|
|
#1 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
We've all seen plenty of them, some have gone to great lengths to stay as true to the history as possible, others have forgone complete accuracy for the sake of action, and still others seem to have forgotten partway in that there was even a historical event that the movie was based on.
My question is this: "Should a filmmaker be obliged to keep a movie 'based on a historical event" as accurate as possible?" I mean...at any time you are free to make a movie about (to use a current example) an ancient battle wherein a small number of troops held off a much larger number of attackers in a glorious, epic battle for the ages, in which case you can make absolutely anything happen that you like. However, to me, if you're going to go ahead and make it the Greeks and Persians, and make it the battle of Thermopylae, then you are -obliged- to keep your storyline as true to the actual events as you possibly can. If you don't find the history appealing enough, don't base it on the history. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
is against custom titles
|
No.
Freedom of speech and whatnot; they can do really whatever they want to do, and so long as there's a hint of a relation they can still say "based on" whatever. Take United 93. Part of it was very strictly adhering to what happened, while the other part was pure conjecture. It was still based on the historical event. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
it's not a freedom of speech issue to me, you can make any movie you want about anything you want, and I'm in support of that, but if you're going to make a movie -about- X, it just seems to me that you should really make an effort to actually make your movie -be- about X
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
The Amityville Horror was based on a true story.
So was The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Notice: both stories were 1000% sensationalized and every aspect of the true story was changed for the films. To be blunt, "based on" means jack crap. Obviously there are certain movies which may be entirely historical, but for every one which is entirely faithful, you get 50,000 others like Titanic or World Trade Center. ps wasn't the film 300 actually based on a graphic novel or something? Seems like your disappointment at lack of historical accuracy should be directed at the artist of that comic.
__________________
Last edited by Afrobean; 04-8-2007 at 06:09 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Milford, Connecticut
Posts: 339
|
whatever makes money works
im not saying all directors are like that, but if you can take an event and slightly change it to put in action and ****, and that is what will sell, then that's what you might do directors also have the leeway to say what THEY think happened, and how they interpret it. again, freedom of speech |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I'm not sure why people keep mentioning freedom of speech like I was somehow trying to say that they are -forbidden- to make a movie based on historical events.
All I've been saying is "You can make a movie about that stuff ANYWAY without claiming it was a rendition of specific evenst, so why claim it's a rendition of specific events if you can't be bothered to get even -some- of it historically accurate?" |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
is against custom titles
|
Well, you said "obliged", and my first thought was that you insinuated "required", which indeed WOULD make it a free speech issue. Now that I think about it, though it reads more like a professional obligation.
But anyway, what does "based on" mean? Hell, any movie that features a few standing against many could legitimately be "based on" the battle of Thermopylae. Surely you wouldn't require every single movie with that theme to be historically correct. O Brother, Where Art Thou was based on a Shakespearean play (The Tempest?), but didn't claim it outright to my knowledge. Pretty much every movie can claim to be "based on" something in the past, probably historical. There shouldn't be any obligation to make the movie historical, though. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
O Brother Where Art Thou was based on Homer's Odyssey, and didn't directly claim it, but was obviously intended to be seen as such. (And also was a fantastic movie) But was additionally a fictional work based on a fictional work that was probably intended as a fantastical myth version of something that probably happened.
And I see the point about how easy it is to say something is "based on" something else, but I'm not saying that every story archetype has to be expressed by a faithful reproduction of a historical event in that archetype, I just mean "If you're going to -say- it is X, then you have a professional obligation to actually be true to X" Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
is against custom titles
|
My bad. I know there was some movie recently made that was based on a Shakespearean play, though... (Not Romeo and Juliet).
Quote:
--Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
It really just boils down to my dissatisfaction as a historian with the way that people slap "based on such-and-such" or in the case of something like 300, seem to blatantly say "This movie is of the battle of Thermopylae" onto all sorts of things, then don't even make the most basic attempts to make their movie historically accurate.
I mean, I'm not here to quibble about how they used sturrups on the horses in gladiator, when they didn't use stirrups there at that time, or other tiny little details like that, it's when they just seem to completely ignore the entire historical record outright because it's not "hollywood" enough. I just think its irresponsable to directly reference historical events, and then portray them in a wildly inaccurate way. It has lead to a very wide-spread ignorance of what many world historical times and places were actually like, because the population at large only gets their education in history from things like movies and television telling them "this is how it was." |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 216
|
Film makers should NOT be obliged to be 100% historically accurate. Movies are meant to entertain, not educate. If the director wants to add something to the movie (ie. a 7ft. monster) to increase the entertainment value at the cost of historical accuracy, then so be it.
If you want to learn about a historical event then watch a documentary on the History channel or read about it in a text book. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 | |
|
Hookers and Blow
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
is against custom titles
|
Your 300 analogy fails anyway because, like Afro said, the movie 300 was based on a graphic novel. It was VERY true to that on which it was based, so you should be applauding it!
So, do you think graphic novels should now be historically accurate? --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Hookers and Blow
|
You know Guido, I bet Sin City was based on the organized crime periods of the 1920's and 1930's too. =P
/sarcasm
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
I just feel that if you're going to apply the label of being based on non-fiction, you owe it to the history you intend to profit from to at least -try- to represent that history accurately. Don't want to? Then don't apply the label of basing it on non-fiction. Quote:
Quote:
There are plenty of ways to make an "Ancient World" era war movie that don't require picking an existing set of peoples, battles and conflicts to make a useful plot. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#16 | |
|
Hookers and Blow
|
Quote:
If you knew anything about Ancient Greek fighting, it was customary for the unit to form either a phalanx or stand shoulder to shoulder holding their shields to cover the man beside them. Jutting from each shield was the main weapon of choice for the hoplite: the spear. Since the Persian army was lightly armored, when they surged forward against the Greeks, they either ran themselves on the spears or were stabbed trying to push the Greeks back. There was things called Battle Pulses, in which the Persians would try to push the Greeks for about 5 minutes than back away and do it over and over again. It wasn't a test of fighting ability, it was a test of endurance and who could withstand the most pressure from the opposing force. Now would you rather see Persians run into spear from shields for 2 hours, or would you rather see what "300" did: make kick-ass fighting scenes in which the above tactic was rarely used? America says "300's" way.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 | ||
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 216
|
Quote:
Quote:
The point is, if they made 300 the way you wanted it, it wouldn't be as entertaining. If it's not as entertaining it won't bring in as much money. Money is the bottom line. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#18 | ||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Quote:
All I've said, the entire point of my argument was this: If you -are- going to make a movie based on history, don't trample all over that history in the name of making a few more bucks. Invent your own warring countries, your own generals and your own battle, and you can have one side bust out lasers halfway through, and I'll support that completely. I just object to someone taking historical events and butchering them when they don't need to. Most people have -no- idea who Leonidas was, so if you've no intention of portraying Leonidas accurately, why bother naming him Leonidas? Name him something else, and do the same with the other characters, settings, and so forth and suddenly you aren't inaccurately portraying a historical event, you're just presenting your own take on a possible situation that could have occured in the time period. Speculative historical fiction is a wonderful genre, and I read/watch/etc it extensively. My sole objection is: If you're going to use historical events and characters, use them properly and accurately. If you don't want to do that, then don't use historical events and characters. |
||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|