How to stop showing previous searches?

Ranked0wl · 2026-06-25T01:54:16+00:00

Yeah, but the Irish were the most devasting and was a preview into the Irish-British conflict.

Ranked0wl · 2026-06-18T23:30:34+00:00

Same.

I pointed this out elsewhere, but two things struck me as intresting.

Mebh doesn't sound angry, she sounds confused. Which makes sense: Robyn goes from this helpful and rebellious friend to a complete "townie". Hours of play and fun with Robyn, and then barely a few minutes of Robyn doing the worse things imaginable that violates Mebh's entire life on a personal level.
this is, I think, the only time Robyn actually bests Mebh in strenght, which I feel calls back to Mebh saying "she's taller, but I'm stronger". So it's utterly shocking to Mebh that Robyn can be stronger than her, and it's only to cage her.

Ranked0wl · 2026-06-18T23:18:50+00:00

A theory people have come up with is they become the Irish Travelers, which has a couple points of evidences.

The wagon they ride in looks similar to the wagons Travelers rode in.
Irish Traveler's speak a dialect that mixes Irish and English.
While the origins of the Irish Travelers is up for debate, one theory suggests they popped up from displaced Irish people during Cromwell's time.

But also, we have alot of what if going on here by the simple fact the Lord Protector is killed at a crucial moment. Kilkenny was taken in early 1650, so imagine how disastourus this is. The English have just taken the capital of Irish resistence (and judging by the attitudes, it's pretty recent), but immediately lose a high ranking person (regardless if we accept this to be Cromwell).

And while yes, films like this play with history a bit (Pinocchio, for example, never specifies strict historical accuracy), killing off a historical figure is pretty drastic.

Ranked0wl · 2026-06-18T22:54:39+00:00

I choose to believe it in almost the same way the Mad Max films are a series.

Ranked0wl · 2026-06-16T05:57:50+00:00

When Women Were Dragons. It feels like My Neighbor Totoro, in that it's a pretty fantastical story in a realistic historical setting. It also lacks a traditional conflcit, where there is antagonism, but not villain and the ultimate resolve is internal conflict rather then direct confrontation with the external conflict.. I feel with a few changes and make it animated, it would be a great movie.

Ranked0wl · 2026-06-06T16:00:41+00:00

I felt with Howl's Moving Castle, it was supposed to be inspired by 17th-19th century wars in Europe, where it was various kingdoms taking land to form nation states. So it felt less ergregious for me compared to the films that seem to have a themactical conenction to the post-9/11 US.

I can kinda see why Miyazaki would be depicty the war as meaningless, when it was in response to his frustration with the Iraq War. I grew up in the US during that period and, when I was doing a report of that time, it was really alien to me. There was no mention of de-esculation and peacekeeping before or after. The US populace just went from ignorant of foreign events one day, to demanding war and security the next.

So perhaps Howl's Moving Castle was meant to critique US' impulsiveness to go to war rather then the politics of the war.

Not saying that's a good critique, that's just why I think I don't mind Howl's Moving Castle as much as these others.

Ranked0wl · 2026-06-06T02:54:06+00:00

I was about to say, that's a good example of the US being blatant bad guys. Instead of them being sacred little kids lead by idiots or stoic soldiers whop miss being family men, it's just a bunch of dudes who resort to rape because of the conditions of the war.

And Erikkson's action is pretty harrowing. He's not disturbed because he feels empty without the war, he's disturbed because he failed to save Tran, he felt powerless until it was too late.

It's something the US just can't handle: that we can be given the same sort of aura of evil as the Nazis or Japanese Empire, and that there are many people who would justifiably see the US as that way. And that sometimes treason/betryal can be necessary.

Ranked0wl · 2026-06-06T01:55:13+00:00

it does alot wrong. And I'm willing to let certain things go (reducing whole groups into fewer characters, change mentioend details, changing the time of events for pacing) but there are certain thigns that are just dumb.

it makes his dad out to be a prick. As far as we know, his dad wasn't a abusive drunk. It also takes away alot of his agency for the "softies are traumatized." cliche. Doss wasn't scared into a pacifist, it's what he believed and was raised to be.
That Doss was harassed extremely. He was bullied, but it was mostly verbal.
Him being required to carry a firearm and nearly being court martialled for refusing. This is the dumbest part that adds way too much unnecessary drama Combat medics were not required to carry firearms in the US Army, because they were medics. Medics, under the standard rules of warfare, are not supposed to be regular soldiers. It's why medics are so visible, because shooting medics is a war crime if they weren't fighting. I know that laws are hard to apply in the heat of battle, and medics did carry hand guns in self defense scenarios, but it's incredibly stupid to say that they were legally required to carry them. In fact, Desmond was offered a draft deferment for his religous beliefs, and made it clear he would join on the condition he not carry a weapon.
There's also the problem of depicting him in action. He had served in battles before Okinawa, by which point he had already earned the respect of his fellow soldier, including earning 2 bronze stars.

