Historical movies

[Marilyn. 340]

no no... 300 is just a piece of art ! Go VFX Mtl !

I thought 300 was a really well done movie... i didn't really care if it was historically accurate or not..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

no no... 300 is just a piece of art ! Go VFX Mtl !

I thought 300 was a really well done movie... i didn't really care if it was historically accurate or not..

Historical accuracy is difficult on those kinds of movies - though it has been attempted with varying success.

I'm not overly concerned with historical accuracy as much as that the movie (more so than the graphic novel) pushes a pretty nasty brand of fascist politics (aryan supermen vs. subhuman beastmen) with clear links to today's debate about the Iraq War.

The side story about the queen and the Spartan council was not in the graphic novel but was introduced for the movie. When you have a group of government officials sitting around trying to decide whether or not to send more troops and boiling the argument down to their being totally corrupt, self-serving and in league with their enemies - which parallels more or less exactly similar debates over a current piece of foreign policy - its hard to see how that doesn't smell of deliberate intent..

Edited August 1, 2008 by Number 6

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I will never understand the Hollywood mindset that sees real history as being insufficiently dramatic, requiring major distortions to make a good film.

Its usually about marketing - on the basis of some sort of general opinion surveys the studio bods rationalise that American theatre-going audiences won't be interested in a story that doesn't feature Americans (which I think is patronizing personally), so they basically take over these stories. U-571 offended the surviving British veterans who actually did capture the first Enigma machine - not surprisingly really, given that those guys put their lives at risk and changed the course of WW2 and by extension modern history. If their story is to be told - it should be told giving credit to where credit is due.

[Mags 112]

My favorite is U-571 where the brave Americans break the enigma code

My absolutely pet peev of all Hollywood movies is U-571. I'm so glad I'm not the only one.

I also get annoyed by The Patriot. A lot.

The Patriot did as well in the UK as Raiders of the Lost Ark did in Germany. After that and Braveheart people wondered if Mel Gibson had some sort of problem with British people.

Actually, I think Mel Gibson has an obsession with gore and torture.

I will never understand the Hollywood mindset that sees real history as being insufficiently dramatic, requiring major distortions to make a good film.

Its usually about marketing - on the basis of some sort of general opinion surveys the studio bods rationalise that American theatre-going audiences won't be interested in a story that doesn't feature Americans (which I think is patronizing personally), so they basically take over these stories. U-571 offended the surviving British veterans who actually did capture the first Enigma machine - not surprisingly really, given that those guys put their lives at risk and changed the course of WW2 and by extension modern history. If their story is to be told - it should be told giving credit to where credit is due.

Well said! That's what really annoys me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My favorite is U-571 where the brave Americans break the enigma code

My absolutely pet peev of all Hollywood movies is U-571. I'm so glad I'm not the only one.

I also get annoyed by The Patriot. A lot.

The Patriot did as well in the UK as Raiders of the Lost Ark did in Germany. After that and Braveheart people wondered if Mel Gibson had some sort of problem with British people.

Actually, I think Mel Gibson has an obsession with gore and torture.

Yeah I wondered about that too.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I will never understand the Hollywood mindset that sees real history as being insufficiently dramatic, requiring major distortions to make a good film.

Alluded to in the following song-lyrics (partly written by Kim MacLean):

Now they say it's being made into a movie,

They'll have to

add some drama

here and there,

Bit it still

won't hold a candle to the real world

,

Life on every corner everywhere.

[Mags 112]

My favorite is U-571 where the brave Americans break the enigma code

My absolutely pet peev of all Hollywood movies is U-571. I'm so glad I'm not the only one.

I also get annoyed by The Patriot. A lot.

The Patriot did as well in the UK as Raiders of the Lost Ark did in Germany. After that and Braveheart people wondered if Mel Gibson had some sort of problem with British people.

Actually, I think Mel Gibson has an obsession with gore and torture.

Yeah I wondered about that too.

I mean, it's not the usual horror movie gore, it is the implied torture and the realism he shows. I just think the bloke has an unhealthy obsession with violence, gore and torture. He's great in Lethal Weapon and he should stick to that, imo. I don't think he is quite right in the head, personally, perhaps a tad unstable.

Just my 2 cents! In no way is this a legally binding opinion.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My favorite is U-571 where the brave Americans break the enigma code

My absolutely pet peev of all Hollywood movies is U-571. I'm so glad I'm not the only one.

I also get annoyed by The Patriot. A lot.

The Patriot did as well in the UK as Raiders of the Lost Ark did in Germany. After that and Braveheart people wondered if Mel Gibson had some sort of problem with British people.

Actually, I think Mel Gibson has an obsession with gore and torture.

