Not only did he call it "pathetic" but he said the ending was the dumbest thing he had ever seen, he said the movie that most captured the Vietnam war was We Were Soldiers with Mel Gibson. Thoughts?
-Carter Thomas Krebs, From WIsconsin
Not my experience.
At the time of the film's release, it was widely heralded by many, many Vietnam veterans' groups as the finest, most accurate film about Vietnam ever made. The writer/ director Oliver Stone is, himself, a twice decorated Vietnam veteran. In 1986, when the film was released, it did not receive any negative reaction, really. It was a box office smash, a critical favorite, and won all the top awards. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, a number of veterans groups bestowed honors on the film, and it was one of the most honored films of its era.
As to the film itself, while a work of fiction, it has many elements that are inspired by actual events. The early scenes, in particular, are almost exactly Stone's own personal experience there. Plus the overall look, speech, feel of the place is conveyed perfectly. The infamous village massacre sequence is loosely based on My Lai, the Cambodian invasion is referenced, and the final bombing campaign is also based a real battle. The dueling sergeants, with the young grunt in the middle, looking up at both of them, is a fictional metaphor on the duality of war, and the internal struggle to fight and win and survive a war, while at the same time keeping one's morality and humanity in tact. It is a beautiful powerful, realistic AND artistic triumph. The battle scenes were also widely acclaimed for their authenticity.
By turn, I TOO spoke with several vets many years ago, and the reactions were, "I couldn't handle seeing it, because it took me back there more than any other movie. It is as close as a movie can get.", "Well, not all of those things happened to one outfit, but all of those things HAPPENED."
I've only JUST begun to hear negative backlash against the film in recent years, years and years after it was long considered a classic, and mostly from younger guys or guys who fall on the far extreme right end of today's very hostile political spectrum. In short, Reagan era Republicans loved the film, neo-cons of today do not. It isn't jingoistic enough for them. And after 9/11, that's all they want to hear, is total flag- waving.
On a final note, a Vietnam vet I've known for many years called "We Were Soldiers" nonsense.
So, it's all in the eye of the beholder at the time, I suppose.
From what I heard when this movie came out (I was 11), Vietnam veterans hated it. Based on that, I never even dared to mention this movie to any Vietnam veteran, until about 5 years later when I was 16. He hated Platoon and when I asked him if there were any good movies about the Vietnam war, he recommended Hamburger Hill (1987).
The reason that so many veterans hated this movie is obvious; most of the major characters were at best a loser and/or a coward and/or a "druggie", and at worst a pillager and/or a murderer and/or a rapist. Who would want to be portrayed like that?
I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.
Plus some of Marine Captain Dale Dye's, the Technical Advisor, experiences too. He and Oliver Stone put the actors through a mini boot camp. Dye even said there were no stuffed packs, all the rucks had the correct amount of weight in them. They were also expected to behave as a platoon when the cameras weren't on.
sharea trick dye used in BoB: he kept the cast 'in character' all the time on & off camera.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
Not only did he call it "pathetic" but he said the ending was the dumbest thing he had ever seen, he said the movie that most captured the Vietnam war was We Were Soldiers with Mel Gibson. Thoughts?
Probably.
And I bit,too. I feel kind of dumb, now. I wrote a long, well-thought out post for someone who will never read it, and was trying to get a rise out of someone.
A good clue is when a post ends in, "Thoughts?", or "Discuss".
I apologize, I didn't check this in a while. I was not trolling at all. I am serious when he called this movie pathetic. He also called The Deer Hunter pathetic. I'm sorry if you felt I was trying to be coy with you, as was not my intention
-Carter Thomas Krebs, From WIsconsin
Oh, no problem, then.
sharePlease don't feel dumb! I read your post and loved your take on the film, it makes me want to view it again after all these years to see how it holds up.
Not only did he call it "pathetic" but he said the ending was the dumbest thing he had ever seen, he said the movie that most captured the Vietnam war was We Were Soldiers with Mel Gibson. Thoughts?
You don't have to get hostile. I was just wondering what you guys thought of this. I for one was shocked at what this man said to me, after hearing the realism of this movie.
-Carter Thomas Krebs, From WIsconsin
You don't have to get hostile.
I was just wondering what you guys thought of this.
