History-based Movies

[King Jan III Sobieski]

How long of a wait is prudent when deciding to portray (or exploit) an historical event? (i.e., Flight 93 and World Trade Center were made within 5 years of 9/11; WW2 movies were made during the war; etc.)

[CountArach]

Never.

[Tiberius of the Drake]

I voted for 10-20 years. I agree with more towards the 20 year mark as it is my oppinion that an unbiased view of a historical event cannot be attained without at least 20 years passing, and in most cases more. You also cannot wait too long because then there may be a far fewer amount of witnesses and therefore personal experiances to draw upon.

[Quirinus]

Agree with Tiberius of the Drake, mostly.


WW2 movies were made during the war; etc.)
Then it's not a historical movie, is it? :dizzy2:

[Marshal Murat]

WW2 movies, until 1960, were primarily pro-war, big GI guys saving the world.

[King Jan III Sobieski]

Then it's not a historical movie, is it? :dizzy2:

Yeah....I guess you've got a point.

I was thinking about how some people thought that those producers making movies dealing with 9/11 were exploiting the tragedy of that day, whereas WW2 movies were (or, at least, they are today) looked at as works that aimed to raise morale.

[Cangrande]

Hollywood should be forced to wait until they have the vaguest inkling about history :)

viz U571, The Patriot, The Alamo...the list goes on.

[Fisherking]

Hollywood should be forced to wait until they have the vaguest inkling about history :)

viz U571, The Patriot, The Alamo...the list goes on.


Well, that is just not going to happen! Hollywood can’t do a book without changing the plot. What makes you think you are going to get an accurate portrayal of history from those people?
:2cents:

[rajpoot]

I should say 100+, that way they'll have less people contradicting them, as no one will be able to say, "This is all wrong, I was there!". :P :D

[Cambyses]

Never. Many people shrug off Hollywood changing history as unimportant if it "improves" the story, but to me it is an issue that must be addressed. For probably the majority of the population films are the onl real contact they will have with history, and inevitably they will believe what they see on screen. I know it sounds dramatic, but for me it is dangerous and irresponsible to wilfully depict an incorrect version of events. The just shouldnt be allowed anywhere near such subjects.

I mean there may even be people reading this post who think William Wallace fathered a King of England...

[Mooks]

Never. Many people shrug off Hollywood changing history as unimportant if it "improves" the story, but to me it is an issue that must be addressed. For probably the majority of the population films are the onl real contact they will have with history, and inevitably they will believe what they see on screen. I know it sounds dramatic, but for me it is dangerous and irresponsible to wilfully depict an incorrect version of events. The just shouldnt be allowed anywhere near such subjects.

I mean there may even be people reading this post who think William Wallace fathered a King of England...

I dont know about that. If they stick to the letter, I would mind seeing Caesars legions in Gaul or some medieval conflicts. Or even some more crusader type stuff (The horses, armour, castles, its so sexy). Video games like Age of Empires, Total War, Civilization bring history back to some degree, but not the same as a movie can.

But I understand your point, and 99% of the people who went to see "300" knew absolutely nothing about Thermoplye or Sparta when they went in, and knew absolutely nothing about them when they walked out either.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It doesn't matter how long in the future, just as long as it is accurate.

[Don Esteban]

I mean there may even be people reading this post who think William Wallace fathered a King of England...


Indeed, Even though the queen who gave birth to the king in question hadn't actually been born before Wallace died if I remember correctly.

[Durango]

I mean there may even be people reading this post who think William Wallace fathered a King of England...


Indeed, Even though the queen who gave birth to the king in question hadn't actually been born before Wallace died if I remember correctly.

NO WAI!!!11 The royal family don't come from Mel Gibson?!

Speaking of Braveheart....

The interesting thing with how the movie portrays the Scottish rebellion is that the Scots already had a kingdom of their own before the wars with England. They had a proper government, real armies and quite a bit more power than what's seen in the film. Instead, they are presented as lowly peasants without an actual army to fight with until Wallace comes around. Almost like the native americans or Vietcong, an not like a nation. The English could not just occupy and plunder the Scots at will.

[Don Esteban]

Speaking of Braveheart....

The interesting thing with how the movie portrays the Scottish rebellion is that the Scots already had a kingdom of their own before the wars with England. They had a proper government, real armies and quite a bit more power than what's seen in the film. Instead, they are presented as lowly peasants without an actual army to fight with until Wallace comes around. Almost like the native americans or Vietcong, an not like a nation. The English could not just occupy and plunder the Scots at will.

Well yes and no.

Scotland was an established kingdom of course, but during the time of Wallace the king was a puppet dominated by England and actually Scotland didn't have much of an army to fight with as most of the nobles (the army would be made up of their retainers) refused to fight England as they usualy held fealty for lands in both England and Scotland. Wallace did form a largely highland / peasant army at first until after his early successes some Nobles joined him.

By the time Robert the Bruce took up leadership he had the backing of many more nobles and so Scotland was able to field a far more professional force than under Wallace.

This is a gross simplification but hopefully you get the general idea :beam:

[TinCow]

I refuse to answer, because all of the options are correct. It depends entirely on the event and the way the movie is made. It's perfectly possible to make an excellent movie that properly and fairly portrays real life events that occurred very recently. It's also perfectly possible to make a horrible movie that butchers history, even though the events happened hundreds of years ago and there is little debate about them.

[Incongruous]

Well yes and no.

Scotland was an established kingdom of course, but during the time of Wallace the king was a puppet dominated by England and actually Scotland didn't have much of an army to fight with as most of the nobles (the army would be made up of their retainers) refused to fight England as they usualy held fealty for lands in both England and Scotland. Wallace did form a largely highland / peasant army at first until after his early successes some Nobles joined him.

By the time Robert the Bruce took up leadership he had the backing of many more nobles and so Scotland was able to field a far more professional force than under Wallace.

This is a gross simplification but hopefully you get the general idea :beam:

Very good post about the regions feudal structure and how it undermines Gibson's modernist interpretation and infusion of nationalist sentiment:no:

However, I believe that Wallace was actually a well-to-do knight in command of a well disposed force of fighting men?
Also, that it was he who joined the far more succesful Moray?

[Don Esteban]

Very good post about the regions feudal structure and how it undermines Gibson's modernist interpretation and infusion of nationalist sentiment:no:

However, I believe that Wallace was actually a well-to-do knight in command of a well disposed force of fighting men?
Also, that it was he who joined the far more succesful Moray?

Wallace was I believe a fairly poor knight who initially had a small band of "guerilla" fighters while Moray was also rebelling with his own band of retainers and eventually the two joined. However, between the two they only had a couple of hundred men initially compared to the occupation force of the English plus the nobles who fought for the English king (including Robert the Bruce!). Their early actions were little more than small raids, certainly not pitched battles.

Once Wallace became one of the guardians of Scotland he was able to raise a far more significant fighting force but with that power came his downfall as the aristocracy (who did NOT consider Wallace to be one of them) became jealous and ultimately were glad to see him captured and executed.

[Dodge_272]

It doesn't matter how long in the future, just as long as it is accurate.

I agree with this person here.