NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I don't mean what you think I mean. I meant they are annoying false to reality in movies based on history. A biggie is how terrbile they slandered Max Baer Sr. in Cinderella Man. Awful, just awful how they treated a real person who was nice guy and made him into a sociopath for a better box-office take. And it's not just that movie, Alaxander was revolting when it went it AWOL from fact. Too many times I see this. Now it wouldn't bother me so much, (after all it is Hollywood) except people take this semi-fiction as fact. Anyone else annoyed?

You mean that movies aren't always historically accurate?

I'm shocked beyond words!

You mean that movies aren't always historically accurate?

I'm shocked beyond words!

Not jsut a little bit but WAAAAAY outta line. Sure, I don't expect the History-Channel when I go to the theatre, but expect some grasp of reality.
So-far, the only movies I've seen which are true to reality are Alamo (the new one), and Wyatt Earp made briefly after Tombstone. Tombstone had tolerable discrepencies, but Wyatt Earp had none that I could spot.

So if The Parkus Empire sees 300, do you think his head will explode?

You mean that movies aren't always historically accurate?

I'm shocked beyond words!

Gah, it always irks me when someone says that!

Personally, Alexander would be a subject where I'd expect them to not be totally true to reality, simply because "it's ancient history and who cares?". Doesn't mean nobody does indeed care but at least I'm somewhat prepared for it, even though I don't like it.
Ideally, they wouldn't make the story of Alexander and warp it but would just take their warped story and fictionalize it even more and give it a different name and sell it as something entirely fictional.

Now, with modern stories like Cinderella Man or Capote, A Beautiful Mind, Walk the Line, or even Seabiscuit - I hate it when those are inaccurate. It's obvious that there will be things in any of these movies that will be made-up because noone followed the original subjects around 24/7 recording their lives. But as soon as it strays too far from the truth (and I don't actually know if it did in any of the examples I mentioned) it annoys me.

Hollywood has never let fact get in the way of a good story, or even a bad one, for that matter. Hell, watch some movies from the 40s and 50s and play "spot the anachronism" some time. They hardly ever got anything right. Today's filmmakers are Ken Freaking Burns compared to those days.

So if The Parkus Empire sees 300, do you think his head will explode?

no he'll go on an Incredible Hulk-esque rampage across Hollywood

So if The Parkus Empire sees 300, do you think his head will explode?

That was pretty good. It's not things like that that bother me, it's the distortion of recent or major historical people.

Hollywood has never let fact get in the way of a good story, or even a bad one, for that matter. Hell, watch some movies from the 40s and 50s and play "spot the anachronism" some time. They hardly ever got anything right. Today's filmmakers are Ken Freaking Burns compared to those days.

Yeah, well I learned my lesson about those movies after watching My Darling Clementine. *Slaps Face* WHO THE HELL IS CLEMENTINE?!?!

When a movie is made its all about the benjamins ($$$$$). When I go see a movie and spend my bejamins ($$$$$) I fully expect them to completly revamp and destroy almost any historical significance in the movie... because they are attempting to make a good story to get my benjamins ($$$$$).
If I want historical fact I watch the History Channel which is far more accurate and in the long run costs less benjamins ($$$$$) or buy a book on the subject with my benjamins ($$$$$).

What bothers me is how shitty most of the movies they release these days are! If they want to keep getting my benjamins ($$$$$) they better start releasing something good other than movies based on comic books! But I doubt they will because that costs benjamins ($$$$$).

When a movie is made its all about the benjamins ($$$$$). When I go see a movie and spend my bejamins ($$$$$) I fully expect them to completly revamp and destroy almost any historical significance in the movie... because they are attempting to make a good story to get my benjamins ($$$$$).
If I want historical fact I watch the History Channel which is far more accurate and in the long run costs less benjamins ($$$$$) or buy a book on the subject with my benjamins ($$$$$).

What bothers me is how shitty most of the movies they release these days are! If they want to keep getting my benjamins ($$$$$) they better start releasing something good other than movies based on comic books! But I doubt they will because that costs benjamins ($$$$$).

No, in Hollywood he's Benjy, and is gay and is having an affair with George Washinton.

Now, with modern stories like Cinderella Man or Capote, A Beautiful Mind, Walk the Line, or even Seabiscuit - I hate it when those are inaccurate.
Well, whether or not they were even remotely accurate, they were not just good movies but also deeply insightful into the experiences they portrayed (at least, A Beautiful Mind was). Isn't that enough to make them worth making?

When a movie is made its all about the benjamins ($$$$$). When I go see a movie and spend my bejamins ($$$$$) I fully expect them to completly revamp and destroy almost any historical significance in the movie... because they are attempting to make a good story to get my benjamins ($$$$$).
If I want historical fact I watch the History Channel which is far more accurate and in the long run costs less benjamins ($$$$$) or buy a book on the subject with my benjamins ($$$$$).

