Historical inaccuracies...

[Connavar]

I think a lot of it depends on how the movie is portraying itself, I mean 300 is a movie based on a graphic novel inspired by real events from 2,500 years ago, so any links to actual events is really just a bonus (as long as they didn't have the Spartans miraculously wining the war).

Whereas movies like Braveheart or U-571 where there is a realistic expectation that people are going to believe what they see I think tread a fine line between being disappointing as a movie to being outright defamatory.

As others have said some inaccuarcies can be well justified The story of the Kelly Gang (1906) is a silent B&W movie filmed in Australia where the producers openly stated that the police were depicted in the film wearing uniforms when they certainly wouldn't have done in real life but they felt it was needed so the audience could distinguish who was who.

I think another big issue is biographies where you're actually giving a personality and character to people often in situations where you can't know the truth. In the end it's entertainment but doing it right certainly requires a lot of skill.

Im lucky about Braveheart, i didnt know anything about William Wallace when i saw the movie. I saw a bio documentary about him years after the movie. I thought the real version was more interesting. Despite i enjoy Mel's version and Braveheart is one my favorit movies of that genre.

I suspect i wouldnt be a big fav if i saw it today for the first time

What is sad is that there is a statue of Mel's Wallace instead of the real one today in wherever the really one was from. Talk about selling your history for cash.....

I saw it in vacation pics of brit friends in a Gemmell forum.

 

[The Ace]

Yes, Elderslie in Renfrewshire (nowhere near the Highlands) all 3 pubs there are named after him. There's still the Wallace Monument at Stirling, though.

 

[Connavar]

Yes, Elderslie in Renfrewshire (nowhere near the Highlands) all 3 pubs there are named after him. There's still the Wallace Monument at Stirling, though.

Monument for the real Wallace, good to know.

That statue offended me, i cant think how it would offend a scotsman.

I wonder if people protested against it or something.

 

[The Ace]

No, we're too busy laughing. After the film, people began to visit the place (it's only about 10 miles outside Glasgow) tourists visit Elderslie from all over the world now and business is booming.

 

[mightymem]

For me if the film is good I can usually ignore the inaccuracies, although I must admit to find them annoying. I rarely watch a history film and believe it outright, I always research the issue after wards. Sometimes the directors are usually trying to make a point and can be forgiven if the message is good.

 

[Pyan]

it wasn't so much the general messages, or the directors's interpretation of the original books I was thinking of, though....more wondering if people noticed things such as ship cannon with practically no recoil, or Roman cavalry with stirrups....the little things that might detract from the enjoyment of the film.

 

[Quokka]

I won't usually know enough about the historical setting to notice so it's less the historical inaccuracies and more the logical ones that bug me. Like in 300 *spoiler*where they built a wall of corpses, waited behind it until one person was standing in front of it, pushed it on top of them and then climbed over the corpses to fight an enemy who was still standing on solid ground.

 

[Parson]

I liked Braveheart a lot. But when I looked up William Wallace I was shocked at the number and the magnitude of the license they took with the story. Where can you draw the line. I can accept a little latitude with the story but I thought Braveheart went completely over the top, once I knew the true story.

But I will still watch it on TV occaisionally. So I suppose in some people's eyes that makes it all right. Not in mine.

 

[Rosemary]

I rarely watch movies, rather read the books. I did watch Braveheart though and didn't enjoy it at all. So much of the real story was omitted and the acting seemed pathetic.

I love reading historical fiction but I do hate it when there is an inaccuracy. Haven't these authors researched for facts? It's certainly what I would do.

I believe that one author had more naval books in his study to look through than the Admiral of the fleet had