Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Following on from the Robin Hood thread

How much fudging of factual History is generally acceptable to you in big screen movies ?

I can largely ignore it (although 'The Scottish film" is still a bugbear) although jamming overly anachronistic 'modern standards' presses buttons from time to time

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Following on from the Robin Hood thread

How much fudging of factual History is generally acceptable to you in big screen movies ?

I can largely ignore it (although 'The Scottish film" is still a bugbear) although jamming overly anachronistic 'modern standards' presses buttons from time to time

I can accept minor fudging for the sake of story, but unless it's explicitly an "alt-history" deal(in which case all bets are off) it should stick as close to the real events as is possible given the format because otherwise why are you telling that story at all.

I only get annoyed when absurdly fictionalized versions of events are touted as "based on a true story." I mean sure it's true, but there comes a point where the story being presented is so lacking in history that even saying it was inspired by true events is a lie.

Yup,

If it's meant to be a real event, then show us the real event as best you can,

if you want to tell a mainly made up story I don't really care that it has a slight hint that it was 'based on a true story', just market it as an exciting work of fiction

I don't expect movies to be accurate portrayals of history. About the only thing that irritates me is when they slant things for what feels like propagandist (usually nationalist) reasons. Things like The Patriot falsely showing British soldiers in the American Revolutionary War committing Nazi-style attrocities, while whitewashing Mel Gibson's character's slave-owning. I don't have a problem with changing things just to make a movie actually work as a movie, though.

The title of the thread makes sense if we don't know that more places than just California has made historically inaccurate films.

I remember the Coen brothers put 'based on a true story' at the beginning of Fargo just because of how it would make the audience react to the film, essentially. They knew it was far removed from the different influences of the story but it changes the mindset of the viewer often times.

 Duskweaver wrote:
I don't expect movies to be accurate portrayals of history. About the only thing that irritates me is when they slant things for what feels like propagandist (usually nationalist) reasons. Things like The Patriot falsely showing British soldiers in the American Revolutionary War committing Nazi-style attrocities, while whitewashing Mel Gibson's character's slave-owning. I don't have a problem with changing things just to make a movie actually work as a movie, though.

That's my main beef with any historical film, you need it to be accurate even if the accuracy portrays people as complete gak heels. Alexander was a classic misstep in this direction. The director was so intent on showcasing the fluid sexuality of Greeks at the time (something that everyone was aware of, and something that existed because of equal parts hedonism and equal parts to take away even more of a woman's power over a man) that historical points of the battles portrayed were completely false. In the end, it didn't even feel like the movie was about Alexander of Macedon, it felt like something entirely different, and in a historical movie, that's the LAST thing you want. Could you see a movie about Napoleon that portrayed him as a humanitarian and a balanced individual? Could you see a movie about Genghis Khan that portrayed him as a pacifist? Could you see a movie portraying a SOBER Ulysses S. Grant? I rest my case.


Also, I'm all for equal representation, but if a movie takes place in 800BC in Norway, there shouldn't be half of the cast made up of any nationalities that didn't exist in that country in that time period. And the film should also be in that language with subtitles. Yes, it sucks to read while watching, but having a mild southern US twang on a Viking is even MORE immersion breaking.

The only time it really beefs me is with films set during 20th Century conflicts.

There’s just no need. From the frank offence that was U-571, to slightly schalmtzy takes, there’s just no need.

Consider instead Saving Private Ryan. Yes, it was fictionalised to some degree, but it had proper consultants who were there. The story might’ve been tweaked, but the history was correct. And if you’re doing a recent historical film, I’d say that’s paramount to getting it right.

Don’t glamourise it. Don’t give modern day military fanatics a boner over something that just didn’t happen, or their country didn’t do. You want to do that, do an original story. Don’t adapt an actual historical account.

Fair point on consultants but they are on sticky ground, they can suggest fixes but that usually costs time and/or money they are often ignored but still pointed to for a films credibility

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The only time it really beefs me is with films set during 20th Century conflicts.

There’s just no need. From the frank offence that was U-571, to slightly schalmtzy takes, there’s just no need.

Consider instead Saving Private Ryan. Yes, it was fictionalised to some degree, but it had proper consultants who were there. The story might’ve been tweaked, but the history was correct. And if you’re doing a recent historical film, I’d say that’s paramount to getting it right.

