BS: Ten films that got it wrong

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: john f weldon
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 12:40 PM

I thought I posted this one...

Forrest Gump

...?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 01:03 PM

"since when has fair and balanced, right down the middle been entertaining?"

Since ever for me, Jack. The movies I most appreciate are those that show the humanity of the protagonists on BOTH sides of a war or some other struggle in an equal fashion. Their deaths and their sufferings are then far more poignant and tragic and carry far more emotional impact...and they remind us of everyone's common, shared humanity.

That's far more moving than your standard good guys/bad guys nonsense that you see all the time.

A good guys/bad guys story is fine, though, for a fictional story that just gives us some lively action and suspense...that's basically just for fun. I've got no problem with that.

But when I see a film that is purporting to show us something about history...I do not want to see one side demonized just so we have a "bad guy" to detest. It's stupid, and it's usually inaccurate. It gives no respect to people.

A story where you end up understanding and caring about the people on both sides of a battle can just break your heart...and from that, you learn something.

You don't learn something from just watching another exercise in..."Oh, aren't they all evil? Now let's watch them all get killed and cheer when they do." That's just priming people to go out and fight the next stupid war is what it is.

Here's a movie that did show both sides quite fairly, I think: The recent Alamo film a few years back. It was by far the best depiction yet of that episode. Crockett was acted brilliantly in that film...not a cardboard hero, but a man who wished he could escape the burden of his popular legend, yet was willing to rise to the occasion on behalf of those around him. Santa Ana was shown as what he was...an extremely arrogant autocrat, somewhat out of touch with reality...but many of the other Mexicans in his staff and his army were shown with real sympathy by the screenplay...like the ones who pleaded with Santa Ana to spare Crockett's life after the battle...like the brave Mexican general who crossed his arms proudly and waited to die as the lines broke around him at San Jacinto. That movie honored both sides and treated them as human beings. I like to see that in a movie.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 01:21 PM

Another movie that showed both sides fairly:

"Son of the Morning Star" (a biography of George Custer)

Because it showed both sides fairly, it was by far the best film ever about the Custer episode and the Battle of the Little Big Horn. You could see how his own recklessness led him eventually to disaster, and you could see his various character flaws...as well as his strengths, but the whole movie was not a setup just to make you detest George Armstrong Custer...which is what most of them have been since the 60's.

Before the 60's, of course, they made movies in which history was grossly rewritten to totally whitewash Custer and in which Indians served only as multiple moving targets on a firing range. The one with Errol Flynn was a classic among those...and it was good rousing entertainment, unquestionably, like all the films Flynn did...but it was absolute tripe as history.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Bee
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 02:06 PM

Some 'historical' movies I just won't watch because I know they'll annoy me with glaring inaccuracies about things I actually have studied. Others, I'll put up with for whatever redeeming qualities they may have (like Denzel Washington, fer example).

I confess to being overly eyerollious when watching American made movies in which the Noble American Saves The World Single Handedly - with a girlfriend. Canadian snobbery, no doubt.

And, most damning... I really liked Waterworld and The Postman!

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 02:27 PM

"Eyerollious." Absolutely brilliant, Bee!

I saw the television production of the Andersonville trial with William Shatner (way back). I thought Bill actually did a pretty good job! Up until then, I hadn't seen him in anything but "Star Trek" and one episode of "The Twilight Zone." Since "Andersonville," it's been kinda downhill. . . .

Yeah, Rapaire, swingin' on chandeliers, running up and down stairs, slipping on carpets, tripping over furniture, and tightrope walking along balcony railings are all essential techniques of swordplay—for movie actors (your maitre d'armes didn't teach you all this!?? Well, there goes a potential acting career!). Every now and then you spot and actor who maybe actually took a fencing lesson or two (stage fencing) when in drama school (if they actually went to a drama school). But trying to work in a little good swordplay while you're hanging onto a curtain with your teeth and swinging outside of a window three stories above a cobblestone street is not real easy to do.

The villain, at this point, realizes that he cannot prevail against your brilliantly conceived parries, so he slashes the curtain (especially clever of him when he does this with a French small-sword that has no cutting edge), sending you hurtling to the street below with the piece of curtain still clutched in your teeth, to land in a cart full of hay that just happened to be passing by. Just a temporary set-back. You leap out of the hay cart and bound up the stairs to have another go at the villain.

(Jeez, that's not bad! I might just turn my hand to screenwriting!)

With the exception of the duel scene in "Monsieur Beaucare" with Bob Hope in the title role (supposed to be a complete farce and a vehicle for Hope to clown it up), probably the most "over the top" movie duel scene was in "Scaramouche," between Stewart Granger and Mel Ferrer.

