't know the difference between a documentary, a docudrama, and a motion picture.
You're shitting me, right? You want to call a combat veteran Ranger a dumbass because you THINK he doesn't know the difference? That's pretty bold and goddamned disrespectful of you. Please, point out where he indicates that he "doesn't know the difference between a documentary, a docudrama, and a motion picture." The ONLY thing that even comes close to that statement in when he's trying to make the point that even though it's "just a movie", it still has an impact on what the masses think as truth. Especially it's spread as an "accurate depiction" of what happened.
Perhaps you should bite your tongue and think about what you type before you type it.
As I said in my previous post, it has been a while since I read the book.
I read the part where they were compromised just now, and they stayed on mission, they just moved to an alternate position and stayed on a higher level of alertness - shorter notice to move.
Then that explains perfectly why they didn't take them with them, why "option 4" wasn't a possibility. They themselves weren't leaving. Thanks.
NCPatrolAR
01-12-14, 18:59
I wish some of the people citing the countless faults of the movie would go into detail as to what they were
If you don't have and don't wish to in the future hold a clearance, I'm told that googling REDWINGS and wikileaks together makes for interesting reading.
Wife and I saw the movie last night. Loved every minute of it.
Accurate or not, I believe it in no way diminishes the sacrifices these men make for their country and brothers in battle.
I will see it again before its done with its run in theaters.
Great movie. Not sure if it was mentioned here in this thread, however, did anyone see Marcus talk to Mike Goldberg, and the Lone Survivor director during the Silva vs Weidman II PPV?
The director said: "If I got it wrong, Marcus said he would kill me."
Only Goldberg laughed, and the director said: "He was not kidding."
Maybe, but I think not as fast as letting them go so they could go warn the enemy. The whole point of bringing them along, even only to the top of whatever ridge they were on, would be simply to buy some more time and increase their distance from the town with the enemy fighters.
I honestly think bringing them along, even for a short distance, makes the most sense, and I'm wondering why it was not even mentioned as a possible option 4. And several other posters here also have stated that that thought immediately crossed their minds as well.
Oh absolutely... I agree. I too wondered about the why not take them with them even if just for a bit. I didn't read the book and haven't seen movie yet but I simply assumed that that question would be answered. Even in the trailer the guy looks up the hill and says basically we're going back up there and you are going to set comms and get us the hell out out of here. So yes, I think the 'if you held them this long, why didn't you hold them a bit longer until you got clear?' question comes to everyone's mind..... again I just assumed that this would be revealed but maybe it's not.... btw... did this come out on BlueRay as well, I can't stand movie theaters.
wild_wild_wes
01-12-14, 21:54
If you don't have and don't wish to in the future hold a clearance, I'm told that googling REDWINGS and wikileaks together makes for interesting reading.
What? You won't be able to get a security clearance based on your google history?
What? You won't be able to get a security clearance based on your google history?
No, you'll have illegally accessed TS material.
sinlessorrow
01-12-14, 22:49
No, you'll have illegally accessed TS material.
Isn't that just the thing about there being.
Isn't that just the thing about ...
I believe the quote is, improper release or leaking of classified material does not constitute declassification.
Please please please don't post anything about leaks on this forum. There are a lot of people here who could get in trouble for visiting and not reporting m4carbine if you do post the leaks here.
sinlessorrow
01-12-14, 23:05
I believe the quote is, improper release of classified material does not constitute declassification.
Please please please don't post anything about leaks on this forum. There are a lot of people here who could get in trouble for visiting and not reporting m4carbine if you do post the leaks here.
Edited it for your, but honestly you don't even have to visit wikileaks to read that, hell ed darak has it on his website and hundreds of other sites about this movie and book have it listed.
Edited it for your, but honestly you don't even have to visit wikileaks to read that, hell ed darak has it on his website and hundreds of other sites about this movie and book have it listed.
The law is the law. And it hasn't caught up to the internet yet.
It was written so that if, say, Russia managed to obtain a copy of classified material, that wouldn't automatically declassify it for other nations to see.
I do agree that it's ridiculous that if information was publicly leaked or what have you, that government employees can't look at it but the public can.
You should have seen the memos flying around the DoD about the book No Easy Day.
SeriousStudent
01-13-14, 00:01
Gents, M4Carbine.net policy is that we do not help, assist with, or tolerate the disclosure of classified information. It does not matter if it's been posted on the internet, or posted via aerial skywriting biplane flown by the Red Baron himself, it's not tolerated.
Do not post links to classified material. This has been discussed repeatedly, and if we spot it, things will happen the poster will probably not enjoy. So don't do it.
