MovieChat Forums > Jarhead 3: The Siege (2016) Discussion > Somebody (or somebodies) in Hollywood se...

Somebody (or somebodies) in Hollywood seems to be misunderstanding Jarhead.

posted 9 years ago by BadSurge
9 replies | jump to latest

The original movie, I mean.

Originally, the idea was that these soldiers sat around for weeks, building up fury and testosterone, but saw ZERO action. So they were pent up and volatile. The army was designed to make them that way, to yearn for the killing. By the time the end comes around, our hero is questioning everything he knows, and they still haven't seen combat damn near.

And some easily confused producer sees the film (probably zoned out a bit) and determined it would be perfect for a pointless war franchise where combat is prevalent throughout the story.
Boy, did the original ever go over your head, whoever you are.

Why not continuing that BS Behind Enemy Lines franchise? Or some other "true to life" war film like Black Hawk Down, if you want a war film with action?

Jarhead is not an action film. Turning the sequels into action films is to miss the entire point of the first story.

[–] Smug_Grinch 9 years ago

I was thinking the same thing to myself. Swoffard didn't charge enemy bunkers and kick in doors, shooting. It was a character development story. With Adkins in it, this will be all bloodshed and bullets.

---
We never really grow up, we only learn how to act in public.

[–] Snusmumrikken 9 years ago

This is a reboot. So, they can have it action packed if they want. The director William Kaufman, is also a known for his action films.

[–] Smug_Grinch 9 years ago

Well, the first one was based on Swofford's autobiography, not really intended to be adapted into an action movie. Luckily, this one isn't linked in the Movie Connections, so hopefully it's just a standalone film about marines, with no connection to Swofford and the original movie at all.

---
We never really grow up, we only learn how to act in public.

[–] Snusmumrikken 9 years ago

I think it has no connections to the first film. Here's the director conforming it's a reboot:
https://www.facebook.com/181091338600878/photos/a.646375795405761.1073741826.181091338600878/853403718036300/?type=1&theater

[–] snakeye808 8 years ago

With no connections to the first film, as you say, I would think you'd agree that it makes no sense to make this movie part of the Jarhead series. The only reason to use Jarhead in the title is to capitalize on the fame of the first Jarhead, but it seems like a move that will backfire since the fans of the first film will most likely not enjoy an over-the-top, shoot-em-up film like this one.

[–] BadSurge 9 years ago

They could make it a space opera if they want. That's not the point.

Turning "Jarhead" into an action franchise is a lot like turning "Schindler's List" into an action franchise. It doesn't make any fücking sense. Compounded by the fact that the original film had the soldiers hungry for action that went undelivered. This new director seems like he's deliberately missing the point.

http://www.imdb.com/list/YU6USnpUaJ8/

[–] satyr_child 8 years ago

How do you reboot a movie about a real person? Is this from the POV of another guy (they were Marines, in the Marines... not soldiers in the Army BTW), that saw his time there through a completely different lens?

And I hope Dennis Haysbert is firing his agent.

[–] jco41566 8 years ago

Marines are not soldiers....geesh people when will you learn the difference?

[–] BadSurge 8 years ago

Maybe when we start giving a shït.