The movie bore only the vaguest resemblance to Rafael Sabatini's novel, which was one of the Sabatini novels that got me interested in fencing in the first place (I read it in high school). Sabatini's novels are so well and accurately researched that the background in Scaramouche of the lead-up to the French Revolution also got me very interested in history. The character portrayed by Granger was far different from the André-Louis Moreau that I knew, and although the movie was a spectacular romp, it was pretty sad compared to what it could have been. But that's Hokeywood.

Don Firth

P. S. I saw a pretty good duel scene in the Seattle Repertory Theater's production of "Hamlet" a few years back:   the sword-and-dagger match between Hamlet and Laertes in the final act. The actors brought it off very convincingly without a lot of gratuitous swashbuckling*. The Seattle Rep apparently has a pretty good fight coach.

*Swashbuckling = swash from the neck up, buckling from the knees down.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 02:51 PM

In the movie "Excalibur" (1981), they were wearing full suits of plate armor rather than chain mail. This kind of armor didn't come into wide use until about 500 years after the period being portrayed.

Great music, though. From "Carmina Burana" by Karl Orff.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 02:53 PM

Sometimes, though, the inaccuracies detract so much from the film that it's impossible to just sit back and enjoy the entertainment part of the film. Especially when accuracy wouldn't cost any more or change the plotline.

Alas, some people actually DO get their history from movies and believe everything they see on television, read in a magazine (or newspaper) or see on the internet. They'll never learn critical analysis nor do they want to. Some are like my mother (pushing 80) and believe anything someone in authority (especially male) says -- doctors, teachers, clergy...politicians, fer-pete's-sake.

Linn

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 03:01 PM

Geez, "Excaliber"! Uther Pendragon made love while wearing his armor.

Just finished rewatching "Ladyhawke" (which I enjoy for the cinematography and the wonderful horses) while Curmudgeon curmudged about the fantasy armor (metalicized bubble wrap?) and fantasy weapons...and the fact that Matthew Broderick made it through the sewers with clean clothes, clean face and didn't encounter a single turd. I did point out to Tom that it's FANTASY

Oh, and Michelle Pfeiffer had new clothes every night (which we never saw flutter down from the parapet when she made her escape by returning to the form of a hawk).

Linn

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 03:21 PM

I didn't watch the show all that consistently, but at least in one episode of "Babylon 5," I saw a small space ship (fighter craft type) fire its small attitude jets and rotate, pointing it's nose in another direction, but it kept going in the same direction it had been going, moving sideways relative to its attitude, even though it did have airfoils (the ship was designed for both space and in-atmosphere flying). It didn't actually change its direction of travel until the pilot fired the main engines.

Bloody amazing!! They got it right!! Newton must have sat up in his grave and blinked in amazement.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 04:00 PM

Yeah Babylon 5 did get some of the physics right. They didn't have gravity in any craft that wasn't spinning.

But they did have all those "magic" super-aliens, and of course "hyperspace" But ya gotta sacrifice something for the sake of drama. You couldn't have much interstellar interaction if they had to use light sails or hydrogen ramjets and the diplomatic junkets were 160,000 year round trips.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 05:04 PM

Jack, a bit of thread drift.

Some of the recent writings of theoretical physicists such as Michio Kaku (Hyperspace and Parallel Worlds) keep science fiction aficionados such as myself panting after the notion that some manner of faster-than-light interstellar travel might not be totally impossible.

Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, in books like The Mote in God's Eye and sequels, had a pretty interesting method of FTL travel with their "Alderson points." Find the Alderson point near a massive body such as a star, and with the proper gizmo in your engine compartment, you could punch the button and transfer instantaneously to the Alderson point near another star (the transition left you a feeling a bit sick, dizzy, and disoriented for a few minutes, but you recovered with no apparent ill-effects).

But within a given planetary system, you'd have to slog along with hydrogen ramjets, light sails, or other "conventional" propulsion systems. They even justified aerodynamic space ship design by positing that most main-sequence stars would have a planetary gas giant (lots of hydrogen in its atmosphere) in their proximity, and they could use it as a refueling station, skimming through its atmosphere with the jet intakes agape.

You'd be in deep doo-doo though if the Alderson point were inside the corona of the star, such as a red giant or blue giant.

Of course, all of this takes place a couple thousand years in the future. . . .

Jerry and Larry hatched this up over a large supply of beer with a physicist friend of theirs name Alderson, who said he had the figures to at least indicate that there may be some such point near a massive body, but Jerry (an old drinking buddy of mine from back in the 60s) was a bit fuzzy about whether or not he thought there might be anything to it. Good story gimmick, though.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Bee
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 05:21 PM

Damn it, Don, I'm starting to notice that you know or have met far too many of the people that exist in the zone bubble of 'famous people I personally have taken notice of, therefore recognize their names'. (A zone bubble because there are giant-gas-planet sized zone bubbles of famous people that everyone else seems to have heard of, of whom I am only able to look blank and repeat "Who?")

