Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: LORD OF WAR
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Zen Shooter01
Is in theaters now...it is a fixer movie for the ages. biggrin.gif
Snow_Fox
I was looking forward to this, but as a movie, Entertainment Weekly panned it saying it is almost a documentary on sleezy merchants but never really gets your attention.
Elldren
QUOTE (Snow_Fox)
I was looking forward to this, but as a movie, Entertainment Weekly panned it saying it is almost a documentary on sleezy merchants but never really gets your attention.

Unless, of course, documentaries on sleazy merchants would get your attention.
Snow_Fox
I'm in finance, I've been in collection. I excell at sleaze. I want entertainment.
Fortune
I rarely give much credence to what Entertainment Weekly have to say about a movie.
Snow_Fox
I actually like EW. The reviewers are not always spot on, but it, as a publication, seems to remember that when it all boils down this stuff is ENTERTAINMENT and in the grand scheme of things not that important. A lot of htese papers seem to think this is hte be all and end all of existance.
Zen Shooter01
Well, this reviewer says that if you like Shadowrun, you'll probably like LORD OF WAR.
Arethusa
QUOTE (Snow_Fox @ Sep 17 2005, 11:13 AM)
I actually like EW. The reviewers are not always spot on, but it, as a publication, seems to remember that when it all boils down this stuff is ENTERTAINMENT and in the grand scheme of things not that important. A lot of htese papers seem to think this is hte be all and end all of existance.

Yes, god forbid anyone looks to film or television for art.
Foreigner
I haven't seen it yet, but I'm not sure I want to.

Of late, Hollyweird (as before, the misspelling on my part is quite intentional) has the nasty habit of demonizing firearms--or anything weapons-related, at least as regards anything not in a historical setting--unless doing otherwise suits their purposes.

Example: The last two films (to date) in the Lethal Weapon film series. I haven't seen LW4, and I have no plans to see it or any further films in the series, but the overriding message in LW3 was, "Firearms are evil personified and, except for police and military use, their only purpose is to kill people and poor defenseless animals."

Following the release of LW3, one pro-firearms publication referred to its two stars as "Mel 'I-hate-guns-except-when-they-make-me-money' Gibson" and "Danny 'Which-liberal-cause-am-I-supporting-this-week' Glover."

Not to mention that the parent company of Warner Brothers films is Time, Incorporated, a/k/a Time-Warner, one of the most liberal publishing companies on the planet.

They, among others, contribute heavily to the National Organization to Ban Handguns, and the Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control, Incorporated), two of the most anti-firearms organizations in America.

Regardless of how Cage plays his part, I can practically guarantee that the script intentionally portrays him as totally unscrupulous and only interested in enriching himself at the expense of others.

Just my nuyen.gif 0.02.

End rant. smile.gif

I now return you to your regularly-scheduled Dumpshock Forums.

--Foreigner
Mercer
Yeah, its horrible how Hollywood keeps demonizing illegal arms dealers.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Foreigner @ Sep 17 2005, 03:59 PM)
Firearms['] only purpose is to kill people and […] animals.

In this edited fashion, this statement is true.

That doesn't make them "good" or "evil", but refusing to recognize that fact is intellectually dishonest.

That said, this definitely looks like a film worth seeing…

~J
hyzmarca
The gun is good. The penis is evil.

The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life, and poisons the earth with a plague of men, as once it was. But the gun shoots death, and purifies the earth of the filth of brutals.

Go forth and kill!

We must never forget, killing is good.
Shrapnel
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Sep 17 2005, 05:02 PM)
QUOTE (Foreigner @ Sep 17 2005, 03:59 PM)
Firearms['] only purpose is to kill people and […] animals.

In this edited fashion, this statement is true.

That doesn't make them "good" or "evil", but refusing to recognize that fact is intellectually dishonest.

That said, this definitely looks like a film worth seeing…

~J

I have to disagree with this statement.

I personally use my firearms for recreation and sport, not killing (with the exception of hunting to provide food for my family). I will use them to kill, if necessary, but that is not their only purpose.

