TV/Movies Megathread

[garbon]

Wikipedia says Churchill did serve on the front in between government gigs.

there were no Brits anywhere near Verdun, let alone Churchill. He did serve on the front but at a completely different place (and time).

Doesn't strike me as anything more egregious than what they did on shows like the Tudors.

Damning with faint praise.

True, that's a show I gave up after two seasons.

[Tamas]

Never watched the Tudors.


But placing Churchill and the Brits to Verdun was completely pointless, they could have just mentioned the Somme. What it shows clearly is the creators' utter ignorance to the history behind the times they pretend to portrait. It was just utterly lazy.

[garbon]

Never watched the Tudors.


But placing Churchill and the Brits to Verdun was completely pointless, they could have just mentioned the Somme. What it shows clearly is the creators' utter ignorance to the history behind the times they pretend to portrait. It was just utterly lazy.

I think it just shows it is not a priority. They could be hardworking folk but not seen as important for the show.

[Josephus]

Tudors had some hot nakeds in it.

[Eddie Teach]

Never watched the Tudors.


But placing Churchill and the Brits to Verdun was completely pointless, they could have just mentioned the Somme. What it shows clearly is the creators' utter ignorance to the history behind the times they pretend to portrait. It was just utterly lazy.

They messed up a detail that 99% of their viewers won't notice. Relax.

[Tamas]

Never watched the Tudors.


But placing Churchill and the Brits to Verdun was completely pointless, they could have just mentioned the Somme. What it shows clearly is the creators' utter ignorance to the history behind the times they pretend to portrait. It was just utterly lazy.

I think it just shows it is not a priority. They could be hardworking folk but not seen as important for the show.

Really? There was no plot reason to pretend the British Army was at places it weren't. If you knew it wasn't at Verdun you would just leave that part out. This was clearly a case "so what big battles were there again?" followed by 4 seconds of Google use. How much trust am I supposed to have that any other period detail in there is even remotely correct? If the whole thing is just entirel made up shit in terms of environment and such, what's the point of watching?

[Tamas]

Never watched the Tudors.


But placing Churchill and the Brits to Verdun was completely pointless, they could have just mentioned the Somme. What it shows clearly is the creators' utter ignorance to the history behind the times they pretend to portrait. It was just utterly lazy.

They messed up a detail that 99% of their viewers won't notice. Relax.

See my previous reply. Such a period show is a collection of mundane details, nothing else sets it apart from a contemporary or fantasy series, than the mundane details pertaining to the period it covers. This one particular mundane detail I happened to know about, but what about the gazillion other ones? Evidence shows they were sucked out of the creators' thumbs as well.

[Eddie Teach]

They're all fantasies in one way or another.

[Malthus]

Never watched the Tudors.


But placing Churchill and the Brits to Verdun was completely pointless, they could have just mentioned the Somme. What it shows clearly is the creators' utter ignorance to the history behind the times they pretend to portrait. It was just utterly lazy.

It's a show about a bunch of gangsters. That detail was just that - a background detail they mention in passing. It doesn't affect the plot at all. 

[garbon]

Never watched the Tudors.


But placing Churchill and the Brits to Verdun was completely pointless, they could have just mentioned the Somme. What it shows clearly is the creators' utter ignorance to the history behind the times they pretend to portrait. It was just utterly lazy.

It's a show about a bunch of gangsters. That detail was just that - a background detail they mention in passing. It doesn't affect the plot at all. 

Exactly

[Tamas]

The character of Churchill was a major plot device. Is it really too big an ask to get this very basic and easy fact right?

If the creators are so lax and careless about something so TRIVIALLY easy to get right, why should I put any trust into any other piece of portrayal being even remotely accurate to the period?

So simply, I have stopped watching. There are endless numbers of gangster flicks, most of them not requiring this level of suspension fo disbelief.

If you are into the  Eastenders But with Gangsters And In Grandpa's Clothes idea, don't let me stop you.

[Malthus]

The character of Churchill was a major plot device. Is it really too big an ask to get this very basic and easy fact right?

If the creators are so lax and careless about something so TRIVIALLY easy to get right, why should I put any trust into any other piece of portrayal being even remotely accurate to the period?

So simply, I have stopped watching. There are endless numbers of gangster flicks, most of them not requiring this level of suspension fo disbelief.

If you are into the  Eastenders But with Gangsters And In Grandpa's Clothes idea, don't let me stop you.

The fun in Peaky Blinders is in the overall cinematography (the show *looks* great), and in the interactions of the characters - somewhat similar to other gangster dramas. In Peaky Blinders, the creators make no attempt to be period realistic in *all* ways - the soundtrack, for example, is wholly modern ('Red Right Hand' by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds is the title track!). That's because it is a fantasy that happens to be set in the 1920s, and not a period documentary.

That's something you either like, or not. 

[Tamas]

It's bloody Sons of Anarchy in old people's clothes.


As I said, if you can look past the incredibly two-dimensional characters, cookie-cutter plot, and wanton disregard for the period they proclaim to be portraying, good for you. But I didn't like it.

[Malthus]

It's bloody Sons of Anarchy in old people's clothes.


As I said, if you can look past the incredibly two-dimensional characters, cookie-cutter plot, and wanton disregard for the period they proclaim to be portraying, good for you. But I didn't like it.

Well, sounds like you didn't like it, for a bunch of reasons.  That they had Churchill fighting in the wrong battle seems to me the least of it, though.

[Malthus]

Got me thinking of a big plot hole in a series I enjoyed very much: Breaking Bad.

The whole plot revolves around the mad skills that the lead character, Walter White, has at making super pure meth. That's why he's in such high demand that gangsters are willing to pay him millions of dollars and put up with his bullshit.

Yet in the show itself another of the characters, Jesse, points out that meth-heads are super unpicky - that they are making poison to be consumed by customers who would happily consume any garbage that got them high. Moreover, the stuff can be made from a checklist to be followed by, say, a bunch of bikers. You don't need to be a chemistry genius to make it, just know how to follow basic directions/use the equipment and have the precursors.

It seems really unlikely that super-pure product would command a huge price advantage, like a fine vintage wine or something. Yet the plot doesn't work unless it does.