Best Ever Albums

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

Anonymous — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:45:40 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/10/2013 22:45

RFNAPLES wrote:

^Poor post

You have no arguments at all. You were owned RFNaples, just accept it and live with it. 😄

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

Anonymous — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:36:16 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/10/2013 14:36

😁

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

RFNAPLES — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 09:58:21 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/10/2013 13:58

^Poor post

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

Anonymous — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 09:53:14 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/10/2013 13:53

RFNAPLES wrote:

Great post

If you think that's a great post it suggests that you don't have sufficient mental faculties to present your own ideas because in that post we have:

19loveless91 wrote:

I agree with what people have said, if there are obvious "inaccuracies", there should be some sort of justification for them (some point to it). Naples argues, that the point is to make it more entertaining. Is the movie really more entertaining because they "neglected" to mention some important details? Did diminshing a role of Canadian diplomats really bring something extra to it?

And there is something called Skopos Theory which in a simplified form tries to say that you should evaluate a text based on it's purpose or function. Suggesting that movies are made just to entertain (esp. in its hollywoodian scale and moreover when CIA is involved) is just pure credulity. We can assume entertaining nature of a movie if it doesn't imply otherwise itself. And if distortion of facts in a movie helps to develop its plot or showing that part of reality isn't possible in the film format or the director or writer doesn't seem to try or to be committed to retell a historical story then I have no problem with that. The problem is that none of these conditions are satisfied either implicitly or explicitly in that movie.

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

RFNAPLES — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 09:27:05 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/10/2013 13:27

19loveless91 wrote:

I actually agree with the gist of what Naples is trying to say. A film will always offer merely an "illusion of reality", even when based on true events, and that's why you should never view it as something that is trying to tell you an "objective" truth. Their purpose IS to entertain (in one way or another), MORE than it is to educate (obviously, depends on the film).

Does anyone complain about historical inaccuracies in Tarantino's movies? Of course not, they're so OTT, it's where the "point" lies even. Then you have a myriad of examples, where the movie doesn't portray something (location, area of expertise, whatever...) correctly. Note, when you watch a movie or a TV show which relates to something you know a lot about - even minor inaccuracies will bother you a whole lot. For example, I saw complaints on IMDb about Zero Dark Thirty and how it portrayed Pakistan (and you know that inaccurate depiction of foreign countries is nothing new). Then, I wonder how actual doctors view all those medical shows on TV. And I don't even want to know what forensics and actual detectives think of shows like CSI or NCIS. As for me, I personally get irritated most of the time there is talk about chess in movies.

But still.. That's what artistic license means. They're taking something as the base for the story, then build on that to make a product they want - now what is it they want to make, it's their choice, but in many cases, the end product will end up being far out from reality. But as I said, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's always gonna be an "illusion of reality".

Having said all of that, it doesn't mean that Argo (and other similar movies) should be immune to criticism. Because, I agree with what people have said, if there are obvious "inaccuracies", there should be some sort of justification for them (some point to it). Naples argues, that the point is to make it more entertaining. Is the movie really more entertaining because they "neglected" to mention some important details? Did diminshing a role of Canadian diplomats really bring something extra to it? Now I personally don't (100%) agree with tekin's theory on why they decided to do it, although it's a valid interpretation and a totally understandable reason to dislike the film. But I think it's more that they simply wanted to glorify the "escape idea" + the Hollywood's role in all of this, and this is where all those problems with historical accuracy came from. They had to make the situation those people were in seem as dangerous, and the escape idea as implausible as possible. You can argue how one-dimensionally the Iranians are portrayed, but quite frankly I think it's (to borrow a line from Archer) "merely incompetence" from writers' end. After all, is there anything interesting you could say about ANY character here? Those american diplomats - what do we really learn about them?

I have to say, I actually still enjoyed Argo a lot, maybe because I can go past the bullshit and don't see it as anything more than a product that is meant to entertain. What bothered me the most was actually the kind of minor stuff, like all of "last second" escapes, fake tension (e.g. the airway chase scene) - which again didn't bother me because it would be historically inaccurate, but quite simply because it was done in the manner of all those average and overly clichéd action flicks.

Great post

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

RFNAPLES — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 09:15:55 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/10/2013 13:15

I don't

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

Anonymous — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:46:31 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/10/2013 12:46

RFNAPLES wrote:

A few of the awards won by Argo:

A few of the awards won by Fahrenheit 9/11:

Fahrenheit 9/11

Argo

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

19loveless91 — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 07:25:42 GMT

Author: 19loveless91

Posted: 03/10/2013 11:25

I actually agree with the gist of what Naples is trying to say. A film will always offer merely an "illusion of reality", even when based on true events, and that's why you should never view it as something that is trying to tell you an "objective" truth. Their purpose IS to entertain (in one way or another), MORE than it is to educate (obviously, depends on the film).

