Comments by "Morgan King" (@MorganKing95) on "Top 10 Vietnam War Movies" video.

  1. AllBrushed Models Kurtz was originally supposed to be skeletal, but they had to change the direction because Brando showed up obese
    3
  2. It's set long after the Vietnam war had ended
    3
  3. I also don't think FMJ is that good, and neither did Roger Ebert
    2
  4. +Hman116 Not even close! It takes place several years after the Vietnam War had ended
    2
  5. +The Professional Idiot Post-Vietnam
    2
  6. Totally agree
    1
  7. Nice
    1
  8. +HellomynameisJoney I did it while being drunk last summer
    1
  9. Rambo is set long after the Vietnam war had ended
    1
  10. It's set after the Vietnam war had ended
    1
  11. Rambo II is set long after the Vietnam war had ended
    1
  12. Evans Lebg​ he went back to an old prisoner-of-war camp in Vietnam to document the existence of those prisoners of war. Other than, the film has nothing to do with the Vietnam war The movies on this list are set during the Vietnam war
    1
  13. not set during the Vietnam war
    1
  14. I think that too. It's good, but not great, especially not compared with the Vietnam war movies that came before it
    1
  15. "Full Metal Jacket" lacks depth and aesthetics, as well as ambitious direction
    1
  16. Jesus Patrick​ Never mind, I can already see that you are not interested in a serious discussion, and I do not want to waste my time on informal discussions
    1
  17. Still doesn't change the fact that you are too immature to have a serious discussion
    1
  18. Rambo is more of a post-Vietnam movie though
    1
  19. +Werecow Gaming Rambo is post-Vietnam
    1
  20. It is a war movie, it's just that it focuses more on the psychological part of the Vietnam war and its horror, which I think is more fitting for a Vietnam war movie than lots of violence. Besides, I thought Apocalypse Now was better directed in terms of art direction, the visuals, make up, and what happens in each the scene. I also remember Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando, Dennis Hopper, and Robert Duvall better than the actors from "Full Metal Jacket", and I think both the characters and the story were very deep and complex, and I really felt I went through the same experience as them because they took the horror all the way. I felt that "Full Metal Jacket" looked too simple made and lacked intensity, and that the story lacked depth and complexity, and the message was too little and too late. It's good and realistic and both Vincent D'Onofrio and R. Lee Ermey did a great job, but the story, direction, and the experience were too weak that I can call it a great movie; I didn't feel very affected by watching it compared to "Apocalypse Now" and "The Deer Hunter". Besides, it was released after the highly acclaimed movies "The Deer Hunter", "Apocalypse Now", and "Platoon", so it's easy to compare "Full Metal Jacket" with those movies. And "Full Metal Jacket" is far from the greatest movie ever, that would be movies like "Citizen Kane", "Casablanca", "All About Eve", "On the Waterfront", "Lawrence of Arabia", "The Godfather" (both part I and II), "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest", "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", and "Schindler's List"
    1
  21. +Xxazteckingx "The Deer Hunter" and "Apocalypse Now" capture the psychological effects much more clearly and effectively. Roger Ebert also thought the message of FMJ was too little and too late, and that it lacked the complexity of the Vietnam war
    1
  22. None of them were set during the Vietnam war
    1
  23. robocop None were set during the Vietnam WAR. All of them were set after it had finished. He suffered from PTSD in the first movie
    1
  24. +Comet_Wolffe_77 That is post-Vietnam
    1
  25. +RAGIT DUTTA To fight Communism
    1
  26. Not set during the Vietnam war
    1
  27. I agree that Platoon is superior, but not because it won Best Picture
    1
  28. I agree that Platoon is superior, but not because it won Best Picture
    1
  29. All of the Rambo films are post-Vietnam
    1
  30. not set during the Vietnam war
    1
  31. Rambo is post-Vietnam
    1
  32. That's post-Vietnam
    1
  33. +James Byron Dean Rambo is post-Vietnam, Einstein!
    1
  34. That's post-Vietnam
    1
  35. +Matty Messner It's post-Vietnam
    1
  36. That's post-Vietnam
    1
  37. +SWAG MASTER Is Post-Vietnam
    1
  38. It needs to take place during the Vietnam War to be qualified
    1
  39.  @sortehuse  The Deer Hunter*, and the Vietnam War only takes up 1% of First Blood's story and is only an underlying intrigue just like in Taxi Driver
    1
  40. +EdgyTeen Apocalypse Now is way better directed and faithful to the art of cinema. Mimesis is boring
    1
  41. +Rudy Mancuso Rambo is POST-Vietnam!
