[Retric]

You forgot about: Need access to military assets? Avatar had zero need for military assets.

The most effective form of censorship is self censorship. Let's not say really bad things about X, because I don't want to burn any bridges. There is a popular image of the US military has little to do with reality. Consider the number of times an active army US soldier is portrayed as raping someone in a movie vs the other guy's army. Or the extremely high unemployment rate rate for soldiers you only serve one tour.

[lotu]

So you are saying that if you want to shoot a film about the army killing and raping people the Pentagon won't help you out by letting you borrow some tanks for some of the scenes? You could still use replicas, CGI, or even borrow a privately owned tank so I don't see this issue.

The reason you see a positive portrayal of the US soldier in movies is because a large percentage of the audience either is or if friends with someone who is a soldier. So unless you movie is explicitly about evil US soldiers there is no profit to be had in portraying the US army in a negative light.

[Retric]

Sorry, I was not clear. The military uses a light touch to shape perceptions, but the most powerful force is still indirect censorship.

Filmmakers don't offend people without gaining something from it. It's not just a question of the military + audience but also producers and actors etc. Also, sound effects people don't bother using actual hoof beats when people are so used to hearing cocoanuts and writers / producers don't challenge perceptions unless that's their direct goal.

PS: The DoD does not try and get people to think that most US soldiers are Captain America wannabes. The goal is closer to: "Well trained, Deadly, Loyal, Young, Americans, that need all the support they can get." For various reasons they would rather be seen as crazy than infective.