Movies you have seen recently...

[jhwalker]

You two do a ton better on movies than Terri and I do. We are still rehydrating after seeing Still Alice...

I head out tonight at 1am arriving in Leon Mx at 5am tomorrow. We have been getting unusual monsoon-type rains while I was gone.
Terri plans to show up at the end of March.

[jhwalker]

Terri and I saw Foxcatcher. So our last two movies have been Still Alice and Foxcatcher. The movie stayed with me. I think the acting was top-notch, I would not recommend it to someone who needs a good laugh...

Interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XSv6UK ... 73g9JVSviQ

[SonicVenum]

If you really liked Foxcatcher, DO NOT read up on the actual events that occurred. That kinda ruined the movie for me. Immediately after watching it, I got curious, so I did some Googling, and found out the truth. I guess you can say the liberties taken were necessary to make a cohesive narrative, but boy did they fudge with an already crazy story.

What's most interesting to me about that video is how big that guy is! He's built like a linebacker or running back!

[jhwalker]

If you really liked Foxcatcher, DO NOT read up on the actual events that occurred. That kinda ruined the movie for me. Immediately after watching it, I got curious, so I did some Googling, and found out the truth. I guess you can say the liberties taken were necessary to make a cohesive narrative, but boy did they fudge with an already crazy story.

What's most interesting to me about that video is how big that guy is! He's built like a linebacker or running back!

I already did my googling, and I think that while they did some creative work to make a story, they still got the essence. Just MHO...

John Dupont was truly a nutjob. He had this massive need to prove that he was not just a rich guy... We live in a strange world. And extreme, un-earned wealth, creates a lot of weirdness.

[SonicVenum]

Well, since you already read up on it, here are my gripes:

1. They took away some of Mark Schultz' accolades. He was already an Olympic champion and World Champion by the time he goes to Foxcatcher.
2. The Schultz brothers weren't even at Foxcatcher at the same time.
3. Mark was considered a better wrestler than Dave with 3 NCAA Championships, an Olympic Gold, and World Gold by the time the "events" of the film transpire.
4. The UFC didn't exist until 1993, yet they're watching it in 1987. On top of that, Mark didn't fight in the UFC until 1996, shortly after the death of his brother but 8 years after the '88 Olympics. Also, he fought a black guy, so no idea why they made his opponent white in the film. Even if they can't use the actual fighter's name, what's the point in changing the race?
5. Why insinuate a homosexual relationship between Mark and John when one didn't exist? Apparently, there were rumors of a relationship between John and another wrestler.
6. They ignore the signs of schizophrenia and paranoia John was reportedly showing before the shooting occurred, and they leave out the 2-day stand-off with the police.

There were so many interesting facets to the real story, that creating the narrative they did was unnecessary. I know there will always be creative liberties taken with "Based on a true story" films, but when you've got big news stories with subjects still alive and well, you have a responsibility to be as accurate as possible, and find an interesting narrative in the reality of what occurred. What draws me to these types of films is the sense of, "Whoa, that really happened!" That sense is lost when you research it and it turns into, "Oh, no it didn't." The film Unstoppable is loosely based on a true story. They get all the train stuff pretty much right on, but change all the names, and the location. This gives them the ability to make creative changes to the story and characters to make it more compelling. Maybe the makers of Foxcatcher should have gone that route? Tell the story of wrestler Mike Phelps and multi-millionaire George deSalle at Squirrel-nabber Ranch.

[jhwalker]

Well, since you already read up on it, here are my gripes:

1. They took away some of Mark Schultz' accolades. He was already an Olympic champion and World Champion by the time he goes to Foxcatcher.
2. The Schultz brothers weren't even at Foxcatcher at the same time.
3. Mark was considered a better wrestler than Dave with 3 NCAA Championships, an Olympic Gold, and World Gold by the time the "events" of the film transpire.
4. The UFC didn't exist until 1993, yet they're watching it in 1987. On top of that, Mark didn't fight in the UFC until 1996, shortly after the death of his brother but 8 years after the '88 Olympics. Also, he fought a black guy, so no idea why they made his opponent white in the film. Even if they can't use the actual fighter's name, what's the point in changing the race?
5. Why insinuate a homosexual relationship between Mark and John when one didn't exist? Apparently, there were rumors of a relationship between John and another wrestler.
6. They ignore the signs of schizophrenia and paranoia John was reportedly showing before the shooting occurred, and they leave out the 2-day stand-off with the police.

There were so many interesting facets to the real story, that creating the narrative they did was unnecessary. I know there will always be creative liberties taken with "Based on a true story" films, but when you've got big news stories with subjects still alive and well, you have a responsibility to be as accurate as possible, and find an interesting narrative in the reality of what occurred. What draws me to these types of films is the sense of, "Whoa, that really happened!" That sense is lost when you research it and it turns into, "Oh, no it didn't." The film Unstoppable is loosely based on a true story. They get all the train stuff pretty much right on, but change all the names, and the location. This gives them the ability to make creative changes to the story and characters to make it more compelling. Maybe the makers of Foxcatcher should have gone that route? Tell the story of wrestler Mike Phelps and multi-millionaire George deSalle at Squirrel-nabber Ranch.

Holy poop-balls! You DID get into it. I hold documentaries to a very high standard, but I saw this as a movie not a documentary. The Dupont family had no real problem with it, which I found amazing considering the way big money works...

This was the best (of many) movie vs reality articles that I found... http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/foxcatcher/ although you should certainly publish yours...

[jhwalker]

Imbedded in that link is a video of the UFC fight. http://www.historyvshollywood.com/video ... c-9-fight/ Pretty interesting, a very sardonic tone by the narrator.

[SonicVenum]

Yeah, I don't know why this particular film struck a cord with me as far as discrepancies. I know it's not a documentary, but like I said before, they covered actual events, while keeping actual names and locations. That, to me, means they're going for more authenticity.

The duPont family shouldn't have a problem with it because there was nothing in the film that was not true that was negative about John. Look up Mark Schultz' reaction to the film, and you'll find a completely different story.

It's interesting to see that old footage. A lot of people still think mixed martial arts, and the UFC are what was portrayed in that piece. The sport has come a long way.

[jhwalker]

Yeah, I don't know why this particular film struck a cord with me as far as discrepancies. I know it's not a documentary, but like I said before, they covered actual events, while keeping actual names and locations. That, to me, means they're going for more authenticity.

The duPont family shouldn't have a problem with it because there was nothing in the film that was not true that was negative about John. Look up Mark Schultz' reaction to the film, and you'll find a completely different story.

It's interesting to see that old footage. A lot of people still think mixed martial arts, and the UFC are what was portrayed in that piece. The sport has come a long way.

Which of Mark's reactions? He hated it and it was all bs, and he loved it and it was dead accurate.

You might have read this (I think you might have read EVERYTHING about this topic) but it is interesting and actually discusses the problems that the movie poses for people who are very familiar with the complete story. http://www.delcotimes.com/general-news/ ... -portrayal She was pleased with the portrayal of her husband but not so much with the rewrite. Hmmm you and she were talking?

[jhwalker]

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/ja ... ett-miller

and I think this will wrap it up. Steve Carell comes off as almost too good of a guy in this interview, but the telling line is that he basically had no success for his first 20 years in the biz, and all this good stuff came late...