MovieChat Forums > The Great Debaters (2007) Discussion > They Did Not Defeat Harvard....

They Did Not Defeat Harvard....


It was USC...why does Hollywood have to make up such lies???

And why take a true story and make it something false?

reply

"Inspired by a True Story"

Next!

reply

[deleted]

"Inspired doesn't mean to distort"

You're right it means to gain an arousal of the mind to special unusual activity or creativity and quite a few other meanings and "to distort" is not one of them.

Remember this story is not "Based on a True Story" the writers were inspired by a true story to create one of their own that happened to have the same setting as the "True Story".

reply

[deleted]

References: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+inspiration&btnG=Search

I don't think I'm the only one with that definition.

reply

You are no emperor. They changed the real life story to sell more movie tickets.

The movie is a farce.

reply

You mean like "The Patriot"? (2000)

reply

"Inspired doesn't mean to distort"

Titanic?
The Duchess?
Precious?


Inspired means that someone took parts of the story and wrote their own version. The accuracy of the version is personal perception/preference.

reply

Inspired by and Based on are relatively two different things. Inspired by is used to keep the central story (in this case the Debaters being "victorious" in their defeat against a popular college pre-Civil Rights era), an "inspired by movies" are usually historical fiction as in they will skew the facts and some things may not have necessarily happened to the character(s)but that doesn't dismiss that a.) those events probably happened during the time of that character's existence and b.) doesn't diminish the major theme of the movie. Based on movies are more to the point of things such as Hotel Rwanda, La Reine Margot,Bushido Blade, and there are more. You used Pearl Harbor and Titanic as examples, but remember those like the 9/11 attacks or even the Civil War are MAJOR and WIDELY known events in history, whereas a story such as the Wiley College debaters is underrated in American/World history altogether. And i can bet that the majority of people in this generation and even generations during the Civil Rights Movement are probably unaware of the Wiley College debaters altogether.

Examples of further movies that distort from true facts:

Seabiscuit inspired by the Book, the film hollywoodized many of the characters to suit the film
Cinderella Man which is inspired by the true story skewed the character of Max Baer to fit the film
Pocahontas (disney film) which is a mixture of lies, deception and distortion.
300 where the director himself said that 10% of the movie is inaccurate

The list goes on, and i'm sure that you enjoy those movies just the same.


AS for why they chose Harvard over USC,The only answer i can give is that this movie is/will be distributed worldwide, not just in America. Though in America USC is as respectable a college as Harvard is, on a global spectrum i can imagine that the majority of the world would not really know what's so special about a Black college beating USC, whereas Harvard is globally known...unless you live under a rock or don't have any knowledge of American schools whatsoever, you're going to know Harvard University if you don't know any other schools in America. And thus the (black) Students defeating a school as popular as Harvard gives the inspirational theme of the story an even stronger impact.


damn .. I could beat ya ass ... both my titties together weigh more than you ...

reply

[deleted]

1.) I'm not black

2.) It's my belief and the belief of many that entertainment's main purpose is to enlighten one's mentality positively or negatively. I don't need movies to inspire me but i like to be enlightened by them, and if that makes me and people like me children, yes...yes we are childrenE


damn .. I could beat ya ass ... both my titties together weigh more than you ...

reply

Brava sisterlove,

I believe I am in love, your comments are as moving as the film itself.
I too agree that we should cultivate the child in all of us, for children see truth.

Be well,

Fred

reply

Because Harvard is much more prestigious of a school. If they had made is USC at the end, people wouldn't care as much. But in today's time, Harvard is the ultimate school, and them beating Harvard is much bigger deal.

We're going to the Winchester!

reply

In the 51 page interview Denzil shot this whole thing down your upset about. Those kids BEAT the national champs. Harvard had already been eliminated and the school who was the best was up against them. The kids beat that school. So it makes not difference if they say Harvard because harvard that year was knocked out earlier then the black kids. Unless you want to argue and have proof that Harvard was not competing that year ON A NATIONAL DEBATE TEAM. I doubt that.

[email protected]
www.myspace.com/jusrhymzslams

reply

So, Wiley college beat the school that beat Harvard?

