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 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.
No, it doesn't bother me. Because I know the difference between fiction influenced by historical events, and documentaries. I'm not watching something like Shakespeare in Love looking for a factually accurate education about William Shakespeare.
True that people want to be entertained with a movie but for me personally I find the idea of bringing history to life accurately more entertaining and interesting than bringing it to life falsely. Its like piece of history just jumped out at you and came to life while if its inaccurate its just another fake hollywood movie.
I also wonder if it misleads and confuses people. Like for instance showing Pocahontas as an adult in love with John Smith in the Disney movie,when in reality she was only still a child when they met may confuse children who watch the movie and then later study it in school.
I like a child's show called Liberty's kids for instance that took place during the revolutionary war. It entertained and yet was historically accurate too.
No because some are alternative pasts that are similar to the real past. X-Men are in an alternative 1960's and 1970's currently which was the same as ours just with mutants. Captain America was in a similar alternative timeline for the 1940's as was Watchmen with an alternate 1985 where Nixon stayed president through several re-elections.
I also wonder if it misleads and confuses people. Like for instance showing Pocahontas as an adult in love with John Smith in the Disney movie,when in reality she was only still a child when they met may confuse children who watch the movie and then later study it in school.
Even kids need to learn the difference between fiction and non-fiction. Here's a great example for teachers to use.
No because some are alternative pasts that are similar to the real past. X-Men are in an alternative 1960's and 1970's currently which was the same as ours just with mutants. Captain America was in a similar alternative timeline for the 1940's as was Watchmen with an alternate 1985 where Nixon stayed president through several re-elections.
Well I can understand the idea of a science fiction alternative reality changing history because things would have been different if someone had superpowers like that, and it is based more on fictional comic book hero story then reality and yet I would be willing to bet if the movie strayed too far from the comic book original storyline written by it's authors you might be annoyed as well. I would be. I also do not like it when movies based on a book are inaccurate any more than I like movies based on history to be inaccurate. The book or comic became popular for a reason . Changing the story does destroy that for me .
I did not see watchman but again the movie changes history as part of an alternative reality so it makes sense in that way. I guess it asks the question what if?
Even kids need to learn the difference between fiction and non-fiction. Here's a great example for teachers to use.
True but it makes it pretty useless as a teaching tool for any other reason, it would be so much better for kids to learn from an accurate movie, it would be a wonderful teaching tool to bring history to life like that.
For information, I watch documentaries. Well, actually, I read books - but if one insists on going with the audio/visual route, documentaries are where they keep the information.
Take The Lion In Winter, the classic film about the 1183 Christmas court of King Henry II the England, as he gathers his family, including Eleanor of Acquitaine and two of his sons who would one day be kings, Richard and John. I fully understand that it is a historical drama. To expect such a film to be a documentary is to miss the point that it is a film and it is not a documentary.
That all the interpersonal interactions were fictional misses the point. That there was no Christmas court that year at the location depicted misses the point. I watched The Lion In Winter to be entertained, and entertained I was. Expecting to get history from a historical drama is, in my opinion, rather lazy.
True but it makes it pretty useless as a teaching tool for any other reason, it would be so much better for kids to learn from an accurate movie, it would be a wonderful teaching tool to bring history to life like that.
If it told the accurate story of Pocahontas, it wouldn't have been a Disney movie and wouldn't have been geared toward children. A teenager taken hostage and held prisoner, put on display as a "tamed savage" and dead a few years later? Not exactly the stuff animated films are made of.
For information, I watch documentaries. Well, actually, I read books - but if one insists on going with the audio/visual route, documentaries are where they keep the information.
Take The Lion In Winter, the classic film about the 1183 Christmas court of King Henry II the England, as he gathers his family, including Eleanor of Acquitaine and two of his sons who would one day be kings, Richard and John. I fully understand that it is a historical drama. To expect such a film to be a documentary is to miss the point that it is a film and it is not a documentary.
That all the interpersonal interactions were fictional misses the point. That there was no Christmas court that year at the location depicted misses the point. I watched The Lion In Winter to be entertained, and entertained I was. Expecting to get history from a historical drama is, in my opinion, rather lazy.
I see your point, but I have to ask if there is a point in a historical movie where it becomes so inaccurate you would lose interest? Especially if important historical facts are changed? I do not see why hollywood cannot make an accurate movie based on a famous person or event without changing important things. Documentaries are nice but not as detailed as an expensive hollywood movie, it would be wonderful for me if hollywood deep pockets mixed with documentary accuracy. You are saying artistic license as it were allows hollywood to completely change history constantly and that is perfectly okay ?
And for that matter why cant they make a movie based on a book that is true to that book? Most of them are completely inaccurate and change too many things from the storyline.
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.