Here endth the lesson. Go and sin no more.
ETA: If you see it, hit the Report Post button, so we can remove it.
You're shitting me, right? You want to call a combat veteran Ranger a dumbass because you THINK he doesn't know the difference? That's pretty bold and goddamned disrespectful of you. Please, point out where he indicates that he "doesn't know the difference between a documentary, a docudrama, and a motion picture." The ONLY thing that even comes close to that statement in when he's trying to make the point that even though it's "just a movie", it still has an impact on what the masses think as truth. Especially it's spread as an "accurate depiction" of what happened.
Perhaps you should bite your tongue and think about what you type before you type it.
Easy Francis
In para 5 and 6 of the link you posted the author complains about the events depicted in the movie not matching those events which acutely happened.
He then in his infinite wisdom draws a direct comparison between the movie not getting the facts right to CNN not getting the facts right
HBO had a decent 20 minute "making of" show, interviewed family members, the actors, Luttrell. Worth watching.
skullworks
01-13-14, 05:51
The ending, though was disappointing (plot line, not the memorial bit, which was moving). For those who have read the book will understand this. In the end, Hollywood went Hollywood.
Agreed. I think a more accurate portrayal would have played better.
Easy Francis
In para 5 and 6 of the link you posted the author complains about the events depicted in the movie not matching those events which acutely happened.
He then in his infinite wisdom draws a direct comparison between the movie not getting the facts right to CNN not getting the facts right
Did you read paragraph 1? He was disappointed by the promises made, not the delivery format.
...and paragraph 4.
I believe that what they went through was more than worthy of a best-selling book and a major motion picture. I believe, however, that this could have been accomplished without the egregious exaggerations.
Notice he indicates the lower level of a best seller and motion picture to the actual facts(documentary in your case).
...or as Sean Connery said to Alec Baldwin in HFRO ... "your conclusions were all wrong"
paragraph 7
We have access to all the knowledge of a hundred generations in the palm of our hand and we abstain from its use.
Again he indicates it is not a matter of not knowing the difference ... not only for him but for practically everyone, we seem to have this desire to prefer at times 'to not see the facts' for some strange reason..... just like the classified info mentioned above... it's in front of everyone's face but for some reason we chose to set it aside or re-obscure it 'because'. Doesn't matter why, we always have a reason.
His blog was about ignorance and it's dangers. Be it self imposed or bred into us. It impacts everyone from top to bottom from those of the highest character and intentions to those of the lowest. It certainly was not reflective of his lack of understanding of movie formats.
Did you read paragraph 1? He was disappointed by the promises made, not the delivery format.
...and paragraph 4.
Notice he indicates the lower level of a best seller and motion picture to the actual facts(documentary in your case).
...or as Sean Connery said to Alec Baldwin in HFRO ... "your conclusions were all wrong"
paragraph 7
Again he indicates it is not a matter of not knowing the difference ... not only for him but for practically everyone, we seem to have this desire to prefer at times 'to not see the facts' for some strange reason..... just like the classified info mentioned above... it's in front of everyone's face but for some reason we chose to set it aside or re-obscure it 'because'. Doesn't matter why, we always have a reason.
His blog was about ignorance and it's dangers. Be it self imposed or bred into us. It impacts everyone from top to bottom from those of the highest character and intentions to those of the lowest. It certainly was not reflective of his lack of understanding of movie formats.
That’s cool but doesn’t change the fact that he equates the movies inaccuracies to that of CNNs inaccuracies when reporting facts. In doing so he misses the fundamental fact that it’s for entertainment purposes. Further, he blames the movie industry’s desire to “increase the Hollywood kill count” for the lack of back story on those involved. It’s Dirk Digler, the dude from Into The Wild, and the dude from Battleship. It’s a movie born and bred to entertain and make money, not a documentary.
Doc. Holiday
01-13-14, 10:37
Wife took me to go see it opening night. Great show. There were a few things that bothered me a little bit, but otherwise awesome!
His blog was about ignorance and it's dangers. Be it self imposed or bred into us. It impacts everyone from top to bottom from those of the highest character and intentions to those of the lowest. It certainly was not reflective of his lack of understanding of movie formats.
This brings up an issue to address: How far did the movie stray from the book? I didn't read the book or see the movie. My understanding was that he, like some others with the actual creds to offer an opinion, felt the account in the book by the author did not reflect the events that actually took place. I had thought the issue was about the book and or the movie being questioned, not simply Hollywood screwing up the movie from the book.
That's how I understood it least. If the book itself was consider solid by those who know the events well, and it's the movie they screwed up, then that's just doing what Hollywood does best: fu%$ things up.
