Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I saw the trailer. It looked like utter crap. The old one was good, and there was no "super weapon" or whatever, but I guess hollywood needed an excuse as to how North Korea (New bad guys) could possibly manage an invasion of the US.

I think it is an action movie for action's sake. Im not sure if that's Thor or his brother, but Im not all excited either.

Is this out on DVD yet?

Original Red Dawn is one of my top 10 favorite movies, but I gotta say, this remake doesn't move me in the slightest.

I'm actually more excited for GI Joe: Retaliation, as crazy as that sounds.

Y'know originally the baddies were going to be China. They changed it to NK out of fear of Chinese displeadure aimed at the studio.

So you have folks trying to make a movie about heroically fighting for freedom...

When it was made by cowards who backed down at the first sign of trouble.

Gak action movie is gak

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Y'know originally the baddies were going to be China. They changed it to NK out of fear of Chinese displeadure aimed at the studio.

So you have folks trying to make a movie about heroically fighting for freedom...

When it was made by cowards who backed down at the first sign of trouble.

Meh, nothing a little 3rd party editing can't fix


Anyway, who cares. Skyfall is coming out!

 tyrant of loserville wrote:
I think it is an action movie for action's sake. Im not sure if that's Thor or his brother, but Im not all excited either.

It was Thor (Chris Hemsworth.) Liam (his brother) was in "tomorrow, when the war began".

I didn't think it looked that bad.

 Shredsmore wrote:
I saw the trailer. It looked like utter crap. The old one was good, and there was no "super weapon" or whatever, but I guess hollywood needed an excuse as to how North Korea (New bad guys) could possibly manage an invasion of the US.

On the positive, now I know its not worthy of even a redbox rental.

You can't do a Red Dawn now. Thats why we have all the Alien Dawn movies.
Red Dawn would have been cool: China vs. Russia.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Y'know originally the baddies were going to be China. They changed it to NK out of fear of Chinese displeadure aimed at the studio.

So you have folks trying to make a movie about heroically fighting for freedom...

When it was made by cowards who backed down at the first sign of trouble.

Last line = har har.
Nice one Kyoto.

I enjoy the original and will check this one out when it hits Netflix but my expectations are not exactly high.

Red Dawn was a red scare movie, it was far a scarier and better idea when it was made. I just hope some North Korean politics is brought up, make them more human, rather than enemy invaders with nonsense goals and incomprehensible motives.

I doubt they'd be able to manage much of that as it would be "boring".

I just hope they have an explanation for a North Korean invasion of the United States being plausible. Not arrogance, just reality that at present North Korea simply doesn't have the capability to launch a mass invasion across the Pacific and not have it be swiftly repulsed. Probably going to be something like the scenario in Homefront, in which case we're basically getting Homefront: The Movie.

I thought unimaginative entertainment companies were supposed to make bad video games based on movies, not movies based on bad video games.

I'm really puzzled as to why people are so clueless as to the fact that Homefront/Red Dawn are basically the same explanation for how the North Koreans invaded.

John Millius is, at best, a hack writer.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Y'know originally the baddies were going to be China. They changed it to NK out of fear of Chinese displeadure aimed at the studio.

So you have folks trying to make a movie about heroically fighting for freedom...

When it was made by cowards who backed down at the first sign of trouble.

I think the original Red Dawn introduced the entirely superfluous PG13 category. For many years it was the bloodiest movie ever made too, in terms of people killed on screen. I heard the same thing about the Chinese creditors balking at the original script.

Wouldn't a more edgy, interesting plot be NK or Cuba or whoever merging up with an insurgency already in the united states? I mean look at the electoral map. There were five states were the election was close, and in the other 45, it was a blowout, one way or the other. I think a red-dawn meets civil war reloaded plot would have been much more interesting and topical. There is more pathos in fighting your own countrymen than zapping random communist goons anyway.

The weirdest thing about this terrible remake is that it's caused people to start pretending the original was a good movie.

Here's the thing - I grew up loving the original movie. Alongside the original Transformers movie I think it is probably the most watched movie of my childhood. But it isn't a very good movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silverthorne wrote:
Wouldn't a more edgy, interesting plot be NK or Cuba or whoever merging up with an insurgency already in the united states? I mean look at the electoral map. There were five states were the election was close, and in the other 45, it was a blowout, one way or the other. I think a red-dawn meets civil war reloaded plot would have been much more interesting and topical. There is more pathos in fighting your own countrymen than zapping random communist goons anyway.

A more edgy script would drop the foreign invasion entirely. Just have a civil war.

But the original wasn't an edgy movie. It was a fantasy about dying in glorious battle against pure evil.

And the new film isn't even that. It looks like just another generic action movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chromedog wrote:
It was Thor (Chris Hemsworth.) Liam (his brother) was in "tomorrow, when the war began".

I saw Tomorrow When the War Began on tv the other night.

It was also a crappier version of Red Dawn. And when you consider that Red Dawn was pretty crappy to begin with...

The Rifftrax for the original movie is hilarious, and comes highly recommended.

So does anyone else think that any war prosecuted against the United States of America would have to be a genocidal one against their civilians for the exact reasons that this movie uses for its plot? The populace would simply be too well armed and belligerent to leave alone. They would have to be classified as combatants.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
-Attributed to Fleet Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy

While Yamamoto almost certainly didn't say this but the spirit of spirit of the quote is quite accurate. Resistance would be wide spread in many areas and would only increase as various partisan factions gained supplies and equipment from either the U.S. military itself or as it scavenged weapons and equipment from killed enemy.