Heck, I'd say that WAS a pretty good decision by Denzel and the screenwriters.

reply

I am not sure if the wiley colleges challenger in the finals beat harvard. But as Denzil said This was the National Championship and Harvard competed and lost SOMEHWHERE within the tournament. People act like Wiley College competing in some NCAA division 3 tournament with easy wins. I agree with Denzil to say Harvard, save the details for the documentary on history channel.

[email protected]
www.myspace.com/jusrhymzslams

reply

[deleted]

man I am sick of correcting you white folks. Yall gonna have to pay me for this service. Here you go DIRECTLY from your white buddies at the new york times...

Wiley’s 1935 victory over the University of Southern California (the opponents in the film are from Harvard) inspired people long denied dignity in white society. But the film omits one reality: even though they beat the reigning champions (you happy USC was the NATIONAL CHAMP idiot), the Great Debaters were not allowed to call themselves victors because they did not belong to the debate society, which did not allow blacks until after World War II. (this is a interesting detail. We could of had more champs but white racism prevented us from even entering the contest. In regards to your baseball analogy, the negro league had more talented players then the all white leagues but it too integretion of baseball for blacks to be able to get credit for our superior skills.)



[email protected]
www.myspace.com/jusrhymzslams

reply

[deleted]

Funny the yankees have a couple of those weak skilled blacks on the team I notice. but I guess you can find some all white yankee players dominating other teams with blacks.

[email protected]
www.myspace.com/jusrhymzslams

reply

[deleted]

Denzil and Oprah are only exposing the very issues these boards are revealing - prejudice still exists in 2007. After seeing this movie, I felt ashamed to be a "white" person!

reply

[deleted]

I'm never "ashamed" of being a white person! I don't know why you would either. I've got news for you, white people weren't the only slavers or owners of slaves.

A few things that make me angry...

Why is it that Obama (who is half white, and raised by his white mother) claim to be "black"? Why does Halle Berry (who is half white, and raised by her white mother) claim to be "black" and receive awards on behalf of blacks? I'm not saying either person doesn't have a right to associate themselves as black people, but how about a little respect for the race of the parent that raised them, huh?

Many of the founders of this country tried to abolish slavery at the time they laid down the foundation of this nation. Some were slave owners, yes, but most either freed their slaves in their lifetime, or did so after their death. I wonder, would another race do the same?

Many blacks love to say that their ancestors were the pharaohs of Egypt. Ok. Fine. If that is the case, then they have no right judging others for slavery as they were the most egregious slave owners in *history*. The pyramids weren't built by leprechauns! They were built by SLAVE labor!

My ancestors came to this country in 1878, and owned NO slaves, however they were instrumental in helping refugee blacks create a neighborhood for them to live in, in Kansas. Many former slaves migrated to Kansas just for this purpose (and many whites in Kansas helped these people). Also, many white men gave their lives so slaves could be free, and the man that freed them was *white*.

I am *never* ashamed to be white... NONE of our hands are clean! There isn't a race or a people on EARTH that is sinless! Maybe when we all realize that, and acknowledge that, we will all finally be able to create the brotherhood of man that Christ spoke of, and MLK echoed.


"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

reply

Why do people of white and black parentage consider themselves black? Because that's the way they're regarded. As has been said, "if you don't think I'm black, watch me try to hail a cab in the city at night." Or take them home to conservative parents as your date.

Some of the Founding Fathers found slavery abhorrent, but a fact of life at their time. Some, like John Jay, worked for abolition. No, "most" did not free their slaves and, excuse me, but freeing one's slave at your death is a bit of a cop out, as it only demonstrates that you wanted the convenience of slaves whilst you were alive.

And it's Been known for some time that slaves didn't build the pyramids. Builders did. Believing otherwise only shows you get too much "history" from Cecil B.

Congratulations. Your ancestors arrived five years after the Emancipation Proclamation and didn't own slaves. Um, OK.

Please, be angry if you'd like. But be angry about real problems, not about vague and inaccurate opinions you've picked up along the way.

reply

"As far as baseball analogies go, blacks today would be the Tampa Bay Devilrays. Yes, they occasionally beat the Red Sox and Yankees but still always end up in last place."

Awww, running out of analogies there, Shrek?

And are you still trolling the same crap even if a dozen or so people have kicked your lying arse to the pavement?

