Printable View
I don't think most of those movies were actually trying to present a realistic view of history. Certainly Gladiator, 300, Braveheart, 2001, Apocalypto, and 10k BC were just goofball movies made for fun and entertainment. I've never seen The Patriot or that Elizabeth movie.
Anyway, if you're looking for a serious work about history don't go to the movies. That's just common sense.
:egypt:
While true, why do directors/writers bother with a historical setting if that historical setting isn't exciting enough on its own for a movie? Why is history a la carte necessary to make a dramatic movie? And if historical figures aren't interesting enough, why not just make up a fictional character that is rather than slander real ones?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramses II CP
This is just a pet peeve of mine with movie makers when they feel they have to inject their own form of lame "drama" to spice up a story, be it from a novel or a history book.
Also, I'm in agreement that 300 and maybe 10000 BC are not worthy of the list.
I mispoke when I said that Frank Miller based his comic on the battle. It was inspired by the movie The 300 Spartans (1963). (source wiki)Quote:
This is something that has been discussed before, but what you're saying isn't true. If the intention was to simply entertain by the course action, depict a graphic novel, then it begs the question of why the author of the novel, in the first place, chose a historical setting to do such thing? There's a profound historical burden carried on by the history of the 300 spartans and the battle of Thermopylae, part fact, part fantasy, but part of its interest is drawn from the fact that it actually occured, albeit not as told in the frames of the movie or the pages of the novel.
Should the comic (and subsequently the movie) be more historical accurate. Perhaps. But that depends on its intentions. Viewed as an accurate historical movie I would undoubtably say that it belongs on the lists. But it is not meant to be a documentary, it is meant to be an artistic rendering of an artistic rendering of the battle (with heavy emphasis on the artistic part).
Why Miller chose the battle as the subject for his comic? Perhaps because it makes for a great story, and I'll admit my knowlegde of Greek history is not the best, but the general backdrop of the story is fairly correct is it not? It is the visuals that are far out there, which makes 300 a historical fantasy and not a historical movie.
But what I am arguing is that the movie 300 should not be on the list because it has never claimed to be an accurate depiction of the battle or the real world for that matter, there are far more movies that do claim to be historically accurate that perhaps should have made the list rather than 300...
(The same rational could perhaps be used on 10000 BC, but I have not seen it or read much about it, so I don't know if they claim it is accurate in any way and not a fantasy movie set in a prehistoric age)
I agree that movies that are intentionally ahistorical should not be judged on historical accuracy. That analysis should be reserved for those that claim to be historical. 300 intentionally focused on the mythical and legendary aspect of the battle, not the reality. This is blatantly obvious when the movie shows what is essentially an ogre with a blade for an arm. It is clearly an intentionally fictionalized version of the events which was never meant to be historical. It is unfair to judge it on an aspect that it was not trying to achieve in the first place.
Movies that should be criticized for historical inaccuracies are those that base their entire story on the notion that "this really happened." Braveheart, The Patriot, Kingdom of Heaven, etc. are all worthy nominations in this regard. In fact, so many "true story" movies butcher history so horrendously that it would probably be more useful simply to list the films that are historically accurate, and assume that everything that isn't on the list is ahistorical.
Yahoo? What a rubbish list. Are they trying to make it even easier for Microsoft to buy them out?
I think that list is just veiled advertising to generate interest in those movies. It's supposed to strike you as somewhat off base, so that maybe you'll seek out those movies just to see for yourself if the criticism is justified or to see if you can find even more inaccuracies or maybe it's a bait and switch. If you notice you can jump to other lists from there such as In Theaters, Coming Soon and Top Box Office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Most of the candidates offered here certainly deserve a place on that list. But the most deserving of the #1 spot was one of the first films ever made...
D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation". I cannot begin to enumerate the number of ways it takes a path separate from recorded history, but suffice it to say, I think card-carrying Klansmen think it's a bit of a snowjob.
Not surprisingly, most films I've encountered that deal with the United States' War Between the States have been woefully lacking in objective historical rigor.
