Print Page | Close Window

Historically Inaccurate Films...

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Modern Culture
Forum Discription: Discussions on modern literature, visual arts and music
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25096
Printed Date: 24-Nov-2017 at 22:46
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Historically Inaccurate Films...
Posted By: C.C.Benjamin
Subject: Historically Inaccurate Films...
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 00:52
I can't help but notice that recently there seem to be some history-based films coming out that make me cringe.  

Vin Diesel as Hannibal Barca, some cheesy Scorpion King film where Sargon of Akkad steals Hammurabi's nuts or whatever...why do they do it?

What film made you laugh the most with it's blatant historical fallicies?


-------------
Know thyself



Replies:
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 03:34
Three hundred.

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 10:50

1612



-------------


Posted By: C.C.Benjamin
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 12:37
Originally posted by Count Belisarius

Three hundred.


How did I overlook that!  The Greeks were not called "Men of Bronze" because of their tans...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_King:_Rise_of_the_Akkadian

Featuring Sargon of Akkad, Aristotle, Hammurabi and the Minotaur! 




-------------
Know thyself


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 17:23

Really? I need to see that...

I guess Mummy series is one of the pretenders for the throne. Or the 'Kingdom of Heaven'?



-------------


Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 17:25
Originally posted by rider

Really? I need to see that...

I guess Mummy series is one of the pretenders for the throne. Or the 'Kingdom of Heaven'?

 
Exept the way they presented the crusaders and especially the templars as evil what else was inaccurate?


-------------


Posted By: Gargoyle
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 17:50

Every film about 17th and 18th century Pirates!!!



-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 21:09
Wladislaw, have you read the review we chopped up at here about KoH? It's on the main site, somewhere. 

-------------


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 21:41
All of them are inaccurate, telling the real story is not attractive. People want to believe in myths and see them.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 21:44
Indeed. All movies (99% of them) which have a speech before some kind of a battle are Hollywood fictions.. 

-------------


Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 21:46
Originally posted by rider

Indeed. All movies (99% of them) which have a speech before some kind of a battle are Hollywood fictions.. 


Can you name one of the movies belonging to the 1%?


-------------
What is the officer problem?


Posted By: C.C.Benjamin
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 01:50
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa

Originally posted by rider

Indeed. All movies (99% of them) which have a speech before some kind of a battle are Hollywood fictions.. 


Can you name one of the movies belonging to the 1%?


Good question - not one springs to mind.

But I bet Vin's attempt at Hannibal's life will work out just great!


-------------
Know thyself


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 01:54
Apocalipto.

-------------


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 03:18
I still say three hundred, WORSTMOVIE. EVER. Period. 

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 04:56
It was based on a comic; not actual history. And when taken out of context, and seen as a movie it was not that bad when it comes to action movies.

-------------


Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 05:24
The 2007 Elizabeth golden age was difficult to watch, Blanchett looked ridiculous in full armor on a charger making some grand speech to motivate the troops.  Looked like something out of Lord of the Rings.  (difference being LotR's were great)

-------------
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann



Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 07:42
Count Belisarius, 300 was not an historical movie, it was based on a comic book. I have told you this in another thread. Please note that other have also told you this. I would agree that Elizabeth: Golden Age was up there with inaccurate movies, they couldn't decide if the wanted her to be a lesbian or straight in that movie, coupled with the fact that it was horrible. Just a bad movie over all.


Posted By: C.C.Benjamin
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 08:52
Originally posted by es_bih

It was based on a comic; not actual history. And when taken out of context, and seen as a movie it was not that bad when it comes to action movies.


And 100% homosexual.  Which might have actually been quite accurate.

It's based on a comic that's based on history, so why dress it up and say it's not based on history, when it clearly is, via proxy? Either way, it was complete crap!

Braveheart was another one.  William Wallace wasn't very good, never shagged a French princess and generally didn't get stuff done anywhere near as good as Robert the Bruce.


-------------
Know thyself


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 11:28
That Costner film about JFK..

Or 'In the name of the Father'...

Or Pearl Harbour...




-------------


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 20:30
I thought "In the name of the Father" was a really good movie.

I agree with the two other movies you mentioned Dolphin, absolute crap.


Posted By: Chookie
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 21:05
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa

Can you name one of the movies belonging to the 1%?


The only contender I can think of is Soldier Blue.

As far as I am concerned, by far the most inaccurate film is Braveheart.

