Languish.org

Do you care about historical accuracy in Movies or TV shows at all?

If you vote for option #3, please give an example of where you draw the line.

Question inspired by this review. Pics with a little more commentary can be found by clicking the link.

http://exurbe.com/?p=2176

Quote
"The Borgias" vs. "Borgia: Faith and Fear" (accuracy in historical fiction)
Jul 26th, 13 /

There was a Borgia boom in 2011 when, aiming to capitalize on the commercial success of The Tudors, the television world realized there was one obvious way to up the ante.  Not one but two completely unrelated Borgia TV series were made in 2011.  Many have run across the American Showtime series The Borgias, but fewer people know about Borgia, also called Borgia: Faith and Fear, a French-German-Czech production released (in English) in the Anglophone world via Netflix.  I am watching both and enjoying both. This unique phenomenon, two TV series made in the same year, modeled on the same earlier series and treating the same historical characters and events, is an amazing chance to look at different ways history can be used in fiction.

I am not evaluating these shows for their historical accuracy.  I have been fortunate in that becoming an historian hasn't stopped me from enjoying historical television.  It's a professional risk, and I know plenty of people whose ability to enjoy a scene is completely shattered if Emperor Augustus is eating a New World species of melon, or Anne Boleyn walks on screen wearing the wrong shade of green.  I sympathize with the inability to ignore niggling errors, and I know any expert suffers from it, whether a physicist watching attempting-to-be-hard SF, or a doctor watching a medical show, or any sane person watching the Timeline movie.  But over the years as my historical knowledge has increased so has my recognition of just how hard it is to make a historically accurate show, and how often historical accuracy comes into conflict with entertainment.  More on that later...

As for the Borgias and the other Borgias:

The Borgias (Showtime)                                   Borgia: Faith and Fear (International & Netflix)

    Bigger budget  (gorgeous!)                                     Smaller budget
    Shorter series/seasons                                          Longer seasons, enabling slower pacing, more detail
    Bigger name actors                                               Extremely international cast (accents sometimes strong)
    More glossing over details                                      More historical details (can be more confusing as a result)
    Makes Cesare older than Giovanni/Juan                 Makes Giovanni/Juan older than Cesare (<= historians debate)
    Focus on Cesare as mature and grim                     Focus on Cesare as young and seeking his path
    Lots of typical TV sex and violence                        More period-feeling sex and violence
    Generally less historicity                                        Generally more historicity

What do I mean by "more historicity"?  While I enjoy both shows–both will pass the basic TV test of making you enjoy yourself for the 50 minutes you spend in a chair watching them–the international series consistently succeeded in making the people and their behavior feel more period.  Here are two sample scenes that demonstrate what I mean:

Borgia: Faith and Fear, episode 1.  One of the heads of the Orsini family bursts into his bedroom and catches Juan (Giovanni) Borgia in flagrante with his wife. Juan grabs his pants and flees out the window as quickly as he can.  Now here is Orsini alone with his wife.  [The audience knows what to expect.  He will shout, she will try to explain, he will hit her, there will be tears and begging, and, depending on how bad a character the writers are setting up, he might beat her really badly and we'll see her in the rest of this episode all puffy and bruised, or if they want him to be really bad he'll slam her against something hard enough to break her neck, and he'll stare at her corpse with that brutish ambiguity where we're not sure if he regrets it.]  Orsini grabs the iron fire poker and hits his wife over the head, full force, wham, wham, dead.  He drops the fire poker on her corpse and walks briskly out of the room, leaving it for the servants to clean up.   Yes.  That is the right thing, because this is the Renaissance, and these people are terrible.  When word gets out there is concern over a possible feud, but no one ever comments that Orsini killing his wife was anything but the appropriate course.  That is historicity, and the modern audience is left in genuine shock.

The Borgias, episode 1.  We are facing the papal election of 1492.  Another Cardinal confronts Rodrigo Borgia in a hallway.  It has just come out that Borgia has been committing simony, i.e. taking bribes.  Our modern audience is shocked!  Shocked, I say!  That a candidate for the papacy would be corrupt and take bribes!  Our daring Cardinal confronts Borgia, saying he too is shocked!  Shocked!  This is no longer a matter of politics but principle!  He will oppose Borgia with all his power, because Borgia is a bad person and should not sit on the Throne of St. Peter!  See, audience!  Now is the time to be shocked!  No.  This is not the Renaissance, this is modern sensibilities about what we think should've been shocking in the Renaissance.  After the election this same Cardinal will be equally shocked that the Holy Father has a mistress, and bastards.  Ooooh.  Because that would be shocking in 2001, but in 1492 this had been true of every pope for the past century.  In fact, Cardinal Shocked-all-the-time, according to the writers you are supposed to be none other than Giuliano della Rovere.  Giuliano "Battle-Pope" della Rovere!  You have a mistress!  And a daughter!  And a brothel!  And an elephant!  And take your elephant to your brothel!  And you're stalking Michelangelo!  And foreign powers lent you 300,000 ducats to spend bribing other people to vote for you in this election!  And we're supposed to believe you are shocked by simony?  That is not historicity.  It is applying some historical names to some made-up dudes and having them lecture us on why be should be shocked.

These are just two examples, but typify the two series.  The Borgias toned it down: consistently throughout the series, everyone is simply less violent and corrupt than they actually historically, documentably were.  Why would sex-&-violence Showtime tone things down?  I think because they were afraid of alienating their audience with the sheer implausibility of what the Renaissance was actually like.  Rome in 1492 was so corrupt, and so violent, that I think they don't believe the audience will believe them if they go full-on.  Almost all the Cardinals are taking bribes?  Lots, possibly the majority of influential clerics in Rome overtly live with mistresses?  Every single one of these people has committed homicide, or had goons do it?  Wait, they all have goons?  Even the monks have goons?  It feels exaggerated. Showtime toned it down to a level that matches what the typical modern imagination might expect.

