How far should Hollywood go when distorting historical fact in movies--- It doesn’t matter, its just entertainment.---Depends on the subject matter---When it insults anyone with an average intelligence.--- when it becomes bloody ludicrous.
Views?

(04-02-2014, 12:12 AM)Carousal Wrote:  How far should Hollywood go when distorting historical fact in movies--- It doesn’t matter, its just entertainment.---Depends on the subject matter---When it insults anyone with an average intelligence.--- when it becomes bloody ludicrous.
Views?

Anything goes for me in a movie. Cinema is an art/entertainment form. Like a painting, I can appreciate super-realism, but an impressionistic adaptation/interpretation can be just as intriguing. However, pulling it off is another thing.

(04-03-2014, 08:31 PM)ChristopherSea Wrote:  

(04-02-2014, 12:12 AM)Carousal Wrote:  How far should Hollywood go when distorting historical fact in movies--- It doesn’t matter, its just entertainment.---Depends on the subject matter---When it insults anyone with an average intelligence.--- when it becomes bloody ludicrous.
Views?

Anything goes for me in a movie. Cinema is an art/entertainment form. Like a painting, I can appreciate super-realism, but an impressionistic adaptation/interpretation can be just as intriguing. However, pulling it off is another thing.

So I’ll put you down for No 1--- Cinema is an art, that’s an interesting observation

When the film is widely understood as (and advertised as) an "adaptation" of the facts, yea sure, anything goes. For me the problem is when movies pretend to absolute realism when that's far from the case. Most movie-goers aren't going to fact check. Think: Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter vs Oliver Stone's films.

I think I get more upset when they change the facts in literature or books. Watching clash of the titans caused me to grind my teeth and when I saw the spiderman movie with Tobey Maguire I actually threw things at the screen. "He was a scientist, he designed his web shooters he didn't just start shooting webs, assholes!"

Man that pissed me off.

I agree with justcloudy, it only matters if the movie is marketed as a non-fiction story.

I do think creative license can be used in order to make a more interesting story. I always loved the ending of Inglorious Bastards for example, because there's just no way anyone would predict it coming in. That's pretty much the most ludicrous example I can think of, and I think it's great.

I definitely think of cinema as art as well, heck I even think of TV and stand-up comedy as forms of art.

Inglorious Bastards is a WW2 fantasy, hardy a movie based on historical fact.

I have had (heated) discussions with several Americans who now believe that Hitler was indeed blown up by Americans in a movie theatre. This to me indicates that there are serious problems with critical thinking in education these days -- and by "these days" I mean the last twenty years at least. It also indicates that people are utter morons.

(04-08-2014, 07:33 AM)Leanne Wrote:  I have had (heated) discussions with several Americans who now believe that Hitler was indeed blown up by Americans in a movie theatre. This to me indicates that there are serious problems with critical thinking in education these days -- and by "these days" I mean the last twenty years at least. It also indicates that people are utter morons.

I prefer that version to the reality anyway. Reality only has virtue in history on account of it happening first. I think we ought to decide, collectively that that is what really happened.

I doesn't really matter anyway, since Hitler never died. According to the "History" channel, it was Hitler's and Eva Braun's double's who were shot with a hand gun, by an aide in the bunker, while Hitler and Eva were already away on a u-boat full of the riches of Europe to somewhere...

Hitler was supposedly cremated, and his remains were supposedly buried in a supposed grave. The supposed grave was dug up, bones were found, material extracted (one assumes marrow) and DNA test was preformed on said supposed material. DNA results were negative for Hitler. Conclusion, Hitler no bury in grave, Hitler no dead, Hulk smash! Of course you see the false premiss right away, evidently the "History" channel did not or did not care. This is history playing fast and loose with the facts of history, should we expect more from Hollywood? Anyone who expects honor from tinsel town is truly deluded, regardless of the rightness of their case/cause.


Dale

OMG, it's all the Illuminati!

I wonder if those who seem content with Hollywood mangling of history would be so happy, if the British film industry (Yeah we still have one) made a movie of the Alamo where all the defenders had it away on their toes before the first shots were fired, leaving Boadicea and her Amazons (All at a reasonable price) charging to the rescue and saving America’s arse, the final credits rolling to the sound of Rule Britannia.

(04-08-2014, 11:05 PM)Carousal Wrote:  I wonder if those who seem content with Hollywood mangling of history would be so happy, if the British film industry (Yeah we still have one) made a movie of the Alamo where all the defenders had it away on their toes before the first shots were fired, leaving Boadicea and her Amazons (All at a reasonable price) charging to the rescue and saving America’s arse, the final credits rolling to the sound of Rule Britannia.

