Say what? It's been a while but I remember the terrorists in Sum of all Fears were Russian extremeists that were going rogue from their government which almost prompted the US and Russia to launch nukes at each other.Wycliffe_03 said:Yep, pretty silly, kind of like in Sum of All Fears how the terrorists were white supremacists. Anything to avoid offending Muslims these days. Hollywood went full-throttle BSC a long time ago.OldArmy71 said:
What absolute PC crap. The terrorists are IRISH!?! Good grief.
That being said, this movie looks awesome.
Jackie Chan & Pierce Brosnan - The Foreigner
7,816 Views |
55 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by A New Hope
That was Crimson Tide.
Sum of All Fears was an Israeli nuke that fell off a jet, later discovered by Islamic extremists and reverse-engineered to be detonated remotely.
Sum of All Fears was an Israeli nuke that fell off a jet, later discovered by Islamic extremists and reverse-engineered to be detonated remotely.
Terrorists do in fact come in all creeds, races, etc. Timothy McVeigh could certainly be considered a terrorist although I disagree with calling him a Christian terrorist, as I've seen some describe him to be.Dr. Watson said:MooreTrucker said:HEY!!! Don't be lumping all of us Trump supporters into the pile with that goob. I have no problem with it being IRA bombers. Where does it say that it happens present day anyway?Dr. Watson said:
So the only terrorists we're allowed to imagine or think about are Muslims? Good grief. Turn on Hannity, make a cup of warm milk, curl up in your Trump Snuggie, and the world will be alright for you. The rest of us can enjoy the movie.
Oh, I'm not. I'm well aware that most folks are capable of enjoying a movie with non-Muslim terrorists. And for the record, I thought turning the terrorists in Sum of All Fears (who weren't even all Islamic terrorists in the book) into Nazis was beyond idiotic. It depends on the source material.
Regarding The Sum of All Fears, that is my favorite of Tom Clancy's novels. Absolutely fantastic book. But Hollywood has never been able to put his book onto the screen in a satisfactory manner. Even The Hunt For Red October, which, while a damn fine movie, left out too much from the book and had some subtle alterations to the Jack Ryan character than Alec Baldwin portrayed. Patriot Games? Harrison Ford was the wrong choice for Jack Ryan, and come on, the movie centers on Ryan identifying a terrorist by her tits seen from a satellite photo, and this particular character was on at most 2 pages of the 400+ page book. Clear and Present Danger right out of the gate changes the gender of the gruff old Coast Guard captain to some young female, and Willem Dafoe as Clark? But The Sum of All Fears, as you point out, takes the cake for bowing to political correctness, let's not offend the Muslims, and make the book's Muslim villains into a white supremacist in Germany setting conditions for a war between the US and USSR. Nice idea, I suppose, but that's not The Sum of All Fears.
Thoughts and prayers for those coming to this thread thinking there would be more discussion on what the movie was like.
Enjoyed it
Saw it yesterday. Really enjoyed it.
G Martin 87 said:
I can't wait to see this. But I am a little worried how a Jackie Chan character who appears to be so grim and humorless will actually work out.
Pretty much the same in Rush Hour.
Damn.AtlAg05 said:
That was Crimson Tide.
Sum of All Fears was an Israeli nuke that fell off a jet, later discovered by Islamic extremists and reverse-engineered to be detonated remotely.
How the hell did I confuse Denzel Washington and Ben Afflec???
This thread sucks, but this movie was awesome. Once I saw Martin Campbell's name come up during the credits, it all made sense. The guy just doesn't make bad movies (other than Green Lantern).
What happened in this thread? 2 pages of posts and only about 4 posts actually about the movie. Some of you all can't check your politics at the door. Everyone knows there are Islamists out there who have and who will continue to commit horrible acts, doesn't mean every movie has to focus on that fact. It would get old real quick. If it helps you mentally, just imagine the Irish are Islamists in this film.
White dudes been villains for 100 years but now when they do it they are anti white.
Maybe we can start talking about how Jackie Chan is an apologist for the CCP and has criticized the democracy protests in Hong Kong.
when you rewrite the villian as white because the source material had a POC as villian, then yea it is antiwhite. If villains can only be one color on screen, that's racism.tv1113 said:
White dudes been villains for 100 years but now when they do it they are anti white.
That would kind of seem to not be an issue as this film is based on a book about a Chinese ex-soldier whose daughter was killed by IRA terrorists.The Debt said:when you rewrite the villian as white because the source material had a POC as villian, then yea it is antiwhite. If villains can only be one color on screen, that's racism.tv1113 said:
White dudes been villains for 100 years but now when they do it they are anti white.
Noticed the thread and liked the movie for what it was when I saw it a while back, and this conversation is...yeah.
fig96 said:That would kind of seem to not be an issue as this film is based on a book about a Chinese ex-soldier whose daughter was killed by IRA terrorists.The Debt said:when you rewrite the villian as white because the source material had a POC as villian, then yea it is antiwhite. If villains can only be one color on screen, that's racism.tv1113 said:
White dudes been villains for 100 years but now when they do it they are anti white.
Noticed the thread and liked the movie for what it was when I saw it a while back, and this conversation is...yeah.
Oops.
You losers need to get this idea that racist bogeymen are out to demonize white people schtick off this forum.
This is the entertainment forum not the politics forum.
