LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Kavar's Corner (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=698)
-   -   Abraham Lincoln; Vampire Hunter (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=212702)

machievelli 08-14-2013 05:47 PM

Abraham Lincoln; Vampire Hunter
 
This is only the second movie I have lambasted, but give me a break! The entire use of slavery in the South just because Vampires run the South? Give me an effing Break!

The War Between the States (What most of you remember from American History as the Civil War) was fought not over slavery, it was because the Northern merchants that dealt with finished cloth did not want to have competitors in the south who would also be making it. They wanted a subservient South delivering the cotton necessary to their business. When the South first tried to buy such machinery, the North blocked it's importation. At the same time they attacked the South on two fronts; first by banning further importation of slaves (A hot button Liberal issue) and then placing punitive tariffs for any sale of cotton to any port not in the North.

The North did everything to start that war but fire the first shot! Blockading Southern Ports, landing troops to seize cotton on the docks, what people anywherehad faced such acts by their own government without revolting?

The only problem for us was that the South fought too well. It took four years to force them to accept Federal Authority.

Darth Avlectus 08-15-2013 02:21 PM

This is why I do not watch movies nearly as much as I used to. The producers and the brand labels seem to be warring for the minds, hearts, and souls of people with the use of framing and perception. It's the lamestream, err mainstream media.

Of course the last Lincoln movie was historically inaccurate, too.

I watched Django and as much as the (noted same far left) critics complained of bigotry and racism, they seemed to miss the obvious that it was as much about this as it was these kind of lowlifes being blown to hell. Gruesomely I might add.

Zerimar Nyliram 08-15-2013 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by machievelli (Post 2836715)
This is only the second movie I have lambasted, but give me a break! The entire use of slavery in the South just because Vampires run the South? Give me an effing Break!

The War Between the States (What most of you remember from American History as the Civil War) was fought not over slavery, it was because the Northern merchants that dealt with finished cloth did not want to have competitors in the south who would also be making it. They wanted a subservient South delivering the cotton necessary to their business. When the South first tried to buy such machinery, the North blocked it's importation. At the same time they attacked the South on two fronts; first by banning further importation of slaves (A hot button Liberal issue) and then placing punitive tariffs for any sale of cotton to any port not in the North.

The North did everything to start that war but fire the first shot! Blockading Southern Ports, landing troops to seize cotton on the docks, what people anywherehad faced such acts by their own government without revolting?

The only problem for us was that the South fought too well. It took four years to force them to accept Federal Authority.

Finally, someone else knows history! Yes, while slavery may have been one of the main motivations for the South's secession, it was not the cause of the war. What the war was fought over was the south's other, and perhaps bigger, motivation: too much centralized power in Washington.

Let's not forget that Abraham Lincoln never had any intention to free any slaves until it became an advantageous political platform to adopt. In fact, Abraham Lincoln was not all he was cracked up to be at all. I maintain he was one of our worst presidents, and I've spoken about it at length on my Facebook page.

I didn't see it, but Vampire Hunter is probably closer to the truth than that other piece of film propaganda, Lincoln.

purifier 08-17-2013 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by machievelli (Post 2836715)
This is only the second movie I have lambasted, but give me a break! The entire use of slavery in the South just because Vampires run the South? Give me an effing Break!

The War Between the States (What most of you remember from American History as the Civil War) was fought not over slavery, it was because the Northern merchants that dealt with finished cloth did not want to have competitors in the south who would also be making it. They wanted a subservient South delivering the cotton necessary to their business. When the South first tried to buy such machinery, the North blocked it's importation. At the same time they attacked the South on two fronts; first by banning further importation of slaves (A hot button Liberal issue) and then placing punitive tariffs for any sale of cotton to any port not in the North.

The North did everything to start that war but fire the first shot! Blockading Southern Ports, landing troops to seize cotton on the docks, what people anywherehad faced such acts by their own government without revolting?

The only problem for us was that the South fought too well. It took four years to force them to accept Federal Authority.

You thinking some less educated minds will believe all that crap, even though it's only a movie with false alternative historical ideas? Or does it irritate you that they made Lincoln look like some kind of 1800's gothic superhero?


Just honest questions. Not really interested in a debate, just want to know why the movie bothers you so much.

Darth Avlectus 08-18-2013 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purifier (Post 2836807)
Just honest questions. Not really interested in a debate, just want to know why the movie bothers you so much.

