Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
'Dunkirk' critics mocked for slamming the movie's cast
Topic Started: Aug 1 2017, 06:38 PM (970 Views)
Opinionated
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Aug 3 2017, 06:22 AM
Opinionated
Aug 2 2017, 08:41 AM
ringotuna
Aug 2 2017, 04:33 AM
Opinionated
Aug 1 2017, 07:52 PM
I suppose the complaint is as valid as complaining that in the movie Wonder Women there weren't enough men represented on the Amazonian island...
Not sure who you're swiping at but let me point out an obvious distinction between Dunkirk and Wonder Woman.

One is a historical accounting of actual events which I believe most people would agree should not be rewritten to satisfy 21st century political correctness.

The other is a fantasy where producers have far more latitude to pander to public sensitivities.





The Amazons of mythology were a group of fierce female warriors who did not accept men as part of their society. The Amazonian Island in the movie Wonder Women had no men on it, in following with the mythology.

My point is that from a historic perspective, the Amazonian myth of a society of women who rejected men and WWII when men represented 98% of the in uniform military with only a very small representation of women in support assignments, are both portrayed reasonably accurately in the movies, granting some measure of artistic license. And neither of which can validly be complained about as not fairly "representing" the genders.

Like how a movie about the 1962 world series couldn't validly be accused of not fairly representing women because no women are portrayed as playing on the either team.
One has much more creative license in a mythological based movie than in a historically based film. That is assuming the directors wish to hold true to the actual events.
Sorry, where is that law written? I seem to have missed it.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 08:28 AM
ringotuna
Aug 3 2017, 06:22 AM
Opinionated
Aug 2 2017, 08:41 AM
ringotuna
Aug 2 2017, 04:33 AM
Opinionated
Aug 1 2017, 07:52 PM
I suppose the complaint is as valid as complaining that in the movie Wonder Women there weren't enough men represented on the Amazonian island...
Not sure who you're swiping at but let me point out an obvious distinction between Dunkirk and Wonder Woman.

One is a historical accounting of actual events which I believe most people would agree should not be rewritten to satisfy 21st century political correctness.

The other is a fantasy where producers have far more latitude to pander to public sensitivities.





The Amazons of mythology were a group of fierce female warriors who did not accept men as part of their society. The Amazonian Island in the movie Wonder Women had no men on it, in following with the mythology.

My point is that from a historic perspective, the Amazonian myth of a society of women who rejected men and WWII when men represented 98% of the in uniform military with only a very small representation of women in support assignments, are both portrayed reasonably accurately in the movies, granting some measure of artistic license. And neither of which can validly be complained about as not fairly "representing" the genders.

Like how a movie about the 1962 world series couldn't validly be accused of not fairly representing women because no women are portrayed as playing on the either team.
One has much more creative license in a mythological based movie than in a historically based film. That is assuming the directors wish to hold true to the actual events.
Sorry, where is that law written? I seem to have missed it.

I don't think he is saying that it is a law. I think he is saying that with Mythology, there are usually a number of different versions and since it all references a time before written history.

Dunkirk is fairly recent and was fairly well documented and therefor, if the movie is not at least a little accurate people can pick it apart with a evidence to back up their criticisms. That is not the case with any mythology based movie.

Also, the farther back in time you go, the more leeway you tend to have artistically. As a case in point the movie "The Patriot" is entertaining but it took a great deal of artistic license with history. In fact while someone similar to the main character did exist the exploits shown in the movie were likely those of several men one of whom was not even an American. Despite this, the movie did well and only Revolutionary War history nerds and Brits attacked the film for its artistic license.
Edited by Demagogue, Aug 3 2017, 08:52 AM.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Demagogue
Aug 3 2017, 08:51 AM
Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 08:28 AM
ringotuna
Aug 3 2017, 06:22 AM
Opinionated
Aug 2 2017, 08:41 AM
ringotuna
Aug 2 2017, 04:33 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
The Amazons of mythology were a group of fierce female warriors who did not accept men as part of their society. The Amazonian Island in the movie Wonder Women had no men on it, in following with the mythology.

