Is Hollywood right to rewrite WW2 history? - Page 6




 
--
 
December 21st, 2004  
beardo
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7

Also, while I agree that it isn't Hollywood's duty to teach history, I think it would be a good idea if they had a large disclaimer at the begining of every movie that at least points out that it is a work of fiction and doesn't represent the truth. Maybe even suggest some books that do show the truth.
Good idea
December 22nd, 2004  
Charge 7
 
 
Hey Redcoat, it wasn't me who posted that bit about Mel Gibson. It was Guaripa.

Re: the Scots at Stirling Bridge. Well if you get your butt kicked I guess you can call it an "ambush". Actually it was just a change in tactics. All armies everywhere have the right to do that. You suggest that the Scots did something nefarious and as someone of 3/4 Scots lineage I take offense at that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though that you didn't intend that.
December 22nd, 2004  
Guaripa
 
Hey RedCoat

Thats why I said several individuals not incidents. and Yes as I stated Hollywood is bais.

Jason Isaacs who palyed the Colonel Tavington, excellent portayal

Mel running towards the Reds with the flag, it never happend.

--
March 23rd, 2010  
KnightTemplar
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
The great danger is that many people with little knowledge of WW2 will simply assume that the movie they are watching is based on true facts.
I agree completely!! Most recently this has been shown in my Police Science classes, where several of the students have gotten all their information on how Police Science is from CSI and the like.

It seems we have 3 options:
1) resign ourselves to the fact that their will be people that can not separate fact from fiction, like this guy
2) focus on teaching the difference between fact and fiction (maybe like in schools or, God forbid, parents teaching their children)
3) remove anything that is not 100% fact from society
March 23rd, 2010  
lljadw
 
Maybe the question should be :is Hollywood right to falsify (willingly or unwillingly )WW II history ?
March 23rd, 2010  
KnightTemplar
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
Maybe the question should be :is Hollywood right to falsify (willingly or unwillingly )WW II history ?
I take it Inglourious Basterds, Valkyrie, Miracle at St. Anna, Pearl Harbor, Schindler's List, The Tuskegee Airmen, Hogan's Heroes, The Final Countdown, A Bridge Too Far, Patton, Catch-22, The Dirty Dozen, and more should all be gotten rid of because none of them are 100% accurate. For that matter, why stop at WWII? Why not get rid of M.A.S.H., there were a lot of inaccuracies in that. For Iraq you have The Kingdom, The Hurt Locker, The Marine, The Men Who Stare at Goats, Green Zone, Stop-Loss, Brothers. And why stop at Hollywood, what about Horatio Hornblower, Days of Glory, Yamato, The Last Drop, The Ninth Day, Attack on the Iron Coast, The Night of the Generals, The Sound of Music, and more?

how about instead of complaining that entertainment isn't history you let entertainment be just that, entertainment and history come from schools, libraries, museums, ect. But if we must make Hollywood produce nothing but 100% accurate movies it should apply to ALL entertainment, TV, Movies, Music, Games (dear lord we can't have the ruthless and vicious Ghandi enslaving the peaceful Mongols in Sid Meier's Civilization now can we?) For that matter, we can't have sci-fi because people will think there actually are Jedi's and Cylons and Romulans and that we really can travel to other stars in a matter of minutes.

March 24th, 2010  
LeEnfield
 
 
At one time they used to put on the film credits, "that any incidents involving real life people was purely coincidental". Now they could now say "that any thing resembling the truth or history of these events is an error on our part"
March 24th, 2010  
KnightTemplar
 
 
That is the problem with society today. No one can think for themselves and need warning labels and disclaimers on everything. You can sue McDonald's for having hot coffee and win, making them have to label the cups with "Caution: Hot" but if they sold you a cold cup of coffee you would complain. On a screw driver set there is this warning label (caution: warning label may be found to be offensive to some). So I have decided we can just make one catch all warning label stating "Warning: Do not perform any stupid or dangerous acts in association with this product." I say all this to say, if we need disclaimers in the credits of all entertainment stating "any thing resembling history, science, life lessons, political truths, geography, proper grammar, math, technology, medicine, law, or intelligence of humans (I'm sure I have missed quite a few things) is completely fabricated and should not be taken as fact" then the human race is beyond help and we might as well kill ourselves now.

The longer I live the more I have to agree with Cole's Axiom which is a sad commentary on the state of the world.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge 7
Also, while I agree that it isn't Hollywood's duty to teach history, I think it would be a good idea if they had a large disclaimer at the begining of every movie that at least points out that it is a work of fiction and doesn't represent the truth. Maybe even suggest some books that do show the truth.
Should such disclaimers be on titles such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Avatar, Godzilla, X-men, District 9, 2012, ect? If not, why do they get a free pass with that and not history? Are people really that retarded?
March 24th, 2010  
George
 
This highlights the failure of the school system in general & history specificly. Then there's The History Channel running fictional drivel like "Dancing with wolves". HC ran a show about the real Braveheart. It opened up withthe director saying he didn't let the facts get in the way of a good story, so now people think William Wallace fathered a King of England.
March 24th, 2010  
rattler
 
 
Not Hollywood, but an imprssive movie: "The Bridge" ("Die Brücke", 1959; telling quite accurately the situation my father lived when a 17 yrs old kid officer in the last year of war); Hollywood: "Rules of Engagement", anyone?

Hollywood and not, but both both entertaining and educating (from my POV):

I have had more than one discussion about RoE´s with my wife (who is a gung ho hothead perfectly prepared to go guerilla whenever Spain should be threatened by anybody, Franco education... ) and kids (as there is no obligatory mil since a few years they did not have to go and won´t think about it for too little money, they are actually shaking their heads when hearing about me or my dad, or my wife´s dad striving to go at one time; probably rightly so, I won´t interfere, just tell my part when asked; they almost cannot imagine the situation the guys in the film encounter themselves in, despite the fact that we (Spain) have so many guys in A´stan atm, some friends of them...);

Where my wife and sons are all getting really worked up when the Colonel (?) gets indicted, I feel (and argue, rather futile) it shows more or less the way a situation like the one described in the movie should be dealt with (not all hushed down, trust justice - more the European than the US in this respect, sorry... ), fairly realistically at least in this respect for me (and that the ambassador or the National Security Advisor would let him hang out to dry is also not too far away from reality, my guess).

That most of the scenes in recent (after ´75´s) war movies have nothing to do with reality, one thing. But then, you have (like my kids) folks that have just a rough idea on how things work in the military as they never had to or have to go (they relate to stuff mostly from what I or my father told them, the other GF was dead before they saw the planet, the GMs are all about the ´36 civil war in Spain which is a story all by itself as it was dividing families into friends and enemies), then it becomes questions about "what would you do if you were there" refering to the situation displayed, and hence a valid question that requests a valid answer.

My take always has been (when my kids were young: My youngest was born in ´89, how can I explain to her "The Wall" when even for me it was just a kind of "allegorical expression" until I saw it in an - obligatory in the late 60s - school excursion and realized it was actually a real and true wall, and it was of concrete) to explain what is Hollywood, what with respect to it is just the equivalent to a fairy tale, and what is (of cause only from my POV) the things they will have to worry about if ever in combat like situations from whatever angle or aspect.

LL: You gotta relativate movies by integrating them into your experiences, whatever others later make of them, their problem.

This latter part is commonly referred to as "education", and it is where may of us fail: Many of us adults want our kids to think as we do, we do not teach them to doubt everything anymore, as did our parents that lived a few wars.

Rattler