Yes, I read far too much science fiction starting about ten. I had a beautiful friend who had no interest in reading anything at all. Her dad had a monumental collection of sci-fi and fantasy, starting with all the pulp Amazings and F&SF and Astounding and so on, every Ace Double ever printed, and stacks of everything else. He used to hand me about forty pounds of paperbacks every Sunday after church.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 05:23 PM

Don, Harlan Ellison was an adviser on Babylon 5. He's always complain about explosions in space going 'BOOM' because there was no air to carry the sound. He found out they DO make a noise, just not the big one you hear in a lot of movies/TV shows.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Charley Noble
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 06:15 PM

Here's one that got it right, a German World War 2 film called "The Bridge" in 1959. Here's a link to a summary: Click here!

I first saw it while in college in the early 1960's and it may have provided me some insight on what war might really be like.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 06:30 PM

To my mind the best SF film ever was the David Lynch version of 'Dune'.

Yes, I know that it was universally panned at the time it came out but it's very weird, has got great visual flair and is an homage to Herbert's original book. I also feel that it's a genuine SF fan's film - not just a soap opera or thriller with great bleeding chunks of genre SF stuck on with wall-paper paste - as most TV and movie 'Sci-Fi' appears to be.

I seem to remember that, at the time it came out (mid 80s?), Harlan Ellison claimed to have been banned from from the press screenings (or whatever they're called) because the studio knew that he would LIKE it. He suggested that this was because the film took so long to make that the studio management changed part way through. The new management couldn't bear to see something made by the old management succeed - so they only invited critics who they knew would hate it and give it poor reviews.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: freightdawg
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 06:31 PM

Little Hawk,

According to one of your earlier posts, you must have loved "Das Boot." I don't think I've seen you mention it in this thread. Powerful, powerful movie about a U-Boat from the German side, and by the end of the movie when the boat is finally destroyed (just after reaching its berth) you actually feel agony for the German sailors.

Best war movie I've seen, hands down.

And Victor, (or anyone!) no one has said what was wrong with Apollo 13. Did you want the astronauts to die? What's the problem? Enquiring minds want to know!

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 06:50 PM

Apollo 13 saw the Hollywood Hype Machine go into overdrive. Sorry I don't do the G.W. Bush hand on heart stuff. Maybe it suited you.

Accurate enough account of the incident, but well milked on the tear in eye stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 07:04 PM

Don

Talk about getting it right!
Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle as a writing team are my favorite science fiction authors. Lucifer's Hammer was brilliant, "The Post Man, in my opinion, was a cheap unauthorized ripoff of a small part of the brilliant novel..

I'm quite familiar with the Alderson points and have read both of them describe the theory. I hope I don't embarrass you by pointing out that according to "A Mote in God's Eye" red giants don't have coronas. And indeed the exploration team used and Alderson point within a Red Giant to transit into the Mote, which became an essential plot point for the book in that the properties of the Red Giant enabled the blockade which prevented the war of extermination of the Moties.

Of course their ships could only travel within the Sun with the help of the radiation field which I now forget the name of. Was it a "Sinclair Field?" Larry and Jerry loved Scottish engineers even more than Rodenberry did.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 07:08 PM

I'd have to count "Apollo 13" and "The Right Stuff" as two movies that pretty much got it right. Of course the source material was brilliant.

On the other hand. "A Beautiful Mind" sacrificed a lot of truth for the story, all in honor of creating a more sympathetic hero.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Charley Noble
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 08:46 PM

"Das Boot" was indeed another movie that got it right.

Loved "Ladyhawke" and never worried about its reality.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: The Walrus
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 09:04 PM

I was amused by the title of this thread - I can't think of many films that have "got it right" (there must be some somewhere).

W

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 09:05 PM

As a fella with a bit of a background that I don't talk much about, I always crack up when I see the Rambo movies, and all those spawned by it, with the huge toadsticker with all the little gizmo's in it. When I walk into a surplus store and I see these (again, as a result of the movie) and the GI Joe wannabees with them strapped on, I usually chuckle. The blades we carried in those days were usually one of a couple depending on what we were doing. The issue blade looked like a streamlined Kbar, with some significant differences in terms of salt water immersion, edge holding abilities, ability to cut different ropes and cables, ability to be hammered and split things,reflection, etc. But it had to retain the lightweight ability for in close fighting. Quite frankly, many of us carried an additional blade for the "in close" work that was a Fairbairn Sykes or modeled on one. There is, quite frankly, no blade that is better for up close and personal jobs than that one. The Brits get the prize. This thing was designed for the Brit Commandos in WWII, and has never been improved on. One shot down beside the clavicle, and a good rocking motion will sever exactly what one needs severed and end the fight very quickly.

