Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Historically Inaccurate Films...

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>
Author
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Historically Inaccurate Films...
    Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 20:25
thanks for the infos guys! Smile
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 20:27
Originally posted by Parnell

How do you explain the rapid growth in sales of all Irish history books of this period following the films release?


You can explain the rapid growth in the sales of Britney Spears' album after her most recent 'drug relapse' can't you? How about autobiographies, show them on the telly and everyone will buy them... And the type and level of the irish history books bought must be called into question, I doubt it inspired much people to actually read seriously on the topic, whereas a true to form and accurate depiction would be much more of benefit than a blatant cash-in blockbuster.

Is it not a little convenient that the film was released on the 80th anniversary of the Rising? The film can't be taken seriously, and even as a piece of entertainment, has a limited scope for merit, taking the potential damage to common perception into account.

Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 20:30
Originally posted by Temujin

thanks for the infos guys! Smile



The funny thing is both of us are in the same library, and are basically jousting online to break the monotony! But i'm sure you got some decent info out of it.

Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 20:39
I didn't want to do this... But I kinda had to. Most of that list is dung. Anyway, I'm happy to leave it at this and leave you to your gay essay...
 

Denis, look at your avatar. You are not like other people. Get used to it.
 
That avatar is in jest I'll have you know!

In the scene in which Dáil Éireann is meeting in secret, Collins is referred to as the Minister for Intelligence. In fact, he was the Dáil Minister for Finance and the Director of Intelligence for the IRA; the roles had no formal link, and neither position had control over the other.
 
That really is a minutae... He was referred to that by Cathal Brugha, a puritanical who had a rivalry with Collins, which we don't need to get in to here.

Harry Boland did not die in the manner suggested by the film. His last words in the film - "Have they got Mick Collins yet?" - are however, based on a well-known tradition.
 
Granted.

In the film, Collins heads the delegation to London that negotiates the Anglo-Irish Treaty; in reality, it was led by Arthur Griffith, with Collins as his deputy.
 
Again, a minutae. Griffith may have formally led the delegation but Collins was the de facto head, wielding the most influence amongst the other delegates.

The character of Edward "Ned" Broy of the Dublin Metropolitan Police is a composite of many different police officers. The real Broy was a member of G Division, an intelligence branch of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, based not in Dublin Castle - as in the film - but in Marlborough Street. Michael Collins' main agent in Dublin Castle was David Neligan. Like Broy, he also survived the conflict and later headed the Irish Special Branch. In the film the character is killed during Bloody Sunday.
 
Broy got him into Dublin castle where he got his hands on the files so brilliantly depicted in the film. Although, in reality he was with someone else he had literally bumped into on the street (An old friend) but it would have been pointless to introduce a new character for one single scene. (Although, I'm not sure if he was based in Marlborough st. or not, I am 100% certain he had the use of an office in Dublin Castle.)

In the film Collins is told that Frank Thornton was shot in West Cork, a week before his own trip to Cork. Thornton however was wounded in an ambush outside Clonmel County Tipperary, a day before Collins himself was killed.
 
I'm not sure about this.

The film is ambiguous in the scene involving Collins's assassination, only showing the assassin asking de Valera if he has a message for Collins. It then cuts to the assassin returning to meet Collins and telling him where de Valera will meet him the next day. Neal Jordan denies on the DVD documentary that it was his intention to portray De Valera having anything to do with Collins' murder.
 
That part was arse of course, but to this day we don't know who shot Collins so you can't blame the films ambiguousness on that.


In the scene depicting the events of Bloody Sunday, an armoured car drives onto the pitch at Croke Park and mows down GAA player Michael Hogan with its machine gun before firing into the crowd. In real life the armoured car remained outside the gates of Croke Park as it would not fit through the archway and it only fired warning shots in the air over the crowd fleeing from the initial shooting by a mixed group of Royal Irish Constabulary, Dublin Metropolitan Police, and Auxiliary Division officers, who were responsible for the twelve fatalities and numerous casualties in the grounds. On the DVD commentary, Neil Jordan said he could not figure out a way of showing the reality of the event without making the British Army look like "bad guys".
 
Again, granted.


The film depicts a carload of hardline northern unionist detectives sent to "deal" with Collins and the IRA being blown up in Dublin Castle. In fact, no killings of police took place in Dublin Castle and car-bombs were largely unknown at the time. Some commentators have contended that the filmmakers were trying to draw a connection between the Irish War of Independence and the later Troubles, when car-bombs were common. Neil Jordan has also denied this.
 