I for one was shocked at what this man said to me, after hearing the realism of this movie.
I'm getting hostile? That's certainly news to me. I don't think I'm being hostile at all.
Okay, and why should I, or anyone else care at all what the Vietnam vet that you allegedly spoke with said about the movie 'Platoon'? Or, any movie for that matter. I missed that part.
You start you response with this:
"Okay, and why should I, or anyone else care at all what the Vietnam vet that you allegedly spoke with said about the movie 'Platoon'?"
Then go on to tell what your "vet" father thought of the movie....
Why should anyone care what he thought?
[deleted]
As a Vietnam vet who was drafted and was obviously not killed I agree with your father. We came home to derision at worst and ignored at best. Today everyone is a hero who serves wherever. Back then it was the total opposite. The guys who served in a very unpopular war deserve great credit in my opinion. If I had known how the people would treat us when we got back, and that idiot Jimmy Carter would give all the draft dodgers in Canada amnesty, I would have gone north. Your dad did right!
shareAmazing how we are brainwashed to political correctness that we "see" things that aren't there. The end of the movie does not say, "This movie is dedicated to the men and woman who fought and died in the Vietnam War". It says, "Dedicated to the men who fought and died in the Vietnam War". There were no women combat troops in Vietnam. Of the 2,594,000 who served in Vietnam, only 7,484 were women, of which 6,250, or 83.5%, were nurses. The majority of the rest were admin types. Only 8 women died, of which 5 were accidents (aircraft crashes), 2 were illnesses, and one died in a rocket attack on the base.
So, the movie is correctly dedicated to the men who fought and died.
Not all of the Vets I know 'like' the 'drugs/atrocities/fragging' cliches but they ALL agreed the 'environment' was dead on: The bugs, the ants, the heat, the humidity, the jungle, the vines, the thorns...
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
The thing with Vietnam vets is if you ask 10 different people about their experiences there you will get 10 different answers. Most I have seen said this movie got way more right than wrong.
Haters gonna hate
True; the story varies on what part of the country they served in; what year they were there & even what unit they were in. For Ex: The experiences of a Marine in the Hill Fights in 1966 would be substantially different from an unwilling draftee in 1970 serving with the AmeriCal Division as they would from a district level MAT Advisor or a CAP Marine.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
Oliver Stone has always had a reputation as angry, biased, and subversive. Maybe this is the truth, maybe it isn't. The jungle environment and combat to me are nothing short of believable. But to portray the drinking and non drug using soldiers as without morals, hateful, stupid, uneducated, and violent and the druggies as decent and compassionate. Wrong
shareYour friend is correct. I've been arguing with another poster on a thread for the piece of crap movie "1969." He said Platoon is one of the best--it isn't. I said We Were Soldiers is one of the best. The thread is named "Complete Crap."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094594/board/nest/62945066?ref_=tt_bd_1
As a Vietnam Vet this movie came closest to what I experienced. As was said in another post, all this didn't happen to me but it all happened in the time frame 1967-1968 when I was there. People ask me what was it like and I say watch "Platoon".
shareDon't believe him.
Unless he was only referring to the physical detail of the movie. Not the action.
This is a weird fact but in a poll of Vietnam Veterans the vast majority have nothing but positive thoughts about their experience while they were there. Of course, most vets weren't infantry slogging in the jungle. There were medics, pilots, sailors, mechanics, communications centers, REMF's in Saigon etc.
Shall we play a game?
True, haynese. The best estimates of how many Vietnam veterans experienced close combat is about 5%. That is: 5 out of every 100. Our presence there was a big logistical monster.
A good book, Armed With Abundance, explains it. Including the fact that REMFs in Vietnam played a large part in negatively stereotyping true close combat vets. Many REMFs, when polled later, revealed the easy life they had in Nam.
Though some close combat vets, like myself, are proud of having fought there; and didn't adopt the beleaguered-victim routine.
Armed With Abundance: I recommend it.
Well it might be a bit more: Redlegs/Arty/cannon cockers, Chopper Jockies, Motor Pool Truckers, Treadheads, district level mobile advisors all got to 'enjoy the tropics' to an extent--probably not as much as the average 11B rifleman...