I would however, dispute the claim that Wallace "didn't get stuff done anywhere near as good as Robert the Bruce.". Their circumstances were entirely different. Wallace and de Moray were leaders of a peoples insurrection. Bruce built on their successes and failures.

-------------
For money you did what guns could not do.........


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 00:40
Originally posted by Count Belisarius

I still say three hundred, WORSTMOVIE. EVER. Period. 
 
 
 Worse than John Wayne as Genghis Kahn?  "The Conquerer" 1956.Big%20smile
 
You would have to get into something along the lines of Pee Wee Herman cast as Alexander to get any worse.


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 02:22
300 was the worst.

-------------
What is the officer problem?


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 08:54
300 was the right wing version of the kingdom of heaven albeit in a different era with different personalities. I think Zagros mentioned that before about the dramatist who wrote the script as being a crazy rascist so I heard his NPR interview and he was even worse than I thought, he said that his film portrays the "struggle" with the "same" kind of people who blow up NY in 9/11.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 09:08
300 was a good action movie, nothing more, nothing less. Why do some people always try to read too much in movies? 


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 12:32
What about the Iwo Jima films? They didn't have a speech, did they? 

-------------


Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 15:23
Originally posted by rider

What about the Iwo Jima films? They didn't have a speech, did they? 


In Letters From Iwo Jima, Kuribayashi gives quite a lengthy speech over the loudspeaker before the attack. Ending in a banzai fest. Not sure if there were any pep talk speeches in Flags of our Fathers though.


-------------
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 16:25
i didn't even liked 300 and i ignored the historical references. actually i turned off after 20 minutes after seeign too many half-naked men and a weirdo rape-scene.


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 17:18
Originally posted by red clay

Originally posted by Count Belisarius

I still say three hundred, WORSTMOVIE. EVER. Period. 
 
 
 Worse than John Wayne as Genghis Kahn?  "The Conquerer" 1956.Big%20smile
 
You would have to get into something along the lines of Pee Wee Herman cast as Alexander to get any worse.
]
 
 
 
That film Was pretty corny. Move over three hundred, Alexander takes the cake for being the worst and most inaccurate film in the history of mankind.


-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 18:49

I've not seen the Iwo Jima films, that's why I asked. 

However, perhaps those speeches were of_history? Or not? 



-------------


Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 22:50
Originally posted by Al Jassas

All of them are inaccurate, telling the real story is not attractive. People want to believe in myths and see them.
 
Al-Jassas
 
That statement reminded me of a quote from a hollywood movie from 62', of all the ironic things to quote from:
 
"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." From the movie, "The man who shot Liberty Valance".
 
Sometimes, it seems that not even the power of truth can stand up to the legends nowaday's. Hard%20Working


-------------


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 22:55
I know what you mean

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 23:05
 
I've really enjoyed John Wayne movies, but this one... ugh! I do have to say that it does deserve to be at the top of the list.


-------------


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 23:15

It has nothing on Alexander. One day I will get a job at mad magizine and then I can make fun of all stupid movies.  



-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 23:30
Originally posted by Panther

 
I've really enjoyed John Wayne movies, but this one... ugh! I do have to say that it does deserve to be at the top of the list.


I think a few clips are in order for this classic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14_9EbDmvrM&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14_9EbDmvrM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1VK3JZ4Qt4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1VK3JZ4Qt4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8U1LVNjJx0&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8U1LVNjJx0&feature=related


-------------
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 01:31
I've seen it........ unfortunatly

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 13:54

:P 

IT speaks for itself.. .



-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 15:40
Originally posted by Gundamor

Originally posted by Panther

 
I've really enjoyed John Wayne movies, but this one... ugh! I do have to say that it does deserve to be at the top of the list.


I think a few clips are in order for this classic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14_9EbDmvrM&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14_9EbDmvrM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1VK3JZ4Qt4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1VK3JZ4Qt4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8U1LVNjJx0&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8U1LVNjJx0&feature=related

The mustache on John Wayne Embarrassed This is one of the worst movies after these clips LOL


-------------


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 18:08
Originally posted by Panther

 
I've really enjoyed John Wayne movies, but this one... ugh! I do have to say that it does deserve to be at the top of the list.


they blatantly stole that line from me! Shocked


Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 22:23
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Panther

 
I've really enjoyed John Wayne movies, but this one... ugh! I do have to say that it does deserve to be at the top of the list.


they blatantly stole that line from me! Shocked
 
LOL


-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 09:20

Temujin... lol



-------------


Posted By: nova roma
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 10:33

Gladiator

Alexander

Troy

Pearl Harbor

I can forgive a film for being inaccurate (like gladiator) if it makes up for it with other things, like a great script, direction, ect.

