Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

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

2399 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 03 Dec 2012 at 2:26 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-03 12:13:42 AM  
Another Amero-centric movie to not even pay tribute to us helping them.

Arrogance. farking arrogance.
 
2012-12-03 12:35:02 AM  
Excellent news. It's Affleck's best yet.
 
2012-12-03 01:09:26 AM  
I bet it doesn't have an arrow stuck in its knee.
 
2012-12-03 02:10:36 AM  
I do want to see it. People are saying Affleck is becoming a really great director.
 
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?
 
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.
 
2012-12-03 02:43:34 AM  
I haven't been going on about Twilight. Must be you. I'm sure it's you.
 
2012-12-03 02:53:12 AM  
Yay?
 
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?
 
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?
 
2012-12-03 03:27:49 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?


His profile says he's from British Columbia. I assume by "us" he means the British or the Columbians.
 
2012-12-03 03:38:14 AM  
Wow, another $41 million and it'll be right about "Twilight"s opening weekend.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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?)
 
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.
 
2012-12-03 06:51:18 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.


Ease up. Our Canuckistani brethren are having a rough time. Especially since they realize nobody cares about the NHL strike.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
2012-12-03 07:45:02 AM  
Daredevil sucks.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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"?
 
2012-12-03 08:14:36 AM  
Bombs.
Phantoms.
Yo.

/c'mon people!
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
2012-12-03 08:40:21 AM  
Argo was a great movie. I was sweating throughout.
 
2012-12-03 08:41:29 AM  
Actual people that I know keep saying it is good. That's unusual.
 
2012-12-03 08:41:46 AM  
Things get changed in movies. History doesn't focus test well.
 
2012-12-03 08:47:21 AM  
The Canadians werent heroes in Argo? Lots of heroes in that movie, not just the Americans.
 
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.
 
2012-12-03 08:50:25 AM  

exparrot: Bombs.
Phantoms.
Yo.

/c'mon people!


Yo, Phantoms like a malfarker.
 
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??
 
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.
 
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.
 
2012-12-03 08:59:26 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??


He's a much better director than actor. I'm glad he made the transition.
 
2012-12-03 09:20:09 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.



Citation needed.
 
2012-12-03 09:21:22 AM  
Argo: Slightly More Factual than U-571
 
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.
 
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!
 
2012-12-03 10:06:48 AM  
i49.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-03 10:14:49 AM  

Dorf11: Argo: Slightly More Factual than U-571


Or "Pearl Harbor"
 
2012-12-03 10:20:17 AM  

FlashHarry: 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!


I was in the UK when it came out. It went down like dysentery on the ISS.
 
2012-12-03 10:30:37 AM  

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


There is a current Cracked article about artists who ressuscitated their carreers from the pits of despair, and one of them was Ben Affleck. They basically said that not only did his directing gigs improved his standing, it made people completely rethink his collaboration with Matt Damon, where Matt Damon before appears as the brain of the outfit, and now looks more like the dumb blonde of the couple.
 
2012-12-03 10:45:07 AM  
I liked "The Good Shepard"
 
2012-12-03 11:15:26 AM  
Its a movie. It is going to be exciting. It did that and entertained without making the Canadians look like crap.

It needed drama and excitement and it delivered.

Well made. Just because it made people look at the real story and figure it out that the movie wasnt 100% correct ( I know no one that thought that the movie was 100% factual after leaving) doesnt mean the movie sucked.

If movies like this were 100% factual they would be boring as hell.

I am sure Zero Dark Thirty will take a little license with the true story.
 
2012-12-03 11:43:30 AM  

Bored Horde: America has always projected it's own reality onto the world, and you can either roll with it or get rolled over.


Every country I've ever lived in has overstated their contributions to the world. This is not a singular American trait (nor is it one that Canadians don't share).
 
2012-12-03 11:44:56 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: 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.


And the poor maid who had to flee to Iraq (in the movie). That was just sad.
 
2012-12-03 11:45:16 AM  
My wife wanted to see ARGO, and specifically asked me NOT to go on about any historical innacuracies.

Yes, the movie played up the CIA's role, and probably streamlined a helluva lot, but the meat of the story
was there, and it was a great film.

About the only thing I can ding it on is the poor quality of the hairpieces, but that's something common to
any film set in the 1970s these days.
 
