Historical Inaccuracies In Films...Why???

[Peter Parka]

I really dont get why film and drama makers have to make historical dramas and films, inaccurate. I've just watched nowhere boy and the shit in that is terrible, same with the Tudors which someone started a thread about. There really is no need when most of the time, the history is far more interesting and dosent lead to a bunch of dumb arses thinking that Scots 800 odd years ago lived in hobbit holes and tghe king of England made his nobles shag all the Scottish virgins. The battle of Stiring Bridge in Braveheart won an Oscar but in truth was COMPLETELY inaccurate. the Scots won by a much more interesting guerrilla warfare and you never hear Wallace's co conspirator, Andrew Moray, mentioned, oh but he was so shit he died in this battle!:sarcasm

Oh, and dont even get me started on U-571 where Hollywood insulted brave British soldiers by claiming credit for this.

 

[edgray]

Gladiator was atrocious too, totally inaccurate as to the lives of Gladiators.

I guess reality doesn't make such good films?

 

[Peter Parka]

I guess reality doesn't make such good films?

But it does! This is my biggest problem. Take Stirling Bridge for example...

Braveheart - Some hippie rides around with paint on his face, tells the Scottish to lift their kilts and slap their arses in the English faces, then hold up a load of sharpened branches which kill all the cavalry.

Real Life - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stirling_Bridge

Seriously? Which one is more interesting???

 

[edgray]

yeah more interesting. Especially if they'd have gotten someone else instead of Mel bloody Gibson.

 

[Peter Parka]

yeah more interesting. Especially if they'd have gotten someone else instead of Mel bloody Gibson.

Mel bloody Gibson alwad pisses me off, he really has a thing about painting the English as Richard III type figures. At least he's moved onto the Jews now and given us a rest!:ninja

 

[edgray]

Mel bloody Gibson alwad pisses me off, he really has a thing about painting the English as Richard III type figures. At least he's moved onto the Jews now and given us a rest!:ninja

I read a quote that he actually hates the English... nice.

 

[Peter Parka]

I read a quote that he actually hates the English... nice.

Where was that? Not that it's pretty obvious. For some reason his anti semitism gets more reported on more than his hatred of the English, I guess it seems to be more offensive to hate Jews than it is English, lol,

 

[edgray]

Where was that? Not that it's pretty obvious. For some reason his anti semitism gets more reported on more than his hatred of the English, I guess it seems to be more offensive to hate Jews than it is English, lol,

I don't remember where I saw it, I'll have to look it up. But yeah, odd, isn't it? Some racism is obviously worse than others...

 

[Dana]

because they din't want to do the research. that's why they're movie makers and not philosophers. they slept through social studies.

 

[Zorak]

Gladiator was atrocious too, totally inaccurate as to the lives of Gladiators.

I guess reality doesn't make such good films?

It was pretty accurate as to the lifes of Gladiators I thought, they captured the contrast between their status in the arena, and when out of the arena.
It's just Maximus didn't exist. And the film was a bit lefty with it's portrayal of the Senate as all that is good and true.

Personally it doesn't bother me as to whether a film is historically accurate, especially since history is entirely based around interpretation and the formulating of debate.

Take the King Arthur movie, Arthur was a Roman soldier in that. People claimed it was woefully inaccurate, but the Roman's had been in England for 600-700 years. And since so little is known about King Arthur, there is a strong case to argue that he may have been part Roman at least.
It was still a Clive Owen movie, however, so fucking awful.

 

[dkwrtw]

They Figure that most people don't know their history and they can get away with it, they can change things to make something (at least in their opinion) more interesting than the actual events, or they can just not research properly and most people won't even know that what they're seeing is completely false.

 

[Zorak]

because they din't want to do the research. that's why they're movie makers and not philosophers. they slept through social studies.

Philosophy, Social studies?

You do know that people who study History take a class called History right?

 

[Abcinthia]

It annoys me. I think Histoy is so interesting, I've been passionate about it since I was a young child and I find it so interesting and wonderful and I don't see why film-makers need to change things around.

 

[dkwrtw]

It annoys me. I think Histoy is so interesting, I've been passionate about it since I was a young child and I find it so interesting and wonderful and I don't see why film-makers need to change things around.

I feel the same way, too bad it's never going to change.

 

[edgray]

It was pretty accurate as to the lifes of Gladiators I thought, they captured the contrast between their status in the arena, and when out of the arena.
It's just Maximus didn't exist. And the film was a bit lefty with it's portrayal of the Senate as all that is good and true.