Take for example, Gods And Generals. Too many, way too many innaccuracies (big and small) to list. But for starters, while it plays well in 2003 to soften the view of Confederates today, Stonewall Jackson would NEVER have gotten into deep theological discussions with a slave. He would have bashed his teeth in for having the gumption to speak in the presence of his betters. And I hate to break it to you American history buffs out there... Tribesman's and Banquo's great, great, great, great uncles were not calling to each other from across the stonewall battle lines of Fredericksburg to lay down their arms and join the true cause. I imagine they would have shot each other just as quickly as any other enemies that needed killin'.
I still do have "Elizabeth", just never had the time to watch it. Titanic was also one of those slightly inaccurate movies, historical based movies wouldn't be all that fun without a little bit of fiction in the plot, which is why you shouldn't expect a history lesson when going to the movies. They should write "inspired" instead of "based" though.
I read the transcript of the hearings into the RMS Titanic disaster, and I can't remember any inaccuracies in the film when compared to the transcript. The film even shows the ship breaking in half which no other film about the Titanic does. The main characters are fictional, but the characters who represent true historical people actually said and did the things they are shown saying and doing in the film.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahad I
I was trying to illustrate that perhaps it is only the scale of ahistoricalness (?). Who could say that Molly Brown or Patton or JFK truly did utter those words under those circumstances? In this light, pretty much every historical movie is ahistorical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
The complaint that they misinform...... Superman is depicted as being able to fly and punch through walls. Spiderman receives his power from being stung by a radioactive spider. Does that make the movies guilty for every retard who jumps off a buildings, punches a wall, or intentionally inviting poisonous stings?
The question here is if the intention of these movies are to educate the audience about history, or if the history merely provides a fascinating backdrop to which human dramas or moral anecdotes play out.
In the defense of Kingdom of Heaven, AFAIK, the movie does not claim that "this is the story of Balian of Ibelin". But then again, being a fanboy of that movie renders me unable to judge its merits and flaws fairly. :sweatdrop:
The account of Molly Brown is a matter of sworn testimony. Of course, you can doubt that as well. In fact, you can never know what really happened in any historical situation unless the actual event was recorded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
In the case of the movie Titanic it does accurately inform the viewer about why the disaster happened, how it happened and what happened to the people with the exception of the fictional drama. If you take out the fictional drama then you don't have a commercially viable film, and I thought that drama was representative of the women's movement towards equal rights that was ongoing at the time. And of course, it provided the opportunity to inject a romantic love story into the film, and yes it's far fetched that a third class passenger would have any contact with a first class passenger. That's the point, however, that it was taboo socially, and that comes across quite strongly in the film.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
The problem I have with that film is that the true story surrounding the main characters is more compelling. Balian never went back to France with or without Sibylla, but they put that in the film so it could have a "happy" ending. He never had a relationship with Sibylla . In fact, he married her stepmother, Maria, and had some kids by her, and that's why he went back to Jerusalem after the Battle of Hattin to get them out. Balian stayed in the Holy Land, and died 6 years later. Sibylla went with her husband, Guy of Lusignan, and died, along with her two young daughters, from an epidemic that swept though Guy's encampment during his siege of Acre three years after the fall of Jerusalem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
Good thinking! :2thumbsup: +repQuote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
John Wayne as Temüjin, how historically accurate was that? :laugh4:
I'm just glad Excalibur isn't on the list.
:jawdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Yup, John Wayne as the great conqueror, hilarious film. Best line: "Ya know, yer beautiful in yer wrath." Creepiest trivia: they filmed it on a nuclear testing site, and of the 220 people who worked on the film, 91 contracted cancer. What a goofy film to die for.
Not at all, the movie could stay inside the bounds established by current historical science. History is what people make of it really, through a system of course, but it only exists because someone is searching for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
Not the same. I couldn't care less if some idiot takes a movie seriously in any aspect, historic, anatomic, biologic or physic. I'm just pointing out that movies with historical backdrops which misrepresent the historical events which constitute said backdrop are in fact misinforming the public, just as many other sources of misinformation. I'm not saying that as something absolutly bad, sometimes it's bad (look at how the "ex-persians" reacted to 300), sometimes is just art.Quote:
The complaint that they misinform...... Superman is depicted as being able to fly and punch through walls. Spiderman receives his power from being stung by a radioactive spider. Does that make the movies guilty for every retard who jumps off a buildings, punches a wall, or intentionally inviting poisonous stings?
