Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the important thing about a period movie is that it be interesting and garner an audience. If a movie will pull people into a theater and teach them a little something about a subject previously unknown to them, despite a little tinkering, it's usually all to the good. I wouldn't treat "change" and "inaccuracy" as if they're the same thing, and I completely disagree with your saying they'd "always" be better not changing anything.
The only time I was hugely annoyed was with Inglourious Basterds, but I admit to some irritation with the Sofia Coppola version of Marie Antoinette. Little inaccuracies, sometimes just out of laziness, may irk me, but I try not to get riled up about them.
By the way, the movie JFK was fairly accurate, a lot more correct than it was given credit for.
Striving for even a portion of accuracy is a relatively new cinematic concept. Hollywood used to specialize in fictionalized versions of historical events. "The Far Horizons" was supposed to be the story of the Lewis & Clark expedition, but the Charlton Heston/Fred McMurray/Donna Reed rendering added all sorts of combat with Indians which never took place, and a romance between Sacajawea and I forget if it was Lewis or Clark.
The Errol Flynn version of "The Charge of the Light Brigade" turned that into some silly story of personal revenge between Flynn and some Turkish officer he fought against earlier in India. The charge was depicted not as the foul up calamity that it was, but rather a heroic success.
It changed somewhat after "Tora Tora Tora" came along in the '70's. That one remains the most historically accurate war film ever made. All the depicted events took place just as you see on screen.
Now there have been films that while including some fictionalized touches here and there, closely stick to the actual story. "A Bridge Too Far", the 1970's remake of "Charge of the Light Brigade", "Nicholas and Alexandria" and more recently the Billy Bob Thornton "Alamo", all took pains to research the story and present it mostly as it actually happened.
Of course the don't really give a damn what really happened flicks are still getting made as well. "Pearl Harbor " being an example where 1940's eras fighter planes all have the performance capacity of an X-wing fighters from Star Wars.
I know hollywood likes to change things in a way they think is more interesting and all that but I personally get annoyed when a movie about the past makes noticeable changes in historical facts and presents things radically different then the way they really were.
I personally think movies that show people or situations from history should make an effort to be completely accurate in every way and not change anything or I lose interest.
I think any movie based on a true event would always come out better by not changing what actually happened.
Yes....it does bug me , when Hollywood twists history. Since its , usually, done to the extreme, and , usually, for political reasons. This can be especially true with films aimed at younger audiences. I find it...disturbing. Blatant, historical innaccuracies, have made me yell at the TV screen and walk out of theatres. Cold Mountain was such a film for me. Please!
Some of the stuff in that film was just, historically, totally off track. I'm going to look at your link and see that list now. Should be interesting. Oh..BTW, I must add that one movie , based on history, that did take a bit of licence but I nevertheless enjoyed was The Ghost and the Darkness. Loved it, even though it did turn some history to Hollywood.
I think the important thing about a period movie is that it be interesting and garner an audience. If a movie will pull people into a theater and teach them a little something about a subject previously unknown to them, despite a little tinkering, it's usually all to the good. I wouldn't treat "change" and "inaccuracy" as if they're the same thing, and I completely disagree with your saying they'd "always" be better not changing anything.
The only time I was hugely annoyed was with Inglourious Basterds, but I admit to some irritation with the Sofia Coppola version of Marie Antoinette. Little inaccuracies, sometimes just out of laziness, may irk me, but I try not to get riled up about them.
By the way, the movie JFK was fairly accurate, a lot more correct than it was given credit for.
I guess I see your point to at least teach them something because if it was too accurate they would be bored and not watch at all but I still do not see why the truth must be considered boring?
Striving for even a portion of accuracy is a relatively new cinematic concept. Hollywood used to specialize in fictionalized versions of historical events. "The Far Horizons" was supposed to be the story of the Lewis & Clark expedition, but the Charlton Heston/Fred McMurray/Donna Reed rendering added all sorts of combat with Indians which never took place, and a romance between Sacajawea and I forget if it was Lewis or Clark.
