Zero Dark Thirty

[ChartsandGrafs]

"It's true, Al-Qaeda said so", LOL.

Like I said, no evidence whatsoever. The whole thing is based on, "______ said so".

[Row6]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

Well, I try and keep my word--so I'll say that I had gone into it expecting a lot more than it delivered. Honestly, with as much of a joke as the Hurt Locker was, I'm not quite sure why I was expecting anything from the director, but lesson learned.

Very few things were reflective of actual intelligence or military operations--the dialogue, the behavior, and the tactics/strategy.

If people want to get a better feel for intelligence operations, the tv series Homeland does a far better job at portraying things.

I know nothing about "actual intelligence operations" and so am curious about what you found fault with in the movie. Did you see it as wrong, or just lacking detail?. I was less than overwhelmed by the movie for reasons having to do with what I consider artistic decisions. I still thought it was good, but not great. I have also watched Homeland - which I like - and wonder specifically how you think it is more accurate in it's depiction of intelligence operations.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by Row6

I know nothing about "actual intelligence operations" and so am curious about what you found fault with in the movie. Did you see it as wrong, or just lacking detail?. I was less than overwhelmed by the movie for reasons having to do with what I consider artistic decisions. I still thought it was good, but not great. I have also watched Homeland - which I like - and wonder specifically how you think it is more accurate in it's depiction of intelligence operations.

A little bit of both (it being wrong and lacking detail). I was never on the hunt for Bin Laden and don't have any specifics to pass along (and it's likely I wouldn't be able to discuss it anyway even if I did know) on that note...but the blatantly obvious stuff:

1.) analysts don't participate in interrogations (though, in fairness, Homeland gets that wrong as well)

2.) the scene where the two ladies are talking about personal details about themselves, sources, and operational details over dinner at a hotel in Pakistan was utterly implausible. If you're in a country like that on the frontlines of the War on Terror, you're given a cover identity and stick to that name and details the entire time. That's for your own personal protection and to protect family/relatives back home. If terrorists overseas learn your real name, what's the easier target: going after you in Pakistan (where you'll be armed and/or close by other armed people)--or going after your family and getting to you that way?

3.) Additionally, while I realize the producers have artistic license to emphasize how dedicated/stoic the protagonist was--suffice it to say, the character went well overboard on what would have been tolerated/allowed. For one, you don't talk to your bosses like the way she routinely talked to hers (unless you want to be fired)--and two, the whole scene with her and the markers, chalking up the number of days after they found the house? --that would never be tolerated at Langley. Obviously, the number gives some clue for someone to figure out a "break" of some sorts had been made--or there's a timetable to go by. With an organization as obsessed with keeping things as discrete as possible, that kind of behavior would have never been tolerated.

Operational stuff? They didn't go into too many details there beyond what was already public knowledge...but suffice it to say, Navy SEALs don't go bragging about which guys they popped while on a mission. Once a target is eliminated, they go about to their next task and certainly don't brag about it or casually discuss it while still on the mission.

Homeland does a much better job covering the multifaceted angles/problems/strategy of intelligence operations. The movie pretty much fixated on one idea/one angle the entire time and nothing else was discussed. Perhaps the movie couldn't delve into it too much because the producers didn't know how to incorporate it in--but it's a shame because it would have made a much better movie all-round, and certainly more suspenseful/thrilling.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

A little bit of both (it being wrong and lacking detail). I was never on the hunt for Bin Laden and don't have any specifics to pass along (and it's likely I wouldn't be able to discuss it anyway even if I did know) on that note...but the blatantly obvious stuff:

1.) analysts don't participate in interrogations (though, in fairness, Homeland gets that wrong as well)

2.) the scene where the two ladies are talking about personal details about themselves, sources, and operational details over dinner at a hotel in Pakistan was utterly implausible. If you're in a country like that on the frontlines of the War on Terror, you're given a cover identity and stick to that name and details the entire time. That's for your own personal protection and to protect family/relatives back home. If terrorists overseas learn your real name, what's the easier target: going after you in Pakistan (where you'll be armed and/or close by other armed people)--or going after your family and getting to you that way?

3.) Additionally, while I realize the producers have artistic license to emphasize how dedicated/stoic the protagonist was--suffice it to say, the character went well overboard on what would have been tolerated/allowed. For one, you don't talk to your bosses like the way she routinely talked to hers (unless you want to be fired)--and two, the whole scene with her and the markers, chalking up the number of days after they found the house? --that would never be tolerated at Langley. Obviously, the number gives some clue for someone to figure out a "break" of some sorts had been made--or there's a timetable to go by. With an organization as obsessed with keeping things as discrete as possible, that kind of behavior would have never been tolerated.

Operational stuff? They didn't go into too many details there beyond what was already public knowledge...but suffice it to say, Navy SEALs don't go bragging about which guys they popped while on a mission. Once a target is eliminated, they go about to their next task and certainly don't brag about it or casually discuss it while still on the mission.

Homeland does a much better job covering the multifaceted angles/problems/strategy of intelligence operations. The movie pretty much fixated on one idea/one angle the entire time and nothing else was discussed. Perhaps the movie couldn't delve into it too much because the producers didn't know how to incorporate it in--but it's a shame because it would have made a much better movie all-round, and certainly more suspenseful/thrilling.

OK, thanks. That adds to my understanding. On the SEALS scene after the raid, I was surprised on how little celebration was shown. I understand the professionalism, but adrenaline coupled with the significance of the achievement would result in a little more high-fiving I would think. Heck, my obscure and limited talent adult soccer team seemed more excited after a win.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by Row6

OK, thanks. That adds to my understanding. On the SEALS scene after the raid, I was surprised on how little celebration was shown. I understand the professionalism, but adrenaline coupled with the significance of the achievement would result in a little more high-fiving I would think. Heck, my obscure and limited talent adult soccer team seemed more excited after a win.

As you said, they're professionals. Time is of the essence on those missions and every second spent high-fiving one another is time taken away from something else.

After Bin Laden was shot, they still needed to blow up the downed helicopter, collect as much intelligence material as possible, and then high-tailing it out of there before the Pakistani military could react.

[m9000]

I saw last Friday night and found it entertaining. It is a movie based on real life, but it is a movie, not a documentary.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by michaeljoewilliamson

it is indeed. And it is based on a really bad guy getting a bullet to the head.

Spoiler alert !!!!!

[DaveFla]

I just saw this movie... Excellent movie. Very Argo-esque.

I highly recommend it. They left politics out of it as best they could (save for a couple of "what WMD's" remarks that I felt were apropos due to the fact that the government was very hesitant to do anything for fear of being crucified for being wrong... Again).

Go see it.

[gatorev12]

On a lighter note, the ending scene when she gets to go home in a plane all by herself...I kinda laughed because of all the planes to reward someone with--they send a C-130. Easily the most uncomfortable non-Soviet made plane in the known universe.

[DaveFla]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

On a lighter note, the ending scene when she gets to go home in a plane all by herself...I kinda laughed because of all the planes to reward someone with--they send a C-130. Easily the most uncomfortable non-Soviet made plane in the known universe.

I was thinking the same thing. Little does she know, she is in for one long, noisy and uncomfortable trip.