Alternative History WWII "Documentary"

Yeah, the analysis is in and the verdict is...TROLL.

 

↑
Fact Walt Disney is cryogenically frozen.
Well you may well be correct. I am unfamiliar with "Fact Walt Disney". You should have been more clear on who you were referring to. Silly me, I was under the impression the whole time that you were talking about "Walt Disney"!

Lol

↑
There was no German spaceship if you paid attention they only built the really big cannon it was called the heavy gustav google it. It was however built to late to make any real impact on the war.
It is documented that Gustav was used to shell the secret Japanese space port in the Marianas Islands. It was loaded onto a U-Boat. Unfortunately for the crew, they were unaware that Godzilla was known to frequent the area and met an untimely demise after the first firing.

Not bad interesting theory.

↑
Yes that is wrong because the assassination technically fails but still Stalin becomes leader as Lenin dies not much later.
Oh, it's wrong alright.

See I was right. We agree.

↑
Ok so I looked it up and it was some other dude who defected you are absolutely right snowden is a current events thing. But there was some dude like him back then im sure.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Use a little imagination man.

↑
True story and he hooked up with a painter while he was there.
I can vouch for his pepper enchiladas and curros. I hear he made a real killer of a taco bowl too.

Haha idk if he did all that but things got hot and heavy with Frida.

↑
Im again having trouble understanding the question. Try to break it down into simpler terms and ill try to answer it.
Here's the abridged version: "you are wrong".

Still having trouble understanding

↑
Might have gotten a date or too wrong. I admit when Im wrong.
You've gotten more than a date wrong.

Dates...

↑
Again not every date is spot on.
See above

Dates... what are they good for?

↑
same.
See above.

Absolutely nothing.

↑
Yeah he fails to get to the moon and instead America is the one that goes there to set it up.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Man you love that line. lol

↑
He was shot during world war II again South and North Korea are still at war its still world war II
Korean is not WW2. WW2 is not Korea. Korea didn't even exist in WW2. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

i assure you it existed perhaps the name was different but that doesn't disprove anything thats just what people called it back then.

↑
Again South North Korea still world war II
See above.

See above

↑
Again nit picking he might have not drew up the sketches but he got under the hood he was there.
Please show me where the rocket's hood is located. I'd really like to drop a supercharged V8 into one. Rocket fuel is overrated...

Its on the under carriage of the rocket.

↑
Dates not my strong suit was doing them off memory to save time to get the truth out there.
What is your strong suit? I admit you get full marks for comedic film making.

Art is my strong suit.

↑
You totally got me there it was Neil Armstrong
No. It was definitely Heinrich Sickleheimerschultzengruber. The inclusion of a Nazi-Fascist was a condition of the Von Braun exchange, skillfully negotiated by Fact Walt Disney.

Perhaps this is true if so the documentary must be edited to make room for this event.

↑
Heavy Gustav was not built in time to have much use I mentioned that.
But what about the shelling of the Japanese space port and correlated plotline of the world's most underwatched Godzilla film "Mechagodzilla Vs. Untersee Nazi Fascists"?!?!

I cant speak for others but I would pay a lot to see that film.

↑
Its true Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Nuked and it lead to the end of the war.
Every day the entire earth is "nuked" [read: "irradiated"] from outer space.

Crazy we are just children of the fallout

↑
this is true if you agree with me that world war ii is the same as the cold war
Who - other than yourself - agrees with you?

To be honest I cannot think of anyone else as of now.

↑
Official story Stalin has a heart attack and no one walks in for like a whole day to see what really happened. So hypothetically Trotski might have really not been dead and might have used a heart attack gun rumored to have been made by the CIA.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Again you offer no alternative. Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? The simplest solution is often the right one. Its pretty obvious if Trotski had a chance he would kill Stalin, Stalin died, Trotski must have gotten his chance. Check mate.

 

While you may not agree with my methods, you must admit I am a compelling story teller.

 

There it is. The truth finally emerges. Phew.

 

Compelling means drug-addled...Well you do learn something new every day.

 

The truth that has emerged is "Don't do drugs."

 

Blasphemy...you learned nothing lololol.

 

No, while I may agree you are not a compelling story teller, I will also admit you have no method in your madness.

 

You can stop liking us now . We're still responding.

 

But what you are doing is the equivalent of taking the writings of various 19th century fiction authors and claiming to derive the big picture of Lenin's works. One can focus too much on the details (the old saying about not seeing the forest for the trees does have some merit) but it's important that the facts be facts if you want to have any sort of reasonable understanding of things.

No that's not a fact that's an opinion. In some sense it's true few want to know the details of the daily work of a clerk typist but why make a film about that? If you throw in enough fiction to make it interesting it's no longer a film about a clerk typist daily work. In the same sense if you throw in so many obviously counter factual items it's no longer a film about WWII.

That's one of the classic logical fallacies. The alternatives are hardly know nothing vs believe your account. That said ... Your "masterwork" doesn't have a "couple of slight adjustments" it has massive amounts of ahistorical fictional elements. Better to not know than to believe fallacies to be true. In terms of educating people if it's believed to be a real documentary it has negative value. Of course not many people will believe it so that's probably not much of an issue.

I hope people don't get upset with me for this but ...

The fact that you don't know and haven't bothered to research this yourself or perhaps worse yet tried and failed indicate that your qualifications as a "student of history" are sorely lacking. Anyone with a bit of skill could have found the answer quite easily. For instance if you had bothered to enter say "ike ww2" in google the very first reference would have been:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower
....

 

↑
The truth is some parts of WW II needed spicing up to make a better film.
No that's not a fact that's an opinion. In some sense it's true few want to know the details of the daily work of a clerk typist but why make a film about that? If you throw in enough fiction to make it interesting it's no longer a film about a clerk typist daily work. In the same sense if you throw in so many obviously counter factual items it's no longer a film about WWII.
↑
But if people want to watch it then you have succeeded because they would have been educated to your truth.

Do you want to live in a world that knows nothing cause they were too bored to pay attention to boring old documentary or would you rather people flock to my master work even if there is a couple of slight adjustments for entertainment value?
That's one of the classic logical fallacies. The alternatives are hardly know nothing vs believe your account. That said ... Your "masterwork" doesn't have a "couple of slight adjustments" it has massive amounts of ahistorical fictional elements. Better to not know than to believe fallacies to be true. In terms of educating people if it's believed to be a real documentary it has negative value. Of course not many people will believe it so that's probably not much of an issue.

I hope people don't get upset with me for this but ...
↑

I dont get this every film maker has creative license to embellish this is well known. If they did not have that then all films would be a dude seating in a chair reading facts like in the movie "the invention of lying".

↑
Who is Ike?
That speaks for itself.

Seriously who is he I am a student of history I honestly want to know. I cant engage intelligently without knowing the reference/shout out.
The fact that you don't know and haven't bothered to research this yourself or perhaps worse yet tried and failed indicate that your qualifications as a "student of history" are sorely lacking. Anyone with a bit of skill could have found the answer quite easily. For instance if you had bothered to enter say "ike ww2" in google the very first reference would have been:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

I looked at the wiki on the guy. My documentary had nothing to do with him. I never even heard of him before I dont think he was involved if he was just an extra for JFK's speech.

 

Your response indicates a distinct lack of reading comprehension. Please try to understand a persons post before responding to it. The truth is not owned by any one person it either is or it isn't. I don't consider it a success to deliberately mislead people.

What you consider "well known" is not. If you are making a fictional movie you can obviously do pretty much what you want to, witness some of the works mentioned previously. If you are claiming it's a "documentary" you give up the right to include counter factual "embellishments". Obviously there are going to be parts where exactly what happened is unknown and some leeway is granted there but it's still rather limited. The alternative you mention is hardly the only one and in fact is rather a classic use of the straw man fallacy.

Seriously you read it? and you still come up with a line like this. You've got to be a troll.

 

But if people want to watch it then you have succeeded because they would have been educated to your truth.
Your response indicates a distinct lack of reading comprehension. Please try to understand a persons post before responding to it. The truth is not owned by any one person it either is or it isn't. I don't consider it a success to deliberately mislead people.

I did not mislead people deliberately maybe by accident. But you have to weigh the positives and negatives. There is a lot of information in the film. All im saying is dont throw the baby out with the bath water you know.
↑
↑
I dont get this every film maker has creative license to embellish this is well known. If they did not have that then all films would be a dude seating in a chair reading facts like in the movie "the invention of lying".
What you consider "well known" is not. If you are making a fictional movie you can obviously do pretty much what you want to, witness some of the works mentioned previously. If you are claiming it's a "documentary" you give up the right to include counter factual "embellishments". Obviously there are going to be parts where exactly what happened is unknown and some leeway is granted there but it's still rather limited. The alternative you mention is hardly the only one and in fact is rather a classic use of the straw man fallacy.

The can be documentary movie hybrids.
↑
↑
I looked at the wiki on the guy. My documentary had nothing to do with him. I never even heard of him before I dont think he was involved if he was just an extra for JFK's speech.
Seriously you read it? and you still come up with a line like this. You've got to be a troll.

All im saying is that my documentary was 17 minutes long at max I wouldve made it 20 I did not have time to mention everyone.

 

I agree.

 

If you create a work making up facts to suit your self it's deliberate. Anyone with even a limited skill with google could have looked up some of the events you included and got them right. You chose not to. It's not a case of "throwing out the baby with the bath water" it's a case of flushing the sewage down the drain.
.

Yours wasn't. Indeed wasn't even close. Video works fall into certain catagories. With regards to the topic under discussion the following are applicable:
documentary - Victory at Sea is a rather classic example
historical - (sticks to known historical facts but fills in the gaps with unverifiable infor) Tora Tora Tora or A Bridge Too Far might be considered examples of this genera
Historical fiction - (Uses a historical setting for the story and tries not to violate too many historical facts) The TV series Combat or the movie Saving Private Ryan would be examples here
Historical fantasy - (makes up stuff freely using a historical backdrop) The Man in the High Castle or the previously mentioned Iron Sky are examples.

However a documentary movie is not a hybrid. It's either a documentary or its not. There's an old saying that "if you put a cup of sewage in a barrel of wine you have a barrel of sewage". In your case your are putting a cup of wine into a barrel of sewage and trying to call it a barrel of wine.

Which is completely irrelevant to what I said. To some it up it sounds like your little film is less historically accurate than say Iron Sky, has lower production values, is less coherent, and yet claims to be a documentary with educational value while the latter made no claims to either. Indeed they didn't even claim to be historical fiction from what I saw. That it was 17 minutes rather than 20 sounds like a blessing. If you don't know who Ike was you probably shouldn't be making a film about WW2. He was certainly far more important to the war than Kennedy was. You certainly have no business calling your film a documentary.

 

BREAKING NEWS!

Here's the next installment. This time is a music video.

 

<3

 

If you create a work making up facts to suit your self it's deliberate. Anyone with even a limited skill with google could have looked up some of the events you included and got them right. You chose not to. It's not a case of "throwing out the baby with the bath water" it's a case of flushing the sewage down the drain.

My work is indeed factual a lot of what i said in it is true to the best of my knowledge also truth isnt set in stone these events are decades old and shrouded in mystery we can only try to fit the pieces together. This is how the pieces fit together for me. This is my truth. I realize some parts may not be correct as is true with all things. We edit our history text book every few years because truth is constantly shifting.
.
↑
...
The can be documentary movie hybrids.

Yours wasn't. Indeed wasn't even close. Video works fall into certain catagories. With regards to the topic under discussion the following are applicable:
documentary - Victory at Sea is a rather classic example
historical - (sticks to known historical facts but fills in the gaps with unverifiable infor) Tora Tora Tora or A Bridge Too Far might be considered examples of this genera
Historical fiction - (Uses a historical setting for the story and tries not to violate too many historical facts) The TV series Combat or the movie Saving Private Ryan would be examples here
Historical fantasy - (makes up stuff freely using a historical backdrop) The Man in the High Castle or the previously mentioned Iron Sky are examples.

However a documentary movie is not a hybrid. It's either a documentary or its not.

I feel like it is extremely unfair to limit my artistic expression documentaries are an art not a science. Dont put me in a box.
↑
...
All im saying is that my documentary was 17 minutes long at max I wouldve made it 20 I did not have time to mention everyone.
Which is completely irrelevant to what I said. To some it up it sounds like your little film is less historically accurate than say Iron Sky, has lower production values, is less coherent, and yet claims to be a documentary with educational value while the latter made no claims to either. Indeed they didn't even claim to be historical fiction from what I saw. That it was 17 minutes rather than 20 sounds like a blessing. If you don't know who Ike was you probably shouldn't be making a film about WW2. He was certainly far more important to the war than Kennedy was. You certainly have no business calling your film a documentary.

I respect your opinion but i think Reagan was more important honestly then either of the other two gentleman. He is the one the won after all.

 

Sorry it's either factual or it's not. If you claim it is a documentary then the onus is upon you to at least try and verify the information you didn't.

It most certainly is.

There are things that are known and there are things that are suspected and there are things that are unknown. the fact that "these events" are decades old doesn't mean that they are all that mysterious some are quite well documented there may be pieces that are questionable but that's not what we are discussing here. The pieces don't fit your are cutting them into all sorts of weird shapes and hammering them into place with a sledge hammer. I'm sorry it isn't "your truth" it is either the truth or it isn't and as far as your work goes it isn't. History books are edited when more becomes known not because someone invents some "facts" and comes up with an off the wall interpretation. The wine analogy applies.

I find it extremely unfair that you are pushing such garbage as fact. That you are claiming your work is a documentary when it's clearly a work of fantasy. A documentary is very much a work of science there may be some art in how it is presented but you are suppose to start with facts and build a logical case. You started with fiction and ignored logic to reach the conclusions you wanted to that's not a documentary. I'm sorry but you put yourself in ia box and you belong in it as far as I'm concerned, I'll refrain from going into more detail with that one.

Thus showing your opinion is worth nothing, sort of like your film.

 

This explains much.