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.
No because as mentioned I understand it is fiction vs. history.....but I was a bit peeved that a particular true life person I think well of was treated very poorly in a film. Hero depicted as a craven coward. Only gnawed at me for a minute but I recall it still. The actual person deserved better treatment.
I hope you wrote a bad review of the movie on a movie review or message board for that reason. That usually makes me feel better
I have a problem when a movie sets out to purposely mislead the audience about real events and replace them with a false narrative to fit someone's agenda.
In 1999, Denzel Washington starred in a movie called The Hurricane, about a promising middleweight boxer named Rubin "The Hurricane" Carter. In the movie he is convicted of murder by a racist justice system and only after 20 years in prison is he freed after new evidence is found and he is innocent.
That is not what happened in real life. Hurricane Carter likely was guilty of the murders and was , in fact, convicted twice but the prosecutor did err in turning over some evidence and so the conviction was thrown out after 20 years and they decided not to retry Carter, but only because he had already served 20 years for the crime. He likely would have been convicted a third time.
Here is a good write up on the false narrative of the movie. 7 Movies Based on a True Story (That Are Complete Bull****) | Cracked.com
It is especially insidious, because this plays into the worst attitudes among blacks that the system is rigged, only in this case, the guy very likely was a real murderer.
I agree was that movie a success or was it just a b movie? It seems hollywood can rarely make a movie about a flawed character in the lead role they need to sugarcoat them. It it cowardice on their part of just laziness?
Wholeheartedly agree. As a history buff, revisionism in films drives me nuts. Have comments on CD going back years on this topic. Could have added several more films to the inaccurate list at the link. Gibson and Kevin Costner duds lead the additions. Gibson for the mostly wrong portrayal of Francis Marion in "The Patriot." Costner's silly "Robin Hood Prince of Thieves" was only partly saved by Alan Richman's top notch villain's role. Finally, there is the film that, imo, is the worst historical movie ever made, in spite of the fact that it won multiple Oscars. That, of course, is "Dancing With Wolves." Wrong, wrong, wrong, from start to finish.
I would be interested to know the reasons why these movies are so inaccurate? If you could rewrite the scenes in some of these movies what would you change?
It really bugs me that in Captain America The First Avenger American racial attitudes were whitewashed away. Captain Rogers would have been an even stronger character if he was allowed to stand for justice at home as well as against Hitler and Hydra.
I know hollywood likes to change things in a way they think is more interesting and all that but I personally get annoyed when a movie about the past makes noticeable changes in historical facts and presents things radically different then the way they really were.
I personally think movies that show people or situations from history should make an effort to be completely accurate in every way and not change anything or I lose interest.
I think any movie based on a true event would always come out better by not changing what actually happened.
I thought about Battle of the Bulge when I saw the title.
One of the German Generals commented after the initial theaterical release...words to the effect that the film was an insult to the men of both sides who took part. Mantueffel is his name.
I think the original slippers were silver but they were changed to red to show up more. The storyline in batman changing around from one movie to another does bother me, as does the storyline changing from one x men movie to another.
Sometimes if the casting is really off it is a sign of a bad movie. I would definitely wait and see if a movie with strange casting is worth watching.
Besides the differences in X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins Wolverine to First Class (IMO those two movies should be burned and shelved,) The others really didn't have differences, mainly because Bryan Singer wasn't involved in those two so they had different directors. He was on First Class as a producer which did have the most differences to the other movies and not based on source material and not just Last Stand or Origins which strayed A LOT from the source material but as we saw with X-Men Days of Future Past, any film besides First Class and Days of Future Past are an alternate timeline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiko
It really bugs me that in Captain America The First Avenger American racial attitudes were whitewashed away. Captain Rogers would have been an even stronger character if he was allowed to stand for justice at home as well as against Hitler and Hydra.
Um, the First Avenger was a World War 2 film and there really wasn't integration between whites and blacks in the different battalions at that point. There was one or two black guys in the Howling Commando unit that Captain America created. If the First Avenger was staged in say Afghanistan or Iraq, you would have a point. The issue is that for the time period, it actually works.