A fair point but wheter a movie is ahistorical or not is the result of a simple objective comparition between said movie and history. And, in my opinion, if a director takes an historical background to make his art more interesting and sell with it, he has the responsability to represent such story with the greatest degree of historical authenticity. If he doesn't... well I suppose he will pay for his mistake by entering some infamous list, being loathed at certain circles, looking silly or receiving an Oscar for the "Best Movie"...Quote:
The question here is if the intention of these movies are to educate the audience about history, or if the history merely provides a fascinating backdrop to which human dramas or moral anecdotes play out.
I don't remember the movie claiming any attachment to history whatsoever. I enjoyed the movie for those incredibly artistic moments that Scott knows how to unleash and I rolled my eyes at the incredible silliness of many other moments.Quote:
In the defense of Kingdom of Heaven, AFAIK, the movie does not claim that "this is the story of Balian of Ibelin". But then again, being a fanboy of that movie renders me unable to judge its merits and flaws fairly. :sweatdrop:
King Arthur however... I hate that movie in so many levels that it causes me physical pain.
King Arthur :laugh4: ... :laugh4:
Thats a movie that does claim to tell the 'true' story. In its defence (briefly) it is likely that Arthur (Artorius Castus) was a Roman soldier who fought the Saxons. Also, considering the Romans and British weren't exactly reknowned for their prowess as cavalry (and Knights are obviously Cavalry) it is possible that his shock force were from some other part of the Roman Empire (maybe Sarmatia).
On the other hand... :laugh4: I don't believe that storyline for a second!!!
Gladiator is a completely ahistorical movie, but I still liked it. Joaquin Phoenix and Russell Crowe were both superb in it. Yes I know that absolutely nothing in that movie was true, (except that a Roman Emporer called Marcus Aurelius existed and had a son called Commodus), but I still think that as a movie and as entertainment, it was well-done.
Kingdom of Heaven makes no attempt to claim its a true story, I think the fact that Balian is a blacksmith at the films beginning is enough to illustrate that point. Again its a completely ahistorical story, albeit it is at least based (extremely loosely) on a real event, the defence of Jerusalem by Balien of Ibelin against Saladin, and the surrender etc. etc. I agree with Puzz3d that the real story is interesting enough, but maybe the timescale of that was an issue?
300 is an artistic interpretation of the battle of Thermopylae, and should n't targeted.
10,00BC is pretty much fantasy so shouldn't be included, same for 2001: A Space Odyessy.
The Patriot and Braveheart are worthy contenders as is Elizabeth. (BTW does Mel Gibson have something against the English? :laugh4:)
So thats my (extremely long) two cents!
:laugh4: Nice. It looks like the Italian version of Monty Python. Pity there aren't any subtitles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Yeah, I know, but IIRC, the true story is one of frustration, injustice and anticlimax. Guy de Lusignan went on to rule Cyprus, and his dynasty survived for a few centuries. The noble Raymond of Tripoli, who I assume the Tiberias in the film was based on, was manipulated by Saladin, disgraced, and died of a lung infection. Balian of Ibelin himself fled the Battle of Hattin ignominously and was mistrusted by Baldwin the Leper. Etc, etc. While they may have made interesting characters in a TV series, IMO the full complexities of that particular chapter in history (and the people who populate it) cannot be effectively depicted in a 150-minute movie.Quote:
The problem I have with that film is that the true story surrounding the main characters is more compelling. Balian never went back to France with or without Sibylla, but they put that in the film so it could have a "happy" ending. He never had a relationship with Sibylla . In fact, he married her stepmother, Maria, and had some kids by her, and that's why he went back to Jerusalem after the Battle of Hattin to get them out. Balian stayed in the Holy Land, and died 6 years later. Sibylla went with her husband, Guy of Lusignan, and died, along with her two young daughters, from an epidemic that swept though Guy's encampment during his siege of Acre three years after the fall of Jerusalem.