Don’t glamourise it. Don’t give modern day military fanatics a boner over something that just didn’t happen, or their country didn’t do. You want to do that, do an original story. Don’t adapt an actual historical account.

Reminds me of why I hate The Hurt Locker so much...

I think intent is the key here. If a director sets out to portray events that actually happened, and moreover to use the film as a vehicle to inform/educate the audience to some degree, then there is probably an onus on them to keep it fairly accurate and true to history.

On the other hand, not every film (and in fact, I'd say most) don't have that intent; they are using historical settings to create a narrative on which they can hang drama and conflict between characters, at which point I'm not sure it really matters how accurate it is. And this isn't a new thing or one unique to film; has anyone in the last 400 years accused Shakespeare's Histories of being even slightly historically accurate? Is Tennyson's 'The Charge of the Light Brigade' an accurate retelling of the battle of Balaclava? Does the musical Hamilton faithfully portray its principal characters? No, no and no, and nor do they need to to be entertaining, which in each of those cases is the objective.

Take Fury for instance. Pretty much everything in that film is a load of cobblers from a technical standpoint, a historical one, a military one... But it's still fun to see a tank and its crew blow up scores of Nazis. Frankly, it's as historically accurate as Captain America: The First Avenger, but it also has the same intent, to entertain and audience with spectacle in a historical setting.

Since someone mentioned the Hurt Locker, that's a good example of this as well, and probably a much better film artistically than Fury. It takes it setting, tells a dramatic story through that and the fact it's not accurate doesn't bother me because the story itself is a good one.

By contrast, take Nolan's Dunkirk. There, there are a few quibbles (there are not 300,000 men on that beach in any shot in that film ) but as a piece of immersive cinema, it succeeds in capturing a highly authentic feel that puts the audience right 'in' the history even if what we're seeing on screen isn't 100% accurate. Here though, that authenticity is central to the whole piece; it has to at least feel realistic or the illusion is shattered, and the intensity with it. That film would fall apart if it took the same kind of liberties Fury does.

On a similar note, the recent adaptation of RC Sherriff's 'Journey's End' (which, incidentally, is an absolutely phenomenal bit of cinema) relies on its authenticity. It is based on the play, which is based on the playwright's own experience during the First World War, and as such, the drama of that story wouldn't work if it didn't take a realistic, authentic approach to its setting.

There is certainly not a blanket argument here, and there are limits; the chief among these being that if you set out to make an authentic film, do your research. And if you don't care about that and just want to entertain people, that's also perfectly fine, but don't pretend otherwise as like it or not, these kinds of films do inform popular perceptions of history which can be entirely unhelpful. Mind you, that happens anyway, even when it's not the intent (Blackadder Goes Forth has a lot to answer for regarding the British attitude to WW1!) but that just means the filmmakers ought to be aware that what they depict will might well be taken as literal by someone when they view it.

Firstly, I think we can agree we're referring to 'Hollywood' in a broader sense; i.e. the large business of professional film making for profit, so you can paint every studio/producer/director from major markets with that brush. We're not talking about just California-based efforts.

Regarding historical accuracy, like most people it only bugs me if I happen to know something about the period I'm watching. I grew up as a military history nut, but that extends mainly to the usual topics (WW1, WW2, Vietnam, etc.). So, yeah most military films can bug me. I think these are the most unforgivable often because we have LOADs of actual information on how to make it correctly. I'd argue I'm more angry by the general lack of any research done by modern video games when it comes to errors. General uniform, equipment, vehicle errors will bug me - but on the flip side I appreciate it even more when they get it right.

However, if I'm watching a movie based on the ancient world I can probably enjoy it more because I have no idea that ancient Babylonians didn't use that kind of wicker shield, or that houses in ancient Syria weren't made using that kind of architecture, or those bricks etc. I've little to no general knowledge about that period.

Also, I'd say its fair that my expectations are also heavily dependent on the budget of the film. A made-for-TV special gets a huge pass, where a 500 million dollar blockbuster doesn't.

It always depends on what the movie want to be

If they make a historical movie or announce it as "based on latest historical data" (looking at you King Arthur) I won't accept anything but an accurate historical movie (Valkyrie with Tom Cruise while overall ok had enough minor mistakes that make it worst movie about that specific topic, but I guess the only one available to a broader audience)

If it is an action movie based on a comic with a historical theme or is based on a Legend, there is nor problem with fudging of factual history as I don't expect it to be correct (300 or Excalibur as example)4