research for a new series

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Mad Max,
Though I agree with most of what you said, there is the fact that ANYONE can come here and read the info. Bandsmen included.

Coming of like a fire-breathing tough-guy Neanderthal on the internet just reads pathetic to most people and turns many off that might have been interested.
I know that if she had come and pitched a show about my trade with "those" charactors I would have been all over her for her lack of homework but in a constructive way that maybe could shed a good light on our "interest".

Thanks,
Bruce

 

[Franko]

Mad Max,
Though I agree with most of what you said, there is the fact that ANYONE can come here and read the info. Bandsmen included.

Coming of like a fire-breathing tough-guy Neanderthal on the internet just reads pathetic to most people and turns many off that might have been interested.
I know that if she had come and pitched a show about my trade with "those" charactors I would have been all over her for her lack of homework but in a constructive way that maybe could shed a good light on our "interest".

Thanks,
Bruce

My sentiments exactly. 

Regards

 

[camochick]

You know, I read this stuff a lot, because, as a professional soldier, I have a vested interest, as well as a prurient one, in what goes on in, around, and about the Canadian Forces. So it is with some interest that I read self-promoting, self interested supposedly objective MILITARY? types sucking up to anyone attempting to pitch a script. Let me tell you, troops, if you are REALLY interested in military matters, and not the pseudo- military stuff flying around in your obviously un-military heads, then you will stop this shameless pandering and self promotion! Saving Private Ryan? Excellent stuff! Nothing whatsoever to do with what is being discussed here! Soldiers, NOT BANDSMEN, make the military function! Musicians have a purpose and a role, without question- but that role is NOT to decide policy or determine the validity of opinions expressed by members of the Profession of Arms. Note what I said- THE PROFESSION OF ARMS! It is my understanding that this is a Military-interest Site intended for people who have a military point of view -whether military or civilian. Tossing out critical commentary in this forum, it seems to me, is sort of like tossing an arty sim into a fish pond- you never know what is going to come bubbling up. And in this case, what has come bubbling up is a bunch of whining, self-promoting suffragettes. If any of you would like to know what it IS and SHOULD BE like going through a PROPER boot camp, drop me a line. Otherwise, grab a pink gin with a mini umbrella in it, and keep on watching...well, whatever the heck you types watch on T.V.       Out!

Whining self promoting suffragettes, either you mean the fact that woman have posted on here or you are using the word all wrong. Why not put some background on your profile instead of coming in here and slagging people because apparently you think know way more than the rest of us. If you do, then why don't you offer up something constructive instead of whining about everyone else whining. The woman was mearly asking for some advice which i think most people here have tried to give her, so lay off for awhile why don't you.

 

[big bad john]

Whining self promoting suffragettes, either you mean the fact that woman have posted on here or you are using the word all wrong. Why not put some background on your profile instead of coming in here and slagging people because apparently you think know way more than the rest of us. If you do, then why don't you offer up something constructive instead of whining about everyone else whining. The woman was mearly asking for some advice which i think most people here have tried to give her, so lay off for awhile why don't you.

Well said!

 

[winchable]

Unless anyone offers some constructive criticisms (slinging a paragraph in never hurt either) soon this thread is about to become my victim for the day.

Any takers? Or should we just keep beating our chests, flinging feces and peeing on each other?

 

[HollywoodHitman]

Shut 'er down dude. The poor horse is mushy-dead.

Writerchic has enough info on people she can talk to if she wants to do some accurate writing.

TM

 

[TCBF]

No, lets keep it open or in "Ready Reserve."  She may want some other opinions or some detailed notes or memories, and this is as good a spot as any to ask for help.  We may be a rough crowd, but thats because we love what we do, and are protective of the much-maligned Army we do it in.

Tom

 

[winchable]

I'll give it a chance,
Just keep the criticisms constructive, well worded, civil and simple

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I was in touch by email, and the best advice has been given - to visit an actual training base.  I'm sure one or two of you have PMed or emailed as well.  I think this thread has run its course, personally, but will defer to Che if he feels this can lead somewhere constructive.

 

[jrhume]

Heh.  "obliterate and conquer"

I didn't know that's what we were doing. 

Okay - okay.  I'll shut up.  You lot have given the lady very good advice.

Maybe she'll be like the Washington post writer (Mary Beth Sheridan) who recently spent several weeks with actual soldiers in Iraq and discovered that they weren't really 'blood thirsty maniacs'. 

Yes, she really did say that.