    1
  42. +Litechery 4 Because that's POST-Vietnam
    1
  43.  @spaceace4387  5% of First Blood has anything to do with the Vietnam War; it's comparable with Taxi Driver
    1
  44.  @spaceace4387  Taxi Driver is also about the psychological effects of the Vietnam War and a social commentary on how the government and the rest of the society scoff at it and see veterans as freaks, explaining Travis' isolation and alienation and eventual desire to assassinate the president even though the latter doesn't happen. There are also subtle hints at Travis being a Vietnam War veteran if you just paid attention or understood some basic subtleness. First Blood has a 5 second flashback to the Vietnam War, some few mentions of his service, and then Rambo playing the victim card near the climax, and that's about it
    1
  45.  @spaceace4387  If you go all "boo-hoo, I've had it so rough and life is so hard and that makes every action and unlikeable attitudes from me justified", then you're playing the victim card. You either seek help or move on if you want to be viewed differently. barely touched on In your eyes because you need to get everything explicitly explained to you rather reading between the lines or seeing subtle underlying messages
    1
  46.  @spaceace4387  I never said Taxi Driver should be on here, and I also don't view Forrest Gump as a Vietnam War movie either just like that I don't view First Blood as one since action film/psychological thriller with war traumas as an underlying motivation =/= war movie. I'm an essentialist when it comes to art, not a pragmatist. The reason why I brought up Taxi Driver is because both it and First Blood are post-Vietnam and only have the war as an underlying motivation for something else going on, and that's why none of them are here. And yes, I probably would have cried for mama, but I wouldn't be trying to use it as an excuse to go on a rampage and whine to the authorities
    1
  47.  @spaceace4387  Travis never plays the victim card unlike Rambo, and you only view First Blood as a Vietnam War movie because you're a pragmatist who stay on a surface level rather than going in-depth, and the same goes for why you think Taxi Driver isn't a social commentary on the war and the psychological effects. On a side note, the movie doesn't try to justify Rambo's actions, but HE certainly tries to do that until he surrenders
    1
  48.  @spaceace4387  You're staying on a surface level for why you think First Blood is a Vietnam War movie; you look at what's explicitly told and not what's lacking when you go in-depth, and going in-depth matters when you're supposed to define something. And no, child molestation would have changed the story since Travis' alienation and isolation, as well as his underlying motivation to assassinate the president candidate, is directly affected by war trauma and society's indifference towards the Vietnam War. I consider Born on the Fourth of July to be a Vietnam War movie because we first of all get some actual war scenes, but also that the film is setting up the fact that he's going to war and that he's later going into an anti-war movement as a direct result of his trauma, paralysis, and how he was taken for granted. The war actually takes up the most of the weight of the narrative. Taxi Driver however is not a Vietnam War movie since the actual war is just an underlying motivation for something else, and First Blood is also not a Vietnam War movie since the main narrative isn't dedicated to it; the main narrative is him escaping the police, surviving in the woods, and then going on a rampage.
