FARK.com: (7464268) While everyone's been going on about Skyfall and Twilight, Argo has quietly earned more than $100 million since its debut

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		While everyone's been going on about Skyfall and Twilight, Argo has quietly earned more than $100 million since its debut (hollywoodreporter.com)		80
		More: Cool, Ben Affleck, Argo, North America, box offices, Alan Arkin, historical fictions, Grant Heslov

• • •

2388 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 03 Dec 2012 at 2:26 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7464268

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

80 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

MadSkillz		2012-12-03 12:13:42 AM

Another Amero-centric movie to not even pay tribute to us helping them.

Arrogance. farking arrogance.

Apos		2012-12-03 12:35:02 AM

Excellent news. It's Affleck's best yet.

Marcus Aurelius		2012-12-03 01:09:26 AM

I bet it doesn't have an arrow stuck in its knee.

Darth_Lukecash		2012-12-03 02:10:36 AM

I do want to see it. People are saying Affleck is becoming a really great director.

you are a puppet		2012-12-03 02:30:52 AM

Maybe everyone's going on about Skyfall and Twilight because they made a lot more than $100 million, in their first week. Isn't Skyfall close to a billion now?

log_jammin		2012-12-03 02:40:12 AM

MadSkillz: Another Amero-centric movie to not even pay tribute to us helping them.

Arrogance. farking arrogance.

If you want history go pick up a book. this is Hollywood.

Aboleth		2012-12-03 02:43:34 AM

I haven't been going on about Twilight. Must be you. I'm sure it's you.

LDM90		2012-12-03 02:53:12 AM

Yay?

LDM90		2012-12-03 02:56:26 AM

Is this like when my boss congratulates us on our weekly sales figures and I'm supposed to be happy but all I can think of is how I could pay off all my debts and not work for the next 10 years on what we brought in last week?

whooter		2012-12-03 03:05:23 AM

MadSkillz: Another Amero-centric movie to not even pay tribute to us helping them.

Arrogance. farking arrogance.

? Canada gets all kinds of props in the film... Or is there something I'm missing?

you are a puppet		2012-12-03 03:27:49 AM

fusillade762		2012-12-03 03:38:14 AM

Wow, another $41 million and it'll be right about "Twilight"s opening weekend.

padraig		2012-12-03 03:40:27 AM

whooter: MadSkillz: Another Amero-centric movie to not even pay tribute to us helping them.

Arrogance. farking arrogance.

? Canada gets all kinds of props in the film... Or is there something I'm missing?

I think he wished the movie would have spent less time on the fake-movie-as-a-cover-story part, and more on the getting-freaking-bored-playing-cards-and-drinking-wine-and-nothing-els e part of the movie, because apparently it would have been fairer to the efforts of the Canadians, and also would make a more entertaining film, somehow.

thamike		2012-12-03 05:40:50 AM

MadSkillz: Another Amero-centric movie to not even pay tribute to us helping them.

Arrogance. farking arrogance.

Eh?

CujoQuarrel		2012-12-03 05:58:05 AM

The name Argos brought this to mind from an old(70 ish) radio rock opera kinda Flash Gordon like. Can't remember the name (on the King Biscuit Flour Hour maybe). The Argos is the name of their ship

[Guard runs up to Em porer Ming]
"The Argos' crew is escaping!!"
[Ming]
"Well, Argos' crew yourself"

// Rim shot

INeedAName		2012-12-03 05:58:28 AM

MadSkillz: Another Amero-centric movie to not even pay tribute to us helping them.

Arrogance. farking arrogance.

You know what's arrogant, using the word 'us.' As if you are somehow independent. America's hat.

coeyagi		2012-12-03 06:09:49 AM

Argo is a great movie, but while everyone is going on about Skyfall and Twilight, they have not-so-quietly earned way more than $100 million each.

(i.e., wtf is your point, subby?)

Jim_Callahan		2012-12-03 06:13:00 AM

MadSkillz: Another Amero-centric movie to not even pay tribute to us helping them.

Arrogance. farking arrogance.

