we simply disagree on how many liberties can be taken when real people and events are depicted in film.
i dont object to juicing the story up on the edges. but substantial distortions are, for me, intolerable.
a good example of this was way back in Titanic, they turned a ship's officer from the hero he was into a coward. his descendants took great exception. understandably. and the insult was totally unnecessary. The coward could have remained nameless, or been named correctly.
Sheeran cooperated on a book as he was getting ready to croak, and told his 17th version of the Jimmy Hoffa Saga. DeNiro, I think, bought the rights. and he & Scorcese ran with it. I can see why, because they could bend the story around a single character. But it was BS. Despite that, a pretty good movie, or at least got the band back together one more time, anyway.
Maybe I take this historical aspect too seriously, maybe you not enough. Who can say? You could also argue that they can always make another truer story of Hoffa's demise, and so what's the harm. Other than the BS.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9334)
3 years ago
If you don't like movies like this, that's fine; your taste is your own and I would have to be some kind of arrogant prick to lecture you on what to like.
I guess it's the title of the thread. It says "another problem", implying it's a problem with the film, but it's not really a problem with the film, at least to me, because the movie isn't trying to be a historical document. It seems to me like criticising it for not having enough good laughs. It's not aiming at comedy. I got why people didn't like the Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland, but a subset of people didn't like it in part, or particularly, because it messed around with Lewis Carroll's story and had a crazy aesthetic. To which I always just thought, "But it's a Tim Burton movie. You didn't know that was going to happen?"
Ultimately, if it bugs you that the movie bends history, fair play. I just don't think it's necessarily a problem with the movie.
reply
share