    1
  49.  @spaceace4387  We get a 5 second flashback in First Blood; that's not even close to having scenes dedicated to the Vietnam War, and you also don't need the war aspects to tell the story about a misunderstood man getting arrested, escaping the police, surviving in the woods, going on a rampage, and then ranting about some trauma and how nobody seems to understand him. Also, what doesn't make sense? You think that something seems to be like this and this, but then you think about certain holes and aspects that are lacking, and eventually you think "Ok, maybe not". It's simple critical thinking. You on the other hand are cherry-picking your definition of a Vietnam War movie by looking at one aspect (psychological effect and character background) and then immediately jump to the conclusion that your definition is fully substantiated based on it. Do you even look at the title? Vietnam WAR movie. First Blood is not a war movie nor does it have any real scenes that take place during the Vietnam War; it's a action film with elements of a psychological thriller that takes place post-Vietnam and uses some elements from the Vietnam War as an underlying character motivation
    1
  50.  @spaceace4387  I actually can make a coherent story without the Vietnam elements: - Man returns home from somewhere and finds out that all of his friends are dead. - The man wanders about without knowing where he's going, and he suddenly gets arrested for no real reason - The man gets a traumatic flashback as a result of the police holding him tight, making him go berzerk and escaping on a motorcycle - He runs off to the woods and tries to survive while also escaping the police that are looking for him. - He goes on a rampage without anyone knowing the reason, and when he meets the person he views as the only one who understands him, he calms down and surrenders. I would actually have enjoyed that movie. It would have had a nice Verfremdung-effect and been a lot more subtle and suspenseful since suspense is often built upom what we don't know. Just like Roger Ebert mentioned in his criticism of Rambo's closing monologue: "some things are scarier and more emotionally moving when they're left unsaid. He also concluded that Taxi Driver handled this element a lot better. No, you are cherry-picking since you only look at some elements rather than looking at elements that could weaken your argumentation. You see some underlying elements of the Vietnam War movie and then conclude that it's a Vietnam War movie without realizing that it lacks a lot more to make the definition fully substantiated. It's equivalent to me viewing a text as an historical text just because it consists of two theatre directors briefly talking about how certain direction methods were done in the past. I consider Apocalypse Now a Vietnam War movie because the setting, the direct narrative context, the actions, and the narrative itself are the main elements and are directly connected to the Vietnam War, while the madness is the underlying messages. First Blood is not comparable to it because it takes place long after the war had ended, the main setting is some forest and local town far away from Vietnam, and the main narrative consists of a misunderstood man escaping the police, surviving in the woods, and going on a rampage before he surrenders. We never see his services apart from some very brief flashbacks that don't really contribute to anything as a result, the contexts and central themes are related to being misunderstood, losing friends, the authorities viewing a man as insane, survival, and going on a rampage. All which are universal and don't need the Vietnam War elements to make sense, and the actual Vietnam War contexts, settings, and elements don't have any real weight on the narrative and the film's overall context; only having some subtle weight on the character's inner motivations. Born on the fourth of july have way more Vietnam War elements that the narrative dedicates itself to, including having way more scenes during the actual war and how this later affects the narrative and the character motivations further, and how the anti-war movements becomes a result of it. Btw, using paratext is irrelevant, and I'm not responsible for you not being intellectually stimulated enough to understand what I'm saying or the fact that you haven't learned about essentialism and deconstruction
    1
  51.  @spaceace4387  I don't need to know the reason for why Teasle is harassing him, and I definitely don't need any backstory; things are a lot more suspenseful when we don't know why things are happening, and the atmosphere, the setting, the action, and the main narrative are compelling enough, and revealing too much ruins the mystery and suspense a psychological thriller should have. Similarly, I don't need any villain motivation if the villainous aura is present. John Kreese from The Karate Kid is revealed to be a Vietnam War veteran, but I don't need to know that to see his villainous aura; he could just be ignorant towards karate and have a twisted philosophy around it and it wouldn't have made any real difference. The actual Vietnam War isn't the main focus of the narrative or the setting; the effects and impact are, and they're drowned by the fact that the main narrative (escaping the police and going on a rampage) doesn't need to be directly connected to the Vietnam War in order to happen, and the main setting isn't the Vietnam War either. Only having two Vietnam War veterans shown in the movie that are far away from their environment, and only have the war as a motivation, certainly doesn't make it a Vietnam War movie either. If I make a movie about a cowboy living in the city and being troubled because of urbanation and cultural differences, then that doesn't make it a western movie. I also don't consider "On the Waterfront" a sports drama just because Terry Malloy is a former boxer and s fixed match and the corruption in boxing is what caused him to feel like a bum with no way to go. I also don't consider Rocky to be a crime film just because he's a torpedo for a loan shark and this is what makes Mickey claim he wasted his potential
    1
