Bridge of Spies
- Thread starter BRZED
- Start date
- Status
I may go see that one. I've always enjoyed Tom Hanks performances.
A great movie.
all hanks movies are good, now if we could get nicholas cage to be more selective.
Is this film an adaptation of "Strangers on a Bridge" by Donovan, the story of a US-USSR spy swap? Kira
I worked with a guy long ago who claimed to have been a military U2 pilot in that era...he didn't just blurt it out, told me this after we had worked together for a few months and became friends. This guy said he knew Powers and did not think much of his abilities as a pilot. Also told me that he was a malignant melanoma survivor and felt that the cancer was the result of cosmic ray exposure from flying at extreme altitudes. He supposedly had a book in the works about his experiences, but needed clearance from the military before approaching publishers.
I was quite dubious as this guy had a number of "interesting stories", but our boss told me in confidence that he had seen verification of everything else the guy had said except for the U2 story...and that he was truly a remarkable man in many ways. He had been a manager but moved down to a less stressful position on the advice of doctors after his cancer episode.
I asked another former coworker about this guy when we both joined the same new company a few years later and he had heard that the melanoma had returned to claim the man's life. I don't think he got the book out.
I was quite dubious as this guy had a number of "interesting stories", but our boss told me in confidence that he had seen verification of everything else the guy had said except for the U2 story...and that he was truly a remarkable man in many ways. He had been a manager but moved down to a less stressful position on the advice of doctors after his cancer episode.
I asked another former coworker about this guy when we both joined the same new company a few years later and he had heard that the melanoma had returned to claim the man's life. I don't think he got the book out.
Last edited:
Very good movie, captured Russian spy was excellent, should be recognized for his acting.
I just hope its more historically accurate than "Argo" was.
Or the current "Manhattan" tv series about Los Alamos.
Its incumbent upon them to at least get the main big facts right.
(I contacted the historical society in Los Alamos about "Manhattan" and many want to strangle the production crew.)
I'd like to see what historians and people who experienced the U-2 incident first hand say about this.
You do realize "Bridge o' Spies" script was written by the Coen brothers? Same folks who specialized in "O Brother Where Art Thou"... hmmmm.... Gopher, anyone?
Or the current "Manhattan" tv series about Los Alamos.
Its incumbent upon them to at least get the main big facts right.
(I contacted the historical society in Los Alamos about "Manhattan" and many want to strangle the production crew.)
I'd like to see what historians and people who experienced the U-2 incident first hand say about this.
You do realize "Bridge o' Spies" script was written by the Coen brothers? Same folks who specialized in "O Brother Where Art Thou"... hmmmm.... Gopher, anyone?
Last edited:
(I contacted the historical society in Los Alamos about "Manhattan" and many want to strangle the production crew.)
I watch that show and have wondered how accurate it was. what are the main errors?
I watch that show and have wondered how accurate it was. what are the main errors?
I guess it was meant to be fictional mostly, too bad .
From Wiki;Manhattan, sometimes styled Manh(a)ttan, is an American television series that premiered on July 27, 2014, on WGN America. It is the network's second original series, after Salem (2014). While some historical figures are referenced in Manhattan, most characters are fictional, and the show is not intended to maintain historical accuracy.[4]
From Wiki;Manhattan, sometimes styled Manh(a)ttan, is an American television series that premiered on July 27, 2014, on WGN America. It is the network's second original series, after Salem (2014). While some historical figures are referenced in Manhattan, most characters are fictional, and the show is not intended to maintain historical accuracy.[4]
I enjoyed it, very good movie. Went to see it in a new Regal cinema so no sticky floors and clean seats. Also has very large screens.
Originally Posted By: KGMtech
Very good movie, captured Russian spy was excellent, should be recognized for his acting.
Mark Rylance, English stage actor. He is getting a lot of critical praise.
"Are you nervous?"
"Would it help?"
Very good movie, captured Russian spy was excellent, should be recognized for his acting.
Mark Rylance, English stage actor. He is getting a lot of critical praise.
"Are you nervous?"
"Would it help?"
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
I just hope its more historically accurate than "Argo" was.
Or the current "Manhattan" tv series about Los Alamos.
Its incumbent upon them to at least get the main big facts right.
(I contacted the historical society in Los Alamos about "Manhattan" and many want to strangle the production crew.)
I'd like to see what historians and people who experienced the U-2 incident first hand say about this.
You do realize "Bridge o' Spies" script was written by the Coen brothers? Same folks who specialized in "O Brother Where Art Thou"... hmmmm.... Gopher, anyone?
The Coens and another fellow wrote the screenplay. They are very good at it. You'd have to ask them and Spielberg why the choice was made to not include the important role JFK played in these events. I guess they wanted the to limit the story to a few players and keep the hour reasonably short. Not every historical movie has to be a non-dramatized documentary. We have PBS for that sort of thing.
I just hope its more historically accurate than "Argo" was.
Or the current "Manhattan" tv series about Los Alamos.