Because it's a bunch of melodramatic doo-doo, the script was written on icky bum wipes, and it are go bad if not treated with air freshener!!! :mad:

purifier 08-18-2013 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Avlectus (Post 2836847)
Because it's a bunch of melodramatic doo-doo, the script was written on icky bum wipes, and it are go bad if not treated with air freshener!!! :mad:


Oh I see, because it just simply sucked! So you're giving it two thumbs down, right?

mimartin 08-19-2013 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purifier (Post 2836850)
because it just simply sucked!

Of course it sucked, it was about vampires :)

It was a fictional movie, it in no way represented itself as a documentary or factional. I have no more problem with it than I do any Star Wars, both are completely fictional. Only problem with "Abraham Lincoln; Vampire Hunter" was it was a terrible writing, terrible direction, terrible acting and terrible concept.

Q 08-19-2013 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by machievelli (Post 2836715)
This is only the second movie I have lambasted, but give me a break! The entire use of slavery in the South just because Vampires run the South? Give me an effing Break!

The War Between the States (What most of you remember from American History as the Civil War) was fought not over slavery, it was because the Northern merchants that dealt with finished cloth did not want to have competitors in the south who would also be making it. They wanted a subservient South delivering the cotton necessary to their business. When the South first tried to buy such machinery, the North blocked it's importation. At the same time they attacked the South on two fronts; first by banning further importation of slaves (A hot button Liberal issue) and then placing punitive tariffs for any sale of cotton to any port not in the North.

The North did everything to start that war but fire the first shot! Blockading Southern Ports, landing troops to seize cotton on the docks, what people anywherehad faced such acts by their own government without revolting?

The only problem for us was that the South fought too well. It took four years to force them to accept Federal Authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Ca...he_Confederacy

CommanderQ 08-19-2013 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by machievelli (Post 2836715)
The only problem for us was that the South fought too well. It took four years to force them to accept Federal Authority.

Well, I'm not really sure how splintered guerilla warfare and 2 failed invasions of the North constitute as fighting well...it really just makes them very...very stubborn. Yes, Lee fully earned the nickname "Wily Gray Fox" and certainly defeated several incompetent Federal generals time and again (alongside the likes of legends like the late Jackson, JEB Stuart, early-war Ewell, pre-Gettysburg Picket, the adopted Texan, John Bell Hood, and the founder of the Klan himself, Forrest), but in all honesty, those were pointless victories. For all the 'glory' and 'honor' of their southern culture these generals fought to defend, they were truly on the wrong side of progress. When it came to appearances, their military victories looked fantastic, but in reality, did little to curb the actual beast that was attacking them. The Federal forces, on the other hand? They understood how to cure the South of a need for war. I mean, for goodness sake, the Civil War was the birth of modern warfare, where Sherman burned and pillaged everything from Tennessee to Georgia, where Grant's numbers forced the Confederate line at Vicksburg to stretch itself so thin they could only place 1 man for every 6 meters in the trenches...the arrogance inherent in Southern strategy was the only thing that prevented a total capitulation. Furthermore, the blame is not on either the North or the South for the beginning of the war, rather, it is both. I mean, conflict between the two had always existed, going as far back as pre-revolution (It even decided the positioning of the US capital). The War for Southern Independence was really just...well, the Yellowstone Fire of 1988. You build up enough tinder without allowing the natural change to take place and a single spark sends everything straight to hell.

Jae Onasi 08-19-2013 06:43 PM

The battle was going on in Congress and the court system long before war broke out, and was very much a states' rights vs. federal rights issue. Slavery was actually on a decline prior to the start of the Civil War, although slavery had a definitive part as one of the causes.

I think the historical discussion is far more interesting than the movie in this thread.

purifier 08-20-2013 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin (Post 2836923)
Of course it sucked, it was about vampires :)

*ahem!* Good one! :D


Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin (Post 2836923)
It was a fictional movie, it in no way represented itself as a documentary or factional. I have no more problem with it than I do any Star Wars, both are completely fictional. Only problem with "Abraham Lincoln; Vampire Hunter" was it was a terrible writing, terrible direction, terrible acting and terrible concept.

The thing that gets me though, is that it has a worldwide gross of over $116,000,000.00 so far. Of course that doesn't compare to the worldwide billions of dollars movies like Star Wars bring in, but still, I didn't think it would bring in that much.

I guess it was because it was horror movie and a lot of people love horror movies no matter how cheesy they are.

machievelli 10-15-2013 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zerimar Nyliram (Post 2836765)
Finally, someone else knows history! Yes, while slavery may have been one of the main motivations for the South's secession, it was not the cause of the war. What the war was fought over was the south's other, and perhaps bigger, motivation: too much centralized power in Washington.

