Badmovies.org Forum

Saw the trailer for this today. Anyone else feel....i donno.....odd about it comming out now? After 9/11 every thing like this is likely to have a strange feel to it. The trailer shows a nuke det, so that part of the book is intact. Don't remember who the new Jack Ryan is. Anyone have an opinion on the thing?

Ben Affleck IS Jack Ryan. Not. AKA I Was A Teenage Jack Ryan.

One deviation from the book is that the terrorists have been changed from Arabs to Neo-Nazis. Because, as we all know, there is no such thing as Arab terrorists and all Skinheads have access to nuclear devices. This film does have Morgan Freeman, who could class up a snuff film, and Tom Clancy is happy with it, so it might be all right. I always thought that whole terrorist controversy in film was rather stupid, but then I realized hat about the only time we see Arabs in American film they are trying to blow something up.

I saw this one and four other trailers before "The Scorpion King" Saturday night. In order from worst to best. That one with the spiders. The one I was trying to forget. Thanks for reminding me! "Undercover Brother." Ludlum's "Bourne Identity" w/ Matt Damon. After each of those, I was about ready to shoot myself. I still might shoot myself, if this is the direction that American films are going. Then, Clancy's "Sum of All Fears," which did not make me want to shoot myself, but neither did it make me want to see it. Then the one, that I was hot for, and thought I might see. "Reign of Fire." That looks like a good one, and I am waiting for it to open in about six weeks. Enjoy!

J.R. said "Tom Clancy is happy with it, so it might be all right. "

Actually, that sounds terrible to me, considering the guy's books look closer with each release to "Walker, Texas ranger", (that is, unbeliable, fascist, racist, sexist, badly build, stereotypical and maniqueist) and that his only decent book yet is "The hunt for Red october". And he took the story from a computer game...

Anyway, considering the materials in which they are based, the films based on the Jack Ryan series are not that bad. At least they provide a more modern and more acurate vision of spionage than the James Bond franchise and some spectacularity.

Um....."Maniqueist"? Never heard that word, Nev. What do it mean? Also, specificly what are the Racist,sexist,fascist elements that you have in mind. I , for what ever reason, don't quite see those in the materials named. What did i miss? Just curious.

I'm wondering the same thing.

The switch from Arab terrorists to Nazis is interesting. Anybody know the reasoning behind this? My guess would be that they don't want this movie to be based too much in reality, although I'm sure people will make the connection anyway. There is also the stereotyping issue. Who's going to be offended by negative portrayals of Nazis? A few kooks.

Generally, I'd be against messing with the material to that degree. In this case, I think it's a good idea, purely from a perspective of entertainment. I was getting a little tired of seeing Arab terrorists as villains (and Russian mobsters and Colombian drug lords). Even James Bond has been fighting foes a little too close to the bad guys on the six o'clock news. A Nazi conspiracy is more creative.

> The switch from Arab terrorists to Nazis is interesting

And bizzare.  The whole setup for "Sum Of All Fears" is the backstory behind the bad guys finding the unexploded bomb.  If they switch to Nazis, they have to change a lot of the story

Not having read a Clancy novel, I have a bit of an advantage in this situation. As long as the changes are handled well, I think I'll enjoy it.

Fans of Clancy's novels, on the other hand, will undoubtedly be more critical.

I always find that having a favourite novel filmed usually leads to disappointment, whether that be because the movie failed to meet expectations or simply because the book gave away all the surprises. There have been times I've avoided a particular book because I knew it was the basis for an upcoming movie I wanted to see. Likewise, seeing the movie first can often spoil a book in the same way.

When it comes to Clancy novels, and indeed most novels turned into movies, the novels are too rich and complex to be adequately potrayed.  I usually just view the movie as a visual synopsis of the story in the book, with my memory and imagination filling in the details

Uhmmm... I guess I was too carried away by my personal hate against Mr. Clancy. I'll try to elaborate without loosing perspective this time...

1) "Maniqueist": I guess it is a direct translation from Spanish. Normally I check all the words I write. OK, it means that characters are too flat, "good guys" are good guys and "bad guys" are bad guys. Full stop. no possible doubt, no questions about the matter. This is not necesarily bad in a fiction; someone have to play baddies, that's the way it is. However, Clancy's books are supposed to reflect actual and complex political situations, and criminalising a whole country or colective is against the objectivity this requires. However, this causes a major problem in Clancy's narrative, since a lot of space and literally hundreds of pages are dedicated to clarify (as if it was necesary!) how good are the good guys and how bad are the bad guys.

