News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Historical Accuracy in TV and Film

Started by jimmy olsen, October 31, 2013, 12:02:38 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Do you demand Historical Accuracy in the TV shows and Movies you watch?

Yes! 100% If it's a movie is about the Illiad it has to be in Archaic Greek with subtitles!
3 (7.5%)
No, I don't care about it at all. Xena: Warrior Princess is the height of historical fiction.
7 (17.5%)
As long as there's nothing too glaringly wrong, it's fine.
30 (75%)

Total Members Voted: 39

Agelastus

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2013, 10:08:45 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 31, 2013, 10:07:51 AM

For example, in a film where they portray the English as being generally stupid, arrogant and borderline evil...they filmed the battle scenes for Stirling Bridge with no bridge in sight.


And?

And? :huh:

And what? :huh:

Do you only read the first half of a post and then comment?
"Come grow old with me
The Best is yet to be
The last of life for which the first was made."

Agelastus

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2013, 10:09:17 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 31, 2013, 10:07:51 AM
Admittedly, I am trying to think of a historical film that actually does things right.

A Bridge Too Far.

:hmm:

Yes, I think I'll have to concede this one. I don't even recall the few German vehicles we saw in the film looking appreciably "wrong".
"Come grow old with me
The Best is yet to be
The last of life for which the first was made."

Admiral Yi

I also liked that movie about the English Civil War.  Can't remember the title.  Obi wan plays the king.


Brazen

Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2013, 12:29:45 AM
Yeah that is always tricky when English is used for some other language.  Like in Warhorse where everybody speaks English...which I thought was just the substitute for French or German or whatever and we were supposed to know they are really speaking German blah blah.  Of course there are scenes where the Frenchman is speaking to the Brits in English...so ok maybe he knows English...but then there are scenes where the Germans and French are speaking to each other in English and that about made my head explode.
Could it possibly be that it's a film based on a children's book recommended for ages 10 and up...?

Admiral Yi


Tamas

Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2013, 09:56:31 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 31, 2013, 05:52:41 AM
what is there to like in Warhorse, srsly? Apart from Spielberg making the parody of his own life`s work himself.

I can see it not translating well to a non-English-speaking audience, but if you thought the movie a parody, maybe you might not want to watch English-language films at all.  Monty Python would blow your mind.


Brazen

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2013, 10:15:54 AM
I also liked that movie about the English Civil War.  Can't remember the title.  Obi wan plays the king.
Cromwell with Alec Guinness and Richard Harris.

They're making a TV mini-series of Wolf Hall with Mark Rylance as Thomas Cromwell. Hope they make a decent job of that. Probably stands a better chance than trying to cram it all into a film.

Admiral Yi

Quote from: Agelastus on October 31, 2013, 10:14:00 AM
:hmm:

Yes, I think I'll have to concede this one. I don't even recall the few German vehicles we saw in the film looking appreciably "wrong".

A tricked up Leopard I makes a passable Panther.

Though my understanding is the 10th SS didn't have any Panthers at Arnhem. :nerd:

Valmy

#38
Quote from: Brazen on October 31, 2013, 10:17:58 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2013, 12:29:45 AM
Yeah that is always tricky when English is used for some other language.  Like in Warhorse where everybody speaks English...which I thought was just the substitute for French or German or whatever and we were supposed to know they are really speaking German blah blah.  Of course there are scenes where the Frenchman is speaking to the Brits in English...so ok maybe he knows English...but then there are scenes where the Germans and French are speaking to each other in English and that about made my head explode.
Could it possibly be that it's a film based on a children's book recommended for ages 10 and up...?

Could it be I was talking about the movie and not the book which I was not even aware of?  The movie was not a kids movie.

In any case I was amused by that.  Man I never thought my little English as other language thing would enrage so many people  :ph34r:
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

lustindarkness

Quote from: KRonn on October 31, 2013, 10:06:44 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2013, 09:53:40 AM
My biggest beef with historical inaccuracy is with tactics rather than hard ware.  Two roman armies march towards each other, then they break up into groups of two and start dueling each other.

Yeah, agreed. They fought in formation as much as possible, which is one factor why the Roman armies were so effective. Same thing for other ancient armies of course. But in some movies they show formations and it not only looks right, it makes perfect sense as to the reason for using them. The movie 300 showed use of formations which is good but for me that movie fell apart with all the uber moves by individual Greek soldiers when not in formation.

In the beginning of the movie "The Eagle" a badly outnumbered Roman force formed testudo, turtled up, and that showed a very effective tactic. So movies do very well if they can portray some proper tactics as the tactics the ancient armies used were often so very effective. I cringe whenever I see well trained armies devolve into individual fighting at the start of battle.

But 300 is not a historical film, it is a film adaptation of a graphic novel. But I do understand your point.
Grand Duke of Lurkdom

crazy canuck

Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2013, 10:33:03 AM
The movie was not a kids movie.


:huh:  It was billed as "a movie for all ages"

It seemed pretty obvious to me the target audience was the same as the book.

Tamas

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2013, 10:42:12 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2013, 10:33:03 AM
The movie was not a kids movie.


:huh:  It was billed as "a movie for all ages"

It seemed pretty obvious to me the target audience was the same as the book.

trailers (for TV, which I have seen) did NOT advertise it as a kids movie. it was SPIELBERGS NEXT WAR MOVIE EPIC

jimmy olsen

Quote from: Agelastus on October 31, 2013, 10:07:51 AM
Option 3, with, as has been mentioned, Braveheart being the classic example of a film that does things the wrong way.

And stupidly so to.

For example, in a film where they portray the English as being generally stupid, arrogant and borderline evil...they filmed the battle scenes for Stirling Bridge with no bridge in sight.

Stirling Bridge is a classic example of stupidity and arrogance on the English side ("Hey, let's cross this bridge two at a time with the Scottish Army drawn up in plain sight and waiting for us over there on the other side.") It's not something that has to be made up, or interpreted, or otherwise twisted as so much else was in that film, it really happened and fitted with their general portrayal of the English. And they ignored it.

Admittedly, I am trying to think of a historical film that actually does things right. Television tends to be much better at making acceptable "historical" historical series.
Wasn't the reason simply a budget issue? IIRC they couldn't afford to build a bridge.
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

crazy canuck

Quote from: Tamas on October 31, 2013, 10:44:28 AM
trailers (for TV, which I have seen) did NOT advertise it as a kids movie. it was SPIELBERGS NEXT WAR MOVIE EPIC

I cannot account for the fact that Hungarians advertised a kids movie, based on a kids book as an epic war movie for adults.

Valmy

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2013, 10:42:12 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2013, 10:33:03 AM
The movie was not a kids movie.


:huh:  It was billed as "a movie for all ages"

It seemed pretty obvious to me the target audience was the same as the book.

It was rated PG-13, so a movie for all ages above 13 :P

Nowhere in the marketing I saw was it being sold as a kids movie.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."