ChrisWeigant.com

From The Archives -- The How-Many-Years' War

[ Posted Monday, May 29th, 2017 – 17:10 UTC ]

Below is the Memorial Day column I wrote last year. Sadly, it doesn't need much updating. Change it to "Sixteen Years' War" and most of the rest is still just as valid today.

The only section (and the only bright spot) is the paragraphs on Iraq. One year later, the battle to liberate Mosul from the Islamic State is almost over, and the Iraqi forces (with American air support and other help) have retaken almost their entire country back from the Islamic State. All that remains is one stretch of highway heading to the Syrian border, the towns (and surrounding areas) of Tal Afar and Hawija, and a few desert towns south of Sinjar. That's a lot of progress, and the end is now in sight. That's something to be thankful for, at least.

In any case, here's hoping you and yours have a wonderful Memorial Day!

 

Originally published May 30, 2016

Being in the midst of history sometimes mean events are not seen in the "big picture" view that historians often later take, when looking back at the period. Case in point: what will America's ongoing war eventually be known as? To date, we've been at war since October 2001, or a mind-boggling period of 15 years. This war was initially called "The Global War On Terror" by the Bush administration, which lumped in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq with all the skirmishes in various other North African and Middle East countries. The Obama administration has dropped the term, but they've never really replaced it with anything else. But what I wonder this Memorial Day is what it will be called in the future. Right now, it'd be the "Fifteen Years' War" -- but few expect all conflicts will end by the time the next president is sworn in, so eventually that number will likely be higher.

Three wars (that I'm aware of) are historically referred to by their length: the Seven Years' War, the Thirty Years' War, and the Hundred Years' War. The only one that is strictly accurate is the Thirty Years' War, which took place from 1618 to 1648. The Seven Years' War was actually fought over nine years' time, from 1754 to 1763, but it got two years lopped off because it didn't really get underway until 1756. And the Hundred Years' War raged from 1337 to 1453 -- much longer than a single century.

Most Americans know little about any of these wars, it's worth pointing out. The only one American schoolchildren even regularly learn about is the Seven Years' War, but by a different name. To us, it was the French and Indian War, and in some ways it was a precursor to our own Revolutionary War (Britain levied a bunch of taxes on the American colonies in the mid-1760s largely to pay the costs of the Seven Years' War, which the colonists did not take kindly to, especially in Boston). Interestingly, the Seven Years' War is now considered by some to be the first "world war," since it involved so many countries all over the globe. This was a contributing influence on American thinking about involvement in the wars which periodically raged in Europe from the country's founding onwards, especially after the pointless War Of 1812 drove the point home. Shortly thereafter, America embraced the Monroe Doctrine which stated in part that Europe should leave the Americas alone and the United States wouldn't get involved in European conflicts. Later on, America was very reluctant to get involved with both twentieth-century world wars because of this long-held belief that Europe should solve its own problems.

The Thirty Years' War was religious in nature, at least at the start. It was the last big battle between Protestants and Catholics in Europe. The Hundred Years' War was mostly waged between England and France (in a nutshell, France had ruled England since the Norman Conquest, and the English thought it'd be a better idea if they ruled France, instead). Both were long drawn-out conflicts with periods of calm interspersed with major battles in various places. It was thinking of these two that made me wonder whether in the future the period America and the Middle East now find themselves in might be called something like the "Twenty Years' War" or perhaps the "Quarter-Century's War." And that's being optimistic, of course.

This is the longest period of American history when we've been constantly at war. The level of our involvement has waxed and waned, from having over a hundred thousand soldiers on the battlefield to merely conducting drone strikes from above. We've been overtly involved to some degree or another in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen. But America has always seen this as a war without borders, so it has spilled over into plenty of other countries in other ways (such as a raid conducted within Pakistan to capture Osama Bin Laden, for instance). There are proxy wars going on, often involving the animosity between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Groups like the Islamic State and Al Qaeda have tried to expand into as many franchises as they can in as many different countries as they can, with varying degrees of success.

