Entertainment

Why the US Military Refused to Cooperate With ‘The Avengers’

It might not be common knowledge, but apparently the United States Military likes to lend a hand to the making of Hollywood blockbusters. This has led to such memorable sequences as Iron Man fighting F-22 Raptors in “Iron Man 2,” a sequence which apparently involved the genuine article.

The United States Military Refused to Participate in The Avengers Movie Because Its Depiction of S.H.I.E.L.D Was Unrealistic

Coolest...mission...ever

But when it came to “The Avengers,” apparently, the United States Military balked because they didn’t find the film “realistic.”

“Unrealistic?” you might be asking. “No! Was it the Norse Gods, the alien races, the men in weapons grade flying metal suits, or the fact that a Russian national world class spy was let anywhere near top secret military operations, that gave it away?”

The United States Military Refused to Participate in The Avengers Movie Because Its Depiction of S.H.I.E.L.D Was Unrealistic

She totally seems trustworthy.

Actually, it’s none of the above. Rather, the problem that gave the military headaches was the existence of the international military organization S.H.I.E.L.D. – an organization that apparently, unlike other multinational governing bodies like the UN, has the authority to supercede United States sovereignty and utilize our military forces, including our aircraft, our soldiers, and even our flying aircraft carriers!

The United States Military Refused to Participate in The Avengers Movie Because Its Depiction of S.H.I.E.L.D Was Unrealistic

Please tell me the Department of Defense actually built this.

Wired has a good article explaining the military’s hesitance over this idea:

Normally, the military loves to help Hollywood make mega-blockbusters. Iron Man got into a dogfight with F-22 Raptors in his first eponymous movie. The Navy provided the producers of the recent Act of Valor with unprecedented access to SEAL training missions and even let its secretive elite warriors act on camera. And the secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, even has a cameo in the forthcoming Battleship. (“I had a great time, although the director would probably recommend that I keep my day job,” Mabus told Politico.)

But the ambiguity around what exactly S.H.I.E.L.D. is provides a vexing complication. If it’s an American governmental agency, what kind of constitutional authority does it exercise over the military? If it’s an international body, as the movie text suggests and Strub determined, are U.S. military personnel and equipment on loan to it through some kind of United Nations Security Council resolution? The questions may seem picayune, but they’re precisely the stuff that can cause an image-conscious military to yank its cooperation from a movie.

The comics have fudged the issue for decades. Marvel now describes it as an “extra-government” body, although many takes on the organization have clearly emphasized its international character. Yet U.S. presidents have fired S.H.I.E.L.D. directors (Fury, Tony Stark/Iron Man) and appointed others (Norman Osborn/The Green Goblin, incumbent Steve Rogers/Captain America) — although that might operate by an informal international understanding, much like the U.S. appoints the director of the World Bank.

Either way, the ambiguity prevented the Avengers from assembling beside the U.S. military. “It just got to the point where it didn’t make any sense,” Strub laments. And now comic nerds have another data point to bring up during continuity debates about what exactly S.H.I.E.L.D. is.

To be fair – it may be for the best that the organization has been left deliberately ambiguous. If S.H.I.E.L.D. were depicted as a multinational organization that could commandeer American military forces, that might give a few latter-day Wilsonians more than a few bad ideas.

H/T Yahoo Movies

Comments (55)

1 2
  • Grace1798
    Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:53pm

    According to the end-time prophecy in many of the books in the Bible, the Antichrist will have every nation armed for his choosing of the One WORLD POWER. Hate to say it but we are heading in that direction. :(.

    Report Post » Grace1798  
  • Iamnotanumber
    Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:46pm

    LOL, they are worried about a fake shadow organization with the authority to deploy military resources…LOL!!…Really?….What ever!?!?

    Report Post »  
  • hi-polymer
    Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:37pm

    Sometimes fantasy is just fantasy. . . And speaking of fantasies, Scarlett Johansson looks fantastic in that costume.

    Report Post » hi-polymer  
    • jzs
      Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:28pm

      I bet she looks better without it on.

      Report Post » jzs  
  • Rowgue
    Posted on May 9, 2012 at 1:42pm

    Kind of stupid reasononing. It’s a comic book story, it‘s not meant to portray reality or even anything that’s actually possible.

    Sammy jackson ruins this movie anyway. Would have been really good if they’d had a competent actor playing nick fury instead of sammy jackson playing sammy jackson with an eye patch.