My point is that from a historic perspective, the Amazonian myth of a society of women who rejected men and WWII when men represented 98% of the in uniform military with only a very small representation of women in support assignments, are both portrayed reasonably accurately in the movies, granting some measure of artistic license. And neither of which can validly be complained about as not fairly "representing" the genders.

Like how a movie about the 1962 world series couldn't validly be accused of not fairly representing women because no women are portrayed as playing on the either team.
One has much more creative license in a mythological based movie than in a historically based film. That is assuming the directors wish to hold true to the actual events.
Sorry, where is that law written? I seem to have missed it.

I don't think he is saying that it is a law. I think he is saying that with Mythology, there are usually a number of different versions and since it all references a time before written history.

Dunkirk is fairly recent and was fairly well documented and therefor, if the movie is not at least a little accurate people can pick it apart with a evidence to back up their criticisms. That is not the case with any mythology based movie.

Also, the farther back in time you go, the more leeway you tend to have artistically. As a case in point the movie "The Patriot" is entertaining but it took a great deal of artistic license with history. In fact while someone similar to the main character did exist the exploits shown in the movie were likely those of several men one of whom was not even an American. Despite this, the movie did well and only Revolutionary War history nerds and Brits attacked the film for its artistic license.
Actually, from an artistic perspective, you can do pretty much anything you want. If the producers of Dunkirk had wanted to produce an all female version of the movie, they could have done so. I doubt it would have been as popular, but they could have done it.

With fictional characters it's pretty easy to do things like change their gender or their racial background. For historic figures, it gets tougher to do without facing backlash. But if someone wanted to produce a movie about the life of Ronald Reagan where Reagan is played by a black transgender, then they can do that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 09:30 AM
Demagogue
Aug 3 2017, 08:51 AM
Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 08:28 AM
ringotuna
Aug 3 2017, 06:22 AM
Opinionated
Aug 2 2017, 08:41 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
One has much more creative license in a mythological based movie than in a historically based film. That is assuming the directors wish to hold true to the actual events.
Sorry, where is that law written? I seem to have missed it.

I don't think he is saying that it is a law. I think he is saying that with Mythology, there are usually a number of different versions and since it all references a time before written history.

Dunkirk is fairly recent and was fairly well documented and therefor, if the movie is not at least a little accurate people can pick it apart with a evidence to back up their criticisms. That is not the case with any mythology based movie.

Also, the farther back in time you go, the more leeway you tend to have artistically. As a case in point the movie "The Patriot" is entertaining but it took a great deal of artistic license with history. In fact while someone similar to the main character did exist the exploits shown in the movie were likely those of several men one of whom was not even an American. Despite this, the movie did well and only Revolutionary War history nerds and Brits attacked the film for its artistic license.
Actually, from an artistic perspective, you can do pretty much anything you want. If the producers of Dunkirk had wanted to produce an all female version of the movie, they could have done so. I doubt it would have been as popular, but they could have done it.

With fictional characters it's pretty easy to do things like change their gender or their racial background. For historic figures, it gets tougher to do without facing backlash. But if someone wanted to produce a movie about the life of Ronald Reagan where Reagan is played by a black transgender, then they can do that.
I never said you could not do it. I said that you face greater criticism if you take a great deal of artistic license with events that are well documented.
Edited by Demagogue, Aug 3 2017, 09:58 AM.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
The whole point of the thread is SJW's are nuts and there is no end to their ongoing insanity.

They should be mocked the snot out of at every turn....
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Demagogue
Aug 3 2017, 09:40 AM
Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 09:30 AM
Demagogue
Aug 3 2017, 08:51 AM
Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 08:28 AM
ringotuna
Aug 3 2017, 06:22 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
Sorry, where is that law written? I seem to have missed it.

I don't think he is saying that it is a law. I think he is saying that with Mythology, there are usually a number of different versions and since it all references a time before written history.

Dunkirk is fairly recent and was fairly well documented and therefor, if the movie is not at least a little accurate people can pick it apart with a evidence to back up their criticisms. That is not the case with any mythology based movie.