Right now the hottest war is being waged in Syria. This is truly a global conflict, with the Americans and the Russians backing different sides in a multiplicity of fighting groups. The Islamic State is benefiting from the fighting between the other groups, in fact. In Iraq, the Americans have backed the Iraqi army (and, to a lesser degree, the Kurds), and the Islamic State has lost major ground -- albeit a lot slower than America might wish. The battle for Fallujah is going on right now, although looking back with a historian's eye the current fight will likely be labeled the "Third Battle of Fallujah," since American forces have their own hard-fought battles to remember in this town. Fallujah was where an American military contractor was killed and his burnt corpse hung from a bridge, in case you've forgotten. The final big battle in Iraq will come in the northern city of Mosul.

Iraq is right now a success story for the Iraqi government's side, which is a big turnaround from when their army fled in terror a few years ago (while the Islamic State moved in blitzkrieg fashion from town to town, getting ever closer to Baghdad). Starting roughly a year ago, the tide has turned completely and the Islamic State has lost almost half the Iraqi territory they once held. The progress is slow, but has been consistent -- the Islamic State has lost every major conflict, and has never regained major ground once lost.

It is hard to see an end to the overall war, even at this point, fifteen years in. America's new normal is being at war -- although in a barely-noticeable fashion. Since Barack Obama took office, our troop presence has been drastically reduced in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the conflicts didn't exactly end in either place. We've been drawn in to new battlefields (Yemen, Syria), and other countries also look ripe for America to get drawn into (Libya) in the near future, depending on who becomes our next president. Who now can see an end to this region-wide conflict? The chances now actually seem better that the war intensifies -- perhaps as Saudi Arabia and Iran get closer to more-overt hostilities. American soldiers might be deployed in this conflict for a long time to come, in various countries around the region.

It is remarkable that we've spent the last decade and a half at war. It's gotten to the point that most people don't even think about it in any way -- a natural reaction to the (so far) Fifteen Years' War. But what's really remarkable to consider today is that we've gone through the longest period at war in our entire history and we still have an all-volunteer army. Conscription has not returned. The politicians learned their lesson well from Vietnam -- when young men (and, now, women) face being drafted, then the public gets a lot more involved in war decisions.

This Memorial Day I'll be remembering all who died in service to the United States military. Especially all those who have died in our current and ongoing wars -- every one of whom volunteered to do his or her duty, so that your son or daughter or other loved one wasn't forced to. But I do wonder how many more of our fighting men and women will be memorialized before the Twenty Years' War (or Quarter-Century's War, or whatever) is finally over.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

55 Comments on “From The Archives -- The How-Many-Years' War”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Program Note:

    While I didn't write a new column today, I did manage to get one large chore taken care of. I had been lax... well, more than lax, really... about updating the Friday Talking Points awards page, which hadn't been up-to-date since (blush) January.

    But I cut-n-pasted for a few hours, and am now happy to say that it's back to being current!

    Sorry for the long delay, and sorry (as always) for the clunky, non-automated nature of the page itself.

    Hope everyone had a great day barbequeing in the sun!

    :-)

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    michale wrote:

    Great commentary, CW.. Your history lesson are always the best. :D

    One minor nitpick...

    Fallujah was where an American military contractor was killed and his burnt corpse hung from a bridge, in case you've forgotten.

    If I recall correctly (and GOOGLE says I do) it was 'a' military contractor... It was 4...

    Since Barack Obama took office, our troop presence has been drastically reduced in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the conflicts didn't exactly end in either place.

    Ya just GOTTA appreciate the irony.. :D

    This Memorial Day I'll be remembering all who died in service to the United States military. Especially all those who have died in our current and ongoing wars

    hooaaaaa

  3. [3] 
    michale wrote:

    If I recall correctly (and GOOGLE says I do) it was 'a' military contractor... It was 4...

    Should read:

    If I recall correctly (and GOOGLE says I do) it WASN'T 'a' military contractor... It was 4...

    My bust...

  4. [4] 
    michale wrote:

    Mattis: Nothing Scares Me; "I Keep Other People Awake At Night"
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/28/mattis_nothing_scares_me_i_keep_other_people_awake_at_night.html

    This is why we are winning the war against the Daesch..