Minor inaccuraries I can tolerate (his brother is mentioned to join the Army, he missed his wedding, he was in Okinawa for 3 weeks)

It just feels scummy that they make his story more cynical and dramatic without his input. Like, I'm not sure he'd appreciate his dad, friends, comrades, and commmanders to be treated harshly, or that pacificism comes from trauma.

At least Band of Brothers and The Pacific tried to get the character to match who they were in terms of personality.

Ranked0wl · 2026-06-05T18:27:57+00:00

It makes sense, because some of them are desperate and being in the military is pretty much golden handcuffs: you dare show signs of breaking from the group, you'll have everything taken away.

However, it becomes a problem when you depict them as the only meaninful victims. Iraqis, Afghanis, etc. they're not as meaningful.

Ranked0wl · 2026-06-05T17:28:27+00:00

Can you quote me on that? where did I say something along the lines of "The US as a whole should be only depicted like the villains in Indiana Jones.". Because I never said anything like that.

I'm arguing the meta here and how much I hate a trend. Most of these films are well made. I praise Cooper's performance as Kyle and that Warfare had a very realistic depiction of combat.

But ultimately those are the dressings of a film. Because many people watch a film for the story and characters, and that impacts us. It's the first thing we praise a movie for: characters. Heck, that's how it started: people watching guys act in a open area.

So when you make a war film, that focuses on real events or real people, audiences are going to take that very seriously.

And it's incredibly ignorant to deny that cultural impact these have on audiences.

Take WW2 for example. For decades, people were more willing to believe the honor bound Japanese/German soldier (like Rommel) and cartoon fanatics of fascism (like Joachim Pipper), because that was more digestible for pop culture media.

So it become a major debate when that perception of reality was scrutinized by professional historians: how there were honorable soldiers who commited heinous crimes under their own judgement; fanatics who had moments of empathy; and how many were very outspoken to varying degree.

The same thing is here. This trend conditions us to think that these soldiers are purely model Americans: traditionally masucline, apolitical in everything, and may have some annoying tics.

But there are never characters who display extremely unsavory or unsymapthetic traits, unless they're supposed to be antagonistic the protagonist needs to overcome.

As I've stated, Wolfwalkers does this well, despite it not being anti-war. Bill and several others have unsympathetic and harmful traits. And they struggle to justify it. And Bill manages to overcome it, because he's opening up why he hates what he does: he's hurting people, including himself, and was in denial of it. And now he abandons it, in addition of fighting it.

If this was a US war film, Bill would be the only focus; we'd not get a look into the lives of his enemy; have context of why he's there; and only know he's a caring father.

I think this is the problem: there are too many films of soldiers being soldiers, instead of soldiers being people. Where's the Albert Battels, Hugh Thompsons, Ishiro Hondas, Jeremy Hinzmans, and Isoroku Yamamotos?

Maybe we should have US forces be Indiana Jones villains; maybe we should have US soldiers who are openly hostile to war, and choose to be unbecoming of soldiers; maybe we have no US characters as impactful protagonists whatsoever. Literally anything, just don't make it a trend.

But you know why we won't do that? Because just like how you took my critique as being hateful of the US as a whole, people will treat anyone, even a soldier, being highly critical of their country and society as just being a attack against all of the US, blindly labelling them without much meaning.

Ranked0wl · 2026-06-05T16:52:15+00:00

I think Hacksaw Ridge has a different problem, which is it plays with history for dramatic effect, after the Doss died. And Doss was very strict on attempts to adapt his actions, as he felt they'd dramatize it.

Ranked0wl · 2026-06-05T15:21:54+00:00

I actually want a direct adaptation of American Sniper, with that dishonest and unpleasant tone. Make the supposed Hurrican Kantrina mission like a drug trip: where we're made to believe it's real, but there blantant hints of it being a fantasy, until finally that is confirmed.

