3 ms·
No it's not a misunderstanding of what you wrote. > He said the documentary nailed what it was actually like. The hollywood version, nope. Here you are compa
by Klinky 4y ago
No it's not a misunderstanding of what you wrote.
> He said the documentary nailed what it was actually like. The hollywood version, nope.
Here you are comparing a fictional film with a documentary and dismissing the ability for fictional film to accurately portray the experience. This is not the case with all fictional films, and not all documentaries are actually superior or free from fiction/embellishment themselves.
- WalterBright 4y agoExcept you won't know if the fictional film is accurate or not because they don't cite sources.
- Klinky 4y agoYou cannot ask your dad or my dad or WW2 vets if it's an accurate depiction? People shouldn't assume fiction is fact, but that doesn't mean fiction cannot contain facts. I don't think anyone is saying you should cite fiction alone, but it can be used to spur interest in a topic.
- WalterBright 4y ago> that doesn't mean fiction cannot contain facts I never said "cannot contain facts". You're arguing with your strawman. > I don't think anyone is saying you should cite fiction alone Just about everyone arguing with me is trying to justify citing "The Jungle" as valid source all by itself. It's a work of fiction.
- Klinky 4y ago> I never said "cannot contain facts". You're arguing with your strawman. Then I don't get the point of your exercise which seemed focused on dismissing the power of film to portray historically accurate situations. >Just about everyone arguing with me is trying to justify citing "The Jungle" as valid source all by itself. It's a work of fiction. Speaking of strawmen...