|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
The Path to 9/11 | by VivianC | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
| *Shrug* From an artistic point of view, |
by Ravenlock |
2006-09-08 08:09:46 |
it's very straightforward. If they're claiming to present actual events, and they are, they have a responsibility to show only things that actually happened. "Dramatization" vs. "Documentary" simply means you're presenting the events as though they were happening in realtime with actors, rather than reporting on events after the fact with commentators and analysis.
It doesn't give you license to fabricate events or the roles of people in those events, especially when there's no need to speculate because the facts of the issue are readily obtained. If Albright or Berger or other people are shown doing and saying things they didn't do, there's no more justification for that than there would be for inserting a scene where G.W. meets with Bin Laden to discuss the attacks ahead of time. If it didn't happen, don't film it and say it did.
I also don't know that the complaints are as limited as you make them sound... the first link you provided - though obviously from a biased source - seems to indicate that the writers of the 9/11 commission report themselves feel their report was misused in making this piece. They'd be the ones who would know.
Having not seen the miniseries myself, obviously I have no idea how biased it is, or how accurately it states its facts around that bias. But if the people who took place in the events and provided the source material for the writing feel that the piece is misleading both in facts and in spirit, then I think they have every right to complain about that. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Valid point: Documentary and Dramatization | by classic_jon | 2006-09-08 08:18:25 |
|
Not really | by VivianC | 2006-09-08 10:13:41 |
|
I didn't say it wasn't commonplace. | by Ravenlock | 2006-09-08 10:32:18 |
|
No, but :) | by VivianC | 2006-09-08 13:24:35 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
