Lone Survivor the Movie

Just saw it and thought they did pretty well for themselves. It's always hard to make a movie out an event like that or from a book because you only have so much time in a movie to make a point before dragging on and loosing the audience. I think they got the main point across Heroes went in and paid the ultimate sacrifice and this is the basics of how it happened , if you want the details read the book.
 
Freefalling said:
Watching it now. Good movie, crap for details at times. They didn't even get Turbine 33's callsign right and a memorial patch for Marc Lee in 2005? Sadly, Axelson's death in the movie conflicts with Luttrell's book.

Good movie, but details and events are just plain wrong.
Click to expand...
Hmmm....now I'm even more torn about seeing this.

I was skeptical about a "Hollywood" version of the story since viewing the first trailer. The comment that "Shah killed 20 Marines last week" was particularly problematic. I hoped that perhaps it was taken from an early cut and the comment didn't actually make the final screen version. But to now read they didn't get a key fact that I'd go so far as to call sacrosanct (ie. the callsign for Turbine 33) correct? I don't know about that.

Accuracy is important to stories such as this. The battle of Roberts Ridge is another story I've thought would be worth sharing as a movie. But if Lone Survivor, even with it's first hand oversight, is any indication as to how it might be handled by Hollywood, then it's probably best they don't as it's not one I'd trust they would ever do justice.
 
Last edited:
The fact is, despite minor over sites in the details - there are a shit ton of people who would have never known about this story if it were not for this movie. Every veteran bitches and moans every time the media makes a big deal about celebrities, and not focusing on the important stuff i.e. the men and women who are still fighting and dying. Yet, here they are making what I would say is a very legitimate and heart felt effort to tell the story, and we are going to nit pick? I don't agree with that.

I could understand if they turned it into some Charlie Sheen-esque movie, but it's not and they put in a solid effort. NO movie, regardless of genre or topic, get's it 100% right. I guarantee that the 'Wolf of Wall Street" didn't get all the lingo perfect or the processes perfect. But you get the gist of the story. So let's not pretend like the war movies are the only ones that don't get all the details right.

I'm not defending movie makers or Hollywood, I love going to movies but I have general disdain for those who make them. I'm just saying lets give credit where credit is due.
 
Blizzard said:
Accuracy is important to stories such as this. The battle of Roberts Ridge is another story I've thought would be worth sharing as a movie. But if Lone Survivor, even with it's first hand oversight, is any indication as to how it might be handled by Hollywood, then it's probably best they don't as it's not one I'd trust they would ever do justice.
Click to expand...
Just saw it yesterday and having read the book as well -- and if I may, coming from a non-mil guy I think that the modifications they made to the story were suitable for the target audience they were trying to tell the story to. Personally, I had the feeling a lot of details were left out even from the book itself.

First of all I am not disagreeing with you and Freefalling but I also thought that the director/producer/script writers certainly had to consult Mr. Luttrell on these modifications. The reasons for the modifications would have been very compelling for him to go along with them. Just guessing here but the reasons could range from closing the "loops" in the shortened story (which could probably confuse the audience) to details that could lead to OPSEC/TTPs. Mr. Luttrell did admit that there were things he did not know because he just simply could not remember. In the end I think that the changes they made did not take away anything from the real story that Mr. Luttrell was trying to tell.

My $0.2 to all this. Back to my lane.
 
goon175 said:
The fact is, despite minor over sites in the details - there are a shit ton of people who would have never known about this story if it were not for this movie. Every veteran bitches and moans every time the media makes a big deal about celebrities, and not focusing on the important stuff i.e. the men and women who are still fighting and dying. Yet, here they are making what I would say is a very legitimate and heart felt effort to tell the story, and we are going to nit pick? I don't agree with that.

I could understand if they turned it into some Charlie Sheen-esque movie, but it's not and they put in a solid effort. NO movie, regardless of genre or topic, get's it 100% right. I guarantee that the 'Wolf of Wall Street" didn't get all the lingo perfect or the processes perfect. But you get the gist of the story. So let's not pretend like the war movies are the only ones that don't get all the details right.

I'm not defending movie makers or Hollywood, I love going to movies but I have general disdain for those who make them. I'm just saying lets give credit where credit is due.
Click to expand...

http://www.dontevercallmeahero.com/2014/01/09/lone-survivor-film-fiction-calling/

I'm with you but saying that the SEALs went in because 20 Marines were killed the week prior, and 20 more would die if they didn't accomplish this mission significantly changes the story. I don't have a problem with saying that there were 200 Taliban in the fire fight (despite that all official accounts to include Lt Murphy's MOH citation agree on 30-40) because that's poetic license to make things exciting. The fact of the matter is that 5 Marines had been killed in Afghanistan in the entire war by that point and only one in that area of operations and he drowned in a river. The Marines were actually very successful in the Kunar province and took very few casualties despite conducting distributed operations with small teams. You don't have to take away from the highly successful Marine COIN story in the Kunar Province, which you can read in Ed Darack's victory point, to tell some inflated version of the Luttrell story.
 