I think I would be more upset if it was a story/Characther/actual person I was already familiar with. In general, I don't expect movies/shows/etc. "Based on a True Story" to be by the book, unless it's meant to be a documentary or (auto)biography. I would expect details to be more dramatized because most people may be bored watching the real story. Not everyone is so much interested in history to actually know/care to research the real details. They're not catering to Historians, but to the masses. History lovers will read the actual books and watch the documentaries if they want the real details.
I remember watching Pocahontas and learning about the actual history. It might not be accurate, but I suppose audiences wouldn't have liked the idea of an 11 year old befriending a man in his late twenties, even if that's more accurate. (Speaking of accurate, the writer of the link you posted calls Smith and Rolfe "British" instead of "English." While accurate for those in their homeland today, that term may not have been used until a century later, when England, Scotland and Wales officially became "The Kingdom of Great Britain.")
I'm more slightly annoyed when movies act politically correct for apart from time period—i.e. "The Pirates of the Caribbean" series and Gangster squad. The original "Pirates" didn't feature any African maids/slaves, even though it would have been expected around that time. I also wouldn't have expected that time to have strong minority characthers such a Naomie Harris'. In "Ganster Squad," African American and Mexican cops wouldn't partner work alongside white cops in the 1940s. I suppose you can't appease everyone, however.
I think I would be more upset if it was a story/Characther/actual person I was already familiar with. In general, I don't expect movies/shows/etc. "Based on a True Story" to be by the book, unless it's meant to be a documentary or (auto)biography. I would expect details to be more dramatized because most people may be bored watching the real story. Not everyone is so much interested in history to actually know/care to research the real details. They're not catering to Historians, but to the masses. History lovers will read the actual books and watch the documentaries if they want the real details.
I remember watching Pocahontas and learning about the actual history. It might not be accurate, but I suppose audiences wouldn't have liked the idea of an 11 year old befriending a man in his late twenties, even if that's more accurate. (Speaking of accurate, the writer of the link you posted calls Smith and Rolfe "British" instead of "English." While accurate for those in their homeland today, that term may not have been used until a century later, when England, Scotland and Wales officially became "The Kingdom of Great Britain.")
I'm more slightly annoyed when movies act politically correct for apart from time period—i.e. "The Pirates of the Caribbean" series and Gangster squad. The original "Pirates" didn't feature any African maids/slaves, even though it would have been expected around that time. I also wouldn't have expected that time to have strong minority characthers such a Naomie Harris'. In "Ganster Squad," African American and Mexican cops wouldn't partner work alongside white cops in the 1940s. I suppose you can't appease everyone, however.
Yes it did occur to me that it might look weird to have young pocahontas alone too much with John Smith but then again if done correctly it might not have mattered she didnt actually have to have too many scenes alone with him.
You bring up a good point about political correctness in movies these days. Again I prefer reality. Ever notice there is often a difference in reading a book that takes place in the past, between ones written by the authors who actually lived at that time and ones writing books about the past who live in modern times ? You do get a real sense of what things were like then by reading a book by the author who actually was living then although they may gloss over more controversial subjects.
And do you also think it is more interesting to watch, for instance, a movie filmed in the 1940s vs a movie about the 1940s filmed now?
Yes it did occur to me that it might look weird to have young pocahontas alone too much with John Smith but then again if done correctly it might not have mattered she didnt actually have to have too many scenes alone with him.
You bring up a good point about political correctness in movies these days. Again I prefer reality. Ever notice there is often a difference in reading a book that takes place in the past, between ones written by the authors who actually lived at that time and ones writing books about the past who live in modern times ? You do get a real sense of what things were like then by reading a book by the author who actually was living then although they may gloss over more controversial subjects.
And do you also think it is more interesting to watch, for instance, a movie filmed in the 1940s vs a movie about the 1940s filmed now?
I don't have a problem with "white-washing" in modern movies in modern times but not the past. There is a reason you wouldn't see many African American Howling Commandos fighting along side Captain America against Red Skull and HYDRA or a Mexican American fighting along side Elliot Ness against All Capone. However having a Godzibill with only one Asain-American actor in a major role or a remake like Edeg of Tomorrow/Live. Die. Repeat.
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.
