Historical travesties

We all know that 99.9% of films based on real events have very little actual historical fact in them, and I've come to accept that. However, every so often, a complete and utter travesty comes along, which makes me wonder what, exactly, the director was smoking. Such as:

300 - the famous Battle of Thermopalye, in which a small Greek force famously held off a massively superior Persian army, delaying them for long enough to bring their campaign to an end. Or, as the film tells it, 300 topless Spartan Hoplites (with a bit of help from some other Greeks) beat the crap out of a ridiculous number of Persians, and threw a spear at King Xerxes' nose rings, just before the rest of Greece arrived.

* - Spartan Hoplites were not topless. They wore very good armour.
* - King Xerxes wasn't naked either.
* - the 300 Spartans did not fight alone. The Greek force consisted of some 7,000 soldiers - still ridiculously outnumbered, but not to the extent that the film showed.
* - there is no evidence to suggest that Xerxes had a built in amplifier.
* - interestingly, one thing they did get right was that they really did say "we will fight in the shade!", as well as "tonight we will dine in Hades!" (the Greek name for Hell)


Braveheart - Entertaining though the film is, Mel Gibson really does have a thing against the English. Shame he got one or two facts wrong...

* - King Edward I, a pagan?? I don't think so!! England hasn't had a pagan king since...well, ever, actually. The only pagans to rule in Britain ruled their own territories, and by the time there was a unified England, the whole country was pretty much Catholic.
* - William Wallace was a noble, not a peasant.
* - The Battle of Stirling Bridge...without a bridge.
* - William Wallace did not invent the phalanx. This tactic was used in bronze age Greece.
* - Princess Isabella was, apparently, 10 years old at the time. She would not have had a romance with Wallace.
* - Apparently William Wallace never sacked York.
* - But he is reported to have burned monks alive in their monastries - something the film conveniently left out.
* - Apparently Robert de Bruce didn't betray Wallace either.
* - The fight was not about freedom. Wallace wanted to put his own man on Scotland's throne - it was about ensuring Scotland was controlled by Scottish feudal lords, and not English feudal lords. Remember that in the 13th century, countries were run by a feudal system. The king could only raise as many soldiers as the nobles willing to fight for him had. If all of the nobles decide not to fight for the king, the king has no army. Kings can be, and have been, deposed in this manner (see the War of the Roses).
* - Incidentally, despite this film being hailed as a "victory for the Scottish!" film, it doesn't portray the Scottish in a very good light either. In the film, many Scottish nobles betray Wallace at Falkirk. Yet the Scottish audience chooses to ignore this...hurrah for Scotland - a country of backstabbing nobles and traitors!!

What about Pearl Harbor? There's so much wrong with that movie that I can't help but look down on Transformers fans who only recently jumped on the Hating Michael Bay bandwagon. I hated him before it was cool to hate him!

Ah yes, Pearl Harbour...where fighter pilots are suddenly able to fly bombers. Because they're virtually the same, you know!! I don't remember much of that film (I only ever watched it once, and even then, not properly) but I'm sure there were many others.

The Patriot was another one - one would think that, considering the American Independence War is one of the most important events in American history (and one they are most proud of), when they had the chance to make a film about it, they'd get it right!! Apparently the character that Benjamin Martin is based on is supposed to have been just as evil, if not more so, than the British were portrayed as being. Also, my history of that particular period may be hazy, but from what I can gather, the British never burned churches full of unarmed civilians. We might have been evil but we weren't that evil!!

King Arthur too - okay, this one is difficult, since it's based on a mythical figure, but according to the film, the Saxons invaded Britain on the very day the Romans pulled out - the whole affair lasted about a day (film makers never seem quite able to capture the timescale in these films!). Not only that, but they invaded the south of Britain (what would later become England) by landing in Scotland, and marching south, through Hadrian's Wall?? Yeah...that'll work. I also don't think "historians agree" on anything regarding a real life King Arthur.

There is no fucking "u" in Pearl Harbor

Also transitioning from a small, quick fighter to a lumbering, twin-engine medium bomber is not remotely difficult. Especially over a couple of months. That said, the Doolittle raid would've drawn from experienced bomber pilots.

The last historical film I saw was Michael Collins and while I'm sure this isn't the only problem with it, there's no suggestion in the historical record that Collins met with his assassin the night before he was killed, and also no suggestion that De Valera had anything to do with Collins' assassination. Given that Eamonn De Valera has several grandchildren who are still alive, I'm really surprised Neil Jordan didn't tread more carefully there.

Also, according to my grandfather people didn't swear that much in the 1920s.

Oh - that scene in Titanic with the officer who at first accepts the big pile of money from Kate Winslet's shitbag fiance only to throw it back in his face, where he shoots two passengers and then commits suicide? Yeah, that never actually happened, and the family of that officer (he's named in the film and was a real person) were absolutely furious at his portrayal.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Oh - that scene in Titanic with the officer who at first accepts the big pile of money from Kate Winslet's shitbag fiance only to throw it back in his face, where he shoots two passengers and then commits suicide? Yeah, that never actually happened, and the family of that officer (he's named in the film and was a real person) were absolutely furious at his portrayal.

