As video game adaptations continue to gain traction in Hollywood throughout the 2020s, the upcoming Call of Duty film is positioned to join this wave of adaptations. However, concerns arise over whether Taylor Sheridan Call of Duty will avoid falling into the trap of glorifying combat and presenting a shallow portrayal of war. This caution comes from a veteran of the Iraq War who also experienced the game firsthand while deployed, highlighting the risks of turning a popular first-person shooter into a meaningful cinematic experience.
Peter Berg’s War Narratives Show Little Evolution Over Time
Many fans of classic mid-20th-century war films admire actors like John Wayne for their depictions of wartime heroism, despite his avoidance of military service during World War II. These films tend to glorify tough, fearless heroes facing cartoonish villains, often lacking nuanced insight into the brutal realities of war. Such stories contribute to a nostalgic myth of a bygone American era, now lost to supposedly softer generations. This style, emphasizing uncomplicated good-versus-evil action, seems perfectly suited for an adaptation like Call of Duty, which traditionally leans on noncomplex depictions of conflict.
That said, meaningful war stories have flourished in popular culture, blending action with emotional depth, such as in The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars franchises. More recently, filmmakers aiming for authenticity either focus on historical accuracy or explore character-driven dramas within war settings. Yet familiar clichés and hero worship remain stubbornly common.
Peter Berg, involved with the Call of Duty project, directed Lone Survivor, an adaptation based on a real-life mission. However, a significant battle scene in the film’s later acts was fabricated for dramatic effect, overshadowing the veteran’s real ordeal of being injured and cared for by Afghan villagers. This decision underscores Berg’s tendency toward prioritizing cinematic spectacle over factual storytelling.
By contrast, the HBO miniseries Generation Kill, based on a nonfiction account of the Iraq invasion, maintains gritty realism without sacrificing narrative excitement. Featuring real Recon Marine Rudy Reyes portraying himself, the series captures the complexities of the soldiers’ experiences — their flaws, heroism, and moral ambiguity — far beyond the simplistic “tough guy” archetype. The insider perspective adds authenticity that is often missing from more theatrical war adaptations.
The Popularity of Call of Duty During Iraq Deployment Stemmed from Its Departure from Real Combat
Translating war and soldiers’ experiences faithfully to screen remains a challenge for filmmakers, whether adapting memoirs, novels, or video games. Successful adaptations usually strip away gameplay elements to focus on compelling, human narratives. This task is particularly daunting for first-person shooters like Call of Duty, a franchise that elevated narrative in its early years but remains far removed from real combat situations.
The author recalls spending most of his deployment
“in the rear with the gear,”
rarely leaving the safety of their base. When venturing outside, he was typically transported by vehicle or helicopter rather than engaging directly in firefights. Many soldiers in support roles experienced long periods of boredom punctuated by brief bursts of danger and adrenaline. This reality contrasts starkly with Call of Duty’s constant action and exaggerated combat intensity.
Playing Call of Duty among soldiers was more a form of escapism or parody than an accurate simulation. Combat troops’ running commentary while playing highlighted the disconnect between the game’s portrayal and their lived experiences. This gap between game fantasy and battlefield truth makes it difficult to create a Call of Duty movie that balances the spirit of the franchise with credible realism, likely contributing to previous failed attempts to adapt the game for film.
The collaboration between Peter Berg and Paramount producer Taylor Sheridan could simply repackage a generic war story under the Call of Duty brand. If the movie opts for faithfulness to the game’s tone, it risks becoming a shallow run-and-gun action piece, alienating more discerning audiences familiar with war film genres.
Taylor Sheridan’s Role Is Crucial in Determining the Film’s Success
Many action movies sacrifice depth for thrilling visuals, and such films can be entertaining. However, a Call of Duty adaptation that further glorifies combat, especially if based on the Modern Warfare series, poses risks beyond mere entertainment. War is often said to be hell—but in truth, it can be even worse. Portraying violence as glamorous not only desensitizes civilians but can also aggravate mental health struggles among veterans coping with trauma and survivor’s guilt.
Moreover, depicting soldiers strictly as infallible heroes rather than flawed human beings reinforces problematic myths that fail to acknowledge the true complexity of service members’ lives and experiences.
While Peter Berg has demonstrated a penchant for intense war dramas, Taylor Sheridan’s influence brings unpredictability. Sheridan’s track record includes both works that glamorize flawed, sometimes reprehensible characters and others that offer surprising nuance. For example, his series Mayor of Kingstown explores violence with purpose and depth, subverting expectations. Conversely, Lioness, with its premise of
“CIA killers, but they’re attractive women,”
initially appears superficial but conveys a critical perspective on intelligence operations and the War on Terror.
Sheridan’s involvement may encourage a more thoughtful treatment of modern warfare in the Call of Duty film. He previously collaborated with Chris Hemsworth on 12 Strong, a film depicting Green Berets in early Afghanistan. Though the combat sequences took liberties, the film aimed to treat its subjects respectfully, even if it failed to fully humanize them despite basing characters on real people.
Still, some recurring issues in Sheridan’s storytelling, particularly regarding female characters who are written as intentionally unlikable yet celebrated, persist. This narrative approach could enrich the complex personalities of Call of Duty’s many protagonists, adding the dimension needed to elevate the story from in-game cutscenes to cinematic substance.
However, such depth risks alienating the franchise’s core fanbase, who have long crafted their own interpretations of these characters. The author’s skepticism of a Call of Duty movie stems from this tension but remains open to being proven wrong if Berg and Sheridan manage to balance authenticity with entertainment.