Borgia: Faith and Fear did not tone it down.  A bar brawl doesn't go from insult to heated words to slamming chairs to eventually drawing steel, it goes straight from insult to hacking off a body part.  Rodrigo and Cesare don't feel guilty about killing people, they feel guilty the first time they kill someone dishonorably.  Rodrigo is not being seduced by Julia Farnese and trying to hide his shocking affair; Rodrigo and Julia live in the papal palace like a married couple, and she's the head of his household and the partner of his political labors, and if the audience is squigged out that she's 18 and he's 61 then that's a fact, not something to try to SHOCK the audience with because it's so SHOCKING shock shock.  Even in other details, Showtime kept letting modern sensibilities leak in.  Showtime's 14-year-old Lucrezia is shocked (as a modern girl would be) that her father wants her to have an arranged marriage, while B:F&F's 14-year-old Lucrezia is constantly demanding marriage and convinced she's going to be an old maid if she doesn't marry soon, but is simultaneously obviously totally not ready for adult decisions and utterly ignorant of what marriage will really mean for her. It communicates what was terrible about the Renaissance but doesn't have anyone on-camera objecting to it, whereas Showtime seemed to feel that the modern audience needed someone to relate to who agreed with us.  And, for a broad part of the modern TV-watching audience, they may well be correct.  I wouldn't be surprised if many viewers find The Borgias a lot more approachable and comfortable than its more period-feeling rival.

Borgia: Faith and Fear also didn't tone down the complexity, or rather toned it down much less than The Borgias.  This means that it is much harder to follow.  There are many more characters, more members of every family, the complex family structures are there, the side-switching.  I had to pause two or three times an episode to explain to those watching with me who Giodobaldo da Montefeltro was, or whatever.  There's so much going on that the Previously On recap gives up and just says: "The College of Cardinals is controlled by the sons of Rome's powerful Italian families.  They all hate each other.  The most feared is the Borgias."  They wisely realized you couldn't possibly follow everything that's going on in Florence as well as Rome, so they just periodically have someone receive a letter summarizing wacky Florentine hijinx, as we watch adorable little Giovanni "Leo" de Medici (played by the actor who is Samwell Tarly in Game of Thrones) get more and more overwhelmed and tired.  Showtime's series oversimplifies more, but that is both good and bad, in its way.  The audience needs to follow the politics, after all, and we can only take so much summary.  The Tudors got away with a lot by having lectures on what it means to be Holy Roman Emperor delivered by shirtless John Rhys Meyers as he stalked back and forth screaming in front of beautiful upholstery, and he's a good enough actor that he could scream recipes for shepherd's pie and we'd still sit through about a minute of it.  The Borgia shows have even more complicated politics for us to choke down.

Now, historians aren't certain of Cesare's birth date.  He may be the eldest of his full siblings, or second.

The difference between Cesare as elder brother and Cesare as younger brother in the shows is fascinating.  Showtime's Big Brother Cesare is grim, disillusioned, making hard decisions to further the family's interests even if the rest of the family isn't yet ready to embrace such means.  B:F&F's Little Brother Cesare is starved for affection, uncertain about his path, torn about his religion, and slowly growing up in a baby-snake-that-hasn't-yet-found-its-venom kind of way.

Both are fascinating, utterly unrelated characters, and all the subsequent character dynamics are completely different too.  Giovanni/Juan is utterly different in each, since Big Brother Cesare requires a playful and endearing younger brother, whose death is already being foreshadowed in episode 1 with lines like "It's the elder brother's duty to protect the younger," while Little Brother Cesare requires a conceited, bullying Giovanni/Juan undeserving of the affection which Rodrigo ought to be giving to smarter, better Cesare.  Elder Brother Cesare also requires different close friends, giving him natural close relationships with figures like the Borgias' famous family assassin Michelotto Corella, who can empathize with him about using dark means in a world that isn't quite OK with it.

Younger Brother Cesare gets chummy classmate buddies Alessandro Farnese and Giovanni "Leo" de Medici, who must balance their own precarious political careers with the terrifying privilege of being the best friends of young Cesare as he grows into his powers and toward the season 1 finale "The Serpent Rises."  All this makes the two series taken together a fascinating example of how squeezing historical events into the requirements of narrative tropes makes one simple change–older brother trope vs. younger brother trope–lead logically to two completely different stories.  I think both versions are very powerful, and the person they made out of the historical Cesare is different and original in each, and worth exploring.

The great writing test is how to do Giovanni/Juan's murder.  Since some people do and some don't know their gory Borgia history, part of the audience knows it's coming, and part doesn't.  Historians still aren't sure who did it, whether it was Cesare or someone else, and what the motive was.  Thus the writers get to decide how heavily to foreshadow the death, how to do the reveal, what character(s) to make the perpetrator(s), and what motives to stress.  I will not spoil what either series chose, but I will say that it is very challenging writing a murder when you know some audience members have radically different knowledge from others, and that I think Borgia: Faith and Fear used that fact brilliantly, and tapped the tropes of murder mystery very cleverly, when scripting the critical episode.  The Borgias was less creative in its presentation.

But what about historical accuracy?

