Flyboys...

[:FI:IceFrog]

I agree, it’s a shame what Hollywood does, has done and will do to history. But from their point of view, it is business, the movie-making thing. I remember in a interview with the director and producer of the movie “The Great Escape” when asked about the Americans being the center of the show, they said they made that decision because they wanted American to watch in large numbers and pay for the production of it. And at that time, don’t know if it’s still true, but the American market was the largest.
I remember another director of another so-called history movie, angered at question of accurate historical details snapped back at the interviewer, put up your own money and make it your way.

[:FI:Fenian]

That film was called 'The Professional' in the States?

Here is was simply 'LEON'

Perhaps you guys needed an explanation

For WWI - Aces High is a great movie. And it has a little bit of shagging in it too

[:FI:Snaphoo]

It's funny... I go to movies to be entertained, not to be given a history lesson.
If the movie makers want to make cloth planes go fast (or perhaps give the illusion that they go fast, for flavor, artistic license, or some such thing), then so be it. If the story is good, the movie will be good. Regardless of how many people go see it. I don't necessarily have to have historical accuracy in a movie. Historical accuracy helps the immersion factor when I go see it, sure. But I'm there to be entertained in some fashion. If I want a history lesson, I'll read a book on the subject.

Sadly though, there are many people who get their history from movies. Fewer and fewer people actually read books anymore...



Sna"intertubes are your friends, but not trucks"phoo...

[Beowolff]

yeah running over the top of a burning zeppelin...


cmon....

really

actually, it "could've" happened. zeps were rigid/semi-rigid airships with very STRONG internal frames, and the material of the ship's outer skin was certainly strong enough (imagine just HOW strong it had to be to take the millions of pounds per square inch of internal hydrogen gas pushing outward trying to escape from it.) and if inflated properly and full of gas, should have been stretched tight as a drum. and many zeps actually did have ladders on top of them for repair or observation while in flight.

add to that, the amazing true fact that an English flyer (can't remember his name right now but it was documented) actually quite accidently landed his scout atop a Zepplin during his somewhat unsuccessful intercept attempt... and that he managed to gun his engine and take off from it... also proves the theory. by the way, he did, inadvertantly, down the German Zep... but it was because his sharp-pointed tail skid RIPPED the gas bag open like a gaint pair of scissors rather than his plane's weight on the Zep's outer skin or internal framework.

a true, stranger than fiction, happening.

i'm not saying that an incident like that in the movie happened... only that it was entirely possible.

as to Hollywood destroying history...i completely agree that most of their "historic" type films are junk... to historians at least. or to anybody else with thinking minds. however, as someone has already pointed out, its their money and their efforts... anyone disagreeing should raise THEIR own capitol and produce the movies as THEY see fit. this is entirely fair and a wonderful idea.

most movies...especially Hollywood productions, are made to make money...and they, wrongly or rightly, are entitiled to produce and make it as they see fit---putting in or leaving out as much rubbish or even History...as they think the potential viewers of the movie will pay big bucks to see. really, as much as we all would obviously like to see an honest to goodness, authentic, historic War movie...we, are in a minority, and our piddling sums of spent cash would NOT make the slightest dent in paying back a movie producer's GIANT income investment. where as, the HUGE, thrill-seeking, non-historic caring REST of the world's cash actually does produce enough cash to pay back some or all, of the producer's money.

as a producer...a business man, with millions of dollars invested and perhaps thousands of people working under you with families needing their jobs and income... wouldn't YOU do similar? no matter your personal thoughts on the matter... pure business alone would dictate you ensuring that your investment went where the possibility of the greater return would boost or help ensure your investment was repaid.

sure, they overly do it with pure greed. but, greed is in their nature. and without it, VERY few movies would ever make it to TV or the movie theaters.

i also conceed that American made films quite wrongly show Americans in the spotlight in many or most of them, especially historic war films... doh! sort of a no-brainer there, guys. in the real world of dollars spent...quick dollars spent by john q. American public... made by and or largely IN America...usually my American producers... who else are they gonna' give MOST of the spotlight too? come on.

just as most British films put spotlights on British actors or policy... just as French movies do, and Sweden Movies, and German movies... etc, etc, etc... why wouldn't they "bend" historical events in Hollywood and slant them for American audiences? to even EXPECT them to do otherwise is just silly. and shows a poor grasp of real life in a real world.

books, magazines, etc, etc... do likewise. and always will. that's life and there is no changing it.

its not a purely American invention or idea and never has been, and to point it out as such and make a big deal over it, shows something...a little bit ugly...about how people think or percieve Americans. and people that think that way certainly know what i mean by that, though they will NEVER publicaly admit it.

salute!

Beowolff

[AltarBoy]

Then these producers should add a line after "Based on a true story" this line "Sprinkled with an overdose of fiction so we could make money".

Yet, I understand the reasons for making it more exciting to pander to an adrenalined audience. But they really go too far sometimes. Like The Exorcism of Emily Rose. Which said is based on a true story. In fact it's so loosely based on fact that a cannon ball could drop through it. The story was actually taken from a case study in Europe where two clergymen were convicted for the death of a young woman. At the end of the movie they go on to explain the lawyer's name and how the movie came about. Pure fabrication if not outright lies.