The original Rambo dealt well with an issue that needed to be dealt with, and his skills were pretty accurate, but the knife just always makes me chuckle.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 10:32 PM

Yeah, "Das Boot" was one of the finest war movies of all time. "The Bridge" was also very good.

The Germans tend to make exceedingly good war movies, because they lost the two world wars. That results in them treating the subject of war seriously as what it really is...an enormous tragedy for all concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: autolycus
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 05:58 AM

JUst heard from an art expert on the beeb, that Michaelangelo stood on planks just below the ceiling when doing the Sistine Chapel.

So those films (never mind jokes and cartoons) having him painting it while lying on his back are - how shall I put it - wrong.

Historically, factually, wrong.


Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 07:21 AM

Jeri - thanks for clearing that up... I've always wondered why, if in the vacuum of space, 'no-one can hear you scream', explosions come over loud and clear!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: alanabit
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:52 AM

LH - Dominique Horwitz's "Stalingrad" deserves an honourable mention too.
I have just finished watching the DVD set of "Band of Brothers", which I had only previously seen bits of (dubbed) on German TV. For me, that also made war look like the horrible tragedy it is. The men, who did all that, are in their final days now. I am quite sure that no film can fully convey that experience, but I am glad that there are people, who are willing to make the effort.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 12:13 PM

To shift gears I will suggest a charming little biographical film called 84 Charing Cross Road, though by reading a blurb about the book itself, it looks like fiction crept into this movie as well. The film includes the war years, but the book seems to start several years after WWII.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Skivee
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 01:09 PM

JFK- People treat it like an evenhanded documentary that exposes stuff HIDDEN FROM YOU BY THE DARK FORCES OF THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT, or the mob, or Castro, or NASA, or the Boys Scouts, or a bunch of right-wings gay guys in New Orleans!!!!!!
Stone changed facts and invented others to make the conspiracy theories look better.
He used psuedo-documentary format while showing his "facts". By this, I mean that he shot certain scenes using grainy film and "that damned shakey-cam" to make images that he spun out of whole chothe look like it was shot at the time...that the film you saw was authentic. An example is the shot with the railroad overpass.
His "foreward and back to the left" to support the second gunman theory speech was very effective as cinema, but factually wrong. There is NOTHING in the way that Kennedy slumped after the headshot tht shows he was hit from front right (the grassy knoll) If he was, his skull would have been blown out on the left side instead of the front right. All his skull and brain injuries were consistant with a shot to the rear right of the skull.
The famed "magic bullet" arguement is a willfull misinterpretation of an illustrator's shortening the path of the bullet so that the illustration would fit within the format of the image. Kennedy was sitting higher and to the rear right of Connoly, on a jump seat that sat him higher than the regular seatting. When the shot elements are lned up as the were that day, there is no squigle in the tragectory. Nova has done an excellent job debunking Stone's chicanery.
The big speech at the end of the film was not given by Garrison (Kostner). Garrison wasn't even in the courtromm when it was given by one of his staff.
Occum's razor occassionally needs sharpening.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 02:17 PM

O.k., here's some commentary on the topic from one of the creators, not movies, but Showtime cable TV. The key quote (for those who don't read all of this):

. . . when you consider the historical facts that "The Tudors" have played fast and loose with. And Michael Hirst, the show's creator and writer, will defend every single decision.

"Showtime commissioned me to write an entertainment, a soap opera, and not history," said Mr. Hirst, taking a break in an office at Ardmore Studios, near Dublin. "And we wanted people to watch it."

It [also] seems there have been practical moviemaking reasons for [some of] the misrepresentations. [etc.]


The Royal Life (Some Facts Altered)
By ANITA GATES
Published: March 23, 2008, New York Times

For a guy playing Henry VIII, Jonathan Rhys Meyers was looking very skinny in his jeans, relaxing in a trailer on the Irish set of Showtime's steamy period drama "The Tudors." The series, which critics could take or leave but many viewers are eating up (the costumes! the sets! the sex scenes!), returns for its second season next Sunday.

"I have got absolutely no physical attributes in common with Henry VIII," Mr. Rhys Meyers acknowledged as he made tea. "So everything has to be more about his energy, more about power, more about confidence."

He had just filmed a scene set shortly before Henry and Anne Boleyn's wedding, which history tells us took place when the king was in his early 40s. Mr. Rhys Meyers is 30. "Henry is 30," too, this season, he said with a playful gleam in his eye. "He's going to stay 30 for a while."

He will also stay slim, although Mr. Rhys Meyers has been eating voraciously to put on a few royal pounds. "You don't want to see a skinny guy in a big fat suit," he said. "Unless it's Eddie Murphy."