    Report Post »  
    • Jaycen
      Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:13pm

      Any fantasy must conform to some amount of reality. More importantly, any fantastic-reality invented by the author must remain consistent throughout the invented “reality” or you will torque off consumers of that fantasy.

      Per your comments regarding Samuel “Tea Partiers Are Racists” Jackson – I agree. He’s great as a foul-mouthed, angry black man. Outside of that, he doesn’t have much range as an actor.

      Report Post » Jaycen  
    • Rowgue
      Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:05pm

      I would normally agree with you on the needing to maintain a certain level of believability. But movies based on comic books are somewhat different. People expect them to be very loyal to the source material, which is all based on completely insane unrealistic premises. And the SHIELD organization has been a constant presence in marvel since 1965.

      Report Post »  
  • slvrserfr
    Posted on May 9, 2012 at 1:07pm

    The ideology of the movie revolves around an international governance or new world order – which liberals have been salivating over in driving a one world governance. Iron Man was cool because it revolved around a capitalist ideology of Howard Stark, but now that Marvel is owned by Disney – its not surprising that the liberal leaning company would create a movie like this.

    Report Post »  
  • hoss_cartwright
    Posted on May 9, 2012 at 11:48am

    it’s a dadburned comic,for pete’s sake…

    Report Post » hoss_cartwright  
  • RRFlyer
    Posted on May 9, 2012 at 8:52am

    Apparently Blaze likes to use the word “apparently” quite a lot.
    Other than that, I really don’t care what else they said.

    Report Post »  
    • MR_ANDERSON
      Posted on May 9, 2012 at 9:43am

      They only used “apparently” four times in that article, but that is because of the four members of the Avengers. I thought it was fantastic how they worked that in to the story.

      (ironic incorrectness intended)

      Report Post »  
  • Tigress1
    Posted on May 9, 2012 at 8:43am

    Good. I’m glad the military decided to stay out of it. Hollywood has been promoting Socialism the New World Order for years, beginning with Star Trek’s “United Federation of Planets”.

    http://volokh.com/posts/1190182117.shtml

    Report Post » Tigress1  
    • Tigress1
      Posted on May 9, 2012 at 8:48am

      Oops! I left out the “and”. Should have been Socialism AND the New World Order.

      Need more coffee…

      Report Post » Tigress1  
    • mmmrookatdat
      Posted on May 9, 2012 at 9:49am

      …really…The United Federation of Planets was invented back in the sixties with the original show. Everyone in the Federation was free, the Government didn’t control everything. Federations are constitutionally driven states banding together, very similar to the United States. I agree that Hollywood is filled with a bunch of communist traitors but they always have been, even since Hitler was in power. Star Trek is not the proof of socialism in Hollywood.

      Report Post » mmmrookatdat  
    • Man-On-A-Mission
      Posted on May 9, 2012 at 11:18am

      The ‘New World Order’ is not a Socialist movement. It is a small group of very rich and powerful people calling all the shots for the whole world. This is a conservative movement. They will govern from the pulpit. They will tell everyone what’s best for them. They will strip us of our freedom……..Bush Senior coin the phrase in an address to the nation…..look it up.

      Report Post »  
    • skypilot77
      Posted on May 9, 2012 at 11:50am

      Conservatives have no interest in global government.

      That has always be the bailiwick of the socialist. Has the last 100 years not taught anything

      League of Nations
      Nazi’s
      USSR
      China
      American Democrats
      the list could go on, and on

      Report Post »  
    • Blazebanned
      Posted on May 9, 2012 at 12:30pm

      @man on a mission aka encinom.
      Once again you show your stupidity,and lack of proof.If you are going to take media matters money for posting on here, why not just go clean there toilets, you would be better suited for that…..

      Drago.

      Report Post »  
    • railgrinder57
      Posted on May 9, 2012 at 12:51pm

      Agreed, we dont need any more of our youth believing in world organizations who have the power to trump our sovereignty.

      Report Post »  
    • Jaycen
      Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:08pm

      @mmmrookatdat

      Seriously? You haven’t read much on Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry, or paid much attention to the episodes, have you?

      In fact, there’s a huge Socialistic bent to the series. That was directly by design accoring to Roddenberry. Star Trek is a futuristic Socialist utopia.