2) Racist: Clancy's portrayal of any race (except white americans) is not only stereotypical but also offensive in many cases. This also affects other religions other than christianism. See for more details the treatment of japanese and their culture in "Debt of honor" or the muslim and hindu in the volumes of "Executive orders".

2) Fascist: Apart from the fact that in all his novels he defends the idea that the US should carry all kinds of operations outside the USA with the least excuse is at least questionable. I think there's a couple of lines in the US Constitution about it, considering that this should be done in "case of clear and present danger" only, a sentence that Cancy mentions in the novel of the same type. In the second volume of "Executive orders" almost anybody with a liberal opinion turns out to be either wrong or an enemy of Ryan, specially the media. Personally, I consider  political pluralism a signal of the good health of a democracy, and I think that the media should also keep an eye on governments to denounce any presumed irregularity. Considering that in the novel Ryan is "elected" president of the USA in hummmnn... irregular conditions, that some people doubt about it should be considered perfectly normal.

Also, in the novel "Without remorse", an ex-marine decides to kill several people who killed his girlfriend and wounded him. Of course, and in an style that would make Charles Bronson green of envy, any people or organisms (including Police!) that try to do anything except taking justice into his own hands are either stupid, evil or incompetent. What's worst, Clancy is openly in favour of the "vigilante" attitude of his character and tries to convince us that everything he does (including a gruesome torture scene) is not only right but also honourable and the only proper way to handle the situation. Personally, I can understand a person's pain after such a traumatic incident, and also the hate against the murderers, but saying that this is the only possible solution is just plain stupid, and to call it justice a lie.

OK, hope this clarifies everything I said before. If you have any more questions, ask them. Only question I won't answer is why I keep on reading Clancy's books, and only because I don't know it myself.

Uhmmm... I guess I was too carried away by my personal hate against Mr. Clancy. I'll try to elaborate without loosing perspective this time...

1) "Maniqueist": I guess it is a direct translation from Spanish. Normally I check all the words I write. OK, it means that characters are too flat, "good guys" are good guys and "bad guys" are bad guys. Full stop. no possible doubt, no questions about the matter. This is not necesarily bad in a fiction; someone have to play baddies, that's the way it is. However, Clancy's books are supposed to reflect actual and complex political situations, and criminalising a whole country or colective is against the objectivity this requires. However, this causes a major problem in Clancy's narrative, since a lot of space and literally hundreds of pages are dedicated to clarify (as if it was necesary!) how good are the good guys and how bad are the bad guys.

2) Racist: Clancy's portrayal of any race (except white americans) is not only stereotypical but also offensive in many cases. This also affects other religions other than christianism. See for more details the treatment of japanese and their culture in "Debt of honor" or the muslim and hindu in the volumes of "Executive orders".

2) Fascist: Apart from the fact that in all his novels he defends the idea that the US should carry all kinds of operations outside the USA with the least excuse is at least questionable. I think there's a couple of lines in the US Constitution about it, considering that this should be done in "case of clear and present danger" only, a sentence that Cancy mentions in the novel of the same type. In the second volume of "Executive orders" almost anybody with a liberal opinion turns out to be either wrong or an enemy of Ryan, specially the media. Personally, I consider  political pluralism a signal of the good health of a democracy, and I think that the media should also keep an eye on governments to denounce any presumed irregularity. Considering that in the novel Ryan is "elected" president of the USA in hummmnn... irregular conditions, that some people doubt about it should be considered perfectly normal.

Also, in the novel "Without remorse", an ex-marine decides to kill several people who killed his girlfriend and wounded him. Of course, and in an style that would make Charles Bronson green of envy, any people or organisms (including Police!) that try to do anything except taking justice into his own hands are either stupid, evil or incompetent. What's worst, Clancy is openly in favour of the "vigilante" attitude of his character and tries to convince us that everything he does (including a gruesome torture scene) is not only right but also honourable and the only proper way to handle the situation. Personally, I can understand a person's pain after such a traumatic incident, and also the hate against the murderers, but saying that this is the only possible solution is just plain stupid, and to call it justice a lie.

OK, hope this clarifies everything I said before. If you have any more questions, ask them. Only question I won't answer is why I keep on reading Clancy's books, and only because I don't know it myself.

Uhmmm... I guess I was too carried away by my personal hate against Mr. Clancy. I'll try to elaborate without loosing perspective this time...