I said before that I am not evaluating these shows for their historical accuracy.  Shows ignoring history or changing it around does bother me sometimes, especially if a show is very good and ought to know better.  The superb HBO series Rome, which does an absolutely unparalleled job presenting Roman social class, slavery, and religion, nonetheless left me baffled as to why a studio making a series about the Julio-Claudians would feel driven to ignore the famous historical allegations of orgies and bizarre sex preserved in classical sources and substitute different orgies and bizarre sex.  The original orgies and bizarre sex were perfectly sufficient!  But in general I tend to be extremely patient with historically inacurate elements within my history shows, moreso than many non-historians I know, who are bothered by our acute modern anachronism-radar (on the history of the senes of anachronism and its absence in pre-modern psychology, see Michael Wood: Forgery, Replica, Fiction).  For me, though, I have learned to relax and let it go.

I remember the turning point moment.  I was watching an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer with my roommates, and it went into a backstory flashback set in high medieval Germany.  "Why are you sighing?" one asked, noticing that I'd laid back and deflated rather gloomily.  I answered: "She's not of sufficiently high social status to have domesticated rabbits in Northern Europe in that century.  But I guess it's not fair to press a point since the research on that hasn't been published yet."  It made me laugh, also made me think about how much I don't know, since I hadn't known that a week before.  For all the visible mistakes in these shows, there are even more invisible mistakes that I make myself because of infinite details historians haven't figured out yet, and possibly never will.  There are thousands of artifacts in museums whose purposes we don't know.  There are bits of period clothing whose functions are utter mysteries.  There are entire professions that used to exist that we now barely understand.  No history is accurate, not even the very best we have.

Envision a scene in which two Renaissance men are hanging out in a bar in Bologna with a prostitute.  Watching this scene, I, with my professional knowledge of the place and period, notice that there are implausibly too many candles burning, way more than this pub could afford, plus what they paid for that meal is about what the landlord probably earns in a month, and the prostitute isn't wearing the mandatory blue veil required for prostitutes by Bologna's sumptuary laws.  But if I showed it to twenty other historians they would notice other things: that style of candlestick wasn't possible with Italian metalwork of the day, that fabric pattern was Flemish, that window wouldn't have had curtains, that dish they're eating is a period dish but from Genoa, not Bologna, and no Genoese cook would be in Bologna because feud bla bla bla.  So much we know.  But a person from the period would notice a thousand other things: that nobody made candles in that exact diameter, or they butchered animals differently so that cut of steak is the wrong shape, or no bar of the era would have been without the indispensable who-knows-what: a hat-cleaning lady, a box of kittens, a special shape of bread.  All historical scenes are wrong, as wrong as a scene set now would be which had a classy couple go to a formal steakhouse with paper menus and an all-you-can-eat steak buffet.  All the details are right, but the mix is wrong.

In a real historical piece, if they tried to make everything slavishly right any show would be unwatchable, because there would be too much that the audience couldn't understand.  The audience would be constantly distracted by details like un-filmably dark building interiors, ugly missing teeth, infants being given broken-winged songbirds as disposable toys to play with, crush, and throw away, and Marie Antoinette relieving herself on the floor at Versailles.  Despite its hundreds of bathrooms, one of Versailles' marks of luxury was that the staff removed human feces from the hallways regularly, sometimes as often as twice a day, and always more than once a week.  We cannot make an accurate movie of this – it will please no one.  The makers of the TV series  Mad Men recognized how much an accurate depiction of the past freaks viewers out – the sexual politics, the lack of seat belts and eco-consciousness, the way grown-ups treat kids.  They focused just enough on this discomfort to make it the heart of a powerful and successful show, but there even an accurate depiction of attitudes from a few decades ago makes all the characters feel like scary aliens.  Go back further and you will have complete incomprehensibility.

Even costuming accuracy can be a communications problem, since modern viewers have certain associations that are hard to unlearn.  Want to costume a princess to feel sweet and feminine?  The modern eye demands pink or light blue, though the historian knows pale colors coded poverty.  Want to costume a woman to communicate the fact that she's a sexy seductress?  The audience needs the bodice and sleeves to expose the bits of her modern audiences associate with sexy, regardless of which bits would plausibly have been exposed at the time.  I recently had to costume some Vikings, and was lent a pair of extremely nice period Viking pants which had bold white and orange stripes about two inches wide.  I know enough to realize how perfect they were, and that both the expense of the dye and the purity of the white would mark them as the pants of an important man, but that if someone walked on stage in them the whole audience would think: "Why is that Viking wearing clown pants?"  Which do you want, to communicate with the audience, or to be accurate?  I choose A.

Thus, rather than by accuracy, I judge this type of show by how successfully the creators of an historical piece have chosen wisely from what history offered them in order to make a good story.  The product needs to communicate to the audience, use the material in a lively way, change what has to be changed, and keep what's awesome.  If some events are changed or simplified to help the audience follow it, that's the right choice.  If some characters are twisted a bit, made into heroes or villains to make the melodrama work, that too can be the right choice.  If you want to make King Arthur a woman, or have Mary Shelley sleep with time-traveling John Hurt, even that can work if it serves a good story.  Or it can fail spectacularly, but in order to see what people are trying to do I will give the show the benefit of the doubt, and be patient even if poor Merlin is in the stocks being pelted with tomatoes.  (By the way, if you're trying to watchthe BBC's Merlin and decide it's not set in the past but on a terraformed asteroid populated by vat-cultured artificial people who have been given a 20th century moral education and then a book on medieval society and told to follow its advice, everything suddenly makes perfect sense!)

I am not meaning to pick a fight here with people who care deeply about accuracy in historical fiction.  I respect that it bothers some people, and also that there is great merit in getting things right.  Research and thoroughness are admirable, and, just as it requires impressive virtuosity to cook a great meal within strict diet constraints, like gluten free or vegan, so it takes great virtuosity to tell a great story without cheating on the history.  I am simply saying that, while accuracy is a merit, it is not more important to me than other merits, especially entertainment value in something which is intended as entertainment.

