The Revenant

[YosemiteSam]

Did you know the word gullible isn't in the dictionary?

 

[mattjames2010]

Much of it is legend. Your assumption is based on the fact that the story related by Wiki is the only version of it.

http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/revenant/

And every part that I said was fact is stated as "fact" in that article. Fancy that.

 

[YosemiteSam]

And every part that I said was fact is stated as "fact" in that article. Fancy that.

There is very little actually known to be "absolutely true" about his entire story. Everything on the Internet and Movies are 100% true.

 

[mattjames2010]

There is very little actually known to be "absolutely true" about his entire story. Everything on the Internet and Movies are 100% true.

No one stated it was "100%" true, genius. I said the part you took issue with is the one part based off the historical Hugh Glass. It wasn't the revenge tale, not the relationship or the dream sequences, it was the bear attack and the miles he traveled. That's the part you took issue with. Hilarious.

 

[khiladi]

And every part that I said was fact is stated as "fact" in that article. Fancy that.

No, it isn't.. Telegraph for example says, the only thing one knows for sure is that he was a fur trapper and frontiersman and that each time the story was embellished with every re-telling.

 

[mattjames2010]

No, it isn't.. Telegraph for example says, the only thing one knows for sure is that he was a fur trapper and frontiersman and that each time the story was embellished with every re-telling.

First off, they didn't cite any sources. Secondly, this is very much like the "Historical Jesus" debate. You still have that small group saying "But there isn't enough documented to believe he was ever real"

Look, historians believe Jesus existed the same way historians believe the Hugh Glass attack happened.

 

[khiladi]

First off, they didn't cite any sources. Secondly, this is very much like the "Historical Jesus" debate. You still have that small group saying "But there isn't enough documented to believe he was ever real"

Look, historians believe Jesus existed the same way historians believe the Hugh Glass attack happened.

Even if we accept the analogy, which is flawed, this is not questioning existence, this is questioning a tale that was first reported in a PHilly paper, by a lawyer who had no affiliation with Glass. Glass didn't write anything down.

It's highly unlikely a bear wound that reaches the bone wouldn't end up becoming infected and causing death in a matter of days, particularly when your out in the woods and subject to all sorts of elements which carry innumerable bacteria with easy access to your organs because of the wound.

Emergency surgeries pump you with antibiotics after closing wounds of sorts.

And just like stories became sensationalized with respect to Jesus, as attested in the Apocrypha accounts, of course things would be sensationalized by a guy who wasn't even out in the public, but spent his life wandering the open territory... The evidence demonstrates the stories became sensationalized as time went on.

 

[mattjames2010]

Really, your comparing him to Jesus?

Because Hugh Glass didn leave any sources and he was literate.

This is not questioning existence, this is questioning a tale that was first reported in a PHilly paper, by a lawyer who had no affiliation with Glass.

It's highly unlikely a bear wound that reaches the bone wouldn't end up becoming infected and causing death in a matter of days, particularly when your out in the woods and subject to all sorts of elements which carry infectious bacteria.

Neither did Jesus. Most of what has been discussed about Jesus came 30-50 years AFTER his death, and that came from a devout Christian. Actually, there were countless messiahs in that time period being hung on the cross. So yes, I am going to compare Hugh Glass to Jesus: Little documented =/= didn't exist/wasn't true.

And that article stated a Philly paper, the events that took place were actually written in a Missouri paper with Hugh Glass telling his story. There are books by historians written on him, go read them.

Highly unlikely? Who said it was likely, genius? The story is well know BECAUSE he survived the odds. You get that, right? No one hears the story and thinks it was a walk in the park.

 

[khiladi]

Neither did Jesus. Most of what has been discussed about Jesus came 30-50 years AFTER his death, and that came from a devout Christian. Actually, there were countless messiahs in that time period being hung on the cross. So yes, I am going to compare Hugh Glass to Jesus: Little documented =/= didn't exist/wasn't true.

And that article stated a Philly paper, the events that took place were actually written in a Missouri paper with Hugh Glass telling his story. There are books by historians written on him, go read them.

Highly unlikely? Who said it was likely, genius? The story is well know BECAUSE he survived the odds. You get that, right? No one hears the story and thinks it was a walk in the park.

What are you taking about? Your brining up totally irrelevant arguments about historical existence of a personality and a particular account of a person's life in frontier land not being dramatized..

And all this during a time when paper was much more common and so was literacy and Hugh could write. We even have photographic documentation of Hugh.

Again, are you seriously going to compare the two.. Your argument was that the only thing that was dramatized about the story was the son revenge tale.. Everything else, including the maggots eating the feet to prevent gangrene is true...

And now your telling me that the source is wrong, when before you were telling me there was no source.. And before that you were saying that the link I provided said whatever you said was 'fact'..

