:dubious: I suppose you’ve never heard of Black Hawk Down? Either the book, or the movie it spawned?
Wait, wait! I know! “It’s the exception that proves the rule!”
I actually took that movie as a slam against PMCs like Blackwater, DynaCorp, and such and such-like.
Yeah, I’d agree with that. For every ra-ra patriotic orgy like Top Gun or Independence Day, there’s an anti-military (or at least anti-war) flick like Stop Loss or Three Kings. It all depends on the target audience and the script.
Perhaps we could list films from the recent past as to whether they portray the armed forces in a generally good or bad light. Just off the top from my memory those as “military good”
An Officer and a Gentleman
Topgun
Blackhawk Down
Memphis Bell
Final Countdown
Flyboys
Saving Private Ryan
Independence Day
GI Jane
Airport 77
Broad overgeneralizations, yes, but as for the overall “feel” of these movies I’d say:
Military good:
Saving Private Ryan
Top Gun
Executive Decision
The Sum of All Fears
The Hunt for Red October
Independence Day
Stargate
Starship Troopers
Glory
True Lies
Military bad:
Stop Loss
Outbreak
Courage Under Fire
The General’s Daughter
A Few Good Men
WarGames
In the Valley of Elah
Seven Days in May
The Siege
The Stand
The Messenger
The Hulk
The Abyss
Alien Resurrection
Any Mother’s Son
Soldier’s Girl
Serving in Silence
Lions for Lambs
Avatar
Dances with Wolves
Was BHD produced without the cooperation of the US military? Or are you saying that it portrayed the military in a less than positive light, but got support anyway?
On Doctor Who: Actually, the Doctor joined a fictional military organization (UNIT) and served as its scientific adviser throughout the '70s (or was it the '80s?). Although his interactions with UNIT personnel have become more sporadic and strained, he is still officially a member of the organization.
Red Dwarf: Rimmer and Lister belong to something called “the Space Corps,” and Rimmer strives to be promoted to officer rank, even after death.
Military Good:
K-19
Das Boot
Under Siege
Force 10
I’d disagree with a few of the “bad.” I’d say the following fall into more of the a “few bad apples” category.
Courage Under Fire- I thought this one was not “bad” military at all. There were some tough conflicts, but all the good guys were military. An underrated film!
The General’s Daughter- Decent book, bad movie.
A Few Good Men- It just hated Gitmo before it was fashionable!
Not a sergeant, but I have taken some tips from Gunny Hartman when admonishing some of my more…recalcitrant debaters. 
There were a whole slew of post-Few Good Men military dramas that star some combination of Denzel Washington, Samuel L Jackson or John Travolta:
Basic
Courage Under Fire
Crimson Tide
The Generals Daughter
Rules of Engagement
The Seige
While the quality of these movies vary, what they all have in common is that they don’t really portray the military in either a particularly good or bad light. They are essentially procedural dramas (I like to collectively call them “J.A.G. - The Motion Picture”) where the military setting provides more of a backdrop.
I don’t know about The Abyss, but Avatar does not have the military in it.
Most Hollywood movies portraying the US military do so in a positive light and they always have. One of the primary reasons for this is that it’s part of the deal studios have to strike in order to be able to use real military vehicles (tanks, helicopters, etc.) in their productions. I can’t even think of a recent movie that shows the US Military in a negative light. On the contrary, they tend to be shamelessly butt sucking displays like the Transformers movies, which play like recruiting commercials.
The notion that Hollywood shows the military as evil is completely preposterous.
I’m going to offer something from a completely different sphere: Zipang, a Japanese TV series, which depicts early 21st-century members of the Japanese Self Defence Force, and members of the Imperial Japanese Navy and the United States Navy from 1942 (at the time of the Battle of Midway and afterwards). The theme of the series is about how a Japanese warship and its crew survive after going back 60 years into the middle of a world war, but all the military, from all three navies involved, are shown in a generally positive light.
MTV’s True Life series, documentaries about various aspects of the lives of young people, features military enlisted personnel quite often. These are mostly just slice-of-life, without a positive or a negative spin. They do show the servicemembers’ pride in their work, but they also show the heartache of deploying and leaving loved ones behind, and they show the devastating injuries that some incur.
Doonesbury features the military frequently. The military personnel in there lean heavily toward severely injured veterans and sexually harassing active duty types, but Trudeau clearly has a great deal of respect for servicepeople.
I always thought of Star Trek as wholly subversive of conventional depictions of the military. Its military is primarily a scientific and diplomatic organization. It encourages a great deal of individualism and initiative. Hierarchy is portrayed negatively much of the time – note that every admiral is evil. If anything, I imagine that the writers saw the Borg as a conservative entity opposing freedom of thought.
