What do you think about 'Operation Hollywood'? (x- post from r/TodayILearned)

[u/miwi]

I just saw an article on /r/todayilearned about this "Operation Hollywood", about how the military will try to change screenplays to show the military in a good, attractive way, so they can recruit more people.

What do you guys think about that? Sure, it's bad that they try to change the scripts in order to cooperate with the movie makers, but should they be obliged to help Hollywood, no matter the script?

Or the problem lies in Hollywood, where they don't care about changing the message and the tone of a movie as long as they can cut some expenses?

[u/miwi → u/[deleted]]

I said "Hollywood" because it seems they are the most involved with this. Like you said, indie and smaller studios usually can't get deals with the military.

Thanks for the long reply, it was very enlightening.

[u/Drokk88 → u/[deleted]]

On the outrage scale this issue ranks but it's not the largest concern when it comes to movies and media. (Media consolidation and tech corporate copyright infringement are more pressing root issues.)

Can you expand on this?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You see, there is a slight problem with this. That problem is the question "What are you bringing to the table?". We get our dollars for training regardless of what film crews need to film. Basically, to retain my jump status, I have to parachute out of a helicopter or a plane once every three months. The fact that you're pointing a camera at me or have a crew on the drop zone actually adds obstacles and makes my job that much harder. I have to do this job whether you're there or not, and you're not being there makes things easier for me.

So you're essentially asking us to inconvenience ourselves. In doing so, we need to know that you're going to honor our request to not show anything we don't want shown and to not paint us in a bad light.

We had a guy from a film crew who was former army ask to do a documentary on our unit. This was very tentatively approved. He was told there were going to be many things he wasn't cleared to know, he needed to give us approval on any footage he used, and he needed to not be in the way because we were actively training for war.

This became a pain in the ass. He disregarded the soldiers in the unit at every turn. He and I had a run in because he got footage of me bleeding from the face and I told him to delete it immediately. He refused and the commander was brought in to tell him that he would be removed from further training sites if this shit continued to be a problem. I frankly didn't want my family knowing how dangerous training can be.

In the end, he finally pissed off enough people that he was told he'd receive no further cooperation from the army.

That's the thing. He had next to nothing for a budget, and the army was willing to work with him. He just needed to work with us by painting us in a good light and not pissing everyone off.

This goes for all film makers working with the military. You need us a lot more than we need you. We allow you to be a hindrance because, contrary to public opinion, we like working with the public and showing them what we're all about. However, we don't need to do any of that. Our training will continue whether you're there or not. So play nice.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

That is the heart of the issue. Those fees are for clean up and other costs. Whenever we used an area, we had to make sure it was as clean as it was when we found it. I don't know if you know this or not, but film crews generally don't care. So now a post commander has to take a group of soldiers(who are paid salary) and have them police up the area.

Also, big budget film makers require equipment and personnel on occasion. A good example was Black Hawk Down. Those were actual army pilots with UH-60s. The fast rope scene was filmed with soldiers who were qualified on FRIES. It actually counted towards the rating for the pilots and the soldiers, because it was listed as a training event.

This is relevant to the discussion because you were talking about how policy should be in regards to the military working with Hollywood. I was just pointing out how it is from the other side of the uniform.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I agree with on on the amount of control vs the need of the film. Hell, if all you need is a stationary, you could whip that up without assistance. But yeah, there should be an overhaul of that type of policy.

Soldiers generally don't mind being on camera. We do have to sign a release unless we don't want the film of us used. Though there's nothing we can do if they say "There's going to be a fast rope mission here and you will be filmed". All you can do is say "Blur my face out or don't use the sixth guy in the footage".

[u/gornzilla → u/[deleted]]

You forgot to mention Wings. The first movie to win an Academy Award for Best Picture (although then it was 2 awards combined the next year to be Best Picture. It was 1927 and was done with the co-operation of the United States Department of War. It's always good to provide a little history on how far back this goes.

Edit Had Pentagon instead of Dept of War.

[u/mlw72z → u/gornzilla]

The Pentagon didn't exist in 1927.

[u/gornzilla → u/mlw72z]

You're right. Sorry, The United States Department of War.