I also really, really enjoyed 300. I had no idea that Xerxes was 8' tall and had bulbous knife-armed monster mans in his employ. What a revelation.



Posted By: Mythica
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 15:01
Originally posted by nova roma

I can forgive a film for being inaccurate (like gladiator) if it makes up for it with other things, like a great script, direction, ect.

 
I agree


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 15:30
Gladiator... hehe... 

-------------


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 18:21
It was a pretty good film but ridley scott got the legionnaires (I caught the roamn cavalry using stirrups) and the gladiators wrong, but he did an okay job with the praetorians though,  but I watched it at least eight times anyway.  

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2008 at 14:47
The score is excellent though-. 

-------------


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2008 at 19:56
Very true

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: DesertHistorian
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 03:33

The movie "Zulu" 1964 directed and starring Stanley Baker was for the most part accurate, at least more so then most movies and this was a British venture, not Hollywood.

Shaka Zulu in 1987, more of a mini-series than a movie was also more accurate than most.

Gettysburg 1994 was very accurate

Gods and Generals 2003 also very accurate and in some ways one of the more historically accurate films ever to come out of Hollywood, even down to the diary entries of Stonewall Jackson, the mannerisms, etc....very impressive in the way the movie was made. Too bad the American public are dolts when it comes to history and it did not do well at the box office.
 
There was a movie from Mexico out within the past few years about the years following the conquest by Cortez-very powerful, seemed quite accurate and even painfully so. I think it make have been titled something like "The Conquered" or "The Vanquished" or something along those lines and of course the title was in Spanish, not English, and the movie was in Spanish with English subtitles. Evidently, it was very controversial in Mexico because of what it depicted in the treatment of the Aztecs and other Indians that came under the rule of Spain. Cover something like the first 20 years right after the conquest.


Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 04:35
Originally posted by DesertHistorian

The movie "Zulu" 1964 directed and starring Stanley Baker was for the most part accurate, at least more so then most movies and this was a British venture, not Hollywood.



The movie introduced many many inaccuracies to add the Hollywood effect in my opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_inaccuracies_in_the_film_Zulu - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_inaccuracies_in_the_film_Zulu

I thought Zulu Dawn was more accurate and in turn not as good a "movie".


-------------
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"


Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 12:55
I think the polish movie "Katyn" was one of the few historically correct movies.
 
And what do you think of "The Pianist"?Was it historically correct?


-------------


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 16:00
House of Saddam, though not a historical film none the less I never knew that HD TV sets existed in Iraq in 1988 even beofre LCD technology was invented!
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 16:49
Battle of the Bulge. Apparently the King Tiger can be destroyed by a granade.
 
 
Platoon was a good summery of the Vietnam wars and it rawness.
 
Inaccurate but a hell of a film
Night of the Generals
The Day of the Jackle.
 


-------------


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 17:58
Originally posted by DesertHistorian

Gettysburg 1994 was very accurate

Gods and Generals 2003 also very accurate and in some ways one of the more historically accurate films ever to come out of Hollywood, even down to the diary entries of Stonewall Jackson, the mannerisms, etc....very impressive in the way the movie was made. Too bad the American public are dolts when it comes to history and it did not do well at the box office.
 


i don't think Gettysburg was so accurate at all. my main grudge is that it had the usual JEB Stuart bullshit with it and it was too pro-Union. Gods & Generals was much better, in visuals, accuracy and it balanced the bias of the first movie by highliting the point of view of the Confederacy.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 21:07
"A Bridge too Far" anyone? I am not fully into Market garden but that was one hell of film.
 
AL-Jassas
 


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 22:11
Amongst the very very best movies ever and extremely accurate historically: Culloden by Peter Watkins. Brilliant account of a brutal battle.

Available on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2BVeAz4Vzg&playnext=9&playnext_from=QL -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2BVeAz4Vzg&playnext=9&playnext_from=QL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR3GMbectzg&playnext=10&playnext_from=QL -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR3GMbectzg&playnext=10&playnext_from=QL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9BLDEi5BcE&playnext=11&playnext_from=QL -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9BLDEi5BcE&playnext=11&playnext_from=QL

Well the film is actually longer but it gives you a good idea. Well worth seeing the rest.