As for office hierarchy, it’s worth noting that The Office did not originate in the US. If anything, I would guess that American offices tend to be more egalitarian on average than the workplace cultures of many (most) other nations.
BHD showed the U.S. Army screwing up by-the-numbers; Ranger arrogance/overconfidence, officers/NCOs who didn’t know where to go what to do, poor communications links causing spastic coordination between different units working together on the same mission, and so on.
Yet it was an honest assessment of the action, by Mark Bowden, and it received, to the best of my knowledge, full military support during filming.
I think BHD was an honest depiction of the chaos of battle. Anyone who’s ever studied warfare will tell you that even the greatest victory contains multiple screw-ups and failures. I watched the film and saw a bunch of excellent soldiers doing the best they could under extraordinary conditions.
Maybe I am mis remembering this film, but I dont know how it could be associated with the military, good or bad.
What was the reasoning.
Declan
You need to get out more, or at least read the panoply of anti-war films listed up-thread. In addition to all thoses, while it is not yet released, I can’t imagine that Paul Greengrass’ Green Zone, “based” on the non-fiction Imperial Life in the Emerald City (which was highly critical of the US-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent Coalition Provisional Authority), is going to be any kind of “butt sucking display.”
Oh, and Transformers? A Saturday-morning television cartoon writ large, based on a line of children’s toys, about giant friggin’ robots from space that disguise themselves as motor vehicles and household appliances. If this is your example of how Hollywood doesn’t provide realistic or critical depictions of the military then I would say that reflects more on your taste in cinema rather than the machinations of a consortium of film executives and the military-industrial complex.
To be fair, the film condensed, and in some cases, pretty well mangled details of the actual story (no doubt in order to make it a filmable story with a vaguely coherent plot). The key problem with Operation Gothic Serpent (the objective to capture Mohamed Farrah Aidid) wasn’t want of a failure of military training or tactics per se, but rather a lack of political will to “let slip the hounds of war” and engage with the assets necessary to assure that the objective would be achieved. This necessitated the use of sparse assets without proper overwatch and tactics that were inadvisable for the scenario (i.e. helicopter insertion into a dense urban objective zone). Frankly, no one is more critical of how that operation went down than the military at pretty much every level. Paul R. Howe’s Leadership and Training for the Fight provides a grunt-level precis on the criticism of military operations in Somalia.
Stranger
None of the movies listed above demonized the military. Some of them had characters from the military who were baddies, but none of the villified the military itself. That’s just bullshit. It doesn’t happen. Seriously, give me a break. A Few Good Men was anti-military? Every single good guy was in the military. It was a movie about military justice. It had one military character who was bad, and he was brought to justice BY the military. All of the other examples are similarly horsehit.
As for the Green Zone movie (and it’s kind of silly to try to cite a movie that hasn’t come out yet on the basis of what you IMAGINE will be in it), what does it have to do with the military? You are aware that the CPA was not the military, are you not? And while the book actually did not take a stand for or against the US invasion of Iraq, being oppsed to the invasion does not equal being opposed to the military. You need to learn the difference between criticism of the civilian leadership of the military, and the military itself.
Also, why would you assume that Paul Greengrass is anti-military or political at all. United 93 was very objective and tok no political sides. Why do you think this will be any different? What do you think Green Zone is going to say about the US Military (the MILITARY, not the US Government, not the CPA) that will be negative or unfair?
Well, here’s something to consider:
The whole mess came about because of the “Code Red” (that was instigated, essentially, by the Colonel) that resulted in the death of a Marine.
The “Code Red” culture is almost uniquely military (with some sports organisations having similar issues). This is not shown in a good light.
Colonel Jessup’s monologue about having to stand on the wall and do disagreeable things while the “soft” civilians make party jokes about the military is not meant to portray the military mind-set in a good light.
The heroes, as you mention, are all in uniform, but notice that they are all in the legal profession, and not a combat arm. The script even takes pains to point out that Cruise’s character is the son of a famous lawyer prominent in the Civil Rights fight. I don’t think it’s hard to seperate out lawyers and doctors as “not really” part of the military culture, at least in the minds of some viewers.
True, at the end, LCpl Dawson’s character is made to realise that the “Code Red” culture runs counter to the ideas of honor and integrity in one’s personal conduct (conduct unbecoming), so there are some positives to be found as well.
For me, I don’t consider the movie as a whole as portraying the military in a bad light, but there are some points in there where I can see how a viewer might conclude that it is a negative movie.