The Errol Flynn version of "The Charge of the Light Brigade" turned that into some silly story of personal revenge between Flynn and some Turkish officer he fought against earlier in India. The charge was depicted not as the foul up calamity that it was, but rather a heroic success.
It changed somewhat after "Tora Tora Tora" came along in the '70's. That one remains the most historically accurate war film ever made. All the depicted events took place just as you see on screen.
Now there have been films that while including some fictionalized touches here and there, closely stick to the actual story. "A Bridge Too Far", the 1970's remake of "Charge of the Light Brigade", "Nicholas and Alexandria" and more recently the Billy Bob Thornton "Alamo", all took pains to research the story and present it mostly as it actually happened.
Of course the don't really give a damn what really happened flicks are still getting made as well. "Pearl Harbor " being an example where 1940's eras fighter planes all have the performance capacity of an X-wing fighters from Star Wars.
It sounds like I should steer clear of older historical type movies lol. Did you notice that the inaccurate film Pearl Harbor did not succeed with the critics and got bad reviews from the public as well? Maybe if they had been more accurate it would have been more higly rated? It is an emotional moment in my country's history and deserves accuracy and truth . Many are still alive who were there and remember it well.
Yes....it does bug me , when Hollywood twists history. Since its , usually, done to the extreme, and , usually, for political reasons. This can be especially true with films aimed at younger audiences. I find it...disturbing. Blatant, historical innaccuracies, have made me yell at the TV screen and walk out of theatres. Cold Mountain was such a film for me. Please!
Some of the stuff in that film was just, historically, totally off track. I'm going to look at your link and see that list now. Should be interesting. Oh..BTW, I must add that one movie , based on history, that did take a bit of licence but I nevertheless enjoyed was The Ghost and the Darkness. Loved it, even though it did turn some history to Hollywood.
Thank you for the recommendation of an historically accurate movie. I love period movies. Do you know of any others ?Also any movies based on a book that was accurately depicted the book?
Sink the Bismarck aired over the holidays on TCM. British film from the 1950s and also filled with inaccuracies. Basic story is accurate as are some segments but a few of the story arcs are fictitious.
Breaker Morant is one of my favorite films and I purchase a number of the books on the participants in the actual episode and find the film did indeed include both actual and fictitious events or excluded certain facts which would confound the story arc.
Then there are films about fictitious characters that absolutely bring to life an era. I would nominate Little Big Man as one of these. Comedy as well. The Victors would be a dramatic example.
It sounds like I should steer clear of older historical type movies lol. Did you notice that the inaccurate film Pearl Harbor did not succeed with the critics and got bad reviews from the public as well? Maybe if they had been more accurate it would have been more higly rated? It is an emotional moment in my country's history and deserves accuracy and truth . Many are still alive who were there and remember it well.
Pearl Harbor is also a Michael Bay film and with the hatred on Transformers and other movies he has done, perhaps it was a precursor to the Transformer hate.
Yes it did occur to me that it might look weird to have young pocahontas alone too much with John Smith but then again if done correctly it might not have mattered she didnt actually have to have too many scenes alone with him.
You bring up a good point about political correctness in movies these days. Again I prefer reality. Ever notice there is often a difference in reading a book that takes place in the past, between ones written by the authors who actually lived at that time and ones writing books about the past who live in modern times ? You do get a real sense of what things were like then by reading a book by the author who actually was living then although they may gloss over more controversial subjects.
And do you also think it is more interesting to watch, for instance, a movie filmed in the 1940s vs a movie about the 1940s filmed now?
Interestingly, the early drawings of Disney's "Pocahontas " included a young Pocahontas and a young settler, but they decided on an adult romance instead. That said, I don't recall anything about the movie stating it was based on a true story, or to that effect. I just see assumptions that it must be so, since it contained historic details (The Virginia Company, names of real people, and places). Not quite the same thing.
I'd take the actual classic movie vs a movie based on a classical period. Even retro films have a modern edge that clashes with the ideal. There was a scene in "Gangster Squad" in which Ryan Gosling's tatoos were visible. It killed the nostalgia since tatoos were limited to sailors, convicts, etc. in those days.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
