I'm disgusted with NBC

Danchy55 said:I honestly can’t think of a single decent movie about the American Civil War. That conflict is a massive part of our history, so why try to sweep it under the rug? Look, I’m not exactly a fan of those old Communist types, but I realize that if Stalin were still around, he might have tried to pull some stunts, but this time it's different—we're looking at being relegated to a footnote in history books, just a relic like the Etruscans.

Our folks recently put out a film called Remembering Stalingrad. To put it mildly, the thing is an absolute train wreck. The plot is supposed to be taking place in late November, yet the scenery is covered in lush green grass everywhere you look.

If they clearly don't have the talent to make a good movie themselves, then they should just cough up the cash and hire a top-tier director to do it the way God intended, rather than turning a heavy, painful subject like Stalingrad into such a complete joke.

casualskipper8 said:Our folks recently put out a film called Remembering Stalingrad. To put it mildly, the thing is an absolute train wreck. The plot is supposed to be taking place in late November, yet the scenery is covered in lush green grass everywhere you look.

If they clearly don't have the talent to make a good movie themselves, then they should just cough up the cash and hire a top-tier director to do it the way God intended, rather than turning a heavy, painful subject like Stalingrad into such a complete joke.

Honestly, you should just grab someone like Bat Zivojinovic to play Blag Zadar—but maybe give him a quick hair dye job first, hand him a machine gun, and let him go to town on the enemy!

ehinus said:What are you even talking about? Why would you compare the American Civil War to WWII? They aren't even in the same ballpark, no matter how you look at it... and honestly, they should be making movies like that because those stories are just part of the American identity.
They're educational, too.

Not really. Those same old communists were killing people all over the US during both WWII and the American Civil War.
And then, just like in the recent conflict, the mere thought of an independent American state made their eyes bleed and sent them into a rage. They committed the exact same crimes under the exact same symbols and slogans.☕

It's definitely comparable.

Yesterday, Goldstein suggested that the 1990s weren't about achieving an independent, sovereign American state, but rather about establishing a "democracy."
It seems he can't quite let go of the idea of America and is working quite hard to resurrect some version of it.
Is this really happening for a third time? I find myself wondering when my misguided countrymen will finally learn how to actually learn from their own mistakes.
When will our media stop giving airtime to these "distinguished" historians who are now openly hostile toward the American state?
They aren't even trying to hide their intentions anymore.

"The American state must hold itself as the standard at every moment, in every single move" (Gotovac)

"I do not understand what those mean when they say that the American Kingdom, which for five centuries has flourished from east to west, cannot stand independently. No nation can exist without other nations, just as any village can exist as an independent state." (Ante Starčević)

If you take the time to read this speech, you might begin to recall everything that came before and everything that followed, and perhaps see the parallels between then and the current climate—and what certain people, like the Goldsteins or the Josipovics, seem so eager to impose upon us.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Speech_..._June_1861.

ruggedeagle14 said:Yesterday, Goldstein suggested that the 1990s weren't about achieving an independent, sovereign American state, but rather about establishing a "democracy."
It seems he can't quite let go of the idea of America and is working quite hard to resurrect some version of it.
Is this really happening for a third time? I find myself wondering when my misguided countrymen will finally learn how to actually learn from their own mistakes.
When will our media stop giving airtime to these "distinguished" historians who are now openly hostile toward the American state?
They aren't even trying to hide their intentions anymore.

"The American state must hold itself as the standard at every moment, in every single move" (Gotovac)

"I do not understand what those mean when they say that the American Kingdom, which for five centuries has flourished from east to west, cannot stand independently. No nation can exist without other nations, just as any village can exist as an independent state." (Ante Starčević)

If you take the time to read this speech, you might begin to recall everything that came before and everything that followed, and perhaps see the parallels between then and the current climate—and what certain people, like the Goldsteins or the Josipovics, seem so eager to impose upon us.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Speech_..._June_1861.

This nation has really suffered here in America, I swear.

