The bridge is yours.

-Game of Thrones Valentines, for all your medieval romantic needs.

-I would like Michael Bay a lot more if he was making the Transformers movies as a way to fund a whole bunch of wacky passion projects.

-How are people feeling about Smash? James Poniewozick sums up some of my concerns.

-This Chinese sci-fi novel sounds fantastic.

-And because it’s that kind of day, George R.R. Martin reads nursery rhymes:

This is a standard, but silly, argument from Big Hollywood about how the entertainment industry hates the troops:

But patriotism doesn’t sell, right? If it did, Hollywood would be inundating movie theaters with pro-troop films and other tales of American soldiers in heroic action.
“Red Tails” also slices into another depressing Hollywood meme…An even better patriotism test comes next month when “Act of Valor,” a film which boldly toasts American soldiers as heroes, hits theaters. A “Valor” take down of the film competition may open the floodgates for more pro-troop features, assuming the appropriate bean counters are taking notes. Or, will Hollywood executives ignore the numbers and retreat to projects depicting U.S. soldiers in unflattering light? Is there a better chance we’ll see a new installment of “In the Valley of Elah” or “Redacted,” films showing the darker side of the modern soldier, than a “Red Tails” sequel?

I don’t want to spend time explaining why patriotism and unqualified support for the members and actions of the armed forces no matter what they do aren’t the same thing, because I think it’s obvious to everyone here and everyone reasonable why that’s the case. But I think there’s something fundamentally silly about the idea that Hollywood is unaware of the fact that patriotism sells.

In the last 10 years, the following movies with patriotic themes were among the top-10 grossing movies of the year. Last year, one of the top-selling superheroes of the year was Captain America, up there with Pixar’s most middle-American offering, Cars 2. In 2010, Iron Man 2 kept stumbling drunkenly towards public service. 2009 was ruled by Michael Bay’s military Valentine, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, along with the paen to charity and football as mainstreaming experiences, The Blind Side. In 2008, Tony Stark discovered service of country instead of himself in Iron Man. In 2007, Spider-Man 3, the latest installment about the webslinger who became a representative of post-9/11 New York, topped the box office list; the uber-pro-military franchise Transformers made its bow; Jason Bourne kept the idea of an intelligence community with integrity alive in The Bourne Ultimatum; and Will Smith saved human society in I Am Legend. The previous year, Clark Kent resurfaced to keep an eye on Metropolis in Superman Returns, and Hollywood affirmed a kinder, gentler American consumerism in Talladega Nights. 2005 had less obvious themes, though America obviously beats the Martians in War of the Worlds. 2004 reinforced Spider-Man’s ties to New York in that incredible subway scene. 2002 had Spider-Man topping the charts again, a celebration of the immigrant experience in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, and more Americans v. the Aliens in Men in Black 2. 2001 was the last year a World War II movie cleaned up at the box office, but no one could accuse Pearl Harbor of being anything less than a big, old-fashioned patriotic weepie.

Even by the standards of military-worshipping conservatism, Hollywood is deeply committed to making movies that both reflect and make bank off that particular strand of patriotism. And if you’re thoughtful enough to have a broader understanding of love and country, there’s even more out there for you.

David Sirota is upset that the Defense Department has become very, very good at forcing Hollywood studios to trade script approval for access to information and subsidized rates on equipment for military movies:

The 1986 movie, starring Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis, was the template for a new Military-Entertainment Complex. During production, the Pentagon worked hand-in-hand with the filmmakers, reportedly charging Paramount Pictures just $1.8 million for the use of its warplanes and aircraft carriers. But that taxpayer-subsidized discount came at a price — the filmmakers were required to submit their script to Pentagon brass for meticulous line edits aimed at casting the military in the most positive light. (One example: Time magazine reported that Goose’s death was changed from a midair collision to an ejection scene, because “the Navy complained that too many pilots were crashing.”)

Although “Top Gun” was not the first movie to exchange creative input for Pentagon assistance and resources, its success set that bargain as a standard for other filmmakers, who began deluging the Pentagon with requests for collaboration. By the time the 1991 Persian Gulf War began, Phil Strub, the Pentagon’s liaison to the movie industry, told the Hollywood Reporter that he’d seen a 70 percent increase in the number of requests from filmmakers for assistance — effectively changing the way Hollywood works.

Military movies or movies where the military plays some sort of appearance are always going to be reasonably popular, so the Defense Department has an advantage in promoting itself, but it’s also been very smart and strategic. This strikes me less as an argument to shut down the work the Defense Department does reaching out to the film industry than an argument for other agencies and progressive organizations to be much more proactive about advertising that they are ready and willing to give advice to writers and directors working on a wide array of policy themes. Hollywood Health and Society‘s been very good at doing this on medical and health issues. I know the Center for a New American Security sometimes arranges briefings for people in the movie business. It’s not as if military dramas are the only genre that is inherently popular. There are huge openings on health and on criminal justice in particular for organizations that would be up for providing some free advice in exchange for accuracy in depictions.

Second, there’s a difference between movies that are generally approving of the military and movies that are approving of our current conflicts. It may be awesome that our men in uniform can help kick giant robot alien ass, but I can’t think of a single critically or commercially successful movie that argued that our involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan were a dandy idea and that our troops there are accomplishing their goals without fuss or bother. If there is evidence arguing that teaming up with Optimus Prime makes Americans more likely to support wars of choice, I would love to see it (interestingly, the first Transformers movie portrayed positive relationships between American soliders and the people who live near their base, particularly in the face of a giant robot threat, but I’m not sure that whitewashes the war or makes people more likely to support it). But I’m not sure I think that it is an inherently wasteful or problematic thing to make the case that the people who defend our country are competent and (as long as they live up to the codes set for them) worthy of our respect and appreciation.

