65 of 75 people found the following review helpful
It's a *movie* folks...,
I've read Clancy (but not this one) and I've seen all the "Clancy" movies many times. My wife drives me nuts by saying, "that wouldn't happen..." so I understand all you who try to analyze the plot for theoretical accuracy. But.... this is a work of entertainment based on fictional accounts of political conflict. Did it entertain? Absolutely. Did Affleck portray Jack Ryan the way Clancy wrote him? Of course. Are the plot points of the movie plausible? Well, maybe, but - that's the point of Clancy. In case you didn't notice, Tom Clancy was executive producer of this film so he certainly had considerable input. Yeah, they changed the chronology of Jack Ryan. Whooppee! That makes Debt of Honor and Executive Orders completely future potential for Ben Affleck as Ryan considering they can now do Cardinal of the Kremlin which they couldn't have done with Harrison Ford. Hmmmm, do we want to see more Clancy movies? Yes!
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 15, 2013 12:47:08 AM PDT
I agree with you 100 percent. but I thought I would just mention when the word "producer" is in the credits even if it says executive, it really only means that person donated money to help make the the movie. sad yet true. its the directors that has the power to manipulate and change stories, so u are allll good
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2013 7:04:00 AM PST
Unless it's otherwise written in their contracts (like Woody Allen), producers are very much involved in the film being made, while the final authority is the studio itself. That's why films sometimes have "director's cuts"--because they weren't allowed to make the original film exactly as they wanted. It's also why directors who want more control are often the producers of their films as well. It is true that executive producers provide the backing for films and are ultimately responsible for getting them made. But as such, they oversee every aspect of what's going on. They usually leave the filmmaking up to the director, but if they don't like what they see, they'll step in and make changes. In the case of this film, Tom Clancy wasn't the only executive producer and probably didn't have the last word, but I'm sure he had input. Also, it's unlikely that he "donated" money to help make the movie; actually, the word you're looking for is "invest," and that can often be the case. In big productions like this, though, the majority of funds usually come from a major studio, and it's part of the executive producers' job to secure that backing. I don't know if Clancy invested in this film, but his involvement as an executive producer was probably to allow him some creative control over the final product. Gene Roddenberry, for example, wasn't executive producer of Star Trek because he was donating money to have it made. He was the creator of the show and given a position that would allow him to oversee his own vision.
There's even more to it than that; it's a complicated business. But I hope I've given a better idea of what producers actually do.
Posted on Mar 9, 2014 10:00:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 9, 2014 10:02:16 PM PDT
Andre L. says:
I totally agree with you Thomas. You are spot-on, for heaven sakes, "It's a *MOVIE* folks" and yes Clancy was exec. director and it is HIS story and yes it is VERY entertaining FICTION. It is a *movie* not a documentary of true events. I loved this movie AND the ones with Harrison Ford and truely hope they will make more movies with Afflek as Jack Ryan, he's an excellent young actor getting better all the time.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 26, 2014 9:37:41 PM PDT
but think of that Clancy is the original writer, even if he only put money to this movie, he still has done a lot in background for it. After all, without him there would not be this movie at all, right?
‹ Previous 1 Next ›