1) "Maniqueist": I guess it is a direct translation from Spanish. Normally I check all the words I write. OK, it means that characters are too flat, "good guys" are good guys and "bad guys" are bad guys. Full stop. no possible doubt, no questions about the matter. This is not necesarily bad in a fiction; someone have to play baddies, that's the way it is. However, Clancy's books are supposed to reflect actual and complex political situations, and criminalising a whole country or colective is against the objectivity this requires. However, this causes a major problem in Clancy's narrative, since a lot of space and literally hundreds of pages are dedicated to clarify (as if it was necesary!) how good are the good guys and how bad are the bad guys.

2) Racist: Clancy's portrayal of any race (except white americans) is not only stereotypical but also offensive in many cases. This also affects other religions other than christianism. See for more details the treatment of japanese and their culture in "Debt of honor" or the muslim and hindu in the volumes of "Executive orders".

2) Fascist: Apart from the fact that in all his novels he defends the idea that the US should carry all kinds of operations outside the USA with the least excuse is at least questionable. I think there's a couple of lines in the US Constitution about it, considering that this should be done in "case of clear and present danger" only, a sentence that Cancy mentions in the novel of the same type. In the second volume of "Executive orders" almost anybody with a liberal opinion turns out to be either wrong or an enemy of Ryan, specially the media. Personally, I consider  political pluralism a signal of the good health of a democracy, and I think that the media should also keep an eye on governments to denounce any presumed irregularity. Considering that in the novel Ryan is "elected" president of the USA in hummmnn... irregular conditions, that some people doubt about it should be considered perfectly normal.

Also, in the novel "Without remorse", an ex-marine decides to kill several people who killed his girlfriend and wounded him. Of course, and in an style that would make Charles Bronson green of envy, any people or organisms (including Police!) that try to do anything except taking justice into his own hands are either stupid, evil or incompetent. What's worst, Clancy is openly in favour of the "vigilante" attitude of his character and tries to convince us that everything he does (including a gruesome torture scene) is not only right but also honourable and the only proper way to handle the situation. Personally, I can understand a person's pain after such a traumatic incident, and also the hate against the murderers, but saying that this is the only possible solution is just plain stupid, and to call it justice a lie.

OK, hope this clarifies everything I said before. If you have any more questions, ask them. Only question I won't answer is why I keep on reading Clancy's books, and only because I don't know it myself.

Excellent clarification there.

The Warden over at prisonflicks.com (I think that's what it is) in a post over at jabootu called Clancy a crypto fascist.  I concur, but have only read Debt of Honor (someday I'll read the others), still I found the manner in which the media was used be the government to LIE to the world disturbing and thought provoking.

One other thing is for sure, Clancy needs an editor!

Hummm...fair enough. Also, Nev, thanks for teaching me a new word. It certianly applys to Chuck Norris. When he walks by an acting school, the teachers must point out the window and shout, "Tim-bur!". You'd think he'd fear termites. I can see the reason for annoiance at too broad a brush on the Good guys/bad guys thing. While some individuals could be painted so, if for no other reason, the total effect they have of civilisation, most people are a mix of good and bad traits. My Mirror reminds me of that every day. As i've been watching Gundam 0083 on Adult Swim, i can appreciate the working in the human qualites of the villians. Its amazing how understandable the character of Gato is. His pride and arrogance have led him to a path that leads to a bloody war. Yet, his basic motives are comprehencible. Corse, that defines most of mans history, eh?

>I always thought that whole terrorist controversy in film was rather stupid, but then
>I realized hat about the only time we see Arabs in American film they are trying to
>blow something up.

 Not true! In Not Without My Daughter they were shown basically kidnapping a woman and her daughter! Oh, and in Three Kings, many of them were falling over over themselves to surrender to the US soldiers.

>The switch from Arab terrorists to Nazis is interesting. Anybody know the
>reasoning behind this?

 Because it's been deemed politically incorrect to acknowledge the truth; that the vast majority of terrorists plotting against America are from the middle east.

 We're not supposed to acknowledge the fact that something like 90% of the people in the middle east hate the US with a passion, that most Muslim children are taunt from birth that the US is evil incarnate and that the only education most children are given is a twisted interpretation of the Koran and lessons in how to build car bombs.

Gaaaah! Neville makes good points (in spite of the triple-post); I find many of these same features in the godawful crap pooped out by Clive Cussler on a regular basis. The idiotic scenes in Dragon in which an American admiral and a Japanese supervillain scream at each other about porn, child molesters, school bullies, rapists and subway gropers--as if these were all exclusively Japanese--made me huck the thing in the trash where it belonged. I was so happy that the movie version of Raise The Titanic! was such a complete and awesome screw-up; it probably cost Cussler potential readers.