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
I acknowledge your slightly indirect recognition that there were different degrees of combat, especially that 11B grunts were distinctly close-combat.
shareI once read an account by a soldier in the jungle who said the Remf's wouldn't always ship them their mail from home, sometimes going so far as to eat the home bakes cookies that moms had shipped to them. This has always angered me to no end.
Shall we play a game?
Yes, that did happen.
The "brotherhood" was largely myth. The schism between close-combatants and others is wide. The schism tends not to lend itself to discussion. Close-combatants are way outnumbered and the others resent the rejection of equivalence.
Thanks for your service brother.....you have just voiced what I have felt was a vast injustice to those of us who saw action weekly (I flew a UH-1C gunship in '66/'67 Central highlands), and we were in on everything that went on for a 100 mile radius (my one regret is that theree never seem to be any gunships in these movies - and the air assault in Apocalypse Now was comic book *beep*
There is a HUGE difference between a Viet Nam "veteran" and a "combat veteran". Not taking away anything from anyone ripped from home for 12 months in that cesspool, but there really needs to be a delineation when passing out the accolades. Theater ribbons and unit ribbons simply don't stack up to the Air Medals, Bronze stars, and purple Hearts that some of us can wear proudly.
Whatever our government's motivations, we can sleep at night knowing we did what we could to serve America, and I have never regretted a single moment my time there. Being so close to death so often makes one appreciate life that much more.
Be well, and live long.
This post makes sense, but perhaps not to non-combat veterans. There is a huge difference between a campaign ribbon and a combat action ribbon, or equivalent. Lots of armchair warriors with desk-driving ribbons who try to represent as combat experienced. Our military tends to take a whole host of support billets with it to support the warfighter a who truly are at the tip of the spear.
This is also why so many that served in a given campaign have such different impressions of what happened there and what did not happen there.
Well said, and thanks. Unfortunately, it isn't just the non-combat vets that need to take a step back....the public in general is completely clueless as well.
It should be painfully obvious that the view thru the cockpit windshield of my Huey would be considerably different from the view out of a hangar in Nha Trang.
One generalization that holds pretty true in my experience is that those who actually participated in close quarters combat are the least likely to talk about it, and that as one's service gets farther away from actual combat, the more that they have to say about thier service.
My wife's one great uncle was on Guadalcanal and never ever spoke one word about having served. Her other great uncle was a tanker in Patton's third army in Europe and also would not talk about it. A friend I have known and worked with for almost 25 years was a combat wounded SeaBee in Vietnam, and I knew him for over ten years before I knew it. He will not talk about it, although he did once refer to his position being overrun by the enemy, which resulted in many casualties. No details were shared.
A good friend was an F 8 fighter jock off of carriers at Yankee Station, and his squadron lost over half. He survived an ejection, and his brother, also a F8 fighter jock, ejected twice. They would only talk about the jet pilot parts of thier wartime experience.
Can't imagine the brass cojones it would take to fly a Huey into that.
Not really cojones, but a sense of duty, to the country and our brothers in arms. The one thing we had with relatives (both yours and mine)who fought 2 decades earlier (and directly opposite to how war is conducted today) was the need to actually see the enemy to kill them - no magical equipment to insulate us from that specific act of violence.
Like many you have mentioned, I am not prone to discussions about my service unless specifically asked to. We are not interested in any long-lasting glory (we know what we did, and why) - a simple 'Thank You' from the general populace would have been sufficient (and nice, too).
Thanks for the forum, and for being as understanding as you are of the 'combat' soldiers' true nature....humble, but proud.
That's his opinion, obviously. I had an uncle in Vietnam and he was a part of the regiment that was attacked at the end of the film. He also stated that it was the closest Vietnam film to capturing the experience that he'd ever seen...so much so that he said he could barely watch it.
shareThe problem with the "never talked about it" phenomenon is that it created a stigma. If you talk about it then you are lying. And not talking about it is what people with resentments of various kinds want: e.g. poor performance in combat, jealousy, and so-called anti-war stances, etc. It's as if combat vets are being told to not talk about it, or else.
Still, it's amazing that so much is known about combat vets who don't talk about it. And what of the ones who write books about it or who have Purple Heart license plates?
On par with Godfather I and II.
Yeh,I was there.