Oh, that reminds me of Private Blithe in Band of Brothers. According to the show, Blithe was meek and terrified until he found his courage, which resulted in him getting shot by a sniper, eventually dying in 1948 later having never recovered.

Which is a pretty strange thing since the real Blithe didn't die until 1967. He did suffer from hysterical blindness at one point, and was shot by a sniper, but didn't actually spend the next for years slowly dying. In fact, he wound up fighting in the Korean War, earning the Silver Star at one point.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Also, according to my grandfather people didn't swear that much in the 1920s.

According to everyone's grandfather and all old people everywhere things were better back in the day.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Also, according to my grandfather people didn't swear that much in the 1920s.

According to everyone's grandfather and all old people everywhere things were better back in the day.

I had an elderly friend who grew up in the 1920s. He said people swore just as much then, but they didn't do it in public as much.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

According to everyone's grandfather and all old people everywhere things were better back in the day.

Bah, you'll do the same when you're a grandfather. You'll think the 1990s was the best time to grow up in, and today's youth have it easy/have no sense or moral responsibility/have rubbish music/cartoons/sports superstars/computer games/whatever.

Cunovendus wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

According to everyone's grandfather and all old people everywhere things were better back in the day.

Bah, you'll do the same when you're a grandfather. You'll think the 1990s was the best time to grow up in, and today's youth have it easy/have no sense or moral responsibility/have rubbish music/cartoons/sports superstars/computer games/whatever.

You underestimate me.

I do this now.

Cunovendus wrote:

We all know that 99.9% of films based on real events have very little actual historical fact in them, and I've come to accept that. However, every so often, a complete and utter travesty comes along, which makes me wonder what, exactly, the director was smoking. Such as:

300 - the famous Battle of Thermopalye, in which a small Greek force famously held off a massively superior Persian army, delaying them for long enough to bring their campaign to an end. Or, as the film tells it, 300 topless Spartan Hoplites (with a bit of help from some other Greeks) beat the crap out of a ridiculous number of Persians, and threw a spear at King Xerxes' nose rings, just before the rest of Greece arrived.

* - Spartan Hoplites were not topless. They wore very good armour.
* - King Xerxes wasn't naked either.
* - the 300 Spartans did not fight alone. The Greek force consisted of some 7,000 soldiers - still ridiculously outnumbered, but not to the extent that the film showed.
* - there is no evidence to suggest that Xerxes had a built in amplifier.
* - interestingly, one thing they did get right was that they really did say "we will fight in the shade!", as well as "tonight we will dine in Hades!" (the Greek name for Hell)

Uh, you DO know that this isn't by any stretch of the imagination a "historical film"? It was not billed as such. It was not made as such. It's an adaption of a graphic novel, which also had very little to do with "historical accuracy".

Quote :

Also, my history of that particular period may be hazy, but from what I can gather, the British never burned churches full of unarmed civilians. We might have been evil but we weren't that evil!!

IIRC there was one officer that did that. He got in major trouble for it in real life, unlike the film in which the other British just kinda shrugged at the act. For one he would have been killing people who would be protected under the crown as they were considered British until after the war.

Maximilia wrote:

Uh, you DO know that this isn't by any stretch of the imagination a "historical film"? It was not billed as such. It was not made as such. It's an adaption of a graphic novel, which also had very little to do with "historical accuracy".

Bah. It was still a travesty. Somehow I don't think I'd get away with making a film about the Holocaust and making up a lot of blatantly bogus scenes, saying "oh, but it's not meant to be a historical portrayal of the event!".

Quote :

IIRC there was one officer that did that. He got in major trouble for it in real life, unlike the film in which the other British just kinda shrugged at the act.

Now that I can believe. I'm sure there were some very evil people around at that time - in both Britain and America (actually there are some very evil people around now!), but it's the people, not the country, who were evil.

Sometimes those people get into power, and order the country to do evil things (and sometimes are able to convince the rest of the country that those acts are necessary), which is why the country appears to be evil. But people are people, and making an entire country out to be evil, when it's the rulers who should be portrayed as evil, really bugs me. Doesn't matter which country it is, as soon as an entire country is depicted as evil then I begin to question the validity of the film.

But then, films often deal in absolutes. They want everything to be black and white - side A is evil and eats babies, while side B is good and nurses wounded sparrows back to health, so the audience can be in no doubt which side to support in the film. This makes it okay to kill side A, because they're evil and deserve to die, so the viewers don't have to question the morals of the film.

\"Cunovendus wrote:

Somehow I don't think I'd get away with making a film about the Holocaust and making up a lot of blatantly bogus scenes

 Inglourious Basterds. :|

 'Alt-history' is not so different from 'pull shit out of your ass'.

rae wrote:

\"Cunovendus wrote:

Somehow I don't think I'd get away with making a film about the Holocaust and making up a lot of blatantly bogus scenes

 Inglourious Basterds. :|

 'Alt-history' is not so different from 'pull shit out of your ass'.

