A Certain Point of View: Writing, Film and Stuff

On Quora, the debate over whether the U.S. should have sought other ways to end the Pacific War instead of dropping atomic bombs on Japan continues. Yesterday, I replied to this question by James Germain: Did the atomic bomb really have to be dropped as U.S history books state? It’s not just “U.S. history books” that state the necessity for the use of atomic weapons against Japan; many Japanese historians also say the same thing. Now that we’ve got the “handwringing over the bomb” part out of the way, let’s consider the alternatives that were available to President Harry S Truman, Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, and General of the Army Douglas MacArthur: Before President Truman decided to use atomic weapons to shock the Japanese militarists into accepting the Potsdam Declaration and agreeing to surrender unconditionally (with, perhaps, private guarantees that the Emperor could retain his position as a  ceremonial  head of state), he had several alternatives, none of whic

When Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower arrived in London from the Mediterranean Theater of Operations in January of 1944 to take command of the Allied Expeditionary Force and carry out Operation Overlord, the site of the invasion - Normandy - had already been selected. Planning for an eventual invasion of France was already well underway by January 15, 1944; before Eisenhower was selected as Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force, Lt. Gen. Frederick Morgan of the British Army had already crafted a preliminary invasion plan under his title of presumptive Chief of Staff, Supreme Allied Commander (Designate), or COSSAC. After taking the COSSAC assignment in March of 1943, Morgan and his planning staff looked at their maps of occupied Northwest Europe in search of possible landing sites on the northern coast of France, the likeliest target for an invasion due to its proximity to Britain and its southern ports of embarkation. The Pas de Calais was ruled out almost right away even

Although the novelization was published in advance of Star Wars' May 25, 1977 release, George Lucas's film is not based on a pre-existing novel or short story. Poster © 1977 20th Century Fox Film Corporation.  Are the Star Wars movies based on books? No. None of the nine  Skywalker Saga  films or either of the two  Star Wars  Anthology films is based on any pre-existing novel or short story. To recap, the  Skywalker Saga  films consist of: The 1999–2005 Prequel Trilogy ( The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones,  and  Revenge of the Sith ) The 1977–1983 Original Trilogy ( Star Wars  or  A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back,  and  Return of the Jedi ) The 2015–2019 Sequel Trilogy ( The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi,  and  The Rise of Skywalker ) The two   stand-alone Anthology films are 2016’s  Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,  which is a direct prequel to  A New Hope  (and is based on that film’s title crawl), and  Solo: A Star Wars Story,  which is the origin story

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know (or should know) that one of my pet peeves is cognitive dissonance. It doesn't matter if it involves politics, interpersonal relationships, or pop culture, but I am easily annoyed when people willfully ignore facts and publicly express notions that are based on personal opinion or political dogma. For instance, in the Star Wars fandom, there is a subgroup of fans that continually ascribe decisions made by Lucasfilm Ltd., the production company that creates content for both the Indiana Jones and the Star Wars franchises to its parent company, The Walt Disney Company. No matter what it is - whether it's the announcement that a new film or TV series is being considered or that a new book is going to be published, it's never Lucasfilm that gets credit (or the criticism) for the decision, it's Disney.  Allow me to illustrate by sharing yet another Star Wars- related item from Quora. In the Star Wars category, Jensen

On October 9, 2012, 50 years and four days after the premiere of Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli's production of Dr. No, Capitol Records released Best of Bond...James Bond: 50 Years - 50 Tracks, a two-CD compilation of title songs and other music from the first 22 EON films based on Ian Fleming's iconic British Secret Service agent with a license to kill: "Bond...James Bond."  Dropped to coincide with the premiere of director Sam Mendes' Skyfall - even though Adele's rendition of the eponymous title song was not included - this album (which was made in collaboration with MGM Music and EMI Records) is an update of 1999's 19-track disc Best of Bond...James Bond, an album that only presented the "main title" songs of the series up to director Roger Spottiswoode's Tomorrow Never Dies even though Michael Apted's  The World is Not Enough was released that same year. For Bond's 50th Anniversary, Capitol and MGM Music went b

When did George Lucas start tampering with the original Star Wars films by changing the special effects? Ah. Here we go, another loaded question with a subliminal anti-Lucas bias. First of all, I will remind you that like it or not, George Lucas had every right to revise (not  tamper with ) films that he conceived, produced, and in the case of  Star Wars,  directed between 1973 (when he first wrote the story treatment for what he originally called  The Star Wars ) and late 1982 (when  Return of the Jedi  was in post-production and scheduled for a May 25, 1983 release. It is a matter of record that Lucas was not happy with some of the compromises he had to make, technologically speaking, when  Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back,  and  Return of the Jedi  were produced. The first film’s budget, which came from the coffers of the 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, were barely sufficient for the effects that Lucasfilm and its special effects division, Industrial Light and Magic

If you are a regular reader of A Certain Point of View. you know that one of the blog's regular features is Talking About.... in which I share some of my answers to political questions that I've run across on Quora, a popular questions-and-answers website. I am not, or at least I didn't use to be, a political junkie, but ever since Donald Trump was elected to the White House, I express my beliefs and, more often than not, vent my anger over Trump's behavior and policies in those answers, especially when I'm replying to obviously loaded pro-Trump "questions." Yesterday, for instance, I ran into this masterpiece of "faux outrage" from Charles Arnold, a South Dakota pastor and Trump fan: Why does Quora allow so many loaded anti-Trump questions that obviously are not looking for genuine answers? I replied:  Well, for one thing, the concept of Quora, at least according to its mission statement, is to promote the sharing of useful informati