RNC used fake soldiers for ad.
Chukpike
Banned
Pretty much out of date from last September. Also, this is a youtube video in response to a Repuplican political ad, it is not the CBS Report on the subject. The narrator does not identify himself, but it is a AirAmerica Media dubbed video.
AirAmerica Media bills itself as a leading "progressive" channel. Might be considered a little biased.
Basically, this is part of the mudslinging that was going on last year.
You are right in that it is not a very good dubbed over video. Not good at all.
Chukpike
Banned
Here is the actual CBS News Story dated September 4th 2008.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008...main4415886.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
"It was a video that was supposed to elicit soaring patriotism and real emotions about the Pledge of Allegiance. But to do that, it used fake soldiers and a staged military funeral instead of the real thing."quote from the article
The full story should be read. Then ask yourself a few unbiased questions.
The RNC made the video to go along with an essay written by a contest winner. It was used at their convention. There was no attempt by the RNC to claim the video was real.
Lots of people opposed to the Republicans made a big deal about it.
I have one question.
Would it have been more proper for a film crew to go to a serviceman's funeral and ask the family, "if it would be OK to film for a commercial"?
It was much ado about nothing then, and a year later it deserves nothing more now.
From the way the CBS reporter wrote the article, it does not sound like he would have been satisfied unless they also filmed the actual Continental Congress.:smile:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008...main4415886.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
"It was a video that was supposed to elicit soaring patriotism and real emotions about the Pledge of Allegiance. But to do that, it used fake soldiers and a staged military funeral instead of the real thing."quote from the article
The full story should be read. Then ask yourself a few unbiased questions.
The RNC made the video to go along with an essay written by a contest winner. It was used at their convention. There was no attempt by the RNC to claim the video was real.
Lots of people opposed to the Republicans made a big deal about it.
I have one question.
Would it have been more proper for a film crew to go to a serviceman's funeral and ask the family, "if it would be OK to film for a commercial"?
It was much ado about nothing then, and a year later it deserves nothing more now.
From the way the CBS reporter wrote the article, it does not sound like he would have been satisfied unless they also filmed the actual Continental Congress.:smile:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Especially for a political party.
If uniform of my service was used in a political advertisement of one of the political parties over here, I'd be pissed. Even more so if those guys wearing it aren't and weren't in the service.
If uniform of my service was used in a political advertisement of one of the political parties over here, I'd be pissed. Even more so if those guys wearing it aren't and weren't in the service.
Chukpike
Banned
Oh, please. And the political correctness agenda keeps growing.
I think it is horrible that people exploit war and make movies of it all the time. Oh! My! God! how can they be so insensitive. blah, blah, blah blah.
Looks, like no one bothered to use the link and read what the 3 minute RNC video was all about. My fault for using the word commercial, it was a short story video, long enough for the essay contest winner to recite her essay. It was not shown on TV as a commercial, it was only shown at the convention as part of the program.
Everyone just wants to do the tsk, tsk, tsk campaign.
When was the last time you saw a political ad where the candidate sat at a desk and talked straight into the camera about specific issues? BORING!
Let's show happy kids on a play ground as we talk about education.
Let's show beautiful forests as we talk about the environment.(Unless you want to show how the other side corrupts the environment, then you throw some dead fish in a puddle).
Showing Soldiers, tanks, planes as you talk about defense. Probably with a flag waving in the background. Camera angle from below the candidate(makes em look taller)
Not so long ago the media demanded the government allow them to show the caskets coming back from overseas. What did the media do when they were allowed to show them? Nothing, they had won their battle and did not need to show them, except as a backdrop for dramatic effect to lead in some other story.(You remember how the media hyped this up to make it seem like the administration was hiding something. Where is the concern now?)
Really want to save time on this topic, just read the comments to the CBS story on the link.
The actual article is a bland very short vanilla, milk toast article.
As far as using real soldiers, they would have to join SAG as most commercials are union. We should really demand real soldiers be used in all the movies too, and let the actors go fight.
The youtube AirAmerica Media video in the original post is not even representative or claim to use the RNC video, who knows where they got their film?
Probably said or ranted to much on this. Just thought it was such a non, out of date story, it was funny.
I think it is horrible that people exploit war and make movies of it all the time. Oh! My! God! how can they be so insensitive. blah, blah, blah blah.
Looks, like no one bothered to use the link and read what the 3 minute RNC video was all about. My fault for using the word commercial, it was a short story video, long enough for the essay contest winner to recite her essay. It was not shown on TV as a commercial, it was only shown at the convention as part of the program.
Everyone just wants to do the tsk, tsk, tsk campaign.
When was the last time you saw a political ad where the candidate sat at a desk and talked straight into the camera about specific issues? BORING!
Let's show happy kids on a play ground as we talk about education.
Let's show beautiful forests as we talk about the environment.(Unless you want to show how the other side corrupts the environment, then you throw some dead fish in a puddle).
