Schmoe wrote:
Sno, don't you think movies like Kubrick's 'Full Metal Jacket' were knocking the US armed forces long before Scott's 'Blackhawk Down'?
PS-Are we talking about 'Behind Enemy Lines' with Owen Wilson? That movie wasn't even close to being in the same league as the others.
Full Metal Jacket and others were knocking the military early on, but the public gave lukewarm reception to those movies so studios were hesitant to back movies with those sentiments.
Full Metal Jacket took in just over 13% of receipts it's opening weekend, and that was against a pretty weak line-up: Revenge of the Nerds II, The Squeeze, O.C. and Stiggs, The Whistle Blower, and White Water Summer.
For comparison (going in order of release), Behind Enemy Lines took in 31.8%, Black Hawk Down took in 26.3%, and Tears of the Sun took in 39% their opening weekends.
While I absolutely agree that Behind Enemy Lines isn't in the same league as the others cinematically or politically, the fact that it was a successful film (though not a blockbuster) and was not met with protest gave studios the courage to take on more anti-military projects that weren't sure-fire successes like Blackhawk Down looked to be.
Blackhawk Down showed you could make a fantastic movie with anti-military sentiment and not get hammered by the public. Behind Enemy Lines showed you could make a semi-decent popcorn flick with anti-military sentiment and not get hammered by the public. Tears of the Sun showed you could absolutely ravage the armed forces and the public would still shell out to see it.