Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

Such and Such?

Posted by jamesgarvin on November 8, 2007 at 07:44:27:
Not sure what such and such is. Is that like yada yada? Sorry, I'm not smart enough to follow that extensive vocabulary. I never wrote about a "carbon copy." I assumed you would be smart enough to figure out the point of my post. I gave you too much credit. For that, I apologize.
In a film based upon real events, I expect a film maker to take some liberties. I assume Mel Gibson did it with Passion of the Christ, because, well, everyone who was there was dead, and I do not trust those that tell me God commuicates with them. So I expect some liberties.
The question, dear Tinman, is not whether a filmmaker, should take some liberties, and they do, but why. Are they taking some liberties because they have no choice, i.e. that an historical record is missing some fact. Or are they taking a liberty to make the film more "exciting" to the audience, knowing the real story. Case in point is the Disney film "Iron Will", based upon true events. In the film, the lad wins the race. In real life, he never even finished.
You often spend too much time here critisizing viewers who are lazy, and expect the filmmaker to hand them everything. Here, I argue that the filmmaker should present a "true story" as true as possible without embellishing the truth to make the facts seem more exciting, in other words, let the audience come to them, and you have an issue. Grits is right. You just like to argue.
"Artists don't copy, they interpret."
Obviously. Again, the issue, which you fail to understand, is not whether they interpret, but how, and why. If an artist draws a real horse to look like a dog, it is no longer a horse, but rather a dog, regardless of what the subject looked like.
"You seem to confuse fiction films with documentaries."
You confuse fiction films with non-fiction. Perhaps you meant to write that I confuse dramatic films with documentaries. Dramatic films can be fiction, or non-fiction. Documentaries are generally non-fiction, except in Michael Moore's case, in which case they can also be be fiction.