Please.

Now, how is this for skewing facts:

" by willowwear00 (Sat Dec 15 2007 09:59:19) Ignore this User | Report Abuse


FYI -

Partner in NYC law firm

Adjunct professor at NYU Law

Married with 3 children"

http://imdb.com/title/tt0427309/board/thread/92115347?p=8&d=92280834#92280834

Which then became:

by uggs94 3 days ago (Sat Dec 22 2007 21:27:10) Ignore this User | Report Abuse


Sorry clown, but everything I've said about myself is true, except I lecture at NYU Law, I am not a professor there. No time for practice and teaching full time. No mansions, just 3 homes. Paid for from 20 years as a partner in NYC law practice and sale of practice of international firm in October 2005.

Yes, BMW Z4 and Infiniti FX45. Yes 6-bedroom house in Princeton. Yes, conservatives are usually quite successful; liberals are the ones who teach school and become sociologists.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0427309/board/thread/92865354?d=92914552&p=2#92914552

Just the fact that you have to troll using 2 accounts creates such a weak case.

See, changing one fact in a movie to make it more up to date is called "Poetic License", kind of like how U-571 panders to the white Americans, when several parties were responsible for obtaining the enigma machine. I think studio execs call this move "marketing".

Now, changing one fact--such as you being an adjunct professor at NYU--to "just a lecturer"--is called "Pathetic". Especially when said amendments were preceded by the words "Everything I said about myself is true". A rather bad move, considering that instead of citing sources, you threw those facts out to build your-uh-credibility.

And don't hold your breath about the NYU police coming to get you. I believe this is a little out of reach for campus security. I think, the NYPD, armed with an introduction of a certified letter from the NYU School of law, would be much more up your alley. And if you were doing this from your Jersey "mansion", the FBI might even be involved too.

All of this, I'm sure you'd love, since you are only in these boards to get attention.

And please, don't forget to post your NY City Law Firms address, the one from the historic Flatiron building, so I can tell the managing partner that you have been posting using office resources. That is, if it even exists. Even the Feds can't get to lala-land, you know?

A little too long winded for you? Well, how about this:

The more you reply to me, the more evidence I can present to the NYU School of Law.

And don't worry if it's taking them a bit too long. Investigations are just like that, which you know if you were a real lawyer.

So it could be two weeks from now, or six months from now. Either way, if you continue to do this, they are going to get you.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

No, we just knew from your lying.

A biology major teaching at a prestigious law school, who clerked for the Bronx DA Office, and is now the managing partner with an office, in a building that houses no law offices.

Oh my gosh, you have achieved the impossible!!!

Where did you get your diploma, some distance vocational school?

reply

[deleted]

Oh look, the troll has no life.

He's in the office on the 26th. Managing partner with no cases to manage.

Say, why not burn your law office and just collect the insurance money?

Oh, I forgot. It doesn't exist!!!

reply

[deleted]

Exactly.

Simple reasoning can actually debunk most of his assertions, even without much research. Heck, you don't even need to go to the Flatiron building!

I think we're dealing with someone who can't get daddy's attention just because he wasn't good enough...but I digress.

Another hint is how easily he can be lead--and pay attention debaters, this is where this excersise in verbal manipulation can come in handy.

1) When your opponent resorts to personal attacks when presented with facts...
It doesn't make any sense, but a good debater does not say "Your grandmother was a comfort woman in Korea" when he is presented with a good argument, he comes back with a good, matter ridden, argument. Mostly because "You're a prostitute" wouldn't hold that much ground in court.

2) You can tell that your opponent is losing when he starts making concessions in the face of facts: "I know I said I was an adjunct prof, but I'm really, I'm just a lecturer. I'm still rich and I'm still a lawyer". Obviously, being rich means more than being credible. His motivation is skewed, thus, his logic is skewed. Which makes it even more apparent that he doesn't know what he is saying.

3) He says big words, only after you've said them. Notice how he said that he was the managing partner, after someone else has said them. If he was building credibility, he would have said: lecturer at NYU Law, patent lawyer and managing partner at a law firm. Not "I've got a BMW and a mansion, and eat your heart out, you affirmative action thugs!"

