ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 7172
Feb 6 10 8:46 PM
Middle 12 wrote:Punisher89 wrote:I am surprised that the Captain America filmed hasn't been renamed Captain United Nations... The UN isn't as popular as it used to be. Cap's official title in the movie will be "Captain Green Earth".
Punisher89 wrote:I am surprised that the Captain America filmed hasn't been renamed Captain United Nations...
Posts: 6778
Feb 6 10 9:53 PM
Posts: 21249
Feb 6 10 10:17 PM
Registered Member
Posts: 10961
Feb 7 10 5:27 AM
alizarin1 wrote: Quote: Middle 12 wrote: And finally, if you really want to see a good-live action Sgt. Rock, the 1960's COMBAT series is available on DVD. I remember watching Combat on television back then thinking the same thing. But that's probably even closer to the truth than you may realize, primarily as far as the time frame is concerned. For my money, the best opportunity for mounting a truly classic cinematic adaptation of Sgt. Rock was during the early to mid-1960s; the era of big budget A-list war pictures like The Longest Day and The Guns of Navarone. Highly unlikely in the extreme, I know, but that would have been ideal. For in addition, the other main reason for choosing that decade is that the perfect major film star was available in his prime to fill the title role. Which would be Robert Mitchum... That's Sgt. Rock right there.
Quote: Middle 12 wrote: And finally, if you really want to see a good-live action Sgt. Rock, the 1960's COMBAT series is available on DVD.
Quote:
Middle 12 wrote:
And finally, if you really want to see a good-live action Sgt. Rock, the 1960's COMBAT series is available on DVD.
I remember watching Combat on television back then thinking the same thing. But that's probably even closer to the truth than you may realize, primarily as far as the time frame is concerned. For my money, the best opportunity for mounting a truly classic cinematic adaptation of Sgt. Rock was during the early to mid-1960s; the era of big budget A-list war pictures like The Longest Day and The Guns of Navarone. Highly unlikely in the extreme, I know, but that would have been ideal. For in addition, the other main reason for choosing that decade is that the perfect major film star was available in his prime to fill the title role.
Which would be Robert Mitchum...
That's Sgt. Rock right there.
Posts: 11529
Feb 7 10 5:40 AM
James Friel wrote: You got it. I always thought, in fact, that Mitchum looked as if he'd been drawn by Kubert.
Click this link for the MASTERWORKS HOME PAGE, and don't miss out on the latest news and release information on the whole scene of collected editions at the CURRENT NEWS page!
Posts: 5970
Feb 7 10 6:34 AM
Posts: 5411
Feb 7 10 11:45 AM
Feb 7 10 11:57 AM
Posts: 937
Feb 7 10 4:26 PM
Quote:OwlzinDaBarn wrote: The movie I'd most want to see would be along the lines of Punisher's idea. But if people are currently anti-war, and American war movies "don't sell overseas," then they'd have to do it as a serious drama; just a movie that examines the horrors and brutality of war, and happens to feature a Sergeant named Rock. But maybe you can't do that, either. Americans typically don't want to hear the truth about the current state of our military; we've become so sanitized and politically corrected that we can barely view reality. ...Either make it a realistic WWII movie, or make it an insane adventure movie ala Indiana Jones; either way will suit the purpose. But don't sanitize the material by setting it in an unnatural environment; I believe that to be a slap in the face of the people who actually suffered through these real world events. I don't see why, with all our supposed collective wisdom, that we have to honor WWII by turning our backs on it.
...Either make it a realistic WWII movie, or make it an insane adventure movie ala Indiana Jones; either way will suit the purpose. But don't sanitize the material by setting it in an unnatural environment; I believe that to be a slap in the face of the people who actually suffered through these real world events. I don't see why, with all our supposed collective wisdom, that we have to honor WWII by turning our backs on it.
In his own way Sgt. Rock is an archetype just like Captain America or even Superman-- he's one of those characters who provoke certain visceral reactions... reactions that one can judge people by. For a person to object to those war stories for some other reason like not caring for the artwork or criticizing the writing quality of the comic book scripts is one thing. But if they despise the character, claim he's shallow, a boy scout, a fascist, a nationalistic propaganda tool, then I know immediately what they're about. I also know that those people can't be trusted.
So for ideological reasons alone (and there are a couple of others as well already mentioned here) I believe the window of opportunity for making a faithful-to-the-original-source-material, big budget, big screen adaptation of Sgt. Rock has come and gone, at least for the forseeable future. Which is why I keep returning to the idea that if it was ever going to happen it should have been done long ago.
The second option was to narrow the character focus of the story considerably and conceive it more along the lines of a film like Patton (1970), concentrating mostly on Rock himself, portraying the man in his fulness as the larger-than-life, legendary, mythical WWII figure that he obviously was:
The third alternative would have been to narrow the historical focus of the movie and have Sgt. Rock and a handpicked team of a the best Easy Comapny men-- along with a few other outside specialists-- recruited for a very specific, top-secret commando mission behind enemy lines, The Guns of Navarone being the most prominent example of this sub-set of the genre. One of Alistair Maclean's other best WWII novels, Where Eagles Dare (which was also made into a terrific film) could, in theory, have been perfect as a vehicle for bringing Sgt' Rock to the big screen. Not that Maclean would have actually allowed that, mind you; I'm just saying that hypothetically it could have been done; MGM would hire a top screenwriter to fashion a script along similar lines.
