Americans Rewrite History….Again!

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Little Big Horn was ii believe a battle between The US Cavalry and Native American Indians. I didn't realise that a formal declaration of war had been instigated toward The Native Americans. Please correct me if i am wrong.




NOt to muddy the waters but war was decalred on the idigenous when first they were killed and our media has been used ever since to portray the whites as the right way.. Talk about rewrting history.. and the war against the indigenous has not yet ceased either.




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 



Some film makers do try to call it as it is - but they are in the minority.


Sure, but I doubt they do not take some artisic license.


Whilst I enjoyed watching JFK, (think I've watched it two or three times in total), and it certainly helped highlight many of the unanswered questions surrounding Kennedy's assassination, it is not however marketed as a definitive explanation of the assassination but rather a representation of Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw - a subtle but very important difference.


This is simply not true. Stone added multiple characters and plot points to the story, such as the Mr. X character who told Garrison in the movie that there was a government plot to kill Kennedy. Don't get me wrong I love the movie I think its great, but it is a work of fiction based upon real events, just like the movie Argo.


There are many who would argue that Stone's interpretation includes many inaccuracies and doubt Garrison's sincerity and tactics.

But I guess that's a whole different arguement altogether.


Actually no it is not. The argument in this thread is about the artistic license that is used in the making of films which are "based" on actual events. So Stones artistic license used in the film JFK is exactly the same as that used in Argo by Ben Affleck. They both added plot points and created an environment of suspense where originally there was nothing of the sort. Just as the use of suspense was used in the film Zodiac, and in Black Hawk Down, and in Saving Private Ryan (though that is an original story).



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Good thing Hollywood doesn't write the history books....





It is almost laughable the way Americans start wars, do not or cannot finish them, and then claim to be the great conquering heroes.

um, I greatly oppose any wars. But this statement is false. First, we don't claim to be "great conquering heroes." We claim to spread democracy to other countries. Pretty much the complete opposite of "conquering."

You also say, "do not or cannot finish them."
We have the means of finishing them. We could wipe North Korea off the face of the map in under half an hour if we wanted to.

edit on 25-2-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Yes Beezer, it's easy to bash Americans. I am one, not a basher, an American. As such, I can also find fault with some of my fellow Americans. My point is this: anyone can find fault with a given percentage of any populace; but you personally DON'T KNOW SQUAT about "much of the American populace", neither do I, and I am one. One can only guess at the beliefs and feelings of the group, of ANY group for that matter. Your biased opinion (which I am aware is AN OPINION) only serves to denigrate what you assume to be "much of the American populace", and thus detracts from the discussion of this topic. So back off bud.
For the record, I misspelled your name on purpose to show my contempt for you and your opinion on this matter. I usually enjoy your posts; but not this time.
edit on 25-2-2013 by dondrews because: misquoted



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 


Some fair points - but the difference between JFK and Affleck's film is that Stone's artistic licence is in no means detrimental to a real person or nation.

I understand that film makers have to make enough points of interest etc to keep viewers interested but in this instance was it absolutely necessary to downplay the role of the Canadian's, exaggerate the role of the USA and to blatantly lie about the assistance offered by the UK all just to pamper American audiences?

Personally I don't blame every American at all - that would be just plain stupid - but what does dismay me slightly is the apparent lack of understanding from many American's as to why non-American's would find this somewhat insulting.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by krazykanuk
 


"rewriting history"?? Lighten up. It's a freeking movie, not a document from the congressional library. I give more credit to Clark than Taylor anyways. Thank your Hollywood "creative license" for this one, not the U.S.

1st Amendment...oh that's right, you don't have those.....




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
If Zero Dark Thirty won would this be as much or bigger of a deal?



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by krazykanuk
 


So you are saying the whole of America's role in the escape is made up? You are saying that it was Canada's plan entirely from start to finish and executed by Canadians and American's never went there and this never happened?