4) Faulty research. Even a paralegal would have known that he was digging himself a hole, when he uses the excuse that one can only be prosecuted for misrepresentation if he uses office equipment/resources, while he was at work, using electricity and electricity paid for by the company, on furniture and a personal computer bought by the companies expenses.

5) Patent lawyers rarely litigate, they are corporate lawyers. So you can tell that your opponent is lying when he says he's on a messageboard, practicing against bored students who have some spare time during their winter break.

6) He doesn't know that misrepresenting an institution will get him in trouble...real trouble. Especially when you get too specific. Or saying stuff he doesn't know, like a firm that has Ltd, when law firms employ either PC or LLC.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Serious work....lol Hilarious! You preach about lies and all that. Here's a question...how many different names do you use on this board? I don't know if anyone has come right out and asked you that yet. If you want to target this movie and say it's lies and use that platform then give an honest answer to that question. Otherwise your a hypocrite.

reply

[deleted]

That's not a straight answer it's wording it in a way that you're not technically lying. But it's actually not an answer to my question. My question was how many names do you use on this board? To help you out, the answer would be a number. Or will you not really answer the question?

You act like you are only on this board this week. That's a joke. You've replied just as much before that.

reply

[deleted]

I also said to answer honestly which you couldn't do I guess. And you talk about this film having lies? Not surprised though. It's probably due to some twisted logic in your head that you're "anonymous" or something therefore even though there are other names, they aren't really you actually you either. It's still a lie.

reply

[deleted]

Your post is exactly the point. I'm not the only one who knows you....I mean he is lying. I asked the question not because I didn't know the answer. It was to see if you...I mean he would be honest about it since it was never asked. Guess you're hypocritical. Or should I say he?

reply

[deleted]

merivel. I know. He responds to questions in the first person as a different name than posts were directed towards. I know all about it. But he's never been asked point blank. So I thought it would be interesting to do that. His arguement includes alot about calling this movie full of lies. So I asked a question that we know the honest answer. He chose to lie so he's a hypocrite. It's not a surprise at all but it's good to show it.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I for one research nothing you say. You never mention any sources unless it's pointed out and you feel the need to throw one or two out there for someone to bite on if someone isn't already. You're transparent. You have no validity at all. "I will have to share this with my partners"....lol Which ones? The multiple personalities you have on here that you talk to and think others don't know they are you? Or the ones you play with in your make believe career?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

LOL!

reply

Let me also add that Wiley College won 74 out of the their 75 debates Furthermore, they were never recognized by the debate society as Champions due to the racist JIM CROW laws in effect at the time. The debate society did not allow blacks until after World War II.

Wow! I find it quite amazing, people in America do not know their own American racist history. <shakingmyhead> damn!


I find, in being black, a thing of beauty: a joy; a strength; a secret cup of gladness. - Ossie Davis, Actor

reply

i did like the movie but switching from USC, to havard is a fairly huge distortion of the truth in my books.

Last movie Seen
Evan Almighty 5/10
The Great Debaters 7.5/10

reply

"Well, I don't know about you, but I love eating racist trolls for breakfast. What could be more fun?!"

I know! The best parts are always seeing him go down, even with the flimsiest arguments for other people.

And what I love is that everytime he posts something to answer ANY of us, we all win, because this is a debating movie. Which is, sadly, not something he can do very well.

As for the law firms...no, not surprised. Because no matter where the law firm is based, when it has offices in the US, it will always be under US law, thus the suffix LLP is attached. Notice "Andrews & Kurth LLP".

reply

[deleted]

Well, the Wiley College debate team did a great thing...but knowing the facts *does* take a tiny bit of the luster off:(





















sparky4eva

reply

[deleted]

You should ask Hollywood, we are just the one's that buy the tickets

Petey Greene: "Wake up, goddammit!"

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Uggs does have a points in that the producers/financiers wanted to make an 'inspirational' film, but ended up changing the facts in order to make it more inspirational.

They should have stuck with the facts, but instead created a sugar-coated fantasy. And sadly, true stories are always the best.

reply

But these same people do not get their panties in a bunch when a film with a WHITE subject changes history dramatically. Check out the IMDB boards for movies like Braveheart, Gladiator and Troy--all with big distortions in the history and/or original story--I do not recall seeing many of those posters who are on here acting like this movie promotes genocide on there. If historical problems disturb them so much why don't those movies irk them?