    No more of this Leading From Behind (AKA The Coward Of The Country) crap...

  5. [5] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    We were winning before the election. .

    From what I hear, in fact, a push against Raqqa was delayed because Flynn wouldn't okay it because it would have involved the Kurdish forces, which Flynn's client Turkey objected to. Way to win!

  6. [6] 
    michale wrote:

    We were winning before the election. .

    Odumbo had one or two minor successes.. But NOTHING like that string of victories under General Mad Dog Mattis....

    Odumbo's entire leadership "strategy" was bupkis...

    From what I hear, in fact, a push against Raqqa was delayed because Flynn wouldn't okay it because it would have involved the Kurdish forces, which Flynn's client Turkey objected to.

    Yea?? And WHO did you hear that from??

    "Anonymous Sources".... :^/

  7. [7] 
    michale wrote:

    Face reality, my friend..

    President Trump is 10 times the American and 10 times the leader that Odumbo could EVER hope to be..

    That's why Odumbo always aspired to be just like Donald Trump...

    At least Odumbo did when Trump had a -D after his name.. :D

  8. [8] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    That's why Odumbo always aspired to be just like Donald Trump...

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Tell me another...

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    Tell me another...

    I already did *AND* provided the FACTS to back it up..

    As usual, you ignored it because you don't like facts that prove your hysterical Party zealotry...

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    boring

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    boring

    No...

    I am watching 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY for the first time...

    THAT is boring...

    I hope it gets better...

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It doesn't. :)

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh.. joy...

    I realize that the director and producers want to show off the technology of their effects et al.. That's why they spend so much time on them.

    And the music... oh my gods the music....

    But those effects are almost 50 years out of date..

    I have found myself fast forwarding to get to the actual speaking parts and things that move the plot along...

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The gist of the movie is not out of date. On the contrary ...

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    The gist of the movie is not out of date. On the contrary ...

    I am sure the story is as relevant today as it was then..

    The story TELLING leaves much to be desired... :D

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not everything has to be fast and furious, you know ...

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    Uhhh.... OK.....

    I don't get it....

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It'll come to you on the bus home. Maybe. :)

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    Giving 2010 a try...

    Maybe it will explain 2001....

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's complicated.

  21. [21] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So here's a fun game:

    Scenario I: Trump is the Monolith

    The Monolith is a paradox wrapped in enigma. The press (and everyone else) are too dense to understand the true power of this alien. We are the apes.

    Scenario II: Trump is Hal

    We've screwed up and placed ourselves in the hands of a naive and paranoid intelligence. We are the doomed crew.

    Scenario III: Trump is the Starchild

    This alien child-being is actually the apex of human evolution who will remake the world. We are the lucky bastards below who will be told what to do.

    Scenario IV: Trump is the Movie

    Is it genius, or a stunning, but ultimately incomprehensible mess? Nobody agrees. In this scenario, Kushner is the monolith, communicating something, but to whom? And why? We are the poor confused audience.

    Scenario V: Trump is the Movie Critic

    Vacillating between praise and condemnation, the Critic reduces the painstakingly constructed allegory into a pithy tweet: "Beautiful but Boring. Sad". We are Rotten Tomatoes.

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    OK... Now THAT....

    Was awesome!!! :D

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    Scenario I: Trump is the Monolith

    The Monolith is a paradox wrapped in enigma. The press (and everyone else) are too dense to understand the true power of this alien. We are the apes.

    Makes sense to me... :D

    Scenario V: Trump is the Movie Critic

    Vacillating between praise and condemnation, the Critic reduces the painstakingly constructed allegory into a pithy tweet: "Beautiful but Boring. Sad". We are Rotten Tomatoes.

    I am sure the "painstakingly constructed allegory" really wow'ed the simple mind of the 1960s, the elitist snobs of today and the stoned of either...

    But for those who live in the real world?? The here and now??

    "Eh... I've had better..."
    -Jim Carrey

    :D

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    OK... Now THAT....