Its incumbent upon them to at least get the main big facts right.
(I contacted the historical society in Los Alamos about "Manhattan" and many want to strangle the production crew.)
I'd like to see what historians and people who experienced the U-2 incident first hand say about this.
You do realize "Bridge o' Spies" script was written by the Coen brothers? Same folks who specialized in "O Brother Where Art Thou"... hmmmm.... Gopher, anyone?
The Coens and another fellow wrote the screenplay. They are very good at it. You'd have to ask them and Spielberg why the choice was made to not include the important role JFK played in these events. I guess they wanted the to limit the story to a few players and keep the hour reasonably short. Not every historical movie has to be a non-dramatized documentary. We have PBS for that sort of thing.
Originally Posted By: bradepb
(I contacted the historical society in Los Alamos about "Manhattan" and many want to strangle the production crew.)
I watch that show and have wondered how accurate it was. what are the main errors?
I've been watching "Manhattan" too. Historical accuracy discussion: http://www.losalamoshistory.org/manhattan_discussion_intro.htm
https://soundcloud.com/physics-central/manhattan-bringing-nuclear-physics-to-primetime
Eleven years ago, when I did an engineering gig at Los Alamos, I actually met a guy that worked as a technician on the Manhattan project. He remembered it like it was yesterday (yet of course with his age he couldn't remember recent stuff).
On the subject of historical accuracy, my view is that they should get the BIG facts right. Sure they can conjure up as many bizarre characters as they want, but they should honor the truth in the big stuff.
(I contacted the historical society in Los Alamos about "Manhattan" and many want to strangle the production crew.)
I watch that show and have wondered how accurate it was. what are the main errors?
I've been watching "Manhattan" too. Historical accuracy discussion: http://www.losalamoshistory.org/manhattan_discussion_intro.htm
https://soundcloud.com/physics-central/manhattan-bringing-nuclear-physics-to-primetime
Eleven years ago, when I did an engineering gig at Los Alamos, I actually met a guy that worked as a technician on the Manhattan project. He remembered it like it was yesterday (yet of course with his age he couldn't remember recent stuff).
On the subject of historical accuracy, my view is that they should get the BIG facts right. Sure they can conjure up as many bizarre characters as they want, but they should honor the truth in the big stuff.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
On the subject of historical accuracy, my view is that they should get the BIG facts right. Sure they can conjure up as many bizarre characters as they want, but they should honor the truth in the big stuff.
Agreed.
On the subject of historical accuracy, my view is that they should get the BIG facts right. Sure they can conjure up as many bizarre characters as they want, but they should honor the truth in the big stuff.
Agreed.
Movies are entertainment. Unless the movie is a documentary one should not take everything presented as historical fact. I enjoy these types of movies for the interest they stir in me to research history, as well as the actors' performances. The story, as interpreted for this movie, does have an interesting relevance for today. Look how many of us are willing to suspend basic rights and due process of law for anyone suspected of terrorist activity. This type of fear response is somewhat similar to the "red scare" of previous decades.
Just my musings.
Just my musings.
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
Movies are entertainment. Unless the movie is a documentary one should not take everything presented as historical fact. I enjoy these types of movies for the interest they stir in me to research history, as well as the actors' performances. The story, as interpreted for this movie, does have an interesting relevance for today. Look how many of us are willing to suspend basic rights and due process of law for anyone suspected of terrorist activity. This type of fear response is somewhat similar to the "red scare" of previous decades.
Just my musings.
I don't disagree altogether, but when a movie claims to be based on a true story, even if it is a dramatized version with invented characters and added elements as opposed to a docu drama or documentary, as lubrisaurus up there said, there should be "truth in the big stuff." Bridge of Spies did not lie, it omitted and by doing that it distorted the story and misrepresented quite a bit the main character's importance as the driving force within this story. Whether or not that's acceptable is debatable. I think it's acceptable, but not preferable. I am sure if Spielberg and the writers were questioned about the choices made, they would give reasons and explanations that pertain to simply making for better story telling as they saw fit..
Movies are entertainment. Unless the movie is a documentary one should not take everything presented as historical fact. I enjoy these types of movies for the interest they stir in me to research history, as well as the actors' performances. The story, as interpreted for this movie, does have an interesting relevance for today. Look how many of us are willing to suspend basic rights and due process of law for anyone suspected of terrorist activity. This type of fear response is somewhat similar to the "red scare" of previous decades.
Just my musings.
I don't disagree altogether, but when a movie claims to be based on a true story, even if it is a dramatized version with invented characters and added elements as opposed to a docu drama or documentary, as lubrisaurus up there said, there should be "truth in the big stuff." Bridge of Spies did not lie, it omitted and by doing that it distorted the story and misrepresented quite a bit the main character's importance as the driving force within this story. Whether or not that's acceptable is debatable. I think it's acceptable, but not preferable. I am sure if Spielberg and the writers were questioned about the choices made, they would give reasons and explanations that pertain to simply making for better story telling as they saw fit..
- Status
Similar threads