This is also why I praise Borgia: Faith and Fear for what I call its "historicity" rather than its "accuracy".  It takes its fair share of liberties, as well it should if it wants a modern person to sit through it.  But it also succeeds in making the characters feel un-modern in a way many period pieces don't try to do.  It is a bit alienating but much more powerful.  It is more accurate, yes, but it isn't the accuracy alone that makes it good, it's the way that accuracy serves the narrative and makes it exceptional, as truffle raises a common cream sauce to perfection.  Richer characters, more powerful situations, newer, stranger ideas that challenge the viewers, these are the produce of B:F&F's historicity, and bring a lot more power to it than details like accurately-colored dresses or perfectly period utensils, which are admirable, but not enriching.

In the end, both these shows are successfully entertaining, and were popular enough to get second and third seasons in which we can enjoy such treats as Machiavelli and Savonarola (Showtime's planned 4th season has been cancelled, though there are motions to fight that).  Showtime's series is more approachable and easier to understand, but Borgia: Faith and Fear much more interesting, in my opinion, and also more valuable.  The Borgias thrills and entertains, but Borgia: Faith and Fear also succeeds in showing the audience how terrible things were in the Renaissance, and how much progress we've made.  It de-romanticizes.  It feels period. It has guts.  It has things the audience is not comfortable with.  It has people being nasty to animals.  It has disfigurement.  It has male rape.  When it's time for a public execution, the mandatory cheap thrill of this genre, it  goes straight for just about the nastiest Renaissance method I know of, sawing a man in half lengthwise starting at the crotch and moving along the spine. The scene leaves the audience less titillated than appalled, and glad that we don't do that anymore.

Are they historically accurate?  Somewhat.  They're both quite thorough in their research, but both change things.  The difference is what they change, and why.  If Borgia: Faith and Fear wants do goofy things with having the Laocoon sculpture be rediscovered early, I sympathize with the authors' inability to resist the too-perfect metaphor of Rodrigo Borgia looking at this sculpture of a father and his two sons being dragged down by snakes.  It adds to the show, even if it's a bit distracting.  But if The Borgias wants to make Giuliano della Rovere into a righteous defender of virtue, they throw away a great and original historical character in exchange for a generic one.  It makes the whole set of events more generic, and that is the kind of change I object to, not as an historian, but as someone who loves good fiction, and wants to see it be the best it can be.

(I do get one nitpick.  When Michelangelo had a cameo in The Borgias, why did he speak Italian when everyone else was speaking English?  What was that supposed to communicate?  Is everyone else supposed to be speaking Latin all the time?  Is the audience supposed to know he is Italian but not think about it with everyone else?  I am confused!)

If you have not already read it, see my Machiavelli Series for historical background on the Borgias.

I guess it depends on what the movie is setting out to do. I don't expect Indiana Jones or Inglorious Basterds to be meticulously researched and true to fact.

A movie like The Downfall or a series like Band of Brothers should strive to be true to the facts, but I don't mind if a certain rifle was brought into service a year later, or the unit patches are slightly incorrect, or if minor, non-essential items are changed.

What bugs me about some, especially older war movies, though, is that they often used then modern tanks and just slapped a cross on it, with little effort to make them look like actual German WW2 tanks. Pulls me out of a movie every time.

I like Gladiator.  So. -_-

Besides something ridiculously specialized like Gettysburg history films are generally horrible for history and I rarely watch them.  They are for modern audiences who generally do not give a flying flip about really understanding or enjoying the period, I get that.  History movies are not for history people...who they are for I am not sure.  I am talking about films that are supposed to be about historical events here just to be clear, not a Mel Brooks film or something.

TV seems to do alot better.  The John Adams mini-series is a good example of something that is historically accurate enough.  Heck even 'The Tudors' was decent enough.  Just do not do something so obviously stupid that is pisses me off.  Like Eleanor of Aquitaine being outraged King John would abandon his English heritage by marrying a *gasp* Frenchwoman.  Or having Cerdic of Wessex being some sort of bizarre Proto-Nazi.  I mean WTF?

So, Tim you sayin' Excalibur is not real Tim?  :(

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 31, 2013, 12:02:38 AM
(I do get one nitpick.  When Michelangelo had a cameo in The Borgias, why did he speak Italian when everyone else was speaking English?  What was that supposed to communicate?  Is everyone else supposed to be speaking Latin all the time?  Is the audience supposed to know he is Italian but not think about it with everyone else?  I am confused!)

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.

Man, I bet you really hate Star Trek.

Quote from: Ideologue on October 31, 2013, 12:35:24 AM
Man, I bet you really hate Star Trek.

I am not really a Star Trek fan so...color me indifferent.  Anyway that is Sci Fi where they basically have magical spells, they just have to reverse the polarity.

Besides I certainly did not hate Warhorse, I liked it, I was just commenting on how confusing it can get with the 'English here is really German' or whatever thing.

Historical inaccuracies don't bother me that much unless they're really egregious and are symptomatic of a general lack of thought put into the writing.

Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2013, 12:37:50 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on October 31, 2013, 12:35:24 AM
Man, I bet you really hate Star Trek.

I am not really a Star Trek fan so...color me indifferent.  Anyway that is Sci Fi where they basically have magical spells, they just have to reverse the polarity.

Besides I certainly did not hate Warhorse, I liked it, I was just commenting on how confusing it can get with the 'English here is really German' or whatever thing.

what is there to like in Warhorse, srsly? Apart from Spielberg making the parody of his own life`s work himself.

So has anyone seen that European Borgia series? Is it has good as he says?

Xena is obviously a fantasy which borrows from history. It's fine.
Stuff like Braveheart on the other hand...

