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.

(Guardian)   Iran to sue Hollywood over its unrealistic portrayal in Argo. Told to get in line behind William Wallace, the 300 Spartans, the Mayans and absolutely everyone involved in WWII   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 58
    More: Repeat, Hollywood, WWII, Iran, Iranian media, hostage crisis, diplomatic ties, Venezuelans, mayans  
•       •       •

2042 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 8:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-13 08:17:44 AM
And this will accomplish so much
 
2013-03-13 08:20:11 AM
Tehran hires French lawyer Isabelle Coutant-Peyre to bring case over Hollywood 'distorting image' of Islamic republic

They should have called Saul
 
2013-03-13 08:20:56 AM
Sorry Iran, the Canadians where here first.
 
2013-03-13 08:21:29 AM
"defending Iran against films that have been made by Hollywood to distort the country's image"

Like they don't do a pretty good job of it themselves.
 
2013-03-13 08:22:00 AM
Maybe, they're just after royalties. After all, without Iran taking hostages, that movie would have never happened.
 
2013-03-13 08:23:13 AM
Hollywood's going to have to scramble to find some lawyers.
 
2013-03-13 08:24:26 AM

StrikitRich: Tehran hires French lawyer Isabelle Coutant-Peyre to bring case over Hollywood 'distorting image' of Islamic republic


graphics8.nytimes.com

www.petapixel.com

"How DARE you Hollywood!! Distorting images is our #1 industry!"
 
2013-03-13 08:26:16 AM

Burr: Sorry Iran, the Canadians where here first.


Canada gave us Nickelback and Celine Dion. Best thing they can do is STFU and call it even.
 
2013-03-13 08:27:44 AM

Burr: Sorry Iran, the Canadians where here first.


I think the Kiwis filed first.
 
2013-03-13 08:28:42 AM
Other Hollywood films that have infuriated Iranians include: 300, which depicts King Leonidas and a force of 300 men fighting the Persians at Thermopylae in 480 BC - which was described by Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as "insulting to Iran"; Brian Gilbert's 1991 film Not Without My Daughter; and The Wrestler.

Really?
 
2013-03-13 08:32:43 AM

stoli n coke: Maybe, they're just after royalties. After all, without Iran taking hostages, that movie would have never happened.


Until I read that, I thought "what a pile of crap".  Then the little light went on.  Next up, the Libyans suing Robert Zemeckis.

images.sodahead.com
/oblig
 
2013-03-13 08:33:29 AM

liam76: Other Hollywood films that have infuriated Iranians include: 300, which depicts King Leonidas and a force of 300 men fighting the Persians at Thermopylae in 480 BC - which was described by Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as "insulting to Iran"; Brian Gilbert's 1991 film Not Without My Daughter; and The Wrestler.

Really?



Rourke's fictional rival in that movie was an Iron Shiek ripoff called The Ayatollah.
For a place that hates western culture so much, Iran certainly likes our "sue everybody" philosophy.
 
2013-03-13 08:34:16 AM
Everybody's going after Argo for not being 100% historically accurate, it's bizarre.  I don't think I've ever seen a historical recreation movie get so many people riled up over stupid details.  Who really cares who gave who a beer?  As long as major event aren't altered, what's the problem?
 
2013-03-13 08:34:51 AM

stoli n coke: liam76: Other Hollywood films that have infuriated Iranians include: 300, which depicts King Leonidas and a force of 300 men fighting the Persians at Thermopylae in 480 BC - which was described by Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as "insulting to Iran"; Brian Gilbert's 1991 film Not Without My Daughter; and The Wrestler.

Really?


Rourke's fictional rival in that movie was an Iron Shiek ripoff called The Ayatollah.
For a place that hates western culture so much, Iran certainly likes our "sue everybody" philosophy.


I guess I shoudln't be suprised that mororn woudl be upset by that.
 
2013-03-13 08:35:22 AM
How about this MISSING SCENE from Argo????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRBmBt8Y7Bk


That scene ALONE was better than the whole movie, and it was CUT???

Here are some boobies for no reason:
media1.break.com
 
2013-03-13 08:39:08 AM
My name is Carlos, I just got back from Manchuria.
 
2013-03-13 08:40:55 AM

liam76: The Wrestler.


The outrage was that there were not nearly enough scenes of Marisa Tomei's tits
 
2013-03-13 08:43:03 AM
Je ne suis pas loin--je suis pres..  Mon nom est Morte.  J'y viens.
 
2013-03-13 08:43:39 AM
Well, technically, it was 300 Spartans- plus about 5000 other Greeks, including roughly 1000 Spartan slaves, who were promised freedom for all slaves who would fight for Sparta after the war. The Spartans kept their word, too, if you consider being murdered in a surprise attack as being freed from slavery.
 