Quote: In the winter of 1943-44, U.S. Army Brigadier General George Carnaby, enroute to Crete to rendezvous with Russian forces to plan the final details of the invasion of Normandy, is captured by the Germans when his aircraft is shot down. He is taken to the Schloß Adler (The Castle of the Eagles - hence the story's title), a fortress high in the Alps above the town of Werfen and the headquarters of the German Secret Service in southern Bavaria. A special team of mainly British commandos is hurriedly assembled and briefed by Colonel Wyatt Turner and Admiral Rolland of MI6, and led by Major John Smith, MC and US Army Ranger Lieutenant Morris Schaffer. Their mission is to parachute into the locality, infiltrate the Schloß Adler, and rescue General Carnaby before the Germans can interrogate him.
In the winter of 1943-44, U.S. Army Brigadier General George Carnaby, enroute to Crete to rendezvous with Russian forces to plan the final details of the invasion of Normandy, is captured by the Germans when his aircraft is shot down. He is taken to the Schloß Adler (The Castle of the Eagles - hence the story's title), a fortress high in the Alps above the town of Werfen and the headquarters of the German Secret Service in southern Bavaria. A special team of mainly British commandos is hurriedly assembled and briefed by Colonel Wyatt Turner and Admiral Rolland of MI6, and led by Major John Smith, MC and US Army Ranger Lieutenant Morris Schaffer. Their mission is to parachute into the locality, infiltrate the Schloß Adler, and rescue General Carnaby before the Germans can interrogate him.
Where Eagles Dare takes place entirely in wintertime, and because of that it isn't the typical setting that one would automatically associate with Sgt. Rock. But a number of Kanigher and Kubert's 1960s Our Army at War tales did, in fact, take place in the winter, so that factor certainly isn't all that important. Actually, in my view it wouldn't even have been necessary to call the picture "Sgt. Rock". The main thing would have been to get the character to the big screen authentically with a great story behind him.
Speaking of which, that gives me the excuse to post a video clip of the dramatic opening title sequence to Where Eagles Dare with its stirring, unforgettable theme music by English film composer Ron Goodwin. It's a real shame they don't make great war pictures like this anymore...
[Below]
Feb 7 10 4:28 PM
Feb 7 10 4:40 PM
Very interesting. I think Clint would have been a very good Rock if they chose to make the movie around 1961-1970.
BTW, I really like that poster for Where Eagles Dare, Alizarin1!
Feb 7 10 4:51 PM
That collective wisdom has been under violent ideological seige from historical revisionists for some time now, Owlz, with the result that Hollywood now largely considers nationalism to be a dirty word. Consequentally, IMO there was no way that Rock would have been translated to the big screen during the last twenty years or so without him being somehow mutilated in the process. And despite fans' current enthusiasm, I'll be very surprised if the upcoming cinematic portrayal of Captain America escapes that fate also.
I still have hope, for Hollywood. Take for example Bryan Singer's film Valkyrie. He wanted the audience to sympathize for Nazi officers under Hitler's rule. He wanted audiences to look past Nazism and what it means to be German. In the climax of the film, Cruises character shouts "Long live sacred Germany!"
Nationalism shouldn't be a dirty word. Hollywood instead of making a American solider fighting against tyranny and Nazism for his country wants to set it in outer space??
Feb 7 10 5:09 PM
Feb 7 10 5:24 PM
Quote:BTW, I really like that poster for "Where Eagles Dare", Alizarin1!
Feb 7 10 9:12 PM
alizarin1 wrote:That collective wisdom has been under heavy ideological siege from historical revisionists for some time now, Owlz, with the result that Hollywood now largely considers nationalism to be a dirty word. Consequentally, IMO there was no way that Rock would have been translated to the big screen during the last twenty years or so without him being somehow mutilated in the process. And despite fans' current enthusiasm, I'll be very surprised if the upcoming cinematic portrayal of Captain America escapes that fate also. In his own way Sgt. Rock is an archetype just like Captain America or even Superman-- he's one of those characters who provoke certain visceral reactions... reactions that one can judge people by. For a person to object to those war stories for some other reason like not caring for the artwork or criticizing the writing quality of the comic book scripts is one thing. But if they despise the character, claim he's shallow, a boy scout, a fascist, a nationalistic propaganda tool, then I know immediately what they're about. I also know that those people can't be trusted.
Feb 7 10 10:44 PM
Posts: 11116
Feb 8 10 2:39 AM
Posts: 8154
Feb 8 10 8:00 AM
Feb 8 10 11:33 AM
Five Years Later wrote:And you can't just get some dummy director in there who says, "oh...I never read Sgt. Rock comics, I'm just doing this as I see fit, blah blah blah~~" like comic book film directors always say. Where have you been for the last decade? I can't believe that you claim that comic book film directors never read the comics. The reason this story is so weird is because we've all grown to expect a significant amount of adherence to the source material. This seems like something that would have happened in the 1980s or early 1990s. In 2010 it just seems stupid - and rightfully so. Also: everyone wants to think Rock was just a perverse war-monger who relished his time spent with a gun, blowing away Krauts. Who are you talking about? I don't think anyone who's read one SGT. ROCK story would think that. I think you're reading way more into this story than actually exists. It seems simple to me. Investors aren't willing to take the financial risk needed to make a big budget action film set in WWII. Complaining about it isn't going to change anything. And I don't think anyone should take this as an insult. It's just the way it is. Maybe in 10 years a WWII film will be popular. Who knows? Again, the weird thing about this is using Sgt. Rock (and I'm guessing the supporting characters) to do a futuristic film. It really doesn't make sense and violates the key aspect of Sgt. Rock. The problem isn't that investors don't have faith in Sgt. Rock in WWII, the problem is that they're wasting their time (and dollars) to do Sgt. Rock in the future. I guess I'm tired of using Hollywood as a whipping boy for all that's wrong in the world. There's no way I'm going to defend them for this idiocy but the underlying assumption that they all hate the USA or are ashamed of the soldiers is off base.
Feb 8 10 1:04 PM
Share This