QuoteI do get one nitpick.  When Michelangelo had a cameo in The Borgias, why did he speak Italian when everyone else was speaking English?  What was that supposed to communicate?  Is everyone else supposed to be speaking Latin all the time?  Is the audience supposed to know he is Italian but not think about it with everyone else?  I am confused!)

He has a weird dialect?
But yeah...

What gets me about 'foreign' in the media is the whole "Missed the first day of English class phenomena"; people speak perfect English 99% of the time but when we conveniently get to a word that the audience is expected to know in the character's native language then suddenly they forget their English.

Also one thing I've always been curious about is what happens when a plot point is around a foreign speaking character obviously from a certain country-what happens when it comes to that country's version?

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.

You have no heart (though I've only seen the play).

QuoteSo has anyone seen that European Borgia series? Is it has good as he says?

Watched two episodes. No.

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.

Because not only was it sentimental schlock it was the sort of sentimental schlock people in 1914-1918 would have eaten up.  It made the story strangely period.  I also liked the part where the British cavalry charged the German machine guns that somehow managed to kill all the riders and miss the horses completely.  That was some impressive shooting.

SPOILERS!

Wheren't they charging out of a wooded area pretty close to the guns? Some of the horses surviving doesn't seem impossible.

Quote from: Queequeg on October 31, 2013, 09:22:13 AM
Wheren't they charging out of a wooded area pretty close to the guns? Some of the horses surviving doesn't seem impossible.

No just the opposite, they were charging through an open field towards a wooded area where the Germans had their machine guns hidden.

Please people that is the most ridiculously cheesy movie ever made, do not discuss it as it was worth wasting breath on.

Quote from: Tamas on October 31, 2013, 09:34:59 AM
Please people that is the most ridiculously cheesy movie ever made, do not discuss it as it was worth wasting breath on.

Fair enough.  I was just bringing it up for the hilarious language thing.

I have long since given up on expecting historical accuracy on the History Channel, let alone a historical movie.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2013, 09:48:05 AM
I have long since given up on expecting historical accuracy on the History Channel, let alone a historical movie.

What? Now you'll tell me that Ancient Aliens is not historical accurate?

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.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2013, 09:48:05 AM
I have long since given up on expecting historical accuracy on the History Channel, let alone a historical movie.

At least there is no pretense on the history channel anymore. 

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.

Quote from: lustindarkness on October 31, 2013, 09:52:54 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2013, 09:48:05 AM
I have long since given up on expecting historical accuracy on the History Channel, let alone a historical movie.

What? Now you'll tell me that Ancient Aliens is not historical accurate?

It's like the opposite of history.

Quote from: Tamas on October 31, 2013, 09:34:59 AM
Please people that is the most ridiculously cheesy movie ever made, do not discuss it as it was worth wasting breath on.

So not worth your breath that you post about it repeatedly?  :lol:

I didn't care for the movie, but I think you missed its point entirely.  It isn't even close to the cheesiest movie ever made, though it was pretty cheesy.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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".

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

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...?

Gallipoli also seemed to get it right.

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.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.graffitiwithpunctuation.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F07%2Ftljncfom.jpeg&hash=1cabf0a5ac2036f66bb49816468453f5ded06dbd)

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.

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:

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

:yes:

It was hardly All's Quiet On The Western Front.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2013, 10:47:10 AM

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.

Well Americans did the same.

I'm with Beethoven and Valmy.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2013, 10:47:10 AM

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.

it was a major british network.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2013, 10:48:32 AM

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.

I am not surprised you didnt notice since you are now surprised it was a kids movie.

From the Dreamworks description -

QuoteFrom director Steven Spielberg comes "War Horse," an epic adventure for audiences of all ages

.

http://www.dreamworksstudios.com/films/war-horse

Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2013, 10:48:32 AM
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.

If it were at all accurate or adult the starving French would have eaten the bloody horse.

On the topic of Warhorse, definitely agree it was crap (though nowhere close to the crappiness of Paeschandele), but the horse stunts were absolutely amazing.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 31, 2013, 12:02:38 AM
Do you care about historical accuracy in Movies or TV shows at all?

If you vote for option #3, please give an example of where you draw the line.

Question inspired by this review. Pics with a little more commentary can be found by clicking the link.

http://exurbe.com/?p=2176 (http://exurbe.com/?p=2176)

Depends what.  Totally anachronistic behavior or costumes for the time period might bother me of a purely historical piece.  If it's supposed to be fantasy/science-fiction, I ain't that bothered.  Even then...

See, in Last of the Mohicans, the weapon used by Chingatchook is not something east-coast indians used.  The rifles weren't invented yet, they were used by Kentuckians during the revolutionary war.  The Coat of Arms of the British soldiers ain't right either, this regiment wasn't there at the time.  If you dig deeper... Well, a professional soldier would never invite his daughter to join him on the front.  We know, historically it didn't happen.  We know Monroe didn't die that day.  We know there was no post-battle massacre at fort William-Henry.   We know, the way they leave the lake, and reach a river, it doesn't fit with the actual geography.

Is it a bad movie for this?  Not at all.   Indians are accuratly portrayed.  They fought they way they are presented in the movie.  Some of the fights during that war (the defeat of Braddock's invincible) happenned mostly the way one battle is depicted on screen.  We know siege warfare was done like in the movie: bring the guns, defenders attempt a sortie with a short ranged battle outside the fort, attacker digs trenches move guns closer, ultimately mortarts are brought in and the defenders either surrender or perish after the walls are battered to dust.

It's the general principle that count.  Had Montcalm been depicted as bloodthirsty savage bent on revenge for the murder of his family, excuting prisoners himself after they surrendered, I would say it was a bad movie.