However, that's not what I understood to be the case: the criticisms by the community/those with real intel on the event, were with the book and the authors telling of the events.
At least the two issues (book vs movie) need to be addressed as two different issues no?
Issues #1: the book and authors version of the events
Issues #2: the movie vs book
The only issue that matters to me is #1. I fully expect Hollywood to fu%$ up any book. When they don't (Lord of the Rings) I'm stunned beyond belief.
The only issue that impacts people potentially, that those in the community from which the author is from have a legit gripe as I understand it, is #1, at least in my view
Your mileage may vary.
It appears that there are some Rangers that participated in the rescue and recovery that are upset that Luttrell did adequately describe the rescue efforts.
It appears that there are some Rangers that participated in the rescue and recovery that are upset that Luttrell did adequately describe the rescue efforts.
More men died trying to rescue him than in the actual op. I don't know how much credit they got, but in some respects, it's the more important issue of the story/op to me.
Almost every book written about something, anything, historical is written from a certain perspective and has inherent bias. It does not make it bad, or all wrong, it just means it sees something from a specific vantage....sometimes that vantage is wide, other times narrow. If Luttrell, et al, got parts of it wrong based on his vantage and observations, well, it happens. Almost every book written regarding a politico-military topic has flaws from this. Blackhawk Down was a great example. If Luttrell, et al, lied in order generate buzz, revenue, whatever, then it is no bueno and an entirely separate issue.
Hollywoodisms aside, it was an entertaining movie.
Hopefully it will get the younger generation interested in serving, and they can do their own research about it if they're smart enough to.
Anyone who sees Hollywood as fact deserves the misinformation.
That’s cool but doesn’t change the fact that he equates the movies inaccuracies to that of CNNs inaccuracies when reporting facts.
It is my view it was not an equation. Like death and taxes are facts, they need not be equated even when used in the same breath. He was, imo anyway, discussing the 'marriage' of obfuscation and ignorance as it relates to the dangers of ignorance. IOW he was/is not oblivious to nor trying to solve an equation. Rather he was demonstrating levels of the phenomenon in our society. The movie and CNN were simply readily observable vehicles as examples that he just happened to have first hand information on. He could have used a WSJ article but then someone would have bitched about him "not being there' in respect to his chosen examples.
So apparently he was right about one thing..... We all see what we want to see when we want to see it.
Great movie, great men.
What's it like to have the stones and audacity to try and discredit these men, the actions, events in slightest when watching a movie you know wasn't directed by Ken Burns? Your scope is further away than the fing goats that were being herded. I'm not some mil-fan boy that won't do my own research for facts but shit man, it's a movie.
Ba•sis (noun)
1 : the bottom of something considered as its foundation
2 : the principal component of something
The foundation is 4 men fought and 3 gave their life on a mission that went to shit. You weren't there, that blogger wasn't there; eat popcorn and give thanks for that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
More men died trying to rescue him than in the actual op. I don't know how much credit they got, but in some respects, it's the more important issue of the story/op to me.
I actually somehow didn't remember that the rescue helo got hit and all hands were lost. When it happened in the movie I was shocked.
I know it was the QRF in Red Wings that was hit (consisting of SEALs and 160th SOAR), but it reminded me of the AFSOC PJ motto - That Others May Live.
Great movie, great men.
What's it like to have the stones and audacity to try and discredit these men, the actions, events in slightest when watching a movie you know wasn't directed by Ken Burns? Your scope is further away than the fing goats that were being herded. I'm not some mil-fan boy that won't do my own research for facts but shit man, it's a movie.
Ba•sis (noun)
1 : the bottom of something considered as its foundation
2 : the principal component of something
The foundation is 4 men fought and 3 gave their life on a mission that went to shit. You weren't there, that blogger wasn't there; eat popcorn and give thanks for that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
My thoughts exactly!
I read the book and took it for what it was. I've seen the movie and parts parallel and parts of it don't with the book. Looking at the movie as just that, it was a very good movie. Will definitely watch it again. We can all do our own research and take the bits and pieces that come out to put together our own conclusions. However, until those that were actually there come together and bring all of the details out into the open 99% of us will never know the 100% full story.
[QUOTE=sadmin;1833583]Great movie, great men.
What's it like to have the stones and audacity to try and discredit these men, the actions, events in slightest when watching a movie you know wasn't directed by Ken Burns? Your scope is further away than the fing goats that were being herded. I'm not some mil-fan boy that won't do my own research for facts but shit man, it's a movie.