The king's physical appearance may be a minor point, really, when you consider the historical facts that "The Tudors" have played fast and loose with. And Michael Hirst, the show's creator and writer, will defend every single decision.

"Showtime commissioned me to write an entertainment, a soap opera, and not history," said Mr. Hirst, taking a break in an office at Ardmore Studios, near Dublin. "And we wanted people to watch it."

It seems there have been practical moviemaking reasons for the misrepresentations. Take Henry's sisters. In Season 1 Gabrielle Anwar played one, Princess Margaret, who marries an older man, the King of Spain, against her will. As any number of Internet history buffs will tell you, it was Henry's other sister, Mary, who did that, and the older man was the King of France. So didn't the writer do his research?

As it turns out, Mr. Hirst was well aware of both facts. But the list of characters already included a Princess Mary, Catherine of Aragon's little daughter. "I didn't want two Princess Marys on the call sheet," he said, because it might have confused the crew. " 'Which one do you mean, Michael? Who do we dress?' "

As for Margaret/Mary's husband, "The Tudors" had shown a French king in a different context in Season 1. Mr. Hirst feared that viewers might be confused, so he just chose another European country.

Liberties were also taken with the death of Thomas Wolsey, archbishop of York and the king's right-hand man. According to historians Wolsey fell ill and died in Leicester in 1530 on his way back to London to face charges of treason. In Season 1 Wolsey committed suicide there, despite religious strictures against it.

Mr. Hirst defends his decision, contending that this might have been the way things really happened, and that Henry would have covered it up. Wolsey certainly had motive.

"He was going to come back to a show trial," Mr. Hirst said. "And the best that he could get would have been a public beheading in front of all his enemies and a jubilant crowd."

Mr. Hirst also wanted to give an acclaimed actor, Sam Neill, a powerful scene: "I didn't want him to go out with a whimper. I wanted him to go out with a bang."

History will continue to be altered in Season 2, beginning with Pope Paul III, played by Peter O'Toole. The pope who refused to let Henry divorce his first wife and excommunicated him was Paul's predecessor, Clement VII. But last season Clement, played by Ian McElhinney, had a few short scenes.

Mr. Hirst worried that viewers might remember and react negatively to the casting change, so he just set up a papal succession. But in reality by the time Paul III was elected, in October 1534, Catherine was long gone, and Henry and Anne had been married roughly a year and a half.

Mr. Hirst decided that any confusion created by the changes is outweighed by the interest the series may inspire in the period and its figures. To that end, he wants to emphasize the similarity to the current era.

"I mean, who is Henry but a man who's married to an older woman who falls in love with a younger one and wants to marry her?" Mr. Hirst asked. "We've seen that."

Natalie Dormer, who plays Anne, found it easy to see her as a contemporary. She said there were strong likenesses between her character and a more recent British royal beauty: Diana, Princess of Wales.

"They were both incredibly image conscious," said Ms. Dormer, 26, who was sitting in a dressing room, wearing a 16th-century-style ivory dress. "Anne Boleyn shook up the court in an aesthetic way."

Just like Diana, who used glamour to court the news media, Ms. Dormer said, Anne made it clear that she was bringing "a certain je ne sais quoi, a sophistication" to the court. So far, the historical Anne and the Showtime Anne have not noticeably diverged. (She really did contract and survive what was known as the sweating sickness.) But anything can happen.

Anne will do historically accurate things, like marrying Henry, giving birth to a daughter (the future Elizabeth I), losing her husband to Jane Seymour and losing her head to the executioner. The season will also bring Thomas More's fall from grace, which really occurred.

Just the other day Mr. Hirst swore that there would be no further historical adjustments this season, at least nothing significant that he could think of. Oh, except the plot to kill Anne Boleyn. He invented that to illustrate how much the English people hated her.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: irishenglish
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 02:19 PM

I'll start by saying I haven't read this entire thread. The subjectiveness of what movies I myself like, will differ with everyone else, or maybe we might sometimes agree on one in particular. What has always irked me is not that someone well versed in ancient Mayan culture has a problem with a particular scene in Apocalypto, for example, because sometimes, that comes from a real academic approach, but rather, movies that pass themselves off as being authentic, and true to the "real" story, that are anything but! Titanic was among the worst offenders of this-I remember them going on and on about the historical accuracy, when you didn't have to be an expert to know that so much of it was utter bullshit. By and large, I am always dubious of "historical" movies, but I also know that sometimes, you just have to let it go and try and enjoy the movie, and enjoy the silliness. Now, that being said, don't get me started on The Perfect Storm.....

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 04:18 PM

So...how did you like "The Perfect Storm"? ;-) Great re-enactment of a true-life tragedy, eh? Man, it can't get much better than that, can it?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Wesley S
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 04:22 PM

And accurate too. That water really looked wet to me.......