And fyi, Hollywood is out to make money, most of the time they pick actors that will be box office draws. So if the villain is going to have a lot of screen time it's going to be a big name actor regardless of skin color.
This is the entertainment forum not the politics forum.
And fyi, Hollywood is out to make money, most of the time they pick actors that will be box office draws. So if the villain is going to have a lot of screen time it's going to be a big name actor regardless of skin color.
I'm sure the book (from 1992) was re-written to change from Muslim extremist attacks to the IRA...
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
fig96 said:That would kind of seem to not be an issue as this film is based on a book about a Chinese ex-soldier whose daughter was killed by IRA terrorists.The Debt said:when you rewrite the villian as white because the source material had a POC as villian, then yea it is antiwhite. If villains can only be one color on screen, that's racism.tv1113 said:
White dudes been villains for 100 years but now when they do it they are anti white.
Noticed the thread and liked the movie for what it was when I saw it a while back, and this conversation is...yeah.
No sht sherlock. The discussion has morphed into hollywood using white males as the primary villian....the sum of all fears being a perfect example of this.
And EP: that's the irony here. If the villian (often the 2nd lead) is all too often a white guy...that means POC actors are being driven to tertiary roles.
Just look at this list of 2019 films...other than Hobbes & Shaw and the lion king...where are the black and latino villians?
You can count up the number of films portraying white men as the villian....it is far greater than the proportional 36% of the population. So maybe you guys just believe white male actors are far superior than the other 64% of americans. Might want do a few minutes of self-reflection.
That's actually what you've made your discussion.
And I was going to write up a detailed response, but I can't even muster an attempt to be genuine about the fact that you feel we need a few minutes of self reflection about white guys being villains in movies too often. So I'll exit and leave you to vent to yourself, enjoy.
And I was going to write up a detailed response, but I can't even muster an attempt to be genuine about the fact that you feel we need a few minutes of self reflection about white guys being villains in movies too often. So I'll exit and leave you to vent to yourself, enjoy.
It's really sad how some people can't go enjoy a movie without letting their personal politics ruin it for them.
Hollywood adapts books into movies all the time and very rarely are they loyal to the source material. There are a myriad of reasons for this, but really it comes down to playing it safe and making money.
The Sum of All Fears is actually a good example of this. The film came out in 2002 and although America was now much more aware of Arab terrorists at this point, the film was written before 9/11. Random eastern European terrorist bad guys were a really popular villain in Hollywood at the time. I'm sure the writers felt like that was a safe non offensive choice that people would easily believe. To make these guys even more obviously evil they make them neo nazis. They didn't intentionally make the villain caucasian to make some point about how evil white people are, they did it to make money.
Also when the movie was written, Jihadists had been portrayed mostly in a comedic way in films. Stuff like True Lies where they are over the top senseless madmen. The writers may have believed Jihadists to not be a serious enough villain in 2000 when they were writing the script.
One of the papers I did for my master's was actually an analysis of the affiliation of James Bond villains through history. You'd perhaps find it interesting that during this time when Russia was clearly the main enemy of the west, Russia (in a hands on way) is pretty much never a villain in the Bond movies. It's either non affiliated megalomaniacs, SPECTRE, or in a couple of cases rogue Russians operating outside of the wishes of the government. All safe villains unlikely to stir controversy and help the filmmakers make money.
Hollywood adapts books into movies all the time and very rarely are they loyal to the source material. There are a myriad of reasons for this, but really it comes down to playing it safe and making money.
The Sum of All Fears is actually a good example of this. The film came out in 2002 and although America was now much more aware of Arab terrorists at this point, the film was written before 9/11. Random eastern European terrorist bad guys were a really popular villain in Hollywood at the time. I'm sure the writers felt like that was a safe non offensive choice that people would easily believe. To make these guys even more obviously evil they make them neo nazis. They didn't intentionally make the villain caucasian to make some point about how evil white people are, they did it to make money.
Also when the movie was written, Jihadists had been portrayed mostly in a comedic way in films. Stuff like True Lies where they are over the top senseless madmen. The writers may have believed Jihadists to not be a serious enough villain in 2000 when they were writing the script.
One of the papers I did for my master's was actually an analysis of the affiliation of James Bond villains through history. You'd perhaps find it interesting that during this time when Russia was clearly the main enemy of the west, Russia (in a hands on way) is pretty much never a villain in the Bond movies. It's either non affiliated megalomaniacs, SPECTRE, or in a couple of cases rogue Russians operating outside of the wishes of the government. All safe villains unlikely to stir controversy and help the filmmakers make money.
I'd really enjoy reading that thesis. I've been a Bond fan as far back as my early teen years in the 70's.
ETA - I finally saw The Foreigner a few months ago and truly enjoyed it.
ETA - I finally saw The Foreigner a few months ago and truly enjoyed it.
I'm a sucker for revenge themed movies.
Featured Stories
See All
2026 North Forney cornerback Ryan Gilbert commits to Texas A&M
by Jason Howell
5:12
2d ago
2.9k
In-Home Visit: A&M's 2026 momentum keeps rolling as Gilbert commits
by TexAgs Recruiting
Way-too-early expectations for Texas A&M basketball in 2024-25
by David Sandhop
Around the SEC: Recruiting News & Trends
by Jason Howell