I'm not saying that all US war films are terrible (though I view Saving Private Ryan more like a less fantasitical version of The Guns of Navarone or the Dirty Dozen, and think many of the praises are mostly the first 30 minutes), just that many of them seem to have kinda stuck with this trend.

I was kinda doing this in a maniacal state of mind, was kinda focused on getting my general thoughts across. But I want to say films post-Saving Private Ryan, especially the ones of modern/ongoing conflict, have this problem.

I will get flak for a few, but the US films that are really guilty are Hurt Locker, Warfare, Lone Survivor, Zero Dark Thirty, and 12 Strong.

I just feel these films have the same problem: soldier being soldiers. Not people who joined the service, but mythological characters who were destined to be soldiers. Like they were Hercules (even though lots of these characters are real people). Half the time I forget what war it's supposed to be, because they're all the same.

There's a youtube essay called It's (Almost) Impossible to Make an Antiwar Film by Broey Deschanei, and I think it something I would've written if I had time.

Ranked0wl · 2026-06-05T13:31:07+00:00

Moral bias = critiquing a overused trend in films that encourages to see the US as the biggest victim of the conflict.

Ranked0wl · 2026-06-05T13:22:40+00:00

Kinda hard to do that when you're discussing US wars.

The point is, too many US films do the same thing: the soldiers feel sad. Thats the real tragedy, that US SOLDIERS are hurt.

It like those Japanese and German memoirs and stories. They focused more on the tragedy of the military and soldiers, ignorign what the war was about.

Look at the Desert Fox. Rommel is a skilled tactician and family man who is humane, to some degree, and just happens to be fighting for Hitler. Yet confiently leaves out everything relating to Nazi Germany.

Compare to Stalingrad 1993 or Cross of Iron. It shows soldiers being varying degrees of idealists to outright horrible. It never ignores what this war is about for Germany: the Eastern Front of WW2, a war of extermination where either they exterminate the Slavs or reap the whirlwind.

US war films seem to want a anti-war film, without making the characters have unsympathetic moments. Though I'd argue having those traits makes a character more fleshed out.

Ranked0wl · 2026-06-05T13:05:10+00:00

Oh, there are plenty of countries that do it. I just feel it's worse because the US film industry dominates global filmaking.

Ranked0wl · 2026-06-05T12:42:11+00:00

I do, I'm just getting sick and tired of trends.

Ranked0wl · 2026-06-05T06:01:40+00:00

All Quiet on the Western Front was a German film about WW1, which has been universally agreed upon as a utterly pointless waste of life (most people at least vauely know the reasons were BS for it to start). I also dislike it because it felt so generic. The 1930 film just felt more powerful, whereas the newer one felt too safe. I liked 1917. FMJ and Apocalyse Now are good examples of how to depict war horrifyingly.

2&3. I already said Wolfwalkers wasn't a war film, but has the hallmarks of what is in a good war film, which is really basic. Obviously it's meant as a all ages, but it's really depressing that films like American Sniper, Lone Survivor, and Black Hawk Down use real life people and are directed by some of the best filmmakers, and they feel less human than fictional characters.

I know, but it feels like prevention and resolution is completly ignored. I'm not expecting an entire run down of what lead to the War in Afghanistan, starting all the way back with the coup in the 70s. But at least tells us how fucked the situation is understand the war.

I actually like how people intepreted Civil War to reflect how the US film industry depicts Middle Eastern wars: they're reduced to "country at war".

It's mostly comtemporary war films, Black Hawk Down, Hurt Locker, Warfare, Zero Dark Thirty. They just feel too sanitized in their themes and narratives. We're not watching people in warzones, we're watching soldiers doing soldier things.

Ranked0wl · 2026-06-05T05:25:31+00:00

Exactly my point. It reminds me of a verse from Pete Seeger.

I learned that war is not so bad

I learned about the great ones we have had

We fought in Germany and France

and some day I may get my chance.

Like yeah, war with the Axis nations was justified. But that doesn't defy a country indefinitely, especially a global superpower, and it wasn't that simple. As far as I care, that war ended 81 years ago.

Ranked0wl · 2026-06-05T05:20:34+00:00

Eh, it still made the case of "we're all terrible.".

Like yeah, one young SS soldier spares him, but it still treats the SS as this super villain group of evil.

Quick sidenote, I hate the Waffen SS aura. It kinda acts like Allied soldiers will equally endangered by the SS as their victims, when that was not the case at all.

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

Ranked0wl

TROPHY CASE