Lone Survivor (Post-release)

If that's true they must despise the guys who made Act of Valor who were active duty SEALs...

Sorry, but I don't buy that. Specops guys capitalize on their service all the time. That's why you see a lot of high paying security and consulting places using former specops guys. That's why they get hired for their expertise. In fact during the height of the war they had to extend pay and/or benefits to U.S. specops to keep them in the military instead of going to military contractors where they make six figures.

Second I can buy that they discussed whether to execute civilians because they were right that the next day the media would be all over it. That's why the U.S. military has lawyers practically everywhere to decide whether certain actions are a good idea or not. Plus I don't care if my officer ordered me to kill civilians, if it's not right then I'm as sure as hell going to question it. In the book he even says that if they were ordered to kill them they would do it in an instant. There's also a similar story from the first Gulf War with Army special forces where they where discovered by a teenage Iraqi kid and did the exact same thing and decided not to shoot the civilians.

Maybe I'm a bit naive, but I believe that some of these guys write the books so people would know what their friends sacrificed their lives for and not profit. Plus you don't know that he's not giving money to their families, charity, or whatever. I think people need to hear these stories, provided the Pentagon clears them, because these are the people kids should look up to, not sports players and movie stars.
 
Valor guys get kidded about going "Hollywood" different film different story it was more of a recruitment tool.

I have no problem with them "capitilizing" on their prior service and contracting out although some of my friends on the Teams do all for reasons I will not go into as you will likely not understand.

These guys absolutely HATE ANY PUBLICITY as the very nature of their roles and Missions are highly classified.

You do the Job and keep your mouth shut.

The best storys you will never hear nor should you.

As far as the "goat herders" of course they were not going to terminate them they were Non-Combatants.

Opinions are asked and heard but once the Team leader makes a decision and issues an order you WILL follow that order regardless of your feelings or be Court-martialed.

What has pissed off some in the Teams is Lutrell's lying.


Sluis Van Shipyards said:
If that's true they must despise the guys who made Act of Valor who were active duty SEALs...

Sorry, but I don't buy that. Specops guys capitalize on their service all the time. That's why you see a lot of high paying security and consulting places using former specops guys. That's why they get hired for their expertise. In fact during the height of the war they had to extend pay and/or benefits to U.S. specops to keep them in the military instead of going to military contractors where they make six figures.

Second I can buy that they discussed whether to execute civilians because they were right that the next day the media would be all over it. That's why the U.S. military has lawyers practically everywhere to decide whether certain actions are a good idea or not. Plus I don't care if my officer ordered me to kill civilians, if it's not right then I'm as sure as hell going to question it. In the book he even says that if they were ordered to kill them they would do it in an instant. There's also a similar story from the first Gulf War with Army special forces where they where discovered by a teenage Iraqi kid and did the exact same thing and decided not to shoot the civilians.

Maybe I'm a bit naive, but I believe that some of these guys write the books so people would know what their friends sacrificed their lives for and not profit. Plus you don't know that he's not giving money to their families, charity, or whatever. I think people need to hear these stories, provided the Pentagon clears them, because these are the people kids should look up to, not sports players and movie stars.
Click to expand...
 
Apollo said:
These guys absolutely HATE ANY PUBLICITY as the very nature of their roles and Missions are highly classified.

You do the Job and keep your mouth shut.

The best storys you will never hear nor should you.
Click to expand...

This is a gross generalization. While many may feel this way and some may even feel this way strongly and believe everyone SHOULD feel this way, clearly, that is not the case and outside of things that are legally classified and CAN'T be shared.


Apollo said:
As far as the "goat herders" of course they were not going to terminate them they were Non-Combatants.

Opinions are asked and heard but once the Team leader makes a decision and issues an order you WILL follow that order regardless of your feelings or be Court-martialed.

What has pissed off some in the Teams is Lutrell's lying.
Click to expand...

