Why Marines?

[Flying Pig]

AFAIK, apart from SEC reasons, they can't, but film-makers normally ask if it's OK to make a film about a specific unit.

 

[Aegis]

(you also don't pick your job in the marines, so I would assume that a lot of people are doing jobs that wasn't their first pick).

This is not true. You can choose your job in the Marines just like you can in any of the other branches of service.

 

[Ecofarm]

This is not true. You can choose your job in the Marines just like you can in any of the other branches of service.

In 1994, you didn't get to pick as an enlisted man. When did that change? I remember someone correcting me on this before, but I don't remember when it changed or the cirumtances when one gets to pick.

Delta was created after and because of that debacle.

Thanks for the info.

@Ecofarm. What do you mean by "consent" by the US Army or Marines for various movies? Can't people just make any movies they please about such things? Is it a matter of not having the service's help in terms of details, equipment, etc.? Or can they literally veto any such portrayal of themselves?

As far as I can figure, it is like this: One can make a semi-fictional movie about supermarkets, but not about Publix or Wholefoods Markets. Similarly, if you want to make a semi-fictional movie about the military, you can do so... but if you want a brand or company name (in this case, branch or unit) to be used (Army, Marines, 82nd, etc) then you need permission just like you would for making any other fictional film involving a real entity. Otherwise, people could say "this is a semi-fictional film about the 82nd" and have them slaughtering civilians for fun and then eating them. You can have generic military people do that, but if you want to put a real person's name or a real entity on it, you gotta get permission.

Screenwriter James Carabatsos, a Vietnam veteran of the 1st Cavalry Division, had a previous hit with both the critics and the public in his Vietnam War film Hamburger Hill. Inspired by an account of American paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division using a pay telephone and a credit card to call in fire support during the invasion of Grenada, Carabatsos fashioned a script of a Korean War veteran career Army non-commissioned officer taking his values to a new generation of soldiers. Clint Eastwood was interested in the script and asked his producer, Fritz Manes, to contact the US Army with a view of filming the movie at Fort Bragg.[1]

However, the U.S. Army read the script and refused to participate, due to Highway being portrayed as a hard drinker, divorced from his wife, and using unapproved motivational methods to his troops, an image the Army did not want.[2] The army called the character a "stereotype" of World War II and Korean War attitudes that did not exist in the modern army and also did not like the obscene dialogue and lack of reference to women in the army.[3] Clint Eastwood pleaded his case to an Army general, contending that while the point of the film was that Sgt. Highway was a throwback to a previous generation, there were values in the World War II and Korean War army that were worth emulating.

Eastwood approached the United States Marine Corps, which expressed some reservations about some bits of the film, but provided support. The character was then changed to a Marine. (This raised some conceptual difficulties, given that the Battle of Heartbreak Ridge primarily involved the U.S. Army. This is explained very briefly in the film when Sergeant Major Choozoo tells some of the younger troops that he and Highway were in the 2nd Infantry Division at the time and "joined the Corps later.") The Marine Corps first cooperated with the film project by allowing much of the filming to be done at Camp Pendleton. The Marines planned to use it to promote its "Toys for Tots" campaign, but upon viewing a first cut, quickly disowned the film because of the language. Marines who viewed the film cited numerous issues with the way they were portrayed. Highway's commanding officer is repeatedly shown disparaging and insulting him. In reality, this would have been extremely unlikely, given Highway's Medal of Honor award. Much of the "training" done before the Grenada invasion was highly inaccurate. Even on a relatively small budget, the technical advice was poor. The US Defense Department originally supported the film, but withdrew its backing after seeing a preview in November 1986.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbreak_Ridge


Were the (ex, I hear) Marines in Avatar specifically US Marines (a real entity), or just Earth Marines (a generic entity)?

 

[capslock]

Well, the main dude wears an Eagle, Globe, and Anchor t-shirt, so I'm guessing US Marines.

I know of a Marine PR officer in LA that worked a little with the film, so that would make sense.