So... didn't see the movie, then? I mean, I can't imagine you watched it and yet missed the Canadians being the heroes for half of it.

stoli n coke		2012-12-03 06:51:18 AM

Popcorn Johnny		2012-12-03 06:55:52 AM

I thought it was good, but was a little let down when I came home, researched the actual events and realized how much was changed for the sake of storytelling.

UNC_Samurai		2012-12-03 07:06:16 AM

padraig: whooter: MadSkillz: Another Amero-centric movie to not even pay tribute to us helping them.

Arrogance. farking arrogance.

? Canada gets all kinds of props in the film... Or is there something I'm missing?

I think he wished the movie would have spent less time on the fake-movie-as-a-cover-story part, and more on the getting-freaking-bored-playing-cards-and-drinking-wine-and-nothing-els e part of the movie, because apparently it would have been fairer to the efforts of the Canadians, and also would make a more entertaining film, somehow.

Yeah, and I went and saw Lincoln on Saturday. I was appalled at how little the movie emphasized the Canadian contribution to the Union effort.

Sybarite		2012-12-03 07:38:33 AM

I enjoyed the movie overall, but for me the best parts were those involving Alan Arkin and John Goodman; really great pair of characters. Also I have to say that I found Clea DuVall weirdly hot in the 70's-era hair and glasses.

Flint Ironstag		2012-12-03 07:38:40 AM

Jim_Callahan: MadSkillz: Another Amero-centric movie to not even pay tribute to us helping them.

Arrogance. farking arrogance.

So... didn't see the movie, then? I mean, I can't imagine you watched it and yet missed the Canadians being the heroes for half of it.

The film showed the Americans being "in charge" and running the show but "allowing" the Canadians to get the public credit for political reasons. In fact Canadians were behind the rescue with the CIA supporting them.
Also a character said no other embassy wanted to help them. In fact the six were taken in by the British embassy at first and hid for a couple of days and the NZ embassy helped as well. It was agreed by all that the Canadian ambassador residence was by far the most secure and suitable so they moved them. The British embassy helped other Americans in the country at the time and the New Zealanders drove the six to the airport. Hardly "Not wanting to get involved"

So yes, the film did take all the glory for the USA while downplaying Canadian, British and New Zealand contributions.

BalugaJoe		2012-12-03 07:45:02 AM

Daredevil sucks.

thebravetoast		2012-12-03 07:53:24 AM

I went to a lecture given by Ken Taylor (the Canadian ambassador) and his wife a few weeks ago. Basically he said that many of the CIA-focused events in the film were dramatic additions to the story, rather then taking credit for things the Canadians had done.

A few examples he gave were the market scene (didn't actually happen), the ticket-buying fiasco (in reality Mrs Taylor just went to the airport and bought them), and all the drama at the airport--in reality they just got on the plane and flew off with no fuss.

He was much more annoyed by the insinuation at the end that the canadians were only allowed to take credit for political reasons, rather then by the dramatic license taken with the story itself.

stoli n coke		2012-12-03 07:55:58 AM

Flint Ironstag: Jim_Callahan: MadSkillz: Another Amero-centric movie to not even pay tribute to us helping them.

Arrogance. farking arrogance.

So... didn't see the movie, then? I mean, I can't imagine you watched it and yet missed the Canadians being the heroes for half of it.

The film showed the Americans being "in charge" and running the show but "allowing" the Canadians to get the public credit for political reasons. In fact Canadians were behind the rescue with the CIA supporting them.
Also a character said no other embassy wanted to help them. In fact the six were taken in by the British embassy at first and hid for a couple of days and the NZ embassy helped as well. It was agreed by all that the Canadian ambassador residence was by far the most secure and suitable so they moved them. The British embassy helped other Americans in the country at the time and the New Zealanders drove the six to the airport. Hardly "Not wanting to get involved"

So yes, the film did take all the glory for the USA while downplaying Canadian, British and New Zealand contributions.

Lots of movies condense characters and places to avoid having too many characters and subplots that would make the movie convoluted, confusing, and uninteresting. In the case of the embassy, the Canadian ambassador took on aspects of all the people that hid the houseguests.

The Alan Arkin character was a complete fictional composite of all the Hollywood folks that helped make the fake movie seem legitimate.

