Does it bother you when a period movie changes history ? (script, action)
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.
Sometimes history is distorted by casting. Morgan Freeman is a great actor and was terrific in "Unforgiven", but it is quite obvious that the part of Nate was envisioned as a white man when it was written. We know this because not once in the film is there any sort of notice that Nate is black. He encounters none of the prejudice which was common and widespread at that time in that place. There is even a moment when the deputy sheriff goes PC. He rides into town to announce that the posse has caught one of the three assassins and is asked which one? He doesn't say the obvious thing..."The black one" (or substitute whatever pejorative he might have used), no, the deputy is colorblind and answers "The one with the Spencer rifle."
I think it's so that movies can stand on their own, as if the book never existed. Many times movies need to simplify plots and cut out characters, because it would get too complicated to present all of it and still be entertaining in 2 hours.
In Funny Girl, both Fanny Brice and Nicky Arstein had previous spouses, but you'd never know it from the movie. Plus Arstein had been in prison both before and after they married.
But I'm ok with that -- if I like a film that's based on someone real, it motivates me to find out more information about their lives.
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?
Watchmen was also a superhero movie (only one, maybe two had real powers though, the rest were street level heroes like say Batman.) I am not sure if there was importance of Nixon as president but alas he was as the term limits was removed. Also after backlash in the 1970's, the heroes were outlawed (they were previously state sponsored.)
It is not when they leave some things out since there are time limits. Its when they completely change what happened.
I am not trying to learn about history from a movie. When I know the true story I don't want to see something made up. Most of the time the true story is better than what was made up.
The same can be said about what is now the post but at the time would be the future like say 1984 as it is 30 years ago and we don't really have big brother out there over analyzing everything we say or do.
I think the term is "Romanticized" or "Poetic License".
The TV series "The Wild Wild West" was heavy on the poetic. Of course, it was fiction but for that matter is any movie, any show about the old West that accurate? Or about any other time? I recall someone once saying would anyone really want to be a swashbuckler when in simple cut could kill you from blood poisoning?
Or as Mom often commented watching modern women fly into the past, "She's not going to find it so great when she experiences the lack of hot and cold running water or no indoor plumbing."
But we want our movies to be enjoyable, for the audience to experience something like, not be dismayed by how it really was.
It is not when they leave some things out since there are time limits. Its when they completely change what happened.
I am not trying to learn about history from a movie. When I know the true story I don't want to see something made up. Most of the time the true story is better than what was made up.
The same can be said about what is now the post but at the time would be the future like say 1984 as it is 30 years ago and we don't really have big brother out there over analyzing everything we say or do.
I remember saying the same thing to my father as the year 1984 was ending, but some would argue big brother does exist today in small ways.
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.
I was saddened to learn of her real life story but once I did I could not see that movie without thinking how much better it would be if they had allowed her to stay a child and not made her an adult. I think the movie would have gone from good to great.
Sometimes history is distorted by casting. Morgan Freeman is a great actor and was terrific in "Unforgiven", but it is quite obvious that the part of Nate was envisioned as a white man when it was written. We know this because not once in the film is there any sort of notice that Nate is black. He encounters none of the prejudice which was common and widespread at that time in that place. There is even a moment when the deputy sheriff goes PC. He rides into town to announce that the posse has caught one of the three assassins and is asked which one? He doesn't say the obvious thing..."The black one" (or substitute whatever pejorative he might have used), no, the deputy is colorblind and answers "The one with the Spencer rifle."
I agree with what you are saying too. Casting is important. I do not mind if they cast someone who does not look exactly like the character as long as they have the same personality and heart of the character but then again if they look radically different then it may be distracting.
Do you think in choosing a black man to play a white character they made a mistake or did he bring to the role the heart and personality it needed in other ways ? Do you think they should have added at least some hint of the prejudice that would have been there at the time to use Mr Freeman in the role? I suppose its okay to change a few things about a character as long as it does not detract from or change the storyline, but at the same time I have to ask myself why with all the actors in hollywood would they choose someone who doesnt really fit the role?
Who do you think would have been the best choice for that role in unforgiven?
Last edited by vanguardisle; 11-26-2014 at 09:46 AM..
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.