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 04:23 PM

And cold too...

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Wesley S
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 04:29 PM

And did you notice that the fish looked really...fishy? Now THAT's attention to detail.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: irishenglish
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 04:46 PM

Well...that final scene with Clooney looking up from the wheelhouse whilst underwater was just too much for me, just like parts of Titanic. I guess in hindsight my distaste for this movie was not so much accuracy, but execution. They got a lot of things right, such as baiting the lines, and the general going on's of a longhauler catching swordfish in the Atlantic. But it could have been so much better. The directors want heroes, so they have to make a scene with someone trying to lock the boom in place look like an epic LOTR battle sequence. The book was fascinating, but this was an example of what I talked about in my previous post-for this movie, I could not suspend belief and just enjoy-the story was to real for me to do that personally. Independence Day was just a very basic storyline that a lot of people could have written, but was done in a way that was just fun, a movie I would still watch while relaxing at home. The Perfect Storm was one where they had all the tools in place to make a real event come to life again, but which had an open ending. No one really knows what happened, so when they showed that enormous wave, I was expecting, that's it, that's how they will end it, by just showing this enormous wave. Instead they had to show Wahlberg floating to the surface and Clooney somehow whilst drowning watching him go, in the big dramatic moment that felt completely tacked on, and completely unnecessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 04:56 PM

Bee, your comment got me to thinking that, at one time or another, I have met a whole bunch of pretty well-known people. It's a combination of having been around long enough to attain geezerhood and, I guess, inadvertently being at the right place at the right time. I've met lots of well-known singers because I have attended folk festivals where they were and had a chance to chat informally with many of them. And I have also attended a number of science fiction conventions ("Cons"), and they're always crawling with authors. If you don't meet them in some workshop or other, just stagger into the nearest cocktail lounge, and there they are.

####

Right you are, Jack. It has been about 25 or 30 years since I've read The Mote in God's Eye and I guess I've forgotten some of the plot points, such as blockading the Moties. If I recall correctly (where the hell is the book? It's on my bookshelves somewhere!), it was the Langston field, a sort of variation on "shields up!" that enabled them to hang out in the photosphere (not the corona) of the red giant without frying, and nail the Moties at the Alderson point.

I knew Jerry Pournelle in the late 50s and early 60s when he was working at Boeing (space stuff—very hush hush) and going to grad school at the University of Washington. He quaffed regularly at the infamous Blue Moon Tavern, often with his wife, Roberta, and he frequently came to song fests and hoots. Jerry's quite conservative and pretty militaristic, and we used to argue politics a lot, but we were good friends and enjoyed the discussions (yelling matches?). One of the songs I did (still do) was "Bonnie Dundee," and he once presented me with a couple of pages of verses beyond the four that I sing;   historically very interesting, but it made for one helluva long song that got kind of boring after a bit.

He and Roberta left for California in the early 60s, and it was a few years later that I learned that he was doing some fiction writing. I had finished all of the James Bond novels and had read all the Matt Helm novels that had come out so far, and I picked up a paperback novel entitled Red Heroin, written by somebody named Wade Curtis. It was set in Seattle. That ought to be a snort, I thought. By the time I'd got a dozen pages into the thing, I had encountered some real places that I knew well, and a few people whom I was sure I knew, but by other names! "Who the hell is Wade Curtis?" I thought, then checked the back of the title page. Copyright by Jerry Pournelle. Ah, SO! Now it became obvious. Until then, I didn't even know that Jerry was interested in fiction writing.

His stuff started appearing in "Analog," and then The Mote in God's Eye came out, followed by Lucifer's Hammer, Oath of Fealty, and Footfall, also co-authored by Larry Niven, whose novels I had also been reading.

When Footfall hit the shelves in 1985, I learned that Jerry and Larry Niven would be in Seattle, autographing books at Tower Books. I hadn't seen Jerry in about twenty years, so my wife, Barbara, and I went to the book signing. I bought a copy of the book and Barbara and I stood in line. Finally when we got up to the table where they were signing books, Jerry looked up at me. He did a perfect double-take, jumped up and started pumping my hand, and yelled out "Firth, you son-of-a–bitch! How the hell are you?" Jerry has a voice like a bull-horn, and when he gets excited, it rises in pitch. I think he shattered the plate glass windows in the front of the store! I introduced Barbara, he introduced Larry, then he said, "Can you stick around until we're finished here? A couple of friends will be dropping in in a few minutes and we're all going out to dinner. Can you and your wife join us?" Sure!

That was a very memorable evening. It seems that the friend was Frank Herbert (!!). And he was accompanied by Mildred Downey Broxon (Too Long A Sacrifice), whom I had never met, but whose late husband, Bill Broxon, I had known. He and his first wife, Dottie, had hosted several song fests at their large house.