Do you realize how silly this is to say? Lutrell is the only one who was there; the only eye-witness. As above, while there may be those who don't want to believe this happened the way Lutrell said it did, no one can definitively say he is lying, they weren't there and just because it doesn't usually happen a particular way doesn't mean it didn't happen that way in this particular instance. And in regard to your point about opinions are heard and then the team lead makes a decision that is obeyed.... well, based on the movie, that is EXACTLY what happened. Some wanted to do one thing. Some wanted to do another. The team lead made a decision and that decision was followed, even though it ultimately cost man good men their lives.
 
Issues with accuracy aside, this was a great movie! Very emotional and intense. It has been a very long time since I saw a movie that created this much response from the audience, to the point that the entire audience clapped at the end. THAT is awesome, in my eyes, when a movie can move people like that. The falling down the mountain (twice) seemed way to dramatic iced, but otherwise, I was never pulled out of the story and even though you knew what was going to happen (just from the title alone) it was a great watch and a great story. Mark Wahlberg was very good, but , as usual, Ben Foster was just stellar and the standout character to me. This is definitely one to go see.
 
Not silly if you understand the way the Teams work.

ROE is very clear on things of this nature and few things are brought up for a "Vote"

Again there are other things about Lutrell's reports that many do not believe,from people who WERE there, ie the ones who had to clean up the mess.










Art Andrews said:
Do you realize how silly this is to say? Lutrell is the only one who was there; the only eye-witness. As above, while there may be those who don't want to believe this happened the way Lutrell said it did, no one can definitively say he is lying, they weren't there and just because it doesn't usually happen a particular way doesn't mean it didn't happen that way in this particular instance. And in regard to your point about opinions are heard and then the team lead makes a decision that is obeyed.... well, based on the movie, that is EXACTLY what happened. Some wanted to do one thing. Some wanted to do another. The team lead made a decision and that decision was followed, even though it ultimately cost man good men their lives.
Click to expand...
 
dbuck said:
Lone Survivor True Story vs Movie - Real Marcus Luttrell, Mike Murphy
Click to expand...

Great article, seems very balanced.
Doesn't seem like the families of the fallen team members have the feelings that some people here are espousing.

Did the filmmakers have the support of the military and the families of the fallen soldiers?
Yes. "My research started with meeting the families of the SEALs who were killed," says director Peter Berg. "I went to New York and met the Murphys. I went to Colorado and met the Dietzes, and I went to Northern California and met the Axelsons. After spending time with them, you realize that these kids were the best and the brightest; they were the stars of the families. The grief and the wounds are still very raw. You would have to be inhuman to not feel the responsibility when that kind of grief gets shared with you. ... I visited the Dietz home and Mr. Dietz took me to Danny's bedroom, which he's kept. It was the room of a teenage boy, but he had built this glass case and inside was Danny's uniform with the bullet holes in it and blood on it, as well as his gun, helmet and boots." Watch the families share their thoughts on the film.

Prior to filming, director Berg, who had previously worked with the Navy on his 2012 film Battleship, traveled to the Middle East and was embedded with a SEAL platoon in Iraq near the Syrian border. He spent a month with a team of 15, accompanying the soldiers on night patrols and observing how they operated. Survivor Marcus Luttrell also insisted on moving into Peter Berg's home for one month to ensure that the director knew exactly what unfolded on the mountain. -Production Notes

I just watched a doc on the film where all the parents of team members discussed the film and several praised Luttrell for telling the story. In the end It seems so much more positive has came from this than negative.
 
Now no in the begining Murph's father had some pretty strong words for Luttrell though about dishonoring his sons memory. :eek:hwell

One of the reasons Berg went to the familys to smooth things out for the film


yt said:
Great article, seems very balanced.
Doesn't seem like the families of the fallen team members have the feelings that some people here are espousing.

Did the filmmakers have the support of the military and the families of the fallen soldiers?
Yes. "My research started with meeting the families of the SEALs who were killed," says director Peter Berg. "I went to New York and met the Murphys. I went to Colorado and met the Dietzes, and I went to Northern California and met the Axelsons. After spending time with them, you realize that these kids were the best and the brightest; they were the stars of the families. The grief and the wounds are still very raw. You would have to be inhuman to not feel the responsibility when that kind of grief gets shared with you. ... I visited the Dietz home and Mr. Dietz took me to Danny's bedroom, which he's kept. It was the room of a teenage boy, but he had built this glass case and inside was Danny's uniform with the bullet holes in it and blood on it, as well as his gun, helmet and boots." Watch the families share their thoughts on the film.

