US military intelligence agencies have influenced over 1,800 movies and TV shows

silverharp

Interesting article on how the US DOD red or green lights movies if you need their help. Its well known but useful to be reminded when you are being led by the nose


https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/exclusive-documents-expose-direct-us-military-intelligence-influence-on-1-800-movies-and-tv-shows-36433107c307

Tom Secker and Matthew Alford report on their astonishing findings from trawling through thousands of new US military and intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

The documents reveal for the first time the vast scale of US government control in Hollywood, including the ability to manipulate scripts or even prevent films too critical of the Pentagon from being made — not to mention influencing some of the most popular film franchises in recent years.

This raises new questions not only about the way censorship works in the modern entertainment industry, but also about Hollywood’s little known role as a propaganda machine for the US national security apparatus.

....Another one-line quip that was censored by the DOD came in the James Bond film Tomorrow Never Dies.

When Bond is about to HALO jump out of a military transport plane they realise he’s going to land in Vietnamese waters. In the original script Bond’s CIA sidekick jokes ‘You know what will happen. It will be war, and maybe this time we’ll win.’

This line was removed at the request of the DOD.

Similarly Fields of Fire and Top Gun 2 were never made because they couldn’t obtain military support, again due to politically controversial aspects of the scripts.

This ‘soft’ censorship also affects TV. For example, a planned Louis Theroux documentary on Marine Corps recruit training was rejected, and as a result was never made.

Excerpts from some docs that looked into this in the past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NoFTpDzQZs

Sad Professor

I'm not sure this can be considered censorship since Hollywood always has the option to forgo Pentagon support and get the equipment elsewhere. The US military obviously isn't going to let Hollywood play with its Black Hawks or use its facilities unless they have input into the script. It's no different than a film getting the support of a corporation to use its brand or products. It means giving up creative control.

silverharp

Sad Professor wrote: »

I'm not sure this can be considered censorship since Hollywood always has the option to forgo Pentagon support and get the equipment elsewhere. The US military obviously isn't going to let Hollywood play with its Black Hawks or use its facilities unless they have input into the script. It's no different than a film getting the support of a corporation to use its brand or products. It means giving up creative control.

Its clear they don't censor movies in the traditional meaning of the word but you are left with a situation where the viewer might not be aware. I happened to watch Thirteen Days for the first time last week and you come away with a sense of the tensions between the military and President , this film was turned down for help because they pointed this out. If the film makers had folded for the quiet life the tone of the movie would have been different. So apart from you shouldn't get your history from movies you do tend to get better movies if the truth is allowed to be told. I'd fully understand turning something down where the film makers want to paint the US military in a way it doesn't behave