Weapons of Hollywood

i've just been having a think about this, how do hollywood get permission to use military equipment during films?

i could probably understand them using old technologies such as (vietnam, ww2 era) as seen in:-

when we were soliders
full metal jacket
saving private ryan

but even modern day films where military equipment is used, such as godzilla, stealth, tears of the sun, independence day.

what happens? i doubt hollywood have an agreement with the US government for 'borrowing' these weapons or even 'replicating' them - not everything is computer generated either.

so how?

[edit on 17-12-2006 by st3ve_o]

of course Hollywood has an agreement with the US government if they need to use military hardware but only when the film is politcally correct for the US government as in the case of Black hawk down they used real helicopters as well as CGI funnily enough when the helicopters deployed the troops the dust that was created was deemed too dangerous so the ground was watered down to prevent the dust then the dust was added CGI. For the film apocolyapse now the American government wouldnt loan any helicopters for the film so they used Philipine army copters which had kept having to go and be used to fight rebels in realife. In Britain the ministry of defence has a department for coordinating with film companies for use of military vehicles and defence land. Lynxs were used in an Oasis video in an attempt to increase recruitment

As mojoberg already outlined, ther IS a large amount of cooperation between Hollywood and the US DoD. There are even regular officers whose single task it is to manage the applications of production teams for "military support". The main problem however is that
A. the military has complete authority over your script, and B. that the studios don´t pay ANYTHING for the services they get.

A. results in sometimes modest changes, but sometimes also serious historical alterations like erasing friendly fire incidents that DID happen from the Black Hawk Down script.

B. simply means that tax Dollars are wasted so that the Hollywood studios have a CHEAPER production only to get HIGHER earnings. It should be noted that the military only supports high-budget productions that have a chance of reaching many cinemas.


A completely different thing is that there is a whole industry aimed at SIMULATING exactly that kind of "original military feeling". The Tiger tank in Saving Private Ryan for example was a disguised T-34 - not a bad job.

The US military has been pressing out propaganda for years, Think about all of those ARMY games where all you do is kill, and "learn about Patriotism". What better way to get troops than to show their force. personally, I think it's brainwashing.

Hey! Battlefield 2 is a GREAT GAME! It really is though.

Anyways, I thought that Tears of the Sun was pretty accurately represented in terms of weaponry, I didn't see many faulters. Same goes to Black Hawk Down.

Movies that I did see problems with, Independence Day, Stealth, Rambo.

Shattered OUT...

so a good game nowadays is a game that only bores you after 1 week?

Alot of the weaponry used by the actors are airsoft guns. Just the other stuff is real.

They would use real military weapons in hollywood?

I thought it was known that all props are fake.

And Tomcat, everyone has different opinions about the game, by no means is mine or yours God's final law.

Shattered OUT...

Ofcourse i just had to type it ;P

What about in Sum of all Fears. Didnt hollywood get the permission of the DoD to get all that stuff?

What kind of weaponry are we talking about here? I can't recall seeing anything in a movie that cannot be purchased on the open market or duplicated in blank-firing form. Unless it's a complete fabrication (or a resin mold over an actual firing substructure) the stuff is out there; Hollywood doesn't need DoD's permission to use anything they actually field.

Naturally this doesn't include warships and the like; I'm assuming we're discussing personal and/or crew-served weapons?

I saw a documentary about this awhile ago, but cant recall the name. It highlighted the issue about films which dont get to use real US army equipment as a bad thing because all americans have paid for them in the first place. Being a good quality document it did have the counter argument from one of the senior officers whose job it is to screen the scripts that they could work on. It also did tell that films which aren't approved to use real equipment can use duplicates and such but the impact on the budget is huge. This co-operation began with one classic war movie where the invasion of normandy was filmed with real USMC soldiers and equipment, cant remember which one that was either
If anyone can remember which document this was please post the name.

[Edit] I recall that one story in the documentary was about the writer of the above mentioned war movie that started this. He was blacklisted by cia as having communist connections so he had to use a fake name in the script.
Also another story told how some movie had obtained a tank that looked so much like a real T-72 that when the truck hauling it pulled to the studio, two cia agents came by to ask where they got it.

