Ahhh..did you miss the CBS TV series "JERICHO?"

Sorry, but right now… While we are fighting 2 counter insurgancies…..seems kind of Ironic…No?

I effing love this movie from beginning to end. It was a powerful movie for its time. Maybe not as powerful as The Day After, but it was filmed in a time before political correctness was ever heard of. Film makers to day take into consideration the feelings of everyone when making a movie and that is why 99% of all movies these days suck donkey balls.

But this is not the reason I am writing this. The point I want to make is that film makers and movie studios should not be so damn worried about racial and ethnic sensitivity, especially when it comes to casting terrorists in movies. The reason? Radical jihadists (is that a redundant term?) did not attack the WTC or Pentagon or crash the United flight. It was out American government! Those bastards planned and executed the whole thing, including the controlled demolition of Tower 7! It is not jihadists we need to fear it is our own leaders and the puppeteers who control them. Muslims are used as a scapegoat. Portrayed as the boogy man under your bed by a media whore controlled by these same puppet masters. Bin Ladin and Hussein are or were murderous bastards, sure, but these are not the people we need to fear. They are always saying that there was a plot discovered to attack this place or that place. But no one ever shows evidence of this. We are all being fed a load of crap everyday and I think that whatever film maker and studio that makes this movie needs to buck the system and make it the way it should be made. SCREW RACIAL AND ETHNIC SENSITIVITY!!!!

“Give me Liberty or Give me death”!

“Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither!”

“From my cold dead hands!”

“Cmon!!!!! HIT me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Thanks for responding. I’m simply surprised that there has been such trepidation and apprehension from the media elite since 9/11 about using muslims as terrorists in fictional films. There’s more justification for making muslim terrorists the “bad guys” than ever before, just like there was logic in making the “bad guys” the Soviets during the Cold War. I can’t remember anyone getting apoplectic about the Soviets being the “bad guys” in Red Dawn — it seems Hollywood acknowledgedly the threat back then. Today, now that the nuke-seeking enemy is largely muslim, it seems as if Hollywood doesn’t want to acknowledge that fact.

Certainly whites and non-whites can be “bad guys” in television. I think ‘24′ is a great example of how people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds can be terrorists. But remember how a couple of seasons ago, when the fictional terrorists WERE muslim, the producers felt it necessary to have Kiefer make a 30-second statement at every commercial break? Here’s the ridiculous, overly-sensitive statement, verbatim:

“Hi. My name is Kiefer Sutherland. And I play counter-terrorist agent Jack Bauer on Fox’s ‘24′. I would like to take a moment to talk to you about something that I think is very important. Now while terrorism is obviously one of the most critical challenges facing our nation and the world, it is important to recognize that the American Muslim community stands firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism. So in watching 24, please, bear that in mind.”

Jesus, it’s so patronizing and pathetic. Why wasn’t there a similar disclaimer last season, e.g.: “Not all Chinese want to kill you. Not all Russians are bad people.” Yada, yada.

Bottom line: Since radial jihadists attacked us on 9/11, Hollywood has been scarred about even breaching the relationship between Islam and terrorism. It’s a head-in-the-sand mentality that will kill us.

As for your television list, I think you have to admit it’s pretty unpersuasive. Sydney Bristow wasn’t battling Muslims in any memorable storylines; LOST’s Sayid was briefly thought to be a terrorist, but it’s not like the island is trying to kill him, nor is he trying to blow up the island; the Unit I’m just not familiar with, but that might be a good example. As for the short-lived Sleeper Cell, do you see how Hollywood felt it necessary to make the “good guy” FBI agent a “practicing Muslim” so that when he goes after the jihadists, the producers can feel better about themselves? And those “jihadists,” interestingly, included a white european woman, a hispanic, and a gay muslim. So ridiculous.

As for your movies, Ironman and the Kingdom are good counterpoints. Thank you for those. But the 9/11 movie and Black Hawk Down are both semi-documentaries and I don’t think it possible for writers to avoid reality there.