    Was awesome!!! :D

    "THAT", of course, referring to 2010... :D

    Trying to decide now between CONTACT and INTERSTELLAR...

    Suggestions???

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    "THAT", of course, referring to 2010... :D

    And, holy crap!! Helen Mirren was hot!!! :D

  26. [26] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    For someone who's not into ambiguous SciFi, you've chosen quite an ambitious lineup.

  27. [27] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I am sure the "painstakingly constructed allegory" really wow'ed the simple mind of the 1960s, the elitist snobs of today and the stoned of either.

    I am sure that both Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick would appreciate that comment, and give it the regard with which it is due.

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    For someone who's not into ambiguous SciFi, you've chosen quite an ambitious lineup.

    I work outside and it's just too damn hot..

    Don't get me wrong.. I like to think...

    I just don't like to work too hard at it.. :D

    I am sure that both Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick would appreciate that comment, and give it the regard with which it is due.

    With regards to Clarke, you would have a point if we were talking about the written word..

    With regards to Kubrick, I gave him his just due.. He really wow'ed the hell out of them in 1968...

    You tell me that it translates well into the here and now and I'll *KNOW* yer frak'ed in the head... :D

  29. [29] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Trying to decide now between CONTACT and INTERSTELLAR..."

    Both were excellent movies. Contact would be easier to understand and follow than Interstellar. I would also recommend Passengers with Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence.

  30. [30] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I'd suggest SpaceBalls -- One of my all-time favorites!

  31. [31] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,

    there goes the planet

    https://youtu.be/kD516OENN7s

    JL

  32. [32] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    2001 a space odyssey is a very interesting film, but watching it takes some patience. you have to think of it less as a modern film and more as a walk through a museum, watching it when you're bored and have something else to do doesn't work. if you want to enjoy it, turn down the lights, pull up a glass of something strong and let the experience happen.

    JL

  33. [33] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and this one's for both of you:

    https://youtu.be/gggQtG8hgKY

    :)

  34. [34] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22

    History of the World, like most Mel Brooks movies, is one I can watch over and over and it only gets funnier! Did you ever see Monty Pythons' The Life of Brian? Another one of those movies that never gets old.

  35. [35] 
    michale wrote:

    JM,

    Both were excellent movies. Contact would be easier to understand and follow than Interstellar. I would also recommend Passengers with Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence.

    Yea, I have watched both before. I opted for INTERSTELLAR.. I have only seen it once but I remember it was a bit mind-blowing.. :D

    PASSENGERS was AWESOME!!! My only beef was with the last scene.. It would have been a LOT better if there were families and children playing...

  36. [36] 
    michale wrote:

    2001 a space odyssey is a very interesting film, but watching it takes some patience. you have to think of it less as a modern film and more as a walk through a museum, watching it when you're bored and have something else to do doesn't work. if you want to enjoy it, turn down the lights, pull up a glass of something strong and let the experience happen.

    My comments might have been overly harsh, but it just seemed to me that the director was trying too hard to be futuristic.. How many times do we have to see the food packets and freeze dried food?? Interior SpaceShip, Exterior SpaceShip, Interior SpaceShip, Exterior SpaceShip, Cockpit, Interior SpaceShip, Cockpit, Exterior SpaceShip, Cockpit, Exterior Spaceship...

    If Kubrick wouldn't have spent so much time "setting the mood" he could have lost an hour off the length of the movie...

    But, as I said, it was a sign of the times..

    It would be like watching GONE WITH THE WIND or THE TEN COMMANDMENTS...

    Great movies in their day...

    In the here and now???

    Not so much....

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    But I did enjoy 2010... A LOT... :D

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    I'd suggest SpaceBalls -- One of my all-time favorites!

    Never been much of a parody fan... Or a Mel Brooks fan..

    I know, I know...

    I am culturally depraved... I mean deprived... :D

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    PASSENGERS was AWESOME!!! My only beef was with the last scene.. It would have been a LOT better if there were families and children playing...

    Hope that doesn't constitute a spoiler...

