Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The greatest historical mistakes in movies...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pruitt
    replied
    Truth is not that pretty..

    The problem may well be if an accurate rendition is made, people may not go see it. I would love to see the History/Military Channel do a show or two on it. They want John Wayne and Billy Bob Thornton.

    In my eyes, there just are not many attractive people involved in the Alamo/Goliad/San Jacinto series. I had a young lady Texan at my table this week claim to be a descendant of old Sam. She claimed he liked really young females. I have no way to verify or deny. Sam did have a drinking problem and was the ultimate political general (notice I did not capitalize?). Many of the men that went with him on the Great Skeedaddle did not like him at all. How he got repeatedly elected in Texas probably speaks more for the lack of competition than quality.

    I don't quite have a good handle on Buck Travis yet. He did tend to tic people off. I don't see him shooting a subordinate. Too many of the men at the Alamo were Volunteers. If he shot one the rest would have pulled out.

    The former Commander at the Alamo (JC McNiel) could not catch a break. He joined Sam Houston's force and was in on the San Jacinto fracas. What is little told is that wound he got in the "hip" was really his posterior! Poor man almost died of it.

    I don't see people wanting to see the disposal of the Alamo Garrison either. The Mexicans stacked them like cord wood and added some wood and set fire to the pile. Several weeks later the friends and relatives went out and gathered what the weather and critters left behind.

    Pruitt
    Last edited by Pruitt; 31 Oct 08, 23:21.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by BraxtonB View Post
    There is still much debate over whether Houston ordered the Alamo blown up. He said in a letter to Governor Smith that he would order the works destroyed if the governor thought it was a wise move. Many of Houston's post-war accounts were designed to cover his ass. When Houston should have been assembling an army he was off drinking with the Cherokee, for example.
    The portrayal of Travis was also wrong. He was not uncertain about anything. He was brash, headstrong and almost started the revolution single-handedly. If someone had disobeyed a direct order as portrayed in the 2004 flick Travis probably would have shot him. Travis is usually portrayed wrong in the movies, the worst being in Wayne's 1960 Alamo.
    The Crockett surrender story is still up in the air. The so-called de la Pena diary or journal shows too many signs of forgery. Of course a number of contemporary historians have built their reputations using it.
    I'll go ahead and say the Alamo has been a particular area of study for me over many years
    All Alamo movies have many inaccuracies but the Disney version gets one thing right that most others don't. The sense of being entrapped and the desperation felt by the defenders is very strong here.
    Do you think anyone will ever make an accurate Alamo movie, or will the temptation to tamper with history and use 'creative licence' always be too much?

    Leave a comment:


  • BraxtonB
    replied
    Alamo

    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    I was watching the current version of "the Alamo" today as I was getting ready for work. I saw "Sam Houston" get up and say he would raise an Army of Texans and go relieve the Alamo, but the duty of everybody present was to get a government together that would be recognized by all the world. Sam Houston had already sent word to the Alamo and Goliad to blow the missions up and fall back to where could use them to form an army. When Sam first heard that Santa Ana was in Bexar he claimed it was a lie and proceeded to get drunk for several days on eggnog. He had already resigned his commission as general of the Texas Regulars.

    Lots of fiction in this movie, although I believe Travis, Crockett and Bowie were played well. Although Bowie was over 6 foot tall and blond and blue eyed the actor portraying him made me believe he was a "killing gentleman" and Bowie was! Travis was an ass and Crockett was pretty well as played. I wish they had shown as well it was in Crockett's character to surrender and be executed with the other Texans that tried to jump the walls and flee.

    Pruitt
    There is still much debate over whether Houston ordered the Alamo blown up. He said in a letter to Governor Smith that he would order the works destroyed if the governor thought it was a wise move. Many of Houston's post-war accounts were designed to cover his ass. When Houston should have been assembling an army he was off drinking with the Cherokee, for example.
    The portrayal of Travis was also wrong. He was not uncertain about anything. He was brash, headstrong and almost started the revolution single-handedly. If someone had disobeyed a direct order as portrayed in the 2004 flick Travis probably would have shot him. Travis is usually portrayed wrong in the movies, the worst being in Wayne's 1960 Alamo.
    The Crockett surrender story is still up in the air. The so-called de la Pena diary or journal shows too many signs of forgery. Of course a number of contemporary historians have built their reputations using it.
    I'll go ahead and say the Alamo has been a particular area of study for me over many years
    All Alamo movies have many inaccuracies but the Disney version gets one thing right that most others don't. The sense of being entrapped and the desperation felt by the defenders is very strong here.

    Leave a comment:


  • BraxtonB
    replied
    Wrong Direction

    Originally posted by Ironwolf View Post
    Hmmm,,,, I'm reading a lot just plain 'bashing' and not so much on details.
    Lets hear what is wrong and back it up with what is correct.
    One of my favorite movie goofs was in the Green Beret.
    At the end of the movie the sun sank slowly in to the EAST!
    Vietnam has only one coast and it faces East. In the final scene they faced the setting sun on the beach and watched it go down.
    One of my favorite bad history movies is Krakatoa, East of Java.