QUOTE (Mercer)
Yeah, its horrible how Hollywood keeps demonizing illegal arms dealers.


Just curious, but why is it illegal to deal arms? Why should any arms, short of weapons of mass destruction, be restricted from private ownership?
PBTHHHHT
So you're okay if your neighbor has an rpg that he has lying around?

Why is it illegal to deal arms? Remember, the US is one of the largest suppliers of arms for the world. From an capitalist-economic standpoint, it's the best interest of the US to control whatever it can in arm sales/deals. They make more by having their choice corporations making the deals since they're the ones making the large political donations and such. Plus, they do want to control what technologies and arms go where, because you don't want your good stuff to be used on your own troops later on.
Shrapnel
QUOTE (PBTHHHHT @ Sep 17 2005, 06:00 PM)
So you're okay if your neighbor has an rpg that he has lying around?

Yes, I am perfectly fine with that. In fact, I would like a few of my own.

Remember, an armed society is a polite society... wink.gif
Austere Emancipator
This thread is as likely to erupt in a huge fight about how nationstates should be governed as a poverty-stricken, ethnically and/or religiously diverse Middle Eastern population with shitloads of surplus military hardware. Besides, it's WAY off-topic.
Arethusa
QUOTE (Shrapnel)
Just curious, but why is it illegal to deal arms? Why should any arms, short of weapons of mass destruction, be restricted from private ownership?

He isn't arguing that it's illegal to deal arms; this is fact, and not up for argument. Though I suspect you meant to question his dislike for illegal arms dealing and not its illegality.

And yes, it's getting off topic already. PBTHHHHT you should know better; Austere, you should really know better.
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Foreigner @ Sep 17 2005, 03:59 PM)
Following the release of LW3, one pro-firearms publication referred to its two stars as "Mel 'I-hate-guns-except-when-they-make-me-money' Gibson" and "Danny 'Which-liberal-cause-am-I-supporting-this-week' Glover."

Not to mention that the parent company of Warner Brothers films is Time, Incorporated, a/k/a Time-Warner, one of the most liberal publishing companies on the planet.

Ah, alarmist liberal conspiracy-R-us. Why can't Hollywood simply be just a vapid enterprise of money-grubbers, out to make money out of controversy? Why does it have to be an agenda-personified?

I'll probably not see this film... however, the title reminds me of a horrible video game called "Lord of Gun" (Link here). We still use it as a substitute curseword in polite company among my group of friends.
Zen Shooter01
All free men own guns.

Cage's character in the film is a black marketeer, which means the deals he makes are illegal. It wouldn't be much of a movie if things didn't spiral out of control, but the movie was remarkably objective overall on the ethics of dealing arms.

It does seem to say that dealing with genocidal warlords is a bad idea.

Anyway, it's very Shadowrun.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Zen Shooter01)
All free men own guns.

All free men own other men.

All free men own monkeys.

We can spout platitudes all day long, it doesn't make them true. I realize that I (unwisely) helped start the off-topic drag, but can we please kill it here?

~J
Foreigner
Old progunners' saying:

A man who owns a gun is a citizen. A man who doesn't is a subject.

Another one, suited mostly for citizens and residents of the United States--although I suppose it could apply to other former British colonies as well-- is:

If it weren't for people with guns, you'd still be a British subject. Think about it.....

And yes, I am a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association of America, and I'm proud to say it.

I'm currently a Lifetime Benefactor member, and joined as a Junior Lifetime Member in February, 1978, three months before my fourteenth birthday.

End rant. smile.gif

<Climbs down off of soapbox.> grinbig.gif

--Foreigner
Austere Emancipator
Well, I tried to report this thread, but I got a Database Error, twice.

Let's just stop it, okay? We don't need this kind of shit here. We all know there's not going to be any sort of agreement about this crap, so all these messages basically constitute flamebaiting anyway (my own earlier message included).
Foreigner
Sorry, A.E.