  40. [40] 
    TheStig wrote:

    While the current war in Iraq is going well, and the "Islamic State" is on the run, the long term instability of Iraq has not changed. Modern Iraq is not a natural political state. It is a figment of early 20th century French/British governments who drew political borders without thinking much about who lived where within the borders of the former Turkish Empire.

    The British sussed the strategy for defeating the Turks in WWI....exhaust them fighting highly mobile irregular forces and then mop up with a big, competent, conventional army. What the British didn't think thru who was going to take on the occupation role of the Turks in all the former Turkish satraps. This problem remains unsolved, although modern Turkey and modern Iran may be applying for the job. Nobody in the West wants it.
    The approach of the West seems to be rinse and repeat diplomacy/war.

    The Hundred Year War is an apt analogy.

  41. [41] 
    TheStig wrote:

    40-"former Turkish satraps"

    US politics over the past 50 years and especially over the past 100 days + a few suggests the United States of America may not be a natural assemblage of satraps either. What wine goes with Hubris Stew?

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    OK Question for all you motorheads..

    Actually 2 questions related to AC operation in a vehicle.. While I can disassemble and repair a 4K Samsung SMART TV blindfolded, car mechanics are voodoo magic to me..

    One..

    My son has told me that driving a car with the windows open wastes as much gas as driving with windows closed and using the AC... While I can see the logic of that, I still wonder if it's true..

    Two..

    Is the use of an AC in a car absolute? By that, I mean, if I run the AC on low does it "waste" as much gas as it would if the AC was run on high??

    I put "waste" in quotes because, in my neck of the woods, running the AC isn't "waste".. It's more a matter of survival..

    Anyways, I have always wondered this but am too lazy to google...

  43. [43] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [2] -

    Actually, that's a good point about Fallujah. However, this is a re-run article, so it really should stand as originally written (mistakes and all), without correction. But you're right, it wasn't just one, just had to say that.

    -CW

  44. [44] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [11] -

    OK, now you, Sir, have gone too far. Pistols at dawn!

    Heh. To appreciate 2001: A Space Oddessy, you have to do one of two things (well, one of three, but I discounted the other one since it is "drop a hit of LSD before you watch it!"). First, read the book. You'll NEVER understand the storyline unless you do. You can watch the film 100 times and not fully understand the end (or the beginning, or the middle, for that matter) without reading the book. Sorry, but's it's one of "those" kind of movies. If the book's too long for you, look up the short story "The Sentinel," as I'm sure it's posted online somewhere. That's the short story the whole thing was based on, and even reading it will give you a pretty good idea of the movie's plotline (except for the end).

    Second, alternatively (if you're too lazy to read the book), just sit back and appreciate the era and historical context in which the film was made. Previous to 2001, space movies were complete drive-in shlock. Thhink: all the "bug-eyed monster" movies of the 1950s, in other words. They were cheesy, they had absolutely NO money behind them, and they looked like complete crap.

    But what Star Trek was to television sci-fi, 2001 was to the movies, times ten. Now, you'll be happy to hear that ST:TOS predated 2001, but still, there had just been ZERO movies made that took sci-fi seriously (and gave it a decent budget) previously.

    Kubrik worked with A.C. Clarke to create a realistic and scientifically-based space voyage. Complete with one thing that sci-fi movies RARELY show, which is the mind-numbing boredom of them. The technical details are astounding, including the fact of lag time for messages across space.

    But you're failing to see the pioneering nature of the film because you are so used to so MANY other films that all stood on 2001's shoulders, as it were. Before 2001, there were only "rockets in space" movies (about on the level of the Muppets' "Pigs In Space," really). Flash Gordon, and whatnot.

    2001, on the other hand, has a two-stage trip to the moon in it. It is realistic, and far beyond what was technologically going on at the time it was made. A shuttle ("Pan Am" no less) takes him up to the space station -- which is a spinning double wheel, even with sections still being worked on. The shuttle had to do an incredible dance to dock with a spinning wheel's hub, complete with "The Blue Danube" playing in the background (quite possibly the best sci-fi "docking" scene ever filmed, even today). The computer graphics on the shuttle pilot's screen were the absolute top of the line, for the time it was made, it bears mentioning.

