Is Hollywood right to rewrite WW2 history? - Page 2




 
--
 
November 3rd, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
I think if it's not historically inaccurate, they should WARN people that it isn't.
November 3rd, 2004  
Darcia
 
I realy don't think they should. People should know that if it comes out of Hollywood thier is a stronge stronge chance it isn't true.
November 4th, 2004  
Damien435
 
 
I remember watching History vs. Hollywood and they were talking about The Last Samurai, at the end they always ask if they think the movie is history, or hollywood.

Tom Cruise: "Oh, this is definately history, we went to great detail to make the fight scenes accurate."

Historians after watching a clip of Tom Cruise's response:

And then there was a clip Chappelle's Show did on the subject (Keep in mind, this is coming from a black guy who is trying to portray sterotypical black behavior with a humorous tone.): "Once again, another movie I was offended by, this is another attempt by Hollywood to rewrite history to emphasize the white man. You know what movie I wanna see? The Last Black Man on Earth, starring Tom Hanks."
--
November 4th, 2004  
USAFAUX2004
 
 

Topic: Re: Is Hollywood right to rewrite WW2 history?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rufus Excalibur
After Braveheart and the Patrriot brought things to a head, war films such as saving Private Ryan, Memphis Belle and U-571 have shown WW2 from not only a US perspective but distorting the historical accuracy. This is especially so of U-571.

The latest rumour is Tom Cruise as a Battle of Britain American Fighter Ace winning the Autumn 1940 showdown with the Luftwaffe singlehandedly.

Millions of young Brits now believe the US won WW2 by themselves and that the UK/GB had almost nothing to do with it at all.

Appreciate the need to attract US audiences but feel that things are going too far. The War films of the 50's and 60's seemed to be far better balanced or am I looking through rose tinted glasses for a bygone era?

Comments please!
50's and 60's were the glory days after WW2, those films are extremely popular and actually had historical accuracy. Now the movies are made to have a lot of action just to sell better. Modern movies should not count as historical productions
November 4th, 2004  
LIPS
 
 
Yes if its good to watch. Movies are for fun not education.
November 4th, 2004  
USAFAUX2004
 
 
But movies are what shape our culture, I do not want to see a movie in 20 years that tels my kids that the soviets were a nation of 300 million terrorists.
November 4th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Although movies are made primarily for entertainment, you cannot escape the fact that for many people this will be their only version of a particular historical event that they're gonna get. Which is dangerous and a bit sad IMO.
November 4th, 2004  
Darcia
 
When you realy get down to it alot of the battles wich take place now can take weeks upon weeks and today we can attack someone from miles away, basicly making almost no Human Contact if we do so choose. When movies of the Gulf War, and of The Operation Iraq Freedom war are done they will most likly be extremely un-historical. However I realy can't blame them, having a Movie where alot of missiles launch and blow stuff up isn't realy that good.
November 5th, 2004  
USAFAUX2004
 
 
I have nothing against movies where they show airplanes blowing up stuff, but that sonly me
November 5th, 2004  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
I remember watching History vs. Hollywood and they were talking about The Last Samurai, at the end they always ask if they think the movie is history, or hollywood.

Tom Cruise: "Oh, this is definately history, we went to great detail to make the fight scenes accurate."

Historians after watching a clip of Tom Cruise's response:
I wasn't too offended by the Last Samurai. I will compare the movie, like Saving PVT Ryan, to a historical novel. The story itself is fake, the movie is full of historical fact. There was Samurai leader who lead a rebellion against the Emperor. Most of the Samurai forces where killed in a charge against modern artillery.

Most military movies are going to be biased. Most movies that I have seen are made by Americans. So you are going to have an american bias. I do have Bridge on the River Khwae, the English Patient and Battle of Britain. I watched a interesting piece on British veterans say that Bridge on the River Khwae was nothing like the real thing. I guess military movies all over the world have the same problems.

I guess I do not have a big problem with historical movies that have minor inaccuracies. It's good to see an event played out on the tele. People must remember that it's historical entertainment and not historical fact. Plus there is nothing like watching a classic WW2 flick on a rainy day