2013-03-13 08:43:46 AM
www.darkgovernment.com
Like em' hairy, has daddy and trust issues
 
2013-03-13 08:47:08 AM

cynicalbastard: The Spartans kept their word, too, if you consider being murdered in a surprise attack as being freed from slavery.


Well, they failed to specify the when and where.
 
2013-03-13 08:47:39 AM
I remember the stink about all the historical inaccuracies in this movie-

upload.wikimedia.org

Some do better than others, but all fail
 
2013-03-13 08:48:11 AM
Sheesh ... took them long enough. They were upset about the portrayal of Persians in 300 before that movie even came out. As Canadians complained, I was searching the news .. nothing from Iran? Turns out, Iranians like the movie ... they're watching bootlegs and even limited showings in obscure theatres. Turns out the kids today don't really identify with the struggle of their elders.
 
2013-03-13 08:57:16 AM
"Turns out the kids today don't really identify with the struggle of their elders"

sixpacktech.com
agrees
 
2013-03-13 08:57:38 AM

Arkcon: Turns out the kids today don't really identify with the struggle of their elders.


This is a result of one of the more interesting examples of "shooting yourself in the foot".

During the Revolution, Iran essentially lost a generation- a huge number of 20-somethings fled the country. By the end of the Iran/Iraq war, the government noticed that they had a serious version of the "baby-boomer" problem- a glut of aging workers and not enough young people to replace them. So the government said, "Go out, have big families! For the Islamic Revolution!"

After the Iran/Iraq war, support for the government was at an all time high. People farked their brains out in a patriotic fervor.

And now those kids are hitting that 20-something range. They don't have any strong loyalty to the government. To the contrary, they have the Internet, and Twitter, and they've got a strong sense that the government isn't working in their best interests. They don't currently have much political power, but they have a lot of numbers.
 
2013-03-13 09:01:57 AM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Everybody's going after Argo for not being 100% historically accurate, it's bizarre.  I don't think I've ever seen a historical recreation movie get so many people riled up over stupid details.  Who really cares who gave who a beer?  As long as major event aren't altered, what's the problem?



If Affleck had said from the start they had taken a liberty or two with the story no one would of minded but he said repeatedly that the film was historically accurate. Its only afterwards he climbed down and said some liberties with the story had been made.
 
2013-03-13 09:08:01 AM
Wait.  So Iranians are upset that the "West" is implying that the revolutionaries represent all of Iran, despite the fact that the Revolutionaries won and remain in power after 30+ years...?
 
2013-03-13 09:10:56 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: And this will accomplish so much


Maybe Obama should just talk to them or send a video.
 
2013-03-13 09:16:20 AM
I like 300 as much as the next guy, but I could see how having one of your greatest national hero's relegated to the role of an effette would-be god leading an army of sub-human monsters could be a bit offensive.
 
2013-03-13 09:23:29 AM

Necronic: I like 300 as much as the next guy, but I could see how having one of your greatest national hero's relegated to the role of an effette would-be god leading an army of sub-human monsters could be a bit offensive.


Let's also not forget that in the real world, the Spartans got creamed, achieved nothing, and then it was a handful of the same farmers and scholars that the Spartans sneered at in the film sent the Persians packing.
 
2013-03-13 09:27:38 AM
I would be outraged with 300 if it was suppose to be based on a true story. It was based on a comic that states "it is a fictionalized retelling". It's not suppose to be 100% accurate and everyone with the comic and movie knew that. No one pretended it was an exact retelling. Plus real life isn't filtered with heavy contrast...anyway..

/no coffee
 
2013-03-13 09:33:12 AM

Your mom and me: It was based on a comic that states "it is a fictionalized retelling".


That still doesn't mean that the comic (and film) weren't incredibly... I don't want to say "racist", but basically "racist". The choice to make the Persians black(ish) isn't just a historical offense ("Iran" is derived from  Aryan- Persians are Aryans), but an added offense to people of color. Layer on the Spartan jingoism, and you have a comic that is pretty offensive.

It was after reading "300" that I realized Frank Miller is completely insane.
 
2013-03-13 09:33:25 AM

cynicalbastard: Well, technically, it was 300 Spartans- plus about 5000 other Greeks, including roughly 1000 Spartan slaves, who were promised freedom for all slaves who would fight for Sparta after the war. The Spartans kept their word, too, if you consider being murdered in a surprise attack as being freed from slavery.


Most of the other greeks left after they were flanked.

I though the "big deal" was that they covered the retreat,
 
2013-03-13 09:33:44 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Wait.  So Iranians are upset that the "West" is implying that the revolutionaries represent all of Iran, despite the fact that the Revolutionaries won and remain in power after 30+ years...?