-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: DesertHistorian
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2008 at 17:22
Fortunately or unfortunately, wikipedia is also an inaccurate source since it is an open source that anyone can post to and state opinions as facts. It is quite notorious for this as a matter of fact and most US elementary, high school and university professors refuse to accept wikipedia as a legitimate source to site in any type of paper or report.
 
The 24th of Foot was not represented in the movie as a Welsh regiment, it was depicted as a very mixed regiment with a Welsh contingent within it that had a number of "characters" in it that stood out for various reasons.
 
That Lt. Gonville Bromhead was deaf is not a historical fact, as the only source for this information is from a relative of his, it is not listed in his military records or in any other source. Seems highly unlikely that even if he was allowed into the service of the military that he would have ever been given a field position and would have been restricted to administrative posts only. Otherwise he would have been a detriment to everyone including himself. Most of what wikipedia has to state on that topic appears to be nothing more than rumor and conjecture, and is not valid within a historical discussion.
 
That his name is pronounced Bramhead and not Brumhead would more than likely be due to the different ways different regions of a country pronounce various name and words. Considering Stanley Baker who produced and directed and starred in the movie pronounces it Bramhead, and that Baker is a native Englishman, it basically is meaningless historically. It is like saying that when Northerners in the US pronounce the word pecan as "pacaan"  it is wrong because the Southerners in the US pronounce it peekan.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Gundamor

Originally posted by DesertHistorian

The movie "Zulu" 1964 directed and starring Stanley Baker was for the most part accurate, at least more so then most movies and this was a British venture, not Hollywood.



The movie introduced many many inaccuracies to add the Hollywood effect in my opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_inaccuracies_in_the_film_Zulu - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_inaccuracies_in_the_film_Zulu

I thought Zulu Dawn was more accurate and in turn not as good a "movie".


Posted By: DesertHistorian
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2008 at 17:44
Like the controversy over J.E.B. Stuart and his absence from Gettysburg, or dislike it, it is part of the historical aspect that is constantly debated in this country as to what difference he could have made if he had been present from the start of the battle. The reconnaissance and the mobility of a cavalry unit would have provided Gen. Lee with information and additional resources that he did not have the first 2 days of the battle and that difference could have been enough to turn the battle in favor of the Confederates. That it would be considered by anyone as BS speaks volumes for itself.
 
 
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by DesertHistorian

Gettysburg 1994 was very accurate

Gods and Generals 2003 also very accurate and in some ways one of the more historically accurate films ever to come out of Hollywood, even down to the diary entries of Stonewall Jackson, the mannerisms, etc....very impressive in the way the movie was made. Too bad the American public are dolts when it comes to history and it did not do well at the box office.
 


i don't think Gettysburg was so accurate at all. my main grudge is that it had the usual JEB Stuart bullshit with it and it was too pro-Union. Gods & Generals was much better, in visuals, accuracy and it balanced the bias of the first movie by highliting the point of view of the Confederacy.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2008 at 22:10
Originally posted by Panther

"Dance, Tartar woman! Dance!"
 
Epic!


-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 10:03
I like Temujin's armour. 

-------------


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2008 at 18:38
Another horrendous film was 10,000 B.C man is so stupid that he can't build anything without the help of aliens and then they tried to catch a mammoth with a net? come on anybody who tries to catch a mammoth with a net deserves what they get no matter how cool their hair is and then of course the characters had to talk in a stilted caveman talk which made them flat and one dimensional and destroyed the romance. 

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 12:05
Well, the everlasting truth is that nothing ever beats the Hercules series!LOL

-------------
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.


Posted By: Afghanan
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 12:34
10,000 BC for sure.
 
Wooly Mammoths in the deserts.  Terror Birds in the Middle East.  10,000 BC horse riding (Horses werent domesticated until at least 4,000 BC), Egyptian like Pyramids, and lets not forget catching Wooly Mammoths with nets.


-------------
The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest.
~ Khushal Khan Khattak


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 12:47
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

300 was a good action movie, nothing more, nothing less. Why do some people always try to read too much in movies? 


Indeed, they were also clear about it. That it was based on the comic book and that it won't focus on historical accuracies. If you miss those statements you may react on what you see in the movie.

However, Troy is my candidate...


-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 14:40

1958 makes this movie historical but the accuracy part is a little misleading.

 
 Normally such attacks are made by aggressors of a more diminutive stature! Wink


-------------


Posted By: King Kang of Mu
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 21:57
Originally posted by Seko

1958 makes this movie historical but the accuracy part is a little misleading.