Thats bullsh*t. I overstepped my mark by saying the scene is correctly depicted, but they were killed by a bomb, just not in Dublin castle. I can't remember if it was a carbomb or not. However, gelignite was used in bombmaking and Collins was infamous for his bomb factories, which were used in several different ways.
 
[quote
In the movie, the surrender at the end of the Easter Rising appears to take place outside the General Post Office, whereas it actually took place on Moore Street.
[/quote]
 
Minutae of the highest order.

Collins says "I would have followed him through hell..." in reference to de Valera; in reality, he was referring to James Connolly, comparing him to Pádraig Pearse:
"Of Pearse and Connolly I admire the latter most. Connolly was a realist, Pearse the direct opposite ... I would have followed him [Connolly] through hell had such action been necessary. But I honestly doubt very much if I would have followed Pearse — not without some thought anyway."[3]
 
Poetic license. I have to shrug my shoulders at this one.


A statement in the film that the Irish Free State was formed at the beginning of 1922, following the Dáil's approval of the Treaty, even though the Irish Free State did not officially come into being until December
1922.
 
De facto the Free State started with the Dail resolution.

Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 20:59
You have just rebutted wikipedia who silly boy!

But the film is still a waste of time and brain, and money, and most other things not even related.

'Nuff said.


Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 21:02
Originally posted by Dolphin

Originally posted by Parnell

How do you explain the rapid growth in sales of all Irish history books of this period following the films release?


You can explain the rapid growth in the sales of Britney Spears' album after her most recent 'drug relapse' can't you? How about autobiographies, show them on the telly and everyone will buy them... And the type and level of the irish history books bought must be called into question, I doubt it inspired much people to actually read seriously on the topic, whereas a true to form and accurate depiction would be much more of benefit than a blatant cash-in blockbuster.

Is it not a little convenient that the film was released on the 80th anniversary of the Rising? The film can't be taken seriously, and even as a piece of entertainment, has a limited scope for merit, taking the potential damage to common perception into account.

 
Thats a poor logic. The connection between the Michael Collins film and the explosion in irish history books sales is well established. Tim Pat Coogan (Who wrote a very good biography which I read earlier in the year) made a mint from it, and he wrote his book in 1990. Other books predating the Collins film also have done well. Peter Hart is another writer who tries to capitalise on the Collins fad with his 'The real Mick' book *I only have read one chapter of it, and probably nothing more by the way...
 
I didn't mean to respond after my last post, but am only after seeing this post.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 21:03
Originally posted by Dolphin

You have just rebutted wikipedia who silly boy!

But the film is still a waste of time and brain, and money, and most other things not even related.

'Nuff said.


 
Here, Wikipedia is a disaster. Its people like Waters who probably edit the bloody thing... And no, surprisingly enough, I completely disagree with what you have to say (But will fight to the death for your right to say it LOL)
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 21:03
'Nuff said.


Back to Top
The Canadian Guy View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
The Native Canuck

Joined: 24-Feb-2005
Location: IDK Im lost!
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 891
  Quote The Canadian Guy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 21:29
Ok everyone here is my two cents.....I am studying 3D Animation for college, and making films is also part of the program...these movies and films are historic-based and more for entertainment than historical facts. They're meant to make the simple people enjoy what is not real to them and to see some action, blood and/or sex.  Movie=happy mass's. So stop complaining and arguing and just enjoy that the movies are meant for entertainment value. Wink
Hate and anger is the fuel of war, while religion and politics is the foundation of it.
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 21:45
Originally posted by The Canadian Guy

Ok everyone here is my two cents.....I am studying 3D Animation for college, and making films is also part of the program...these movies and films are historic-based and more for entertainment than historical facts. They're meant to make the simple people enjoy what is not real to them and to see some action, blood and/or sex.  Movie=happy mass's. So stop complaining and arguing and just enjoy that the movies are meant for entertainment value. Wink



It's all well and good to say, "hey, it's entertainment, enjoy it" etc, and I would accept that if these films didn't say based on a true story or inspired by or anything like that. That is just duping people. If it's not accurate to at least a majority level i think it should not be allowed to be characterised anywhere near the term 'true story'.


Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8596
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 21:56
Originally posted by The Canadian Guy

Ok everyone here is my two cents.....I am studying 3D Animation for college, and making films is also part of the program...these movies and films are historic-based and more for entertainment than historical facts. They're meant to make the simple people enjoy what is not real to them and to see some action, blood and/or sex.  Movie=happy mass's. So stop complaining and arguing and just enjoy that the movies are meant for entertainment value. Wink
 
Good to see you again Guy. I thought you were frozen in the Canadian tundra there for a while.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 22:02
Originally posted by Dolphin

Originally posted by The Canadian Guy

Ok everyone here is my two cents.....I am studying 3D Animation for college, and making films is also part of the program...these movies and films are historic-based and more for entertainment than historical facts. They're meant to make the simple people enjoy what is not real to them and to see some action, blood and/or sex.  Movie=happy mass's. So stop complaining and arguing and just enjoy that the movies are meant for entertainment value. Wink



It's all well and good to say, "hey, it's entertainment, enjoy it" etc, and I would accept that if these films didn't say based on a true story or inspired by or anything like that. That is just duping people. If it's not accurate to at least a majority level i think it should not be allowed to be characterised anywhere near the term 'true story'.


 
Its entertainment based on history. Should the makers of Alexander said their story was fiction when it was based on Alexander? etc. etc. etc. (This could go on and on...)
 
I like historical films. Its important that people don't accept everything they see as fact... But thats up to them. If people believe everything they see its their own fault. Don't see what the problem is Confused
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2008 at 01:34
Originally posted by Parnell

Originally posted by Dolphin

Originally posted by The Canadian Guy

Ok everyone here is my two cents.....I am studying 3D Animation for college, and making films is also part of the program...these movies and films are historic-based and more for entertainment than historical facts. They're meant to make the simple people enjoy what is not real to them and to see some action, blood and/or sex.  Movie=happy mass's. So stop complaining and arguing and just enjoy that the movies are meant for entertainment value. Wink
It's all well and good to say, "hey, it's entertainment, enjoy it" etc, and I would accept that if these films didn't say based on a true story or inspired by or anything like that. That is just duping people. If it's not accurate to at least a majority level i think it should not be allowed to be characterised anywhere near the term 'true story'.

 

Its entertainment based on history. Should the makers of Alexander said their story was fiction when it was based on Alexander? etc. etc. etc. (This could go on and on...)

 

I like historical films. Its important that people don't accept everything they see as fact... But thats up to them. If people believe everything they see its their own fault. Don't see what the problem is Confused


Your face is the problem!

'Nuff said.

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2008 at 01:41
Originally posted by The Canadian Guy

Ok everyone here is my two cents.....I am studying 3D Animation for college, and making films is also part of the program...these movies and films are historic-based and more for entertainment than historical facts. They're meant to make the simple people enjoy what is not real to them and to see some action, blood and/or sex.  Movie=happy mass's. So stop complaining and arguing and just enjoy that the movies are meant for entertainment value. Wink
 
Holy Cow!  Is that new avatar from the "Imperial Canadian navy?"  Big%20smile
 
 
Back to Top
The Canadian Guy View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
The Native Canuck

Joined: 24-Feb-2005
Location: IDK Im lost!
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 891
  Quote The Canadian Guy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2008 at 02:02
It is the Socialist Canada flag....lol and the frozen tundra was too boring and could had never kept me away form AE. Tongue

Edited by The Canadian Guy - 03-Dec-2008 at 02:04
Hate and anger is the fuel of war, while religion and politics is the foundation of it.
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 846
  Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2008 at 08:36
Most Hollywood pictures depicting ancient or medieval warfare are grossly incorrect.
 
Physically speaking, it is impossible that fully-armoured soldiers carrying more than 30 kilos would hack at the enemy with a sword for 2 hours without stop; and it was impossible that on the battlefield 2 armies would have fought in a frenzied mass with individual combats with no traces of units or formation remaining.
According to contemporary sources, maintaining unit formation and cohesion was of vital importance in pre-modern warfare; it was the only way in which tired or wounded soldiers could be relieved by fresh troops and that the officers could effectively give orders to their troops.
However, most people who have not studied the mechanisms of premodern warfare in detail would think that soldiers really DID fight in such a disorganized manner.
 
Another grossly incorrect depiction in almost ALL films (among them Kingdom of Heaven and Gladiator), is that soldiers seemed to be dressed in armour 24-7. It looks like they put on their armour the first thing in the morning. Do you know how much a mail-armour shirt weighs? At least 15 kilos!
If you put on a 15-kilo mail shirt in the morning and a 5-kilo helmet, by the afternoon you'd hardly be able to walk!
 