"How dare Hollywood not present that the fact that many Iranians didn't support our Glorious and Perfect Islamic Revolution!"

I'm really not sure where they're going with that, especially since the filmed clearly showed a number of Iranians at the U.S. embassy trying to get visas to flee the country, and the Iranian maid at the ambassador's house risks her life to protect the Americans.
 
2013-03-13 09:42:29 AM

hasty ambush: MyKingdomForYourHorse: And this will accomplish so much

Maybe Obama should just talk to them or send a video.


Flirty text messages, that'll do it
 
2013-03-13 09:55:02 AM
Afflecks and asshole. Your movie is a pile of sh*t.
 
2013-03-13 10:07:55 AM

Norfolking Chance: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Everybody's going after Argo for not being 100% historically accurate, it's bizarre.  I don't think I've ever seen a historical recreation movie get so many people riled up over stupid details.  Who really cares who gave who a beer?  As long as major event aren't altered, what's the problem?


If Affleck had said from the start they had taken a liberty or two with the story no one would of minded but he said repeatedly that the film was historically accurate. Its only afterwards he climbed down and said some liberties with the story had been made.


What are people complaining about?  I've read Mendez's book and, while they took a couple of shortcuts, with the exception of the ending (and the Bazaar scene) I thought it hewed pretty closely to the story Mendez told.
 
2013-03-13 10:16:17 AM

liam76: I though the "big deal" was that they covered the retreat,


Sort of. The basic events go roughly like this:
The pass above Thermopylae is essentially an impregnable point. The Greeks can hold the Persians there until a lack of supplies forces the Persians to turn back. According to legend, a traitor tells the Persians that there's a way to move a force behind the Greek forces, which will allow them to destroy the Greeks. The Greeks hear about it, and most of the army retreats. The Spartans and a few thousand other soldiers stick around to hold the pass. The most likely reason was to form a rear-guard, but Leonidas had also been told by the Oracle that he would die to save Sparta, so he may have been trying to fulfill a prophecy (which is kind of a dick move for the other 1,500 soldiers).

Regardless, the Spartans are quickly routed, and Thermopylae conquered. At this point, things are incredibly dire for the Greeks. The entire battle of Thermopylae is a failure. The Persians have Greece on the ropes. Athens has been evacuated, and the Persians take it. They take several other cities.

The war turns at Salamis.  Themistocles noticed during a previous battle that the Greek ships were better in close quarters than the Persians. He lured the Persians into attacking by spreading rumors that the already fractious Greek command structure was falling apart with infighting. Xerxes took that as a cue to attack, and sailed in- and his fleet was ambushed by the combined might of the Greek ships. This was sort of a Death Star moment- the Persian ships were vastly superior. The combination of surprise and cunning strategy left the Persians stranded in Greece, without enough ships to get home. Fearing that the Greeks would cut off their route back to Persia, Xerxes ordered a retreat.
 
2013-03-13 10:19:34 AM
Well at least Django Unchained was realistic.
 
2013-03-13 10:30:39 AM

rugman11: Norfolking Chance: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Everybody's going after Argo for not being 100% historically accurate, it's bizarre.  I don't think I've ever seen a historical recreation movie get so many people riled up over stupid details.  Who really cares who gave who a beer?  As long as major event aren't altered, what's the problem?


If Affleck had said from the start they had taken a liberty or two with the story no one would of minded but he said repeatedly that the film was historically accurate. Its only afterwards he climbed down and said some liberties with the story had been made.

What are people complaining about?  I've read Mendez's book and, while they took a couple of shortcuts, with the exception of the ending (and the Bazaar scene) I thought it hewed pretty closely to the story Mendez told.


This is a good list. The film showed wrongly that the NZ and the UK embassies turned them away (and showed them as cowards) when they actually sheltered them and only moved the Americans as the Canadian embassy was safer plus the Canadians did much more work than the CIA to get the Americans out.
 
2013-03-13 11:11:48 AM
Hollywood, an arm of Israeli media.
 
2013-03-13 11:23:50 AM

Norfolking Chance: rugman11: Norfolking Chance: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Everybody's going after Argo for not being 100% historically accurate, it's bizarre.  I don't think I've ever seen a historical recreation movie get so many people riled up over stupid details.  Who really cares who gave who a beer?  As long as major event aren't altered, what's the problem?


If Affleck had said from the start they had taken a liberty or two with the story no one would of minded but he said repeatedly that the film was historically accurate. Its only afterwards he climbed down and said some liberties with the story had been made.

