Movie Movies based on true events v the actual true story

Remove this Banner Ad

phantom13

Moderator
Sep 12, 2007
15,880
20,711
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
General sweeping comment but writers seem like dicks. They sell their work, it gets adapted for screen, which is a necessity in most cases (looking at your child orgy Mr.King) and then sook about it not being what they wanted.

You got paid, thats what you wanted.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Richard Pryor

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 6, 2013
10,921
14,309
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Give me your best ones.

Argo- the ending. Completely, utterly false. The Americans walked onto that plane as easy as apple pie, not a care in the world. Obviously had to be changed for dramatic purposes, otherwise would have been a snooze fest at the end.


The Walk. Based on the guy who walked between the Twin Towers. AKAIK- that film is completely accurate.
Am late to this, but the thing which incensed me most over Argo was that in real life the other embassies (Canada etc). put themselves at significant personal risk to hide the Americans, juggling them around to stay one step ahead of things. Ben Affleck justified not only omitting this, but actually denigrating these brave men and women as cowards on the reasoning it made a more exciting narrative if the Americans were alone. Absolute scumbag jingoistic patriot rah-rah move which ruined the film for me. They also didn't develop the movie concept art, they just ripped some guys idea and then classified it on him so he couldn't use it.

Also Bridge of Spies. The kid who gets arrested in real life admitted he was accessing classified documents, the American pilot said he basically just hung out while in prison as the grunts really didn't give a sh*t about the Cold War at that point, and that last scene where he says "If they put me in the backseat it means I'm dead" was complete bullshit, as the guy just died of old age years after that on a farm. Similarly a completely fabricated narrative for America to play the victim in a scenario which was more complex, and to be completely frank far more interesting (the idea that nobody on either side really cared about the optics but had to keep up appearances while negotiating for the right thing to happen is a lot more compelling).
 

Richard Pryor

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 6, 2013
10,921
14,309
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Also the Revenant. IIRC in real life the guys thought Hugh Glass had died mistakenly, so when he went on his big epic revenge quest he found at the end it was basically just a misunderstanding. I think that would have made a far more interesting film with an interesting twist in the tail.
 

Shell

Premium Platinum
Jul 2, 2005
139,715
81,398
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Am late to this, but the thing which incensed me most over Argo was that in real life the other embassies (Canada etc). put themselves at significant personal risk to hide the Americans, juggling them around to stay one step ahead of things. Ben Affleck justified not only omitting this, but actually denigrating these brave men and women as cowards on the reasoning it made a more exciting narrative if the Americans were alone. Absolute scumbag jingoistic patriot rah-rah move which ruined the film for me. They also didn't develop the movie concept art, they just ripped some guys idea and then classified it on him so he couldn't use it.
Ah yep that too about Argo. Yes.. and it totally wins best picture- over a movie that portrays Americans torturing PoWs/ terrorists.

Shock. Horror that.
 

Richard Pryor

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 6, 2013
10,921
14,309
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I guess it's about death of innocence? It's an incredibly crass way to go about it though and definitely makes me think of King as a weirdo who I wouldn't leave alone with kids.

I get the whole "art is art it should never be hindered" shtick, but I don't agree with the idea it's an indispensable part of the story and that just because King should be allowed to depict it he should do it instead of using some other device for the same thing (like, I don't know, getting drunk).

One of the big proponents of freedom to depict any kind of sexuality in art was Allen Ginsberg who went on to become a literal pedophilia advocate which makes me somewhat more suspicious of writers who insist on sexualizing children as part of their artistic process. (Piers Anthony is probably the absolute dregs for this. Really odious character).
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Shell

Premium Platinum
Jul 2, 2005
139,715
81,398
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
I guess it's about death of innocence? It's an incredibly crass way to go about it though and definitely makes me think of King as a weirdo who I wouldn't leave alone with kids.

I get the whole "art is art it should never be hindered" shtick, but I don't agree with the idea it's an indispensable part of the story and that just because King should be allowed to depict it he should do it instead of using some other device for the same thing (like, I don't know, getting drunk).

