TV/Movies Megathread

[garbon]

Okay but at your work do you say complete all tasks perfectly? Do you research every potential thing or are you ultimately working in a business and sometimes have to settle for good enough?

Adding the Brits to Verdun is not a minor detail, especially as it wasn't some side remark in some meaningless scene. It was Churchill invoking war veteran comradeship to push his point and IIRC save the protagonist's ass.



I am just going to ignore the warp drive bit, talk about apples and oranges.

That's sounds like a pretty minor detail.

[Valmy]

That's sounds like a pretty minor detail.

I suppose most people wouldn't mind seeing the US Marines bravely defending Stalingrad either, but I do. To me that is not a minor detail, to me that is a big deal.

Am I wrong for having my own personal tastes?

[Eddie Teach]

I've only watched the first 2 episodes of the show but I'm with Tamas.

Adding Brits to Verdun is frankly insulting.

Ffs, you're not even French.

You don't have to be French to have a brain and dislike stupid bullshit.

He didn't say he disliked it. He said he felt insulted.

Anyway, really miss CdM here. I have a feeling he'd be calling this autistic bullshit and for once I'd agree.

[garbon]

That's sounds like a pretty minor detail.

I suppose most people wouldn't mind seeing the US Marines bravely defending Stalingrad either, but I do. To me that is not a minor detail, to me that is a big deal.

Am I wrong for having my own personal tastes?

That doesn't seem like a comparable example but then you seem unhinged on this issue so...

[Valmy]

That doesn't seem like a comparable example

What? It is exactly the same example just with different countries and different battles.

but then you seem unhinged on this issue so...

Unhinged and autistic? Oh boy. Ok fine, if you guys want to start the personal attacks I will bow out.

[Zoupa]

That's sounds like a pretty minor detail.

I suppose most people wouldn't mind seeing the US Marines bravely defending Stalingrad either, but I do. To me that is not a minor detail, to me that is a big deal.

Am I wrong for having my own personal tastes?

That doesn't seem like a comparable example but then you seem unhinged on this issue so...

What makes it not a comparable example?

[celedhring]

It's a throwaway dialogue, really. You never see anything. And it would have worked without the Verdun reference anyway, Churchill did serve in the Western front afterall.

[Malthus]

That's sounds like a pretty minor detail.

I suppose most people wouldn't mind seeing the US Marines bravely defending Stalingrad either, but I do. To me that is not a minor detail, to me that is a big deal.

Am I wrong for having my own personal tastes?

I wouldn't like seeing things like that - reminds me of this movie ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-571_(film)

Point is, though, that in these cases, the historical inaccuracy is basically the entirety of the plot. Dito with "seeing" the marines fighting at Stalingrad: we dont "see" Churchill fighting at Verdun, he merely mentions it. 

In Peaky Blinders, it's something a minor character says once ... and it doesn't take anything from anyone. As for U-571, the Brits felt insulted, because their accomplishments were attributed to the Yanks. In Peaky Blinders, Churchill wasn't claiming he single-handedly won the battle of Verdun, merely that he fought in it, to make the point he too understood the sufferings of war ... which point happens to be true: he fought in WW1, just not in that particular battle.

It is, in short, an inaccuracy, but a relatively minor one.

[Zoupa]

You guys don't seem to understand Tamas' point. It's not the scale of the inaccuracy, it's the stupidity of it, and the laziness behind it. It taints the rest of the period piece.

[Eddie Teach]

That's sounds like a pretty minor detail.

I suppose most people wouldn't mind seeing the US Marines bravely defending Stalingrad either, but I do. To me that is not a minor detail, to me that is a big deal.

Am I wrong for having my own personal tastes?

That doesn't seem like a comparable example but then you seem unhinged on this issue so...

What makes it not a comparable example?

Wrong front, for one. A comparable example would be an Australian at Iwo Jima. Something that's believable unless one knows specific battle details.

[Malthus]

You guys don't seem to understand Tamas' point. It's not the scale of the inaccuracy, it's the stupidity of it, and the laziness behind it. It taints the rest of the period piece.

I understand it, I just happen to disagree with it.

It's like a gun buff complaining that the gun used by a gangster is the wrong make for the year it was supposed to be filmed in - and that's why he refuses to watch The Godfather. Or that the manufacturing process for making meth was wrong in Breaking Bad. 

Taste is individual and all, but if you reject something for such a minor reason, one that makes zero difference to the plot, it seems like you are losing out if it is otherwise a good thing.

[Admiral Yi]

The historical taint argument is a little thin IMO.  I don't know if there was a bookmaker gangster named Kimber in the north, or Italian and Jewish mobs in London, and I don't really care.  Verdun was lazy, but I'm happy to feel superior to the writer and move on.

[Sheilbh]

Alfie Solomon and Sabini were both gangsters in London.

Remember noticing the Churchill/Verdun thing but not thinking about it. So not sure, but is it maybe a character point?

[Admiral Yi]

Remember noticing the Churchill/Verdun thing but not thinking about it. So not sure, but is it maybe a character point?

Can't be.  Tommy Shelby talks about who was at Verdun in a totally different scene earlier on.

[Valmy]

The historical taint argument is a little thin IMO.  I don't know if there was a bookmaker gangster named Kimber in the north, or Italian and Jewish mobs in London, and I don't really care.  Verdun was lazy, but I'm happy to feel superior to the writer and move on.

It depends though, doesn't it?

Taste is individual and all, but if you reject something for such a minor reason, one that makes zero difference to the plot, it seems like you are losing out if it is otherwise a good thing.

Well it depends on how often that kind of stuff is happening. But here we have a show that supposedly about World War I veterans and how that experience influenced them. So it seems weird that professional script writers cannot even be expected to know stuff you can get from the wikipedia side bar, you don't even have to read the article. I mean yeah the gangsters do not need to use historically accurate tommy guns, but maybe they shouldn't use samurai swords because even as cool as that might be it probably wouldn't work in a show or movie centered around being a 1920s gangster.

Also as somebody who cares about this stuff it is really annoying because movies and TV have a huge influence. Most people get all their knowledge from this sort of media. It just seems so unnecessary to put untruths in there when it would take no time or effort at all to put something true, especially when we are talking about something as simple as a script. Because yeah, a lot of people are going to assume Churchill was at Verdun. Because why would the show make that up? No reason at all, which is what makes it so puzzling. I mean it wasn't some expensive prop just one line on a script.

And surely there would be some line of accuracy they could cross to annoy you? Isn't there? So somebody else's might be someplace else.

Also it might not be true that this show was amazing and had no other problems, this might have just been the last straw.