The answer is they are racists and dislike this movie's poetic licence so much because it deals with black achievement plain and simple. They would still hate this movie even if they showed the team beating USC as the fact that it took place in the JIm Crow era makes them angry as it depict whites of the time in an unflattering light. Newsflash--many whites of the time behaved poorly and the Jim Crow system was a nightmare--get over it.

reply

"But these same people do not get their panties in a bunch when a film with a WHITE subject changes history dramatically. Check out the IMDB boards for movies like Braveheart, Gladiator and Troy--all with big distortions in the history and/or original story--I do not recall seeing many of those posters who are on here acting like this movie promotes genocide on there. If historical problems disturb them so much why don't those movies irk them?"

Those movies WERE ripped to shreds by the history channel and other historians!

"The answer is they are racists and dislike this movie's poetic licence so much because it deals with black achievement plain and simple. They would still hate this movie even if they showed the team beating USC as the fact that it took place in the JIm Crow era makes them angry as it depict whites of the time in an unflattering light. Newsflash--many whites of the time behaved poorly and the Jim Crow system was a nightmare--get over it."

They still should have stuck with the facts. Then there would be little to disagree about. They turned a true story into a 'inspirational' fantasy and I still think that was a huge mistake!

reply

[deleted]

The films mentioned were ripped to shreds by historians and people knew they were only based on true stories. Most people have no clue that The Great Debaters is only based on a true story since it has not been criticized openly in the mainstream media for it's historical inaccuracies.

Huge difference in those two cases since most people who view the film, including critics, haven't been informed what is true and what isn't. While everyone knew Troy, Gladiator, etc. was highly flawed and specials were made on the history channel giving point by point analysis.

Why is someone accused of racism because they enjoy knowing the truth about every 'historical' movie?

reply

Stop lying! Everyone DID NOT know that Gladiator or Braveheart were in error historically when they first came out( I did but I am an exception as I am well versed in European and Ancient history and have degrees in both). There was no disclaimer at the beginning of any of those films. They were presented as historical fact and I did not see one review that talked extensively about the gross distortions that occured in either film--it was not a big issue at the time they were in theaters. I have had to correct my students when they have said that Emperor Commodus died in the arena because of that film so apparently not everyone in the US got the memo or saw the History Channel programming. Those Tv programs only came later on--well after the premiere of the films and their box office success as the History channel, etc needs programming that people want to see and those were now hot topics. I do not remember any big outcry--only nice documentary programs about the facts from critics and historians.

None of the people on IMDB criticizing this movie were on those boards saying those movies were an "affront" and a lie--I did not see this level of anger. The reason these people are angry is that this movie has a black subject and depicts the Jim Crow era and they do not like this, period. Check out what a lot of posters are saying--they have a lot of antipathy towards blacks, period.

reply

Again, those movies had several specials on different channels and other articles in the media informing people how historically inaccurate they were. They were RIPPED APART!

There is nothing on this movie and everyone is probably afraid to critique it's accuracy. Or it reinforces how liberal and politically correct our media has become.

I just wish there were a special on this movie, or at least an article, to give the facts. Call me nutty for enjoying true history and not calling perverted history 'fact'.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

"First of all, if the actual event intrigues people, most likely they will not solely rely on a movie premise to get the full story. The internet, a local library etc. are available resources and most people know how research topics that interests them. It is amazing how a change of venue (which Denzel denies nothing during interviews) automatically causes some to dismiss the movie...I do not get it."

I don't 'automatically dismiss the movie' because of it's inaccuracies. What really bothers me is when reviewers say how wonderful this 'true' story is and don't take the time to inform the reader what is fact and fantasy in that 'true' story (or even research it period). 'Based on a true story' these days basically means fact to far to many people these including those who write reviews. And if you challenge 'based on a true story' you may be called a racist for pointing out the historically inaccuracies in the film.

"Secondly, nothing is intentionally kept from moviegoers since it is clearly stated on movie posters and in previews as being "inspired by a true story." I think your argument is pointless and "end of story" in my book."

