 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
The con wasn't of the magnitude of "Gangs of New York"...but still...
Follow Ups:
you know, every time a movie "based on a true story" comes out, we always find out that the real story was pretty different. and every time a movie comes out based on a book that we've read, we don't shut up around the water cooler telling anyone who cares how the movie's totally different from the book ("... and i tell you, man, the book is *definitely* better").why, even some movies claiming to be based on a true story were totally made up (like fargo). and we learn this over and over every year of our movie-going lifetime.
DISPITE ALL THIS ... people continue to be shocked to discover that a new movie they just saw is less than 98% of the real story, or that it's actually not the same ending in the book ("really, joe? the book ends differently? wow! and you think that the book is better? whowudda figured that!").
you know what p.t. barnum said ... there's a sucker RE-born every fifteen minutes. ;-)
I am not shocked that the movie distorted reality a bit, but I look at a movie differently when I know it is a real story. By the way I am so uninformed that I didn't even know that it is according to a real story, I only found out at the end and that made me believe (stupid me) that it is very close to what has actually happened.
Of course I understand that some things get changed, but when it is pretty much everything then I find it very disappointing. Part of watching a movie is also getting some insight into human history (for some movies only of course) and if the history is completely false then I find that very disturbing because you get a completely wrong idea about the human history.
For example the movie "hurricane" I found very interesting because I did not know about that case and now I do (assuming it is relatively close to the facts... I am sooo naiv).You also distroyed my liking of the movie "fargo", I actually did not know it was fake. When I started watching it I thought it is a made up story and I said to my friend after an hour "how unrealistic", he then replied "but this is based on a real story) and I watched it with other eyes and found it bizzare! That is how such an information can change ones perception.So what was actually true with Abignale?? I would really like to know that now!
Some were not.....Silence of the Lambs
2001
The Firm
and probably a few more that I can think of.
By far though, I feel most books are better than the films. The most recent one that comes to mind is The Bourne Identity. Really only the basic premise of an operative trying to regain lost memory tracks the book. Every other aspect of the film is different from(and yes I will say inferior to) the book. Shame too, because I really enjoyed the novel when I read it about 8 or 9 years ago. Ludlum is probably the best in the spy-thriller story biz.
Rob
Yeah, I know...I figured Spielberg massaged the facts of the Abagnale story. I just didn't figure he did it as much as he apparently did. For me, much of the appeal of a movie like "Catch Me If You Can" rides on the subject of the film actually having done things that are, at least, similar to what takes place in the film."Gangs of New York" is a different complaint. I don't like it when films change key elements of important historical events like the Civil War draft riots. Same complaint that people have raised on this board in the past.
the "true story" angle is thrown out by the moviemakers to tug at that very thing and get you to buy a ticket. so it worked, didn't it? :-) and you thought that they weren't trying to con you ...think about the films that portray your profession or something that you know really well (history maybe?). you know it's all wrong, isn't it?
yet you'll watch someting like a trial (assuming you're not a trial lawyer) in a movie without ever questioning whether a case in real life would ever happen like that. for example, a laywer will tell you that very rarely in real life does a criminal defendant take the witness stand, yet in every movie the defendent gets on the stand for a showdown with the prosecutor. it's because the audience wants to see this. it also allows the story to hit the big climax that throws the whole trial into doubt (Sam Jackson: "Yes I killed him, and I'd gladly do it again!"). and that is exactly why lawyers don't put the defendant on the stand.
back in the old days, most americans had badly scarred faces from smallpox and other diseases. they painted "through" these flaws in the portraits that we see today of Thomas Jefferson or whoever. yet you're not going to find a film about the past where the stars don't have flawless skin while they're trying to look authentic in period costume. the bottom line about anything, including historical events: moviemakers always have to bend the rules to make it interesting, and they'll sneak in anything that most people won't be able to catch. we can only complain about what we know about.
?
dx
Just pretend that I'm the Surgeon General providing friendly advice about the hazards of blowing smoke! ;^)AuPh
something created that mimics aspects of life/nature, or conveys feelings.At least that's what we came up with in college, when the question was asked twenty plus years ago.
Chris
It is to look through your life, and come with something you can call your own.
Art is not imitation, art is recreation.
Imitate and recreate are probably used in the same context as one another.Have fun, Chris
So, for me imitation replication, recreate is starting with your own vision to fullfil it.
You too !
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