2012-12-03 11:51:27 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: About the only thing I can ding it on is the poor quality of the hairpieces, but that's something common to
any film set in the 1970s these days.



No. 70's hair was really that bad - like a dead raccoon draped over your head. I was there, man!
 
2012-12-03 12:00:40 PM  
"Ben Affleck has a lot going for him. Not everything, but a lot.
 
2012-12-03 12:03:18 PM  
As much as we all might want to hate on him, Affleck is batting 3 for 3 as a director.
 
2012-12-03 12:07:48 PM  
I really, really enjoyed Argo and it opened my eyes to a part of the historical story that I was way too young to understand when it happened in real life. I remember my parents watching the news in the evening and the hostage "days in captivity" counter on the screen.

I was impressed with how Ben A. set up the story without bogging it down - the whole movie used news footage very well. The movie inspired me to go back and familiarize myself with the details of what really happened.

Know what really shocked me? How young the 'guests'/embassy staffers were!! They were mostly mid-20s. Holy crappola! They were babies!

/Plus, I never realized what an amazing body Afleck has. YOWZA.
 
2012-12-03 12:12:10 PM  

oldfarthenry: DjangoStonereaver: About the only thing I can ding it on is the poor quality of the hairpieces, but that's something common to
any film set in the 1970s these days.


No. 70's hair was really that bad - like a dead raccoon draped over your head. I was there, man!


As was I, my friend, but while the hair itself was very sub-par, it at least moved. The wigs that the people
in the film needed to pull off the look make it look like they are all hydrocephalics with steel wool on their
heads.

/And don't get me started about the mustaches....
 
2012-12-03 01:59:28 PM  
The movie was good in my opinion, especially in the way it created tension even though I knew how it turned out for those people.

The movie makes clear that the problems were of US construction, and those people were only able to avoid capture and escape the country due to non US efforts. I think it's fair then, with that foundation, that the main characters were US citizens.
 
2012-12-03 02:24:49 PM  

graggor: Its a movie. It is going to be exciting. It did that and entertained without making the Canadians look like crap.

It needed drama and excitement and it delivered.

Well made. Just because it made people look at the real story and figure it out that the movie wasnt 100% correct ( I know no one that thought that the movie was 100% factual after leaving) doesnt mean the movie sucked.

If movies like this were 100% factual they would be boring as hell.

I am sure Zero Dark Thirty will take a little license with the true story.


Precisely.
 
2012-12-03 04:01:50 PM  

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 hes either trolling or hes never seen the film with the last 5 minutes also showing the hundreds of signs people made saying "Thank You Canada" as the people came home........

Oh and Skyfall was not that great, they seemed to gloss over a lot of the story and I just didnt buy Javier as being that gay, it was too over the top and he seems more effective in acting when hes being subtle.
 
2012-12-03 05:44:10 PM  

steamingpile: Oh and Skyfall was not that great, they seemed to gloss over a lot of the story and I just didnt buy Javier as being that gay, it was too over the top and he seems more effective in acting when hes being subtle.


I don't think he was supposed to be actually gay. I think he was coming on to Bond to throw him off his game. Skyfall rebooted the entire series. In a good way.
 
2012-12-03 05:51:16 PM  

downtownkid: 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.


Citation needed.


How about the account of one of the six? His account of all the movements on the ground, all arranged locally from his account, by the Brits, Canadians and others.
 
2012-12-03 06:01:15 PM  

downtownkid: Citation needed.


Or This account from The Slate?

The most disputed aspect of the movie's version of events has to do with Canada's role in the escape. 30 years ago, Canada received complete credit for the rescue, because the U.S. was worried about possible repercussions if CIA involvement was publicized. (They may also have wanted to maintain the plausibility of a similar ruse in future.) Argo corrects that version of events-or, rather, overcorrects it, downplaying the actual extent of Canadian involvement, which was considerable. The Americans were housed by two Canadians: the Ambassador Ken Taylor, and a Canadian embassy employee, John Sheardown. (In the film, all of them stay with Taylor; Sheardown does not appear at all.) It was Taylor who cabled Washington to begin the escape plan in earnest, and once the plan was decided on, Canadians "scouted the airport, sent people in and out of Iran to establish random patterns and get copies of entry and exit visas, bought three sets of airline tickets," and "even coached the six in sounding Canadian."