Jerry and Larry, Frank Herbert, Mildred Broxon, and Barbara and I wound up holding down a table at Ivar's Salmon House on the shores of Lake Union for several hours. Jerry commented that, at far as he knew, Footfall was the first science fiction novel to receive a "six figure advance," and that when he got his share of the check, he and Roberta went out to a very nice restaurant to celebrate. They had an expensive bottle of wine with their dinner, and Jerry said that he thought "I'd like to get another bottle of that wine. But it's so damned expensive!" Then he suddenly realize, "I can afford another bottle! Hell, I can afford a whole case!" At which point, he realized that, if he wasn't actually filthy rich, he still wouldn't have much in the way of money worries from now on!

Frank Herbert concurred that this was a very nice feeling to have, and that he, too, was enjoying that rather pleasant sensation of shock and amazement. He lived in Port Townsend, just a ferry ride and an hour or so's drive from Seattle, but he had just returned from Los Angeles, where he'd been working with a bunch of Hollywood writers on the script for the movie adaptation of Dune. He was pretty happy with what they had come up with so far, but he was apprehensive about the inevitable cuts. "And there will be a lot of them, I'm afraid. If they use the shooting script as it is right now, the movie will run a good eight hours!"

I didn't get much of a chance to talk to Larry Niven, but Barbara did. They were sitting at the other end of the table.

It occurred to me a couple of times that evening that I was sitting here having dinner with some of the Olympian Gods of science fiction! Frank Herbert insisted on picking up the check, which, by that time, must have been susbstantial!

Sadly enough, Frank Herbert died not long after that, following an operation for pancreatic cancer.

I wasn't aware until I checked just a few minutes ago, that there are two film versions of Dune:   one, the David Lynch version (one DVD, two hours and seventeen minutes) and a television mini-series version (three DVDs, a few minutes short of five hours). Mixed reviews on both versions (some pretty outspoken partisanship involved).

I think I have to check this out!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 05:10 PM

I'm kind of with Irishenglish on "The Perfect Storm" Especially since, I'd read the book. The tacked on stuff didn't ad anything for me. On the other hand the movie did strike a chord with me having grown up with slightly smaller versions of those boats around all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 05:13 PM

Don,

Great story about Pournelle and all. At the time Footfall came out, I shared his politics, especially his support for Reagan's Star Wars. I was a young, idealistic business major. Thank God I grew out of that. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Bee
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 05:22 PM

Don, that's a wonderful account of a great evening.

I've actually seen both versions of Dune (I liked the books), and had the same complaint about both, and that is that they both seemed to go overboard on theatrics (in the oldfashioned sense, as opposed to special effects) and hammy acting. Mind you, I'd watch both again, since at least they didn't do too much damage to the story line of the books, and they were both visually pleasing. If you've ever seen Fellini's Cassanova, the movie tended to have that sort of feel.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 05:40 PM

Don, are you writing your book still? And is this in it?

Maggie, who wants to read that book and would like to have it signed by the author at a big book signing event.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Slag
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 06:44 PM

Don F., Wow! Pournelle and Niven, absolute top drawer in S-F. They actually have scientific backgrounds and they know how to move a story along. Crazy Eddy! As for The Postman, I had read David Brin's compelling story several years before the movie and so I was expecting good things but the inner-workings of the mind is a hard thing to portray on the screen. I have to admit my bias as I helped along the movie with prior knowledge. I thought it was a pretty good movie that ended on a bad leg. Check out Brin's Uplift Wars series. Really great stuff.

Back to John Wayne. Wayne was no great actor. He could only play himself. Whether it was Genghis Khan or Davy Crockett it was always John Wayne you got. But what was it about him that packed movie houses? He was always bigger than life and his roles always represented high ideals. Cardboard? Well, yeah, his acting was stiff. Two dimensional? Isn't that true of the entire medium? Cellulose? What actor isn't? And, he WAS an actor. I may detest George Clooney and he sure looked fine going down in that boat but I'll give him his due! He is a mighty fine actor.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Charley Noble
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 09:48 PM

Anyone for a definitive discussion of Cold Comfort farm?

Can you name all the cows (hint: start with "Feckless")?

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Grab
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 09:48 AM

A bit late to this one.

You can't really count "future history" in this, I think. So "2001" is out. As has previously been pointed out, there's nothing in there that's incompatible with space investment at the time it was written, or with physics. Even now, if we were to send astronauts long distances, the 2001 system is still one of the best bets (nuclear-powered propulsion for speed/power, mounted at the end of a long shaft to keep it away from the astronauts, and keep the astronauts in some kind of cold-storage to solve provisioning problems).

