| Author |
Topic:
History vs Movie: Now Disc. Spot the Anachronism: "American Graffiti"
|
Spiderfan
Registered:
Mar '04
|
Date Posted:
5/16 1:32pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Now Disc. Most Historically Inaccurate Movies: "2001: A Space Odyssey"
|
Zaz posted:
Not as silly as the next one, in which the movie is criticized for not being accurate when it is made before the year it is set. And that movie is, of course:
"#1.2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
The Flick: An evil computer based on the IBM Corp. tries to stop mankind from reaching our goal of a manned flight to Jupiter, but ends up singing like a little schoolgirl instead. Score one for the giant space baby!
The Inaccuracies: In case you hadn't noticed, Arthur C. Clarke's vision of a millennial dawn in which we are masters of our solar system was a bit optimistic. And though we may fear death at the hands of a computerized master, odds are more on Google or a creepy Japanese baby robot than anything IBM could cook up.
Why It Would Have Sucked Otherwise: Because a movie true to the events of 2001 would have been about Super Bowl XXXV (a 34-7 snooze-fest), the release of the Planet of the Apes remake and the Spice Girls breaking up. Oh, and Mir, the world's most advanced piece of space technology, falling to Earth in a fiery blaze and crashing into the sea."
Yes I find the criticism against this one so amusing that I already posted in such a regard earlier in this very thread. 
Spiderfan posted:
Zaz posted:
2001: A Space Odyssey
"According to this film, in year 2001 we would have had manned voyages to Jupiter, a battle of wits with a sentient computer, and a quantum leap in human evolution. Instead we got the Mir Space Station falling from the sky, Windows XP, and Freddy Got Fingered. Apparently the lesson here is that sometimes it's better when the movies get the facts all wrong."
Its one thing to fault someone for misrepresenting events that have already occured, but to fault someone for not accurately predicting the future? 
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
rumsmuggler
Registered:
Aug '00
|
Date Posted:
5/16 1:33pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Now Disc. Most Historically Inaccurate Movies: "2001: A Space Odyssey"
|
|
lol
-----signature-----
" Conan, what's best in life?" " Crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of the women."
W.W.L.D. What Would Lando Do
"Why is the rum always gone?"
Retcons = making the dumb stuff look even dumber.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager:
The Amphitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
5/16 2:55pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Now Disc. Most Historically Inaccurate Movies: "2001: A Space Odyssey"
|
Yes, Spiderfan, the thought was yours. Take ze bow. 
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager:
The Amphitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
5/25 11:03pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Now Disc. Most Historically Inaccurate Movies: "2001: A Space Odyssey"
- Date Edited:
5/25 11:05pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Zaz
|
A professional historian's take on "The Other Boleyn Girl":
"The Other Boleyn Girl (2/29/08)
By Cathy Schultz, Ph.D.
Henry VIII’s insatiable love life is as fascinating today as it was for his sixteenth-century subjects. In part, it’s the sheer number of his wives: he married three Catherines, two Annes, and one Jane, for those keeping score at home. But maybe our fascination has a slightly morbid tinge. Henry, you may recall, had a penchant for beheading the wives he tired of.
To be fair, only two of Henry’s six wives lost their heads. But the gory image persists, perhaps because beheading was the fate of Anne Boleyn -arguable the most famous of his wives. Henry’s infatuation with Anne was truly earthshaking, leading him to divorce his first wife -- the devoutly Catholic Catherine of Aragon -- break with Rome, and begin the English Reformation. Anne’s subsequent fall from grace was as swift and dramatic as her rise.
Anne’s place in the history books is secure. But few of us know of the other Boleyn girl - Mary, Anne’s younger sister. The complicated tale of these two sisters, and their shared passion for Henry VIII is the tale told in this new film, a sumptuous costume drama based on the bestselling novel by Philippa Gregory. Here’s a look at the facts to be found in this story of love, sex, and power in the age of Tudor.
Q. The film portrays Anne Boleyn (Natalie Portman) as quite the minx. Does it exaggerate that?
A. Hard to say. Anne was flirtatious certainly, and loved to be around men. She also earned too many enemies by reveling in the influence she had over the King. Those enemies would get the final say. After Anne’s death, her detractors shaped the popular image, portraying Anne as an evil seductress, who had forced Henry into betraying both his first wife and the Catholic Church. Some claimed she was a witch, and whispered (falsely) of strange birthmarks, and an extra finger on her right hand, deformities that would “mark” her as a devil. All those prejudices color the contemporary sources about Anne, making it difficult to tease out who she really was.
Q. Anne’s father coolly encourages his daughters to “bed the king,” if they could. Was he really so gross?
A. Alas, ‘tis true. Thomas Boleyn was an ambitious man who saw his pretty daughters as the quickest way to garner honors and wealth from the king. But Boleyn was hardly unique. Well-to-do daughters of the era were often used as pawns in their fathers’ social climbing schemes. Boleyn was simply more brazen -- and successful -- than most. When his daughters’ relationships with the King flowered, Thomas Boleyn reaped the benefits, as the Crown bestowed titles, honors, and wealth upon him.