The military tactics don't make much sense either, especially in "TROY".
Why would the Trojans display their troops outside their walls when the most robust defense of the city were its walls?
I've known many people who do not know the story of the Iliad and saw the film, and really believed that the story of Archiles, Hector, and Paris was that depicted.
 
 
Back to Top
The Canadian Guy View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
The Native Canuck

Joined: 24-Feb-2005
Location: IDK Im lost!
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 891
  Quote The Canadian Guy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2008 at 12:53
I fully agree with you clavo. it usually takes bout 2-5 minutes for a sword fight with that much metal on them. In battle back then,  it is usually the first soldier tired first that dies. Have anyone seen the show HBO's Rome? I seem to like it allot. It seems pretty accurate.
Hate and anger is the fuel of war, while religion and politics is the foundation of it.
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 846
  Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2008 at 23:41
Originally posted by The Canadian Guy

I fully agree with you clavo. it usually takes bout 2-5 minutes for a sword fight with that much metal on them. In battle back then,  it is usually the first soldier tired first that dies. Have anyone seen the show HBO's Rome? I seem to like it allot. It seems pretty accurate.
 
In most ancient and medieval battles, a great deal of time was spent with exchanging insults and missiles.
Engaging in hand-to-hand combat made one side or the other more vulnerable, so commanders generally gave the order only when there was sufficient confidence.
 
Most soldiers fought in order not to get killed, rather than to kill, so what typically could have happened would be that the troops locked swords and spears with each other in a slogging match over a brief period of time, and then separated to draw some breath; in a way similar to what we see in boxing matches. (considering that boxers only wore gloves and soldiers wore armour that weighed 30 kilos, I could imagine the soldier's engagement to be much more brief).
Very often, most blows were receied by the armour and the shields, with few men getting wounded or killed. Most of the slaughter happened when one side began to break ranks and flee.
 
If ancient and medieval battles were really fought in the Holywood fashion, how could one side know that they've won and one side has lost? Wouldn't the army with the greater number of troops always win?
By the vey fact that in many ancient and medieval battles, a numerically small army had defeated an enemy several times its size; and that the casualty rate in the winning side was 2%, while in the losing side was 60%, implied that it must have been fought within a carefully maintained formation following disciplined tactics.
 
Another errrorneous Holywood depiction were horses riding through an infantry melee.
This could not possibly have happened because the entire advantage of cavalry was its mobility. By being in the middle of an infantry melee, the horses would have moved slow, and it would only take an enemy soldier to hack at the horse's legs to throw the rider onto the ground.
 
HBO's Rome depicts a more discipline fighting technique of the Romans.
I've also seen a handful of Japanese series about the Samurai wars in the late middle ages, that also described hand-to-hand engagements as highly disciplined affairs.
 
In Holywood pictures I haven't yet seen a single example.
 
 
 
Back to Top
Suren View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1673
  Quote Suren Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2008 at 03:58
300 WinkBig%20smile

Edited by Suren - 04-Dec-2008 at 03:59
Anfører
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

Suspended

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 365
  Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2008 at 16:38
Originally posted by The Canadian Guy

Ok everyone here is my two cents.....I am studying 3D Animation for college, and making films is also part of the program...these movies and films are historic-based and more for entertainment than historical facts. They're meant to make the simple people enjoy what is not real to them and to see some action, blood and/or sex.  Movie=happy mass's. So stop complaining and arguing and just enjoy that the movies are meant for entertainment value. Wink
 

I don't know if you're ironic about it, but if you are, then I agree.

 

Some films are akin to literature in their media, other films are akin to pulp.

Not all films are made just to entertain, although I admit that Hollywood produces a lot of popcorn garbage.

 

However, I both disagree and agree. I think a movie like 300 is ok within its premise and its own universe, which is a cartoon universe. It never said that it was anything more than that, a stylistic exercise. I'm ok with that, and I was moderately entertained by it, actually.

 

However other movies pretend to be historically accurate, and yet they show themselves to be as "accurate" as 300, and no more.

 

I believe I have a right as a moviegoer to expect some accuracy, or at least some kind of effort from the moviemakers, if they make such claims. I would be entertained by such movie, while I am not entertained by a movie that I expected more from, and I consider that false advertising.
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.