If I wanted to know every single accurate detail, I’d read a book and do my own research. If I want to be entertained for a couple of hours, I’ll watch a movie.
I’m not familiar with the comments you’re referring to here. I agree a lot of aspects of the story are not historically accurate and Hollywood plays by its own rules when it says movies are ‘based on a true story.’ That can be very annoying. But that’s a marketing issue, not an issue of the story told in the movie (which Affleck did not write, by the way). He doesn’t have to apologize for departing from the facts. That’s absolutely fair game for storytellers in any genre in any time of history. It always has been, and it always will be. And while it has some major inaccuracies, ultimately Argo is going to be remembered as a good movie, not as Ben Affleck’s insult to Canada, and that’s the way it should be.
It is based on things that really happened. The hostages and Jimmy Carter are entitled to their opinions and they may carry some moral weight, but they don’t get to veto the story or make judgments for everyone else. That’s not how that works.
I don’t recall the screaming. What you’re really saying here is that it’s OK to make up some stuff and say it’s true, but you can’t make up other things. Or there has to be a certain percentage of things that’s true. Or… something. I can see that you’re saying this is acceptable up to a point, but I can’t tell where the line is supposed to be. But if you go over that line, hoo man, you are a screaming liar who needs to apologize forever.
This argument about the Canadians’ involvement is what I was talking about before. “Argo” is based on a true story. But the story we watch isn’t true, so given this, what difference does it make if details like the amount of Canadian involvement are accurate or not?
I think maybe “Inspired by actual events” might be a better descriptor for movies that take a kernel from reality and weave a fictional story out of it. “Argo” takes place in a fictional universe just like any movie that carries the caveat at the end of the credits which reads, “This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.” Which may well appear in the “Argo” credits for all I know.
+1. And I wrote as much on this thread when it started (although I did say Affleck was a lock for Best Director nomination :rolleyes:). While watching it, I just thought,
This [movie] has has me totally locked in and I know the ending – great editing. And during ZDK, I couldn’t stop thinking, Am I not into this movie because I know the ending?
Maybe Argo was a bit more traditionally structured and used familiar tricks to drive the suspense, but it still worked, IMHO, where others didn’t. My biggest complaint was the fabrication of the ending, which struck me as way too dishonest for a movie Based on a True Story. But that’s Hollywood. Don’t think for a second that the placement (for lack of better words) and characterization of certain black characters in Lincoln wasn’t just a case of Spielberg being Spielberg.
The only BP nominee I didn’t see was Amour. I think Argo deserved the Big Prize quite fairly.
I’m coming to believe that a best picture nomination, and even more so a best picture win, is a big indicator that I won’t enjoy a movie. I’m not saying they’re bad movies, but they’re clearly not the kinds of movies I enjoy and want to devote two hours of my life to. My taste just doesn’t align with the academy voters. Argo is no exception. I found it pretty damn boring and if I’d rented it rather than going to the theater, I probably would have stopped watching part way through. Again, it’s not horrible, but I have better things to do with my time.
What are some films that you don’t feel are a waste of your time?
Honestly? Mostly I like comedies and documentaries. Dramas, especially of the type that win best picture, are not usually that entertaining to me. I want to be perfectly clear that I’m not trying to say that they are bad, or that others shouldn’t enjoy them (or even really that they shouldn’t win best picture). Just that they’re not my taste. I have a limited amount of time to watch movies, and I’d much rather spend the time watching something like The Hangover or Jiro Dreams of Sushi than Argo or The King’s Speech. (I did like Silver Linings Playbook this year). I like most of the Pixar movies (Wall-E was an exception), couldn’t stand The Blind Side.
Maybe you should just move away from US product - there’s a whole world out there of great films, made for adults.
The backlash against Argo came after what seemed to be months of Affleck going around telling everybody how incredibly accurate the movie was. Most of what I heard last year centered on the incredible pains they took to make everything look real. The publicity screamed “real, real, real”. And then it hit the theaters instead of a couple of hip festivals and people realized that the costuming was good and the incidents were Hollywoodized nonsense.
Affleck is entirely responsible for the backlash. He lied through his teeth about the history. He tried to claim that his movie was somehow different from all other Hollywood movies and he got caught.
Sure hasn’t hurt him in the short run.
Well, yeah. I mean, duh, if you don’t like dramas, odds are you won’t like BP nominees/winners.
Well, to be fair, everything really did look real. The look of the time was pretty much nailed, regardless of whether the events matched up with those in the film.
I saw all nine Best Picture nominees and I’d say that, for me, “Argo” was easily in the top two or three. I found it gripping and entertaining, throughout. I liked “Lincoln” a lot, I thought it was a great movie, but I wasn’t entertained in the way that I was by “Argo”. My personal favorite was “Zero Dark Thirty”, but I’m perfectly happy with “Argo” winning.
There’s still the matter of the forged Iranian visas and stamps in those passports.
Count me as surprised. Argo did a good job with the “Mad Men go late 70s vibe,” and the plot, while talky, was reasonably engaging and hit all the major plot points in the right right pages. But it didn’t really touch me, teach me anything about the human spirit (or whatever), or display any real artistic inspiration beyond “This is what it looked l like when everything was kind of like Instagram.”
Not a bad movie, but it didn’t leave me with anything other than “Yup, that was a movie.”
The “Moonrise Kingdom” thread is over there. 
I thought I knew what Instagram was but I don’t get this at all.
Explain it to me like I’m [del]four[/del], 94.
It’s an app that lets you [del]annoy people with shitty-looking photos of your brunch[/del] take pictures with your phone and change the colors with filters, many of which make the photos look like they were taken on a '70s-ish camera, and then share them on social networking sites.
As a Canadian, I found the movie entirely devoid of reality. To minimize the Canadian involvement and suggest that some CIA operative single handedly against all odds, against the the US government shutting down the operation and against the Canadian government shutting down the embassy managed to come up with the plan and hair raising execution is a slap in the face to Ken Taylor and Canada.
I don’t think I’ll be watching Lincoln. I like fiction, but I don’t want to pollute my perception of real history with the bullshit that is required for a good story.
With a few very odd exceptions (individual states’ votes for example) the movie has been widely praised by historians for taking history seriously.
All I can say to this What the Fuck? imagine if Speilburg decided to switch things around so that the Southerners who came up to try to cut a deal were doing it all in good faith without political motive? can you imagine the outrage ? Saint Lincoln got short Shrift?
I wish you would have read my cite. This Canadian Caper IS Canadian History, so for some Hollywood punk who knows he cant breathe the same air as Speilburg or Lee to grossly distort the facts and win an Oscar for it really dumbs down the industry in a way I never thought possible. As President Carter attests, the Canadians were responsible for 90 per cent of the success of the freed hostages. the guy that Afflect portrayed was in Iran for a fucking day and a half.
I have friends who are livid that Lincoln didn’t include Fredrick Douglas or Harriet Beacher Stowe’s efforts in passing the 13th Amendment, so were happy it didn’t win. So you will always get folks who are mad that all of history wasn’t shown (as if these movies weren’t long enough).