Quote from: SecondClass on November 24, 2016, 02:35:37 PMQuote from: Azendac on November 24, 2016, 02:32:38 PMQuote from: SecondClass on November 24, 2016, 02:28:31 PMQuote from: Azendac on November 24, 2016, 02:26:44 PMThere is an argument to be made that influential media has a responsibility to not deceive it's audience with it's influence.And Hamilton didn't. It would be deception if Lin Manuel Miranda claimed his work was historically accurate, but time and time again he's stated that it's the opposite of that.Meh, there's not much point in saying you're going to do one thing, and then inadvertently doing the opposite. Again, I'm not interested in defending idiots from themselves, but saying "I didn't mean to be deceptive" isn't a defense for being deceptive.Course, I'm speaking generally here, I've never even heard of Hamilton before this week and have no interest in learning about it.Except he didn't fucking do the opposite. His goal was to tell a deeply fictionalized and romanticized version of the story, and that's what he did. He has no obligation to make his intentionally fictionalized play some completely truthful biopic any more than the guy who wrote Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter does.I'm really not trying to debate about a play I've never seen. The point I'm making is a general one. IF an artist says he'll do one thing, and then IF they do something else, THEN their initial statement isn't really a defense of their later action.IF Hamilton is historically deceptive then this applies, IF it isn't, then it doesn't.
Quote from: Azendac on November 24, 2016, 02:32:38 PMQuote from: SecondClass on November 24, 2016, 02:28:31 PMQuote from: Azendac on November 24, 2016, 02:26:44 PMThere is an argument to be made that influential media has a responsibility to not deceive it's audience with it's influence.And Hamilton didn't. It would be deception if Lin Manuel Miranda claimed his work was historically accurate, but time and time again he's stated that it's the opposite of that.Meh, there's not much point in saying you're going to do one thing, and then inadvertently doing the opposite. Again, I'm not interested in defending idiots from themselves, but saying "I didn't mean to be deceptive" isn't a defense for being deceptive.Course, I'm speaking generally here, I've never even heard of Hamilton before this week and have no interest in learning about it.Except he didn't fucking do the opposite. His goal was to tell a deeply fictionalized and romanticized version of the story, and that's what he did. He has no obligation to make his intentionally fictionalized play some completely truthful biopic any more than the guy who wrote Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter does.
Quote from: SecondClass on November 24, 2016, 02:28:31 PMQuote from: Azendac on November 24, 2016, 02:26:44 PMThere is an argument to be made that influential media has a responsibility to not deceive it's audience with it's influence.And Hamilton didn't. It would be deception if Lin Manuel Miranda claimed his work was historically accurate, but time and time again he's stated that it's the opposite of that.Meh, there's not much point in saying you're going to do one thing, and then inadvertently doing the opposite. Again, I'm not interested in defending idiots from themselves, but saying "I didn't mean to be deceptive" isn't a defense for being deceptive.Course, I'm speaking generally here, I've never even heard of Hamilton before this week and have no interest in learning about it.
Quote from: Azendac on November 24, 2016, 02:26:44 PMThere is an argument to be made that influential media has a responsibility to not deceive it's audience with it's influence.And Hamilton didn't. It would be deception if Lin Manuel Miranda claimed his work was historically accurate, but time and time again he's stated that it's the opposite of that.
There is an argument to be made that influential media has a responsibility to not deceive it's audience with it's influence.
I will admit this is mostly anecdotal, but that's not how the fans I've come across see it. In fact, you're the first to say otherwise. Quote from: SecondClass on November 24, 2016, 02:40:22 PMHamilton isn't a serious adaptation, not by a long shot. If I had to put it between Vampire Lincoln and Day-Lewis Lincoln in terms of intentions and role, it would be much closer to the former.Seems you misunderstood the entire point of the play. It's goal is to entertain; make you laugh, cry, and stay on the edge of your seat. Not to teach.
Hamilton isn't a serious adaptation, not by a long shot. If I had to put it between Vampire Lincoln and Day-Lewis Lincoln in terms of intentions and role, it would be much closer to the former.Seems you misunderstood the entire point of the play. It's goal is to entertain; make you laugh, cry, and stay on the edge of your seat. Not to teach.
Yes really. How often do we get serious adaptions of history where accuracy isn't taken into account other than Hamilton? Quote from: SecondClass on November 24, 2016, 02:35:37 PMNot really. And even if that was the case, that doesn't mean everyone has to follow the status quo.
