Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

So you must be one of those people who blames all real life violence on violent movies, right?

Hollywood should probably stop making action movies altogether.

---

I do not blame violence on violent movies. I am not arguing that Hollywood should not make what they want.

But the viewers are hopefully becoming smarter and not falling for scares. I think talking about inaccuracies and biases in our media helps do that.

fig96 said:

---

Maybe Harry not being a non-white ethnicity veils some of the metaphor, but he was pretty blatantly discriminated against for his background.

---

He also had extreme privilege because of his background, but him "checking his privilege" was never shoved down our throats.

That's the difference to me. Sure I doubt it is possible to make a movie/show/etc without some sort of political topic, but there's a huge difference between HP subtle themes and rose explicitly *****ing about how animals are treated and rich people are the worst.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

What movie are we talking about with that apple scare thing?

---

What movie is the Johnny Depp thread dedicated to? None. It's a thread about Johnny Depp.

This board is not just about movies. It's also about the people in movies (and music, and whatnot).

Quote:

---

To me, jabs here and there aren't as bad as when movies lie about events to push their propaganda.

---

I thought we were only discussing movies. Maybe not.

Actors and whatever they choose to speak out about is another discussion altogether. But movies (especially those that are NOT documentaries) should not be blamed for how people interpret them, or what they choose to do.

Shocked that sex perverts exist in Hollywood... shocked I tell you.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Quote:

---

To me, jabs here and there aren't as bad as when movies lie about events to push their propaganda.

---

I thought we were only discussing movies. Maybe not.

Actors and whatever they choose to speak out about is another discussion altogether. But movies (especially those that are NOT documentaries) should not be blamed for how people interpret them, or what they choose to do.

---

Your point on violence in movies was a good one. But the difference there is that nearly everybody knows the consequences of violence. That is self evident.

If everybody knew that the China Syndrome was full of crap then I wouldn't be criticizing that either. I would consider that artistic license and entertaining. But nuclear engineering is a sophisticated field and lots of smart people work really hard to make that safe. Nobody can expect the general public to surmise that or do the extensive research on their own to figure that out.

That movie had an agenda, they executed on their agenda, and society is worse off due to that agenda. It strayed from simple artistic license to intentional deceit. The people involved deserve criticism for it. So that's what I am doing. I am criticizing it.

I should also mention that I hate when movies destroy a real person's reputation. Luckily I have never had this problem, but if any of your grandfathers were falsely portrayed as a murderous thug or something, I doubt anybody here would be okay with that and chalk it up to artistic license.

Although I think they should be legally allowed to, I can understand this criticism for sure. One case that comes to mind is the second officer on the Titanic. I remember reading his descendents were none too pleased with his portrayal in Cameron's movie. (Allowing NO men onto the lifeboats when there was more than enough room, threatening passengers with a gun, etc.)

Fun fact, he was captain on one of the rescue boats in Dunkirk. (And was the most prominent character in Nolan's movie.) Blew my mind that it was the same person in real life. (This guy needs a movie!)

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Although I think they should be legally allowed to, I can understand this criticism for sure. One case that comes to mind is the second officer on the Titanic. I remember reading his descendents were none too pleased with his portrayal in Cameron's movie. (Allowing NO men onto the lifeboats when there was more than enough room, threatening passengers with a gun, etc.)

Fun fact, he was captain on one of the rescue boats in Dunkirk. (And was the most prominent character in Nolan's movie.) Blew my mind that it was the same person in real life. (This guy needs a movie!)

---

Thanks for posting this. That is very interesting.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Although I think they should be legally allowed to, I can understand this criticism for sure. One case that comes to mind is the second officer on the Titanic. I remember reading his descendents were none too pleased with his portrayal in Cameron's movie. (Allowing NO men onto the lifeboats when there was more than enough room, threatening passengers with a gun, etc.)

Fun fact, he was captain on one of the rescue boats in Dunkirk. (And was the most prominent character in Nolan's movie.) Blew my mind that it was the same person in real life. (This guy needs a movie!)

---

I can't remember.. was that the guy who shot somebody and then killed himself in the movie? Or was that somebody else? Either way, I had no idea the real guy lived. I assume almost all of them went down with the ship. That's amazing and I agree he deserves his own movie.