Personally it doesn't bother me as to whether a film is historically accurate, especially since history is entirely based around interpretation and the formulating of debate.

Take the King Arthur movie, Arthur was a Roman soldier in that. People claimed it was woefully inaccurate, but the Roman's had been in England for 600-700 years. And since so little is known about King Arthur, there is a strong case to argue that he may have been part Roman at least.
It was still a Clive Owen movie, however, so fucking awful.

As it turns out, more recent research and investigation shows that Gladiators were the sportsmen of their day - not slaves or prisoners at all. They were akin to today's rock stars - they were celebrities who trianed hard, fought hard and enjoyed a very luxurious life because of it. So yeah, the whole film was based on massive inaccuracies. It's also thought that the deaths of Gladiators was around 1 in 10.

 

[Zorak]

As it turns out, more recent research and investigation shows that Gladiators were the sportsmen of their day - not slaves or prisoners at all. They were akin to today's rock stars - they were celebrities who trianed hard, fought hard and enjoyed a very luxurious life because of it. So yeah, the whole film was based on massive inaccuracies. It's also thought that the deaths of Gladiators was around 1 in 10.

That's not true at all. Where are you getting that?
It is true that you got the occasional free man becoming a gladiator, but 90%+ were slaves.

The celebrity status they received in the arena was already well documented.

And remember, there is a difference between a Gladiator, and someone like Commodus (played by Joaquin Phoenix in the film) who did compete for sport in combat. Afterall, he was assassinated by his wrestling coach.

 

[edgray]

That's not true at all. Where are you getting that?
It is true that you got the occasional free man becoming a gladiator, but 90%+ were slaves.

It was from a documentary I watched on the BBC some years back, had some leading historians going into detail about the lives of Gladiators, and how they knew they weren't slaves at all. They were highly trained and highly skilled fighters, and had a great knowledge of human anatomy, and even had very precise diets to improve the toughness of their skin against blows.

So, Zorak vs Leading historians? Hmm... tough call

 

[Zorak]

It was from a documentary I watched on the BBC some years back, had some leading historians going into detail about the lives of Gladiators, and how they knew they weren't slaves at all. They were highly trained and highly skilled fighters, and had a great knowledge of human anatomy, and even had very precise diets to improve the toughness of their skin against blows.

So, Zorak vs Leading historians? Hmm... tough call

Actually historians are on my side

You might be thinking of the Verites, or the Samnites; Gladiators drafted for warfare, and thus under the rules of the Marian Reforms were regarded freemen. But even they were slaves orginally.
Of course Gladiators were well trained, they trained every day. In fact in my original post I made the point how the Gladiator film captured the contrasts of life in the Arena and life out of it. In the arena, they were famous - but out of it. It was an extremely harsh existance, worse even than being the lowest ranking Legionnaire.

It doesn't matter how well trained a gladiator is, it matters even less how popular he is. He is a slave because he cannot take or buy his own freedom.

 

[edgray]

Actually historians are on my side

You might be thinking of the Verites, or the Samnites; Gladiators drafted for warfare, and thus under the rules of the Marian Reforms were regarded freemen. But even they were slaves orginally.
Of course Gladiators were well trained, they trained every day. In fact in my original post I made the point how the Gladiator film captured the contrasts of life in the Arena and life out of it. In the arena, they were famous - but out of it. It was an extremely harsh existance, worse even than being the lowest ranking Legionnaire.

It doesn't matter how well trained a gladiator is, it matters even less how popular he is. He is a slave because he cannot take or buy his own freedom.

I'll have to give this one to you Zorak.

It seems as though at first all Gladiators were slaves used to fight criminals. Then came volunteers and those that bought their freedom, though some historians refute that entirely.

It's an interesting subject, now I'm looking into it, there's a whole page about the inaccuracies on the wikipedias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_deviations_in_Gladiator_(2000_film)

But it seems like their life was a mix of harsh discipline combined with being well cared for, as you'd expect, they represented a significant investment for their masters.

 

[itsmeJonB]

Because it's a movie made for entertainment purposes. Made to be more dramatic to captivate the imaginations of the audience as to not depict how boring the even may had really panned out.
Entertainment is just that, entertainment, not a history lesson.
If you want an accurate history lesson sit through a University lecture and let the directors do their jobs