Ba•sis (noun)
1 : the bottom of something considered as its foundation
2 : the principal component of something
The foundation is 4 men fought and 3 gave their life on a mission that went to shit. You weren't there, that blogger wasn't there; eat popcorn and give thanks for that.
Well said and exactly my thoughts.
And that's a wrap!
That’s cool but doesn’t change the fact that he equates the movies inaccuracies to that of CNNs inaccuracies when reporting facts. In doing so he misses the fundamental fact that it’s for entertainment purposes. Further, he blames the movie industry’s desire to “increase the Hollywood kill count” for the lack of back story on those involved. It’s Dirk Digler, the dude from Into The Wild, and the dude from Battleship. It’s a movie born and bred to entertain and make money, not a documentary.
Maybe you missed the point where it's being touted as a VERY ACCURATE depiction of the events.
More men died trying to rescue him than in the actual op. I don't know how much credit they got, but in some respects, it's the more important issue of the story/op to me.
Spot on, Will. Besides that, I think you're a bit off base streck.
VooDoo6Actual
01-13-14, 13:39
Best movie of the Year for me & more reality than I have seen in some time compared to the dystopic Barking Moonbat BS. The combat scenes were amongst some of the best for nailing that visceral reality of "In Extremis"
& exigent circumstances during that crucible & cauldron of truth in battle.
A Gigaparsec better than the propaganda based "Zero Dark Shitty"
Best movie of the Year for me & more reality than I have seen in some time compared to the dystopic Barking Moonbat BS. The combat scenes were amongst some of the best for nailing that visceral reality of "In Extremis"
& exigent circumstances during that crucible & cauldron of truth in battle.
A Gigaparsec better than the propaganda based "Zero Dark Shitty"
First I was going to say "but the year just started, of course it's the best movie", then I realized you were referring to 2013.
Almost every book written about something, anything, historical is written from a certain perspective and has inherent bias. It does not make it bad, or all wrong, it just means it sees something from a specific vantage....sometimes that vantage is wide, other times narrow. If Luttrell, et al, got parts of it wrong based on his vantage and observations, well, it happens. Almost every book written regarding a politico-military topic has flaws from this. Blackhawk Down was a great example. If Luttrell, et al, lied in order generate buzz, revenue, whatever, then it is no bueno and an entirely separate issue.
I'm simply saying it's essential to keep those two issues separate as it applies to some of the comments/criticisms and they are not interchangeable. I have no dog in the fight and no creds to comment on the bold part one way or another. My understanding is, the major criticisms, including those of that blog post we started with, are in regards to the the version of events told via the book by the author, not that he simply thought it a crappy movie.
That should not in any way be seen as criticism on my end for the author or the book, but I think the issues seem to be getting muddied between author/book comments and movie comments.
If the events were changed by the author to (fill in what ever self serving motivation you wish), it's none of my business or my concern, and is strictly between those in that community who have a stake in the events.
I hope that clarifies.
I'm simply saying it's essential to keep those two issues separate as it applies to some of the comments/criticisms and they are not interchangeable. I have no dog in the fight and no creds to comment on the bold part one way or another. My understanding is, the major criticisms, including those of that blog post we started with, are in regards to the the version of events told via the book by the author, not that he simply thought it a crappy movie.
That should not in any way be seen as criticism on my end for the author or the book, but I think the issues seem to be getting muddied between author/book comments and movie comments.
If the events were changed by the author to (fill in what ever self serving motivation you wish), it's none of my business or my concern, and is strictly between those in that community who have a stake in the events.
I hope that clarifies.
Certainly not directed at you, at all. I guess my point, not well stated, is that the movie is based on the book, and the book has inconsistencies (and therefore the movie will have inconsistencies). Inconsistencies come from two sources, either unintentional or bias from the perspective of the writer (director, whatever), or intentional (i.e., lies). If it is the former, read/watch with that in mind, enjoy it, glean what you want or can, and move on. If it is the latter, it is a much different picture and an entirely different argument. I agree with you: these parts are not, or should not be, interchangeable.
As far as being a stakeholder, if the author of ANY politico-military book intentionally lies or intentionally skews the topic, although you may not have been at the Battle of Little Big Horn or wherever, you are a stakeholder. Truth in history is truth in history, and once it becomes part of the public record, we all become stakeholders.
This site claims to list the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of the book: http://onviolence.com/?e=514
brickboy240
01-13-14, 16:15
I actually saw this movie at a sneak peek early screening.
I KNEW many would nitpick this film and tear it apart.
Have you EVER seen a film that followed the book 100%? 90%? Me neither.
Still...this is 10 times better than most war films I have seen in a very long time.