What bothers me is how shitty most of the movies they release these days are! If they want to keep getting my benjamins ($$$$$) they better start releasing something good other than movies based on comic books! But I doubt they will because that costs benjamins ($$$$$).Free advice: If you spend several hundred dollars to buy a movie ticket, you're paying too much.

You're welcome. :)

Pearl Harbor must've been the worst "historical" movie I've ever seen. Half the movie a lame love story, the second half american war propaganda.

I just felt like saying Benjamins ($$$$$). They only get 5-7 bucks on me depending on the theater and time, but they rake in hundreds if not thousands with most showings of a movie. and besides.. saying Benjamins ($$$$$) is more fun!

Gah, it always irks me when someone says that!

Personally, Alexander would be a subject where I'd expect them to not be totally true to reality, simply because "it's ancient history and who cares?". Doesn't mean nobody does indeed care but at least I'm somewhat prepared for it, even though I don't like it.
Ideally, they wouldn't make the story of Alexander and warp it but would just take their warped story and fictionalize it even more and give it a different name and sell it as something entirely fictional.

Now, with modern stories like Cinderella Man or Capote, A Beautiful Mind, Walk the Line, or even Seabiscuit - I hate it when those are inaccurate. It's obvious that there will be things in any of these movies that will be made-up because noone followed the original subjects around 24/7 recording their lives. But as soon as it strays too far from the truth (and I don't actually know if it did in any of the examples I mentioned) it annoys me.

Almost certainly it did with the others and I know for a fact they screwed Baer in Cinderella Man. Max Baer Jr. (known for playing Jethro in The Beverly Hillbillies) is still pissed at them for turning his dad into a monster.

Well, whether or not they were even remotely accurate, they were not just good movies but also deeply insightful into the experiences they portrayed (at least, A Beautiful Mind was). Isn't that enough to make them worth making?Oh, it is - if those portrayed and their experiences were in fact portrayed accurately.

Let's assume for the sake for the argument that John Nash (is that his name? If yes, I can't believe I remember that. I hated that movie!) in Beautiful Mind was not portrayed accurately, i.e. that for example the film makers added, say, an unhappy second marriage, an extra hospital stay or two in a mental facility, and exaggerated his actual symptoms for dramatic reasons (again, I'm making this all up).
So could the film still deliver deep insight into the experiences and motives of the character? Absolutely.
Could it still deliver deep insight into the experience and motives of the actual person the character is modelled on? Maybe, maybe not - which leaves me as the viewer with a feeling of unease because I can't be sure if what I saw is actually the true story of that historical person or just a fictionalized account based in part on that person.

Oh, it is - if those portrayed and their experiences were in fact portrayed accurately.

Let's assume for the sake for the argument that John Nash (is that his name? If yes, I can't believe I remember that. I hated that movie!) in Beautiful Mind was not portrayed accurately, i.e. that for example the film makers added, say, an unhappy second marriage, an extra hospital stay or two in a mental facility, and exaggerated his actual symptoms for dramatic reasons (again, I'm making this all up).
So could the film still deliver deep insight into the experiences and motives of the character? Absolutely.
Could it still deliver deep insight into the experience and motives of the actual person the character is modelled on? Maybe, maybe not - which leaves me as the viewer with a feeling of unease because I can't be sure if what I saw is actually the true story of that historical person or just a fictionalized account based in part on that person.


I'm not talking about exagerating for effect, I'm talking about out-and-out lying.

I'm not talking about exagerating for effect, I'm talking about out-and-out lying.
Well, no argument from me that that's worse.

Movies -> Entertainment.
Documentairies -> Information.

Well, I don't mean what you think I mean. I meant they are annoying false to reality in movies based on history. A biggie is how terrbile they slandered Max Baer Sr. in Cinderella Man. Awful, just awful how they treated a real person who was nice guy and made him into a sociopath for a better box-office take. And it's not just that movie, Alaxander was revolting when it went it AWOL from fact. Too many times I see this. Now it wouldn't bother me so much, (after all it is Hollywood) except people take this semi-fiction as fact. Anyone else annoyed?

That's funny, as Max Sr. was a genuine good guy...

...Max Jr., on the other hand, was a sociopathic asshole.

Hollywood isn't the problem, the crap education system is.

If you learnt history, it wouldn't matter.

Hollywood isn't the problem, the crap education system is.

If you learnt history, it wouldn't matter.

THAT I would agree with.

...or even Seabiscuit - I hate it when those are inaccurate...

Did they misrepresent the horse's personality?

One of the worst offenders was Engima, closely followed by anything which Mel Gibson has had his hand in.

Did they misrepresent the horse's personality?

Yeah, he was a total primadonna.