Teufel said:
http://www.dontevercallmeahero.com/2014/01/09/lone-survivor-film-fiction-calling/

I'm with you but saying that the SEALs went in because 20 Marines were killed the week prior, and 20 more would die if they didn't accomplish this mission significantly changes the story. I don't have a problem with saying that there were 200 Taliban in the fire fight (despite that all official accounts to include Lt Murphy's MOH citation agree on 30-40) because that's poetic license to make things exciting. The fact of the matter is that 5 Marines had been killed in Afghanistan in the entire war by that point and only one in that area of operations and he drowned in a river. The Marines were actually very successful in the Kunar province and took very few casualties despite conducting distributed operations with small teams. You don't have to take away from the highly successful Marine COIN story in the Kunar Province, which you can read in Ed Darack's victory point, to tell some inflated version of the Luttrell story.
Click to expand...

After reading that article, and seeing some of the very angry posts in a variety of Ranger FB groups, there are a lot of pretty unhappy people about this movie. I don't know, maybe I was being a bit too forgiving.
 
I'll add this too, people were applauding after the movie was over.

As for changing the amount of Marines killed to 20, well that makes the bad guy look like a bad guy to the target audience because one Marine or five Marines dead will not resonate nearly as much as 20 with the added threat of more dead Marines each week.
 
goon175 said:
After reading that article, and seeing some of the very angry posts in a variety of Ranger FB groups, there are a lot of pretty unhappy people about this movie. I don't know, maybe I was being a bit too forgiving.
Click to expand...

Angry because of inter-service rivalry or they got the story wrong from a Regimental perspective? Just being nosy.
 
lindy said:
Angry because of inter-service rivalry or they got the story wrong from a Regimental perspective? Just being nosy.
Click to expand...

Anger from the guys who rescued Luttrell. Not so much that they weren't mentioned or anything like that, just that they saw the situation first hand and don't see any reason why so much was wrong or exaggerated. I'm going to see the movie tonight, so I can't speak first hand, but apparently the end of the movie is luttrell being rescued in the middle of a big fire fight with all this stuff going on. Meanwhile, it was two 2/75 Rangers that found him and brought him up to the high ground while they waited for the rest of the platoon to catch up. That is just one example.
 
I respect anyone who serves in the military no matter the branch, I am also going to see the movie tonight. The main thing I am happy about is that Hollywood 99% of the time gets things wrong, obviously there will be with this movie as well. Sadly most people can't/ won't ever understand what you men and women go through. I myself am just glad that Hollywood decided to tell the story, missing/added pieces or not. The military doesn't get near enough props so again I am excited.

I will say again though, from a documentary standing MURPH was fantastic. Nothing better than honoring a fallen soldier and I think they did a great job.
 
As a movie, I liked it. In regards to it following the book…a bit off. I hope everyone noticed the cameo.

This wasn't Syriana so people wanting ten story lines mixed into it are going to be disappointed.
 
goon175 said:
Anger from the guys who rescued Luttrell. Not so much that they weren't mentioned or anything like that, just that they saw the situation first hand and don't see any reason why so much was wrong or exaggerated. I'm going to see the movie tonight, so I can't speak first hand, but apparently the end of the movie is luttrell being rescued in the middle of a big fire fight with all this stuff going on. Meanwhile, it was two 2/75 Rangers that found him and brought him up to the high ground while they waited for the rest of the platoon to catch up. That is just one example.
Click to expand...

SPOILERS FOLLOW:







Yeah, that's how the movie portrayed it: Luttrell being tortured/ nearly killed before a kid gives him a knife so Luttrell can kill the attacker, then a HUGE firefight breaks out, Apache gun and rocket runs on the village, AC-130 lighting up everyone during the daylight, ML takes up an AK and helps repulse this attack on the village as the rescue force lands, etc.
 
^
Hmmmmm. Sigh.

I'm going to go see it shortly. Am I going to wish I hadn't?

Evidently, landing a helo on a mountainside in zero visibility along with all the other mission oriented risk didn't provide enough drama.

Keeping goon's comments in mind, I'll temper my expectations.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
AI robots: The Creator movie
Replies
1
Views
424
Ooh-Rah
Ooh-Rah
AWP
Review Death Waits in the Dark by Greg Coker/ George Hand IV
Replies
3
Views
421
Kaldak
Kaldak
AWP
Your Weekend Safety Brief
Replies
5
Views
1K
Muppet
Muppet
R.Caerbannog
The UN, Migration, and Demographics
2 3
Replies
42
Views
2K
R.Caerbannog
R.Caerbannog
R
Happy Veteran's Day - Useful Training Resource - Gryphon Group
Replies
0
Views
445
RealkingRalo
R
Back
Top