Not really. And even if that was the case, that doesn't mean everyone has to follow the status quo.
Um, duh? It's a casual, entertaining musical. If someone is going around calling themselves a history buff because they saw the play, they're a retard. Again, not the fault of Hamilton.
Every fucking movie about a time before the 1900's ever.
Quote from: SecondClass on November 24, 2016, 02:44:52 PMI'm not calling it anything though, lrn2propositional logic and model theory. IF the criteria is met THEN criticism applies, it's up to you to determine IF it's met, because the only thing I know about Hamilton is that it's about a guy called Hamilton.
Quote from: SecondClass on November 24, 2016, 02:41:57 PMUm, duh? It's a casual, entertaining musical. If someone is going around calling themselves a history buff because they saw the play, they're a retard. Again, not the fault of Hamilton. It's the lot of them though, the ignorant masses realize they still don't know jack shit compared to the person they looked down upon so they use it as an excuse to take away the only level playing field he or she had.
Quote from: SecondClass on November 24, 2016, 02:41:57 PMUm, duh? It's a casual, entertaining musical. If someone is going around calling themselves a history buff because they saw the play, they're a retard. Again, not the fault of Hamilton. It's the lot of them though, the ignorant masses realize they still don't know jack shit compared to the person they looked down upon so they use it as an excuse to take away the only level playing field he or she had. Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on November 24, 2016, 02:47:30 PMEvery fucking movie about a time before the 1900's ever. You mean like the time periods before the revolution and civil war? Those were before the 1900's too and they try to pay attention to detail. Obviously the further back you go the harder it's going to be to keep it completely accurate, but with all the knowledge we have now in 21st century, we're seeing less and less inaccuracies in these films.
No Ian, I mean every time period before that, because I have never seen a decent budget film actually try to stay more true to historical fact than Hollywood characterization and stereotyping
Quote from: Azendac on November 24, 2016, 02:48:35 PMQuote from: SecondClass on November 24, 2016, 02:44:52 PMI'm not calling it anything though, lrn2propositional logic and model theory. IF the criteria is met THEN criticism applies, it's up to you to determine IF it's met, because the only thing I know about Hamilton is that it's about a guy called Hamilton.The criteria is that it has to be entertaining, because that's the goal of the work and what the creator promised. It has no obligation to be historically accurate whatsoever.
Quote from: SecondClass on November 24, 2016, 02:51:42 PMQuote from: Azendac on November 24, 2016, 02:48:35 PMQuote from: SecondClass on November 24, 2016, 02:44:52 PMI'm not calling it anything though, lrn2propositional logic and model theory. IF the criteria is met THEN criticism applies, it's up to you to determine IF it's met, because the only thing I know about Hamilton is that it's about a guy called Hamilton.The criteria is that it has to be entertaining, because that's the goal of the work and what the creator promised. It has no obligation to be historically accurate whatsoever.You realize this is another topic entirely right? Anyway that's a pretty low brow approach to take to media, you may as well just jack off all day if you only care for "entertainment". And that's really not an exaggeration, pornography has exactly one purpose (entertainment) with no extraneous details to it, and it's degenerate garbage because of it.
Quote from: Azendac on November 24, 2016, 02:56:45 PMQuote from: SecondClass on November 24, 2016, 02:51:42 PMQuote from: Azendac on November 24, 2016, 02:48:35 PMQuote from: SecondClass on November 24, 2016, 02:44:52 PMI'm not calling it anything though, lrn2propositional logic and model theory. IF the criteria is met THEN criticism applies, it's up to you to determine IF it's met, because the only thing I know about Hamilton is that it's about a guy called Hamilton.The criteria is that it has to be entertaining, because that's the goal of the work and what the creator promised. It has no obligation to be historically accurate whatsoever.You realize this is another topic entirely right? Anyway that's a pretty low brow approach to take to media, you may as well just jack off all day if you only care for "entertainment". And that's really not an exaggeration, pornography has exactly one purpose (entertainment) with no extraneous details to it, and it's degenerate garbage because of it.That's the only true purpose of media - entertainment. You can teach, you can inspire, you can sadden. But if your work isn't also entertaining, it's failed as a piece of media.That's not low-brow, that's how it works. You want to learn and not be entertained, go to a college lecture.
cultural appropriation