Agreed, but have you read a single article about what is and isn't true in this movie? Most 'based on a true story' movies have several articles that point out in detail what is fantasy and what is true. My only point is why has the media and t.v. specials on historical incidents been so kind to this movie? It's as flawed historically as most 'based on a true story' movies.

Our far-left media is pathetic when it comes to criticizing stuff like that. I'm all for equality and this movie shouldn't be treated differently.

reply

[deleted]

1.Actually, many of the mainstream reviews talk about the fact that the team did not beat Harvard and Denzel has been upfront about it in many interviews so you are wrong on that point( as you are on so many others). It should be noted that the team did beat USC, the national champion debate team at that time.

2.Again, the specials on the History channel, etc on Gladiator and Braveheart were all made well AFTER the release of said movies and there was no big outcry in any major reviews of those films early on about their historical inaccuracies--any criticism was AFTER the fact and I do not remember seeing you or Willow on said boards on IMDB calling those films travesties and affronts! You both are on here writing a lot of anti-black s--t and anti-Great debaters b--s--t, however, so that is why any reasonable person would conclude from reading your posts and those of others like yourselves that it is not the historical accuracy that offends you people per se but that there is a small historical inaccuracy in a black film that involves Jim Crow. Since historical inaccuracy itself is not an absolute issue for you, the real issue for you two must be the film's depiction of black achievement and Jim Crow. Hence your criticism on this point=white supremacist hypocrisy at its finest.

reply

[deleted]

Actually, the facts were just kind of "jumbled" around.

The Wiley team did defeat Harvard in the earlier rounds, which probably eliminated them from the competition.



reply

[deleted]

"No movie discussion for you. Only me."

We all can discuss what we want--slavery days are over despite your regret they are not, Willowwear. And since you admit on another thread that you have not seen the film and will not see the film because it has a black subject, maybe YOU need to stop discussing this film and go to an IMDB board of a film you HAVE actually seen (and probably screen daily) like BIRTH OF A NATION or TRIUMPH OF THE WILL,etc as you are a KKK segregationist/Nazi white supremacist type.

reply

[deleted]

"Actually I like many films with black subjects. I thought GLORY should have won best picture. I actually liked DREAMGIRLS. Denzel is my favorite current actor. I don't like the idea of THIS film."

Apparently you're in the KKK, according to some, if you don't like 'historical' films that are actually historically accurate and happen to involve minorities.

If you gave the same criticism to Braveheart or Gladiator and are black that is apparently just giving your opinion.

No double standard involved!

reply

I am calling Willow a member of the KKK on the basis of his anti-black and pro-segregationist comments on these threads, PhilKC. I have not called you this but I do believe your angst re: this film is motivated by racial prejudice on your part and you are exaggerating the importance of historical accuracy for this film as if Hollywood films are not inaccurate all the time. This is by no means the only film that is inaccurate but it seems to have offended you all out of proportion and I believe this is because it deals with black achievement and Jim Crow as topics. You need to face up to why this upsets you so much--you seem to be in denial, IMO.

reply

Well I call Oprah and Denzel members of the Nation of Islam,or some similar Pro-Black Racist/pro-segregationist groups,and I KNOW this film is motivated by racial prejudice on their part,as nothing less than propaganda designed to sucker more and more Whites into hating themselves,and Blacks to Hate Whitey even more.But as we know,only Blacks are allowed to get away with it.And in the long run, it does NO ONE,especially Civilization,any good.

reply

[deleted]

Er, they would have trouble with A Soldier's Story as well as it is set in a segregated army camp in the 1940's and there is plenty of racism on display-both white racism and resulting black self hatred and the people like Willow would defintiely have trouble with it as it depicts a black investigative officer as superior to his white counterparts in training.

reply

[deleted]

I have no issue with the change. I did find it peculiar, however, the Denzel's character shows up at the final debate, after telling the kids that he couldn't go. Not a criticism, just an observation.

reply

The fact that this is what your upset about means you don't get the concept of entertainment. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MOVIE ($$$ MAKING) THAT ONLY CONTAINS THE ABSOLUTE TRUE STORY.

Get your thumb out of your arse and smile, its the holidays.


=================
"I love being ugly"-you

reply

[deleted]