Yeah I wondered about that too.

I mean, it's not the usual horror movie gore, it is the implied torture and the realism he shows. I just think the bloke has an unhealthy obsession with violence, gore and torture. He's great in Lethal Weapon and he should stick to that, imo. I don't think he is quite right in the head, personally, perhaps a tad unstable.

Just my 2 cents! In no way is this a legally binding opinion.

Now that you mention it - Apocalypto was pretty inaccurate too, though he tried to market it as meticulously researched and genuine.

Still - 10,000BC was probably the worst. That was complete fantasy.

[Staashi 371]

spaceballs is pretty accurate..

i must say

*looking for my schwartz*

I always loved, "I bet she gives great helmet. "

[Saddle Bronc 124]

My favorite is U-571 where the brave Americans break the enigma code

My absolutely pet peev of all Hollywood movies is U-571. I'm so glad I'm not the only one.

I also get annoyed by The Patriot. A lot.

The Patriot did as well in the UK as Raiders of the Lost Ark did in Germany. After that and Braveheart people wondered if Mel Gibson had some sort of problem with British people.

Actually, I think Mel Gibson has an obsession with gore and torture.

Yeah I wondered about that too.

I mean, it's not the usual horror movie gore, it is the implied torture and the realism he shows. I just think the bloke has an unhealthy obsession with violence, gore and torture. He's great in Lethal Weapon and he should stick to that, imo. I don't think he is quite right in the head, personally, perhaps a tad unstable.

Just my 2 cents! In no way is this a legally binding opinion.

Now that you mention it - Apocalypto was pretty inaccurate too, though he tried to market it as meticulously researched and genuine.

Still - 10,000BC was probably the worst. That was complete fantasy.

The title alone should have been enough to infer that it is no more accurate than the 1966 "One Million Years BC".

[Staashi 371]

Charles, for all the shyte given to liberals in Hollywood who've never served in the military, why is it that some many Right Wingers like to prop John Wayne up as a symbol of patriotism? You couldn't have chosen a bigger poser than the Duke himself.

I've got to disagree with you there...if you read Wikipedia and the controversy over his military service you'll see that he was actually exempt from going - he was 34 at the time. He took a lot of flak over it, felt terrible about it all his life...give him a break.

America's entry into World War II resulted in a deluge of support for the war effort from all sectors of society, and Hollywood was no exception. Established stars such as Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. (USN, Silver Star), Henry Fonda (USN, Bronze Star), and Clark Gable (USAAC) as well as emerging actors such as Eddie Albert (USN, Bronze Star) and Tyrone Power (USMC) rushed to sign up for military service. Most notably, James Stewart (USAAC, Distinguished Service Medal, Distinguished Flying Cross, Croix de Guerre) had already enlisted in the US Army Air Corps, surmounting great obstacles in order to do so.

As the majority of male leads left Hollywood to serve overseas, John Wayne saw his just-beginning stardom at risk. Despite enormous pressure from his inner circle of friends, he put off enlisting. Wayne was exempted from service due to his age (34 at the time of Pearl Harbor) and family status, classified as 3-A (family deferment). Wayne's secretary recalled making inquiries of military officials on behalf of his interest in enlisting, "but he never really followed up on them."[17] He repeatedly wrote to John Ford, asking to be placed in Ford's military unit, but continually postponed it until "after he finished one more film."[18] Republic Studios was emphatically resistant to losing Wayne, especially after the loss of Gene Autry to the army.[19] Correspondence between Wayne and Herbert J. Yates (the head of Republic) indicates that Yates threatened Wayne with a lawsuit if he walked away from his contract, though the likelihood of a studio suing its biggest star for going to war was minute.[20] The threat was real, but whether Wayne took it seriously or not, he did not test it. Selective Service Records indicate he did not attempt to prevent his reclassification as 1-A (draft eligible), but apparently Republic Pictures intervened directly, requesting his further deferment.[21] In May, 1944, Wayne was reclassified as 1-A (draft eligible), but the studio obtained another 2-A deferment (for "support of national health, safety, or interest").[22] He remained 2-A until the war's end. John Wayne did not "dodge" the draft, but he never took direct positive action toward enlistment. Wayne was in the South Pacific theatre of the war for three months in 1943–44, touring U.S. bases and hospitals as well as doing some "undercover" work for OSS commander William J. "Wild Bill" Donovan, who thought Wayne's celebrity might be good cover for an assessment of the causes for poor relations between General Douglas MacArthur and Donovan's OSS Pacific network. Wayne filed a report and Donovan gave him a plaque and commendation for serving with the OSS, but Wayne dismissed it as meaningless.[23]