...followed by anything which Mel Gibson has had his hand in.

Robyn Moore?

I just felt like saying Benjamins ($$$$$). They only get 5-7 bucks on me depending on the theater and time, but they rake in hundreds if not thousands with most showings of a movie. and besides.. saying Benjamins ($$$$$) is more fun!

If you go to http://boxofficemojo.com/ you can find out how much per screen for each day for each movie.

In the first week the studio gets @90% of that. As the film stays in theaters the exhibitor gets a bigger and bigger cut. This, incidentally, is what fuels fluff-they (exhibitors) want opening weekend audiences to buy concessions, and lots of them-that's family movies, date movies, event movies with young people spending their parents money.


Now, for the rest of it-while I'm not accusing you (OP and agreers) of this specifically, but it almost sounds like someone bitching because they were trying to get their book report by watching the movie and got caught. A narrative films first duty is to the drama, not the truth of the story. The fact is that no matter how compelling the real story is, it is almost never good drama, and if something doesn't serve that then it has to be fixed. As a viewer, and this is a failure of our society not teaching people to read media, you should not be looking to narrative films for the truth as that is the last thing that is taken in consideration. If you take away anything in a narrative film as gospel that is a failure of audience and not film. There is no practice or expectation of accuracy.

To a degree, this misplaced expectation is the filmmakers fault because of the way that they talk about the films they mistakenly use the word 'accuracy,' but almost never are they talking about chapter and verse narrative, but rather setting, or costume or at best A to B transition.

You watch a narrative film for story, not for truth. There are other more ridged forms out there that help you get to truth-narrative film should be the last place you look. Well, before the muttering guy at the bus stop who doesn't actually get on buses...maybe.

If you go to http://boxofficemojo.com/ you can find out how much per screen for each day for each movie.

In the first week the studio gets @90% of that. As the film stays in theaters the exhibitor gets a bigger and bigger cut. This, incidentally, is what fuels fluff-they (exhibitors) want opening weekend audiences to buy concessions, and lots of them-that's family movies, date movies, event movies with young people spending their parents money.


Now, for the rest of it-while I'm not accusing you (OP and agreers) of this specifically, but it almost sounds like someone bitching because they were trying to get their book report by watching the movie and got caught. A narrative films first duty is to the drama, not the truth of the story. The fact is that no matter how compelling the real story is, it is almost never good drama, and if something doesn't serve that then it has to be fixed. As a viewer, and this is a failure of our society not teaching people to read media, you should not be looking to narrative films for the truth as that is the last thing that is taken in consideration. If you take away anything in a narrative film as gospel that is a failure of audience and not film. There is no practice or expectation of accuracy.

To a degree, this misplaced expectation is the filmmakers fault because of the way that they talk about the films they mistakenly use the word 'accuracy,' but almost never are they talking about chapter and verse narrative, but rather setting, or costume or at best A to B transition.

You watch a narrative film for story, not for truth. There are other more ridged forms out there that help you get to truth-narrative film should be the last place you look. Well, before the muttering guy at the bus stop who doesn't actually get on buses...maybe.

I happen to be exceptional at history. I agree it's up to the filmakers like you, it's just that people take the story literally all...the...time.

I happen to be exceptional at history. I agree it's up to the filmakers like you, it's just that people take the story literally all...the...time.

Human stupidity in action.

no he'll go on an Incredible Hulk-esque rampage across Hollywood
He could go hand-in-hand with Ted Stevens, teehee!

I happen to be exceptional at history. I agree it's up to the filmakers like you, it's just that people take the story literally all...the...time.

Actually it's up to you as a historian to tell the 'truth' of the thing. It's up to me to tell a good story (well, lets not get ahead of ourselves, at the level I work at it's up to me to tell people to be quiet during takes and make runs to Home Depot and Office Max...).

I always chuckle when people are concerned about the public and accuracy, remembering actual archaeologists being upset about The Flintstones because that's not how cavemen lived...(seriously-I heard that complaint twice from two entirely seperate archeology professors. I kept wanting to ask, all shocked-"You mean dinosaurs weren't used as appliances that would dead pan, "It's a living," really? This shatters my whole world!" The public gets a bad rap for being dumb when the real problem more often than not is that they are underestimated.

Actually it's up to you as a historian to tell the 'truth' of the thing. It's up to me to tell a good story (well, lets not get ahead of ourselves, at the level I work at it's up to me to tell people to be quiet during takes and make runs to Home Depot and Office Max...).

I always chuckle when people are concerned about the public and accuracy, remembering actual archaeologists being upset about The Flintstones because that's not how cavemen lived...
http://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/realhappy/xxrotflmao.gif

Y'know, instead of ranting about this I could be special film critic that reviews how historically accurate films are...imagine, the "Parkus Picks".