The point I'm trying to make is that yes it's a business but the fallout is tragic. How many a movie-goer, especially the youth. Impressed by the movie will walk out of the theatre thinking that WW2 began in 1941 or the US actually captured the Enigma machine. There can be artistic licence in a movie, no problem with that, but not to extent to distort the whole thing.

There are movies which strikes a good balance, I suppose it reflects how good or bad a producer or director is.

And Beowulf that last paragraph is a bit harsh and uncalled for. Just because we disagree dosen't mean we're anti-american.

IN FACT WE"RE ALL IRISH!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Beowolff]

lol... it may be harsh---but to a large degree it is the truth. especially for the world at large. i'm not dropping names or pointing fingers at ANYBODY. and certainly not the Irish here (as i am an old friend of the league and even a past member.) and certainly you are correct to disagree on anything I or anybody else says.

but for a large part of the world in general, it is the utter truth. individual americans or even americans as a whole are no more responsible for national or overseas policies than they are for the movies that are made in Hollywood. those sorts of things are driven by business motives and the pursuit of profit of one sort or the other... to some degree even, pure greed. that is true in America as well as in every other country on earth. that's just the way governments and huge corporations and most indivuduals with a lot of money and clout operate....despite any national orgin.

when a person says, "ah, all of those Hollywood movies trash history and spotlight americans." that person is acting like he has no grasp of the world in general, has no basic understanding of simple human nature, and knows nearly nothing of the basic rules of real life business which plainly say...that if your business makes NO money, you won't have a business for very long.

that very same statement can be made for "any" country's movies... ie, "ah, all of those British-made movies trash history and spotlight the English." or, "ah, all of those French movies trash history and spotlight the French." etc, ect.

what should more likely be said, "is that ALL movies usually trash history and spotlight PRETTY, IDIOTIC people that THEY think will rake in large amounts of cash!"

then you will have hit the nail directly on the head in a very fair and knowledgeable manner that strikes directly at the heart of the problem---ie movies in general that rarely portray history properly or accurately, the people that make such movies world wide, the people that put up the money for a business reason and expect large amounts of cash in return for their production of the movies. etc...

people that persist/insist on singling out ONLY american made or hollywood movies as non-historic and trashy-bad, evidently don't get out very often.

case in point, i spent years in the Orient...and must have seen hundreds of purely Oriental made (mostly Japanese and Chinese but with some British/Portuguese/French, made for the Orient, movies.) and out of those hundreds, i doubt if more than 2 or 3 had any sort of authentic history in them, and to be truthful, most weren't even fit to watch from a thinking person's movie-going perspective. lol.

i understand what you're saying about them saying..."based in part on a TRUE story," sure, its hogwash. there may be a teeny-tiny grain of truth in there somewhere, but for the most part its a lie. but again, knowing the sorts of people that make movies in the first place, and WHY they make them in the first place, should you have expected anything else but a lie??? lol!

99 percent of all movies are pure fabrication and hogwash. and the people that make them EXPECT the people that watch them to know that. and we should. and we should bring up our children teaching them specifically that movies are thus. if kids grow up thinking that movies are real and truthful, any movies, then that's OUR fault as parents and teachers...not the people that made the movies. if we are not helping interest our own children in the reality of history...if we're not demanding that our schools teach children history...and if we're not monitoring the progress to ensure all of that...and not stressing that ALL movies are pure fantasy...then WE are the ones telling the children that history really happened like it did in the movies.

the disclaimer for such movies should already be in our children's minds... put there by us, by our teachers, and our schools. "This movie is for pure entertainment only and is NOT truthful!" we shouldn't be relying on what we already should know is a horribly corrupt industry, to do that for us.

lol!

or so i think.

salute.

Beowolff

[AltarBoy]

Yes, I see your point and agree. I'm not saying that only US movies do that. Of course it's pandemic. I always enjoy a movie that makes me think or those that are almost surreal like Apocalypse Now or movies that have a profound atmosphere. I don't mind artistic freedom in making historical films but it takes a gifted producer, writer or director to pull off a balanced movie.

I remember the making of Battle of Britain. They actually used real fighter aces like Adolf Galland and Jimmy Jameson as technical advisors. Hell, a fistfight even broke out between Galland and some other bloke about the war. That film used balance in my opinion.

But whatever you do m8 don't ever watch Cat Woman or Falcon's potty training video! Man, that's torture!

[:FI:IceFrog]

Got home from work yesterday flip on the TV and a movie about the Canadians in the RAF was coming on, it was made and released in 1942, I thought because of when it was made it would be interesting to watch and it was. In it’s credits it thanked the student pilots, which it said, “Now are fighting the enemy in the skies”. I was really impressed with these students take offs, diamond formation, their wing tips almost touching and the next group taxing right behind them, this was 1942 it could not have been enhanced without looking phony as was the case with the dogfight. Oh that was bad, their group of bombers were attacked by a lone BFspitfire 109, but I guess I can’t blame them, at that time they may not have had access to a real 109. but never the less it was neat to see the little details in the background, they even had Billy Bishop in it.

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0034578/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;