Finally, the implication that X-Men: First Class is a military commercial, whatever the Army’s intentions in the joint promotion deal around it, is deeply strange. It’s a movie where the militaries of both the U.S. and the Soviet Union allow themselves to be manipulated to the brink of nuclear war, and then turn on a small minority that they are unfamiliar with and frightened of, and who have been established as sympathetic protagonists, and jointly try to annihilate that tiny group of people. It does not make being in the military look particularly awesome.

Obviously, Megan Fox is not exactly a pure feminist ideal, and it’s pretty stupid to say of a director you’re working with on a lucrative franchise (if you want to continue working on that franchise), “He’s like Napoleon and he wants to create this insane, infamous mad-man reputation. He wants to be like Hitler on his sets, and he is.” Still, I’m less than charmed to learn that Steven Spielberg urged Bay to fire Fox over the incident, rather than having her in for a talk, or whatever. This is the same Steven Spielberg, of course, who has made precisely one movie with a female main character who doesn’t share lead duties with a dude. And, you know, not everyone has to make their life’s work making movies with female leads or nurturing young actresses or breaking down Hollywood’s gender barriers. But maybe when you’re one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, you don’t have to use that clout to land all over young actresses, either.

At the end of the day, Megan Fox may not have been a pro on the Transformers set, and she may have been a jerk in the press. But Alex Pettyfer can behave like a spoiled brat on multiple pictures and in negotiations, and there can be allegations that he’s a slightly scary control freak, and he’s fine to the extent that he’s the star of Steven Soderbergh’s next movie. Fox is not the ideal spokeswoman for feminism in Hollywood, she’s the kind of unideal victim Gloria Allred specializes in. But crying a lack of professionalism is a pretty good way to defang critics who are saying things that cut to the heart of your flaws. Or to distract folks from the likely awfulness of the movie you’re about to foist on American audiences.

Either way, maybe Steven Spielberg should consider using his powers for a greater good than saving Michael Bay from having people say mean things about him in the press.

I always hate that moment in the campaign when reporters start asking presidential hopefuls what’s on their iPods, not because I think candidates’ pop culture preferences are irrelevant, but because I think they never actually tell the truth about what they listen to and watch. So just for the heck of it, I decided to search the newly released trove of Palin emails for entertainment terms to see what turned up. There aren’t a lot of them, but Palin adviser Meghan Stapleton urged Palin to butter up movie producer Ian Bryce when he was in Alaska for work on Michael Bay’s first Transformers movie — one aide suggested she have people working on the movie to dinner, and jokingly take credit for fixing the weather that was making shoots difficult.

But the best thing in there? Todd and Sarah went to see Juno in March 2008, “our second movie we’ve seen together in the last four years.” Somehow, I don’t think Bristol hollered, “Thundercats are go!” when her water broke.

Given that Michael Bay auditioned Megan Fox for the Transformers franchise by making her wash his Ferrari, it’s not particularly shocking that Fox got sick of working for the guy. And honestly, it’s not particularly surprising, though it is depressing, to watch Shia LeBeouf, her costar in those movies, simultaneously bash Fox for not liking the treatment, and declare Fox insufficiently rigorous in her feminism.

Let’s examine this line of argument, shall we?

1) LeBeouf says that Fox was overly sensitive about some of the things Bay asked her to do on-set:

Mike films women in a way that appeals to a 16-year-old sexuality. It’s summer. It’s Michael’s style. And I think [Fox] never got comfortable with it. This is a girl who was taken from complete obscurity and placed in a sex-driven role in front of the whole world and told she was the sexiest woman in America. And she had a hard time accepting it. When Mike would ask her to do specific things, there was no time for fluffy talk. We’re on the run. And the one thing Mike lacks is tact. There’s no time for ‘I would like you to just arch your back 70 degrees.

2) He goes on to add how great it is to work with a Victoria’s Secret model who is comfortable being his character’s surrogate mommy/housewifey:

Rosie comes with this Victoria’s Secret background, and she’s comfortable with it, so she can get down with Mike’s way of working and it makes the whole set vibe very different…Sam’s sort of frustrated. He has no purpose in life. When he was with the Autobots, he had purpose. He was needed. But he’s got this very supportive girl who’s having him go to these job interviews and trying to nurture him, get him back on his feet. It’s a different female energy than he experienced with Mikaela, who was a very cold biker chick. This woman’s more of a maternal, loving type. Sam wants a domestic, eggs-in-the-morning kind of a thing.

3) And then declares that Fox’s developing feelings about her sex-symbol status are shallow: “Megan developed this Spice Girl strength, this woman-empowerment [stuff] that made her feel awkward about her involvement with Michael.” One can assume the word subbed out after “this woman-empowerment” is actually “shit,” right?

I just can’t with this nonsense. Shia, a few lessons: Megan Fox has the right to make the difficult decisions that often face actresses trying to get into the industry and get cast by famous directors. She also has the right to decide those decisions were wrong or that she’s retroactively uncomfortable with them and uncomfortable with the work she’s doing now. Directors have a right to fire her or not hire if she doesn’t want to do certain kinds of work, but with that comes the right of everyone else to think they’re gross. You, with all your uber-feminist roles in noted films like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle, have the right to make a damn fool of yourself, as well as to show some actual sympathy towards female coworkers who face choices you don’t.