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by krazykanuk
 


So you are saying the whole of America's role in the escape is made up? You are saying that it was Canada's plan entirely from start to finish and executed by Canadians and American's never went there and this never happened?
That's not what the OP has been saying, but if I were American, I'd be somewhat ashamed of the need for jingoistic Bravo Sierra in an already gripping tale. But then...there was "The Great Escape", too.

It's all sort of the cultural version of Truck Nutz.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
If someone watches a movie and takes it at face value, than they are ignorant. It is not the reponibility of film makers who create "entertainment" to accurately portray historical events, if you want a history lesson pick up a book or go take a class.
Sure...and this tale is pretty much true. Except maybe for the following:


...Ken Taylor would like to set the historical record straight about what happened after the U.S. embassy was overrun by militants on Nov. 4, 1979, and six Americans found safe haven in a pair of official Canadian residences.
************

Argo says: Tony Mendez was a CIA agent who single-handedly dreamed up the cockamamie rescue scenario that would see him fly into Tehran, prep the six Americans with the cover story that they were actually a Canadian film crew in the country to scout locations for a science-fiction film, and then thread the needle by spiriting them out from under the watchful eye of the trigger-happy Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Taylor says: While the CIA did finally settle on the Hollywood cover idea, Taylor intended for the six Americans to leave on their own as part of a wave of Canadians departing in the normal course of international travel. “I was cutting back the staff,” he recalls. “[The Americans] would just be Canadians going through, some on business, some going back after temporarily serving at the embassy.” Sometime before the date of departure, the CIA decided it wanted to send in two agents to travel with the escapees. “Tony and one other officer came in, then went out. I think they were at the airport and monitored their [departure]. Because there was no interrogation at the airport.”
************
Argo says: Travel documents were skillfully, single-handedly forged and doctored by Tony Mendez.

Taylor says: “The documentation was totally prepared in Ottawa.” That included passports, business cards, credit cards and other ephemera (receipts from restaurants in Toronto, Montreal etc.) that would help establish the legitimacy of the six Americans as a Canadian film crew. After one Farsi-speaking member of Taylor’s staff discovered an error in the documents, more passports were issued by Ottawa and couriered via diplomatic pouch to Tehran.
************

Argo says: Filmmakers built up the tension by having (the fictional) Ken Taylor inform Tony Mendez that Ottawa had given orders for the embassy to be closed, which would have left the house guests with nowhere to go.

Taylor says: “It’s inconceivable that Canada would have closed the embassy while U.S. diplomats were still there. It wouldn’t even have occurred to us.”
************

On Monday, Taylor said he was mollified by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter telling CNN’s Piers Morgan last week that the film greatly exaggerated the CIA’s role and underplayed the Canadians’ contributions. “When a U.S. citizen makes that case, it really has an authenticity to it, and a disinterest,” said Taylor. “He’s just clarifying those first three months.” Caper

I guess some folks are just far too accustomed to being fed crap and being told it tastes good.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I guess you still don't "get it", that it is a movie for entertainment purposes. I'm done trying to explain it to folks here....it's a useless battle. I'm going back to my own research, which is where I discover the facts of things myself, knowing full well that Hollywood is NOT reality....never has been, never will be....

BTW: For full disclosure, in Apollo 13, the 3 astronauts NEVER argued in the command module. Ron Howard took artistic license in that scene to convey a heightened sense of drama that made the movie more compelling. It is accepted because, you guessed it, it's HOLLYWOOD.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by krazykanuk
 


You do know that ARGO is just a movie based on real events. It is NOT a documentary, it's just a movie.

Seriously though, it's just a movie.

That said, it's just a movie.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


What is your point?

The discrepancies you have pointed out are present in a "film" which is "based" on a true event. They are not however in a history book describing the facts of the actual event.

All those discrepancies can be attributed to the writers wanting to create a level of suspense.

I understand that Canadians are not very happy about being excluded from this film, but it is "film". Hollywood did not just rewrite the history books, no more than they rewrote the events of WW2 with Saving Private Ryan which also did not include the other nations which were present at the invasion of Normandy.


