12 very long post 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 . It ' s actually funny that you perceive me pointing out corrections as personal attacks . No need to be so defensive . It ' s only you that thinks your grammar says anything about your intelligence . For all I know English could be your 12 th language . Chill the fuck out . Also feeling the need to putting wrong words in my mouth to make you look correct . Again , I ' m not . I have not misquoted you or misrepresented what you ' ve said . If I came to the wrong conclusion from what you ' ve said , then you should just say , that ' s not what I meant , or I think you misunderstood . Which could easily have happened if you made similar mistakes in grammar andor typos . So true events stories could have or actually could have no real historical figures . Yeah , you see what I mean ? That doesn ' t make sense . Like . what are you even trying to say ? You are just repeating what I said . Biopics have to have real people in them , at least one in particular , because otherwise it ' s not biographical . If you ' re that smart then you would have realized I wrote for this context but more to that later . At no point have I brought up intelligence in any fashion . I have no called you stupid , nor implied it . You obviously are feeling quite threatened though , and there is no need to be . It ironically makes me think you did genuinely think it was portrait and not portray , and you ' re an English speaker . Rather than me giving you the benefit of the doubt . And that still wouldn ' t make you stupid , but you come across as embarrassed . Context isn ' t some catch all term to avoid criticism for what you ' re saying . The context is films , and this one in particular . There is no additional context missing from my response . If you are saying that for this film it doesn ' t matter if it ' s a biopic or based on true events , you have to demonstrate why this film is an exception . So you actually do agree with me . If we agree with each other , then that ' s fine ? In the context we ' re discussing your opinion of a break immersion due to an inaccurate or unrealistic display of true events in a serious subject it doesn ' t matter . . Again , that doesn ' t make sense . I ' m saying that while the term based on true events is a very large umbrella term that includes films like biopics , that doesn ' t make it just based on true events . It is also a biopic . That ' s just something it is . Apparently you think because based on true events is an umbrella term that covers biopics , that what you have previously claimed about based on true events is therefore true about biopics . That ' s a fallacious argument . For example Pigs can fly No , pigs can ' t fly . Pigs are animals , and animals fly Some animals fly , but pigs aren ' t the kind that can Birds are animals , pigs are animals , therefore pigs can fly That ' s called a fallacy of composition . Also , I entirely miss any reasoning you ' ve given on why , therefore . it doesn ' t matter . Just because you might be more inclined to be sensitive for break immersion in serious subjects , doesn ' t mean that other elements of movies that are unrealistic can ' t be break immersive . Again , that ' s not English . That doesn ' t make sense grammatically as a sentence . It also doesn ' t follow on from anything really , it ' s a non sequitur . Because I essentially explained how things can be more than just an umbrella term , that means other elements of movies that are unrealistic can ' t break immersion ? I ' m assuming that ' s what you mean here , because can ' t be break immersive doesn ' t make sense . Firstly , that ' s not logical , as I ' ve said . Secondly and perhaps more importantly however , I ' ve stated repeatedly that other films can have unrealistic moments that don ' t break immersion . My argument has never , ever been that unrealistic events in films break immersion . That would be a patently stupid thing to say . Guardians of the Galaxy isn ' t know for its realism , but it is immersive because it follows the logic consistent with its own established laws of its universe , and because it has no jarring problems with its tone . So you think in terms of break immersion there is a difference between an inaccurate display of a real historical figure and an inaccurate display of a real logic or physics ? Both are based on realism and can be break immersive . It depends entirely what real logic or physics are being broken Jane Austin suddenly flying is a problem , and which historical figure we ' re talked about , in which film , using whichever methods of filmmaking it employs . Your argument that , both are based on realism and can break immersion , again , assuming that ' s what you meant is something I wouldn ' t disagree with , and is not a rebuttal to what I ' m saying in any way . You seem to be arguing against a stance I don ' t have or trying to present what I ' m saying as that because otherwise you don ' t understand what I ' m saying . On contrary to you who only uses break immersion as a metric ? Um . fucking no ? I ' m saying this one particular film had problems with its immersion . I ' ve said in the past that Fury did , and Inglorious Basterds didn ' t . I didn ' t say that they were good or bad movies because of that , nor said that was the only important aspect of looking at film . But you have consistently in your comments presented a successful film as one that is enjoyable . Fury is a successful film but it has problems with immersion within its final act . That ' s a criticism , but it doesn ' t make the film a poor one . Ultimately for any normal intend it ' s comes down to enjoying it or not . Normal intent is a weasel word . That statement is meaningless . Or do you see someone sitting through a movie not feeling immersed at all but still enjoy it ? One of my favourite films , Funny Games , is deliberately unimmersive , taking you out of the narrative entirely to address the camera and audience and berate you for what you are watching . It ' s also designed to not be very enjoyable to watch . It makes for distressing , uncomfortable viewing . It ' s deliberately offensive , and has a deeply troubling and unsatisfying climax . All of that is the point of the film , and the intent of the director . It ' s a fascinating film to look at if you want to understand how films can be more than just entertainment . Appreciate is the word you ' re looking for . Film is art , after all . But to answer your question clearly , there are unimmersive films that people enjoy . Transformers is mostly CGI garbage . People love it . Hell I enjoyed at least one of them And again . It doesn ' t matter . Because you say that is so , not because you ' ve demonstrated why at all . Or must movies with serious tone based on real events only display everything in a realistic fashion ? No , but it takes an extremely talented writer and director to do it , because of the problems inherent within it , especially if the unrealistic events are in fact , fantastical in nature . I mean , there is the whole concept of satire which does exactly that display real events , in a serious tone , but in an entirely unrealistic fashion . I ' m saying this particular film has a failing in this regard . It obviously wasn ' t satirising kungfu films although that would have been a brilliant choice on the filmmakers part . Not a failing intrinsic to what it attempted to do , but because its attempt was a failure . It attempted to blend serious events , a serious biographical tone , with kungfu cinema tropes I ' m saying that it failed ultimately . That and only that is my critical opinion . Everything else , the nature of being able to make such a critical opinion , is not an opinion but an argument . I agree that the movie has a serious tone but it doesn ' t mean that the unrealistic elements in it can ' t be immersive . Well they could have been immersive . It ' s possible . But what got on camera in the end wasn ' t . Looking at the huge success of the movie I ' m sure you agree that many shares that opinion . That ' s either appeal to the people , or appeal to authority . 12 cont ' d