      Report Post » Jaycen  
    • Jaycen
      Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:11pm

      @Man-On-A-Mission

      The NWO is most certainly a Socialist construct. Currently, it’s Progressive Socialists pushing the concept, but a Socialist/Fascist/Marxist/Communist/Lenninist are all facets of the same gem. The core concepts are the same.

      Collectivism, Elitism, Social Engineering, Central Planning – these are the hallmarks of all of the above mentioned ideologies. It’s all anti-freedom. It’s all about someone else controlling you.

      Report Post » Jaycen  
    • Rowgue
      Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:35pm

      @MAN~

      Bush coined the term new world order huh? I’m guessing just about every prominent political/military/religious leader in history would beg to differ, since they’ve all used it. It was an especially popular term among post WWI and post WWII liberals and socialists.

      Report Post »  
    • DonaldH
      Posted on May 9, 2012 at 6:18pm

      I don’t know if he coined it or not but I do know he used it far to often for my liking– He was the first U.S President, sitting or former, that I heard use the term and I’m not sure I had heard it before he first used it.. I didn’t like the elder,, do you people really not know how chummy he was with Teddy?

      Report Post » DonaldH  
    • tharpdevenport
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:09am

      JAYCEN,

      You’re going to have to do far more than simplky state and tell people to read and watch Roddenberrr. You’re talking to Trekkies who on average have watched about ten movies, three of more TV series with about 17 years on average, read novels, watched other productions by Roddenberry. How about citing some sources?

      I am one of those fans above mentioned, and while I see ideas of other “-isms” in Trek, I also see plenty, far more in comparrison, ideals of conservative principals, democray/republic basis, and of course homage to great thinkers and figures who are most decidedly NOT Socialist or despotic, so as the easily identifiable president Lincoln. And don’t hand me any of the Lincoln garbage — I’ve read plenty on hgim to know who he was, and read hours and hours of speeches to know how he thought and expressed himself — just incase you’re in the Paulbot camp.

      Report Post » tharpdevenport  
  • mcFirst
    Posted on May 9, 2012 at 8:41am

    The real issue is that they were not going to be the ones to save the world.
    The US gov became the problem with shooting a nuke.

    The message is that when it all comes down to it, governments will not save us, we must save ourselves. (with the help of the hulk of course)

    Report Post » mcFirst  
  • BubbaCoop
    Posted on May 9, 2012 at 8:37am

    They may not have had military cooperation, but I know for a fact they put out a call for local Ohio airmen to be extras as sailors on the aircraft carrier. Filmed it at the airport in Wilmington where Glenn Beck visited a couple of Christmases ago.

    Report Post »  
  • Beachbaby
    Posted on May 9, 2012 at 8:24am

    Hollywood is there for the spying and using the actress-prostitutes to keep them distracted. Hollywood hates military as much as clintons and obamas do.

    Report Post »  
  • 9111315
    Posted on May 9, 2012 at 7:34am

    What is NATO?

    Report Post »  
  • Concerned Green Beret
    Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:38am

    I don’t know what the military is balking about, our mil leaders today don’t bother with the constitution anyway. All we get from our mil leaders is crickets…….. the oath to protect and defend the constitution against foreign and domestic enemies used to mean something to mil leaders. Oh for the days of Marine Corps commadants Al Grey and Barrows or Army General Patton. If anyone of those guys were around that pentagon would be in ashes right now!!!

    Report Post »  
  • DoomsdayProphet
    Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:20am

    So whats the difference between shield and now?

    Report Post »  
  • Jayms
    Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:13am

    I‘m kind of confused by The Blaze’s snarky, sarcastic attitude in this article. Or am I just imagining it?

    There’s nothing wrong with questioning whether the US Military should help out a Hollywood movie that portrays their forces as being ordered around by a foreign entity. If SHIELD can just take over the US military, then who does the US Military really belong to? Of COURSE our military is against that portrayal. It’s called being “principled”. It’s amazing how many people have forgotten that America is a nation of laws and principles.

    It’s such a no-brainer issue – I don‘t see why it’s even being reported on by the press outside of some comic book blog.

    Report Post »  
    • HappyHaloHousewife
      Posted on May 9, 2012 at 8:18am

      That’s what I was thinking. I wouldn’t want any other entity having the power to commandeer US military and US constitutional laws. Seemed like a good call to me.