I guess some folks are just far too accustomed to being fed crap and being told it tastes good.


And if you really think that the majority of people who actually understand the difference between fiction and reality will simply accept what Hollywood puts out as fact simply because a movie says it is "based on a true story" than as I said to the OP, you are deluded.

A vast majority of people who were entertained by the movie and are curious about the event that actually took place will investigate the history for themselves by reading a book or watching a documentry, and the facts of the event will be presented in a "realistic" fassion as oppose to a "fictional" one as portrayed in the film. It is staggering that you do not understand this.
edit on 26-2-2013 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
And if you really think that the majority of people who actually understand the difference between fiction and reality will simply accept what Hollywood puts out as fact simply because a movie says it is "based on a true story" than as I said to the OP, you are deluded.
It would be interesting to put that figure up against the number of people who will simply watch it and accept it as truth. Period. I would remind you of the weapons of mass destruction, and the Kuwaiti babies that fueled two of your wars. Oh, and Afghanistan. That was because of Bin Laden, right? Or was it the plight of the women? And FOX news...fair and balanced.

I think you've just become entirely used to being lied to, and accept truthiness as about as good as you're gonna get. When the rest of the world starts to say "Don't step in that, Wilbur...", why take offence?



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Krakatoa
 




BTW: For full disclosure, in Apollo 13, the 3 astronauts NEVER argued in the command module. Ron Howard took artistic license in that scene to convey a heightened sense of drama that made the movie more compelling. It is accepted because, you guessed it, it's HOLLYWOOD.


I think most people understand that - but Howard didn't portray most of the astronauts as Canadian's or imply that those dastardly Brits would refuse to help in way shape of form.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 



It would be interesting to put that figure up against the number of people who will simply watch it and accept it as truth.


I would be interested as well, but such numbers would be unobtainable.


I would remind you of the weapons of mass destruction, and the Kuwaiti babies that fueled two of your wars. Oh, and Afghanistan. That was because of Bin Laden, right? Or was it the plight of the women? And FOX news...fair and balanced.


You are comparing an entertainment company to a news media organization which actually has an ethical obligation to tell the truth. You do not see the difference between the two? A film producer has no moral obligation of any kind to present the facts of an event in a realistic context, at all!

I understand that Canadians and the Britsh are upset that they were not portrayed correctly or included in Argo, but again this is a fictionalized version of the story, not a documentry that states America flew in on a bald eagle and scooped up the hostages in a star spangled awesome manner.


I think you've just become entirely used to being lied to, and accept truthiness as about as good as you're gonna get. When the rest of the world starts to say "Don't step in that, Wilbur...", why take offence?


Thanks for your arbitrary judgment on my ability to distinguish fact from fiction. For your information I do not view movies which are based on true stories as the complete truth (or even a fraction of the truth), I view them how they were attended to be viewed, for entertainment, not for educational content.
edit on 26-2-2013 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I find it laughable that you don't see the pattern in Hollywierds machinations.. we who carry indigenous blood
have known that it isn't just HOllywierd lying through their teeth...



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Read the message I was replying to.. it's pretty much exactly what the OP is saying. I was being rhetorical.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   
No person takes hollywood versions of historical events at face value. Just as you don't expect a hollywood film to be faithful to a book used as a source. You assume the basic premise is true and then fuzz the details.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge

Originally posted by newcovenant

[snip]

Thanks to the USA you people are living with lights, cars, movies and computers...

[snip]


This part of your post made me laugh so hard I damn near fell off my chair.

Congratulations for proving the OP's point that the average American apparently does buy into the flag waving propaganda being fed to them (whether it comes from Hollywood or otherwise) as factual "historical truths".



I'm glad I could give you a laugh but wish I could give you an education.

Tesla, Edison, Graham Bell, Ford, Capra, Hollywood...

Hater's gonna hate. We're still leader of the free world and we just started.
Don't shoot the messenger. LOL I almost fell off my chair!



new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join