The best you can do is ask for some compatibility with physics. So yeah, points to "Babylon 5" for spacefighters following regular physics and designed sensibly for space combat (it doesn't need to be aerodynamic and you do need to be able to see everything, so pilots are strapped in upright and look out of a full-length flat window). On that theme, "Apollo-13" deserves points for attention to details like a cluster of fragments continuing to follow the module after the accident (no air resistance to get rid of them).

Ironically, the films that got it most right for me were the Lord of the Rings series. (Ignoring CGI elves and stuff, of course.) OK, they were in a fictional world, but they managed to add the details that turned it from pure fantasy into a world that you could live in. (Helped no doubt by Viggo Mortensen's tendency to sleep outdoors in costume, complete with sword.) So costume doesn't just include armour and a big sword, but also a utility knife for day-to-day use, sewing kit, tinderbox, proper layered outdoor clothing (convincingly used instead of clean and ironed), and so on. The specials on the DVDs are hugely impressive in showing the lengths they went to to make this a living world, as opposed to the "Conan the Barbarian" or "300" version of fantasy with under-equipped men wandering around in loincloths.

"Saving Private Ryan" is a slightly different case, being fiction set in a real past. I don't think there was much wrong with it historically. OK, it didn't reflect the real-history facts of withdrawing a soldier after his brothers were killed, but the fictional elements are set in a pretty much historically-accurate situation. From memory, I think a lot of British-made war films from the 50s and 60s also fall into this category, because many of the actors (and certainly the extras and crew) would have been in the war and on principle wouldn't have taken liberties with the facts, although censorship at the time would have prevented the "bodies-blown-apart" reality of SPR.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 10:08 AM

I don't know, Graham. Even when I read the Lord of the Rings books, especially as a kid the first time through, I always wondered what they found to eat along the way. There is no way they carried all the food they needed and they didn't spend their entire trip hunting and foraging. They spent time cooking and eating, but not acquiring food. For me, it was those essentials that first forced me to suspend disbelief in order to enjoy the narrative and action of the stories.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 10:27 AM

To Don Firth,

Fascinating post, Don!

I was a great Niven fan for many years - but I could never stand Pornelle's politics, I'm afraid. I also think that Niven has lost his way a bit recently - his work doesn't seem to have the wild exuberance that it once had; those early 'Known Space' stories that he did mainly for Fred Pohl's magazines ('Galaxy', 'Worlds of If' etc.), back in the 60s, are incredible.

I don't suppose you've met Jack Vance, have you?

Sorry about the thread creep ...

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 01:31 PM

You can't spend half a movie showing people acquiring their food, preparing it, and cooking it, Stilly. At least you shouldn't. ;-) Nor can you spend half a movie showing people slipping off in the underbrush to relieve themselves or sleeping.

Those parts mostly get edited out, because we'd rather watch the more interesting stuff, okay?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 01:56 PM

Yet could could mention at least once in hundreds and hundreds of tedious story how they provisioned themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 02:50 PM

Oh, you want to keep the argument going, eh, Jack? ;-)

Okay. Here's how they did it. You note that in the land of Middle Earth there is a tremendous amount of unspoiled wilderness and uninhabited land. Agreed? That means there is undoubtedly a tremendous amount of wild game roaming around: deer, rabbits, wild goats, and many other such furry (and feathered) creatures, all of which make good eating. There's also a lot of plant life...more good eating for those with good hunting and gathering skills. Strider (Aragorn) is a character who has spent many years in the wilderness as a Ranger, and he knows how to find food and hunt. Legolas with his incredible skill with the bow can bag a deer or rabbit any time he sees one. The hobbits also know a bit about fishing, small game, and gathering. Gandalf has further tricks up his sleeve, all kinds of them. You're telling me these guys can't find enough food in the wilderness to sustain them while they're traveling?

I think they can. Just one deer could sustain the entire party for a few days if much of the meat was smoked in strips over a fire and packed.

They would survive the same way Indians did when they traveled in small hunting bands.

As for putting in some scenes of the hunting and gathering...yeah, they could've done that...but I think they were already dealing with a very big story and a limited amount of time to fit all the action in, weren't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: ard mhacha
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 02:51 PM

Guest when referring to the many mistakes in the Michael Collins film tells us that the detectives sent down from Belfast to sort our hero out raised one hell of a laugh in our local cinema.
Guest also deserves praise at sorting out the numerous mistakes throughout the film.
As an old friend remarked to me many years ago, "when you go to The Pictures leave your brains at home". It was `The Pictures` in our locale.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: autolycus
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 03:51 PM

Must have been mentioned on other threads, but worth another outing.

The film's called Krakatoa: East of Java.

Whereas................ it's West of Java

(apart from if you go East far enough - just thought I get to that thought first.)

Ivor