I got carried away.

Unfortunately, I'm very passionate about my beliefs.

It was not my intention to make a political statement, or to insult anyone.

I was merely expressing my opinion, as well as addressing the hypocrisy that seems to abound in the American film industry nowadays.

--Foreigner
Zen Shooter01
Austere Emancipator: Report the thread? Why? It's a political discussion, on a subject very close to Shadowrun. SR certainly raises the ethical issue of gun ownership and use, whether by individuals or nation states.

If this thread was about the ethics of genetic engineering, would you want to report it?
Crusher Bob
Nonononono, double plus ungood. One of the great debates on the Internet, do not bring up unless looking to overwork the moderators and piss everyone off.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Zen Shooter01)
Report the thread? Why? It's a political discussion [...]

Thank you for answering your own question. It is, at the moment, an extremely loaded "discussion" on a real-world political issues with no attempt thus far to tie it into the world of Shadowrun. So far, the only thing that really has to do with Shadowrun on this thread is you saying that if you like SR you are likely to like this movie -- and then there's 20-25 messages of "I LUVZ GUNS!" vs. "GUNS R 3V1L!"

QUOTE (Zen Shooter01)
If this thread was about the ethics of genetic engineering, would you want to report it?

If this thread was just about to erupt into a flamewar about how our RL governments do or should handle the ethics of genetic engineering, you bet your ass I would.

Crusher Bob: Thank you.
Zen Shooter01
Kagetenshi: Your assertion that the only purpose of a firearm is to kill is incorrect. I also derive a great deal of pleasure from target shooting. But one of the major purposes of firearms is as a deterent. In the vast majority of incidents where people use firearms to protect themselves, they do not fire them. They just show the weapon to their assailant, and their assailant reconsiders their career choice. In US states that have adopted concealed carry for civilians, crime has gone down.

Firearms also provide a great deal of peace of mind. When my neighbor's pit bulls dug a hole under my fence, I was glad to have my firearm. When I was driving with a woman I love and her 14-month old daughter one night about 11:00 and two men came running at my truck the instant I stopped at a red light, I was glad to have my firearm. Having lived through the '04 hurricane season in Orlando, and having seen New Orleans on the news, I am glad to have my firearms.

It's common, whenever someone says "All free men own guns," or "guns don't kill people, people kill people," for someone else to say, "We can spout platitudes all day long." What is uncommon is for someone to explain why these axioms are wrong.
Zen Shooter01
Austere Emancipator: We're reporting threads we think are about to become a flamewar?
Zen Shooter01
Crusher Bob: Um, are you being deliberately ironic when you use 1984 Newspeak to assert that we shouldn't discuss political issues in a public forum?
Austere Emancipator
I am trying to report a thread where the posting guidelines of this forum are broken. This thread in it's current form has nothing at all to do with Shadowrun (posting off-topic stuff on this forum is forbidden, and is a very common reason for thread-lock), and several posts here constitute flamebaiting.
Adam
Austere is correct. Please bring the thread back to Shadowrun relevancy or let it die. Thanks.
Kanada Ten
For those that saw the movie, what methods are used to smuggle and acquire weapons? How does he funnel the profits?
Mercer
He funnels the profits in to dating Bridget Moynahan, as good an argument for illegal arms dealings as I can imagine. Also, I too am frustrated with how Hollywood continues to demonize genocidal warlords. No justice, no peace.

This movie does remind me of the African campaign I ran a couple of years ago which my players alternatively loved or hated depending on what they were getting away with (military hardware, complete lawlessness of warzones) or getting screwed by (military hardware, complete lawlessness of warzones). A lot of sessions either began or ended with a pc using a dikoted ninja-to to hack the hatch off a tank, or at least attempting to. Despite my repeated claims that tanks don't have screen doors. (This movie also reminds me of the early 80's or late 70's movie with Chevy Chase and Gregory Hines, about arms dealers. Anyone? I'm too lazy to look it up on imdb.com.)

