I'd like to see a movie about WWI tanks, that could be truly creepy and claustrophobic...

OMG you think that constitutes military control over a privately made movie? :har:

The military provides technical advisers to movie makers so that the uniforms and equipment is correct for the time period being portrayed. Sometimes they even supply historical battle footage. That is NOT the same thing as exercising creative control over a screenplay or plot.

...

Um, I covered that. I said RELATIVELY safe.

EDIT: I think only ONE A-10 pilot has ever been KIA, and I'm pretty sure less than five have been shot down. I'm pretty sure those numbers are only off by one or two. Even if I'm completely wrong and the numbers are greater, it's still a relatively safe a/c to be flying in combat.

And loud, dont forget loud...

That's one big part of it, the movies that get the military's support naturally have an advantage over movies that don't get it. Not saying there aren't any other avenues for influencing movie making in a particular country.

I like Bill Mauldin's take. In an old Up Front cartoon, Willie and Joe are digging foxholes as a tank drives by. Joe says the following caption.

"I'd rather DIG. A moving foxhole attracts the eye."

Oh now it's just some amorphous influence rather than control of the plot like you have been claiming. Be careful backpedaling so quickly dude, you might trip and hurt yourself! :DL

Where exactly did I claim anything about "controlling the plot"? Not saying that can't happen either.

And btw, why the hostility?

How come every time someone disagrees with you they're displaying hostility?

Where exactly you ask? Well for starters right here in this thread.

Where exactly is the word "plot" used in that post?

When a movie gets made in country x there are many factors that influence it becoming what it is. Plot and who decides what it is, is just one factor. There's a lot more to movie making then the script writing, if that is what you mean by "plot".

Or have I 'lost the plot' here? Or have you August? :)

Well lets see, a government making a movie where the characters and story line are designed to promote sympathy for a particular viewpoint of historical events could have absolutely nothing to do with the plot right?

The word "government" isn't in my post either. Looks like you are just projecting what is in your mind onto other people's posts.

Dude, you can play ignorant if you want to, but you've repeatedly made the argument that governments determine the content of a movie.

For a movie to have let's say nationalist tones doesn't necessarily require that there are government comissars pointing a gun to the, say, script writers head. It simply requires a climate where non-nationalistic movies don't get made ensuring that the only movies that are made adhere to a certain norm. Government might get involved at some point but usually not very directly.

Also when following the money that is used to make a movie it's usually possible to determine exactly the original motives behind the making of a certain movie. When dealing with subjects like war the movies are often quite political in nature making it more likely that there is some kind of political guidelines for that particular movie, either given from an outside source like the government or adopted more or less 'freely' by the makers of the particular movie.

Now you're quibbling.

If your argument had any merit then there would be no such thing as a Michael Moore movie for example. Nor would there have been a Apocalypse Now, or Tell the Spartans, or MASH, or Jarhead in the war movie genre.

There's only one person who decides if a movie will get made or not and that is the person paying for it. That is not the government.