boogieshoes (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
boogieshoes) wrote2005-09-18 11:01 am
boogieshoes) wrote2005-09-18 11:01 am
Entry tags:
can somebody tell me...
... just exactly what is wrong with _Tour of Duty_? i've seen a number of people on the bar dissing ToD, a show which is, to my mind, one of the best made for the general audience episodic military shows around.
granted, i may be looking at this thru fanfic-colored glasses, but positives are:
* it's character driven
* it has an overall story arc of the butter-bar learning how to be a real leader in one MGF of a war
* in various episodes, it touches on real issues from the 1960s, and things are not given black and white solutions. (because, you know. there *aren't* that many black and white solutions out there.)
* the soldiers are portrayed as real people, just trying to survive through the war.
* granted, i would only be able spot the overly obvious - like, say, cell phones - but *i* couldn't find any glaring anachronisms or time inconsistencies, or plot inconsistencies.
* factoids at the beginning of every episode. ok, i admit, i have a fondness for factoids. so sue me.
there are some problems that occur within ToD, of course, but most of those are the ones that will occur in any show, given the constraints of filiming and keeping the same characters:
* suffers from BGOTW (bad guy of the week) syndrome. the guys in our platoon are the good guys, so a lot of the other soldiers wind up being 'bad guys' in order to deal even semi-effectively with various episode plots. i can see where this may give the idea that most of the american military was made up of unethical assholes, but honestly, there are a limited number of ways to work with a non-changing cast dealing with new political problems all the time.
* someone on the bar mentioned that the spacing between the soldiers when they went out on LRRP was way too close... ok. i understand wanting hollywood to be accurate, but this verges on the rediculous. the only way to effectively show a spacing that is so strung out would be via an overhead shot... and tell me how this is going to be done through a jungle canopy?
as an addendum to the point above, i know that not all strategic/ tactical/ technical gaffs are something that can be explained by the need to shoot effective film, as opposed to realistic film. but, come on, folks, every episode lists our very own Department of Defense as a resource. as far as they *could* have been from a realistic portrayal, they probably *weren't* that bad.
of course, i drool in my sleep, so what do i know?
-bs
granted, i may be looking at this thru fanfic-colored glasses, but positives are:
* it's character driven
* it has an overall story arc of the butter-bar learning how to be a real leader in one MGF of a war
* in various episodes, it touches on real issues from the 1960s, and things are not given black and white solutions. (because, you know. there *aren't* that many black and white solutions out there.)
* the soldiers are portrayed as real people, just trying to survive through the war.
* granted, i would only be able spot the overly obvious - like, say, cell phones - but *i* couldn't find any glaring anachronisms or time inconsistencies, or plot inconsistencies.
* factoids at the beginning of every episode. ok, i admit, i have a fondness for factoids. so sue me.
there are some problems that occur within ToD, of course, but most of those are the ones that will occur in any show, given the constraints of filiming and keeping the same characters:
* suffers from BGOTW (bad guy of the week) syndrome. the guys in our platoon are the good guys, so a lot of the other soldiers wind up being 'bad guys' in order to deal even semi-effectively with various episode plots. i can see where this may give the idea that most of the american military was made up of unethical assholes, but honestly, there are a limited number of ways to work with a non-changing cast dealing with new political problems all the time.
* someone on the bar mentioned that the spacing between the soldiers when they went out on LRRP was way too close... ok. i understand wanting hollywood to be accurate, but this verges on the rediculous. the only way to effectively show a spacing that is so strung out would be via an overhead shot... and tell me how this is going to be done through a jungle canopy?
as an addendum to the point above, i know that not all strategic/ tactical/ technical gaffs are something that can be explained by the need to shoot effective film, as opposed to realistic film. but, come on, folks, every episode lists our very own Department of Defense as a resource. as far as they *could* have been from a realistic portrayal, they probably *weren't* that bad.
of course, i drool in my sleep, so what do i know?
-bs
no subject
The big problem with it is that it addresses real issues from the 1960s, and doesn't address the real issues, or more importantly successes in Iraq.
Its military consultants are inept or non-existent, it's portrayal of events is unrealisitc, and it has a definite anti-Iraq-involvement agenda from the soldiers when compared to the reality. It's biased, and presents itself as a docudrama when it's VERY fiction.
no subject
::hugs:: thanks for coming to the blog :)
-bs
no subject
BTW, you need to add me to your friends list too!
no subject