1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Imitation Game-- Hollywood Not Pushing Back

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Boom_70, Feb 8, 2015.

  1. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

  2. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Ever read about WWII-era (and later) cryptology? If Hollywood at al. aren't pushing back, it's probably because it's awfully dangerous to criticize that about which you don't have the barest fraction of a clue.
  3. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Yeah that too but think there is other reasons.
  4. SnarkShark

    SnarkShark Well-Known Member

    Why do people get mad when movies aren't 100 percent accurate? They're movies. Fucking entertainment. Who cares?
  5. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    Because liberals.
  6. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    12 Years a Slave was just hyberpole and mischaracterizations?
  7. SnarkShark

    SnarkShark Well-Known Member

    Was it? I don't really care.
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I don't know that people necessarily get mad. Maybe some do.

    But when you watch a movie purporting to be based upon actual events, it seems fair to point out where the film veers from reality.
    Boom_70 likes this.
  9. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    As I understand it, "12 Years a Slave" was pretty faithful to the source material, which itself was pretty faithful to actual events.
  10. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Yup that pretty much covers it.
  11. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    It's bothersome for two reasons: 1) The true story is usually compelling enough anyway; and 2) these movies have become a vehicle for teaching history, which means it's being taught wrong.

    I'm one of the people who, immediately after watching a movie "based on a true story," seeks out the fact-vs.-fiction writeup so I know how to sort it out. The only thing that bothers me anymore is the demonizing of people for cinematic purposes. Was it necessary in "Selma" to paint LBJ as anti-progress and an enemy of king? Or in "The Express" to assign West Virginia fans the most racist caricature, when Ernie Davis never even played a game at West Virginia? Or to have Hurricane Carter unjustly lose to Joey Giardello (who is portrayed as the beneficiary of a fix) when every account of the fight from that era agreed that Giardello destroyed Carter?

    I understand condensing characters and eliminating extraneous storylines. I don't understand making stuff up to make real people look bad.
  12. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    The portrayal of Dan Devine as the bad guy in "Rudy" is another that comes to mind.

    I once talked to Art Howe's son about his dad's portrayal in "Moneyball." Let's just say he was not a Michael Lewis fan. I can't imagine what he thought of the movie.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page