-brickboy240
If the movie was exaggerated for entertainment purposes then shame on everyone complacent involved. The real story was compelling enough. Looking to extract a bit more cash from the action loving dipshits out there, action they will never risk enough or work hard enough to know and understand, would be a tragic dishonor to the fallen.
Haven't seen it and like Black Hawk Down probably never will. Don't care for Hollywood's take on such events anymore. Either tell such an important story accurately or most certainly don't tell it at all.
If the movie was exaggerated for entertainment purposes then shame on everyone complacent involved. The real story was compelling enough. Looking to extract a bit more cash from the action loving dipshits out there, action they will never risk enough or work hard enough to know and understand, would be a tragic dishonor to the fallen.
Haven't seen it and like Black Hawk Down probably never will. Don't care for Hollywood's take on such events anymore. Either tell such an important story accurately or most certainly don't tell it at all.
There's a difference between an entertainment genre like a movie and an educational genre like a documentary although both use the video medium.
Movies follow the tradition of story telling that has followed us for thousands of years; embellishing events and making heroes larger than life while demonizing the "bad guys." They generally have some sort of lesson, but can also be just for entertainment.
Documentaries often strive to tell the whole truth, as best as they can. They're more like the cliffnotes video form of a historical or archaeological paper, or maybe the pre-recorded version of a lecture.
I honestly don't think it's bad that movies take liberties with the stories they're based off of. Again, movies are a form of story telling, sometimes taking inspiration from reality.
NCPatrolAR
01-13-14, 17:12
I enjoyed the movie versions of Lone Survivor and Black Hawk Down. I only liked the book version of BHD though
Maybe you missed the point where it's being touted as a VERY ACCURATE depiction of the events.
I watched an interview of Luttrell last week on The O'Reily factor where he stated that several events in the movie were embellished.
So much I want to say but know I shouldn't.
I'm glad heroic stories are being told. I can think of 100 others that deserve the Lone Survivor treatment. It upsets me that they have to be embellished even further, from their already absurd level of heroism, to get people to watch it though.
Moose-Knuckle
01-14-14, 02:12
Watched it twice on Sunday, what made the film for me is how they depicted and instilled the comradery, esprit de corps, and love between brothers in arms. I was also glad to see Marcus Luttrell in several cameos during the film.
I really wished they would make a film about the battle of Takur Ghar.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
01-14-14, 02:20
Saw it with the wife last night, we were choking back tears the entire time. The entire theater was quiet, respectful, and somber.
HighSpeedDreams
01-14-14, 08:45
Had the same effect on me. Our theatre was also extremely respectful. Not a soul attempted to move when the pictures rolled at the end.
Saw it with the wife last night, we were choking back tears the entire time. The entire theater was quiet, respectful, and somber.
Doc. Holiday
01-14-14, 09:43
May I add the fact that these movies pretty much all say "BASED off of a true story". When you see those words, it means "Hey the story of this was founded upon something that actually happened, we are prob not going to stick to the entire story, but at least you know something similar to this happened." There are some movies that are really accurate, and there are others that the only thing that was factual were the names of the characters.
Boba Fett v2
01-14-14, 10:12
May I add the fact that these movies pretty much all say "BASED off of a true story". When you see those words, it means "Hey the story of this was founded upon something that actually happened, we are prob not going to stick to the entire story, but at least you know something similar to this happened." There are some movies that are really accurate, and there are others that the only thing that was factual were the names of the characters.
I see. Kind of like The Lord of the Rings.
Sent from my piece of s**t phone using Tapatalk2 (which can be equally unreliable when coupled with a junk phone)
Doc. Holiday
01-14-14, 10:16
Wow exactly like Lord of the Rings..... :rolleyes:
Boba Fett v2
01-14-14, 10:35
Wow exactly like Lord of the Rings..... :rolleyes:
I guess we can add Star Wars to the list too. Although history fails to mention that the implementation of the Galactic Universal Healthcare Act was instrumental to the rise of the Imperial Senate and the establishment of the Galactic Empire.
Learn to take a joke.
Sent from my piece of s**t phone using Tapatalk2 (which can be equally unreliable when coupled with a junk phone)
I want to start a fund for the buying of preparation h for all the but hurt I'm reading.
At the beginning of the the movie it says "based on", not "this is exactly what happened".
I have to say it was one of the better "war", for a lack of better word, movies I have seen. More accurate gear at least, good cinematography, and a decent story. We all know a lot was left out, liberties were taken, etc... But all in all, pretty good movie, considering everything else I have seen lately.