  52.  @spaceace4387  Darth Vader's backstory (Hayden Christensen's performance as the young Anakin and the young Anakin's arc) has been critically panned, and Vader didn't need it either; he already had an evil aura and would be fine as an initial psychopath without any empathy or morals before changing course as a result of the present context itself. It's different with Severus Snape for example since the franchise makes it so ambigious whether he's meant to be viewed as a villain or hero, but the backstory confirms that at the narrative's core, he was a hero. Look at the title; top 10 Vietnam WAR movie. Where is the war part aside from the underlying character motivation and background and a 5 second flashback? I need the 3 units for me to define it as a Vietnam War movie: - Time: during the actual Vietnam War rather than after. - Place: a battlefront during the actual Vietnam War rather than a different setting that just happens to have one or two characters that are revealed to be veterans and where one of them is suffering from PTSD and is misunderstood. - Action: some actual warfare from the Vietnam War. You're so busy looking at Rambo (the character) without taking 90% of the other characters into account and 90% of the other cinematic and narrative aspects (context, setting, action, narrative etc.), and having more scenes talking about Rambo's background doesn't make the message any clearer than just revealing at the end that he was a veteran as a twist. The big overall message is related to a character suffering from trauma being mistreated and misunderstood and how this is wrong; the fact that he's a Vietnam War veteran just makes it more specific, but it doesn't make the main message any different. We also don't need to know that he's a veteran in order to see that he's traumatized and being mistreated, and the movie is at its core an action movie with elements of a psychological thriller with a character that's suffering from PTSD. I need to see that it's a war movie at its core in order to view something as a war movie. I don't really consider Eminem to be an actor just because he starred in "8 Mile" since he's a rapper and record producer at his core
    1
  53.  @spaceace4387  The units of time, action, and place is not subjective; it's a normative requirement for a definition of an art form or genre and a certain dramaturgy, but I guess you haven't taken any dramaturgy classes. And sure, just ditch it out in favor of your own ego. Rambo isn't comparable with Snape: Rambo is someone we could sympathize with and whose arc and actions make sense even with just the context itself, while the Vietnam War is just a supplement. He's also obviously a hero, so we don't any real backstory or motivation unless he's being a total dick to everyone. I don't need to know my friends' backgrounds in order to sympathize with them since they have been likeable all along. Snape however is someone we see hate a bunch of students yet is a member of the Hogwarts staff and is a member of the Order of the Phoenix, but he's still a cruel teacher and is suddenly shown to be on Voldemort's side and killing Dumbledore. All of them would have made him a highly unlikeable character that nobody should sympathize with despite some noble actions, but then we get the backstory and everything is revealed to be a twist. Why should I rewrite the narrative? It's normative that we should sympathize with an obviously nice guy who's traumatized and being misunderstood and mistreated; the Vietnam War element is just a supplement that gives it an additional layer, but it doesn't change its core
    1
  54.  @spaceace4387  There's no such thing as objectivity in art. However, there is normativity, and you can search up in pretty much any source about dramaturgy and you will know about time, place, and action. It's not my subjective definition; it's an established norm. And no, the main message at its core is a traumatized man getting mistreated and misunderstood and ascending into madness. That's the movie at its core, and as Derrida once famously said: "There's no outside of the text", meaning that your references to paratext and social context outside of the narrative is irrelevant
    1
  55.  @spaceace4387  1. You can't say that there's no objectivity before saying "deal with it" as if your definition is the truth. 2. No, the mistreatment and disrespect is the narrative, while having respect for a traumatized man is the overall message, and having respect for a traumatized veteran is an additional message and additional layer, but the context, action, and setting is not war-related
    1
  56.  @spaceace4387  I don't believe you have effectively backed up your definition; I still see a lot of holes and elements that are lacking in terms of time, place, and action. The main contexts are the arrest, chase, survival, and rampage on top of taking place after the war had ended and at a completely different setting. Vietnam is just an underlying message that adds an extra layer to a context that already was there. The second half of FMJ takes place during the actual Vietnam War, while the first half is war training for the Vietnam War. That's directly connected to the war. BOTFOJ have way more prominent scenes that take place during the actual war in addition to set-up and impact. First Blood has the impact indeed, but barely any scenes (and I'm talking about only a five seconds compared to a few minutes) during the actual war and no set-up for the war
    1
  57.  @spaceace4387  Here are the percentage: Minimum requirement: 40% - FMJ: 50% - BOTFOJ: 40% - First Blood: 30% (1% if we just talk about when the setting is during the war) - Taxi Driver: 10% (0% shows any scenes from the actual war) Again, paratext (which includes an author's intent) is irrelevant, and just the psychological aspects isn't enough, especially when the aspects that define an action movie and psychological thriller take much more place and large parts of the war-defining aspects are lacking. If my criteria don't make sense, then it's because you're a pragmatist and haven't done much essentialist analysis or deconstructive analysis
    1
  58.  @spaceace4387  Paratext is outside of the text itself, meaning that it's not relevant. If it really was a war movie, then it would actually have some warfare going on in its story. Like I mentioned earlier, "On the Waterfront" is not a sports movie just because a fixed boxing match and even the boxing background itself plays a major part in Terry Malloy's motivations and dynamics. And how do you know about any intentions? You're not some almighty omnipotent god who the movie is made in favor of
    1
  59.  @spaceace4387  The text belongs to the reader as Roland Barthes and John Green famously said. I don't care about any paratext, and it certainly doesn't matter what any author intends if the audience doesn't feel that way
    1
  60.  @spaceace4387  Did you believe everything your teacher told you too?
