News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Powerful narrative vs. historical accuracy

Started by Martinus, August 02, 2009, 11:56:29 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions

Razgovory

#15
August 02, 2009, 07:09:53 PM
Quote from: Kleves on August 02, 2009, 06:13:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2009, 02:39:54 PM
What is annoying is when the maker of a work distorts the facts to make their chosen characters more appealing (or appalling) to modern sensibilities: that is, when the resulting work is untrue to the spirit of the time depicted.
See: Kingdom of Heaven.

:x
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Valmy

#16
August 02, 2009, 11:54:33 PM Last Edit: August 03, 2009, 02:26:15 PM by Valmy
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2009, 11:56:29 AM
I've just finished watching the second season of Tudors, and I must say it gripped me to the very end (and has been much better than season 1). One thing that it shares with my other favourite series/movies, such as I, Claudius, Lion in Winter or Rome are the accusations of the lack of historical accuracy.

But should a show like this aim at being historically accurate or take liberties with facts, while delivering a compelling narrative (that is faithful to history in spirit if not in letter)?

Discuss. -_-

Leaving things out or making things seem more exciting than they really were or happened close together than they really were for the narrative's sake is ok.

Changing things tends to piss me off though.  Things like making Renauld de Chatillon a Knight Templar.
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."

Valmy

#17
August 02, 2009, 11:57:17 PM
Quote from: Zanza on August 02, 2009, 12:24:12 PM
The narrative is more important. Tudors is TV entertainment not a documentary after all.

That is a good point.

Some of the History Channel's documentaries simply enfuriate me they have such enormous "errors"

The one that crops up over and over again is the Renaissance Europe was primarily a contest between England and Spain it seems.  England defeated Spain all by herself and went on to rule the world...the Ottoman Empire, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Portugal...all unimportant.  Spain was locked in a deathmatch with her most dangerous enemy...that military juggernaut 16th century England.

I mean you guys are pretending to show us history right?
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."

Valmy

#18
August 03, 2009, 12:01:01 AM
Quote from: Kleves on August 02, 2009, 06:13:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2009, 02:39:54 PM
What is annoying is when the maker of a work distorts the facts to make their chosen characters more appealing (or appalling) to modern sensibilities: that is, when the resulting work is untrue to the spirit of the time depicted.
See: Kingdom of Heaven.

That one, Gladiator, Braveheart, and The Patriot are all up there as truly horrible historical movies.

Remember the English were horrible racists while the Southerners were just desperate to free their slaves...oh and all those black men who joined up with the British?  Forcibly conscripted...um...right.
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."

Josquius

#19
August 03, 2009, 06:32:20 AM
I don't mind it when they take some liberties with history to make a better series/film. If they had to keep totally historically and completely accurate it's a safe bet there would be far less genuinely brilliant stories out there.


Braveheart and Gladiator are good films. They've as much historical accuracy as Conan the Barbarian of course but they still make good films.
The Tudors however fails with both historical accuracy and entertainment value.
██████
██████
██████

BVN

#20
August 03, 2009, 07:00:49 AM
Historical inaccuracy or not, Braveheart is still a piece of garbage.

Razgovory

#21
August 03, 2009, 07:17:43 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 02, 2009, 11:54:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2009, 11:56:29 AM
I've just finished watching the second season of Tudors, and I must say it gripped me to the very end (and has been much better than season 1). One thing that it shares with my other favourite series/movies, such as I, Claudius, Lion in Winter or Rome are the accusations of the lack of historical accuracy.

But should a show like this aim at being historically accurate or take liberties with facts, while delivering a compelling narrative (that is faithful to history in spirit if not in letter)?

Discuss. -_-

Leaving things out or making things seem more exciting than they really were or happened close together than they really were for accuracy's sake is ok.

Changing things tends to piss me off though.  Things like making Renauld de Chatillon a Knight Templar.

That one just fucking confused me.  I kept thinking why is the "monk trying to mary that chick"? 

Sometimes I wonder what movies will be like in the far future.  Blue coated Union soldiers fighting their way through the streets of Iraq,  a Patton tank roaring to the rescue of the battle of New Orleans, Davy Crocket at Khe San...
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Solmyr

#22
August 03, 2009, 10:40:20 AM
I don't mind changing historical facts when it's clearly for entertainment value (see Tudors, Rome) but not when a movie pretends to be the historical truth (see Kingdom of Heaven). Gladiator was entertainment, and I don't even think it was particularly good. Braveheart was fine, and in any case Patrick McGoohan makes up for anything else bad in that movie.

Viking

#23
August 03, 2009, 10:42:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 03, 2009, 07:17:43 AMBlue coated Union soldiers fighting their way through the streets of Iraq,  a Patton tank roaring to the rescue of the battle of New Orleans, Davy Crocket at Khe San...

I'd pay 60 Crowns to watch that movie.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

alfred russel

#24
August 03, 2009, 10:56:24 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2009, 10:42:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 03, 2009, 07:17:43 AMBlue coated Union soldiers fighting their way through the streets of Iraq,  a Patton tank roaring to the rescue of the battle of New Orleans, Davy Crocket at Khe San...

I'd pay 60 Crowns to watch that movie.

I hope you didn't pay 60 Crowns to watch Wild Wild West.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

Viking

#25
August 03, 2009, 11:04:30 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 03, 2009, 10:56:24 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2009, 10:42:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 03, 2009, 07:17:43 AMBlue coated Union soldiers fighting their way through the streets of Iraq,  a Patton tank roaring to the rescue of the battle of New Orleans, Davy Crocket at Khe San...

I'd pay 60 Crowns to watch that movie.

I hope you didn't pay 60 Crowns to watch Wild Wild West.

I live in hope.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Malthus

#26
August 03, 2009, 11:11:21 AM
Quote from: Kleves on August 02, 2009, 06:13:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2009, 02:39:54 PM
What is annoying is when the maker of a work distorts the facts to make their chosen characters more appealing (or appalling) to modern sensibilities: that is, when the resulting work is untrue to the spirit of the time depicted.
See: Kingdom of Heaven.

I didn't. Because I heard it was a major offender in this respect.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

Grey Fox

#27
August 03, 2009, 11:24:23 AM
You should watch it, it's an entertaining movie.
Colonel Caliga is Awesome.

Sheilbh

#28
August 03, 2009, 11:32:55 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 02, 2009, 11:57:17 PM
Some of the History Channel's documentaries simply enfuriate me they have such enormous "errors"

Yeah.  I'm more annoyed by bad documentaries than I am by TV series that take liberties.

But yeah, I like Rome, I, Claudius, Gladiator and Braveheart.  While I don't really like the Patriot.  I think what matters is the quality of the entertainment, not the history.
Let's bomb Russia!

Barrister

#29
August 03, 2009, 11:55:00 AM
Okay, I'll bite.

I get upset at historical inaccuracies in movies, especially in movies where they have decided to be more entertaining than accurate.  Yes, Braveheart, Gladiator, I'm looking at you.

The writers directors might have decided to play fast and loose with the facts, but they are not clear on this, and far, far too many people wind up taking such movies as historical facts.

If you want to make a period piece, or historical fiction, that's generally fair game.  A western with invented characters, a WWII piece, you're generally fair to make of it what you will.  But once you start to bring in real characters and real people, I do think you have a duty to the general public to take reasonable steps to portray events as they happened.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions