[ekianjo]

> It's so bad it shouldn't be considered canon.

Since when are movies supposed to be accurate historical references? They are made to be entertaining, so facts get kicked out of the door from Day 1.

[mannykannot]

It is not like you cannot tell a good story here without embellishing and distorting it.

As it happens, Verity Stobb panned the movie (justifiably, IMHO), in her splendidly British style, for much more than just getting the facts wrong.

https://www.theregister.com/2015/01/26/verity_stob_turing_mo...

[ekianjo]

> It is not like you cannot tell a good story here without embellishing and distorting it.

You can't tell a complex story in a short time and numerous characters on screen. In books you can. In movies it's borderline impossible and therefore simplifying/dumbing things down is a filter you need to apply first.

[mannykannot]

you don't have to make stuff up - that's not simplifying things.

And dumbing-down is not equivalent to simplifying, unless you do it in a dumb way.

Talented writers take one issue, or one theme, from the big picture and weave a story from that.

[ekianjo]

Please share with me one movie with a complex storyline involving dozens of characters, you know, like in real life, then. I am curious.

[mannykannot]

Midway was an example of of a movie where the director and writer were concerned about historical accuracy, and so avoided the sort of risible nonsense that Stobb lampooned in the imitation Game. I am now curious as to whether you will respond in the way that I expect.