In fact, she said, they were "really decent people." And even "sweet." Of course, after being shot at they were eager to shoot back â ” a military attitude that seemed to surprise her.

She also reported that when she asked soldiers why were they in Iraq, every single one told her, "to help the Iraqi people." Again she was surprised that the military could create such a unity of purpose even though, she said, she didn't see any "brainwashing" going on. She also noted that many soldiers had no opinion about the war. They had gone where they were ordered to go, like all good soldiers. Such an attitude seemed to dazzle her as well.

Given the right opportunity, writerchick might learn better as well.

Jim

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I'm very happy to have been proven wrong by Old Guy; good post.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Old guy, when you quote articles, it's better to set out the part quoted somehow (quotation marks, boldface, colour change, etc).

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Either way you decide how to proceed with your project I wish you the best of luck and hope it is a success for you

 

[Glorified Ape]

Isn't this something we should be encouraging? Over and over we talk about how the CF needs more exposure in the Canadian populous to remind it of our existence. Whatever the shortcomings in plot or accuracy, it's not her lack of research, drive, or creativity to be blamed (I think the concept sounds great) but likely the overwhelming lack of information provided by the government and military literature on how life in the modern Canadian military is. If we're willing to accept videogames as a legitimate means of exposure, why the hell wouldn't we support TV efforts which will reach a much larger demographic?

Instead of trying to cut this person down and engaging in largely irrelevant discussions of our motivations behind such cutting, why don't the experienced members here (alot of which I see have a positive attitude towards such a series) offer some input (as many have) on what the relationships would be like, what military life is like, etc. This person can do us a favour by making such a series and I think, though I'm an unexperienced newb, that we should try to help her produce as accurate and interesting a series as she can, for herself and for us, instead of discouraging her by making unproductive, insulting comments and killing a thread which has the potential to do some good for the CF.

Just a few ideas to make some small contribution, aside from the problem with the CWO I already put forward:

1) How personal could relationships between course instructors and WO's be? Does anyone have some experience where a WO and course instructors had close, personal relationships?

2) What is the social environment between course instructors like? Does their instructional capacity lead to more professional-focused relationships than would exist between similar members in a unit, or do they often socialize and interact on levels outside a purely professional capacity?

3) What are some interesting interactions and conflicts between CF members that would make for good television, but are also realistic?

4) Given that the course instructors are male and female, how possible is it that they would become romantically involved? What complications are presented, both officially and socially, by such an involvement?

5) Would the addition of an officer (as an antagonist to the NCM protagonists) be helpful to producing a good series, or would it be possible to make an enticing, yet realistic depiction of course staff interaction with officers playing only supporting roles?

6) What kind of stresses really try a course staff member's resolve? What are some of the more common (and humorous, dramatic, etc.) problems that occur on course? What are some of the stupid, funny things that unexperienced recruits/ocdts tend to do on course? I could offer a few, but I think experienced members probably have a more objective outlook. What are some of the funny/creative ways that course staff can screw with the trainees and what effect do they have?

I don't know the answers to any of these since I'm about as newb as they come, short of finishing IAP, so I guess it's up to the members with a good amount of time in to answer these questions, if they're so inclined.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Isn't this something we should be encouraging? Over and over we talk about how the CF needs more exposure in the Canadian populous to remind it of our existence. Whatever the shortcomings in plot or accuracy, it's not her lack of research, drive, or creativity to be blamed (I think the concept sounds great) but likely the overwhelming lack of information provided by the government and military literature on how life in the modern Canadian military is.

Instead of trying to cut this person down and engaging in largely irrelevant discussions of our motivations behind such cutting, why don't the experienced members here (alot of which I see have a positive attitude towards such a series) offer some input (as many have) on what the relationships would be like, what military life is like, etc. This person can do us a favour by making such a series and I think, though I'm an unexperienced newb, that we should try to help her produce as accurate a series as she can, for herself and for us, instead of discouraging her by making unproductive, insulting comments and killing a thread which has the potential to do some good for the CF.

Exactly, and to go a step further, 100% accuracy isn't even essential - in fact, may be considered detrimental to most "dramatic" fictional presentations.  Which isn't a license to steal - just saying, 8 Rangers would never be sent behind enemy lines to take a paratrooper out of action and send him home, but it made for a good story.

Most military films are like that - even the most highly respected ones either compress time and space, make many characters into composites, or progress from faulty premises - in order to make a point.

If anyone can name a 100 percent accurate military-themed television show or movie (with allowances made for fictional characters), I'd love to hear about it.