Prior to filming, director Berg, who had previously worked with the Navy on his 2012 film Battleship, traveled to the Middle East and was embedded with a SEAL platoon in Iraq near the Syrian border. He spent a month with a team of 15, accompanying the soldiers on night patrols and observing how they operated. Survivor Marcus Luttrell also insisted on moving into Peter Berg's home for one month to ensure that the director knew exactly what unfolded on the mountain. -Production Notes

I just watched a doc on the film where all the parents of team members discussed the film and several praised Luttrell for telling the story. In the end It seems so much more positive has came from this than negative.
Click to expand...
 
Murph's father was po'd royally by the book.

The director of this film was smart and removed much of the controversy. Yes, there is still a lot of dramatic license which is to be expected, but Luttrell's 'enhancements' were minimized in the script which is why the families supported this movie.
 
Just saw this. Had read the book, but seeing my friends deaths depicted on screen was very troubling to watch. Jarring.

Being a Gold Star child myself, I thought it was well done... Treated these men and their memory honorably. I could hope no better for any story treatment of my own dad who was killed in the line of duty.

I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who has experienced the death of a loved one in service. Too hard. Too graphic.

Reading about Eric and Mike's last moments was drastically different than seeing them unfold.

RIP my friends. You are still missed and remembered.


Drive fast.
But don't drive off cliffs.
Trust me on this one.
 
Art Andrews said:
no one can definitively say he is lying, they weren't there
Click to expand...

Nor can anyone confirm he was telling the truth, for the same reason...

I find it a little ironic - or convenient - that the one player that represented the most clear pillar of moral reason and judgement was the story-teller.
--Murphy is played as initially indecisive
--Deitz is played as "Whatever - just tell me what to do"
--Axe is played as "Schwack 'em!!" (a little surprised his family didn't have issues with this)

Only Luttrell is played as both stalwart in his decision and morally forthright.

Convenient...

Who knows what really went down during those moments...
 
Last edited:
On the technical accuracy side...

If they knew ahead of time they were "about to be contacted" and engage in a gunfight, shouldn't they have put on their helmets? I honestly am not sure if they would have / could have / should have.


On the falls... Again, with the helmets - wouldn't helmets have helped? May not have stopped a round from an AK, but would have helped if your head meets with a rock.

And the film protrays a dramatic, calculated LEAP off the ledge - all four, nearly arm-in-arm leaping while a mortar or RPG explodes behind them. Looked great on film, but why HELP gravity and inertia by dramatically leaping up and out (as shown).

Not sure what I personally would have done under duress and gunfire, but if I had to go over that ledge, I think I'd try sliding down on my backside first, instead of leaping out into the open air.

Also, I wonder if it was as steep and treacherous as shown?

I suppose this may be verifiable since US troops entered the area in the aftermath, but was it really as hairy as shown in the film? A couple of the blows shown (and suggested in context), like slamming into a tree or head into a rock, appeared as if they would be near fatal or back-breaking (literally).

In short, I'm sure much of the action was a bit "dress up" for typical Hollywood reasons.


And in the final battle in the village, wasn't Gulab (the villager who rescued Luttrell) shown killing Ahmad Shah? Or was that another Taliban? Shah died three years later in a police shoot-out...
 
Last edited:
Sorry - another post, but another topic / angle...

Considering the failed mission and significant loss, Im sure the military has analyzed this to the nth degree. But I've not come across any reports as to what the Navy / US military concluded with regard to what went wrong and what may have prevented the failed outcome.

The film implies the error was releasing the goat-herders, which catalyzed the following events.

But other than killing them, what options did the four have?

In my naive' and untrained mind, I question why they didn't either:
--Simply hold the herders with them (bound), until they had further options or their mission was complete. They were not a direct contact team - only surveillance and recon, so could they not simpy hold them and "baby-sit" the herders until they had a better set of options?
--Scrub the mission as decided, but hold on to the herders as they retreated, at least long enough to gain a greater tactical advantage. For every hour the SEALs hiked away from the village (with the herders in tow) that is more time they "buy" to enhance their retreat

Maybe I'm missing something, I dunno...
 
