What happened to him?

What happened to him?

Other urls found in this thread:

spectator.co.uk/2017/04/the-lost-city-of-z-is-a-very-long-way-from-a-true-story-and-i-should-know/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

He died.

How? What secrets does the jungle hold?

Apparently he used to bring presents to every new tribe he ever met. The tribe he was staying with, the last one to see him alive, told him not to go to the specific area he wanted to visit.

They told him that the tribe was highly aggressive and they warned him over and over. Furthermore, according to them, he didnt have any more presents for the new tribe, which is a big no-no.

I dont think the film showed it very well. His son and him probably were shot by 20 arrows before they knew what hit them and then clubbed to death.

People hated on this movie so much, but I loved it. Yeah, if you try to compare it to Laurence of Arabia it's gonna suck, but I didn't think of it as an old hollywood movie, it was just an engaging as hell movie.

I loved it as well but I'm biased because I'm fond of everything relating to exploration etc. I think the movie should've spent more time in the actual jungle rather than trying to recount every aspect of his life.

>A new Hollywood film hypes Percy Fawcett as a great explorer. In fact, he was a racist incompetent who achieved very little
kek

spectator.co.uk/2017/04/the-lost-city-of-z-is-a-very-long-way-from-a-true-story-and-i-should-know/

>19th century born british aristocrat is a racist
how shocking

This movie didn't really glorify the protagonist at all. It portrayed him as a dreamer with delusions of grandeur, but it still was sympathetic

Why these SJW types approach everything in such stark terms is so fucking childish, I know I'm preaching to the choir but goddamned, a sympathetic portrayal of a character doesn't mean "this person was great and everything he did was right and good." Monsters can be portrayed sympathetically.

he had his "spirit freed" aka murdered by inbred jungle people

>he wrote racist gibberish that ‘there are three kinds of Indians. The first are docile and miserable people, easily tamed; the second, dangerous, repulsive cannibals very rarely seen; the third, a robust and fair people, who must have a civilised origin.’

>SJW types
The Spectator is a conservative outlet. And the irony of you condemning stark terms is ironic given you probably didn't read the article, which barely even talks about the movie. it just takes a basic outline (Fawcett was a great explorer) then proceeds to go off a tangent that doesn't relate to the movie at all. Just Fawcett's so-called achievements.

I liked it as well

Also did they ever found the "Lost City" he was looking for?

a comfy movie

Eh yeah, he lived in an age where pseudo scientific racial theories ran rampant, so nothing surprising there. I found the way he was portrayed as a defender of native rights ridiculous too, but Hollywood has this annoying habit of trying to make historical figures likeable to 21th audiences.
>pic related

The first line of the article is: "The new film The Lost City of Z is being advertised as based on the true story of one of Britain’s greatest explorers"

That's reductive and incorrect. The movie isn't the story about a great man, it's about a man who's ambition destroys his family.

This article keeps referring to an amorphous "hollywood" and uses the word "hype." It's retarded SJW logic, regardless of the political leaning.

why wasn't this a king solomons mines film?

>19th century aristocrat is racist
shocking

>pseudo scientific racial theories
You need to fuck off back to NeoGAF you little libshit comme ass eater.

>pseudo science racial theories.

in that time it was science and accepted.

I thought this was a tv series hahaha

wow. an image with some text on it that generalizes entire races of people. BTFO science, amirite?

I liked it but it felt somehow incomplete, a little too breezy in its pacing. This happens, then this happens, then this without much weight.

It's very simple consistently logical occum's razor explanation of explanation of racial differences.

that's exactly what i was arguing

just like all James Gray films. He's a wannabe PT Anderson who uses nice cinematography as a means to mask the thinness of his ideas.

modern studies into differences in race are shunned not because they're pseudo science but because it would cause a societal collapse

they got BRUMMED

>Thi is a white human being. Their appearance is defined by their strong jaws, pointed noses
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA what a crock of horseshit.

It was a mess of a film. Large variations in tone, horribly paced, and it couldn't even decide what type of movie it was. Charlie Hunnam is one of the worst actors I have ever seen, and he was especially awfull in this. The very name "Charlie Hunnam" ought to be written down as an antonym for charisma. Pattinson was good though. I really wanted to like this movie, and was very excited when I first heard of it. Such a disappointment.

The non-stop contrivances that kept Hunman and Pattinson together throughout the film were absurd.

>Large variations in tone, horribly paced, and it couldn't even decide what type of movie it was
>nice cinematography as a means to mask the thinness of his ideas

I don't mean any offense, so don't take this as trolling, but this is the response any movie with a hint or ambiguity gets from modern audiences.

You people hate ambiguity. Shit has to be cast in very obvious, familiar terms, or else it becomes a pacing issue or plot hole or whatever.

Hey sorry his movies aren't attempts to riff on and perfect other movies like Tarantino or PT Anderson. Sorry they're not these pat, whole experiences that largely try to communicate a single idea. Sorry they're messy and "thin."

Fuck. You'll get older and either give up on movies because most are so simple and obvious you'll outgrow them, or you'll learn to like movies like this, that are interesting experiences.

>>Large variations in tone, horribly paced, and it couldn't even decide what type of movie it was

Not that user, but that's accurate. There was a great film in there somewhere.

>BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
do mankind a favour and remove yourself from the gene pool

Ambiguity has nothing to do with. My isn't with the story behind the plot, it's with the fact Gray was unable to leave anything out, just crammed almost all of Fawcetts' life into one movie, and was entirely unsuccessful in piecing it together in a coherent way.

"With it" and "my problem" it should say. My bad.