Condensing people and events is pretty standard for movies based on actual events. Even Schindler's List went pretty fast and loose with the actual historical record.

In short, it's a movie, not a Ken Burns documentary.

CarnySaur		2012-12-03 08:04:08 AM

In real life, I don't hear people "going on" about any of those movies. Meanwhile, on the internet, people are still "going on" about The Dark Knight Rises.

digistil		2012-12-03 08:10:46 AM

Is Argo the movie right wingers like Limbaugh and Hannity are going nuts over "because it doesn't show Reagan as the savior"?

exparrot		2012-12-03 08:14:36 AM

Bombs.
Phantoms.
Yo.

/c'mon people!

stoli n coke		2012-12-03 08:16:46 AM

digistil: Is Argo the movie right wingers like Limbaugh and Hannity are going nuts over "because it doesn't show Reagan as the savior"?

Dude, Limbaugh and Hannity are mad that Passion of the Christ didn't show Reagan as the savior.

Flint Ironstag		2012-12-03 08:22:51 AM

stoli n coke: Flint Ironstag: Jim_Callahan: MadSkillz: Another Amero-centric movie to not even pay tribute to us helping them.

Arrogance. farking arrogance.

So... didn't see the movie, then? I mean, I can't imagine you watched it and yet missed the Canadians being the heroes for half of it.

The film showed the Americans being "in charge" and running the show but "allowing" the Canadians to get the public credit for political reasons. In fact Canadians were behind the rescue with the CIA supporting them.
Also a character said no other embassy wanted to help them. In fact the six were taken in by the British embassy at first and hid for a couple of days and the NZ embassy helped as well. It was agreed by all that the Canadian ambassador residence was by far the most secure and suitable so they moved them. The British embassy helped other Americans in the country at the time and the New Zealanders drove the six to the airport. Hardly "Not wanting to get involved"

So yes, the film did take all the glory for the USA while downplaying Canadian, British and New Zealand contributions.

Lots of movies condense characters and places to avoid having too many characters and subplots that would make the movie convoluted, confusing, and uninteresting. In the case of the embassy, the Canadian ambassador took on aspects of all the people that hid the houseguests.

The Alan Arkin character was a complete fictional composite of all the Hollywood folks that helped make the fake movie seem legitimate.

Condensing people and events is pretty standard for movies based on actual events. Even Schindler's List went pretty fast and loose with the actual historical record.

In short, it's a movie, not a Ken Burns documentary.

So why put in a line specifically saying no other embassy, British or NZ, wanted to help?

They didn't just make it the Canadian embassy, they went out of their way to say the British and NZ embassy's didn't want to know.

And why make up incidents to add drama when the fact of having to move them from an unsecure location to a better location is in itself a dramatic event?

stoli n coke		2012-12-03 08:33:07 AM

And why make up incidents to add drama when the fact of having to move them from an unsecure location to a better location is in itself a dramatic event?

Because you've got 2 hours to tell the story, and the fake movie part was the most interesting aspect of it. Thus, you simplify the setup to get to the action as quickly as possible.

Apik0r0s		2012-12-03 08:38:09 AM

stoli n coke: digistil: Is Argo the movie right wingers like Limbaugh and Hannity are going nuts over "because it doesn't show Reagan as the savior"?

Dude, Limbaugh and Hannity are mad that Passion of the Christ didn't show Reagan as the savior.

In his defense, Reagan was on his way, on dinosaur back, to save Jesus and get him out of Jerusalem but the libs in Congress shut him down. Of course, you won't hear about ANY of that in the mainstream media.

Bored Horde		2012-12-03 08:38:25 AM

Come on guys, Americans will always whitewash out their allies contributions everywhere.

America single-handedly won WWI, WWII, and Korea. The real reason Afghanistan is so FUBAR is because of NATO troops, especially the bungling Canadians in Khandahar. 9/11 happened because Canada let the terrorists into America.

Par for the course. Trudeau captured the situation perfectly when he said we're a mouse beside an elephant. America has always projected it's own reality onto the world, and you can either roll with it or get rolled over.