PHArchivist said:
Nor can anyone confirm he was telling the truth, for the same reason...

I find it a little ironic - or convenient - that the one player that represented the most clear pillar of moral reason and judgement was the story-teller.
--Murphy is played as initially indecisive
--Deitz is played as "Whatever - just tell me what to do"
--Axe is played as "Schwack 'em!!" (a little surprised his family didn't have issues with this)

Only Luttrell is played as both stalwart in his decision and morally forthright.

Convenient...

Who knows what really went down during those moments...
Click to expand...

I can certainly see where it comes across that way, but I don't see Murphy as being as indecisive as you. It was a difficult position and I saw him more as thoughtful than as indecisive. Murphy never actually asks for input, but presents the options before them. The rest of the team take it upon themselves to discuss it while Murphy thinks. Pretty quickly you have the guys giving Murphy their individual thoughts. Does Luttrel take the politically correct path? Yes. Did he in real life? Who knows... however, I still don't think the way it was presented shows Murphy in a bad light or any of the men, even Axe. Axe, right or wrong, gives his justification and reasoning for how he feels, but the call isn't his, even though he makes a very passionate argument for his view. Notice that Murphy has walked away from the group as they debate, but comes back once he has made a decision. It isn't that he sided with Luttrell or was convinced by Luttrell. Murphy presented the options, walks away to think about them and then returns with HIS decision.

Also, keep in mind that Luttrell is not as stalwart as you say. His argument is not so much "this is morally wrong" as it is "this will make us look bad and we might go to jail if we are found out."
 
PHArchivist said:
And the film protrays a dramatic, calculated LEAP off the ledge - all four, nearly arm-in-arm leaping while a mortar or RPG explodes behind them. Looked great on film, but why HELP gravity and inertia by dramatically leaping up and out (as shown).

Not sure what I personally would have done under duress and gunfire, but if I had to go over that ledge, I think I'd try sliding down on my backside first, instead of leaping out into the open air.

Also, I wonder if it was as steep and treacherous as shown?

I suppose this may be verifiable since US troops entered the area in the aftermath, but was it really as hairy as shown in the film? A couple of the blows shown (and suggested in context), like slamming into a tree or head into a rock, appeared as if they would be near fatal or back-breaking (literally).

In short, I'm sure much of the action was a bit "dress up" for typical Hollywood reasons.
Click to expand...

I too thought the falling scenes were a bit much but in the behind the scenes videos, Luttrell says that they are very accurate to what happened. He does mention that in almost every fall someone broke something.

PHArchivist said:
And in the final battle in the village, wasn't Gulab (the villager who rescued Luttrell) shown killing Ahmad Shah? Or was that another Taliban? Shah died three years later in a police shoot-out...
Click to expand...

The entire last part of the movie had very little semblance to what actually happened.
 
PHArchivist said:
Sorry - another post, but another topic / angle...

Considering the failed mission and significant loss, Im sure the military has analyzed this to the nth degree. But I've not come across any reports as to what the Navy / US military concluded with regard to what went wrong and what may have prevented the failed outcome.

The film implies the error was releasing the goat-herders, which catalyzed the following events.

But other than killing them, what options did the four have?

In my naive' and untrained mind, I question why they didn't either:
--Simply hold the herders with them (bound), until they had further options or their mission was complete. They were not a direct contact team - only surveillance and recon, so could they not simpy hold them and "baby-sit" the herders until they had a better set of options?
--Scrub the mission as decided, but hold on to the herders as they retreated, at least long enough to gain a greater tactical advantage. For every hour the SEALs hiked away from the village (with the herders in tow) that is more time they "buy" to enhance their retreat

Maybe I'm missing something, I dunno...
Click to expand...

Tough to say. I think the biggest issue here was the ability to communicate with their base. They truly thought they would be extracted rather quickly and one of the biggest issues was when they found that what they thought was a mountain top was not and they couldn't reach their base, which essentially left them stranded.
 