We’ll see what happens to Red Dawn II. True, the Chinese would make a good enemy. But I can assure there would be plenty of fear and trepidation coming out of Hollywood on the idea of offending the Chinese. But if a producer thinks that a film like Red Dawn — which was memorable because it involved a real enemy — can be remade with an enemy that has no bearing on reality, the only “bomb” he should be worry about is his own film…

Thanks for responding. I’m simply surprised that there has been such trepidation and apprehension from the media elite since 9/11 about using muslims as terrorists in fictional films. There’s more justification for making muslim terrorists the “bad guys” than ever before, just like there was logic in making the “bad guys” the Soviets during the Cold War. I can’t remember anyone getting apoplectic about the Soviets being the “bad guys” in Red Dawn — it seems Hollywood acknowledgedly the threat back then. Today, now that the nuke-seeking enemy is largely muslim, it seems as if Hollywood doesn’t want to acknowledge that fact.

Certainly whites and non-whites can be “bad guys” in television. I think ‘24′ is a great example of how people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds can be terrorists. But remember how a couple of seasons ago, when the fictional terrorists WERE muslim, the producers felt it necessary to have Kiefer make a 30-second statement at every commercial break? Here’s the ridiculous, overly-sensitive statement, verbatim:

“Hi. My name is Kiefer Sutherland. And I play counter-terrorist agent Jack Bauer on Fox’s ‘24′. I would like to take a moment to talk to you about something that I think is very important. Now while terrorism is obviously one of the most critical challenges facing our nation and the world, it is important to recognize that the American Muslim community stands firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism. So in watching 24, please, bear that in mind.”

Jesus, it’s so patronizing and pathetic. Why wasn’t there a similar disclaimer last season, e.g.: “Not all Chinese want to kill you. Not all Russians are bad people.” Yada, yada.

Bottom line: Since radial jihadists attacked us on 9/11, Hollywood has been scarred about even breaching the relationship between Islam and terrorism. It’s a head-in-the-sand mentality that will kill us.

As for your television list, I think you have to admit it’s pretty unpersuasive. Sydney Bristow wasn’t battling Muslims in any memorable storylines; LOST’s Sayid was briefly thought to be a terrorist, but it’s not like the island is trying to kill him, nor is he trying to blow up the island; the Unit I’m just not familiar with, but that might be a good example. As for the short-lived Sleeper Cell, do you see how Hollywood felt it necessary to make the “good guy” FBI agent a “practicing Muslim” so that when he goes after the jihadists, the producers can feel better about themselves? And those “jihadists,” interestingly, included a white european woman, a hispanic, and a gay muslim. So ridiculous.

As for your movies, Ironman and the Kingdom are good counterpoints. Thank you for those. But the 9/11 movie and Black Hawk Down are both semi-documentaries and I don’t think it possible for writers to avoid reality there.

We’ll see what happens to Red Dawn II. True, the Chinese would make a good enemy. But I can assure there would be plenty of fear and trepidation coming out of Hollywood on the idea of offending the Chinese. But if a producer thinks that a film like Red Dawn — which was memorable because it involved a real enemy — can be remade with an enemy that has no bearing on reality, the only “bomb” he should be worry about is his own film.

I’m not sure whether your point is that Hollywood is too PC to have non-white villains or simply Muslim villains. You’re certainly implying, however, that any film that doesn’t suggest that Muslims are the only enemy is to PC. First off, you need to compare before and after 2001 to be able to pull off that claim, and so far you’re relying on one data point: Sum of All Fears. Second, a number of movies and TV shows have shown Muslims and nonwhites as bad guys.

But you asked for a list, so here are some counterpoints to your argument (Note: my inclusion of these shows and movies should not be construed as a criticism). Here are some off the top of my head.

TV:
Sleeper Cell
24 (you can’t write it off)
The Unit
Lost (see Sayid’s personal history)
Alias

Movies:
Iron Man
The Kingdom
United 93
Black Hawk Down

At the end of the day, it shouldn’t matter where the attackers in Red Dawn II are from, because any invader short of China is preposterous.

P.S. Jason Bourne’s main enemy was the U.S. government, I don’t know how or why you’d expect him to attack sleeper cells.

It also shows that Uwe Boll would have been very successful during the 80’s. Most likely a billionaire by now.

I dont think its pro war at all, I think it shows the horrible side of war very well

It was a real piece of shit.

A Red Dawn remake thread now turned into a horribly political one.

I wish we could nuke the internet sometimes.

the truth hurts sometimes dude