And remember three guys died on that hill, and more trying to rescue them. All were heroes no matter how it went down. We were not there. Respect that if cant respect anything else.,
Luttrell with Wahlberg at his side responds in earnest to being told by CNN reporter mission was "hopeless"
http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/01/12/lone-survivor-takes-cnns-jake-tapper-over-whether-his-deadly-afghanistan
At the beginning of the the movie it says "based on", not "this is exactly what happened".
I believe there may even be a situation where they open themselves to law suits and such if they don't 'base" it on something and change some things up a bit. I know a guy that was a camera man in Hollywood and to this day if he speaks of any known entity like a brand name or person, he will change it up to the point you sort of know what he means but he could just be making up nonsense names.
Even a mini-series leaves things out... how long would a movie have to be or how thorough could it be if every detail was covered 100%. It would take forever and someone would still say it's wrong.
It would be nice though as someone mentioned that the full real story be documented as best as can be for the sake of history. Even if only small segment of society would take the time to read it, at least it's there for future generations.
Boba Fett v2
01-14-14, 11:18
It would be nice though as someone mentioned that the full real story be documented as best as can be for the sake of history. Even if only small segment of society would take the time to read it, at least it's there for future generations.
That's called an AAR. And maybe at some point in the future it will be made public. Like the AAR from the Battle of Ia Drang.
Sent from my piece of s**t phone using Tapatalk2 (which can be equally unreliable when coupled with a junk phone)
TurretGunner
01-14-14, 17:03
That's called an AAR. And maybe at some point in the future it will be made public. Like the AAR from the Battle of Ia Drang.
Sent from my piece of s**t phone using Tapatalk2 (which can be equally unreliable when coupled with a junk phone)
Its out there, or so I've heard.
That's called an AAR. And maybe at some point in the future it will be made public. Like the AAR from the Battle of Ia Drang.
Sent from my piece of s**t phone using Tapatalk2 (which can be equally unreliable when coupled with a junk phone)
Send a FOIA request to uscentcom. It'll have some parts redacted, but it won't be completely redacted.
Doc. Holiday
01-15-14, 09:18
I want to start a fund for the buying of preparation h for all the but hurt I'm reading.
At the beginning of the the movie it says "based on", not "this is exactly what happened".
I have to say it was one of the better "war", for a lack of better word, movies I have seen. More accurate gear at least, good cinematography, and a decent story. We all know a lot was left out, liberties were taken, etc... But all in all, pretty good movie, considering everything else I have seen lately.
And remember three guys died on that hill, and more trying to rescue them. All were heroes no matter how it went down. We were not there. Respect that if cant respect anything else.,
That's practically what I was getting at.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/15/the-lone-survivor-review-so-controversial-glenn-beck-will-pay-the-author-to-read-it-to-marcus-luttrells-face/
What a god damned bitch... I'm sure more drama is gonna be started after this movie makes it's rounds. I feel bad for Marcus.
Then there is this: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/14/marcus-luttrell-responds-to-lone-survivor-critics-as-only-he-can-in-megyn-kelly-interview/
rapomstage3
01-15-14, 18:52
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/15/the-lone-survivor-review-so-controversial-glenn-beck-will-pay-the-author-to-read-it-to-marcus-luttrells-face/
What a god damned bitch... I'm sure more drama is gonna be started after this movie makes it's rounds. I feel bad for Marcus.
Then there is this: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/14/marcus-luttrell-responds-to-lone-survivor-critics-as-only-he-can-in-megyn-kelly-interview/
Wow. I can't Beleive what some people will say. There is literally no boundaries. And Marcus would defend her right to say that garbage.
Moose-Knuckle
01-15-14, 18:53
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/15/the-lone-survivor-review-so-controversial-glenn-beck-will-pay-the-author-to-read-it-to-marcus-luttrells-face/
What a god damned bitch...
Correction she is a fetid See You Next Tuesday . . .
Correction she is a fetid See You Next Tuesday . . .
Yep, I wanted to use a lot more colorful language but somehow managed to throttle it back. She is garbage of the highest order.
Doc. Holiday
01-15-14, 19:29
Wow. I have a feeling the word respect is now going to be found in history books and taken out of our current dictionary...Im so sick of people saying whatever they want and hide behind the phrase, "freedom of speech!" Yes you are free to say what you want, but holy crap at least have some couth.
madisonsfinest
01-15-14, 20:41
Interesting read:
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/01/15/yes_marcus_they_did_die_in_vain
Interesting read:
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/01/15/yes_marcus_they_did_die_in_vain
That was a good article and I happen to agree completely.
That woman can kiss my ass. I don't cuss much but I'll hold it to just ass. To sit there behind a computer with the world at your fingertips and wrongly judge and interpret what happened to men who were out there defending the very country who give her that leisurely lifestyle...... just go away and pound sand in other soil besides this country.