Also, the farther back in time you go, the more leeway you tend to have artistically. As a case in point the movie "The Patriot" is entertaining but it took a great deal of artistic license with history. In fact while someone similar to the main character did exist the exploits shown in the movie were likely those of several men one of whom was not even an American. Despite this, the movie did well and only Revolutionary War history nerds and Brits attacked the film for its artistic license.
Actually, from an artistic perspective, you can do pretty much anything you want. If the producers of Dunkirk had wanted to produce an all female version of the movie, they could have done so. I doubt it would have been as popular, but they could have done it.

With fictional characters it's pretty easy to do things like change their gender or their racial background. For historic figures, it gets tougher to do without facing backlash. But if someone wanted to produce a movie about the life of Ronald Reagan where Reagan is played by a black transgender, then they can do that.
I never said you could not do it. I said that you face greater criticism if you take a great deal of artistic license with events that are well documented.
*shrug* I never doubted that. I have consistently said that historically women did not represent a significant percentage of those stranded at Dunkirk. I have serious doubts that they represented a significant percentage of those who came across the channel from the British Isles to help rescue the stranded. I think bitching about there not being enough women in a movie that portrays a historical event with some historical accuracy where women were not a significant part of the story to be pretty weak sauce.

So why are you guys debating me like I'm saying the opposite?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 11:23 AM
Demagogue
Aug 3 2017, 09:40 AM
Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 09:30 AM
Demagogue
Aug 3 2017, 08:51 AM
Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 08:28 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
I don't think he is saying that it is a law. I think he is saying that with Mythology, there are usually a number of different versions and since it all references a time before written history.

Dunkirk is fairly recent and was fairly well documented and therefor, if the movie is not at least a little accurate people can pick it apart with a evidence to back up their criticisms. That is not the case with any mythology based movie.

Also, the farther back in time you go, the more leeway you tend to have artistically. As a case in point the movie "The Patriot" is entertaining but it took a great deal of artistic license with history. In fact while someone similar to the main character did exist the exploits shown in the movie were likely those of several men one of whom was not even an American. Despite this, the movie did well and only Revolutionary War history nerds and Brits attacked the film for its artistic license.
Actually, from an artistic perspective, you can do pretty much anything you want. If the producers of Dunkirk had wanted to produce an all female version of the movie, they could have done so. I doubt it would have been as popular, but they could have done it.

With fictional characters it's pretty easy to do things like change their gender or their racial background. For historic figures, it gets tougher to do without facing backlash. But if someone wanted to produce a movie about the life of Ronald Reagan where Reagan is played by a black transgender, then they can do that.
I never said you could not do it. I said that you face greater criticism if you take a great deal of artistic license with events that are well documented.
*shrug* I never doubted that. I have consistently said that historically women did not represent a significant percentage of those stranded at Dunkirk. I have serious doubts that they represented a significant percentage of those who came across the channel from the British Isles to help rescue the stranded. I think bitching about there not being enough women in a movie that portrays a historical event with some historical accuracy where women were not a significant part of the story to be pretty weak sauce.

So why are you guys debating me like I'm saying the opposite?
I was not debating you. I was saying that I thought you misunderstood ringotuna's point. That or you were being purposely obtuse which is fine if you are seeking to debate a point. :cheers:
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Demagogue
Aug 3 2017, 11:39 AM
Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 11:23 AM
Demagogue
Aug 3 2017, 09:40 AM
Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 09:30 AM
Demagogue
Aug 3 2017, 08:51 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
Actually, from an artistic perspective, you can do pretty much anything you want. If the producers of Dunkirk had wanted to produce an all female version of the movie, they could have done so. I doubt it would have been as popular, but they could have done it.