[edit on 27-12-2006 by PsykoOps]

Aside from the fact that the Marine Corps didn't invade Normandy it sounds like an interesting documentary

With so much heavy equipment, vehicles, armor etc. available on the free market I'd be curious to know why the CIA would care where someone got a tank as long as it was de-mil'd

[edit on 27-12-2006 by H82CAGE]

It wouldn't be the CIA asking anyhow- it'd be the FBI or BATF, if in fact anyone was asking any questions.

I might get the details wrong, like cia/fbi/nsa or usmc/army/rangers

[edit on 28-12-2006 by PsykoOps]

What an interesting thread guys.

Keeping the politics aside, which is obviously so hard for those with agendas, I was brought up in London and eventually Brighton and, when my aunt could afford it, I was taken to the local cinema.

We used to watch the cowboys and indian films where I learnt that the Colt Peacemaker did indeed win the West, and only had to be reloaded every other film. We also watched Winchester Rifles that used the same ammunition on the cartridge belt worn by goodies and badies alike.

Then there were the early war films with Audie Murphy, John Wayne, Richard Todd and Gregory Peck to name a few. Each were armed at some stage with 30 round box mags for their Thompsons but they never seemed to run out of ammo but their German counterparts firing the Schmeisser always ran out of bullets.

In those early films and television series like Rin Tin Tin, The Rifleman, The Lone Ranger and not forgetting the later 'A' Team, we learnt that bullets don't make a mess when somebody gets killed and that the hero always died having made a really important statement, with blood pouring from a corner of his [or her] mouth.

We learnt with Robocop that a part machine, part human can have lightning reflexes and squeeze off a burst of 3 rounds from a hand-held pistol [see Spectre pistols] and in the later films, the baddies had .50 calibre sniper rifles.

It always seemed to me at least, that Hollywood often revealed more about what weapons were in use around the world, before we got to see tham for real.

(I am still waiting for the Star Wars laser rifle version of the 9 milly Sterling L1A2s used by the Noggies during The Empire Strikes Back :lol

Then, one day, Hollywood got serious about people dying. I had just got into the RAF when 'Soldier Blue' came along and we saw [and almost felt] the bullet go through an indian's head in aweful slow motion; and of course suddenly 'slow-mo' became all the rage.

But the war films got bigger and better. You felt that you were there - you wanted to be Audie Murphy winning his Medal of Honor, you wanted to be Richard Todd in 'A Bridge Too Far' or yearned to play Corporal Steiner in 'Cross of Iron' and then there were films that drew you 'in' to the action like 'Saving Private Ryan' where as bullets hit flesh, they sounded real and sometimes, the effects looked all too real.

Hollywood has always has access to the weapons of the world. They have their own armourers and master gunsmiths who are absolutely first class. They can turn their hand to anything - remember cabbage or egg firing poles in the 'A' Team, where bullets bounce off wrinkley tin?

I do, and I yearn for the time when Hollywood film makers stick to a story and actually use the equipment and weapons used in the book or real event.

'Clear and Present Danger' is a point in hand. I love those Tom Clancy books but the films have been such a let down, especially the affore - mentioned film where Sea Kings were used to depict Jolly Green or Pave Lows.

Nuff said!

Robocop used an optically souped-up version of the Beretta 93. That thing is actually a burst firer.
info on Beretta 93
info on robocop's gun

Most movies that have any military or intelligence agency mentioned in it has a military and/or intelligence agency advisor working with them.

So yes, they do cooperate.

But I don't think the Govt is gona lend out Billion dollar black projects to sci-fi movies when the movie studio can create something more fantastic in scale or by computer.

Yup! I saw that and would you credit it, I owned a 93R and should know better!

But originally, everybody claimed at the time, it was a Spectre on full auto doing what H & K MP5's do best!

These advisors are always freelance "experts"/retired operators or agency officials.

When there is really a governmental agency involved, it will get credit in the "Thank you..." section, or no mention at all.