Look, I might end up sitting through this movie just out of respect for the fallen partisans, especially since the film paints these criminals in such a positive, almost heroic light. But honestly? I wouldn't recommend this to any younger viewers. While I don't subscribe to the whole theory that movies alone corrupt the youth—it's a combination of everything in society, really—media still leaves its mark on how our young people think and feel.

bluecobra27 said:Look, I might end up sitting through this movie just out of respect for the fallen partisans, especially since the film paints these criminals in such a positive, almost heroic light. But honestly? I wouldn't recommend this to any younger viewers. While I don't subscribe to the whole theory that movies alone corrupt the youth—it's a combination of everything in society, really—media still leaves its mark on how our young people think and feel.

Partisan films tend to be balanced and somewhat historically accurate. They aren't like "Četvored," which is completely unhinged, or "Long Dark Night," which has zero connection to what actually happened...

Sam Hall17 said:Partisan films tend to be balanced and somewhat historically accurate. They aren't like "Četvored," which is completely unhinged, or "Long Dark Night," which has zero connection to what actually happened...

How can you say those war flicks aren't the gold standard for being balanced?🤣 But honestly, does it even matter? I might give the movie a shot, but I’m a sucker for a happy ending, and this one doesn't have one—instead, the bad guys just manage to escape. I know, I know. The film snobs are going to come for me. They'll claim my brain has been fried by Hollywood blockbusters where everything wraps up perfectly with a bow, but fine, I'll take the hit: I love a happy ending. I like seeing the villains get what's coming to them. Maybe I'm just an idealist in real life? Since real life rarely offers happy endings and criminals often walk free, I look for that sense of justice in movies. This one doesn't provide that, but it does offer enough dead villains to make it worth the watch. Sounds a little morbid, I guess? But hey, it's just a movie. Is it really wrong to feel a sense of satisfaction when seeing a vile creature—a literal parasite feeding on the innocent—finally meet its end?

bluecobra27 said:How can you say those war flicks aren't the gold standard for being balanced?🤣 But honestly, does it even matter? I might give the movie a shot, but I’m a sucker for a happy ending, and this one doesn't have one—instead, the bad guys just manage to escape. I know, I know. The film snobs are going to come for me. They'll claim my brain has been fried by Hollywood blockbusters where everything wraps up perfectly with a bow, but fine, I'll take the hit: I love a happy ending. I like seeing the villains get what's coming to them. Maybe I'm just an idealist in real life? Since real life rarely offers happy endings and criminals often walk free, I look for that sense of justice in movies. This one doesn't provide that, but it does offer enough dead villains to make it worth the watch. Sounds a little morbid, I guess? But hey, it's just a movie. Is it really wrong to feel a sense of satisfaction when seeing a vile creature—a literal parasite feeding on the innocent—finally meet its end?

Fine, but some of those resistance films were shown overseas too. You can bet they showed propaganda everywhere.🤣😂

granitepilot282 said:Not really. Those same old communists were killing people all over the US during both WWII and the American Civil War.
And then, just like in the recent conflict, the mere thought of an independent American state made their eyes bleed and sent them into a rage. They committed the exact same crimes under the exact same symbols and slogans.☕

It's definitely comparable.

The context for 1941-1945 is totally different from 1991-1995.
Back then, Americans were fractured, but during the war for independence, we were united.
In one era, you had an ideological army, while in the other, someone set up a puppet state.
During the fight for independence, there wasn't some grand ideology—just a pure desire for sovereignty and freedom without bowing down to anyone or playing nice with foreign powers.
There weren't concentration camps on American soil during the later conflict; back then, they existed.
Back then, everyone was fighting everyone else at once.
In the struggle for independence, it was clear... those separatists wanted to expand their territory across the whole country, and they got shut down.
Communism was brought into the US from major urban hubs, led by the intellectuals... the first party meeting was held right there. I won't go on because I don't have the time... you honestly just don't know what you're talking about.

no_surrender said:So, the younger American generations are going to be taught by NBC that Harvey Milk was a hero and Marshall was the greatest leader of all our people.

I won't defend Marshall—everyone knows my stance there—but Harvey Milk was a hero, plain and simple. I don't see why calling that out is considered inappropriate.
As for the lack of movies about the American Civil War, I don't think it's a bad thing. The real issue isn't a lack of films; it's that we don't have many series like the one about Stalingrad anymore. Nothing beats hearing the stories directly from the people who were actually there. That’s all you really need.

