ok so i watched 300 yesterday and its inspired me to make this thread. 300 was a load of bullsh*t historically but it was very well recieved. i know i'm not alone here when i say i can name atleast 5 things wrong with it. not to mention the stuff that was just weird (hearing about freedom from the king of a heavy slave state etc...). how important is horistorical accuracy in movies to you? i mean movies in general, 300 is just the best example i could of...
im not that big on the history accuracy of movies based off of history, and after looking at what really happen in history, and what happen in the movie, ill say the movie was a decent summary, its a action movie, most peeps dont want all the details, they want all the fighting and killing of each other
It really depends on what the movie is trying to portray and if it is trying to send some kind of message. So I would say this is a movie by movie basis for me. In regards to the poll I fixed it. As of right now there is no way for normal members to edit polls because of the potential abuse.
thanks LK. i guess that i just notice the smalls things too much, like the fact that the Spartans weren't wearing any armour despite being some of the most heavily armoured soldiers thoose days, and the immortals were samurai... apart from thoose things i guess the events were portrayed fairly accurate, a force led by spartans (particulary towards the end) holding of a much larger persian army at Thermopylae... its a cool movie don't get me wrong i liked it, i guess i'm just too smart for my own good
i never saw 300, but i dont really care about historical accuracy, some people are morons, and believe what the movies say
I for one didn't see much problem with 300. The graphical side is really exaggerated and so is the emphasis on Spartans, but the rest of it was at least somewhat accurate. Going back to the topic, I really don't give if a film's historical or not because I just treat those as separate universes not our own. Unless the movie's trying to place an emphasis on history and :no:s, I don't care.
If you want to learn about history read a history book or watch the history channel. Movies are for enjoyment. If the movie is enjoyable then they could have jesus riding a velociraptor while fighting the romans for control of the holy lands and I wouldn't care.
"Quite important" Obviously Hollywood is going to get things wrong, even History text books & History channel get things wrong. We don't know all the facts, it's just the way history is. People also have different views and theory's on various topics, one of the main issues is black history, because of racism a lot of recorded history relating to Africa is false, same goes for Aztecs.
That's because the whole concept of history is a bit of a sham. It's always written by the winners, so you never have a way of knowing what really happened.
Yes. For instance, most of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christian. Most of the stories about George Washington were false (like the one about the tree) although the real stories about him (like him tricking the British into thinking he was going to attack New York so that the French could safely land and tricking the British into thinking he had many more troops than he actually had in Valley Forge through cunning use of misinformation) are more impressive. However, more recently history seems to be written by those who shout the most about something (generally on the news) so that people will believe it to be true and then pass it on to others as fact. For instance, Bill Clinton's foreign policy was based on containing Iran and securing cheap oil for the US. The Taliban was not funded by the US however they were funded by Saudi Arabia and Benazir Bhutto (when she was prime minister of Pakistan). Saddam Hussein was connected to terrorism through his payment of $20,000 to each family of all the Palestinian suicide bombers between 2000-2004. And my personal favorite, in 1998 and 2000 President Clinton was warned about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and it was suggested that he send military aid to the Northern Alliance so that they could drive the Taliban from Afghanistan and disrupt al Qaeda. Condollezza Rice, as Bush's National Security Adviser was given the same warning and suggestion in April 2001 but she did not pay any attention to it. Isn't history just so fun?