Does anyone complain about historical inaccuracies in Tarantino's movies? Of course not, they're so OTT, it's where the "point" lies even. Then you have a myriad of examples, where the movie doesn't portray something (location, area of expertise, whatever...) correctly. Note, when you watch a movie or a TV show which relates to something you know a lot about - even minor inaccuracies will bother you a whole lot. For example, I saw complaints on IMDb about Zero Dark Thirty and how it portrayed Pakistan (and you know that inaccurate depiction of foreign countries is nothing new). Then, I wonder how actual doctors view all those medical shows on TV. And I don't even want to know what forensics and actual detectives think of shows like CSI or NCIS. As for me, I personally get irritated most of the time there is talk about chess in movies.

But still.. That's what artistic license means. They're taking something as the base for the story, then build on that to make a product they want - now what is it they want to make, it's their choice, but in many cases, the end product will end up being far out from reality. But as I said, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's always gonna be an "illusion of reality".

Having said all of that, it doesn't mean that Argo (and other similar movies) should be immune to criticism. Because, I agree with what people have said, if there are obvious "inaccuracies", there should be some sort of justification for them (some point to it). Naples argues, that the point is to make it more entertaining. Is the movie really more entertaining because they "neglected" to mention some important details? Did diminshing a role of Canadian diplomats really bring something extra to it? Now I personally don't (100%) agree with tekin's theory on why they decided to do it, although it's a valid interpretation and a totally understandable reason to dislike the film. But I think it's more that they simply wanted to glorify the "escape idea" + the Hollywood's role in all of this, and this is where all those problems with historical accuracy came from. They had to make the situation those people were in seem as dangerous, and the escape idea as implausible as possible. You can argue how one-dimensionally the Iranians are portrayed, but quite frankly I think it's (to borrow a line from Archer) "merely incompetence" from writers' end. After all, is there anything interesting you could say about ANY character here? Those american diplomats - what do we really learn about them?

I have to say, I actually still enjoyed Argo a lot, maybe because I can go past the bullshit and don't see it as anything more than a product that is meant to entertain. What bothered me the most was actually the kind of minor stuff, like all of "last second" escapes, fake tension (e.g. the airway chase scene) - which again didn't bother me because it would be historically inaccurate, but quite simply because it was done in the manner of all those average and overly clichéd action flicks.

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

Anonymous — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 06:29:25 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/10/2013 10:29

RFNAPLES wrote:

The purpose of Argo is to entertain not educate. The awards convince me of your errors.

Well, if you think awards are given solely on purposes of filmic quality (which is also incredibly subjective and cannot be counted with a calculator) and not because of public relations/promotion of certain films...

Also you're completely ignoring questions directed towards you more than once, like "would you defend Argo if it presented CIA as an evil organization which didn't help at all during the Iran hostage crisis" and giving one-line answers to enormous texts which present you lots of arguments that you never answer to.

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

RFNAPLES — Sat, 9 Mar 2013 20:56:47 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/10/2013 01:56

Jhereko wrote:

Really? I'd say I expect better of you RF, but I really don't. If this argument is true then why are we even here on this site? It means art shouldn't be evaluated and we should just shut our brains off and view/hear it and applaud every piece of work as great since the artist made it at all. Useless.

Also even just as an entertainment piece Argo was shit.

I said: "Criticize all you like..."

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

Anonymous — Sat, 9 Mar 2013 20:51:12 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/10/2013 01:51

Jhereko wrote:

Is that what people do with Lady Gaga? 😁

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

Anonymous — Sat, 9 Mar 2013 20:21:58 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/10/2013 01:21

RFNAPLES wrote:

Criticize all you like, perhaps you could do better--then do it.

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

RFNAPLES — Sat, 9 Mar 2013 19:44:34 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/10/2013 00:44

The purpose of Argo is to entertain not educate. The awards convince me of your errors.

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

junodog4 — Sat, 9 Mar 2013 19:30:56 GMT

Author: junodog4

Posted: 03/10/2013 00:30

RFNAPLES wrote:

There are no problems with the cars that cause ignorant drunk drivers to have accidents. Likewise there is nothing with the movie or its tagline that should cause people to think it is not entertainment, a drama, except their own ignorance. Criticize all you like, perhaps you could do better--then do it.

...but there is something wrong with Argo. It's inaccurate. And I'm not saying I can do better. I'm saying Ben Affleck and whoever else was behind the film could have done better. Drunk drivers will crash a perfectly good car. Ignorant movie goers will not believe historical inaccuracies if there aren't any major ones in a film. The problem is the errors in the film. Posting a list of awards it's won just convinces me even more how it should have been better.