Art Andrews said:
Tough to say. I think the biggest issue here was the ability to communicate with their base. They truly thought they would be extracted rather quickly and one of the biggest issues was when they found that what they thought was a mountain top was not and they couldn't reach their base, which essentially left them stranded.
Click to expand...

First viewing I missed the line "False summit...!" Caught it second time through the film. Good points...

- - - Updated - - -

Art Andrews said:
I can certainly see where it comes across that way, but I don't see Murphy as being as indecisive as you. It was a difficult position and I saw him more as thoughtful than as indecisive. Murphy never actually asks for input, but presents the options before them. The rest of the team take it upon themselves to discuss it while Murphy thinks. Pretty quickly you have the guys giving Murphy their individual thoughts. Does Luttrel take the politically correct path? Yes. Did he in real life? Who knows... however, I still don't think the way it was presented shows Murphy in a bad light or any of the men, even Axe. Axe, right or wrong, gives his justification and reasoning for how he feels, but the call isn't his, even though he makes a very passionate argument for his view. Notice that Murphy has walked away from the group as they debate, but comes back once he has made a decision. It isn't that he sided with Luttrell or was convinced by Luttrell. Murphy presented the options, walks away to think about them and then returns with HIS decision.

Also, keep in mind that Luttrell is not as stalwart as you say. His argument is not so much "this is morally wrong" as it is "this will make us look bad and we might go to jail if we are found out."
Click to expand...

Perfect synopsis, and agreed...
 
PHArchivist said:
Nor can anyone confirm he was telling the truth, for the same reason...

I find it a little ironic - or convenient - that the one player that represented the most clear pillar of moral reason and judgement was the story-teller.
--Murphy is played as initially indecisive
--Deitz is played as "Whatever - just tell me what to do"
--Axe is played as "Schwack 'em!!" (a little surprised his family didn't have issues with this)

Only Luttrell is played as both stalwart in his decision and morally forthright.

Convenient...

Who knows what really went down during those moments...
Click to expand...

None but Marcus knows what was and was not discussed on that mountain. That said, I never saw Marcus as being on some moral high horse. He wasn't arguing out of morality. He was arguing out of concern that if they killed the three that word would get out fast. He didn't really care about them being killed. That's hardly taking the moral high ground. He was against it because he was afraid they'd get in trouble for it.

Dietz was hardly wishy washy. He didn't look happy about the situation but accepted the chain of command..."This is the Navy. You make the F'n call, SIR!". My impression, from the acting in the movie, was that he was a SEAL. He wanted decisive orders. Not debate. Whatever it is we're doing. Let's F'n do it and get on with our mission one way or the other. Period.

Axe was all business and commons sense. Not cold or hard core. He saw exactly what needed to be done unclouded by any illusions of morality.

And, I never took Murphy as being indecisive at all. I saw a tight group of brothers hashing out a bad situation. Managers do that in business all the time. They already know what they're going to do, but still go through the motions of inviting thoughts only to wrap up dialogue session with, "Here's what we're gonna do". Since it involved killing a little boy, it wasn't beyond belief that this talk took place.

Whether that debate ever actually took place...only Lutrell knows. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. I could see it happening. Why not? Given what was at stake, it makes sense to me. If it didn't, maybe it was just included to illustrate for the less cognitive masses the possible scenarios and to put you in the position to some extent. A, "What would you do?" kind of thing. I saw the movie before reading the book and I had my mind made up immediately. But, one never knows what they would REALLY do unless they were actually in that situation.

I was not crazy about the battle in the village. You could see the Hollywood all over that, and in my opinion is the weak spot of the movie. As incredible and hard to believe it happened as the battle is, the only part that felt truly "unbelievable" to me was the battle in the village. Hollywood just can't leave well enough alone even when it's doing the right thing.

All in all, I felt it was an excellent movie. How "accurate" it was is not for me to say. It does say "Based on a True Story" at the beginning. That word leaves lots of room for interpretation. In the end it's a movie, not a documentary. And it presents the SEALS well, at least to an outsider like myself. God bless 'em all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top