Hunt for Red October turns 30
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
I did a little digging online and found what I was thinking of, from a review on hollywoodchicago.com:
hollywoodchicago.com said:
A few other sources corroborate that it was originally a spec script that didn't feature Jack Ryan. The suits wanted a Jack Ryan movie, and somebody liked this story, and voila.
Kor
Well just like starship troopers.. Original script that was repurposed.. But that one used more book stuff..
In toms book.. The political were scrambling to figure out which party after he got promoted to President. Read more conservative.
In toms book.. The political were scrambling to figure out which party after he got promoted to President. Read more conservative.
While this is technically accurate, by the mid-'90s Clancy had his brain broken by the Clinton presidency and he was using his books to promote a neo-conservative, war-hawk agenda. He absolutely bought 100 percent into the anti-Japanese sentiment of the early '90s, much as Michael Crichton did, and Executive Orders was, beyond any shadow of a doubt, his fantasy of glassing the Middle East (much as he wrote The Bear and the Dragon to try and show how terrified he was of Red China).
Well, we got three whole pages in before the TOM CLANCY WAS A CRAZY RIGHT-WING NUTBAG WHO WANTED TO KILL ALL THE FURNERS screed landed. I call that progress.Whatever, pal. I have no problem saying that Clancy has always been one of my favorite authors and this post - and any future similar post - won't change my mind on that. Also, Tom Clancy is dead, and this thread is a discussion about fictional characters, so anybody worried about Clancy's "neo-conservative war-hawkism" should take solace in the fact that neither he nor his characters are capable of actually voting for or running for President in the foreseeable future.
Seriously, I miss the good ol' days when reading a book was just reading a book, and watching a movie was just watching a movie. Tom Clancy wrote books, and no matter what happened on the pages of those books nobody in real life actually died from him sitting at a keyboard and typing, any more than any schools were being destroyed by telekinetic teenagers created by Stephen King, or little kids were being kidnapped and taken to interdimensional Sorceror schools invented by J.K. Rowling, and certainly never eaten by velociraptors dreamed up by the aforementioned Crichton.
Now, I intend to offer no further argument so you feel free to continue to warn people about the EEE-VILS of Clancy's writing all you like. Personally, I'd just like to get the thread back to discussing a great old movie, but hey, that's up to the whole group.
Last edited:
My issues with the film:
Ryan says that Skip Tyler lost a leg in a car accident, but when they show him he has both legs.
Greer knew the Dallas tracking the sub early on, and told Ryan.. Ryan acts surprised later in the film, asking what the Dallas is doing on its own
Ryan says that Skip Tyler lost a leg in a car accident, but when they show him he has both legs.
Greer knew the Dallas tracking the sub early on, and told Ryan.. Ryan acts surprised later in the film, asking what the Dallas is doing on its own
Oh, I know. Indeed, I found it interesting that in the novels Clancy himself wrote, no reference is made to which party the politicians belong to, not even the sitting Presidents, though reading between the lines you can see implications Fowler and Durling were supposed to be Democrats. Then the "co-written" novels come along and Kealty is identified as Democrat and Ryan suddenly become Republican.
Interesting.
Prosthetic legs are a thing, even in 1984 (when the movie is set).
Well, that's the unfortunate reality of movies needing to dumb things down for the audience. Characters end up asking questions that people in their positions would consider common knowledge.
I waffle between Willem Dafoe and J.K. Simmons for John Clark.
Well, to be fair, for most of the movie Captain Ramius is still speaking Russian, we just hear it as English because of dramatic license.
Yeah, when the American sailors come aboard Red October, Ramius (now speaking English) sounds the same, but it doesn't seem much of a stretch to have a Russian sailor of Ramius' stature actually having a decent knowledge of English.
And besides, who's gonna tell Sean Connery to change his accent?
JK Simmons is not someone I'd ever consider for Clark. Like ever.
Although, he was pretty badass in Patriot's Day, so...
I also see Vaughn Armstrong as President Ryan.
Although in that case I'm biased, as he's my favorite actor of all time.
So there.
Although in that case I'm biased, as he's my favorite actor of all time.
So there.
Idk if it makes a difference, but Ryan does say that Ramius is Lithuanian by birthI waffle between Willem Dafoe and J.K. Simmons for John Clark.
Well, to be fair, for most of the movie Captain Ramius is still speaking Russian, we just hear it as English because of dramatic license.
Yeah, when the American sailors come aboard Red October, Ramius (now speaking English) sounds the same, but it doesn't seem much of a stretch to have a Russian sailor of Ramius' stature actually having a decent knowledge of English.
And besides, who's gonna tell Sean Connery to change his accent?
I'm pretty sure Lithuanians don't sound Scottish either...
Connery has played just about every kind of role from a British spy to an ancient Greek king to a Norwegian explorer to an Irish-American cop to both Robin Hood and King Richard to a Moroccan tribal leader to an ancient Egyptian immortal posing as a Spaniard, all the while not ever straying from his natural Scottish accent.
Kor
Kor
Just to get us reminiscing again, a few clips based on some favorite lines:
And one more thing you might find interesting. Lost In Adaptation is a Youtube channel i frequent often but didn't know until I was looking for clips that Red October was the subject of one of their videos. The idea is both the book and movie are reviewed and then compared to see how faithful the movie adaptation is.
And one more thing you might find interesting. Lost In Adaptation is a Youtube channel i frequent often but didn't know until I was looking for clips that Red October was the subject of one of their videos. The idea is both the book and movie are reviewed and then compared to see how faithful the movie adaptation is.
So this movie just had a 4k release for its 30 anniversary. Yet as much as I love it, this is one of those films that doesn't really need to be crystal clear super resolution. I think thrillers form that time period weren't made to see all the pixels. They were darker, more real, and the film grain helped. Most of the film is set in crammed submarines, offices, and meeting rooms, and darkly lit.. like more real than fantastical.. and the old filmed look is perfect.
Red October is one of my all-time classic favorites. Every scene is pure gold.
Thanks for sharing. It is really interesting to see all the changes between the book and the movie.
Out of the movies, I thought Clear and Present Danger was the one that was the most sanctimonious. Now, if you really want a soapbox, in the novels Executive Orders really feels like it's basically Clancy on his soapbox preaching about how government should be run and organized. And the damndest part is, I actually agree with the things he says in that book, but the way the ideas were presented was kind of off-putting.
Whatever weaknesses Clear and Present Danger may have, are automatically rendered invalid due to one simple fact:
Vaughn Armstrong is in the film.
Vaughn Armstrong is in the film.