I haven't seen this movie and probably won't at least until dvd (I don't like Nic Cage. Nothing against him if you do), but I do take two things away from the previews (three things if you count how much I don't like Nic Cage). 1) It would be neat to do a shadowrun game about a group of morally-bankrupt, globe-trotting fixers. I can't remember the second thing, it might have been about how hot Bridget Moyahan is. Or it might of been about the (probably useless) attempts to get the players to make a moral choice after presenting them with the horrible after effects of arming genocidal warlords (though it could be pointed out it would have happened anyway and only made someone else rich).

There was recently a report on the tv about genocidal warlords in Africa... some guy named Coco (not kidding, through I may be remembering it wrong) who's main tactic is to kidnap children and use them as foot soldiers in his revolutionary army. As brutal and gut-wrenching as you can imagine, though in my experience most groups usually like games to stop short of that level of realism.
Sicarius
back on topic (Sorta)

Saw the movie this weekend. I really enjoyed it although I didn't know if I was irritated or grateful that Cage didn't even attempt a russian accent. (character being a russian immigrant)

It had a lot of neat tricks for fixers and smugglers, including switching names on cargo ships, altering the flag they were flying etc.

It was fairly typical of the Meteoric rise, and slow crash of someone doing something illegal, like Blow or similar type movie.

It was also really funny in a dark way. (I thought.)


ps. I did think it got a little preachy towards the end, but any one who hasn't seen it, I wouldn't use that as a reason to not go. It was enjoyable enough to look past.
Nikoli
I saw one trailer that made me want to go see this movie: "1 in 12 people in the world has a firearm. Now the question you need to ask yourself is, how to we get one to the other 11?"
SirKodiak
QUOTE (Foreigner)
Old progunners' saying:

A man who owns a gun is a citizen. A man who doesn't is a subject.


To make this relevant to Shadowrun: if this statement is even true now, is it true in the future that Shadowrun presents?

Would it be reasonable to say that there exists individuals in 2064 who believe that their ability to wield combat magic is what guarantees their freedom, not the ownership of a gun? Does a member of the NRA need to get themselves a SmartLink and Boosted Reflexes/Wired Reflexes to really consider themselves prepared? If a Street Sam can participate in the revolution even if all he has is his cyberware and his katana, is he not a free man?

If a normal man with a rifle has been completely outclassed, is gun ownership still a meaningful measure of anything? Ignoring the question of whether gun ownership is meaningful today, in a world containing tanks and smart bombs, is owning a gun in the future akin to owning a sword today?
Kagetenshi
Both now and in the future, the only thing that makes that statement true isn't "gun", it's "shitload of money".

~J
Arethusa
QUOTE (SirKodiak @ Sep 19 2005, 05:04 PM)
QUOTE (Foreigner)
Old progunners' saying:

A man who owns a gun is a citizen. A man who doesn't is a subject.


To make this relevant to Shadowrun: if this statement is even true now, is it true in the future that Shadowrun presents?

Would it be reasonable to say that there exists individuals in 2064 who believe that their ability to wield combat magic is what guarantees their freedom, not the ownership of a gun? Does a member of the NRA need to get themselves a SmartLink and Boosted Reflexes/Wired Reflexes to really consider themselves prepared? If a Street Sam can participate in the revolution even if all he has is his cyberware and his katana, is he not a free man?

If a normal man with a rifle has been completely outclassed, is gun ownership still a meaningful measure of anything? Ignoring the question of whether gun ownership is meaningful today, in a world containing tanks and smart bombs, is owning a gun in the future akin to owning a sword today?

No, don't make it relevant. Just shut the hell up for the love all that is good.

Nothing personal, but I am absolutely sick of seeing threads on here degenerate into wildly off topic flame wars— not your intent, I realize, but there is no question that is where it is headed, and no thread topic explodes like the right to arms.

Complain to Adam and the DS staff about the lack of an off topic forum if you like. Hell, I'd like it if you would, because they don't seem to've noticed it was never a good idea to get rid of it in the first place. But, please, no more puerile flame wars in the SR forum.