Take Spartacus.  Everything is hyperbolic.  The violence, the sex... I doubt we could see people fucking in the arena and humans probably don't contain as much blood as is spilled during a 1hr episode.  Yet, it is a good show.  They took some liberties with Spartacus, from what we know, he didn't jump 12ft in the air to reach the Romans during his escape, it was probably closer to the old Spartacus movie.  Still a good show.  I can excuse the hyperbolic, it gets the message pretty right: Roman society was just a tad more violent and less "moralistic" than ours.

I forgive inaccuracies and simplifications if I think they get the period right, and am extremely pissed when I think they fuck up the "feel" of a period.  Examples;

Deadwood's swearwords are generally a lot less blasphemous and a lot more sexual than you'd expect for the period (also way more secular in general), but it's fantastically well written and I think the look at the civilizing process as an important, more accurate antidote to The Virginian inspired bullshit hero narratives. 

Rome did something vaguely similar-the victory of the Populares over the Optimates and the creation of a new, authoritarian, populist Empire, with the two central characters representing the old Republican order and the new Dominate-Empire, racially mixed and chaotic.  The combat is also a great deal more realistic.  However, Egypt and Asia Minor are both completely, totally inaccurate. 

Andrei Rublev and The Seventh Seal both get to some of nihilistic depression of the Plague (also, obviously, commenting on loss of life after WW2).  Both have fantastic elements, but work. 

Barry Lyndon simultaneously plays with common depiction and understanding of the period while also presenting 18th Century Europe in all it's glory. 

Apocalypto got a lot of the specifics wrong, but I think the constant genocide required by Mesoamerican native beliefs was accurately depicted.  It was really neat to get in to the head of a simple hunter-gatherer, never having seen a town, thrown in to a dying city of tens of thousands to be slaughtered for reasons you can't comprehend.

The New World is one of my favorite movies of all time, and gets to some of the heady cultural contact of the 17th Century and the Puritanical protoliberal hope of the colonists. 

Seven Years a Slave is a more recent example that I like. 

I love The Leopard.  I have no idea why movies tend to avoid depiction of the mid-19th Century national unifications.  There's a lot of room for drama. 

I don't think enough people are familiar with Zhang Yimou's early period dramas.  To Live and Raise the Red Lanterns are both fantastic, and the latter is an all-time favorite.  Really fascinating look at 20th Century Chinese life.\

Danton.  Gerard Depardieu's performance is memorable, and it doesn't devolve in to complete hysterical melodrama. 



However, a few obvious examples that seem especially egregious. 

Kingdom of Heaven is a terrible movie.  It gets a lot if the history right, and the combat is accurately depicted as more of bunch of big men in iron shirts pushing shields at eachother, but the Noble Muslim v. Evil Christian bullshit is extremely tiresome, as is the Hitchensy New Atheism of a fucking Crusader.  Also, the "HEY I'M FROM FUCKING NORTHERN FRANCE BUT I'M GOING TO TEACH YOU BROWN SHITS HOW TO BUILD A FUCKING WELL!" scene was retarded.  Deeply, deeply stupid movie, and the extraordinary performance of Eva Green and (especially) Edward Norton are wasted. 

The Tudors just isn't very good.  A man who had one bastard to his name and 6 wives was not going to be fucking outside of marriage all the time.  I also really resent any depiction of Sir Thomas "Burn the fucking Protestants" Moore as a stand-in for Erasmus. 

Also, Elizabeth.  Cate Blanchette was great, but I'm really tired of seeing the defeat of the Spanish Armada and the persecution of the local Catholic population as the great destruction of the Spanish Empire.  That's happening on the other side of the channel in the Low Countries. 

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2013, 09:58:43 AM

Quote from: lustindarkness on October 31, 2013, 09:52:54 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2013, 09:48:05 AM
I have long since given up on expecting historical accuracy on the History Channel, let alone a historical movie.

What? Now you'll tell me that Ancient Aliens is not historical accurate?

It's like the opposite of history.

herstory?

Quote from: Brazen on October 31, 2013, 10:21:20 AM

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.

The two characters in Showtime's "The Tudors" that stole the show for me were Natalie Dormer and James Fraine they WERE Anne Boleyn and Thomas Cromwell.

I'm not anal about historical accuracy. Most movies do not try to be historically accurate. The Seventh Seal doesn't try to be historically accurate and it's an awesome movie.

Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2013, 12:37:50 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on October 31, 2013, 12:35:24 AM
Man, I bet you really hate Star Trek.

Anyway that is Sci Fi where they basically have magical spells, they just have to reverse the polarity.

that's the best part, where there's a disruption of the time space continuum :P

Quote from: Tyr on October 31, 2013, 05:58:51 AM
Also one thing I've always been curious about is what happens when a plot point is around a foreign speaking character obviously from a certain country-what happens when it comes to that country's version?

nothing.  I.e. french speaking character meeting an english speaking character and they use French in the original version, they use french for both in the dubbing, usually, without accents.  Sometimes, they keep the original actors for a foreign dialog or singing.

Quote from: The Brain on October 31, 2013, 01:16:42 PM
I'm not anal about historical accuracy. Most movies do not try to be historically accurate. The Seventh Seal doesn't try to be historically accurate and it's an awesome movie.

most historical movies are based on historical novels wich themselves aren't historical... yet, everyone bitches about the movies.  Braveheart is a good example of this.  The movie is based on the book and is quite faithful to the book.  Alas, it hasn't much to do with the real history.

Quote from: Maximus on October 31, 2013, 12:07:08 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2013, 09:58:43 AM

Quote from: lustindarkness on October 31, 2013, 09:52:54 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2013, 09:48:05 AM
I have long since given up on expecting historical accuracy on the History Channel, let alone a historical movie.

What? Now you'll tell me that Ancient Aliens is not historical accurate?

It's like the opposite of history.

herstory?

Whoa, I never thought of it that way.