With fictional characters it's pretty easy to do things like change their gender or their racial background. For historic figures, it gets tougher to do without facing backlash. But if someone wanted to produce a movie about the life of Ronald Reagan where Reagan is played by a black transgender, then they can do that.
I never said you could not do it. I said that you face greater criticism if you take a great deal of artistic license with events that are well documented.
*shrug* I never doubted that. I have consistently said that historically women did not represent a significant percentage of those stranded at Dunkirk. I have serious doubts that they represented a significant percentage of those who came across the channel from the British Isles to help rescue the stranded. I think bitching about there not being enough women in a movie that portrays a historical event with some historical accuracy where women were not a significant part of the story to be pretty weak sauce.

So why are you guys debating me like I'm saying the opposite?
I was not debating you. I was saying that I thought you misunderstood ringotuna's point. That or you were being purposely obtuse which is fine if you are seeking to debate a point. :cheers:
Tuna seemed to take my using mythology to argue that the is no basis for complaining about a lack of women's roles in Dunkirk to be invalid. Apparently my agreeing with him was just too much for him, so he felt the need to quibble about analogy I used to agree with him. :rollseyes:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 11:43 AM
Demagogue
Aug 3 2017, 11:39 AM
Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 11:23 AM
Demagogue
Aug 3 2017, 09:40 AM
Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 09:30 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
I never said you could not do it. I said that you face greater criticism if you take a great deal of artistic license with events that are well documented.
*shrug* I never doubted that. I have consistently said that historically women did not represent a significant percentage of those stranded at Dunkirk. I have serious doubts that they represented a significant percentage of those who came across the channel from the British Isles to help rescue the stranded. I think bitching about there not being enough women in a movie that portrays a historical event with some historical accuracy where women were not a significant part of the story to be pretty weak sauce.

So why are you guys debating me like I'm saying the opposite?
I was not debating you. I was saying that I thought you misunderstood ringotuna's point. That or you were being purposely obtuse which is fine if you are seeking to debate a point. :cheers:
Tuna seemed to take my using mythology to argue that the is no basis for complaining about a lack of women's roles in Dunkirk to be invalid. Apparently my agreeing with him was just too much for him, so he felt the need to quibble about analogy I used to agree with him. :rollseyes:
Lol, no worries. Sometimes I debate stuff on here just to play devil's advocate and see how people react to it.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

StillCrazy1
Aug 3 2017, 08:16 AM
ringotuna
Aug 3 2017, 06:17 AM
StillCrazy1
Aug 2 2017, 05:27 PM
ringotuna
Aug 2 2017, 04:33 AM
Opinionated
Aug 1 2017, 07:52 PM
I suppose the complaint is as valid as complaining that in the movie Wonder Women there weren't enough men represented on the Amazonian island...
Not sure who you're swiping at but let me point out an obvious distinction between Dunkirk and Wonder Woman.

One is a historical accounting of actual events which I believe most people would agree should not be rewritten to satisfy 21st century political correctness.

The other is a fantasy where producers have far more latitude to pander to public sensitivities.





A historical accounting of actual events would be a documentary.

"Dunkirk" is not a documentary.
Not necessarily true. History can be portrayed in fictional works as well.

True but that doesnt make the portrayal a documentary.

Historical elements can be portrayed like in the classic documentaries "the davinci code" and "national treasure" :cheers:


No one said it was a documentary
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

ringotuna
Aug 3 2017, 07:30 AM
Oh Sh!t!!!

Posted Image
Posted Image
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

I think this is the 4th Dunkirk movie......None are portrayals of Britain's major defeat....The Brits pull roses out of the sh*t once again......... :oyvey
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 08:28 AM
ringotuna
Aug 3 2017, 06:22 AM
Opinionated
Aug 2 2017, 08:41 AM
ringotuna
Aug 2 2017, 04:33 AM
Opinionated
Aug 1 2017, 07:52 PM
I suppose the complaint is as valid as complaining that in the movie Wonder Women there weren't enough men represented on the Amazonian island...
Not sure who you're swiping at but let me point out an obvious distinction between Dunkirk and Wonder Woman.

One is a historical accounting of actual events which I believe most people would agree should not be rewritten to satisfy 21st century political correctness.

The other is a fantasy where producers have far more latitude to pander to public sensitivities.