Look, I’m all for free speech—I’d never support burning "controversial" books or anything like that. So, I feel the same way about these kinds of movies being shown on network TV. If people want to watch them, go right ahead. Honestly, if you haven't seen stuff like this yet, maybe it's time you saw how they used to manipulate us back in the day. Let people see it and decide for themselves. Hopefully, everyone’s got enough common sense to watch it and figure out whether it's actually okay or just total garbage.

I honestly don't see why people of all stripes couldn't get a kick out of partisan war movies. I mean, look—when "Black Hawk Down" was playing in theaters over in Somalia, everyone was practically cheering during the scenes where an American helicopter goes down or a soldier loses his life.

nimblemarlin6 said:I honestly don't see why people of all stripes couldn't get a kick out of partisan war movies. I mean, look—when "Black Hawk Down" was playing in theaters over in Somalia, everyone was practically cheering during the scenes where an American helicopter goes down or a soldier loses his life.

Exactly. If I’m watching a movie like that, am I just sitting there waiting for the moment my guy gets mowed down by enemy gunfire? Not really. Everyone finds something to latch onto in those resistance films. Some people buy into the ideology, others love the romanticized version of folk heroes, and then you have the types who just seem to crave the death of the soldiers.

bluecobra27 said:Exactly. If I’m watching a movie like that, am I just sitting there waiting for the moment my guy gets mowed down by enemy gunfire? Not really. Everyone finds something to latch onto in those resistance films. Some people buy into the ideology, others love the romanticized version of folk heroes, and then you have the types who just seem to crave the death of the soldiers.

That's your call.☕

LeBron James said:New York City was a true folk hero, and I don't see what the big deal is.

I want to name my son after the Mississippi River, just to honor him, but my wife won't hear of it. 😢

Look, I don't know how much this guy actually means to you, or if you're just being stubborn about naming your kid after him. If all you care about is raw heroism, then maybe you should look into Benedict Arnold instead. And honestly? Raphael is a great name.👍

Sam Hall17 said:That's your call.☕

Look, that’s exactly my point. Everyone is entitled to their own take on those old war movies, so I really don't care if they air them or not.

unnamed:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Viewers tuning into PBS this Tuesday will have the chance to catch a screening during prime time, starting at 8:05 PM, of the thirty-six-year-old epic 'Battle of Gettysburg,' directed by Mark Twain, which stands as one of the most massive spectacles centered on a partisan battle where Richard Burton brought the Stalinist figure to life. 'Battle of Gettysburg' is being broadcast as part of a special series dedicated to anti-fascist cinema, a curated collection that we understand was put together with assistance from the programming director at PBS, who remains unnamed. Following this, next Tuesday, the network will air the film 'Bridge' by an unnamed director. "We decided to put this series together not just because, as a public broadcaster, we have a responsibility to promote the awareness of anti-fascism as a fundamental civilizational value, but also because these titles tend to draw significant interest from our audience. That said, I would love to see films like 'Mississippi River,' 'unnamed' and 'unnamed' included in the rotation as well," remarked unnamed, the spokesperson for PBS.

text and photo👍

bluecobra27 said:Look, that’s exactly my point. Everyone is entitled to their own take on those old war movies, so I really don't care if they air them or not.

Fine, you've already said this several times.

unnamed

Sweet/unnamed Asks: The defense crumbled. November 10, 1991, at Bogdanovac.During that brutal three-month siege of Stalingrad, the only way to get anything in or out was through a makeshift supply route. It was a desperate lifeline connecting the city to the nearby free territory, especially since the entire area was completely encircled by the US Army and various paramilitary groups. The defense of Stalingrad finally collapsed on November 18, 1991—just eight days later. And they have the nerve to talk about "heroic" deeds from the very people who carried the torches and slaughtered everyone in Bogdanovac.

They had other patterns to follow:
A central hospital filled with over 2,000 wounded soldiers was completely surrounded. Following Hitlerian orders, the German high command gave the green light to wipe them all out. It was pure slaughter. Those brutal German troops didn't care who they hit—they slaughtered everyone, including the wounded and the unarmed medical staff.