Duck_dodgers007 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Also enjoyed it. Team of Rivals was better and this was an abridged adaptation. Very little about the war. Abridged is being kind. It's really almost nothing to do at all with her book. Goodwin is mentioned for publicity sake only, imo. She does very little on the passage of the amendment and nothing at all about all the machinations the movie presents. Speilburg is historian himself, taking the facts we have and presenting them in an original theory that may or may not be totally true. He takes one part of the enormous period of the war and makes a masterpiece, IMO. The movie was awesome, beyond stunning, Lewis better win the Oscar or the process is broken. Is there any evidence Lincoln wanted the amendment passed before the war was over because he thought it couldn't be passed once the wartime emergency had passed? Goodwin never makes that argument, it's not in her book. Further, them movie, like many movies reflects the age they were made in. The passag of the thirteenth amendment was used because it reflects in many way the passage of Obamacare, the party of no and the racism of today that is so much more whispered but was right out in the open in 1865 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted December 5, 2012 Author Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) I'm not buying that it is mere theory that the basic story of the passage quickly before war is made up...seems pretty logical and while I don't know much about the history behind it I accept it as history and thus now make it history Edited December 5, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Abridged is being kind. It's really almost nothing to do at all with her book. Goodwin is mentioned for publicity sake only, imo. She does very little on the passage of the amendment and nothing at all about all the machinations the movie presents. Speilburg is historian himself, taking the facts we have and presenting them in an original theory that may or may not be totally true. He takes one part of the enormous period of the war and makes a masterpiece, IMO. The movie was awesome, beyond stunning, Lewis better win the Oscar or the process is broken. Is there any evidence Lincoln wanted the amendment passed before the war was over because he thought it couldn't be passed once the wartime emergency had passed? Goodwin never makes that argument, it's not in her book. Further, them movie, like many movies reflects the age they were made in. The passag of the thirteenth amendment was used because it reflects in many way the passage of Obamacare, the party of no and the racism of today that is so much more whispered but was right out in the open in 1865 Pretty sure this has been a movie Spielberg has been trying to get made for close to two decades. I doubt very much he chose it because he wanted to pimp the ACA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Pretty sure this has been a movie Spielberg has been trying to get made for close to two decades. I doubt very much he chose it because he wanted to pimp the ACA. Consider the retard who made the analysis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted December 5, 2012 Author Share Posted December 5, 2012 Pretty sure this has been a movie Spielberg has been trying to get made for close to two decades. I doubt very much he chose it because he wanted to pimp the ACA. On 60 minutes he said he purposefully did not release it until after the election to avoid assumptions such as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 On 60 minutes he said he purposefully did not release it until after the election to avoid assumptions such as that. Yeah but everyone usually lies on sixty minutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Consider the retard who made the analysis You're elevating him to the retard level is questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Abridged is being kind. It's really almost nothing to do at all with her book. Goodwin is mentioned for publicity sake only, imo. She does very little on the passage of the amendment and nothing at all about all the machinations the movie presents. Speilburg is historian himself, taking the facts we have and presenting them in an original theory that may or may not be totally true. He takes one part of the enormous period of the war and makes a masterpiece, IMO. The movie was awesome, beyond stunning, Lewis better win the Oscar or the process is broken. Is there any evidence Lincoln wanted the amendment passed before the war was over because he thought it couldn't be passed once the wartime emergency had passed? Goodwin never makes that argument, it's not in her book. Further, them movie, like many movies reflects the age they were made in. The passag of the thirteenth amendment was used because it reflects in many way the passage of Obamacare, the party of no and the racism of today that is so much more whispered but was right out in the open in 1865 When you cut and paste (first paragraph) you should credit the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I'm not buying that it is mere theory that the basic story of the passage quickly before war is made up...seems pretty logical and while I don't know much about the history behind it I accept it as history and thus now make it history Oh, now, "made up" is what a theory is. Goodwin makes no claim on this at all. The movie also includes the peace negotions as a factor getting the the conservative republicans on board, no proof of that, and that Mary Lincoln made Lincoln get his feet dirty to save his son from military service...highly speculative, but maybe good history. That's what history is, theory of what happened. We know the amendment was passed, Speilberg offers an interesting, thought provoking and very reasonable theory of the process. But he has to add some fiction into it to make it work, I have no problem with that When you cut and paste (first paragraph) you should credit the source. Thanks! I wrote that, you think it's so good that Joe Cool [me] had to of cut and pasted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted December 5, 2012 Author Share Posted December 5, 2012 I have not heard anyone except you point to the rushed passage before the war ending as being speculation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Oh, now, "made up" is what a theory is. Goodwin makes no claim on this at all. The movie also includes the peace negotions as a factor getting the the conservative republicans on board, no proof of that, and that Mary Lincoln made Lincoln get his feet dirty to save his son from military service...highly speculative, but maybe good history. That's what history is, theory of what happened. We know the amendment was passed, Speilberg offers an interesting, thought provoking and very reasonable theory of the process. But he has to add some fiction into it to make it work, I have no problem with that Thanks! I wrote that, you think it's so good that Joe Cool [me] had to of cut and pasted. No you !@#$ing idiot, you've barely ever typed a whole sentence without a grammatical error or a mis- spelled word. Look at the first paragraph of that post and then look at the second one. The second one is all you. The first one is someone else's work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 You're elevating him to the retard level is questionable. You're right. My bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Thanks! I wrote that, you think it's so good that Joe Cool [me] had to of cut and pasted. You type pretty one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 No you !@#$ing idiot, you've barely ever typed a whole sentence without a grammatical error or a mis- spelled word. Look at the first paragraph of that post and then look at the second one. The second one is all you. The first one is someone else's work. that's what I was thinking when I first saw the post. Man I lol'ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 that's what I was thinking when I first saw the post. Man I lol'ed I read one sentence and thought wow, Ducky has an accomplishment. I read two and sort of suspected something wasn't kosher. After three, I knew it wasn't his work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted December 5, 2012 Author Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) grammar on a message board <insert>wtfsmiley</insert> Edited December 5, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I read one sentence and thought wow, Ducky has an accomplishment. I read two and sort of suspected something wasn't kosher. After three, I knew it wasn't his work. If one-thousand Duck Dodgers pounding away on one-thousand type writers can eventually reproduce Shakespeare, then certainly even a monkey could put 6 complete sentences together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 grammar on a message board <insert>wtfsmiley</insert> Just piling on the village idiot. He's been widely criticized for this in the past. He actually misspelled DaveinNorfolk as Ducky-Dodger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I have not heard anyone except you point to the rushed passage before the war ending as being speculation Have you heard anyone support it as fact? If you have I'll admit I am wrong, as I may be, but I think it's an original theory, but probably true. I'm just saying Speilberg is advancing a theory that very well may be true but it sure as he'll is not in Goodwins book, it's just not there No you !@#$ing idiot, you've barely ever typed a whole sentence without a grammatical error or a mis- spelled word. Look at the first paragraph of that post and then look at the second one. The second one is all you. The first one is someone else's work. Yes, but your are a a dumb person, and I'm a guy who is smart who just types fast and makes a few typing errors which makes a moron like you feel empowered to at least say something. You are still trash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 No you !@#$ing idiot, you've barely ever typed a whole sentence without a grammatical error or a mis- spelled word. Look at the first paragraph of that post and then look at the second one. The second one is all you. The first one is someone else's work. Wiping morning coffee from my monitor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts