"Red Dawn's Wolverines?" Topic

Already on it!

I started building a partisan group earlier this summer using Copplestone's FW partisans, which I dubbed "The Wolverines". I was inspired a little bit by Red Dawn, a little bit by Children of Men, and a little bit by V. They'll have their first battle on the 13th. We'll see how well they do.

So, even if the remake ends up being a fantastic film, it will not seem believable to modern kids.

So let me get this straight. You thought the first movie was "believable?"

Warlord: "the threats at the time had a lot to do with the success of the movie. I remember the Russians being a real fear at the time."

TVs Frank: "So let me get this straight. You thought the first movie was 'believable?'"

The film had great appeal to the youth of that era. I remember how many of us went to see the movie several times, and we even had it played at school for discussion.

As Warlord and others have expressed here, and on other similar threads, the premise of a limited Soviet nuclear attack, followed by an attempt at invasion and occupation, was a plausible theme in our time. Cold War paranoia was still very strong.

Such a Soviet invasion attempt would have naturally included the use of allies already in the Western Hemisphere, such as Sandinistas and Cubans. The fact that Castro offered Cuban "advisors" to Grenada and Africa also added to the realism of Soviet use of such allies in larger and more ambitious engagements.

I'm not saying that having a bunch of kids taking on the combined Cuban, Nicaraguan and Soviet forces was believable. But I am saying that the general premise of the film was believable, plausible, realistic. Furthermore, the fact that such invading forces would encounter resistance by isolated US military forces and grass roots guerilla, also added to the appeal.

With the cold war over, the fragmentation of the Soviet empire, and the negative popular views of US occupation and involvement in other countries, I don't think that kids today would sympathize with any invasion premise, even if Russia's military strength were to escalate and North Korea were to perfect its nuclear missile program.

Besides, the Cold War did something to youth that the current environment has failed to do, and that is that it made young people more aware of political conditions and loyalties in many geographical areas. In class, we even considered which countries were pro or against capitalism and "the American way of life".

I think that kids nowadays would be more inclined to identify with film characters faced with a scenario of multiple terrorist attacks (nuclear, dirty bombs, chemical, etc.) than they would with characters facing an invasion.

That, combined with outright access to foreign oil from the Middle East and Venezuela, would be plausible to today's youth.

They would watch a movie about an invasion, if it had enough CGI action, but it would not be a movie that they would watch over and over again, which would lessen its success considerably.

Does that answer your question?

Thanks.

Dan

So, I think that figures suitable for Red Dawn's Wolverines (as depicted in the 1984 Cold War film) will be sought after by people of our time and not today's youth.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, since us older folks have the greater buying power.

Just my opinion, of course.

CC

But I am saying that the general premise of the film was believable, plausible, realistic.

D'oh!

TVs Frank: "D'oh!"???

Well, maybe I misunderstood your initial comment:

"So let me get this straight. You thought the first movie was "believable?""

* Were you trying to imply that the idea of a Soviet invasion wasn't believable to people at that time?

* Or were you stating that the movie did not portray that Cold War fear properly?

* Or were you trying to say that, like with Orson Welles' War of the World broacast, people actually thought a real invasion was being reported?

I hope you don't mean the latter.

In my statement(s) am definitely using the term "believable" to describe the invasion idea as something "apparently reasonable", "capable of being conceived or imagined or considered".

Webster: "capable of being believed especially as within the range of known possibility or probability"
link

CC

Mero Mero: "Already on it! I started building a partisan group earlier this summer using Copplestone's FW partisans, which I dubbed "The Wolverines". I was inspired a little bit by Red Dawn, a little bit by Children of Men, and a little bit by V. They'll have their first battle on the 13th. We'll see how well they do."

I like the fact that you are using Partisans because, with time, most pockets of resistance on American soil (particularly those without access to US weapons and gear), would eventually appropriate and use those of the invaders.

Good luck on the 13th!!! Just remember that a local resistance group would have the benefit of being on home turf, fully familiar with the lay of the land and its resources.

CC

As well as a new red dawn film, we have a pc and 360 game coming called " Homefront " too.

I like to design some rules infact for Red dawn called " resistance ", it deal with a invasion which can be russains, the dead or little green men..
Somthing D6, dealing with people in their home town fighting back, supplys, seeking weapons and fighting back..