The Amazons of mythology were a group of fierce female warriors who did not accept men as part of their society. The Amazonian Island in the movie Wonder Women had no men on it, in following with the mythology.

My point is that from a historic perspective, the Amazonian myth of a society of women who rejected men and WWII when men represented 98% of the in uniform military with only a very small representation of women in support assignments, are both portrayed reasonably accurately in the movies, granting some measure of artistic license. And neither of which can validly be complained about as not fairly "representing" the genders.

Like how a movie about the 1962 world series couldn't validly be accused of not fairly representing women because no women are portrayed as playing on the either team.
One has much more creative license in a mythological based movie than in a historically based film. That is assuming the directors wish to hold true to the actual events.
Sorry, where is that law written? I seem to have missed it.

Who said it was a law? I said "assuming the directors wish to hold true to the actual events" A qualifier which would hold the producers truer to historical fact.
Edited by ringotuna, Aug 4 2017, 03:38 AM.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 11:43 AM
Demagogue
Aug 3 2017, 11:39 AM
Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 11:23 AM
Demagogue
Aug 3 2017, 09:40 AM
Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 09:30 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
I never said you could not do it. I said that you face greater criticism if you take a great deal of artistic license with events that are well documented.
*shrug* I never doubted that. I have consistently said that historically women did not represent a significant percentage of those stranded at Dunkirk. I have serious doubts that they represented a significant percentage of those who came across the channel from the British Isles to help rescue the stranded. I think bitching about there not being enough women in a movie that portrays a historical event with some historical accuracy where women were not a significant part of the story to be pretty weak sauce.

So why are you guys debating me like I'm saying the opposite?
I was not debating you. I was saying that I thought you misunderstood ringotuna's point. That or you were being purposely obtuse which is fine if you are seeking to debate a point. :cheers:
Tuna seemed to take my using mythology to argue that the is no basis for complaining about a lack of women's roles in Dunkirk to be invalid. Apparently my agreeing with him was just too much for him, so he felt the need to quibble about analogy I used to agree with him. :rollseyes:
I've no problem with you agreeing with me. A blind hog will occasionally find the acorn. Whether there is a consensus or not, your analogy is one of apples and oranges when comparing a historical event to a mythological story. Don't know why you'd be so offended that you make it personal. :dunno:

Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

StillCrazy1
Aug 3 2017, 08:16 AM
ringotuna
Aug 3 2017, 06:17 AM
StillCrazy1
Aug 2 2017, 05:27 PM
ringotuna
Aug 2 2017, 04:33 AM
Opinionated
Aug 1 2017, 07:52 PM
I suppose the complaint is as valid as complaining that in the movie Wonder Women there weren't enough men represented on the Amazonian island...
Not sure who you're swiping at but let me point out an obvious distinction between Dunkirk and Wonder Woman.

One is a historical accounting of actual events which I believe most people would agree should not be rewritten to satisfy 21st century political correctness.

The other is a fantasy where producers have far more latitude to pander to public sensitivities.





A historical accounting of actual events would be a documentary.

"Dunkirk" is not a documentary.
Not necessarily true. History can be portrayed in fictional works as well.

True but that doesnt make the portrayal a documentary.

Historical elements can be portrayed like in the classic documentaries "the davinci code" and "national treasure" :cheers:


That's what I'm saying. Although I wouldn't use either of those movies as a best example. Think Pearl Harbor, Schindlers List.
Edited by ringotuna, Aug 4 2017, 05:02 AM.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
StillCrazy1
Member Avatar
!!!!
ringotuna
Aug 3 2017, 04:46 PM
StillCrazy1
Aug 3 2017, 08:16 AM
ringotuna
Aug 3 2017, 06:17 AM
StillCrazy1
Aug 2 2017, 05:27 PM
ringotuna
Aug 2 2017, 04:33 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
A historical accounting of actual events would be a documentary.

"Dunkirk" is not a documentary.
Not necessarily true. History can be portrayed in fictional works as well.

True but that doesnt make the portrayal a documentary.

Historical elements can be portrayed like in the classic documentaries "the davinci code" and "national treasure" :cheers:


No one said it was a documentary
I agree.