The foregoing facts influenced the direction of Wayne's later life. By all accounts, Wayne's failure to serve in the military during World War II was the most painful experience of his life.[24] There were some other stars who, for various reasons, did not enlist. But Wayne, by virtue of becoming a celluloid war hero in several patriotic war films, as well as an outspoken supporter of right-wing political causes and the Vietnam War, became the focus of particular disdain from both himself and certain portions of the public, particularly in later years. While some hold Wayne in contempt for the paradox between his early actions and his later attitudes, his widow suggests that Wayne's rampant patriotism in later decades sprang not from hypocrisy but from guilt. Pilar Wayne wrote, "He would become a 'superpatriot' for the rest of his life trying to atone for staying home."[25]

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My favorite is U-571 where the brave Americans break the enigma code

My absolutely pet peev of all Hollywood movies is U-571. I'm so glad I'm not the only one.

I also get annoyed by The Patriot. A lot.

The Patriot did as well in the UK as Raiders of the Lost Ark did in Germany. After that and Braveheart people wondered if Mel Gibson had some sort of problem with British people.

Actually, I think Mel Gibson has an obsession with gore and torture.

Yeah I wondered about that too.

I mean, it's not the usual horror movie gore, it is the implied torture and the realism he shows. I just think the bloke has an unhealthy obsession with violence, gore and torture. He's great in Lethal Weapon and he should stick to that, imo. I don't think he is quite right in the head, personally, perhaps a tad unstable.

Just my 2 cents! In no way is this a legally binding opinion.

Now that you mention it - Apocalypto was pretty inaccurate too, though he tried to market it as meticulously researched and genuine.

Still - 10,000BC was probably the worst. That was complete fantasy.

The title alone should have been enough to infer that it is no more accurate than the 1966 "One Million Years BC".

Oh yeah - cause there really were blonde swimwear models running about in fur bikinis That was a pretty silly movie - that's the one where there's no dialog except for grunts and ape gestures isn't it?

[DeadPoolX 9]

I will never understand the Hollywood mindset that sees real history as being insufficiently dramatic, requiring major distortions to make a good film.

Well, it's not just "historical dramas" that face this sort of revision, but pretty much anything that's set in the "real world."

The problem is that real life is fairly boring. Look at how police officers are portrayed in Hollywood movies. You see them on wild chases, shootouts, taking on cases that "get personal" so forth. In reality, police work involves a lot of routine paperwork, in addition to many cases never being solved and a whole lot of relatively minor violations. But that wouldn't make a good movie, now would it? So Hollywood changes it so the audience (namely us) will find the story and action interesting enough to spend our money on a ticket for two hours or so of entertainment.

The same is true of war movies or anything else that has an historical context to it. There's only a limited time in which to tell the entire story (generally three hours is about the maximum) and unlike books, films dive into less detail on each character and the situation at hand. The advantage a movie has over a book, however, is that there can be plenty of eye candy.

Then Hollywood takes the key audience into consideration. As it's already been mentioned for U-571, the primary target was the United States and it was assumed that most movie-goers wouldn't be interested in seeing a film about the British versus the Germans. In addition, Hollywood assumed that the "average movie watcher" wouldn't know enough about history to realize the story had been altered. Unfortunately, they were right -- for the most part.

There are times when Hollywood thinks the story needs to be changed in other ways as well. Take the horrendous WWII movie Pearl Harbor, for instance. Although it had some neat action scenes, the crux of the story was bent around a love triangle involving three fictional characters. None of this was necessary and in fact, hurt the movie according to many.

Sometimes things need to be cut from a story in order to make a movie. If it's unnecessary to the plot or character, it can remain on the cutting room floor and then be offered as "extra material" for the DVD release. But overall, certain bits of information that might be important (such as the British doing the job instead of the Americans or that prop-planes can't handle like jet engine turbine fighters) should probably be considered.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think you can take away from history for the purposes of dramatic license (i.e. skip a battle or two here and there), but you should never add (i.e. create a decisive battle that never happened).

[Scott & Lai 12]

I will never understand the Hollywood mindset that sees real history as being insufficiently dramatic, requiring major distortions to make a good film.

Then Hollywood takes the key audience into consideration. As it's already been mentioned for U-571, the primary target was the United States and it was assumed that most movie-goers wouldn't be interested in seeing a film about the British versus the Germans. In addition, Hollywood assumed that the "average movie watcher" wouldn't know enough about history to realize the story had been altered. Unfortunately, they were right -- for the most part.

That's just the problem: they hope we're too stupid to realize we've been lied to. Cutting details out for the sake of time or dramatic intensitiy is one thing, altering key historical events and portraying them as accurate history is quite another.