      Report Post » HappyHaloHousewife  
    • VRW Conspirator
      Posted on May 9, 2012 at 9:54am

      I think the military should have agreed with one edit to the script…when US cities are being attacked and SHIELD rolls into help, the Sec Def and Joint Chiefs beat his ARSE and tell him that if he ever steps on US soil again without authorization, they will put a bullet through his good eye.

      And then after Fury stammers out an “I am sorry, would you like our help?” They tell him to get his garbage sow out of the sky and just let the super heroes deal with it instead of getting in the way and acting tough all the time…

      Report Post » VRW Conspirator  
  • FromSeaToSea
    Posted on May 9, 2012 at 12:13am

    The navy has nothing to spare for action. We have all the floats commited for Iranian action movies.
    Even the USS Enterprise limped out of port headed for a staring role with the Arabs.

    Report Post »  
    • Texas Chris
      Posted on May 9, 2012 at 9:50am

      Did they actually paint a big bullseye on her? Or maybe a star of David?

      Report Post »  
  • Jones_Zemkophill
    Posted on May 9, 2012 at 12:01am

    Hmmm… I wonder if this explains why most of the fighters on the deck were AV-8B Harriers, but whenever a fighter was fighting/flying, suddenly F-35 Joint Strike Fighters would swoop in.

    If Shield is a super advanced agency with Helicarriers and Harriers, what’s the deal with the Harriers?

    Answer: They’re what the Propmaster had mockups of available.

    Report Post »  
  • rsanchez1
    Posted on May 8, 2012 at 11:24pm

    I thought Obama‘s military would be going wild about supporting the idea of an America that’s “just another nation” and an America whose military can be used by international organizations superceding American sovereignty.

    Report Post »  
  • Qoheleth
    Posted on May 8, 2012 at 10:32pm

    S.H.I.E.L.D. came into existence (in the comics) around the same time U.N.C.L.E. was popular on TV. In those days, it didn’t send up all the red flags. As time passed SHIELD had it’s share of problems, including issues with the shadow-directorate like the one that appears in the movie. These days, I suspect if anyone tried to set up SHIELD, they’d get something more like CONTROL (or maybe even KAOS :))

    Report Post » Qoheleth  
  • lukerw
    Posted on May 8, 2012 at 10:06pm

    How about… not Socialistically Supportive!

    Report Post » lukerw  
  • DonaldH
    Posted on May 8, 2012 at 9:38pm

    That’s right, the Government doesn’t let the Military join in on a Holywood production and cites a version that they know will appeal to many all while laughing out loud because they have you watching their left hand while they stab you in the back with their right… We are clueless clowns destine to be wioed from the face of the Earth

    Report Post » DonaldH  
  • babylonvi
    Posted on May 8, 2012 at 9:21pm

    No, the REAL problem was that the concept was TOO REAL. We have already been TOLD by the JCS and Se. of Defense that they get their orders from and answer to the UN and NATO, so why should they be bothered by it? Because no one listens to congressional hearings or believes the TV or papers, but they WOULD believe a movie. Go figure.

    Report Post » babylonvi  
    • Ozgard
      Posted on May 8, 2012 at 11:37pm

      Heh, that occurred to me too. Panetta told our congress critters that he would let them know about military actions decided by UN/NATO. I think you nailed it on the head there.

      Report Post »  
  • COREZONE
    Posted on May 8, 2012 at 9:19pm

    Now that I have read this, I understand and agree. It would be a bad nightmare if the American military did agree to join in.

    Report Post » COREZONE  
  • Taldren
    Posted on May 8, 2012 at 9:13pm

    And here I thought it was because they had a F-35B do a full air stop to hover. The aircraft can not do that for anything other than landing since it can not go back into flight mode from hover. It is a STVL aircraft … not a VTOL.

    Report Post » Taldren  
    • MrObvious
      Posted on May 8, 2012 at 9:39pm

      VTLs have been around for awhile now. Just because one jet can‘t do it doesn’t mean others with a similar appearance might not be able to, on a floating aircraft carrier, with massive amounts of steel, held up in the air by 4 propellers, that only tilts a little bit when two of them go down.
      lol

      Report Post »  
  • Wolfgang the Gray
    Posted on May 8, 2012 at 9:08pm

    Stupid
    Hillary
    Is
    Entitling
    Lazy
    Democrats

    Report Post » Wolfgang the Gray  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love