The Rally Onion wants 150 fans before Opening Day.
Mel Gibson, Hollywood's answer to the Cardiff Giant
I have it on good faith that Johnny Gray never took The General through the Battle of Bull Run; Betsy and Arlene had nothing to do with the downfall of Nixon; General Ripper never did send his planes past failsafe; funny things never happened on the way to the forum; and I've got a feeling Hamlet never had an accent which was part U.S., part Australian.
I don't think 300 was made to be a historicaly accurate movie. It's funny that the majority of the movies on there are Mel Gibson movies.
Most Vottomatic Player
As far as Patriot and Braveheart, two favorites of mine, I have always been aware of the inaccuracies but just chose to overlook them because the films still seemed to capture something of the "essence" of what they were talking about. Yeah, the battle of Stirling was a bit inaccurate since the Scots actually butchered the English as they were coming off a bridge and not properly deployed for battle and a few characters were not the proper age. Also I have a hard time believing that Wallace was able to yell "freedom" the way he did after being disemboweled, but I'm not going to nitpick here. Also, Bannockburn was ten years after Wallace's death, but you see some of the soldiers appear not to have aged a bit. Anyway, even with all of those problems, I think the film did what it was intended to do. It entertained me, immersed me in the period it was portraying, and piqued my interest in the subject matter enough to make me want to study further. Patriot did the same thing. I knew there were some liberties, but it does stir up patriotic feelings in me and it makes me appreciative of those who did what they did so we could have freedom. Film is an art form and that's how I view it. If I'm watching a documentary and see those kind of mistakes, then I have a problem.
Are the film makers claiming absolute historical accuracy? I don't think they believe their viewing public is that naive and wouldn't realize that for the sake of the story and entertainment, they dress things up and take various liberties.
I liked 300; but it wasn't hard to see the many historical inaccuracies. Some were downright hilarious.
Tombstone is one of my all-time favorite westerns. But upon further investigation there were huge inaccuracies and exaggerations. But still a great movie.
You mean Costner's The Untouchables isn't a historical accurate portrayal?
I can't believe none of the Oliver Stone movies didn't make the list. And his subjects were about people and situations that have happened in the last 40-50 years, yet he still couldn't get it right.
We love our movie heroes and a good story. And that takes some imagination and exaggeration on the film makers part.
Last edited by GAC; 03-22-2008 at 12:29 AM.
"panic" only comes from having real expectations
I'd like to disagree with that list. I find they seem to be taking more political stances with this list, rather than "historical" viewpoints. OldRightHander has it right IMO.
300 is obviously correct, but I don't think that was even trying to be historically accurate.... kinda stupid lol
“I’m a normal guy blessed with the ability to hit a baseball.” - Sean Casey
Is there a list for those movies that go to great detail to provide historical accuracy without taking any liberties and "artistic freedom"?
The fact is Hollywood has always taken those liberties, mixing fact with fiction (legend) with the sole objective of making a good movie that draws an audience, captivates them, and of course - sells (profits). Being totally historically accurate then takes a back seat.
We just had a discussion comparing which movie we liked better - Tombstone or Costner's Wyatt Earp. Tombstone won hands down, and was a far better movie, but why? While both took various liberties with the situations surrounding the real life characters, Costner, whose habit is to always over-produce and go over the top, took greater pains to provide more historical accuracy. And he ended up with one long, drawn out, and at times, boring movie.
I liked the recently released "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford". I liked the movie but it dragged because as I researched it's historical accuracy, which I think they made great attempts to preserve, it suffered and dragged like Costner's Earp did.
Look at PT 109 with Cliff Robertson, that came out during JFK's Presidency. John Wayne's Chisum, which was about the Lincoln County War.
This is what Hollywood does.
So women back in 10,000 B.C. didn't look like Raquel Welch????
Last edited by GAC; 03-22-2008 at 06:54 AM.
"panic" only comes from having real expectations
I watched the Patriot and enjoyed some of the elements of it, but overall I found it to be way too "America is great, Britian is evil". I thought the characters as a whole weren't an accurate reflection of the people I've read a lot about over the years (and I've done a lot of Revolutionary study). The fact that they had to turn the "hero" of the movie into a perfect person (freed his slaves, etc...) was just Hollywood tripe. But that's Hollywood small mindedness at its finest. Afterall, you can't have the guy who you're supposed to stand up and cheer for in the end being a slave owner. That just wouldn't fly with Americans. BS!!!!!
But I'm fairly certain the final battle in the movie is supposed to be the Battle of Cowpens, which was won by the Americans and was seen as a real turning point in the southern part of the war.
Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David
Which is why Hollywood doesn't make many movies for me. I liked Wyatt Earp better than Tombstone, which I thought was good, but too silly and overdone to be taken all that seriously. I don't mind a little exposition, even if it makes the movie drag. I'd rather see real grit (not to be confused with "True Grit") than to feel as if I'm being pandered to. Give me realism; I can take it.This is what Hollywood does.
a super volcano of ridonkulous suckitude.
I simply don't have access to a "cares about RBI" place in my psyche. There is a "mildly curious about OBI%" alcove just before the acid filled lake guarded by robot snipers with lasers which leads to the "cares about RBI" antechamber though. - Nate
"Booing on opening day is like telling grandma her house smells like old lady."--WOY
I think the most entertaining historical movies are the ones that put some sort of fictional character in a historically accurate setting. There are a few historical fiction writers who are good at this, being able to make up a fictional character and then put him during a period that is rendered accurately, giving you a feel for the period and all that without having to worry about irritating details about the character being accurate or not.
Another historical film that had a few inaccuracies was Flyboys. Every German fighter in that film was a Fokker triplane, even though during the war most of the Germans flew biplanes, but I didn't really care about that little detail. I was entertained by the story. I later heard an interview with the director saying that he used the triplanes so the viewer would be able to tell friend from foe easily while watching the aerial battle scenes. When I watch a historical film, I just want a good feel for the period. When I watch a documentary, I want impeccable accuracy. Often a film will increase my interest in a certain period and make me want to read more about it or find some good documentaries. If more people react that way, then maybe the filmmaker accomplished something, even with the artistic license.