 

[Glorified Ape]

Exactly, and to go a step further, 100% accuracy isn't even essential - in fact, may be considered detrimental to most "dramatic" fictional presentations.   Which isn't a license to steal - just saying, 8 Rangers would never be sent behind enemy lines to take a paratrooper out of action and send him home, but it made for a good story.

Most military films are like that - even the most highly respected ones either compress time and space, make many characters into composites, or progress from faulty premises - in order to make a point.

If anyone can name a 100 percent accurate military-themed television show or movie (with allowances made for fictional characters), I'd love to hear about it.

I think you're right... my suggestions (you posted before my edit went through) were somewhat based around what's possible AND could make for good television. I think the former is less important than the latter, as you said.

Just as an aside, relating the personalities and experiences of CF members (fictional or real) to the general populous serves a valuable purpose, I think. I bought my mother a book for christmas about the Canadian experience at Medak and her interest in the CF and respect therefor went up 200%. If we could do that on a massive scale, imagine how easier it would be to get sufficient funding, popular support, etc. I think many times that it's not that the populous won't care, it's that they don't know.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

As anyone who studied drama in Grade X knows - almost all fiction is driven by conflict.  This can be inner conflict, or external conflict, or both.  Military advisors to TV shows and movies, from Sands of Iwo Jima to Combat! to Tour of Duty to Courage Under Fire have all wanted a pristine vision of the military made on screen.

Sands of Iwo Jima relied on participation by the US Marine Corps.  In the end, the film saved the Corps from extinction - after WW II, the USMC was on the chopping block, but popular sentiment, fuelled by John Wayne's film, are reputed to have saved them.  But their participation was mildly questioned when an advisor saw in the script that John Wayne's Sergeant Stryker physically struck an enlisted man.

The USMC swore up and down that such things never, ever happened.  A look at the book SEMPER FI, MAC paints a different story IIRC - and perhaps even Manchester's GOODBYE DARKNESS does as well?  At any rate, I don't think it was unheard of.  But the USMC relented, only when Stryker atoned for his actions later in the film, and it was made clear that he struck the enlisted man for something approached good reasons.

I've noted PEACKEEPERS as a good example of painting soldiers in a realistic light.  COURAGE UNDER FIRE actually had military support withdrawn (the M-1 tanks in the movie are actually mockups done on British tank chassis) because of certain unsavory depictions of service personnel.

A spic and span rah-rah view of the military is not only not necessarily accurate, but makes for boring drama.  Which is why most military movies focus on the exceptions rather than the rule.  The recruit who murders his DI (Full Metal Jacket) for example (has that ever really happened?  More likely recruits have died at the hands of instructors like GSgt Hartmann).  The bombardier who kills himself because his parents were in the Nazi movement back home (12 O'Clock High) (and add to that the BGen in charge of a bomb group - did it ever happen?  If so, how often?)  The sergeant who punches his company commander after being sent on a dangerous mission (The Bridge at Remagen).

 

[Infanteer]

If anyone can name a 100 percent accurate military-themed television show or movie (with allowances made for fictional characters), I'd love to hear about it.

Blackhawk Down was pretty good.  I think you could put Band of Brothers in that catagory as well.

 

[SHARP WO]

The idea of 100% accuracy is hard to complete, but not impossible, the story board would be amazingly huge.

Writerchic, research is your key in understanding and finding what you need, and I do have a suggestion.

I agree that a training CWO is to high maybe you should downgrade it to a trg WO, an example, the trg WO in meaford while not being directly involved with recruits will see every sort of training requirement come across his desk and has to decide whether or not it is viable and if it is within the parameters set for specific courses.

The idea of a chaplain is interesting, but as pointed out previously, unless there are extreme personal issues in a recruits life, they rarely see the chaplain except on Sunday.

Whatever your final decision is, there will always be someone to critisize you on your idea, whether your characters are created on fiction or reality. Canada just needs to see exposure on what the Army is and what the Army is doing.

If you need help here is my background.

Education - Journalism and communications media
Current Rank - Warrant Officer (reserves)
Trade - Infantry
Courses taught - 25-30, recruit, basic infantry, basic leadership, basic officer.

Contact d_ruiter_ofthe_goths@hotmail.com

 

[camochick]

Wow, this thread has made a positive turn and I am liking it hehe. I eventually want to do reporting on the military but the scariest thing to me would be getting the story wrong. If i can get it right through helpful people such as yourselves it will hopefully make my job that much easier. Great ideas people!!!!