Titanic is one of the movies that pisses me off the most. When I first saw it, I was young and naive. I was a huge James Cameron fan, and bought into this movie hook line and sinker. I bought a magazine about the making of the movie that had an article about how dedicated they were to accuracy. It talked about how they put actors (who had no dialog) that looked like their real life counterparts in scenes just represent that the real person witnessed a given event.

It wasn't until a history buff told me how full of crap the movie was, that I looked into it myself. I realized that Cameron crossed from artistic license into deceit territory. He hates corporations and did everything he could to make them out to be the definition of evil. I even read that he justified it by saying something like, "well everybody has their own version of the truth". I'm no longer a fan.



(Edit: BTW, think they should be legally allowed to as well. Though they might get sued for defamation)

That was another guy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McMaster_Murdoch#Death

And now I'm thinking I actually mixed those two guys up. Murdoch was the one whose family protested the portrayal, not Lightoller.

I guess I combined those two in my head.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

That was another guy.

---

Was he the guy who pulled an unloaded gun on everybody, and then had to turn around to load it?

Quote:

---

And now I'm thinking I actually mixed those two guys up. Murdoch was the one whose family protested the portrayal, not Lightoller.

I guess I combined those two in my head.

---

So Lightoller was the Dunkirk guy?

Quote:

---

So Lightoller was the Dunkirk guy?

---

Yes. Dunkirk guy / unloaded gun guy.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

THAT was the first guy.

---

Gotcha.... Anyway I think we agree on this point.


Another example is that HBO Pacific show. I don't remember the details or the names, but they showed some real life people doing some sadistic stuff (digging out golden teeth from dead people, throwing pebbles into an dead guy's open skull, etc). Now I know that some real life Americans did that stuff, but I do not think the real life people those characters represented did them. So if you want to portray that those things happened, then fine, make up a fake character that is a representation of those people and have that fake character do it. Don't take a guy who is somebody's real grandfather, and show him doing those things if he really didn't do it.

Quote:

---

So if you want to portray that those things happened, then fine, make up a fake character that is a representation of those people and have that fake character do it. Don't take a guy who is somebody's real grandfather, and show him doing those things.

---

Agree with this.

Ie.


I don't think you get away with that character if it's based on a real-life person.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Quote:

---

So if you want to portray that those things happened, then fine, make up a fake character that is a representation of those people and have that fake character do it. Don't take a guy who is somebody's real grandfather, and show him doing those things.

---

Agree with this.

Ie.


I don't think you get away with that character if it's based on a real-life person.

---

If there was a real life Upham who did that stuff in the movie, then I would have no problem portraying what he really did. But if the real life Upham who wasn't a coward, served honorably, etc. then it would be defamation to take "artistic license" and have the Upham character act as a coward. I think the family should be able to sue in that situation.

Since the derail is complete, it'll be interesting to see how long this trend last if it fails as bad as ghost busters

Maybe don't quite Ben Sharpiro if you're trying to appear like there's no agenda in your post. And at a glance sounds like it's actually a lot like most of the other Oceans movie, fun and stylish but nothing groundbreaking.

fig96 said:

---

Maybe don't quite Ben Sharpiro if you're trying to appear like there's no agenda in your post. And at a glance sounds like it's actually a lot like most of the other Oceans movie, fun and stylish but nothing groundbreaking.

---

Uh did you actually look at any of the reviews? Or just the name at the top?

https://article.worldnews.com/view/2018/06/06/Anne_Hathaway_Steals_Ocean_s_8_If_Only_the_Rest_Was_as_Much_/

People complained about it not being fun

I did, hence my comment. Generally speaking the reviews were positive and about what you'd expect from an Oceans film:

Vanity Fair: "There's no disaster here, no regrettable misfire to be chagrined about. Phew. That said, I do wish Ocean's 8 were a little more than fun."

Far, far from a perfect movie, Ocean's 8 is still worth your time.

OCEAN'S 8 is sleek, different and a lot of fun. The ensemble is the best part, I wanted more of everyone.

#Oceans8 is good, but it could have been great.

