MovieChat Forums > Taps (1981) Discussion > Cadet Major Brian Moreland was an idiot?...

Cadet Major Brian Moreland was an idiot????

posted 17 years ago by zen0x
11 replies | jump to latest

Realistically why on earth didn't he do the following:

1) Make sure you speak directly to the press when you originally instigate these actions. Why on earth didn't he think to invite the local press from the very beginning (could have even demanded it as a condition later on, which despite the rhetoric in the film they would have more than likely allowed).

2) Would have got a lot more juice if he had set up booby-traps round the perimeter could easily set up basic traps with all those mortar rounds (naturally informing the soldiers outside and the kids inside). I only say this because in such a large complex it wouldn't take much for someone to jump over the wall at night and then they would be inside the perimeter, it would however make the people outside think twice from trying anything being as they don't know where is safe. Even if they had set up pretend traps "dummy's" round the perimeter it would have added to the threat of force.

3) Ensure he had adequate water and some kind of functioning utilities. It was an obvious move and it probably would have been cut a lot earlier in reality so why on earth didn't he make provisions for that?

4) Why give the task of pouring petrol to a retard that some how manages to soak himself in it and then spontaneously catches light with 1 spark (in order for him to catch light like that he would have literally had to have been bathing in petrol, its also incredibly difficult to light liquid petrol with a spark anyway).

5) To be honest no kid should be giving a fully automatic weapon least of all the youngest ones 12/13. In reality he should of had them dealing with menial tasks radio duty, fetch and carry, lookout etc... At the very least the character did identify that they would be the first to do a runner.

I mean seriously is this the best a US military cadet has to offer? I know its a film and I know he's only supposed to be 17/18 but even at that age I knew the above! These things are not said in hind site either because they are that obvious I was thinking of them while I was watching events unfold. Despite all that I quite enjoyed the premise of the film... but what do you reckon?

[–] zen0x 17 years ago

bump.

[–] ArizonaKnightWolf 17 years ago

1) The Local Press already had it in for the Acadamy since the killing of the townie. No matter what any spokesman from the acadamy, student or otherwise, said would not have been well recieved by the locals.

2) They reaaly did not have a lot of time to plan such a major defense, although it does make sense they should have tried.

3) This one does make plenty of sense, but it might be a mistake by the film makers. You would assume the main water supply cut-off valve would be INSIDE the walls of the acadamy, to prevent "townies" from messing with it even before the take over.

4) It was an accident. It could have happened to anyone. He wasn't a retard. And that was a pretty good spark, and then he drenched himself with the gas when he jumped and spend the flames.

5)BUNKER HILL had warped his mind towards war and honor. Listen to what Gen. Bache had to say about honor. When the Trustees are counting the weapons, they can't believe how Bache stockpiled weapons of that kind, and even quetioned his sanity and teaching style. Listen to the National Guard Commander and how he re-acts to what Moreland is telling him about military proceedures. Moreland was raised by an uncaring, military father used to giving and following orders. In Moreland's mind, he was doing the right thing. It was the wrong execution of the right idea. Moreland' lawyer would have had a great case for temporary insantity and any trial!

--------------------------
It's a tough universe...If you're going to survive, you've really got to know where your towel is.

[–] zen0x 17 years ago

In the unlikely chance that you might come back to this post:

1) It doesn't matter once the information is out there you can't stop it.

3) I doubt it would have been inside, although it might have been. I also doubt they put such things inside the perimeter to guard against 'townies' as you have to know where such valves are and how to shut them off, not something the average person/townie knowns anyway.

4) "Could have happened to anyone", sorry then you are a spastic quite clearly. You call a few splashes down him "drenched"... I am talking about him sitting in a bath tub of petrol to get that kind of reaction. I don't care what kind of spark it was it is practically impossible to light petrol like that, it's incredibly difficult to light it from a cigarette let alone a spark.

5) Had it also warped his mind towards stupidity as well? To make such a mistake like that regardless of military doctrine is just ridiculous and contrary to basic intelligence.

[–] ArizonaKnightWolf 17 years ago

I do occassionally check back in with the posts I've made, especially on boards about movie I like, and I do like this movie.

It's been awhile since I dusted off my DVD of the movie, and I'll have to take a look at the fire scene again. As I recall, it was a little more than "a few splashs." I do agree with you about lighting gasoline on fire. A lot of movies take "poetic license" with lighting things (and people) on fire.

Again, I don't think Moreland was crazy, or stupid. Just uneducated in the tactics of a real war-like situation. Basically, he thought he knew more than he did. Like the Colonel says, "the wrong execution of the right idea."
_________________________________
It's a tough universe...If you're going to survive, you've really got to know where your towel is.

[–] SoTyred 16 years ago

Did you miss the running theme of the film that these were KIDS who weren't trained proper in all regards?

The 'idiot' would be the Ronnie Cox character who had numerous times to take Moreland out via sniper, when it was clear those kids would fall apart without him.

**Skin that Smokewagon and see what happens!** Tombstone

[–] rharrigfeld124 16 years ago

The point was to try to end it without ANY bloodshed or loss of life. In a situation such as the this, the use of deadly force is the last option- PERIOD!!! These were kids, not adults. If were say, a band of bank robbers holding hostages, they would have made a move with deadly force much, much sooner. Again, see my first sentence.

[–] Polaris01313-1 16 years ago

Did you miss the running theme of the film that these were KIDS who weren't trained proper in all regards?

The 'idiot' would be the Ronny Cox character who had numerous times to take Moreland out via sniper, when it was clear those kids would fall apart without him.

If anybody was a real idiot, it was David Shawn(Tom Cruise). He should have been the one taken out with a sniper's bullet. And in a way, SPOILER ALERT, he was in the end. Only by a whole hail of bullets, with his name on them.

Either way, the Ronny Cox character, Colonel Kirby(one of Cox's best roles in my opinion), was not an idiot. He was simply doing his duty and trying to talk some serious sense into Brian Moreland.

Kirby was trying to end the incident without bloodshed or loss of life. I don't blame him for trying to go through those channels. He even went to bat for Moreland, as well.

If anything, Kirby did what any soldier would have done. And I commend him for his actions.

If I were in his place, I would have done the same thing.

[–] robrose7 16 years ago

Important note: This was a MOVIE. Created by Hollywood. In other words, NOT REAL.

Debating the mechanics and logic of these idiots' tactics is nothing but mental masturbation. Read a book. Find a hobby.

The only useful thing I got from this movie was the message about misplaced devotion and the vulnerability of children to the character flaws of those around them.

Does anybody actually think that a bunch of teenage military cadets could stage a violent takeover of their military school, AND FORCE THE ADMINISTRATION TO KEEP THE SCHOOL OPEN? Is anybody truly that freakin' deluded?

I have to tell you, I see the Morehead and Shawn characters as morally equivalent. Both were morally bankrupt and divorced from reality.

[–] Polaris01313-1 16 years ago

In today's world, you never know. The way the youth is, it wouldn't surprise me if something as tragic as this were to happen.

On the subject of Moreland and Shawn as morally equivalent, there is one difference between the two.

Moreland knew, albeit too late, that it wasn't going to work out the way that he had hoped.

Shawn, on the other hand, did not and was a delusional SOB, which led to his justifiable SPOILER ALERT downfall and death.

[–] jefgg 12 years ago

Were those things supposed to show that he was not ready to lead?

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]