Search results

i figured you had something more to go on that that stuff, rich... for one thing, that first piece is a description of the "real" story, and isn't by or about the filmmakers or film. and as far as i can gather from the interview with derrickson, the film is shooting for ambiguity. here's...

right. and what's your evidence for that?

i'm not saying it's not: i am agnostic as to the intentions of the filmmakers and as to the actual content of the film itself. i have only been trying to determine the quantity and quality of evidence you have for your own positive belief that it is a literal transcription of an actual event...

well, maybe. all i know about that aspect of the film is that the byline, like so many other similar films, is "based on a true story". and all i know about that description is that it seems like filmmakers feel that all you need to base the claim is that there be, for instance, a person who had...

what does objectivity have to do with anything? they're not making a documentary or a political exposé...i mean, if you discovered that peter benchley had what you took to be an irrational hatred of great white sharks, would his lack of objectivity compromise the narrative of Jaws? and if so...

sure. this film may very well occasion some people - "deluded" and "credulous", as you call them - to commit harm against children. but excoriating it for that reason seems suspiciously like blaming violent movies for violence. or ozzy osbourne for the occasional teenage suicide. or... look...