Help Settle an Arguement

The probelm is that if you are making a historical film, most people will take it as being fact, as most people will not realise the truth for themselves. For example:

Pearl Harbour
U571
Green Berets

All bad films, imho. THe first two make it look like the USA won WW2 on its own, the last is pure propaganda rubbish.

I hate to break the news to you…but all the war films made by all the countries involved in the war were propaganda! Yes, even the UK.
“Target for Tonight, Spitfire, The Lion has Wings, One of our Planes is Missing” and others from the UK, as well as “I wanted Wings, Flying Fortress, Flying Tigers, Mrs Miniver (the the dozens of other pro-UK films made in the US), Bombardier, Captains of the Clouds” from the US.. are now seen through modern eyes as propaganda.
Even postwar films…the beloved Dambusters overestimated the damage done to German industry and never showed innocents getting killed… aren’t immune to the label. The movie was designed to show the bravery of the Bomber Command crews. The English loved it. I’m sure Germans who survived the floods but lost loved ones in them weren’t amused.

In a similar vein…I hope modern audiences don’t see “Dr. Stangelove” as a fact based look at US foreign policy or an accurate look at SAC.
(Here’s another hint…James Bond is not representive of all UK civil servents),

Only idiots expect films to be history lessons. Even modern news programs and “documentraries” are only as fair/honest/accurate as the person making them… The trouble is there are too many idiots out there that believe whatever they see on the screen or TV.

Pearl Harbor wasn’t accurate, neither was Breaking the Sound Barrier.
I’m sure there were/are UK films that gave people the idea that the UK singlehandedly won the war. I’m sure there were German films in production telling their population THEY were winning the war…even as the Russians were storming Berlin.

Here’s a hint…when you go to the cinema, don’t go because you want to learn something. Go because you like the star or special effects.

It’s pure unadulterated hollywood tripe

Seconded. The “history” of the film wasn’t just inaccurate – it was Gibson/anti-English propaganda!

I liked it…and knew it was’nt accurate also….but it was a good movie.

Somewhere around here I have a pic of the modern day Wallace, the guy who wrote ‘Braveheart’ and then also ‘Pearl Harbor’….funny how those two films seem to bring out such emotional debate…

M

Braveheart has always been one of my favorite movies, eversince the first day I saw it in the theater. Yes it is innacurate and yes the Brits were portrayed as an evil people ruled by a ruthless tirant. However, from the viewpoint of a person who loves movies, it had everything you’d want. Great battles, the need to avenge a lost love, friendship and so on…
I still think it is one of the best ever but that’s just my humble opinion! 🙂

Braveheart was one of the greatest films ever. Action, romance,
violence, great hero, great villian… pretty ladies. Horses getting
impaled, people who really really deserve something bad happening to
them getting it.

Great movie.

And that’s it.

It’s a movie inspired by actual historical events.

I could see how an englishman could be predisposed to hating it, being
that Edward I is portrayed as a real evil SOB.

Watch the DVD, with the commentary. Mel Gibson points out a lot of
the stuff that’s made up. Very interesting.

The name you are looking for Daz is Anna Friel…good film…Land Girls that is 😉

That’s the one!

The name you are looking for Daz is Anna Friel…good film…Land Girls that is 😉

Is that your opinion on ‘The Passion Of The Christ’ (another Gibson film) as well?

That was crap, too (in my opinion).

When this Latin and Aramaic language film was announced, Mel Gibson stated that his intent was to release it without subtitles, letting the performances speak for themselves. However, subtitles were added later. Also, he stated that regardless of the cost of the project, that this would be “good for the soul”.

Nope. It was bad for my pocket, as I was about twelve quid out!!

meron(first love interest) was one sexy looking lass though

Catherine McCormack – sadly not much seen these days. Although she was in The Land Girls along with a couple more Brit beauties (Rachel Weisz, and I can’t recall the other), along with MH434 and Black 6! 😀

meron(first love interest) was one sexy looking lass though

As was already said, it’s not a great story but very entertaining action film.

The probelm is that if you are making a historical film, most people will take it as being fact, as most people will not realise the truth for themselves. For example:

Pearl Harbour
U571
Green Berets

All bad films, imho. THe first two make it look like the USA won WW2 on its own, the last is pure propaganda rubbish.

It’s pure unadulterated hollywood tripe

Is that your opinion on ‘The Passion Of The Christ’ (another Gibson film) as well?

Ok I know Braveheart is a film, so there will be some inaccuuracies, granted, but this is just like when a book is turned into a film.

These kind of films help to inform the present generations of what happend in the past, and encourages them to research and find out more…so that they can then come to a conclusion for themselves…well, that is how I go about it!

It won 5 Oscars and another 15 wins & 20 nominations, and imho it is by far one of the most epic stories ever told.

It’s not lookin’ good for William Wallace is it!!

Too many people regard it as a documentary/historical film, which it most definitely isn’t!
Unfortunately anyone who has not studied history will believe it’s a true depiction.
Look at it as an action movie instead.

utter rubbish 177mins of my life wasted.

It’s pure unadulterated hollywood tripe

I have to agree with Steve 😉 Anna 😉

That Mr Gibson doesn’t like the English very much, does he? :rolleyes:

What do you expect from an American born Aussie????

cracking film, even iff its historically inaccurate

That Mr Gibson doesn’t like the English very much, does he? :rolleyes: