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 have seen numerous youtube videos about 'The Hurt Locker' being totally inaccurate nonsense, some of them by people who actually served in US bomb disposal.
Whilst historians just shake their heads at the likes of 'Braveheart', William Wallace was nothing like he was potrayed, indeed this was a man who had a belt made out of the skin of his enemies. Whilst another one of Mel Gibsons films 'The Patriot' has also been labelled a load of nonsene by many historians.
I understand that Hollywood is about entertainment, however mixing fact and fiction and presenting it as the truth, just makes Hollywood itself look laughable and stupid.
It is quite common for historians to see past events in an entirely different light Much as a couple may view the same event and walk with entirely different interpretations.
Much as I love history - is it paramount that movies depict history as accurately as possible? I also have reason to believe that much of history has either been whitewashed or covered up - due to making important people "uncomfortable".
Now my question is how did George Orwell manage to write our Operations Manual ~80 years ago?
It is quite common for historians to see past events in an entirely different light Much as a couple may view the same event and walk with entirely different interpretations.
Much as I love history - is it paramount that movies depict history as accurately as possible? I also have reason to believe that much of history has either been whitewashed or covered up - due to making important people "uncomfortable".
Now my question is how did George Orwell manage to write our Operations Manual ~80 years ago?
Yes, I have to admit, its almost like Orwell saw the future back then!! It is UNCANNY and actually eerie how accurate 1984 was/is.
Im somewhat surprised '1984' has not been blacklisted or banned today.
when a movie is based upon a historical event a hundred years or more in the past I’m willing to let more historical inaccuracies slide. What I can’t forgive is when they get the factual information wrong for more recent historical events especially when there are so much documented evidence of what actually happened (video, photos, and official reports). Sure much of the dialog and personal interactions are made up by the writers and production staff but those key points of historical facts should not be altered.
Hmm. According to the article, the choice of "50 worst" is base on critic and audience approval ratings, not on historical accuracy.
Quote:
To determine the worst movies based on true stories, 24/7 Tempo ranked films within the biography genre and those tagged on IMDb as being “based on a true story.” For each movie, we considered the Rotten Tomatoes average critic rating, Rotten Tomatoes’ average audience rating, and IMDb average user rating.
I have seen numerous youtube videos about 'The Hurt Locker' being totally inaccurate nonsense, some of them by people who actually served in US bomb disposal.
Whilst historians just shake their heads at the likes of 'Braveheart', William Wallace was nothing like he was potrayed, indeed this was a man who had a belt made out of the skin of his enemies. Whilst another one of Mel Gibsons films 'The Patriot' has also been labelled a load of nonsene by many historians.
I understand that Hollywood is about entertainment, however mixing fact and fiction and presenting it as the truth, just makes Hollywood itself look laughable and stupid.
Why didn't they portray Wallace making a belt out of his enemies, did they think it would be too controversial?
SPOILER FROM BRAVEHEART
He mailed a decapitated to his enemy of his nephew, if I remember correct, so why would making a belt be any worse to portray?
Why didn't they portray Wallace making a belt out of his enemies, did they think it would be too controversial?
SPOILER FROM BRAVEHEART
He mailed a decapitated to his enemy of his nephew, if I remember correct, so why would making a belt be any worse to portray?
I don't think that happened either, the truth is the entire movie is largely made up Hollywood nonsense from begining to end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian
Verdict
Seemingly intended as a piece of anti-English propaganda, Braveheart offers an even greater insult to Scotland by making a total pig's ear of its heritage. "Historians from England will say I am a liar," intones the voiceover, "but history is written by those who have hanged heroes." Well, that's me told: but, regardless of whether you read English or Scottish historians on the matter, Braveheart still serves up a great big steaming haggis of lies.
Does that belong in the same category of made up history such as Braveheart and The Patriot since it's based on true events, but a fictional story carries them along?
I thought movies like Braveheart and The Patriot were fictional stories set in real wars, to portray certain themes, themes of freedom fighting. So they used a fictional story in a real historic setting to dramatize that theme, kind of like The Battle of Algiers?
Does the OP mean worst regarding historical accuracy or quality of movie? Braveheart and Gladiator were both inaccurate but good movies.
I think Alexander 2004, starring Colin Farrell fails miserably in both regards.
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.