History = His story, as in somebody else story/history.

Very interesting point of view.

Quote from: Siege on October 31, 2013, 01:32:55 PM

Quote from: Maximus on October 31, 2013, 12:07:08 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2013, 09:58:43 AM

Quote from: lustindarkness on October 31, 2013, 09:52:54 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2013, 09:48:05 AM
I have long since given up on expecting historical accuracy on the History Channel, let alone a historical movie.

What? Now you'll tell me that Ancient Aliens is not historical accurate?

It's like the opposite of history.

herstory?

Whoa, I never thought of it that way.

History = His story, as in somebody else story/history.

Very interesting point of view.

Deep.

Shit.

Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2013, 01:32:16 PM

Quote from: The Brain on October 31, 2013, 01:16:42 PM
I'm not anal about historical accuracy. Most movies do not try to be historically accurate. The Seventh Seal doesn't try to be historically accurate and it's an awesome movie.

most historical movies are based on historical novels wich themselves aren't historical... yet, everyone bitches about the movies.  Braveheart is a good example of this.  The movie is based on the book and is quite faithful to the book.  Alas, it hasn't much to do with the real history.

No one has read the book.

Quote from: Agelastus on October 31, 2013, 10:10:26 AM

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?

What's wrong with depicting the English as stupid and evil?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 31, 2013, 05:53:51 AM
So has anyone seen that European Borgia series? Is it has good as he says?

I liked it better than The Borgias, and so did my wife.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2013, 02:25:03 PM

Quote from: Agelastus on October 31, 2013, 10:10:26 AM

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?

What's wrong with depicting the English as stupid and evil?

The problem with the way they did it in the movie is that the stupidity becomes an informed attribute--the movie didn't remember the mantra, "Show, don't tell".

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2013, 02:25:03 PM

Quote from: Agelastus on October 31, 2013, 10:10:26 AM

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?

What's wrong with depicting the English as stupid and evil?

Oh.

I thought you were referring to the Bridge.

You approve of them portraying us as arrogant, then? I'll have to remember that for the future.

[Note to self, Razgovory does not mind English arrogance - lay it on with a trowel when replying to his posts in future.]

As for the two words you've commented on...

Given my opinion of a vast chunk of my fellow countrymen I'll refrain from commenting regarding "stupid".

And as I don't feel like getting dragged into a pointless political argument over whatever less-than-completely-reputable part of our history you'd drag up to suggest there's nothing wrong with the "evil" part I'll refrain from commenting on that as well.

I was okay with Braveheart, I thought it was crap as history but as a film it was okay.

No it was not fucking OK. It was horrible. I had to quit after 10 minutes.

Quote from: The Brain on October 31, 2013, 07:04:08 PM
No it was not fucking OK. It was horrible. I had to quit after 10 minutes.

Then all you know is that the first 10 minutes were horrible. Lots of movies overcome that.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 31, 2013, 07:20:06 PM

Quote from: The Brain on October 31, 2013, 07:04:08 PM
No it was not fucking OK. It was horrible. I had to quit after 10 minutes.

Then all you know is that the first 10 minutes were horrible. Lots of movies overcome that.

Braveheart did not. It is known.

I thought it always danced on the cliff edge of horrible without quite plunging over.

OK, sugartits.

It was horrible, bad awful.  It sucked more than the suckiest suck that ever sucked.  It was so bad that my grandfather who had two strokes was watching it and demanded the channel be changed to anything else.  The only redeeming factor that it had was that it ended, but that was an eternity too late.

Quote from: PDH on October 31, 2013, 07:31:12 PM
It was horrible, bad awful.  It sucked more than the suckiest suck that ever sucked.  It was so bad that my grandfather who had two strokes was watching it and demanded the channel be changed to anything else.  The only redeeming factor that it had was that it ended, but that was an eternity too late.

You understand the cinema.

Obvious Trojan horse for Turtledove fanwank is obvious (and a mouthful).

The line must be drawn here!

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FjyDbfCbQnH8%2Fhqdefault.jpg&hash=4b5a725f0fe495133b1f45e2ceb92b835fd74fbf)

So obvious that I have no idea what you're talking about.

I guess he assumes Tim is going to use the opportunity to spring maps upon our unsuspecting eyes.

If so, he's certainly biding his time.  But I guess revenge is dish best served cold.  P.S. First Contact sucks.

Quote from: Ideologue on November 01, 2013, 04:49:59 AM
I guess he assumes Tim is going to use the opportunity to spring maps upon our unsuspecting eyes.

If so, he's certainly biding his time.  But I guess revenge is dish best served cold.  P.S. First Contact sucks.

First Contact is awesome!  :mad:

I think you must be thinking of Contact, the outrageously good Zemeckis film?

Quote from: Ideologue on November 01, 2013, 06:06:15 AM
I think you must be thinking of Contact, the outrageously good Zemeckis film?

I agree that that movie is good, but no I am not. I mean what I say.

Maybe you mean the episode "First Contact," which was pretty good and didn't involve Picard's first devolution into unbelievable action heroism and Star Trek's worst, most ruinous villain concept, the Borg Queen.

Quote from: Ideologue on November 01, 2013, 06:10:09 AM
Maybe you mean the episode "First Contact," which was pretty good and didn't involve Picard's first devolution into unbelievable action heroism and Star Trek's worst, most ruinous villain concept, the Borg Queen.

Nor destroy official Star Trek canon dating to TOS concerning Zephrem Cochrane.

Quote from: Queequeg on October 31, 2013, 11:42:01 AM
Barry Lyndon simultaneously plays with common depiction and understanding of the period while also presenting 18th Century Europe in all it's glory. 