On a somewhat related note, Hollywood came down to my office to shoot some scenes for a new movie. It was pretty cool, I had about 10 of my Marines acting as extras. It was funny, though, the dumpster behind our PX was really full, so they parked a humvee in front of it so it wouldn't get on film, lol. And they raked all the leaves on the grass into neat little piles.

Anyway, anytime they're making a movie about a service, there is some kind of coordination. We have PR guys to handle it.

 

[GinandTonic]

Are you saying that if the UK had the same rules the express permission of the Black and Tans would have been legally required to make The Wind That Shakes the Barley and the permission of the Parachute Reg to make Bloody Sunday?

 

[say1988]

Pretty sure that approval is not required to make a film using their names, but if you portray the military that badly you will face other problems.

It is needed to get aid in the form of access to equipment and personnel (for cheap or no cost), though.

 

[GinandTonic]

Pretty sure that approval is not required to make a film using their names, but if you portray the military that badly you will face other problems.

It is needed to get aid in the form of access to equipment and personnel (for cheap or no cost), though.

Well Eco does seem to say that if you were to use regimental names - even branch names - them in the US explicit permission would be a legal requirement.

but if you want a brand or company name (in this case, branch or unit) to be used (Army, Marines, 82nd, etc) then you need permission

If thats right that is the most grotesque infringement on free speech. The legal implications would shame a police state.

 

[say1988]

Well Eco does seem to say that if you were to use regimental names - even branch names - them in the US explicit permission would be a legal requirement.

I would like to see a source for that. IIRC "Crimson Tide" never received any backing from the Pentagon (which is pretty reasonable for them) and was expressly a US Navy vessel (to teh extent that parts were filmed by having a helicopter just fly over when a Navy sub was put to sea with no military involvement).
I also seem to recall Stargate claiming to be the only TV show with Air Force approval, yet there are plenty that reference it and units.

It also doesn't make any sense for historically based films. I can go ahead and make a film about a company and use their name, so long as I am telling the truth about it (and therefore be open for a libel suit).

It may be needed for entirely fictional stories, though I doubt it.

 

[Flying Pig]

Are you saying that if the UK had the same rules the express permission of the Black and Tans would have been legally required to make The Wind That Shakes the Barley and the permission of the Parachute Reg to make Bloody Sunday?

They probably would have faced a problem if they wanted maroon berets and DPM, since it's technically illegal to impersonate a member of HM armed forces. How permission generally works is that (for example) when filming Bravo Two Zero the producers needed accurate equipment and tactics, so they asked around the ministry and got military people (I don't think they actually got the SAS) and kit to play with.

 

[Traitorfish]

Were the (ex, I hear) Marines in Avatar specifically US Marines (a real entity), or just Earth Marines (a generic entity)?

Well, the main dude wears an Eagle, Globe, and Anchor t-shirt, so I'm guessing US Marines.

I was under the impression that it was some sort of Megacorp/quasi-colonial-government entity, of the East India Trading Company variety. That said, in American cinema "Pan-global Government = USA, etc.", so it may as well be. (You'd think a Canadian would be a bit better about that, but apparently not...)

Are you saying that if the UK had the same rules the express permission of the Black and Tans would have been legally required to make The Wind That Shakes the Barley...

Would those sort of rules even apply to obsolete organisations? Nobody ever asks for permission to use Red Army or Waffen SS insignia, after all (...do they?)

 

[Bugfatty300]

I´m pretty sure that the names of all goverment entities are public domain.

FBI, CIA, United States Marine Corps, Army of the Patomac, 101st Airborn Division are not registered trademarks as far as I know.

Film makers rely on the military to provide them with equipment. The military reviews the script and if they think it portrays the government or military in a negative light then they will not provide aide to that movie production but the film makers do not need permission to do anything.

 

[bhsup]

Well... Chicago (the band) had to change their name from Chicago Transit Authority over legal use of the name issue.