If there is something wrong with a product, people should critique it, so that standards improve.

I've made my position clear. If you want to argue for the sake of it, knock yourself out - you'll have an opportunity once someone doesn't like one of your 'stimulating' cartoons.

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

RFNAPLES — Sat, 9 Mar 2013 18:45:18 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/09/2013 23:45

A few of the awards won by Argo:

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

RFNAPLES — Sat, 9 Mar 2013 18:23:46 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/09/2013 23:23

There are no problems with the cars that cause ignorant drunk drivers to have accidents. Likewise there is nothing with the movie or its tagline that should cause people to think it is not entertainment, a drama, except their own ignorance. Criticize all you like, perhaps you could do better--then do it.

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

junodog4 — Sat, 9 Mar 2013 17:34:39 GMT

Author: junodog4

Posted: 03/09/2013 22:34

RFNAPLES wrote:

We can't always save the ignorant. Should we stop producing cars because some ignorant people drive drunk? Any adult should know that movies are entertainment, not news or historical fact. Pray for those who don't.

Why all or nothing? I never said Argo should be banned, or never should have been made. I just think it should be criticized for being historically inaccurate. Perhaps a slight revision to reflect history should have been in order.

To adopt your analogy - if cars are built with problems, they catch them before production, or they issue a recall. They don't ban cars.

Just because I think something isn't good, doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Argo is inaccurate. They could have done it better, and it doesn't deserve best picture.

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

Anonymous — Sat, 9 Mar 2013 13:55:46 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/09/2013 18:55

Would you be so willing to defend Argo if it completely ignored the CIA involvement, or if it portrayed any part the Iranian populace as something other than the faceless hunters of the trapped Americans, as they were given even less depth than the thinly written American and Canadian characters?

I think the movie Argo is a great example of a really fascinating story and study in recent global-politcial strife that's throughly hollywood-sized into a predictable genre thriller (this being a cross between a spy and prison-break film), which mends a lot of the historical detail unnecessarily and throws out the more ambigious (and much more interesting) questions that arised from this particular event, largely cause it doesn't seem to fit neatly with the genre-movie conventions that this movie often employed.

I do agree fully that it was strange to barely mention Canada's involvement when they in fact did the lion's share of the planning and executing of this particular mission. Why? It seems both like they excessively patronized Hollywood but more so America in general, almost perpetuating the old cowboy stereotype that this was a successful mission based on the country's brilliant bravado when in fact it was a multi-national effort to bring these embassay workers home safely. Use the cop-out "Artistic License", but spending more needed attention to a country's efforts in this event when they, in real life, did most of the work to ensure this mission was brought out successfuly wouldn't really hamper the story, in fact it would help paint a more complete picture. It just seems putting Hollywood and the CIA almost entirely front-and-center made it work "easier" (not better) as a rogue-hero-who-saves-endangered-hostages storyline, rather than the more complicated and much more intriguing mission that was constructed not by one country's or industry's swagger but a coordinated bi-lateral effort that wouldn't have worked without either's support.

In all honesty, while some inaccuracies were really easy to spot, the first personal impression of Argo was just that it was a fairly well done but predictable thriller with little emotional depth or historical perspective. It's actually delving deeper into the fascinating story and historical event where this movie just seems like an utter falsehood, and even less interesting than what initially met the eye.

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

RFNAPLES — Sat, 9 Mar 2013 13:33:44 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/09/2013 18:33

We can't always save the ignorant. Should we stop producing cars because some ignorant people drive drunk? Any adult should know that movies are entertainment, not news or historical fact. Pray for those who don't.

Re: 2013 Oscar Pool

junodog4 — Sat, 9 Mar 2013 13:16:52 GMT

Author: junodog4

Posted: 03/09/2013 18:16

RFNAPLES wrote:

Stop whinning

That has become you go-to lately when you're struggling to come up with anything else. I guess you can't name call anymore, since you criticized others for it...

I'm waiting for 'I know you are but what am I?' That's always a Naples favourite.

Anyway... Clearly you claim that you can separate fact from artistic depiction. Good for you. I wish all movie-goers were that savvy. Sad thing is that many movie-goers can't make that distinction. Consequently, they watch Argo, accept it as historical fact (or are inclined that way) and are left with an incorrect version of history.

Argo doesn't have to be 100% accurate. I'm just saying that it's shameful how inaccurate it was, especially for the best-picture winner, and especially since the inaccuracy may not have been necessary. This is not all or nothing - one can make a fictional movie more accurate without turning it into a documentary.