Showing Soldiers, tanks, planes as you talk about defense. Probably with a flag waving in the background. Camera angle from below the candidate(makes em look taller)
Not so long ago the media demanded the government allow them to show the caskets coming back from overseas. What did the media do when they were allowed to show them? Nothing, they had won their battle and did not need to show them, except as a backdrop for dramatic effect to lead in some other story.(You remember how the media hyped this up to make it seem like the administration was hiding something. Where is the concern now?)
Really want to save time on this topic, just read the comments to the CBS story on the link.
The actual article is a bland very short vanilla, milk toast article.
As far as using real soldiers, they would have to join SAG as most commercials are union.
We should really demand real soldiers be used in all the movies too, and let the actors go fight.The youtube AirAmerica Media video in the original post is not even representative or claim to use the RNC video, who knows where they got their film?
Probably said or ranted to much on this. Just thought it was such a non, out of date story, it was funny.
03USMC
Active member
Thats my sentiments also.Don't use a serviceman for.your political gain. thats just low
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Exactly.
You don't use the emotion brought about by a serviceman's funeral to try to make that somehow connected to your political party. They are two different things.
You don't use the emotion brought about by a serviceman's funeral to try to make that somehow connected to your political party. They are two different things.
Chukpike
Banned
If anyone wants to see the terrible video they can go the CBS link I posted earlier, and half way down is the youtube copy of the RNC video titled "Wave the Stars & Stripes”. I wouldn't recommend playing it if you have a weak stomach.
Here is what the video is about from the CBS article:
"On Tuesday night, 15-year-old Victoria Blackstone, a sophomore at the St. Agnes School in St. Paul, led the crowd at the Xcel Energy Center in the Pledge of Allegiance. The audience heard her 434-word essay, “Pledging myself to the Flag of the United States of America,” an essay she’d entered in the “Wave the Stars & Stripes” essay contest and won. The RNC turned that essay into a three and a half minute video, a visually stirring montage rolling over Victoria’s words about sharing the Pledge with Americans who have stood at important moments in history."
Here is what the video is about from the CBS article:
"On Tuesday night, 15-year-old Victoria Blackstone, a sophomore at the St. Agnes School in St. Paul, led the crowd at the Xcel Energy Center in the Pledge of Allegiance. The audience heard her 434-word essay, “Pledging myself to the Flag of the United States of America,” an essay she’d entered in the “Wave the Stars & Stripes” essay contest and won. The RNC turned that essay into a three and a half minute video, a visually stirring montage rolling over Victoria’s words about sharing the Pledge with Americans who have stood at important moments in history."
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
The movie industry cannot feature 100% accurate uniforms etc., unless they have approval from the United States military. It would be illegal to have the actors wear them without proper authorization.
Even so, when they film a movie not really endorsed by the DOD and it's another anti-military POS, we usually aren't cool about it. Same goes to some political party making an advertisement asking folks to vote for them if they care about the military and fallen servicemen and women. Yeah it's not what they say but it's implied.
Even so, when they film a movie not really endorsed by the DOD and it's another anti-military POS, we usually aren't cool about it. Same goes to some political party making an advertisement asking folks to vote for them if they care about the military and fallen servicemen and women. Yeah it's not what they say but it's implied.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
As it goes there is nothing wrong with 90% of the video but they should have found a different ending.
Also don't forget no political party does anything out of the kindness of their heart or because it is there patriotic duty they only do it to gain power.
Chukpike
Banned
"The movie industry cannot feature 100% accurate uniforms etc., unless they have approval from the United States military."
Please enlighten us as to why not. If you say it is against the law please supply the Statue and wording. Movie companies get special consideration, they do not have to get permission from anybody.
Please enlighten us as to why they would need to make 100% accurate. The average movie goer would not know the difference, the movie Industry does like to be accurate though.
"Even so, when they film a movie not really endorsed by the DOD and it's another anti-military POS, we usually aren't cool about it." quote 13th Redneck.
BS, we would rush to see it.
Please enlighten me as to how the industry I worked in from 1999 thru 2007, and a little more recently on Wipeout, really works.
Give me the benefit of your vast experience in the movie industry.
Movies I worked on:
We Were Soldiers
The Last Samurai
Underdog
Mr Deeds
and quite a few others.
TV Series
CSI Miami
24
X Files
Very numerous commercials
I worked for Full Scales Effects.
Link to there web site: http://www.fullscaleeffects.com/
I really need you to tell me how the movie industry works. And you are wrong. The movie industry will work closely with the armed forces for their mutual benefit. Movie shoots the military agrees with will get shot on bases and support from the military. Movies the military doesn't agree with get shot in the studios.
The movie industry will shoot controversial movies with out DODs blessing when they want too.
It is a big buck business.
The various Branch's of the service will sometimes rate movies as detrimental to the military and not recommend them to be watched.
They will not make a big deal out of it and make Strong recommendations not to see a specific movie.
The services are very aware that telling military personnel what not to do with there free time is the surest way of getting them to do it.
Maybe the Korean Military can order their troops not to watch a movie, but it won't work in the US.
