The third adaptation of Clancy's works after the second season of "On the Moment" and "Jack Lane" failed, and the reputation of both internal and external networks fell.
These literary and artistic circles may also be quite confused. They know that the Cold War background of these works has been modernized, but how can modernization be avoided? They can only think of looking at the world from Bai You's perspective in the original work, and changing it to a critical Bai You's perspective. Logically speaking, this should be a kind of progress, and it should be successful. Why can't it succeed?
But on the one hand, it was not completely changed. For example, in the last big action scene, the male protagonist knew that he was lured to Russia to provoke the US-Russian war. In other words, the Russian military police who attacked him were actually innocent. The male protagonist also told his teammates. "It's not a pity for me to die, let me attract firepower for you", and then killed N Russian military police, and still used cruel methods such as explosions and strangulation. Ahhh...Of course, the male protagonist can't help it at this time in order to survive, but this kind of plot is very embarrassing, the male protagonist's morality is greatly weakened, it is obviously the aggressor, are you still so arrogant? Either you follow the old and beautiful routines and portray the enemy as an unblinking demon (the first thing I think of is "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare"), so you can kill casually, and the protagonist's morality is up; or, in the similar In a "misunderstanding" type of battle, you make the protagonist invincible, and stun and maimed the opponent (this time it is the opponent rather than the enemy), which means that it does not hurt human life (such as "Mission Impossible 4: Ghost Protocol" ), so the morality of the protagonist is also up. And this film is a typical "misunderstanding" type battle. This is pretty bad. This reflects that although the adaptor does not want to always make the Russians a big villain, but subconsciously still treats the Russians as tools, and does not treat them as adults (so it's okay to die). This is a remnant of white right consciousness. However, this aspect should have little effect on American audiences.
Another more important aspect is that it has turned the US White Right into a big villain, and the US White Right does not buy it. The movie itself said that the United States is now half opposed to the other half, and it is only half of it. Therefore, the film must first fail politically. If the political plot is not round, the military should not be too rigorous, or it will be even more round and not come back-in order not to provoke the US-Russian war, the male protagonist has to go crazy. So the military failed again. Politics and military are gone, what is left of Clancy's work?
But these adaptors are not to blame. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Clancy wrote blindly; how can Clancy's posterity figure out this "big change unseen in a century"?
View more about Without Remorse reviews