At least nobody has done a set of rules like it, but then again its mainly a modern skirmish idea..!!!

Or were you stating that the movie did not portray that Cold War fear properly?

"Portray that cold war fear?" Your comment is morphing. You said that

the general premise of the film was believable, plausible, realistic.

Which is a pretty far cry from "portraying cold war fear."

You can make a movie about commies being under every bed, and it can portray the Red Scare of the 50s, but that does certainly not make it "believable, plausible, realistic."

TVs Frank,

Please see the second part of my last post. Of course, you have the right to have a different definition for the terms "believable, plausible, realistic."

CC

Australia's version of Red Dawn is also scheduled for release in 2010:

TMP link

Dan

Well, maybe I misunderstood your initial comment:

"So let me get this straight. You thought the first movie was "believable?""

* Were you trying to imply that the idea of a Soviet invasion wasn't believable to people at that time?

* Or were you stating that the movie did not portray that Cold War fear properly?

* Or were you trying to say that, like with Orson Welles' War of the World broacast, people actually thought a real invasion was being reported?

I hope you don't mean the latter.

In my statement(s) am definitely using the term "believable" to describe the invasion idea as something "apparently reasonable", "capable of being conceived or imagined or considered".

Webster: "capable of being believed especially as within the range of known possibility or probability"
link

Covert Walrus,

That was said by the fella formerly known as "TVs Frank". It seems like he goes by the name "Camel Spider" these days.

Dan

CC, yes I figured.

Either way, one good 'stir' deserves another :)

LOL.

Dan

Alright can someone tell me why this topic is in Sci-Fi Discussion?

As far as i see it this topic has NOTHING to do with Sci-Fi so why is it here?

Oh i saw Red Dawn and did'nt like it.

Captain Gideon

Because a Chinese invasion of the US is SF.

A Chinese Invasion of the US would be IMPOSSIBLE but NOT Sci-Fi related.

Captain Gideon

A Chinese Invasion of the US would be IMPOSSIBLE…

I thought they were already there ;-)

Never say impossible…

Well, a Chinese military invasion. The financial invasion is well underway and taking significant ground.

Also you're right, never say impossible. If you'd told a German general in 1939 that in six years American soldiers would be getting sex from German girls in Frankfurt for chocolate bars they would have laughed incredulously.

Also agree with Captain Gideon that this is obviously not sci fi.

Remake link

"is this subject science fiction?"

In the strictest of considerations of the term, the movie would be science fiction if it were depicting an alternate future/present/past.

(pulled from web definition)
Science fiction is a genre of fiction. It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation). Exploring the consequences of such differences is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".[1] Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possibilities.[2] The settings for science fiction are often contrary to known reality.

*****

Why not just fiction? Rather than science fiction? Because the fictional element is not just about people who are made up but also deals with situations on a large scale that are made up…I think it meets the requirements for science fiction.

Certainly not worth a web-argument…I can see why this would or could be a point of contention, but in that context which message board would have been the better choice? Modern board I guess? Again, not worth an argument…I would much rather talk about aliens, robots, and mutants :)

Chinese robots invading the US?

Hmm. Don't you just love purists?

Why does it bother them so much that a thread is linked to two or more related discussion boards (but not so wide in scope to fall under General Wargaming)?

Is it that they don't want a product they consider "theirs" to be used by people playing a different genre?

Or, perhaps, they have such a hard time understanding that there's a legitimate cross-post feature here on TMP because a product can be useful for more than one genre.

But then, later on, they find out that something was made for the other genre (like "near future" terrain, figures, etc.), something they wish they had known about, and they wonder why they had never heard of it before, when it could have been useful to them.

I seriously doubt a horse would willingly ask for blinders, so it confuses me when a human does.

Dan

Covert Walrus, looks like your comment got deleted (and got you doghawsed) so I don't need to reply to it anymore.

CC, what you might want to consider is that, using your definition, literally anything can be crossposted from a number of forums -- pulp, sci fi, and so on.

"Hey, I have an idea about making two headed wooly mammoths -- I think I'll crosspost it to the WWII forum because some day I may have 1939 Poles fight them."

Um, no.