'Ocean's 8' Film Review: Sandra Bullock and Her Female Crew Idle Amiably in Heist Farce

It's all amiably slick and charming and funny, but the movie never quite kicks into high

can we let this thread die if we're not going to discuss the OP question? It's gotten too political when i just to discuss my escapism movies and tv.

If I had to bet, Weinstein is going to walk free.

aTmAg said:

---

If I had to bet, Weinstein is going to walk free.

---

i disagree. i think they are going to make an example of him

bearamedic99 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If I had to bet, Weinstein is going to walk free.

---

i disagree. i think they are going to make an example of him

---

I hope you are right (in that they have real proof). I hear they have some secret victims/witnesses up their sleeve, but I have a hard time imagining that they have proof like a rape kit or something. If they did they would have nailed him long ago. He could always say that they were consensual encounters in exchange for movie parts.

If anything, he might get nailed because everybody knows about his case and is already considered guilty in the minds of the public. But outside of a jury taking matters into their own hands, I have a hard time seeing it.

One of the victims, a writer I believe, video taped her meeting with Weinstein, that should make sure he is convicted.

BQ78 said:

---

One of the victims, a writer I believe, video taped her meeting with Weinstein, that should make sure he is convicted.

---

What happens on that video?

aTmAg said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Quote:

---

So if you want to portray that those things happened, then fine, make up a fake character that is a representation of those people and have that fake character do it. Don't take a guy who is somebody's real grandfather, and show him doing those things.

---

Agree with this.

Ie.


I don't think you get away with that character if it's based on a real-life person.

---

If there was a real life Upham who did that stuff in the movie, then I would have no problem portraying what he really did. But if the real life Upham who wasn't a coward, served honorably, etc. then it would be defamation to take "artistic license" and have the Upham character act as a coward. I think the family should be able to sue in that situation.

---

This is an interesting spin off thread idea: despicable characters based on real life people, and how that portrayal was received.

I remember reading that Krakauer had issues with Everest, and I have to think some of those were how he was portrayed. Sidenote: Everest (2015) was an underrated movie.

MW03 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Quote:

---

So if you want to portray that those things happened, then fine, make up a fake character that is a representation of those people and have that fake character do it. Don't take a guy who is somebody's real grandfather, and show him doing those things.

---

Agree with this.

Ie.


I don't think you get away with that character if it's based on a real-life person.

---

If there was a real life Upham who did that stuff in the movie, then I would have no problem portraying what he really did. But if the real life Upham who wasn't a coward, served honorably, etc. then it would be defamation to take "artistic license" and have the Upham character act as a coward. I think the family should be able to sue in that situation.

---

This is an interesting spin off thread idea: despicable characters based on real life people, and how that portrayal was received.

I remember reading that Krakauer had issues with Everest, and I have to think some of those were how he was portrayed. Sidenote: Everest (2015) was an underrated movie.

---

Loved Everest. If I remember, Krakauer was portrayed pretty cowardly. I could be wrong, but I know I read up on it afterward and it seemed like some of the survivors backed that claim up... I could be completely misremembering though.

That's my memory, too. I think the part about him claiming snow blindness during the rescue came from that other guy's book, and Michael Kelly played him like a total pansy in that scene.

It was audio not video

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/10/a-recording-and-3-allegations-of-rape-the-harvey-weinstein-story-just-got-so-much-worse/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.11bf7678db95

BQ78 said:

---

It was audio not video

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/10/a-recording-and-3-allegations-of-rape-the-harvey-weinstein-story-just-got-so-much-worse/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.11bf7678db95

---

I don't want to listen to that at work... maybe later. But if it's him being really pushy, her saying no, and then leaving, then that won't be enough. If it's her being unable to leave and him raping her that would be different.

Give it a listen, I'm a reasonable man and it along with 38 other women telling about the same story would probably get my vote for conviction on a jury, unless his lawyer could pull out some sort of brilliant defense.

BQ78 said:

---

Give it a listen, I'm a reasonable man and it along with 38 other women telling about the same story would probably get my vote for conviction on a jury.

---

He might get convicted anyway because he is hated and well known.

But for it to be valid there has to be proof. Would you say that the audio provides that proof? (I will listen later)