    Krakatoa was actually WEST of Java. But it's fun to watch with a large tub of popcorn.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hufflepuff44
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Mann III View Post
    Battle of the Bulge takes a beating on all fronts.

    However, how many of us own this film? I bought it for the cast, and for in particular for Colonel Hessler. I found his character to be fascinating, and despite the lack of historical accuracy, I enjoy the film from time to time.

    It qualifies as historically inaccurate, and may be one of the worst, but it's also fun to watch.

    Am I alone on this?
    I like the cast as well, and some moments bring back good memories for me, even though I know much more about the battle now.

    The same thing happens to me when I watch "The Longest Day" and "Patton," although both of these are more accurate than "Battle of the Bulge."

    Plus Ken Annakin is an awesome director.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hufflepuff44
    replied
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    Yeah, that's quite true. I'm probably out of the mainstream as I really enjoy longer movies (3-4 hours) if they are on certain types of military/historical subjects and they are well done. Some things just can't be done justice in 90-120 minutes.
    I totally agree with you on this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Mann III
    replied
    Colonel Hessler vs. Joachim Peiper

    Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post
    Battle of the Bulge

    Was there actually anything historical in it?

    Of ALL the ****-poor bits (not the acting though) in this movie, it was the tank battle that did my brain in.

    Forgetting the sudden change in weather and topography, the all american tank fleets and the course of the battle itself... the fact that a 'tank range control tower' (with chequered markings) is often visible during the action should have been more than enough to consign ALL of this move to the cutting room floor!

    Regards

    Gaz
    Battle of the Bulge takes a beating on all fronts.

    However, how many of us own this film? I bought it for the cast, and for in particular for Colonel Hessler. I found his character to be fascinating, and despite the lack of historical accuracy, I enjoy the film from time to time.

    It qualifies as historically inaccurate, and may be one of the worst, but it's also fun to watch.

    Am I alone on this?

    Leave a comment:


  • allsirgarnet
    replied
    Battle of the Bulge

    Was there actually anything historical in it?

    Of ALL the ****-poor bits (not the acting though) in this movie, it was the tank battle that did my brain in.

    Forgetting the sudden change in weather and topography, the all american tank fleets and the course of the battle itself... the fact that a 'tank range control tower' (with chequered markings) is often visible during the action should have been more than enough to consign ALL of this move to the cutting room floor!

    Regards

    Gaz

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Mann III
    replied
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post

    Yeah, that's quite true. I'm probably out of the mainstream as I really enjoy longer movies (3-4 hours) if they are on certain types of military/historical subjects and they are well done. Some things just can't be done justice in 90-120 minutes.
    I'm in the minority as well. It's too bad, but in my experience there's always less people in the theater for an "epic film."

    With the exception of blockbuster nonsense like the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars of course...

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Mann III View Post
    "It's hard to find people who enjoy movies past the 2-hour mark..."
    Yeah, that's quite true. I'm probably out of the mainstream as I really enjoy longer movies (3-4 hours) if they are on certain types of military/historical subjects and they are well done. Some things just can't be done justice in 90-120 minutes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Mann III
    replied
    Originally posted by Naffenea View Post

    GI Jane was ruined for me when she DOR'd and was let back in. I have no problem with the action.
    I enjoyed watching Demi Moore do her exercise routine...

    Originally posted by Naffenea View Post

    For the rest, I agree with you on Platoon. The only thing I didn't like about it was it was too short.
    Yeah, I would watched a 3-hour cut...

    I don't know if it would've sold the way it did though. It's hard to find people who enjoy movies past the 2-hour mark...

    Leave a comment:


  • lcm1
    replied
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    'Saving Private Ryan' was, I think, a fictitious story so perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on it.
    Personal opinion, as is usually the case special effects excellant. The story itself rather Hollywoody. (I am now going to be told that the basis of the story was known to be done!!) O.K. but it was still Hollywoody!!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Naffenea
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Mann III View Post
    I gave G.I. Jane to a non-military friend for his birthday, he enjoyed it. Maybe we're watching with the wrong kind of eyes...

    Sometimes I wish I hadn't shot my copy of Tigerland, it was a Captain Dye piece...
    GI Jane was ruined for me when she DOR'd and was let back in. I have no problem with the action.

    For the rest, I agree with you on Platoon. The only thing I didn't like about it was it was too short.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by sawman0311 View Post
    It might have been said before, but I'll say it again: Saving Private Ryan.
    'Saving Private Ryan' was, I think, a fictitious story so perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    Just casting a Demi Moore type in GI Jane was enough for me.

    Pruitt
    Yeah, that really was a stinker, wasn't it? Poor Michael Biehn - he deserved something a lot better.

    Windtalkers was the only recent film that totally eclipsed Pearly Harbor. Someday, a director has to give Cage a second expression.
    Last edited by Mountain Man; 28 Oct 08, 21:32.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X