-Jax
That was a good article and I happen to agree completely.
While I don't have an opinion on the matter, I do agree that we should be able to separate the mission with the men on the mission.
I will nitpick a little and say that they did not die in vain, because Marcus lived. But regarding the strategic situation, it's possible.
Moose-Knuckle
01-15-14, 21:28
That woman can kiss my ass. I don't cuss much but I'll hold it to just ass. To sit there behind a computer with the world at your fingertips and wrongly judge and interpret what happened to men who were out there defending the very country who give her that leisurely lifestyle...... just go away and pound sand in other soil besides this country.
-Jax
Yeah she would fair well in Afghanistan . . .
Yeah she would fair well in Afghanistan . . .
She should go live there on a mountainside for a year. Be the best thing that ever happened to her. Make here realize how green the grass is on her side.
-Jax
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/01/10/lone_survivor_accuracy_fact_vs_fiction_in_the_mark_wahlberg_and_peter_berg.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/01/10/lone_survivor_accuracy_fact_vs_fiction_in_the_mark_wahlberg_and_peter_berg.html
I'd argue that some of the Cummings "facts" are utterly RTFO.
While I was not involved in Operation RedWings I am moderately familiar with that area of Afghan, and the pop at the time in Kunar Province was IVO of 400k, and over 60k in the Korengal Valley area - and 200 folks that don't like us are really easy to find in about the time it takes me to type to this point.
There are a bunch of other issues - but for now they are not for discussion on an open board/
skullworks
01-16-14, 07:50
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/15/the-lone-survivor-review-so-controversial-glenn-beck-will-pay-the-author-to-read-it-to-marcus-luttrells-face/
What a god damned bitch... I'm sure more drama is gonna be started after this movie makes it's rounds. I feel bad for Marcus.
Then there is this: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/14/marcus-luttrell-responds-to-lone-survivor-critics-as-only-he-can-in-megyn-kelly-interview/
Did you read her actual review (http://www.laweekly.com/2013-12-26/film-tv/lone-survivor-mark-wahlberg-review/) though (not just Beck's interpretation of it)? She doesn't criticize Luttrell; she criticizes Peter Berg for making an overly simplistic movie and for depicting the members of the team as one-dimensional killing machines.
skullworks
01-16-14, 08:04
That was a good article and I happen to agree completely.
For those, like me, who does not have a subscription:
Best Defense bureau of the military and American culture
"We spend our whole lives training to defend this country, and then we were sent over there by this country, and you're telling me because we were over there doing what we were told by our country that it was senseless and my guys died for nothing?"
That was how former Navy SEAL and Lone Survivor author Marcus Luttrell responded to CNN's Jake Tapper during an interview about the new movie based on his book, about an ill-fated mission in Afghanistan in which 19 of his fellow Navy SEALs were killed by enemy forces. There has been much furor in the national press over the exchange since it aired. The majority of commentators have rallied to Luttrell's side, affirming that his comrades did not die in vain. Their arguments focus on honoring the fallen, their dedication to their country and their courage in combat. But we confuse valor with vanity at great peril to the living and the future of our wars. We need a more honest answer, however painful it may be to hear.
Yes, Marcus. Your friends died in vain. They went selflessly. They fought bravely. They sacrificed nobly. They lived in the best traditions of duty, honor, and country -- hallowed words which dictate what every American can and ought to be. But they died in vain for the exact reason that they went where their country sent them and did what their country told them to do. America failed you because it failed its obligation to those principles. It gives me no pleasure to write these words, because it applies as much to the friends I lost as it does to yours. But it needs to be said, because the sooner we acknowledge it as a country, the more lives we might save.
As I write this, America is two weeks into its 13th and presumably last year of war in Afghanistan. Already, two servicemembers have been reported killed there. The strategic outlook after our withdrawal is not optimistic. Indeed, current events forebode a harsh future for Afghanistan. We are only two years removed from our withdrawal from Iraq and the al Qaeda flag flies over the city of Fallujah, in which more than 120 American servicemembers died. The ultimate failure of American military might to secure Fallujah does nothing to diminish the honorable nature of their service. But likewise, all their gallantry cannot change the fact that they died for an unfulfilled cause. The honor is theirs alone. The disgrace belongs to America.
It's the disgrace of a country that abandoned its civic duty to execute due diligence in weighing the decisions of whether and how to go to war, and then later to hold accountable those that spent precious blood and vast treasure for meager gains. All the while, we convinced ourselves that we were supporting our fighting forces simply by saying that we were. We even made bumper stickers to prove it, never considering what it said about us to wear our hearts next to our exhaust pipes.