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about that one...though it wasn't really about the Holocaust, as such.

Still a rubbish (and overrated) film though. Alternative history can be interesting when it looks at the possible consequences of historical events happening differently, but I don't see the point of an alternative history that simply shows the events that didn't happen, happening.

Cunovendus wrote:

Still a rubbish (and overrated) film though. Alternative history can be interesting when it looks at the possible consequences of historical events happening differently, but I don't see the point of an alternative history that simply shows the events that didn't happen, happening.

IDK I found the plotline around Shoshanna rather gripping, and Melanie Laurent was absolutely fantastic (as was Christoph Waltz, but more on that later).  It felt like half of an excellent film because I didn't give a shit about any of the kooky group of characters Tarantino had decided to put together because he never decided to do the leg work to make them interesting: here's the BEAR JEW and he's PRETTY HOT and so is BRAD PITT but then again YOU EXPECTED THAT and TEEHEE SEE HOW BAD HIS ITALIAN IS and THEY REALLY HATE NAZIS GUYS OK that's enough for you to identify with an entire group of characters right?

Well, it wasn't for me, anyway.  And it's funny, because Waltz's performance is pretty excellent in the Shoshanna plotline (the cafe scene is incredible, no joke) but runs quickly downhill into self-conscious self-parody in the Basterds one.  It made me kind of sad, really. There was none of the genre savvy or quick dialogue that, at least for me, made the rest of Tarantino's films. Or movies, rather. I'm pretty sure if any director makes movies, not films, it's him.

Cunovendus wrote:

Maximilia wrote:

Uh, you DO know that this isn't by any stretch of the imagination a "historical film"? It was not billed as such. It was not made as such. It's an adaption of a graphic novel, which also had very little to do with "historical accuracy".

Bah. It was still a travesty. Somehow I don't think I'd get away with making a film about the Holocaust and making up a lot of blatantly bogus scenes, saying "oh, but it's not meant to be a historical portrayal of the event!".

Why not? It was done before.

Maximilia wrote:

Why not? It was done before.

Well, I don't know that film so I can't comment. The fact remains, however, that 300 was a travesty, and the new one that they're working on looks to be even worse.

Not only that but the film/comic was ridiculously anti-Persia *cough* Iran *cough*. It's as if you're allowed to insult certain countries/groups/religious communities/whatever, while others are untouchable. {/randomrant}

Cunovendus wrote:

Maximilia wrote:

Why not? It was done before.

Well, I don't know that film so I can't comment. The fact remains, however, that 300 was a travesty, and the new one that they're working on looks to be even worse.

Not only that but the film/comic was ridiculously anti-Persia *cough* Iran *cough*. It's as if you're allowed to insult certain countries/groups/religious communities/whatever, while others are untouchable. {/randomrant}

How many times were you dropped as a child?

It's not perhaps quite on topic, since Armageddon is in no way a historical film, (or a good one), but when it opens we see the moon, then we come round it and see the Earth. The voice of the late Charlton Heston comes out to say something like 'This is the Earth, sixty-five million years ago'.

I took one look and inwardly groaned. There is every single landmass on the planet, exactly where it is now. I guess Bay doesn't quite grasp the idea of plate tectonics.

Who the fuck cares about anti-Persian sentiment in a fucking Frank Miller graphic novel?

Summercorn wrote:

It's not perhaps quite on topic, since Armageddon is in no way a historical film, (or a good one), but when it opens we see the moon, then we come round it and see the Earth.  The voice of the late Charlton Heston comes out to say something like 'This is the Earth, sixty-five million years ago'.

I took one look and inwardly groaned.  There is every single landmass on the planet, exactly where it is now.  I guess Bay doesn't quite grasp the idea of plate tectonics.

Just because they move doesn't mean they couldn't have been in the exact same spot 65 million years ago. They could have floated around and ended up in the same position.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Summercorn wrote:

It's not perhaps quite on topic, since Armageddon is in no way a historical film, (or a good one), but when it opens we see the moon, then we come round it and see the Earth.  The voice of the late Charlton Heston comes out to say something like 'This is the Earth, sixty-five million years ago'.

I took one look and inwardly groaned.  There is every single landmass on the planet, exactly where it is now.  I guess Bay doesn't quite grasp the idea of plate tectonics.

Just because they move doesn't mean they couldn't have been in the exact same spot 65 million years ago.  They could have floated around and ended up in the same position.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
 

jurassic park should've been called cretaceous park

also

a friend of a friend walked out of a screening of gladiator at the very beginning where russell crowe is walking through the fields running his hands through the crops

because that particular kind of crop didn't exist at the time the movie is set

speaking of gladiator i am p sure commodus didnt get stabbed to death in the arena by some spanish guy

i am also p sure he didnt murder marcus aurelius either