    1
  61.  @spaceace4387  I always look at a source with a critical look and a bit of skepticisn. I don't care what an author intends if he's living in his own bubble and his intents don't correspond with any reality, and I certainly question his authority if he hasn't made any real impact. One of my professors may have had that title of a professor, but he was completely living in a theoretical world and had no practical experience whatsoever on top of his viewpoints being completely debunked by anyone who's actually living in an actual reality. Michel Foucault and Antonin Artaud also may be considered authorities, but they were still completely far-out and didn't live on any real planet
    1
  62.  @spaceace4387  You don't only have me; you also have Roland Barthes and John Green to dispove, as well as human nature and the physical reality. You only live in a theoretical and manipulative world
    1
  63.  @spaceace4387  Sure it's manipulative; you let someone else controlling your thoughts without thinking for yourself and in a critical way. You would be the same type of person who followed orders from Hitler without thinking for yourself. And again, if you want to exclude me, you still have Roland Barthes and John Green to dispove on top of human nature and the physical reality. You have no idea how many times I've mentioned an author's intent to various audiences before hearing "I didn't see that at all". An author can live in his own visions, reflections, intents, and thoughts, but that have no impact when the general consensus is that these intents and visions don't correspond with the consensus
    1
  64.  @spaceace4387  Intentions mean nothing if the author is a lunatic who hasn't made any real impact, and I don't consider any authority or any intention to be substantiated if it comes from such a person
    1
  65.  @spaceace4387  Oh, so you're a snowflake too who gets offended when he's being told on his inability to stay critical to an authority which the Nazis never had either? Also, I'm not your "bud"
    1
  66.  @spaceace4387  Your opinion on the movie isn't what's equal to Nazism; it's you instantly going along with what an authority (the author) says and intends simply because of his supposed status without thinking for yourself and in a critical way, because maybe then you would find out that this "authority" could have a twisted mind when looking at the gap and relations between an signifier and the signified, as well as between ideas and the result. It's basic post-structuralism and critical thinking, and ever since I was 8 or something I haven't instantly gone along with what an "authority" says or thinks until he has proven his worth. How I view the other person will also affect how I view the conversation, and I would only be interested in an "intelligent conversation" if the person is actually intelligent. For example, I had a professor who was a twisted and ignorant lunatic who only lived in a theoretical world and yet was supposed to be my mentor on the project description for my master's thesis (which was heavily viewed from a practical perspective). I was therefore not interested in having any friendly discussions with him, so I instead humiliated him and made him look even stupider by writing in an over-complicated way and writing about topics that I knew that he had no experience with or knowledge about. He said it was incomprehensible and I thought "shouldn't someone as intelligent as you be able to comprehend this?". I also constantly called on his bullshit and turned his philosophies against him. My other professor however was someone who was highly intelligent, with lots of practical experience and an open mind, and he saw the potential in everything I did. I therefore took his advice to heart since they were insightful and he was a warm person.
    1
  67.  @spaceace4387  Yeah sure, just go on and use the redundant excuse of saying you've got "better things to do" and seeing me calling out on your fallacies as "trolling". I have no idea why you even wanted to discuss this if you came so ill-prepared
    1
  68.  @spaceace4387  In other words, you're just a purist
    1
  69. +Techman1001Games Post-Vietnam
    1
  70. +charles miranda That's POST-Vietnam. Heck, the first movie was about him suffering from PTSD and feeling alienated and misunderstood
    1
  71. That's about the regime in Cambodia, not the Vietnam War
    1
  72. Didn't exist yet
    1
  73. +J llorens Post-Vietnam
    1
  74. +Daniel Lai Nope. It takes place after the Vietnam war
    1
  75. +rouge3031ify Post-Vietnam
    1
  76. +Rais Akmal LOL, Uwe Boll sucks as a director, and Tunnel Rats is just less awful
    1
  77. +Naruto Kriss754 That's post-Vietnam
    1
  78. +BreathyyIsCool _ That's post-Vietnam
    1