Apocalypto got a lot of the specifics wrong, but I think the constant genocide required by Mesoamerican native beliefs was accurately depicted.  It was really neat to get in to the head of a simple hunter-gatherer, never having seen a town, thrown in to a dying city of tens of thousands to be slaughtered for reasons you can't comprehend.

...

The New World is one of my favorite movies of all time, and gets to some of the heady cultural contact of the 17th Century and the Puritanical protoliberal hope of the colonists. 

I love The Leopard.  I have no idea why movies tend to avoid depiction of the mid-19th Century national unifications.  There's a lot of room for drama. 

...
Danton.  Gerard Depardieu's performance is memorable, and it doesn't devolve in to complete hysterical melodrama. 

Agree on all points.  Of the above, Danton is probably my fave.  Pszoniak as Robespierre was superb, and totally nailed everything I've read about his persona and demeanor.

QuoteKingdom of Heaven is a terrible movie.  It gets a lot if the history right, and the combat is accurately depicted as more of bunch of big men in iron shirts pushing shields at eachother, but the Noble Muslim v. Evil Christian bullshit is extremely tiresome, as is the Hitchensy New Atheism of a fucking Crusader.  Also, the "HEY I'M FROM FUCKING NORTHERN FRANCE BUT I'M GOING TO TEACH YOU BROWN SHITS HOW TO BUILD A FUCKING WELL!" scene was retarded.  Deeply, deeply stupid movie, and the extraordinary performance of Eva Green and (especially) Edward Norton are wasted. 

Noble Muslims make me feel all we-are-the-world icky good, and I hate that.  Particularly since they were lobbing off Christian heads like they were going out of style at the time.
Although, Saladin was cool as shit in that flick.

QuoteThe Tudors just isn't very good.  A man who had one bastard to his name and 6 wives was not going to be fucking outside of marriage all the time.  I also really resent any depiction of Sir Thomas "Burn the fucking Protestants" Moore as a stand-in for Erasmus. 

:lol:  What's not to love about that?  And nobody in mouthbreathing TV Land knows who the fuck Erasmus is anyway.  Might as well bitch that Guy Du Faur de Pibrac doesn't ever get enough screen time.

QuoteAlso, Elizabeth.  Cate Blanchette was great, but I'm really tired of seeing the defeat of the Spanish Armada and the persecution of the local Catholic population as the great destruction of the Spanish Empire.  That's happening on the other side of the channel in the Low Countries.

Just kinda tough to tackle that entire topic.  I thought Helen Mirren was a better Liz, anyway.  I'd have gone down on Her Majesty's carpet in either case.

Wasn't Psellus raised Mormon?  I think they are still taught that the Pope is the anti-christ.  Probably explains his antipathy toward More and the Hapsburgs.

Quote from: Queequeg on October 31, 2013, 11:42:01 AM
I also really resent any depiction of Sir Thomas "Burn the fucking Protestants" Moore as a stand-in for Erasmus. 

You must have really hated A Man for All Seasons

Rob S. Pierre was the leader of the Legislaturist Revolution on the Republic of Haven.

David Weber.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2013, 05:05:23 PM
David Weber.  :rolleyes: 

Weber usually starts well in a given series of books, but pretty quickly gets into silliness like "Rob S. Pierre" and a series of deus ex machina developments.
 

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2013, 11:32:25 AM
You must have really hated A Man for All Seasons

Not much historical accuracy there, but it was an excellent mor[e]ality play for all that.

I wish he'd have the treecat rape Honor Harrington. There would be a 20 page infodump on the Treecat and it's junk though.

Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2013, 05:15:16 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2013, 11:32:25 AM
You must have really hated A Man for All Seasons

it was an excellent mor[e]ality play for all that.

:D

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2013, 09:35:16 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on November 01, 2013, 06:10:09 AM
Maybe you mean the episode "First Contact," which was pretty good and didn't involve Picard's first devolution into unbelievable action heroism and Star Trek's worst, most ruinous villain concept, the Borg Queen.

Nor destroy official Star Trek canon dating to TOS concerning Zephrem Cochrane.

Alternate timeline!

Quote from: Tyr on October 31, 2013, 05:58:51 AM
Also one thing I've always been curious about is what happens when a plot point is around a foreign speaking character obviously from a certain country-what happens when it comes to that country's version?

When possible the character is given a new country of origin. For example, in the Goonies there is a scene with a Mexican maid who doesn't speak English. In the Spanish (Castillian) dub, she's Italian instead.

Interesting.

Hans Gruber is not German in the German dub of Die Hard. He and his cronies have English names and they're basically terrorists for profit, not ideals.

Quote from: Syt on November 02, 2013, 12:02:08 PM
Hans Gruber is not German in the German dub of Die Hard. He and his cronies have English names and they're basically terrorists for profit, not ideals.

Great. Timmyesque alt-hist.

Been a long, long time since I've seen Die Hard (at least 10 years) but wasn't that their actual motive. I thought the real reason behind their plan was so they could break into and rob some kind of vault in the building.  :hmm:

Being English isn't a motive. Hmmm, unless they needed the money to fix their teeth.

I can't tell for sure, but nothing glaringly wrong with them.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages5.fanpop.com%2Fimage%2Fphotos%2F26400000%2FHans-Smiles-hans-gruber-26425003-400-282.gif&hash=372bceb12455491397a441acc81b4a6e33cab63d)

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 03, 2013, 12:47:53 AM
Been a long, long time since I've seen Die Hard (at least 10 years) but wasn't that their actual motive. I thought the real reason behind their plan was so they could break into and rob some kind of vault in the building.  :hmm:

They used a fig leaf of political extremism to engage in plain thiefing. IIRC, Hans Gruber asks for the release of "revolutionary comrades" jailed all over Europe as a way to earn time to crack the safe.