 
 Normally such attacks are made by aggressors of a more diminutive stature! Wink
 
Yeah, compare to that one, this one is much more historically accurate, I believe we've talked about the subject in AE also.
 


-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum/forums.html


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 22:06
I believe Ponce once lost his mind under the weight some of those rabid tomatoes. Been a long time since I saw that movie. In fact I'm having a hard time remembering anything about it.

-------------


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 00:16
 
              Awful, just bloody awful.


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 08:20
I sometimes wonder that films could also be inaccurate due to the "film budget".

-------------
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 18:52
That  2003 King Arthur film what piece of crap.

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 19:20
"Michael Collins" with Liam Neeson really screwed up history a lot of stupid young people a few years back. I was told once during a Gaelic football match at Croke Park "That's the side the British Army drove a tank through the stand", which is not very encouraging really.



-------------


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 19:47
can you elaborate on that a bit?


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 20:03
Originally posted by Dolphin

"Michael Collins" with Liam Neeson really screwed up history a lot of stupid young people a few years back. I was told once during a Gaelic football match at Croke Park "That's the side the British Army drove a tank through the stand", which is not very encouraging really.

 
Michael Collins is surprisingly realistic, when you look past a couple of blatant examples of 'poetic license'. I mean, the love triangle with Kitty, Mick and Harry Boland did exist, and it did try their friendship to some extent. Neeson does a very good job of impersonating Collin's personality - If you read any of his letters or anyone's memoirs (Dick Mulcahy for example) they all speak of a very quirky, short fused but loveable man. Which is what Michael Collins was.
 
Broy, the inside G man certainly did exist, and he's a testament to Collin's organisational and infiltration genius. That actor did a good job on him as well.
 
One of the funniest parts of the film is when the Belfast men come down to 'clean out Dublin castle' and bring some 'Belfast efficiency to this joing'. This is all real and the way they died is as depicted in the film.
 
Again, there are certain inaccuracies in the film, which you get with any film that tackles an historical mammoth like Collins, but I think it did a brilliant job. Not to mention, any historical film that gets ordinary people into their history is a good thing if you ask me.


-------------


Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 20:03
Originally posted by pinguin

Apocalipto.

Agreed. So much potential for a great story, yet it was made into some personal statement from MG - not that such a thing is necessarily a bad thing, but there is a huge potential for an accurate Mayan inspired movie in a historical context. Now nobody want to finance a movie about the Maya.

The reason why I think it is a particularly bad example of a "historical" movie, is because the advertising made it out to be an fairly accurate movie, with reconstructed cities and true Mayan language and such. He should have made the movie in English, because it is just an action movie with a weak "noble savage" message.

 

Such a pity. I would have liked a movie about the rivalry between the Mayan cities like Tikal and Calakmul, and the betrayal involved. The fact that Apocalypto came out in the period where so much new written info was found, and so much new info about the rivalry and wars, makes it even more awful to me.
 
What a pity.


-------------


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 20:12
Originally posted by Temujin

can you elaborate on that a bit?


I'm glad you asked Temujin! In the film "Michael Collins there includes a scene where the British Army, in the process of quashing the Irish rebellion against their rule, drove a tank through the wall of Croke Park, our national stadium and then proceeded to kill all in sight. It didn't happen of course, at least not that way. I'm going to directly quote Wiki here because I have an assignment on Wuthering Heights to do, but it summarises it pretty well:

During the Irish War of Independence on November 21, 1920 Croke Park was the scene of a massacre by the Auxiliary Division. British army auxiliaries – nicknamed the Auxies but often referred to by the nickname of another Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) paramilitary force, the Black and Tans – entered the ground, shooting indiscriminately into the crowd killing 14 during a Dublin-Tipperary gaelic football match. The dead included 13 spectators and Tipperary's captain, Michael Hogan. Posthumously the Hogan stand built in 1924 was named in his honor. These shootings, on the day which became known as Bloody Sunday, were a reprisal for the assassination of 14 British Intelligence officers, known as the Cairo Gang, by Michael Collins's 'squad' earlier that day.


The film, on the other hand, portrays events like this:

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".


Basically, the whole film is a load of arse, but it's quite funny as long as people don't start believing it.



-------------


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 20:16
Come on... I agree the Croke Park scene was arse, but I think the film is great. Again, if people find the Collins subject matter curious after watching the film, they'll watch a documentary. If their curiosity isn't gotten rid of, they'll read the biography (The Tim Pat Coogan one has done very well from this particular dynamic.) Anything that makes people search out the truth, and also instills in them a bit of drama and romance in the past is good in my humble opinion.