 

[mattjames2010]

Hugh Glass came during a time where paper was much more common and so was literacy...

Again, are you seriously going to compare the two..

You're reaching now, bud. There are people that date back further than Jesus that have far more documented about them. It had nothing to do with "literacy" - it had to do with the church keeping those they put on crosses from being written about. Again, there is far less documented about the historical Jesus, yet historians acknowledge he most likely existed.

Everything about Hugh Glass' event, from him asking for 100 men in a Missouri paper to events being told in the Milwaukee journal. The bear attack most likely happened, the injuries he suffered were most likely true, the distance he traveled 100-200 miles, most likely true.

"Most likely" can be attached to nearly every historical event you read about, there are deniers attached to them all.

 

[khiladi]

You're reaching now, bud. There are people that date back further than Jesus that have far more documented about them. It had nothing to do with "literacy" - it had to do with the church keeping those they put on crosses from being written about. Again, there is far less documented about the historical Jesus, yet historians acknowledge he most likely existed.

Everything about Hugh Glass' event, from him asking for 100 men in a Missouri paper to events being told in the Milwaukee journal. The bear attack most likely happened, the injuries he suffered were most likely true, the distance he traveled 100-200 miles, most likely true.

"Most likely" can be attached to nearly every historical event you read about, there are deniers attached to them all.

Your all over the place in your arguments...

Do you know the difference between existence and incidents that happen during one's existence? Who is questioning that Hugh Glass didn't exist?

Bud, we don't even have to get into a historical debate but refer to everyday life, where people question the accounts of people existing right before their very eyes in everyday situations such as court cases..

And many people in Life have been attacked by hears and survived.. Being attacked by a bear and surviving is also not the definition of embellishment..

 

[jnday]

I am sure Hollywood added a little drama, but from my research, Louis story does not tell many of the unbelievable things things that Glass did survive. I guess the movie would have lasted five hours if the whole story was told. Sometimes life is more unbelievable than the movies. There is no doubt that he was an a true survivor and a very tough man.

 

[mattjames2010]

Your all over the place in your arguments...

Do you know the difference between existence and incidents that happen during one's existence? Who is questioning that Hugh Glass didn't exist?

Bud, we don't even have to get into a historical debate but refer to everyday life, where people question the accounts of people existing right before their very eyes in everyday situations such as court cases..

And many people in Life have been attacked by hears and survived.. Being attacked by a bear and surviving is also not the definition of embellishment..

And you're completely missing the point here. You're calling into question the events because you feel there isn't enough documented; I am here telling you there are events in history with LESS documented that historians, you, and everyone else accepts as fact. Of course there would naturally be things added to his life/story, there are certainly things about Hugh Glass that are accepted as being works of fiction, but the bear attack and his survival is not one of them.

And who said no one else has ever survived a bear attack?

 

[YosemiteSam]

Neither did Jesus.

LOL, stop!

 

[YosemiteSam]

And you're completely missing the point here. You're calling into question the events because you feel there isn't enough documented; I am here telling you there are events in history with LESS documented that historians, you, and everyone else accepts as fact. Of course there would naturally be things added to his life/story, there are certainly things about Hugh Glass that are accepted as being works of fiction, but the bear attack and his survival is not one of them.

And who said no one else has ever survived a bear attack?

No, you were here saying Glass' story is true as it is in the movie and I'm telling you hell no it's not. Nobody could survive what they theatrically put on in the movie.

Remember this quote from you?

The only thing dramatized in this movie was the revenge tale.

 

[mattjames2010]

No, you were here saying Glass' story is true as it is in the movie and I'm telling you hell no it's not. Nobody could survive what they theatrically put on in the movie.

Remember this quote from you?

You actually going to put forth some facts that his story isn't true? Instead, I continue to get "It can't be true!" from you.

 

[YosemiteSam]

You actually going to put forth some facts that his story isn't true? Instead, I continue to get "It can't be true!" from you.

What was it? I've got ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. I will throw the Golden Gate Bridge in for free too!

 

[mattjames2010]

What was it? I've got ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. I will throw the Golden Gate Bridge in for free too!

So, nothing? Thank you.

 

[Gemini Dolly]

For the most part, I have enjoyed Leo Di Cicaprio movies. I am looking forward to this one too. Still unbelievable he hasn't won an Oscar.

 

[YosemiteSam]

So, nothing? Thank you.

You're the one asking for facts, yet it's you that have none. We are just pointing that FACT out.

You said the story is true, we said there is no proof of that. If it's true. Prove it. Oh that's right. You can't because YOU have no facts.

Have you ever taken a logic reasoning test? You should take one, then use that score to determine whether your case holds water.

https://www.123test.com/logical-reasoning-test/