Semantics? Apparently More

15 Comments »

15 Responses to “Semantics? Apparently More”

1. palmtree says:

   October 26, 2006 at 11:37 am

   Marines are a type of soldier. I can see how it could be seen as an insult, but I doubt it affects anyone outside of the corps.
   “So much for love of country and patriotism, this is a different era.”
   Now THAT’S insulting.
2. Sandy says:

   October 26, 2006 at 12:38 pm

   “So much for love of country and patriotism, this is a different era.”
   Now THAT’S insulting.
   I agree – why is it that not going to see FOOF in the theaters is perceived as being unpatriotic? It all comes down to what is entertaining at the movies….I bet FOOF will do just fine on DVD…but please don’t call the generations after WWII unpatriotic.
3. Eddie says:

   October 26, 2006 at 12:45 pm

   I wasn’t aware it’s insulting to call Marine’s soldiers.
   However, commenting that it’s wrong to like a gangster movie over a WWII film is pretty nonsensical. Shouldn’t quality count more than genre?
   I’ll take pretty much any Gangster picture over Pearl Harbor, and that includes Corky Romano.
4. Wrecktum says:

   October 26, 2006 at 1:45 pm

   How about The Crew?
5. Sam says:

   October 26, 2006 at 1:57 pm

   As Ebert is fond of saying, “It’s not what it’s about, but how it’s about it.”
   Obviously in terms of historical significance, and importance in human history, the battle at Iwo Jima is far and away greater than any fictional gangster story.
   This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Flags of Our Fathers or The Departed is the better movie.
6. dangeruss says:

   October 26, 2006 at 3:34 pm

   what bothers me is that people are upset over david calling marines soldiers but nobody is discussing how FOOF failed to show any black soldiers at Iwo Jima. I know david posted the article on moviecitynews.com the other day but obviously that is less important then someone calling marines soldiers. how come marines arent making a fuxx about that?
7. Wrecktum says:

   October 26, 2006 at 3:57 pm

   Marines don’t care about that. They just don’t want to be called soldiers.
8. jeffmcm says:

   October 26, 2006 at 3:58 pm

   Because the military was segregated at this time in history – Eastwood is not going out of his way to make his movie all-white/Native American.
9. Tofu says:

   October 26, 2006 at 4:45 pm

   The designation of not calling Marines soldiers is quickly eroding in these days where we use them for far more than just water to land assualts.
10. Cadavra says:

    October 26, 2006 at 11:18 pm

    “Soldier” is now a perjorative. I am SO sick of everyone being a victim. Grow the fuck up, people!
11. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    October 27, 2006 at 12:57 am

    So who can we call soldiers, for future reference?
12. ployp says:

    October 27, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    “…I find it disheartening that a gangster movie would be the preference over one of the epic battles of World War 11.”
    I’m speechless.
13. jeffmcm says:

    October 27, 2006 at 4:44 pm

    I hadn’t even noticed that until now.
14. Blackcloud says:

    October 27, 2006 at 5:36 pm

    It’s more like World War 8 or 9, but whatever.
15. jeffmcm says:

    October 28, 2006 at 1:45 am

    Are we counting the War of Spanish Succession?