The sentiment of upholding the bravery of the fallen to hide the shame of our culpability has been echoed more eloquently but no less cowardice by our national leaders. In his first campaign, our own Commander in Chief was immediately cowed by the reaction to his suggestion that we were spending lives fruitlessly in our wars:
"I was actually upset with myself when I said that, because I never use that term [referring to "lives wasted in combat"]. It is not at all what I intended to say, and I would absolutely apologize if any [military families] felt that in some ways it had diminished the enormous courage and sacrifice that they'd shown."
When asked if American troops in Iraq were dying in vain in 2005, Gen. George Casey answered thusly: "No, I don't worry about that. Not yet -- we're not there yet."
But he excused himself from proposing a time in the future when that might hold true. And just last year Adm. Mike Mullen expressed the idea in the most definitive of terms: "How could it be that in a democracy -- a free society -- men and women may risk their lives to defend that freedom and lose those lives in vain? It cannot be so."
That was a bastardization of the Gettysburg address. His thesis ran contrary to Lincoln's original remarks. In Lincoln's view, the fallen "consecrated [the field of battle] far above our poor power to add or detract," but the domain of their honor went no further than the burial ground. The president stated explicitly that the cause for which they died could only be made worthy by the citizens who survived them. "It is rather for us here to be dedicated to the great task remaining before us ... that these dead shall not have died in vain..."
The proposition of soldiers dying in vain was a very real concern leading to the eventual end of that war, as Robert E. Lee wrote in his General Order No. 9, announcing his surrender:
"But feeling that valour and devotion could accomplish nothing that could compensate for the loss that must have attended the continuance of the contest, I have determined to avoid the useless sacrifice of those whose past services have endeared them to their countrymen."
Gen. Dwight Eisenhower expressed the same ethic in June 1944 when he pre-scripted his announcement of D-Day's possible unfortunate outcome: "The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."
Throughout history, our nation's greatest leaders have understood on a deeply personal level that however honorably a soldier acquits himself, he can die in vain, and that it is the responsibility of the leaders and citizenry to see to it that they don't. Our country has lost its sense of that responsibility to a horrifying extent. Our generals have lost the capability to succeed and the integrity to admit failure. Our society has lost the courage and energy to hold them accountable. Over the last decade, our top leaders have wasted the lives of our sons, daughters, and comrades with their incompetence and hubris. After each failure, our citizens have failed to hold them accountable, instead underwriting new failed strategies as quickly as their predecessors with our apathy and sense of detachment. And then we use the tired paeans of "never forget" and "honor the fallen" to distract ourselves from our guilt in the affair. When we blithely declare that they did not die in vain, we deface their honor by using it to wipe the blood from our hands.
We have lost our collective ability to win a war as well as the strength of character to accept defeat. And in the end, it is those who represent the epitome of that character we lack that pay the price. Can there be a death any more in vain than one that secures for us freedoms that we hold in such low regard as to not even use them on behalf of those that protect us? If there is, I cannot think of one.
It is my greatest hope that Luttrell's response opens a national dialogue on this subject, and that people finally embrace the true, terrible nature of our self-inflicted losses. Let us as a nation finally feel the guilt we ought to for failing our civic duty. And let that be what we remember before we send the next servicemember to battle. For surely, there will be a next war. When it comes, let us be a nation of people who are as faithful to our principles and considerate of our obligations as those who fight for us. Let us be worthy of their sacrifice. That is the only way to prevent them from dying in vain.
VooDoo6Actual
01-16-14, 08:33
That interview was spot on by Marcus. Saw it last week before I saw the movie. He made his point, after getting spanked & called out appropriately & Trapper tried to do damage control by way of his redacted explanation. It was already too late.
I would take Lone Survivior a gigparsec over the bloated Bravo Sierra & obfuscated truth of Zero Dark Shitty. Many people will be surprised in the future what comes of the truth regarding OBL. Tag it & bank on it.
I finally caught the movie yesterday with a friend of mine. I thought it was pretty good for a (entertainment) movie. I didn't go in there expecting a 100% accurate documentary. I do not come from a military background so I didn't sit there nit picking everything I saw in the film.
After leaving the movie I felt damn proud to be a Texan and an American.
We have a great working relationship with the SDVT-1 guys and on the personal level, work aside, these were all around great guys. I look forward to seeing the movie and taking my son, however I lost some friends during that operation and I am sure the movie will not be an easy watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYHpr0kksKg
The parents of Mike Murphy, Danny Dietz, and Matt Axelson, are in this incredibly moving video.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.