A historical accounting of actual events would be a documentary. Which the movie Dunkirk is not.


A romanticized story that is based on/in actual events is what we tend to get from Hollywood.
Ever notice the only 2 people Trump refuses to speak ill of are Stormy Daniels and Vladimir Putin?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
StillCrazy1
Member Avatar
!!!!
ringotuna
Aug 4 2017, 04:54 AM
StillCrazy1
Aug 3 2017, 08:16 AM
ringotuna
Aug 3 2017, 06:17 AM
StillCrazy1
Aug 2 2017, 05:27 PM
ringotuna
Aug 2 2017, 04:33 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
A historical accounting of actual events would be a documentary.

"Dunkirk" is not a documentary.
Not necessarily true. History can be portrayed in fictional works as well.

True but that doesnt make the portrayal a documentary.

Historical elements can be portrayed like in the classic documentaries "the davinci code" and "national treasure" :cheers:


That's what I'm saying. Although I wouldn't use either of those movies as a best example. Think Pearl Harbor, Schindlers List.
Schindlers List was the first one that came to my mind but I thought "National Treasure" was a funnier 'example'
Ever notice the only 2 people Trump refuses to speak ill of are Stormy Daniels and Vladimir Putin?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

StillCrazy1
Aug 4 2017, 06:25 AM
ringotuna
Aug 4 2017, 04:54 AM
StillCrazy1
Aug 3 2017, 08:16 AM
ringotuna
Aug 3 2017, 06:17 AM
StillCrazy1
Aug 2 2017, 05:27 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
Not necessarily true. History can be portrayed in fictional works as well.

True but that doesnt make the portrayal a documentary.

Historical elements can be portrayed like in the classic documentaries "the davinci code" and "national treasure" :cheers:


That's what I'm saying. Although I wouldn't use either of those movies as a best example. Think Pearl Harbor, Schindlers List.
Schindlers List was the first one that came to my mind but I thought "National Treasure" was a funnier 'example'
:) I've seen several episodes of Family Guy that were more historically accurate than National Treasure. :biggrin:
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CautionaryTales
Member Avatar

My guess is that the women's roles in the Dunkirk evacuation were more in the support at home of the families that were apart. Almost all of those men involved in the evacuation, both being saved and providing transportation had families at home that struggled and worried about their missing pieces. That's no small thing.
That's probably enough right there for a few more movies.
Edited by CautionaryTales, Aug 4 2017, 07:32 AM.


Have you paid your internet taxes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Aug 4 2017, 03:52 AM
Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 11:43 AM
Demagogue
Aug 3 2017, 11:39 AM
Opinionated
Aug 3 2017, 11:23 AM
Demagogue
Aug 3 2017, 09:40 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
*shrug* I never doubted that. I have consistently said that historically women did not represent a significant percentage of those stranded at Dunkirk. I have serious doubts that they represented a significant percentage of those who came across the channel from the British Isles to help rescue the stranded. I think bitching about there not being enough women in a movie that portrays a historical event with some historical accuracy where women were not a significant part of the story to be pretty weak sauce.

So why are you guys debating me like I'm saying the opposite?
I was not debating you. I was saying that I thought you misunderstood ringotuna's point. That or you were being purposely obtuse which is fine if you are seeking to debate a point. :cheers:
Tuna seemed to take my using mythology to argue that the is no basis for complaining about a lack of women's roles in Dunkirk to be invalid. Apparently my agreeing with him was just too much for him, so he felt the need to quibble about analogy I used to agree with him. :rollseyes:
I've no problem with you agreeing with me. A blind hog will occasionally find the acorn. Whether there is a consensus or not, your analogy is one of apples and oranges when comparing a historical event to a mythological story. Don't know why you'd be so offended that you make it personal. :dunno:

My analogy is fine. Since you agreed with my conclusion there was no point in trying to critic my analogy unless you just can't let anything I say go by without some kind of response.

And that's a "you" problem.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Op EDITORIALS: personal & political governance · Next Topic »
Add Reply