A very recent Oscar winner had precisely those themes and in my opinion was all the better for it. Though I guess you're right, since the majority of people I've spoken to about the movie cite it being an excellent film with plenty of great moments, but the resolution didn't do it for them - needless to say, I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
Just to clarify something, 300 was based on a comic book, not history.
Though these movies tend to be introspective, character-driven pieces, no? I doubt that the movie would have been as good had it been written like that-- it would certainly have lost the epic feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
IMO.
Epic is as epic does. Seen Lawrence of Arabia lately? Now there's a tale of injustice and anticlimax. Doesn't prevent it from being a sweeping, sprawling mass of a film. And No Country for Old Men is hardly a character study, certainly not in the conventional sense, and it's all about failure, injustice and things not working out like they should.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
Conventional Hollywood thinking does not equate with a satisfying film. The three-act structure where the protagonist makes important discoveries while growing and changing is not the only way to tell a good story. The way I look at it, say you're playing poker, and the Hollywood guys are chanting that the only winning hand is three of a kind. And they won't shut up. And I'm thinking, "Yes, three of a kind is a good hand, but it's not the only hand, you idiots."
Are you aware that it was the Fox studio that imposed the happy ending of Kingdom of Heaven on the writer? The writer had a different ending, and it wasn't a happy one, although, it was still not historically correct. After all, the writer couldn't have Sibylla reunited with Guy de Lusignan because he was portrayed as a bad guy, and you can't have the bad guy ending up with the good girl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
I actually like the movie and bought the 4 disk director's cut after I bought the theatrical cut. What threw me off with Kingdom of Heaven is that I didn't know Balian was never a blacksmith, and that the beginning of the movie is false. If I had known that, I would have realized that the rest of the film was going to be heavily fictionalized.
Hey, I liked that film because Keira Knightley is in it. If you want to see something even worse rent Pathfinder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
One girl doesn't make a good movie. (Although... ) Nah what put me off it was the whole Clive Owen not being able to say anything in a non-'I'm a Hero, but I'm going to attempt to sound modest so no-one can say I'm arrogant' voice. Ray Winstone is also hilarious which kind of saves it from total mediocrity, and that guy with the pet hawk just looks trippy!
But I repeat... King Arthur :laugh4:... :laugh4:
Oh! I didn't know that, I gave up on the commentary about when Balian kills his half-brother and just watched the film without it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I knew that the characters were going to be --I won't even say hevily fictionalised-- not their historical selves before I watched the film, but that didn't put me off. I enjoyed the film for what it is.Quote:
I actually like the movie and bought the 4 disk director's cut after I bought the theatrical cut. What threw me off with Kingdom of Heaven is that I didn't know Balian was never a blacksmith, and that the beginning of the movie is false. If I had known that, I would have realized that the rest of the film was going to be heavily fictionalized.
Haven't seen Lawrence of Arabia, or No Country For Old Men, though I probably should. The latter is definitely on my to-buy list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Amen, brother. :yes: :yes: And I'm a fan of Clive Owen too, so that movie wasn't so bad for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I watched Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007) last night, and despite the many historical inaccuracies it's a very well made film. It stays focused on Elizabeth's character which is overly romanticized, but carried off extremely well by Cate Blanchet with an emotionally moving performance. It's basically a romance, and that's made clear from the beginning. The Battle of Gravelines is not presented properly, and the mandatory heroic deed that Sir Walter Raleigh, played by Clive Owen, is given in the film is so far fetched that it's laughable. The film is definitely a good candidate for the historically inaccurate list.
This gets at the true heart of the problem for me. If these movies are going to alter history to a great degree to make them "entertaining", they should set them in completely fictional situations, like Princess Bride and Inherit the Wind. They should just create a fictional land, cultures, events, etc. They can make it as realistic as they wish, just not historical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahad I
300 did not have to be Greeks and Persians. It hardly resembled history at all, so using those names and events was misleading. They could have created the same story, but used new names and places to avoid the controversy.
This is true of most of the films mentioned here. The King Arthur legends should never be placed in a completely historical context, because, like Robin Hood, they are folk tales.