 

[capslock]

They probably would have faced a problem if they wanted maroon berets and DPM, since it's technically illegal to impersonate a member of HM armed forces. How permission generally works is that (for example) when filming Bravo Two Zero the producers needed accurate equipment and tactics, so they asked around the ministry and got military people (I don't think they actually got the SAS) and kit to play with.

Link to video.

Hmmm. Nice use of Phil Collins at the end.

I can't wait to see this movie they filmed at my camp and see how they make it look. edtit: Its called Battlefield LA, I think, lol, some sci fi movie about aliens pwntin LA. Harvey Dent is the lead, Michelle Rodriquez is in it as well.

 

[say1988]

Just because a professional advises doesn't mean the filmmakers take advantage of it, either for practical, artistic or any other reasons.

 

[capslock]

I know, thats why I'm looking foward to seeing this movie. I just remembered that clip specifically because our instructors showed it to us at TBS as a joke.

 

[say1988]

I'm going to try and catch that, now

 

[Ecofarm]

As far as I can figure, it is like this:

1. I'm not sure how it works.

But I think one cannot just put private company names in movies without permission. Right? One cannot just put "The Gap" in a movie without permission. Why should it be different for government entities? They have the right not to be slandered too. Why should private companies have the right to reject such portrayals, but not the military?

People could still make the film, but to put someone's name in it they need permission from that entity. Seems fair to me. Make your film and say it is your impression of what happened somewhere with some unit, just don't use the names. You only get to use the names (remember, service members have privacy rights too - just like other citizens) if you get permission.

Am I allowed to make a film called "McDonalds" and create a semi-fictional film about them? No.

Remember, we are talking about fiction here. You can make all the documentaries you want about whatever... but if you are making a fictional (semi) film about something... you can't just pick any target you want and invent stuff with their name on it... that's libel.

Freedom of speech does not, and should not, include the right to libel anyone you want with fiction.

 

[GinandTonic]

1. I'm not sure how it works.

But I think one cannot just put private company names in movies without permission. Right? One cannot just put "The Gap" in a movie without permission. Why should it be different for government entities? They have the right not to be slandered too. Why should private companies have the right to reject such portrayals, but not the military?

People could still make the film, but to put someone's name in it they need permission from that entity. Seems fair to me. Make your film and say it is your impression of what happened somewhere with some unit, just don't use the names. You only get to use the names (remember, service members have privacy rights too - just like other citizens) if you get permission.

Am I allowed to make a film called "McDonalds" and create a semi-fictional film about them? No.

Remember, we are talking about fiction here. You can make all the documentaries you want about whatever... but if you are making a fictional (semi) film about something... you can't just pick any target you want and invent stuff with their name on it... that's libel.

Freedom of speech does not, and should not, include the right to libel anyone you want with fiction.

Just to get your specific position clear.

You are saying that no film of the events of bloody sunday should be allowed to be created or circulated without the express legal permission of the c/o of the paras? Allowing, of course, that the paras are represented as being paras?

You argue that the state should have veto rights over history itself?

 

[Ecofarm]

I'm saying that the person or entity portrayed, government or private, should have veto rights over FICTIOUS portrayals of themselves.

You cannot just invent crap and put anyone's name on it that you want.

We're not talking about history. We are talking about fictious movies.


Do you think I should be allowed to make a movie called GinandTonic and just invent a bunch of BS about you and tough crap on you??

Freedom of speech does not protect libel. I don't know where you got the idea it should, but it doesn't and it shouldn't.

 

[GinandTonic]

I'm saying that the person or entity portrayed, government or private, should have veto rights over FICTIOUS portrayals of themselves.

You cannot just invent crap and put anyone's name on it that you want.

We're not talking about history. We are talking about fictious movies.

Really? Did you see The Patriot or Master and Commander?

So clearly after two hundred years writing a slanderous fiction is ok despite the institutions being slandered being contiguous entities. Given you clearly believe that 40 years is too short a time that does raise the issue of where between 200 - 40 years you believe the cut off is and why?