That basically defines all of the historical forums as subsets of the fantasy/sci fi/pulp forums, which I can tell you the majority of historical gamers would disagree with.

Categories exist because people like to read about certain topics, not to serve every individual gamers' personal fancy, because personal fancies vary from person to person, so … goodbye categories. It's just a simple matter of respect for other gamers' browsing of the forums that we control ourselves and limit the crossposting.

1939 Poles fighting two headed wooly mammoths is not simply not a WWII topic, so there's no need to cross post it to the WWII forum.

So to sum up, people aren't "wearing blinders" just because their preferences don't match yours.

Oh and by the way, Red Dawn wasn't any more believable in the 80s than it is today. To see an example of that, just read Roger Ebert's review of it at the time, which pointed out what a ludicrous fantasy it is -- you won't get a much more middle of the road critic than he is.

TVsFrank, I mean, Camelspider,

LOL. You just crack me up. Thanks for proving my points.

Dan
PS. By the way, did you get Covert Walrus DHd so you wouldn't have to reply?

Of course I knew I was wasting my time.

"Consider other posters when I crosspost? LOL!!! You crack me up!"

No. Please, do go on.

I need a good laugh every morning. It's a great way to start the day.

Dan.

"You crack me up. You're just silly. Because I laugh at you. You just gave me the best laugh of the day. Because you're so silly and funny and not to be taken seriously. Because you're so obviously wrong and I'm so obviously right that it's just really extremely funny."

Etc. etc.

Yep.

Dan

Oops, gotta go, I'm off to bump one of my threads (again) that no one but me has responded to in the past three years.

YouTube link
YouTube link

Dan

Just stifle him. I did a long time ago.

"Cold War paranoia"

Just an example of more of the same liberal revisionist history: the Cold War existed only in people's minds.

Red Dawn's premise was exaggerated to make a good film – that doesn't make it any less "believable" – except to a couple of generations that grew up in the relative safety of the Cold War nuclear bubble and who now are trying to live in a fantasy world of their own making – even though they are finding that harder and harder to do, what with all the suicide bombings, wars, and genocide going on.

Cool discussion here of a "Red Dawn" scenario, for those who are willing and mature enough to consider the possibility:

TMP link

Dan

Does this mean there might be suitable 15mm figures some time soon?

TMP link

Dan

I do SO love this movie! Even in all it's glorious silliness. I always tell people, "I miss the Cold War" (and if you dont get the humor and truth in that then pffft.)

I am building (re-building) cold war armies in 20mm/1-72nd scale right now. Liberation miniatures should have EVERYTHING you need if 20mm is your flavor, always has been mine.

Fozzy :)

I miss the Cold War too! Can't wait for the next one. :)

Dan

I was a junior NCO stationed in West Germany the first time I saw the original, and had no problem at all believing that the Soviet union would invade the USA if they could pull it off.

For the rest, if I want history, I wioll watch a documentary, or read a book. I watch movies for entertainment. A bit of accuracy is appreciated, but I dont let a few errors ruin the whole thing for me. Could I see a bunch of small town redneck kids forming a resistance? Sure, being a small toen redneck myself, I had zero problem believing it.

Well said, Badger!

Dan

And, if anyone finds foreign enemies to be less realistic than domestic ones . . .

How about a game based on Jericho?

TMP link

Dan

loved it as a kid. watched it again last year. what a horrible movie!
if you like it, trust me, its nostalgia. :)

I think the main problem isn't that it's unbeleieveable (which it is and was when I watched it as a kid in the 80s), but rather that it's simply ordure. As a kid I was totally army-barmy and loved nothing more than to go down the woods and build 'resistance nests' ready for the inevitable Soviet invasion… But even I thought it was poo. It stank then. It stinks now.

Red Dawn looked like a "Dirty, Evil, Scheming, Sneaky Commies Invade our Sacred Land and Pollute Our Essences with Fluoride" film from the Fifties, made in the mid-Eighties.
Gorgeous capture of the propaganda-shtick and flavor. "Just kids" fight back and hold the line against the Reds and their deluded cannon-fodder allies. Told in retrospective from the "they gave their young lives for Our Freedom" POV. I took it as an homage to a mindset, rather than a serious predictor of possibilities.