We could rewrite it that way anyway. History isn't facts, it is records. Change the records, change the facts.

They made that one already. Sir Ian McKellen played Boadicea -- he later loaned the wig to Patrick Stewart so he could play little orphan Annie on Broadway.

Carousal Wrote: I wonder if those who seem content with Hollywood mangling of history would be so happy, if the British film industry (Yeah we still have one) made a movie of the Alamo where all the defenders had it away on their toes before the first shots were fired, leaving Boadicea and her Amazons (All at a reasonable price) charging to the rescue and saving America’s arse, the final credits rolling to the sound of Rule Britannia.


I thought that was how it happened. How else did Sam Houston know to come to a knife fight with a cannon, unless General Pakenham told him?

excerpt from History channel, "Great Moments In History"

In 1814, General Edward (Eddie) Pakenham took back the town of New Orleans from the Yanks, and after securing it's borders by refortifying the poles with plenty of Union Jacks, and refortifying the populace with a goodly supply of Panama Jack, which took approximately 22 years as he had to verify that the "tea" was up to British standards, he then set sail for Texas in 1836, and arrived just in time rescue the the motley crew of doctors, lawyers, and former ex-pat Yank congressmen (Davy Crockett), as well as the more respectable Texican scum. Having stalled Santa Anna's army almost single-handedly by rolling barrels of Panama Jack to the opposing army, he secured the small fort and then sent word to General Sam Houston (who was lounging somewhere else, completely unaware that the country of Texas was being invaded), to come and beat Santa Anna with his own leg, (which the Texicans had captured in a previous battle). The Mexican army was easily defeated at the battle of Battle of San Jacinto (which was a river of sorts 150 mules away) as they were all stoned off their asses, and since they had no horses (only donkeys), they could not mount a charge or much of anything else. General Sammy and General Eddie (the two of which were founding members in the rock group Van Halen) took turns beating sissy pants (Santa Anna) with his own leg, until he agreed to pay 1.5 million for Eddie's weed that his army had smoked up, and 15 million to the great country of Texas to write a constirtushun,and other such laws as, "that you can shoot an Indian if you see him crossing the Red River after sundown", "a person can be hang if caught with wire-cutters in his back pocket", and of course one of the foundation laws of all great demon-accuracies, "that if you catch your wife in bed with another man doing the nasty, you can shoot both with impunity, or whatever firearm is handy"!
Since that time the British peoples and the Texican peoples have been great friends and have joined together in their effort to prevent the unmitigated spread and growth of the American (Yanks) Hegemony. God save the Queen!

What about John Wayne cast as the Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan? Of course that was the brilliant idea of Howard Hughes.

I like Wayne as the Centurion at the crucifixion of Christ.

"Shirly this was the Son of Gawd!"

(04-08-2014, 07:36 AM)milo Wrote:  I prefer that version to the reality anyway. Reality only has virtue in history on account of it happening first. I think we ought to decide, collectively that that is what really happened.

(04-08-2014, 11:32 PM)milo Wrote:  We could rewrite it that way anyway. History isn't facts, it is records. Change the records, change the facts.

milo are you working for Big Brother??

(04-09-2014, 07:08 AM)justcloudy Wrote:  

(04-08-2014, 07:36 AM)milo Wrote:  I prefer that version to the reality anyway. Reality only has virtue in history on account of it happening first. I think we ought to decide, collectively that that is what really happened.

(04-08-2014, 11:32 PM)milo Wrote:  We could rewrite it that way anyway. History isn't facts, it is records. Change the records, change the facts.

milo are you working for Big Brother??

i just think people take an unrealistic view of history. It is a collection of stories that may or may not have happened. If they are boring stories, rewrite them more interesting.

(04-09-2014, 07:12 AM)milo Wrote:  

(04-09-2014, 07:08 AM)justcloudy Wrote:  

(04-08-2014, 07:36 AM)milo Wrote:  I prefer that version to the reality anyway. Reality only has virtue in history on account of it happening first. I think we ought to decide, collectively that that is what really happened.

(04-08-2014, 11:32 PM)milo Wrote:  We could rewrite it that way anyway. History isn't facts, it is records. Change the records, change the facts.

milo are you working for Big Brother??

i just think people take an unrealistic view of history. It is a collection of stories that may or may not have happened. If they are boring stories, rewrite them more interesting.

Turning Braveheart into a paedophile you mean?