    Then a non-areodynamic ship took the guy to the moon. Since it only had to escape 1/6th the gravity on an airless world, it was a far different design than the Pan Am shuttle.

    That is downright astounding, when you look at the movies that came before it. Plus, the interiors are downright amazing -- the floating pen in the shuttle, the stewardess walking on velcro, the space station (with the curved floors), and the zero-G toilet, even.

    When he gets to the moon, he takes a "moonbus" out to the TMA site. Look familiar? It should, since Space: 1999 totally ripped off the design for their Eagles.

    The photo at the site correctly shows that helmets are NOT lit from within, and would essentially be mirrors.

    The trip to Jupiter (Saturn, in the original book) is made by a nuclear-powered ship -- that's why it's so long. There's a reactor at one end, and lots and lots of room between it and the living space. As there should be.

    The jogging scene is astounding, when your realize (there WAS no CGI, back then) that they had to build a HUGE wheel/set, and actually ROTATE it to create just that one scene.

    There is no gravity in space, there is only pseudo-gravity, and to create it, you've got to spin something big -- hence the jogging scene, and the space station itself.

    The "pods" are also freakin' amazing, for the time this movie was made.

    The "computer freaks out" theme has been done many, many times since (can you say "Skynet"?), but this was the FIRST real serious treatment of it.

    As for "HAL"... Clarke outright admitted he came up with the acronym by subtracting a letter. Go forward one in the alphabet to see what the joke is...

    Heck, it's even got a "man has to travel through vacuum unprotected" scene in it. What more do you want?!?

    Again, these are all the VERY FIRST TIME anyone tried to portray any of this in a realistic way on screen before.

    Just look at the computer/video "tablets" used in the film, and then ask yourself how different they are from an iPad. That's pretty good prognostication, friend.

    OK, there is one point where you hear "noise in space" which I find a serious flaw... but other than that, 2001 is a masterpiece. An impossible-to-decipher masterpiece, admittedly, but a masterpiece of cinema nonetheless.

    Remember, this movie was made like a decade before Star Wars and Alien. It predated such minor films as Marooned and Silent Running, as well.

    Silent Running is an interesting one, since it not only introduced the concept of "driods" (Huey, Dewey, and Louie) -- which Star Wars ripped off to create R2D2 -- but also featured clips that had wound up on the cutting room floor for 2001 (the trip through the rings of Saturn).

    To conclude, 2001 isn't a perfect film. It can be boring in parts, and as a whole is completely incomprehensible (to those who don't read the book). Granted, those are flaws for any movie.

    But on a technical level, this is quite possibly the greatest science-fiction movie ever made. It is indeed hard to find ANY sci-fi movie that doesn't borrow or outright steal from it. It laid down a very high bar for all others to clear -- which not all of them do, even in today's filmmaking world.

    So like I said, be VERY careful how you speak of this movie 'round these parts, pardner. Otherwise, thar's a gonna be a shootout...

    :-)

    You have been warned. In the Apple manual for their MacBasic program, in 1985, there was an example which printed out the following dialog. No explanation was necessary:

    "Open the pod bay doors, HAL!"
    "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

    This is one of the scariest lines uttered by a computer in ANY sci-fi film, in my opinion.

    So there. Hmmmph.

    -CW

  45. [45] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Not you, too? Et tu, Lizzie?

    Heh.

    For both you and michale -

    The freakin' film itself was made 50 years ago!!! A half-century!!! What do you expect?!? CGI tricks? They didn't exist back then!

    OK, admittedly, you really have to read the book to understand the film -- much like Dune, come to think of it. But it's still a pioneering film that all other sci-fi films strive to live up to.

    Hmmph.

    -CW

  46. [46] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Balthasar [21] -

    Aha! Someone who "gets it"!

    I have to admit, this was downright frightening:

    Scenario III: Trump is the Starchild

    But this, on the other hand, was hilarious!

    Scenario IV: Trump is the Movie

    Is it genius, or a stunning, but ultimately incomprehensible mess? Nobody agrees. In this scenario, Kushner is the monolith, communicating something, but to whom? And why? We are the poor confused audience.