Almost none of that appears in Argo. Taylor himself has a major part, and is presented as a sympathetic and brave man who took great personal risks to save the Americans. But his actual role was even larger. He was "spying for the U.S. throughout the hostage crisis, at the request of Jimmy Carter." After some friends who attended the Argo premiere in Toronto described it to Taylor, he expressed concern "that we're portrayed as innkeepers who are waiting to be saved by the CIA," which is a pretty fair description of what the film depicts.
 
2012-12-03 06:10:10 PM  

thamike: I don't think he was supposed to be actually gay. I think he was coming on to Bond to throw him off his game. Skyfall rebooted the entire series. In a good way.


This disagrees.

I dont care that he was gay, I just thought it was a poor attempt. I get how you think it rebooted it but I feel it basically just used this to get rid of any tradition and introduce young, pretty characters.

About the only actor that seemed competent in the new film was ralph finnes, the rest seemed in over their head and Javier was misused in this role, also they could have touched on why he hated a certain person so much instead of just showing his injury. Ehhhh it was ok but far from the best bond film.
 
2012-12-03 06:41:16 PM  
I saw Argo and liked it. Didn't see blond Bond and sparkly vampires.
 
2012-12-03 07:12:53 PM  

steamingpile: thamike: I don't think he was supposed to be actually gay. I think he was coming on to Bond to throw him off his game. Skyfall rebooted the entire series. In a good way.

This disagrees.

I dont care that he was gay, I just thought it was a poor attempt. I get how you think it rebooted it but I feel it basically just used this to get rid of any tradition and introduce young, pretty characters.

About the only actor that seemed competent in the new film was ralph finnes, the rest seemed in over their head and Javier was misused in this role, also they could have touched on why he hated a certain person so much instead of just showing his injury. Ehhhh it was ok but far from the best bond film.


That doesn't matter, as Javier Bardem agrees with me--

As for Bardem, the Spanish actor noted that while Silva's sexuality was "part of the game," his goal as the character was simply to create "uncomfortable situations" for the other players. "Within that, you can read anything that you want or wish," he said. "But it was more about putting the other person in a very uncomfortable situation where even James Bond doesn't know how to get out of it."

He was an unhinged character, murderously trolling MI6, and he pulled it off well, in my opinion, especially since Bond movies are not deep explorations of the human condition in any sense.

"Best Bond" is a bit vague. It was certainly one of the most interesting, and definitely the most enjoyable on its own merits of the Craig Bonds so far. Camp doesn't play well anymore, and all the geeks lose their sh*t when Bond is morbid. I think this was a good balance, and definitely better than the last one.
 
2012-12-03 07:29:53 PM  
Argo was good from the get-go. Never let up and is one of the best films this year. And it's based on events and takes liberties just like every other Hollywood film based on events. Now, if this was a documentary and the filmakers were screwing around with the facts, that's a completely different thing.It's not like the film is a Leni Riefenstahl production.
 
2012-12-03 09:35:40 PM  

jso2897: Actual people that I know keep saying it is good. That's unusual.


Umm... Do you know some fake (non-actual) people, too? Are you off your meds again?
 
2012-12-03 11:04:39 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: 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.


This. Sorry that Joe the Angry Canadian had to get his toque in a knot over it, but I think that was made clear in the movie. Even at the end they have Carter praising Canada.
 
2012-12-03 11:09:12 PM  

thebravetoast: 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.


The drama at the airport was ridiculous, chasing them onto the runway seemed like a dumb action movie thing to do. Why not call the tower and cancel the flight? Granted, my significant other pointed out that 3rd world bullyboys don't aways think their cunning plans through. So I shrugged. Also, the ending would have been kinda dull if they got on the plane and that was that. The market scene may not have happened, but it had a truthiness that felt appropriate to the movie.
 
2012-12-03 11:14:14 PM  

thamike: He was an unhinged character, murderously trolling MI6, and he pulled it off well, in my opinion, especially since Bond movies are not deep explorations of the human condition in any sense.

"Best Bond" is a bit vague. It was certainly one of the most interesting, and definitely the most enjoyable on its own merits of the Craig Bonds so far. Camp doesn't play well anymore, and all the geeks lose their sh*t when Bond is morbid. I think this was a good balance, and definitely better than the last one.


