...and suddenly had to see himself stab to death a guy he never did and then have the circumstances of his rescue completely made up.
I know it's a film, and I can suspend my disbelief, even for a "based on a true story" film, but for a fairly well known operation like this, including the loss of life involved, it still seemed surprising to me that they would go for the fireworks ending in the village in contrast to the reality of his rescue, I didn't think it was needed at all, the movie was great without it, but showing him kill someone he never did is probably the most perplexing decision they made. :/
Confusing to me, too. It would have been fine had they decided to go the more accurate route. No need for the stabbing scene. I agree it was perplexing, but more so was the village rescue. Only reason for those scenes has got to be an artistic call based on entertainment appeal. Guess they decided to go with what they assumed the audience would want. Too bad.
~ Our lives are frittered away by detail … simplify, simplify.
Its been picked apart since the movie came out, its nothing new. Ive said it before and I will say it again, this is the director's MO. He can't tell a story straight up. Berg simply can't avoid interfusing some of his own drama on a story.
-With 'The Kingdom', it was for the most part based on a historical events, though not specifically in this case. It was based on the Khobar Bombing. Rather than a historical take on it, it was obviously dramatized.
-'Very Bad Things' is a great example. Very believable that a bunch of buddies would go to Vegas get an Escort, Accidentally Kill her and have hijinks in the aftermath. The part up to the point where they kill her on accident I was down with it. But it progressively got worse and worse till it was totally and absolutely ruined by the overkill that was the writing.
-'Battleship' same thing there. Its already an over the top story. Then he puts in stuff like the use of the anchor to turn the ship for a broadside.
Berg assumes that the audience is as dumb as he is. He assumes that he can make things up and get away with it, when it comes to story. With Lone Survivor he did a lot of things right by surrounding himself with advisors both on content and technicalities, with good stunt teams, a good cinematography team. Then he screws the pooch with horrid detours from reality. The most major, the ending of course. Somewhat less major, the helicopter scene where he himself portrays a fictional blasphemy from reality in pulling his pistol on the pilot. Other things like the rattlesnake and poison oak thing. Its all from his own personal inflection in the production.
In the end, I think he bit off more than he could chew with these deviations this time. So we can look at it with some sort of positive outlook in that both Berg and future directors will see some light at the end of the tunnel because of the huge backlash. And it is huge. There are at least half a dozen stories up for purchase from Afghanistan alone. Everything from Dalton Fury to Dakota Meyer. And you can bet they won't be keen on Berg having any involvement
You're taking a dump and they call GQ do you pinch it off or finish your business?
This could have been a really great, distinct third act of the film, with Marcus crawling through the mountains and engaging the enemy where he could. What really happened is way more dramatic than the Hollywood ending. If he was going to make something up, he could have done better.
It's a dramatization of real event. It has to entertain you but not be so tedious as in the real lives we lead. So I say read a historic book or the AAR on operation red wing.