    I'd say the ghost of Roy Cohn was the monolith, personally... heh...

    -CW

  47. [47] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [23] -

    "The stoned" comes closest to why it was such a big 1960s hit, admittedly. See previous comment on "drop some acid"...

    Heh.

    -CW

  48. [48] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, I am admitting that I wrote comment [44] without reading further, and had expected michale's comment to be a throwaway which nobody else responded to.

    I am glad to be proven wrong, I have to say.

    See, michale? Even now, the movie gives rise to strong feelings all around, whether they be praise or ridicule. What other movie from 50 years ago engenders that kind of response from sci-fi fans? Name one! You can't... because they just don't exist...

    :-)

    -CW

  49. [49] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [28] -

    With regards to Kubrick, I gave him his just due.. He really wow'ed the hell out of them in 1968...

    That is precisely what I was saying. And it wasn't until 1977 that America was wowed by another sci-fi flick, from George Lucas.

    Point made.

    -CW

  50. [50] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear [30] -

    Or Galaxy Quest -- best Star Trek spoof ever!

    :-)

    -CW

  51. [51] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet22 [various] -

    OK, here's two for you. From VERY early afterwards:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ymFxkFfIhU

    and from much later (an astoundingly well-made spoof, if truth be told):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe6yy3sW6NI

    Enjoy!

    :-)

    -CW

  52. [52] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [36] -

    I like the concept of "viewing it as a museum piece" -- with the label:

    First big-budget movie that tried to be scientifically accurate -- which defined the entire science-fiction genre for a century afterwards

    Taken in that light, you can appreciate it on a minute level.

    My comments might have been overly harsh, but it just seemed to me that the director was trying too hard to be futuristic.. How many times do we have to see the food packets and freeze dried food?? Interior SpaceShip, Exterior SpaceShip, Interior SpaceShip, Exterior SpaceShip, Cockpit, Interior SpaceShip, Cockpit, Exterior SpaceShip, Cockpit, Exterior Spaceship...

    If Kubrick wouldn't have spent so much time "setting the mood" he could have lost an hour off the length of the movie...

    Once again -- this was the FIRST time we had seen freeze-dried food packets. The FIRST realistic (and well-designed) spaceship interiors EVER. The FIRST realistically-thought-out spaceship exteriors EVER. And back then, movies' plots ALL moved at a much slower pace -- even action movies, believe it or not.

    Do you criticize Neil Armstrong for spending too much time on the radio with Houston before getting out of the Eagle? I mean, really...

    Sheesh.

    [37] -

    But I did enjoy 2010... A LOT... :D

    Aha! All is forgiven! Cancel the pistols at dawn!!!

    Heh.

    Seriously, get a copy of the short story "The Sentinel." It's a really short story, and reading it will put a lot of the puzzle together...

    -CW

  53. [53] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [38] -

    Not even Blazing Saddles -- one of the funniest movies ever made?

    [fingers pistols, and checks clock for when dawn will arrive...]

    Heh.

    -CW

  54. [54] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    TheStig [40] -

    [taking off my sci-fi movie critic hat for the moment...]

    I read an interesting movie review recently that might interest you...

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/05/baywatch-and-letters-from-baghdad

    Ignore the Baywatch review idiocy, skip to the second movie. Never heard this story before, but it sounds interesting. Especially that bit about "in essence, defining the borders of modern Iraq" (this was circa 1917).

    Sounds like a movie worth watching...

    -CW

  55. [55] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-54

    Thanks for the link. I'm a NewYorker subscriber myself but missed the second review due to the first.If there were more than 24 hrs in a day I might be able to read a NYer from cover....what with the rest of life going on, I'm forced to be selective.

    I'm going to try and find that second movie. Lawrence of Arabia (the movie) is historical fiction, but it tends to get the big historical picture mostly right. It's still a crackin' good film. Love those authentic Rolls Royce armored cars! The Turkish biplanes look to be repainted Tiger Moths. A camel is a camel. Hut-hut!

Comments for this article are closed.