Let's not forget that Abraham Lincoln never had any intention to free any slaves until it became an advantageous political platform to adopt. In fact, Abraham Lincoln was not all he was cracked up to be at all. I maintain he was one of our worst presidents, and I've spoken about it at length on my Facebook page.

I didn't see it, but Vampire Hunter is probably closer to the truth than that other piece of film propaganda, Lincoln.

Finally, some recognition! I have studied mainly military history for almost 50 years, and to understand why a nation goes to war, you have to understand what drove them to it.

Anyone who has read the preamble of the Constitution knows the line 'but when a long train of abuses, and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evincing by design to reduce them to absolute despotism, it is their right, and it is their duty, to throw off such government, and provide new guards for their future security'

Quote:

Originally Posted by purifier (Post 2836807)
You thinking some less educated minds will believe all that crap, even though it's only a movie with false alternative historical ideas? Or does it irritate you that they made Lincoln look like some kind of 1800's gothic superhero?


Just honest questions. Not really interested in a debate, just want to know why the movie bothers you so much.

As Minmartin said, it was poorly written, badly acted, and as a writer who has tried to sell in Hollywood longer than most of you have been alive, it is an insult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin (Post 2836923)
Of course it sucked, it was about vampires :)

It was a fictional movie, it in no way represented itself as a documentary or factional. I have no more problem with it than I do any Star Wars, both are completely fictional. Only problem with "Abraham Lincoln; Vampire Hunter" was it was a terrible writing, terrible direction, terrible acting and terrible concept.

Amen!
Quote:

Originally Posted by CommanderQ (Post 2836934)
Well, I'm not really sure how splintered guerilla warfare and 2 failed invasions of the North constitute as fighting well...it really just makes them very...very stubborn. Yes, Lee fully earned the nickname "Wily Gray Fox" and certainly defeated several incompetent Federal generals time and again (alongside the likes of legends like the late Jackson, JEB Stuart, early-war Ewell, pre-Gettysburg Picket, the adopted Texan, John Bell Hood, and the founder of the Klan himself, Forrest), but in all honesty, those were pointless victories. For all the 'glory' and 'honor' of their southern culture these generals fought to defend, they were truly on the wrong side of progress. When it came to appearances, their military victories looked fantastic, but in reality, did little to curb the actual beast that was attacking them. The Federal forces, on the other hand? They understood how to cure the South of a need for war. I mean, for goodness sake, the Civil War was the birth of modern warfare, where Sherman burned and pillaged everything from Tennessee to Georgia, where Grant's numbers forced the Confederate line at Vicksburg to stretch itself so thin they could only place 1 man for every 6 meters in the trenches...the arrogance inherent in Southern strategy was the only thing that prevented a total capitulation. Furthermore, the blame is not on either the North or the South for the beginning of the war, rather, it is both. I mean, conflict between the two had always existed, going as far back as pre-revolution (It even decided the positioning of the US capital). The War for Southern Independence was really just...well, the Yellowstone Fire of 1988. You build up enough tinder without allowing the natural change to take place and a single spark sends everything straight to hell.

Look at the fact that almost every factory making weapons, from pistols to cannon, were located in the North. If most of the citizens that went to fight for the south had not brought their own rifles, they would have been sending men in Russian or Chinese human wave attacks. There is no way the less than 1% who owned slaves could convince the rest to fight.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Q (Post 2836931)

I knew someone would bring this up. The entire argument is 'only after the war did they state their grievances', which is crap. As Raphael Semmes pointed out in his book of the voyages of the Sumter and the Alabama, Southern Americans back to Patrick Henry knew that a Federal government would automatically favor the more populous North. I defy anyone to show me the passage that states this is an inviolate contract between the Federal government and the states.

As George Pickett in the Movie Gettysburg pointed out, the original Articles of Confederation (The predecessor to the Constitution) was more of a gentleman's club, or an alliance of neighboring nations. It wasn't until the time of Daniel Webster and Supreme Court justice Joseph Story, that suddenly the government decided you were a member until you died.

The North forced that war because they didn't have a de jure leg to stand on. Afterward, they treated the South just like any conqueror would, demanding reparations and punitive back taxes to cripple the southern economy. Without the slaves the South would have to take all those under-employed whites and put them to work choppin' cotton for their Union Massas.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.