Academy Awards

[Imran Siddiqui]

It was a biography. The film was an adaptation of the biography and left out some of the most critical parts.

Again, who cares?

It didn't fit into the story that they were trying to tell. And yes, even biography's try to tell a story.

Sorry, but people don't want to watch 4 hour movies .

[Asher]

Imran, it wasn't cut out to make the movie shorter.

It was cut out because rednecks would never go see a movie that involved bisexuality.
It was cut out because Jews would never go see a movie about an anti-semetic.

It was cut out to make it less controversial, to get more of the almighty buck.



Films that bend like that to make the the story more accessable to the general public shouldn't be praised by any critics, other than for technical merit and acting abilities.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thank you Mr. Conspiracy theory, but no.

It was cut because it didn't figure into the story about the crazy brilliant math man and his loyal wife.

[Asher]

Of course, Imran, of course.

Obviously such things are minor facts, since the movie paints him almost like a hero. He wouldn't be a hero if he had real faults and "abnormal tendancies".

I don't like the movie on principle. It butchered the book far more than any other movie I can think of, and Russel Crowe didn't really blow me away as an actor in the movie either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You just are upset the movie didn't advance the political agenda you wanted it to.

[Asher]

The truth?

You're damn right.

How would you like it if John Nash was really an Arab but they made him white in the movie simply because it didn't "figure into the story about the crazy brilliant math man and his loyal wife."?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nice strawman.

You know that it is a different issue. You can erase portions of a person's life for a story, but you can't erase the person .

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You know that it is a different issue. You can erase portions of a person's life for a story, but you can't erase the person .

Wait, so being bisexual has less of an impact on somebody's personality/person as having a different color of skin?

Ohh ohh ohh...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes.

Now can we stop with the strawman argument?

[Asher]

The strawman belongs to you, Imran.

I'm surprised you think that, of all people, though.

[The Mad Monk]

Imran,

How does the "bisexual" part not go with the "loyal wife" part?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The strawman belongs to me?

Now you are just going "Am Not" "Am Too".

*shakes head*

How the hell does he being bisexual have ANYTHING to do with the story of the movie? Him being white kinda does.

MM: Because she didn't really know about his 'tendancies'

Hell, if they threw in a scene about him being bisexual, all it would seem to most people (myself included) was some political statement in the middle of a pretty good story.

And what reason is there to include him being an anti-semite? Hell, why don't we include all his beliefs and make the movie 2 days long?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The strawman belongs to me?

Now you are just going "Am Not" "Am Too".

*shakes head*

How the hell does he being bisexual have ANYTHING to do with the story of the movie? Him being white kinda does.

That's complete and utter nonsense.

The argument is it's a bastardized story. A hugely one.

A person's sexuality is a HUGE PART of who a person is. Moreso than skin color these days (I'd argue that, anyway).

You're telling me that you would be a much different person if your skin was white than if you were gay?

That's why the strawman belongs to you.

Hell, if they threw in a scene about him being bisexual, all it would seem to most people (myself included) was some political statement in the middle of a pretty good story.

Political statement? In a BIOGRAPHY about some man's life?
That's stretching it, Imran.

And what reason is there to include him being an anti-semite? Hell, why don't we include all his beliefs and make the movie 2 days long?

Because it's a fairly large part to how he thought about people, don't you think? About who he was? And considering this movie is about HIM and WHO HE WAS, I'd think that those are fairly important pieces that are missing.

And why are they missing? To make the film less controversial. Plain and simple. For that reason, it shouldn't win one award except for technical merit and acting. Hell, it shouldn't even be NOMINATED for best screenplay adaptation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jesus Christ, I bet you were on of the loonies that were up at arms about The Patriot and U-571

It's a ****ing Movie! Get over yourself!

You're telling me that you would be a much different person if your skin was white than if you were gay?

HELL YES! What are you nuts? Skin color would make you incredibly different, because of all that it entales.

Political statement? In a BIOGRAPHY about some man's life?
That's stretching it, Imran.

Yes, of course. Just because it is a biography doesn't mean that every little piddling event should be included, just because it is about his life.

So, wait, did the movie (or book) follow his life since he was born? WELL, WHY NOT? It's a biography, isn't it?

Because it's a fairly large part to how he thought about people, don't you think? About who he was? And considering this movie is about HIM and WHO HE WAS, I'd think that those are fairly important pieces that are missing.

No, the movie isn't about him and who he was. The movie is about the story of a man struggling with mental illness with a genious mind, and a loving wife. Those aspects of Nash's life makes a good story.

And why are they missing? To make the film less controversial. Plain and simple.

BULL****! They are missing because they don't add to the story. Movies are made either because of their story or because of a political message. This was a story movie.

God, I hope you'd never go into filmmaking, because you'd be the most piss-poor one that has ever existed. You'd make a movie based on someone's life based on who they were rather than the engaging story that was a part of their life.

Once again, for your knowledge Movies are about a story. The gay aspects and the anti-semitism didn't fit into the story or add anything to it. So why include it? I wouldn't.

$100 (US) says you wouldn't be this adamant if you weren't bi. This is a political crusade, and not anything with good moviemaking.

edit: And it is utter bull**** that they pulled it to make the film less controversial. Movies fall over themselves to make controversy. A less able filmmaker would have salvated to throw in Nash's bisexuality in the film. Hell, most would have. I'm just happy this filmmaker didn't feel the need to make a political statement and rather just wanted to tell the story that he felt would make the best movie.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Jesus Christ, I bet you were on of the loonies that were up at arms about The Patriot and U-571

It's a ****ing Movie! Get over yourself!

It seems you're the one that's particularly upset about it.

I'm just saying the fact that it leaves out big pieces of a man's life in a movie about a man's life, it shouldn't be even nominated for awards such as "best adaptation".

HELL YES! What are you nuts? Skin color would make you incredibly different, because of all that it entales.

Okay, Imran, if that's what you think.
Although it's pretty egocentric, but hey, what can ya do?

Yes, of course. Just because it is a biography doesn't mean that every little piddling event should be included, just because it is about his life.

So, wait, did the movie (or book) follow his life since he was born? WELL, WHY NOT? It's a biography, isn't it?

Imran, the political statement here is the REMOVAL of certain aspects from the movie to make the movie more accessable to the public. There are plenty of scenes still in the movie FAR less relevant than ones about his bisexuality or about his anti-semtisim.

No, the movie isn't about him and who he was. The movie is about the story of a man struggling with mental illness with a genious mind, and a loving wife. Those aspects of Nash's life makes a good story.

So, again then, it'd be perfectly fine to make Nash white if he was Arab, since it has nothing to do with his story?

BULL****! They are missing because they don't add to the story.

Neither do half of the scenes in the movie. Have you even seen this movie? It's BORING.

Movies are made either because of their story or because of a political message. This was a story movie.

And a political one, judging by what they cut out.

God, I hope you'd never go into filmmaking, because you'd be the most piss-poor one that has ever existed. You'd make a movie based on someone's life based on who they were rather than the engaging story that was a part of their life.

If I went into film making I'd make documentaries.

Once again, for your knowledge Movies are about a story. The gay aspects and the anti-semitism didn't fit into the story or add anything to it. So why include it? I wouldn't.

Why would you include it if he was Arab? I wouldn't. I mean, why would I do that? It doesn't add anythign to the story. It's not a political statement making the man white. No, not at all... It would be a political statement if we made him Arab though...

$100 (US) says you wouldn't be this adamant if you weren't bi. This is a political crusade, and not anything with good moviemaking.

$100 (US) says you wouldn't be this adament of saying it's okay if Nash was Arab and turned into white...