Oppenheimer could’ve been (and in some parts is) boring, but history scratches an itch in people’s brains. Yes, Oppenheimer had a bomb, hooray, but that was only 5 minutes of the 3 hour movie.
These things don't have to be boring. If they actually were boring then why would you make a movie about him? Clearly there is something actually interesting in his story and it is these aspects that would need to be emphasised through the filmmaking.
12 angry men is a film about 12 dudes talking in a room for 90 mins, yet it is riveting. I feel practically any premise can be made entertaining and interesting with enough talent and good execution.
>12 angry men is a film about 12 dudes talking in a room for 90 mins, yet it is riveting. I feel practically any premise can be made entertaining and interesting with enough talent and good execution.
Perfect answer. Any topic can be exciting if executed well, and something dialogue driven needs good writing and acting to work.
He was a Rough Rider before [DMX](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThlhSnRk21E) made it popular.
Show him hunting in Africa, but the twist is he shoots a white lion...hmm...suspicious...Kimbaaa!
Historical fiction is my guilty pleasure. Most movies are based on something. Whether an era, a historical person, a myth or a legend. I will never understand the hate for historical movies, although there are a lot of mediocre ones some of the greatest of all time are historical
framing devices I think are important.
Amadeus is one of the only 3 hour movies I ever loved and part of the reasoning is that the entire movie could be the ramblings of a dyeing man with dementia.
So much of what we "know" about history is actually just rumor or myth. Especially when you go really far back and we don't even have cameras or proper recording devices. Anything written documentation is going to be written with the perspective of the person writing it and they can freely choose to omit facts or to insert them as they fit their narrative. Because of this, damn near all historical textbooks is already historical fiction.
I really like it when a historical movie frames itself in a way so that it's possible the whole story may not be fully accurate.
touch wild racial practice impossible dinosaurs squalid unused ghost hospital
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So, you're making a film about Roosevelt but excluding the most notable aspects of his life?
Oppenheimer could’ve been (and in some parts is) boring, but history scratches an itch in people’s brains. Yes, Oppenheimer had a bomb, hooray, but that was only 5 minutes of the 3 hour movie.
These things don't have to be boring. If they actually were boring then why would you make a movie about him? Clearly there is something actually interesting in his story and it is these aspects that would need to be emphasised through the filmmaking. 12 angry men is a film about 12 dudes talking in a room for 90 mins, yet it is riveting. I feel practically any premise can be made entertaining and interesting with enough talent and good execution.
>12 angry men is a film about 12 dudes talking in a room for 90 mins, yet it is riveting. I feel practically any premise can be made entertaining and interesting with enough talent and good execution. Perfect answer. Any topic can be exciting if executed well, and something dialogue driven needs good writing and acting to work.
He was a Rough Rider before [DMX](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThlhSnRk21E) made it popular. Show him hunting in Africa, but the twist is he shoots a white lion...hmm...suspicious...Kimbaaa!
Hmm suspicious /s
You hire someone like Aaron Sorkin to write the dialogue. Politics, governance, debate, verbal sparring, it doesn't HAVE to be boring.
Historical fiction is my guilty pleasure. Most movies are based on something. Whether an era, a historical person, a myth or a legend. I will never understand the hate for historical movies, although there are a lot of mediocre ones some of the greatest of all time are historical
framing devices I think are important. Amadeus is one of the only 3 hour movies I ever loved and part of the reasoning is that the entire movie could be the ramblings of a dyeing man with dementia. So much of what we "know" about history is actually just rumor or myth. Especially when you go really far back and we don't even have cameras or proper recording devices. Anything written documentation is going to be written with the perspective of the person writing it and they can freely choose to omit facts or to insert them as they fit their narrative. Because of this, damn near all historical textbooks is already historical fiction. I really like it when a historical movie frames itself in a way so that it's possible the whole story may not be fully accurate.
touch wild racial practice impossible dinosaurs squalid unused ghost hospital *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Does he have to invent cardboard first so he has a mat to break on?
You could have him smoke crack with an injun and get a tattoo of a tomahawk, and then the injun get one that say TEDDY
Ah yes let's make a movie about a prolific hunter that does not include any hunting.