Holy shit those were 2 really well designed plays . <| sep |> You do realise Trump runs a large organisation , right ? Read some of those definitions again , you failed abortion . I ' m not your mate , you stupid cunt . <| sep |> Again . Wrong assumption . No , you called what I said an attack . Its not an assumption , that ' s what you called it yourself , in your own words . That being said , in your own words you said , I find it funny that you have to resort attacking to small incorrectness of a word because you don ' t have anything valid to argue against . Which admittedly , makes little to no sense without significant interpretation . Maybe you should sometimes take your own advice . I ' m not complaining about being attacked . But I will proceed not to take my own advice and most definitely not be chill . Oh well . Because it ' s offtopic . Am I putting words in your mouth or am I off topic ? It sounds like you ' re just making excuses . The point of my statement was there have been a tons of movies in the West referring to your Audie Murphy analogy that have done unrealistic scenes such as this one 10 v 1 which many people enjoyed it regardless of the unrealistic portion . I ' ve responded to that at least twice now . I know what your point was . Unrealism and enjoyment alone aren ' t important to this discussion . I enjoyed Fury , it also had unrealistic scenes . You can ' t quite seem to understand how you pointing out other films have succeeded at what I am criticizing this film for isn ' t a rebuttal . I know other films succeeded at it where this film failed . I pointed that out . And it ' s not unrealistic events that are the problem , it ' s events that break immersion in the film . I don ' t think you have taken any effort whatsoever in understanding the difference between immersion and realism . Because originally in your comment you ' re replying to a comment criticising this very unrealistic scene 10 v 1 . Because it ruined immersion in the film not because it was unrealistic . Your addition was that it was set in an historical and serious tone which you have a problem with . Therefore I was implying that it was pointless to criticise it when in the past it has been done numerous times already and people have enjoylikefelt immersed however you call it Even if it had been done before numerous times , that wouldn ' t be a rebuttal . I ' m saying that they didn ' t successfully do it . It ' s like you didn ' t even read what I said . There existing examples where is has worked is irrelevant . I only made the Audie Murphie equation to demonstrate how the plotevents of such a film would have to be similar to create such a dissonance as well . This is a perfect example you putting wrong words into my mouth . And these wrong assumption are everywhere through all of your comments . Honestly , If I ' m doing that , it ' s because what you are writing down doesn ' t mean what you think it does . That ' s the only possible way I ' m misconstruing what you are saying . How about you consider the possibility you might not understand what I am saying ? Given the fact your writing would get a twelve year old a failing English grade , and it doesn ' t seem like you are in fact a nonEnglish speaker , that would make a lot of sense , don ' t you think ? If I felt defensively as you said it I would ' ve felt need to point out all of your wrong assumptions as you have done with my post . So you ' re saying I was . more wrong than you even pointed out , but neglected to do so because you figured you would look bad ? I don ' t even know how to respond to that without literally mocking you . No ? Then I ' m sorry to actually assumed that this statement of yours was meant to be sarcastic You ' re right , I suppose that is a reference to your intelligence . I ' m very sorry if that upset you . I didn ' t mean it as a jibe or attack at all . What I mean there was that yes , obviously it ' s extremely difficult to be entirely objective in a subjective medium . If that was the thing that set you off , so to speak , then there is no need to be so defensive . I wasn ' t actually calling you stupid , just that something you said is quite obvious . Apparently you have an extremely large chip on your shoulder , which isn ' t surprising since you have obvious difficulties in grammar . Perhaps judicious use of the spell checker is to blame ? I did that already . I had made an effort already to explain it in my previous comments . Even you yourself named a few examples . I have not seen any example of you explaining why Ip Man is the exception to the fact that a biopic and based on true events are different sorts of films . There is no additional context . You have said that because Ip Man didn ' t intend to be realistic , then it ' s not important if it ' s not immersive , but that doesn ' t follow . Referring to your analogy I like to see where you actually think I ' ve made that statement Birds are animals , pigs are animals , therefore pigs can fly . . What ? Firstly , again , that makes no grammatical sense . Do you actually think I ' m accusing you of claiming that pigs can fly ? ! It ' s an example of a fallacy of composition . That ' s all it is . I explained where you made your fallacy of composition in my post . This is basic reading comprehension mate . This movie follows the law that IpMan has the ability to fight and win against 10 Karate masters in certain context the one we ' re seeing . Now where ' s the problem in that ? I ' ve told you repeatedly . This is a straw man argument . There is nothing wrong with that , in and of itself . There is a problem with the immersion of the film , and its tone , when that law is set within a biopic cinematic vocabulary . true events or biography doesn ' t matter . Because at the end both are based on realism . Which is your fallacy of composition . Also at the end is another weasel word . It doesn ' t mean anything . Because not everybody is an expert in filmcritic and it boils down to the question did you enjoy or not ? or appreciate however you call it . What do you think it takes to become an art critic ? Is there some specific quality one must have ? Because that ' s an appeal to authority . Because I ' m apparently ? not an expert art critic ? , I can ' t talk about the film ' s successes and failures outside of personal appreciation ? No . If what you ' re saying is true , then the only thing that matters to you is that you enjoyed the film , so you don ' t need to argue about it online with a stranger . If there is nothing more to it , if that ' s what it boils down to weasel word then be my guest . I would argue that you were immersed while watching these movies . But I guess your definition of immersed in a movie might differ from what I mean . No , I wasn ' t immersed . But yes , it ' s possible you have a very different idea as to what immersion means when it comes to cinema . Obviously not . If so , you would know that the creators intend was never meant to display everything accurately and realistically . In the part you quoted I literally said I was not criticizing the film for being unrealistic . What if the intend was to introduce this kungfu fantasy to this movie in the first place ? Do you see now that is pointless to criticise this very aspect ? Fucking no mate , because I know that they intended to have kungfu fantasy elements in their film because it ' s there ! That comment is absolutely farcical . How you think it ' s a rebuttal is beyond me . They intended to have fantastical kungfu elements in this film , so you can ' t criticize it . Are you joking ? ! I ' m criticizing how well they accomplished their goals , and also explaining why they would be difficult to achieve in the first place . I ' ve said before , they definitely intended their audience to be immersed in the film , and for the tone to be consistent . They failed at those things . And it ' s intent . Your spellchecker can ' t tell you whether or not to use intent or intend , but your brain certainly can learn . It ' s your opinion or critic about this scene not matching the tone of this movie . That is ok . But you don ' t seem to grasp or intentionally overlook the point I ' m trying to make You literally have said repeatedly that it ' s pointless , and now you are saying it ' s okay . But you at least managed to give a serviceable paraphrasing of what I actually am saying . If I can ' t grasp the point you are trying to make , it may be because a great deal of the time you do not make grammatical sense . But if being condescending makes you feel better , with your words , we should leave it at that . You can ' t argue with someone who can ' t correctly put a sentence together and not come across as condescending , but I ' ve taken enormous efforts not to , including presenting half a dozen different ways you might simply be making an admirable effort . Only a narcissist would believe the only reason they are being criticised is to assuage someone else ' s feelings , rather than the fact there might be a great deal to criticize . I ' m going to just have to assume you only really read through anything you or I have said once , and skimmed it at that , for my own fucking sanity . If you want to get upset about that , you are perfectly welcome to . I don ' t think I can write another response to a similar comment by you without being very candidly insulting , so I won ' t be reading any further replies by you .