What are people complaining about?  I've read Mendez's book and, while they took a couple of shortcuts, with the exception of the ending (and the Bazaar scene) I thought it hewed pretty closely to the story Mendez told.

This is a good list. The film showed wrongly that the NZ and the UK embassies turned them away (and showed them as cowards) when they actually sheltered them and only moved the Americans as the Canadian embassy was safer plus the Canadians did much more work than the CIA to get the Americans out.


I don't know.  It seems like a lot of those are pretty nitpicky.  It seems like they wanted to focus much more on the mission itself rather than the actual hostage situation, so they fast-tracked the Americans to the Taylor's house and kept them together rather than splitting them up.

As for Canada's involvement, according to Mendez's book, the CIA devised and executed the entire plan.  The Canadian government was crucial because they supplied the passports (and it was a critical part), but it was the CIA that created the cover, backstopped it, forged the visas, and ran the actual operation.

I guess it makes sense to me that, in a movie about the operation, that they would focus on the CIA.  Had the movie been about the hostages, Canada's role would have been more featured.
 
2013-03-13 11:52:41 AM

Insatiable Jesus: Hollywood, an arm of Israeli media.


I guess the Nazi media wing decded to weigh in.
 
2013-03-13 12:10:09 PM

theurge14: Well at least Django Unchained was realistic.



False. He looked at the explosion. Everyone knows cool guys don't look at explosions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqz5dbs5zmo
 
2013-03-13 12:10:54 PM

indarwinsshadow: Afflecks and asshole.


This sounds like some kind of ill-conceived Ben & Jerry's flavor...
 
2013-03-13 12:28:16 PM
Mendez was the document forger, and the real reason why the hostages departure took a few weeks was because the passports provided had the wrong dates on them.  Mendez had to correct them by hand.

There was a second CIA operative involved and on the scene, known only by the name of Julio.   So, what did role did Julio play?  Who was he?  I'm guessing that there is even more to the story that we will never know.
 
2013-03-13 01:22:53 PM

rugman11: Norfolking Chance: rugman11: Norfolking Chance: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Everybody's going after Argo for not being 100% historically accurate, it's bizarre.  I don't think I've ever seen a historical recreation movie get so many people riled up over stupid details.  Who really cares who gave who a beer?  As long as major event aren't altered, what's the problem?


If Affleck had said from the start they had taken a liberty or two with the story no one would of minded but he said repeatedly that the film was historically accurate. Its only afterwards he climbed down and said some liberties with the story had been made.

What are people complaining about?  I've read Mendez's book and, while they took a couple of shortcuts, with the exception of the ending (and the Bazaar scene) I thought it hewed pretty closely to the story Mendez told.

This is a good list. The film showed wrongly that the NZ and the UK embassies turned them away (and showed them as cowards) when they actually sheltered them and only moved the Americans as the Canadian embassy was safer plus the Canadians did much more work than the CIA to get the Americans out.

I don't know.  It seems like a lot of those are pretty nitpicky.  It seems like they wanted to focus much more on the mission itself rather than the actual hostage situation, so they fast-tracked the Americans to the Taylor's house and kept them together rather than splitting them up.

As for Canada's involvement, according to Mendez's book, the CIA devised and executed the entire plan.  The Canadian government was crucial because they supplied the passports (and it was a critical part), but it was the CIA that created the cover, backstopped it, forged the visas, and ran the actual operation.

I guess it makes sense to me that, in a movie about the operation, that they would focus on the CIA.  Had the movie been about the hostages, Canada's role would have been more featured.


I don't call putting in a line saying "The British turned them away" when in fact the British took them in and did a lot of work sheltering them and moving them to a safer location "nitpicky". That is a huge insult to a loyal friend. Hell, the British didn't just "let them in", the British went out, and at great risk, found the Americans and bought them in.

Maybe the British should make a film about D-Day and have one Brit say to another "We've had to do this entire landing ourselves because the Americans didn't want to help"?  Would you write off anyone complaining about that as "just nitpicky"?
 
2013-03-13 01:38:37 PM
If the IRAA gets involved Iran is screwed.
 
2013-03-13 01:45:28 PM

MylesHeartVodak: Mendez was the document forger, and the real reason why the hostages departure took a few weeks was because the passports provided had the wrong dates on them.  Mendez had to correct them by hand.

There was a second CIA operative involved and on the scene, known only by the name of Julio.   So, what did role did Julio play?  Who was he?  I'm guessing that there is even more to the story that we will never know.


Wrong. The passports were fine and it had nothing to do with the delay. It was the entry visas that were incorrect and that was discovered at the moment. These had to be corrected by Mendez.
 
2013-03-13 02:06:36 PM
American response "Argo fark yourselves."
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report