-------------


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 20:16
Originally posted by Parnell

Originally posted by Dolphin

"Michael Collins" with Liam Neeson really screwed up history a lot of stupid young people a few years back. I was told once during a Gaelic football match at Croke Park "That's the side the British Army drove a tank through the stand", which is not very encouraging really.

 

Michael Collins is surprisingly realistic, when you look past a couple of blatant examples of 'poetic license'. I mean, the love triangle with Kitty, Mick and Harry Boland did exist, and it did try their friendship to some extent. Neeson does a very good job of impersonating Collin's personality - If you read any of his letters or anyone's memoirs (Dick Mulcahy for example) they all speak of a very quirky, short fused but loveable man. Which is what Michael Collins was.

 

Broy, the inside G man certainly did exist, and he's a testament to Collin's organisational and infiltration genius. That actor did a good job on him as well.

 

One of the funniest parts of the film is when the Belfast men come down to 'clean out Dublin castle' and bring some 'Belfast efficiency to this joing'. This is all real and the way they died is as depicted in the film.

 

Again, there are certain inaccuracies in the film, which you get with any film that tackles an historical mammoth like Collins, but I think it did a brilliant job. Not to mention, any historical film that gets ordinary people into their history is a good thing if you ask me.


Have to disagree. It's the Irish equivalent of JFK with Costner, people who have no clue about history become engrossed in a quasi-reality that is only to the long-term detriment of the truth, which gets lost beneath a claggy cushion of 'poetic license'.



-------------


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 20:18
Originally posted by Parnell

Come on... I agree the Croke Park scene was arse, but I think the film is great. Again, if people find the Collins subject matter curious after watching the film, they'll watch a documentary. If their curiosity isn't gotten rid of, they'll read the biography (The Tim Pat Coogan one has done very well from this particular dynamic.) Anything that makes people search out the truth, and also instills in them a bit of drama and romance in the past is good in my humble opinion.



You've been on the silly pills again!

most people would just watch it, take it as given and move on with their brain oozing fecal matter from their earlobes. You like history, you might read into it, the majority of people just get another dose of unreality.



-------------


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 20:18
Apart from the obvious (The Croke Park scene) What other blatant mistruths can you name? There are some, and I don't deny that, but I don't see how people watching a historical film leads to this horrible end. I remember watching Michael Collins when I was younger and that sparked a flame of interest for me in Irish history. I'm sure there are others like me.

-------------


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 20:21
How do you explain the rapid growth in sales of all Irish history books of this period following the films release?

-------------


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 20:23
Originally posted by Parnell

Apart from the obvious (The Croke Park scene) What other blatant mistruths can you name? There are some, and I don't deny that, but I don't see how people watching a historical film leads to this horrible end. I remember watching Michael Collins when I was younger and that sparked a flame of interest for me in Irish history. I'm sure there are others like me.


Denis, look at your avatar. You are not like other people. Get used to it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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]

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.

Neil Jordan defended his film by saying that it could not provide an entirely accurate account of events, given that it was a two-hour film that had to be understandable to an international audience who would not know the minutiae of Irish history. He makes this argument and speaks on other artistic choices made for the film in the documentary on the making of the film, produced by the British television show The South Bank Show. The documentary on the DVD release of the film discusses its fictional aspects.



It's wiki, I know, but it saves time. 'Nuff said.



-------------


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 20:25
thanks for the infos guys! Smile


Posted By: Dolphin
Date 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.



-------------


Posted By: Dolphin
Date 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.



-------------


Posted By: Parnell
Date 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.



-------------


Posted By: Dolphin
Date 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.




-------------


Posted By: Parnell
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: Parnell
Date 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)


-------------


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 21:03
'Nuff said.




-------------


Posted By: The Canadian Guy
Date 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.


Posted By: Dolphin
Date 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'.




-------------


Posted By: Seko
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: Parnell
Date 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


-------------


Posted By: Dolphin
Date 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.



-------------


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date 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
 
 


Posted By: The Canadian Guy
Date 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

-------------
Hate and anger is the fuel of war, while religion and politics is the foundation of it.


Posted By: calvo
Date 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.
 
 


Posted By: The Canadian Guy
Date 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.


Posted By: calvo
Date 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.
 
 
 


Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2008 at 03:58
300 WinkBig%20smile

-------------
Anfører


Posted By: Jams
Date 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.
 


-------------



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com