His scheme may have been pulled off well but thats the script not his acting, over the top acting is not his strong point and the fact that no matter how many times he says hes not playing it gay is irrelevant when every other film review says hes playing it gay and even the gay community says the same......

The days of camp roger moore are gone and personally I like casino royale more than this one, me and the GF both came out of it with a "meh" feeling.
 
2012-12-04 05:10:08 AM  

steamingpile: His scheme may have been pulled off well but thats the script not his acting, over the top acting is not his strong point and the fact that no matter how many times he says hes not playing it gay is irrelevant when every other film review says hes playing it gay and even the gay community says the same......


There's obviously nothing I can do for you.

steamingpile: The days of camp roger moore are gone and personally I like casino royale more than this one, me and the GF both came out of it with a "meh" feeling.



OK.
 
2012-12-04 11:28:44 AM  

Flint Ironstag: downtownkid: 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.


Citation needed.

How about the account of one of the six? His account of all the movements on the ground, all arranged locally from his account, by the Brits, Canadians and others.


You claimed that the Canadians were behind the rescue with the CIA supporting them. The link you provided is written by "one of six Americans who were rescued by Tony Mendez, TheCIA employee". Those are his words. The article goes on to say: "Our Canadian hosts kept us confident and comfortable, and the plan hatched by Mendez worked even better than Argo suggests". So thank you for the proof that you are full of shiat.
 
2012-12-04 11:48:50 AM  

Flint Ironstag: downtownkid: Citation needed.

Or This account from The Slate?

The most disputed aspect of the movie's version of events has to do with Canada's role in the escape. 30 years ago, Canada received complete credit for the rescue, because the U.S. was worried about possible repercussions if CIA involvement was publicized. (They may also have wanted to maintain the plausibility of a similar ruse in future.) Argo corrects that version of events-or, rather, overcorrects it, downplaying the actual extent of Canadian involvement, which was considerable. The Americans were housed by two Canadians: the Ambassador Ken Taylor, and a Canadian embassy employee, John Sheardown. (In the film, all of them stay with Taylor; Sheardown does not appear at all.) It was Taylor who cabled Washington to begin the escape plan in earnest, and once the plan was decided on, Canadians "scouted the airport, sent people in and out of Iran to establish random patterns and get copies of entry and exit visas, bought three sets of airline tickets," and "even coached the six in sounding Canadian."

Almost none of that appears in Argo. Taylor himself has a major part, and is presented as a sympathetic and brave man who took great personal risks to save the Americans. But his actual role was even larger. He was "spying for the U.S. throughout the hostage crisis, at the request of Jimmy Carter." After some friends who attended the Argo premiere in Toronto described it to Taylor, he expressed concern "that we're portrayed as innkeepers who are waiting to be saved by the CIA," which is a pretty fair description of what the film depicts.


And that article states that: "30 years ago Canada received complete credit for the rescue...Argo corrects that version of events, or, rather, over corrects it."

So Argo minimized the Canadian involvement, the extent of which had historically been greatly exaggerated and you are outraged? Get over it.
 
2012-12-04 12:38:24 PM  

downtownkid: Flint Ironstag: downtownkid: 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.


Citation needed.

How about the account of one of the six? His account of all the movements on the ground, all arranged locally from his account, by the Brits, Canadians and others.

You claimed that the Canadians were behind the rescue with the CIA supporting them. The link you provided is written by "one of six Americans who were rescued by Tony Mendez, TheCIA employee". Those are his words. The article goes on to say: "Our Canadian hosts kept us confident and comfortable, and the plan hatched by Mendez worked even better than Argo suggests". So thank you for the proof that you are full of shiat.


The CIA came up with the movie cover story. The Canadians organised the visas, passports, plane tickets etc. And that's ignoring the fact that the CIA only got involved long after the six had been sheltered by the British and Canadian embassies, all arranged locally.

That's the "minimising Canadian and British involvement".

Then there's the total lie in stating "The British embassy don't want to know" when in reality they had sheltered them first, and only agreed with the Canadians to move them because the British residence itself was under threat of being taken.

That's not "minimising" British involvement. It's not even "ignoring" it. It's stating the British did not want to help when it fact that already had.

Maybe a British director should make a film about D Day and have a British character say "We've had to invade France all by ourselves because the Americans don't want to know.." so I can see you defend that with "It's just a movie, it's no big deal"
 
Displayed 80 of 80 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report