Gunny Highway		2012-12-03 08:40:21 AM

Argo was a great movie. I was sweating throughout.

jso2897		2012-12-03 08:41:29 AM

Actual people that I know keep saying it is good. That's unusual.

khhsdude		2012-12-03 08:41:46 AM

Things get changed in movies. History doesn't focus test well.

Gunny Highway		2012-12-03 08:47:21 AM

The Canadians werent heroes in Argo? Lots of heroes in that movie, not just the Americans.

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion		2012-12-03 08:50:13 AM

Bored Horde: Come on guys, Americans will always whitewash out their allies contributions everywhere.

It's easy to blame "America" for that, but ALL countries do it. You ever watch any Chinese WW2 period pieces? To hear them tell it, they single-handedly destroyed the Japanese AND the Germans. All countries have jingoism and patriotic propaganda. You can either accept it and enjoy the film anyway, or you can get butthurt about it and biatch on the internet.

Solon Isonomia		2012-12-03 08:50:25 AM

exparrot: Bombs.
Phantoms.
Yo.

/c'mon people!

Yo, Phantoms like a malfarker.

jayhawk88		2012-12-03 08:50:37 AM

Look at this picture. LOOK AT IT, DAMN YOU!

www.eonline.com

This man might be the best living, active movie director in the world right now. Oh, but that Mayan talk is all a bunch of nonsense, right? RIGHT??

stoli n coke		2012-12-03 08:58:41 AM

jayhawk88: Look at this picture. LOOK AT IT, DAMN YOU!

[www.eonline.com image 600x445]

This man might be the best living, active movie director in the world right now. Oh, but that Mayan talk is all a bunch of nonsense, right? RIGHT??

Funny thing is, this guy spent months on set with Michael Bay and Kevin Smith, and still turned out to be a very good director.

Dude just might be naturally gifted at it. Kind of like Eastwood, he can only play a variation of one or two characters, but he seems to flourish behind the scenes.

Plus, it's interesting to finally see who did the actual work on that Good Will Hunting script.

Flint Ironstag		2012-12-03 08:59:16 AM

stoli n coke: And why make up incidents to add drama when the fact of having to move them from an unsecure location to a better location is in itself a dramatic event?

Because you've got 2 hours to tell the story, and the fake movie part was the most interesting aspect of it. Thus, you simplify the setup to get to the action as quickly as possible.

A very good point, in storytelling terms. Still doesn't excuse the fact that they went out of their way to state the British and NZ embassies didn't want to help when in fact they did. And to claim the Canadians were "allowed" to take the public credit only for political reasons, when in fact they did most of the work.

I have no problem with films like Saving Private Ryan, for example, only showing the US forces on D Day. The story was about an American unit, it makes sense. But Argo is like having a US officer in SPR say "We've had to invade France all by ourselves because the British and Canadians didn't want to get involved."

There's showing a certain aspect to a story, and there's making outright claims that actual events didn't happen when in fact they did. Argo didn't just not show the British embassy sheltering the six for a couple of days, they outright said the Brits didn't want to help.

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion		2012-12-03 08:59:26 AM

downtownkid		2012-12-03 09:20:09 AM

Dorf11		2012-12-03 09:21:22 AM

Argo: Slightly More Factual than U-571

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men		2012-12-03 09:34:31 AM

Flint Ironstag:
A very good point, in storytelling terms. Still doesn't excuse the fact that they went out of their way to state the British and NZ embassies didn't want to help when in fact they did. And to claim the Canadians were "allowed" to take the public credit only for political reasons, when in fact they did most of the work.

The bit about the British and NZ embassies seemed unnecessary but my take on the "public credit" part was that they were saying the Canadians would take all the public credit for political reasons, rather than part if the credit as would have reflected the events.

The film also made it very clear that the Canadian Ambassador was sticking his neck out in a big way.

It was a bit US centric but we're hardly talking U-571 here.

FlashHarry		2012-12-03 10:03:31 AM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: It was a bit US centric but we're hardly talking U-571 here.

god, i almost walked out of that piece of shiat. i mean, if you're going to rewrite WWII history, at least be brash about it like tarantino in basterds!