Just finished watching Operation Hollywood http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0983233/ which was pretty interesting view on how the military goes through all Hollywood-scripts before giving any help (equipment, stock footage, men etc.) to the filmmakers. If they don't like what they're reading, they insist changes to the script. In short, the film should portray them in a positive, heroic light (changing the history while doing this is no problem, as is shown in the 13 Days -example).

Intresting documentary which made me want to find out which war-films were backed by the military. Wonder if there's somekind of list somewhere?

ps. One of the first things that came to my mind while watching this - as an example of the kind of stuff the military loves - is Band Of Brothers. Even if it is being very realistic when it comes to damages caused by different kinds of weaponry, it shows the kind heroism and comradeship that works as a perfect propaganda for the military. The perfect recruitment material. When I was in the army, the officers used to refer to this all the time, how we should be a "band of brothers" like in the series.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=15312

I don't see why any group would want to help out a movie that's going to make them look bad, military or not.

This is not really about "helping out" though.

come on...

What is it about?

Are there actually any Hollywood movies where the military doesn't come across as totally incapable of accomplishing anything without either a guy in spandex or some giant robots to help them out?

Not counting movies that imply that Ahh-nold is in the military.

Try any John Wayne film, or Top Gun for example.

I'm still not sure what this thread is about. For every movie that portrays the military heroically there are just as many that make it look like a bunch of blundering fascists.

You could start off by asking yourself why does the military want to use Hollywood as it's propaganda channel, and why does it want to make it more difficult for filmmakers to present their own view instead of the view that the military wants to present. Why does it extort filmmakers to change the tone of the film as an exchange for stock-footage, equipment etc. which is paid by the taxpayers, including the one's who do not support the view of the military/ the methods it uses.

Well, this seems like 2 different arguments. The public should have access to stock footage and certain equipment regardless of their views or how they will use it (assuming they take responsibility for it). As for why the military wants itself portrayed positively is pretty obvious. Like bart d. said, who wouldn't?

I always thought Top Gun was about how gay people would be really good at flying.