One of the big proponents of freedom to depict any kind of sexuality in art was Allen Ginsberg who went on to become a literal pedophilia advocate which makes me somewhat more suspicious of writers who insist on sexualizing children as part of their artistic process. (Piers Anthony is probably the absolute dregs for this. Really odious character).
Der you touched on that.. i didnt read your whole post.


I think it should be portrayed in film- to create awareness and to create change, and education.


NOT. For entertainment. Period
 

Richard Pryor

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 6, 2013
10,921
14,309
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Der you touched on that.. i didnt read your whole post.


I think it should be portrayed in film- to create awareness and to create change, and education.


NOT. For entertainment. Period
The trouble is film I think naturally trends towards sensationalizing things for entertainment, for example Fight Club is clearly satirizing the hyper masculinity and celebration of senseless violence but a lot of people just take it at face value and actually buy into Brad Pitt's philosophy somehow. Likewise there's some who even think Patrick Bateman is cool.

I remember reading a Roger Ebert review for some horror film where there's a scene where a female character is assaulted, and he didn't really talk about the film, he just said the guy sitting next to him was saying "This is going to be a good one" and he felt dirty for being part of the viewing experience!
 

Shell

Premium Platinum
Jul 2, 2005
139,715
81,398
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
The trouble is film I think naturally trends towards sensationalizing things for entertainment, for example Fight Club is clearly satirizing the hyper masculinity and celebration of senseless violence but a lot of people just take it at face value and actually buy into Brad Pitt's philosophy somehow. Likewise there's some who even think Patrick Bateman is cool.

I remember reading a Roger Ebert review for some horror film where there's a scene where a female character is assaulted, and he didn't really talk about the film, he just said the guy sitting next to him was saying "This is going to be a good one" and he felt dirty for being part of the viewing experience!
I disagree.

Watch the Accused.

Aint no glorifying in that film.
 

Richard Pryor

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 6, 2013
10,921
14,309
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I disagree.

Watch the Accused.

Aint no glorifying in that film.
I feel like it does work in a film which is dedicated to that and depicting it in a mature way, but for a popcorn flick like IT I don't see as being able to manage the tonal whiplash and give due consideration to the issue.
 

Shell

Premium Platinum
Jul 2, 2005
139,715
81,398
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
I feel like it does work in a film which is dedicated to that and depicting it in a mature way, but for a popcorn flick like IT I don't see as being able to manage the tonal whiplash and give due consideration to the issue.
But... the issue there is. Its child sex. Not.. adult/child.

Its not a crime. Therein lies the difference.
 

Richard Pryor

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 6, 2013
10,921
14,309
AFL Club
Hawthorn
But... the issue there is. Its child sex. Not.. adult/child.

Its not a crime. Therein lies the difference.
And I think this is another factor in why it doesn't work on any level for a blockbuster film. It's a complex issue with nuance, which I don't think King was really interested in exploring instead using it just for shock value in the original book, which seems more geared towards titillation narratively which is something which will primarily appeal to perverts. I wouldn't be in favor of the government censoring a film which did do that on principle but I would be very surprised if it would do any good.

To bring it back on topic! Has anyone seen Great Balls of Fire starring Dennis Quaid as Jerry Lee Lewis? Such a weird film which I can't believe exists. Depicts the story of Lewis marrying his THIRTEEN year old cousin with a surprisingly sympathetic tone which mythologizes Lewis as a rock god and rebel. Very awkward to watch and I'm surprised it wasn't more controversial (wasn't around when it came out but haven't really heard about it causing any waves reading up on it).
 

Shell

Premium Platinum
Jul 2, 2005
139,715
81,398
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
And I think this is another factor in why it doesn't work on any level for a blockbuster film. It's a complex issue with nuance, which I don't think King was really interested in exploring instead using it just for shock value in the original book, which seems more geared towards titillation narratively which is something which will primarily appeal to perverts. I wouldn't be in favor of the government censoring a film which did do that on principle but I would be very surprised if it would do any good.
Agree with all that.

Look IRL- the notion of children having sex with each other is just.. bleh. They shouldnt be doing it, end of. Theyre not mature enough, theyre not ready.

I honestly reckon 16/17 is too young. I reckon 18+ is about right. Imo
 

Remove this Banner Ad