• UrbonMaximus
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Technically correct, but your comment makes it sound like the military is actively commissioning movies, which is not the case. When Hollywood wants to make historical or war movies, they have few options:

    • Buy the equipment - one military ship or airplane can be more than the whole movie’s budget.
    • Prop/CGI - may look bad and doesn’t guaranty to be cheaper.
    • Get all the gear for free, loaned out from the military (including training and specialists) - but they get to edit and approve your script.

    I wish there were more options for independent and critical movie makers.

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      The person you replied to said “subsidized”, which implies what you just explained. The US military provides support to movies and TVs. However, it would be naive to think that the military still doesn’t try to influence the production. It’s been a long time since I have listened to it but there was a podcast mentioning “Zero Dark Thirty” having influence from the CIA; and the movie is about justifying torture to get results for “the greater good”. This is in spite of the report commissioned during the Obama era that torture never yielded any significant results.

      • LazerFX@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        “Actively Commissioning” and “Subsidizing” are two different contexts. Your points are all accurate, but commissioning a movie means actually going out and saying, “we want this movie, and will pay/provide resources to it in order for it to get done”, versus “your doing a movie with military, we’ll provide resources in compensation for a meddlers credit”.