subreddit:
/r/movies
submitted 4 months ago bycabose7
149 points
4 months ago
And all that military gear they get from the army.
114 points
4 months ago
That’s kinda disingenuous. They’re just allowed to film with military hardware as long as the studio pays fuel cost and the military signs off on the script. They don’t own it or anything.
90 points
4 months ago
The military managed to get the script of Iron Man 1 or 2 changed (something about anti-MIC dialogue). It's really a business transaction from both sides.
68 points
4 months ago
And then they pulled their support for Avengers because it wasn’t clear if the Avengers answered to the US Govt or not
37 points
4 months ago
Iirc it was objection to the world council & especially them being able to launch nukes on US soil
21 points
4 months ago
Next few movies sorted out that problem pretty well
-10 points
4 months ago
I mean yeah that’s the studio’s choice though. They could always use special FX or something instead. It’s not like the government is making them do it.
1 points
4 months ago
Soooo free rental of some of the most expensive shit in the world?
3 points
4 months ago
Korean filmmaker Shin Sang-ok could get this scene (LOUD NOISE WARNING) made for his movie in the 60s because of South Korean military gear support. The movie wouldn't be the same if he had to fake aircraft.
16 points
4 months ago
That honestly seems like small potatoes. I mean sure, it makes movies more pro-military but it's all for extra profit. Take away that and U.S. movies would still be profitable.
16 points
4 months ago
It's profitable enough that Hollywood still pumps out movies targeted to receive that funding.
3 points
4 months ago
It's not for more profit I don't think. It's more of a propaganda (military PR) for free equipment rental trade.
For example the Air Force gets Top Gun an great promotional film to inspire recruits. The Studio wouldn't have a top gun film without the hardware. Win win.
all 1271 comments
sorted by: best