Internet debate is impossible because everyone knows firearms only work in real life.

Foreigner, this is just for you: the right to bear arms is a right. RIDICULOUSLY EMPHASIZED TEXT IS A PRIVILEGE.
Deamon_Knight
Austere, do you think we need to pounce on all OT threads, or just the ones most likely to Result in a flamewar? If the latter, has it really come to the point in history that good people cannot discuss what is right because of Idiots in our midst? What does this say about us? Doesn't debate, doesn't free inquiry have a value, regardless of how many screeching moonbats it attracts? To say its too hard to participate, or even to let other participate, what have we achieved?

I'll certainly grant you Foreigner unnecessary politicized an otherwise apolitical forum (no matter how much I agree with him) and we can discuss if carrying in all that political baggage was productive.

But better to discuss the merits of these things, because they are important, than to throw up your hands and leave, or worse yet, say that all discussion is in vain, without hope of a better result, and demand and end to all of it.

We may be able to survive our fools, but not the shirking of our own responsibility.

BTW Foreigner, From what you have written, I don't think you would like Lord of War, it does get preachy.
Kagetenshi
Debate has merit, indeed great value. This isn't the place for this particular debate.

~J

"Do as I say, not as I do."
SirKodiak
QUOTE (Adam)
Austere is correct. Please bring the thread back to Shadowrun relevancy or let it die. Thanks.


QUOTE (Arethusa)
No, don't make it relevant.  Just shut the hell up for the love all that is good.


I'm going to take an admin's word over yours, but thanks anyways for the flame.
Arethusa
Heh. That was not a flame. Though I think you managed to miss the entire point of the post, regardless.

Deamon: personally, I'd like to see this debate between some of the people on here. It is something I feel strongly about. But Kagetenshi is right: there is no way this is the right place for it (not without an off topic forum, anyway), and this is a subject with quite a tendency for exploding into massive flame wars. You can find many old, locked threads if you search.
Houseofbluelights
I haven't yet seen the movie, although I will this week. One point though is about suppliers of weapons that is especially relevant to SR. The US supplies weapons, especially unaffordable high tech systems, to almost all of our allies (except for those with their own arms industries, namely Israel), and often sacrifices diplomatic and economic concessions for a quick buck in arms sales that end up hurting both countries, but benefiting corperations. France also does this to their ex-colonies in Africa. In 2064 some of the megacorps that are major arms manufacturers remain close to one or more governments with lobbies (Ares) or are the government, and some that are more independant (Saeder-Krupp). So one thing is that I'm going to look for is whether the good guys in LoW are acting with support or disdain from their superiors, because US policy often allows gun running to happen as long as it makes money from it, including by selling arms to the governments trying to defeat the warlords people like Nic Cage are selling to.

I gather that in SR their are more legal ways to acquire weaponry for the major groups, especially small countries and mercenaries, reducing the market for illegal tanks, planes and bombs. More underworld and shadowrunning makes the market for smaller amounts of smaller military tech much more important. I wonder if the corporate council has limits on arms trade because there would be no other way to control the legality of it. There are a couple of ways that this could involver runners. One would be to have runners hired by a party to sell or aquire weapons that would be difficult to trace, placing this party of say eco-terrorists in a position to attack without warning. The runners could also smuggle guns into a difficult locations such as Seattle, Singapore, Hong Kong or Tir na nOg to supply the market. Finally the runners could be merchants buying and transporting the weapons and selling to regional or global clients or agents of a corp or cartel accessing difficult markets. The most difficult markets would probably be in central african or Yucatan warzones.
Shadow_Prophet
Saw the movie over the weekend. Have to say ballsiest intro I have seen in a long time.
Deamon_Knight
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I feel that Nic Cage crunching the profit margins of a few hundred thousand blackmarket AKs, on a handheld calculator, over an overturned statue of Lenin, was worth the price of admission.

Preachy ending and all.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012