So basically, yeah, any invasion of the mainland United States would have to classify all civilians who didn't surrender immediately as hostile enemy combatants. I think that would really throw the Geneva convention for a loop.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Y'know originally the baddies were going to be China. They changed it to NK out of fear of Chinese displeadure aimed at the studio.

So you have folks trying to make a movie about heroically fighting for freedom...

When it was made by cowards who backed down at the first sign of trouble.

I exalt that statement.

 Ratbarf wrote:
So does anyone else think that any war prosecuted against the United States of America would have to be a genocidal one against their civilians for the exact reasons that this movie uses for its plot? The populace would simply be too well armed and belligerent to leave alone. They would have to be classified as combatants.

Invasion of the US is basically impossible from the get go. But it isn't because you've got guns.

I mean, the first thing we have to do is play make believe and pretend that some other country somehow developed the blues seas capability to defeat the US navy and put vast numbers of transport ships over either the Pacific or the Atlantic.

Then we have to pretend that the US armed forces could somehow be overwhelmed by some other country or coalition of countries. And when you've got a basic monopoly on top end weapon platforms, you do not lose a conventional war.

So once all that's done, then this invader is still left with occupying a country of 300 million people, spread across a vast area, with dozens of key cities and ports. The manpower to lock down the US, even if the population wasn't doing anything to meaningfully oppose the invaders, is just mindboggling.

And then when you look at that population, it'd be an absolute nightmare to lock it down. Not because there are guns (when war breaks out getting your hands on some guns is the easy part) but because that population is well educated, has transport and surplus food stocks, is very patriotic and (despite the silly political rhetoric) is quite loyal to its present government.

I mean, I'm just thinking in comparison to Soviet Russia, invaded by the Germans in WWII. The soviet citizens had guns, but they weren't that much of an issue for the Germans in the early stages. There was little loyalty to the Soviet government, and where loyalty existed there was little means to fight back - the individual had limited transport and so couldn't move far from the farm/village to undertake operations, and winter was coming and much of the food stock was just taken by the Wehrmacht - survival meant laying low.


tldr - yes, but not because of the guns.

 CuddlySquig wrote:
Red Dawn was a red scare movie, it was far a scarier and better idea when it was made. I just hope some North Korean politics is brought up, make them more human, rather than enemy invaders with nonsense goals and incomprehensible motives.

It was definitely scary to anyone that didn't know any better. There is no way that Soviet parachutes get anywhere close to Colorado in 1984. Any of those planes would have been taken out long before they got there. And it would have been all over the news as well that the U.S. was under attack. So you wouldn't have this "Surprise..the Russians are here" at the highschool.

Still was a great movie to watch for a 13 year old kid, which I was was at the time.

GG

Invasion of the US is basically impossible from the get go. But it isn't because you've got guns.

I mean, the first thing we have to do is play make believe and pretend that some other country somehow developed the blues seas capability to defeat the US navy and put vast numbers of transport ships over either the Pacific or the Atlantic.

Then we have to pretend that the US armed forces could somehow be overwhelmed by some other country or coalition of countries. And when you've got a basic monopoly on top end weapon platforms, you do not lose a conventional war.

So once all that's done, then this invader is still left with occupying a country of 300 million people, spread across a vast area, with dozens of key cities and ports. The manpower to lock down the US, even if the population wasn't doing anything to meaningfully oppose the invaders, is just mindboggling.

And then when you look at that population, it'd be an absolute nightmare to lock it down. Not because there are guns (when war breaks out getting your hands on some guns is the easy part) but because that population is well educated, has transport and surplus food stocks, is very patriotic and (despite the silly political rhetoric) is quite loyal to its present government.

I mean, I'm just thinking in comparison to Soviet Russia, invaded by the Germans in WWII. The soviet citizens had guns, but they weren't that much of an issue for the Germans in the early stages. There was little loyalty to the Soviet government, and where loyalty existed there was little means to fight back - the individual had limited transport and so couldn't move far from the farm/village to undertake operations, and winter was coming and much of the food stock was just taken by the Wehrmacht - survival meant laying low.

Well the thought of taking on the States through Alaska and then Canada is probably the most realistic scenario, seeing as it's the only land bridge close enough to America to use boats and still have Air Superiority over their carriers, as well as far enough away from their main air force bases to provide logistics problems for them. As for losing a conventional war, even the greatest disparity in weapons platforms can be overcome with numbers, something the Chinese teaming up with the Russians would likely be capable of.

 Ratbarf wrote:
even the greatest disparity in weapons platforms can be overcome with numbers, something the Chinese teaming up with the Russians would likely be capable of.

Mr. Maxim and his marvelous invention would like to have a word with you

 Huffy wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
even the greatest disparity in weapons platforms can be overcome with numbers, something the Chinese teaming up with the Russians would likely be capable of.

Mr. Maxim and his marvelous invention would like to have a word with you

This. Because somebody took Mr. Maxim's marvelous invention (god that sounds like the title of a children's movie) and scaled it up a little bit.

Yeah, there's an argument to be made for quality over quantity. Especially when the US has a guided bomb that's submunitions (also individually guided) can shred an armored column alone. (CBU-97/CBU-105) with optimum dispersion and perfect deployment, with each submunition tracking and killing an individual target, a B-1B lancer with CBU-97/105s on each station can eliminate something like 150 armored vehicles.

codemonkey wrote:

 Huffy wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
even the greatest disparity in weapons platforms can be overcome with numbers, something the Chinese teaming up with the Russians would likely be capable of.

Mr. Maxim and his marvelous invention would like to have a word with you

This. Because somebody took Mr. Maxim's marvelous invention (god that sounds like the title of a children's movie) and scaled it up a little bit.

I love GAU-8s. The sound is just so, chilling.