Ever heard of Movies like:
The Deer Hunter
The Last Detail
Apocalypse Now
These were not on DOD approved list.
Like I said in the beginning this CBS report was much ado about nothing last year and now a year letter it is still nothing.
P. S. Fort Hunter Liggett Military Installation in California doubled for Vietnam in We Were Soldiers.
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Wow you have twisted what I said out of proportion so badly that I'd rather not bother.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc10.wais&start=2623550&SIZE=2011&TYPE=TEXT
Sec. 771. Unauthorized wearing prohibited
Except as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of
the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may
wear--
(1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the
Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or
(2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive part
of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 34.)
Historical and Revision Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
771................................... 10:1393 (1st par., less provisos). June 3, 1916, ch. 134, Sec. 125
(1st par., less provisos), 39
Stat. 216.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The words ``Except as otherwise provided by law'' are inserted to
give effect to exceptions in other revised sections of this title and to
provisions of other laws giving such organizations as the Coast and
Geodetic Survey and the Public Health Service permission to wear
military uniforms under certain conditions.
Now I could go on trolling but it appears you are right and the film industry is given special consideration as I've seen a few folks mention it (though I haven't found an actual law that backs it). However, as far as I knew the ACTUAL regulations, no written special consideration was given to the film industry and the source I provide confirms this.
Most of the bad war movies I've seen never could get the uniform right, so it's pretty easy to add two and two together and believe that it might actually not be legal to feature a 100% accurate uniform on a movie without expressed permission from DoD.
Please provide a link to a law saying that for theatrical purposes, 100% accurate military uniforms may be featured without the consent of the DoD or the government and I will stand corrected.
Whether or not 100% accurate military uniforms are required for films because audiences can't tell the difference is besides the point and irrelevent to the argument.
I never claimed that the military can tell its soldiers to boycott a certian movie. They don't do that in South Korea and it won't work here either. In that "we" frown on it, is people who actually like their service and would rather not see it get slagged off on the big screen. No more, no less.
I don't care who you worked for to justify your self just as you don't care who I worked with, where I was and what I saw. The disrespect is mutual.
EDIT:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc10.wais&start=2627773&SIZE=10691&TYPE=TEXT
Found it.
Theatrical purposes are OK as long as they don't discredit the uniform the service.
Though I was technically wrong (as I thought they had to be DoD approved), I was talking more about the movies that aren't approved because they are negative. I should word it better next time.
So technically speaking, I do stand corrected.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc10.wais&start=2623550&SIZE=2011&TYPE=TEXT
Sec. 771. Unauthorized wearing prohibited
Except as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of
the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may
wear--
(1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the
Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or
(2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive part
of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 34.)
Historical and Revision Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
771................................... 10:1393 (1st par., less provisos). June 3, 1916, ch. 134, Sec. 125
(1st par., less provisos), 39
Stat. 216.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The words ``Except as otherwise provided by law'' are inserted to
give effect to exceptions in other revised sections of this title and to
provisions of other laws giving such organizations as the Coast and
Geodetic Survey and the Public Health Service permission to wear
military uniforms under certain conditions.
Now I could go on trolling but it appears you are right and the film industry is given special consideration as I've seen a few folks mention it (though I haven't found an actual law that backs it). However, as far as I knew the ACTUAL regulations, no written special consideration was given to the film industry and the source I provide confirms this.
Most of the bad war movies I've seen never could get the uniform right, so it's pretty easy to add two and two together and believe that it might actually not be legal to feature a 100% accurate uniform on a movie without expressed permission from DoD.
Please provide a link to a law saying that for theatrical purposes, 100% accurate military uniforms may be featured without the consent of the DoD or the government and I will stand corrected.
Whether or not 100% accurate military uniforms are required for films because audiences can't tell the difference is besides the point and irrelevent to the argument.
I never claimed that the military can tell its soldiers to boycott a certian movie. They don't do that in South Korea and it won't work here either. In that "we" frown on it, is people who actually like their service and would rather not see it get slagged off on the big screen. No more, no less.
I don't care who you worked for to justify your self just as you don't care who I worked with, where I was and what I saw. The disrespect is mutual.
EDIT:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc10.wais&start=2627773&SIZE=10691&TYPE=TEXT
Found it.
Theatrical purposes are OK as long as they don't discredit the uniform the service.
Though I was technically wrong (as I thought they had to be DoD approved), I was talking more about the movies that aren't approved because they are negative. I should word it better next time.
So technically speaking, I do stand corrected.
Last edited:
Chukpike
Banned
I think you missed the point of what the video represents.
"The RNC turned that essay into a three and a half minute video, a visually stirring montage rolling over Victoria’s words about sharing the Pledge with Americans who have stood at important moments in history."
The script for the video was the 434 word essay the 15-year-old Victoria Blackstone wrote.
The scenes in the video where selected to match with her essay.
I think changing the words to the contest winning essay to make for a "better ending" would be way out of line.
If you don't like the script please remember it is only written by a 15 year old and not professional writers.