Q. The movie seems to imply that King Henry (Eric Bana) hadn’t had a mistress before he encountered the Boleyn girls. True?
A. Not at all. King Henry had married Catharine of Aragon quite young, before he turned eighteen. Within just a few years, though, the first rumors of his extramarital dalliances had begun. The number of women passing in and out of the king’s bedchamber increased over time, as the King and Queen grew apart amid tension over the lack of a male heir.
Q. Did Mary Boleyn (Scarlett Johansson) really have an affair with Henry VIII before Anne did?
A. The evidence is circumstantial but fairly strong that they did, and the affair may have lasted from 1522 until 1526. The King himself inadvertently admitted it years later, when he wished to marry Anne. Some in the court objected to Anne since the King had slept with both Anne’s sister and her mother. “Never with the mother!” Henry protested revealingly.
Q. But Mary was actually married when she caught the King’s eye. So whatever happened to her poor husband?
A. William Carey, Mary’s husband, disappears from the film after a painfully awkward family meeting, where Mary is pressed for specific details about her night with the King. But whatever the feelings of the real Carey, he certainly wasn’t “poor.” While Henry VIII carried on his affair with Mary, he apparently paid off her husband handsomely, gifting him with wealthy estates.
Mary had a son in 1526 -- probably Henry’s -- and that marked the end of her fling with the King. Carey died in 1528, at which time rumors abounded that his widow, Mary, was a woman of “easy virtue.” That reputation was also probably thanks to Henry.
Q. Did Anne Boleyn really commit incest with her brother?
A. Almost certainly not, though the film gives a plausible explanation for why the accusation was made. The reality was that in 1536, as Henry himself was tiring of Anne, frustrated that she failed to bear him a son, (always seen as the woman’s fault, in those days) her enemies at court seized the opportunity to frame her. They convinced Henry that Anne was guilty of all sorts of gross sexual escapades, including incest. Henry believed the lies, and within weeks, Anne had been tried, found guilty, and executed.
Henry wasted little time grieving. Just a few days after Anne’s beheading, he married Jane Seymour, a quiet, demure girl, far different from the flirty, flamboyant Anne. It was Jane who would finally bear him a son, Edward.
But despite their disgrace, the influence of the Boleyns would live on. For Anne’s daughter became the mighty ruler Henry VIII had dreamed of in an heir. That Boleyn girl was Queen Elizabeth I.
Q. Where can I find more about the Boleyns?
A. Gregory’s novel is fun, but for an historian’s take, try Anne Boleyn, a biography by Eric Ives.
Cathy Schultz, Ph.D., is a history professor at the University of St. Francis in Illinois and writes a syndicated column on historical films."
I disagree on one point: Neither of Mary Carey's children were fathered by Henry VIII.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager:
The Amphitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
6/5 9:37pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Now Disc. "The Other Boleyn Girl"
|
|
A scientific look at the beasties in "10,000 BC"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager:
The Amphitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
6/18 4:32pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Now Disc. "10,000 BC"
|
Another blogger on the same movie:
"in One Million Years B.C., we see what appear to be Homo Sapiens, a species that arrived at least 800,000 years later, interacting with dinosaurs despite the 59,000,000-odd years since the giant lizards went extinct. Moving on to 10,000 B.C., we find wooly mammoths engaged in the construction of some Egyptian pyramids, bringing the chronological inaccuracy in species interaction down to mere eons. Flash forward to Mel Gibson's Apcalypto, set around 1500 C.E., and the discrepancies between history and its onscreen depiction are off by six measly little centuries."
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager:
The Amphitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
6/24 8:07pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Now Disc. "10,000 BC"
|
Time Warped: Spot the Anachronism in 10 Movies
10,000 B.C. (2008)
"It might be quicker to list what isn't anachronistic about this pre-historic adventure flick. We'll let the scientists quibble over whether woolly mammoths and saber-toothed tigers were still roaming the earth (they are believed to have been dying out around this time), but there are many things of which we are certain: Pyramid-like monuments, sextants, organized society, and bronze and iron tools did not appear until many, many years later."
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vengance1003
Registered:
Mar '06
|
Date Posted:
6/24 9:43pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Now Disc. Spot the Anachronism: "10,000 BC"
|
|
Oh course, English didn't exist back then. On that note, did a sophisticated language even exist back then?
-----signature-----
Is no the answer to this question?
Companda
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
JohnWesleyDowney
Registered:
Jan '04
|
Date Posted:
6/24 10:46pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Now Disc. Spot the Anachronism: "10,000 BC"
|
Apparently, porcelain veneers were available at the local dentist in 10,000 B.C. based on the flawless dental work of some of the actors.
-----signature-----
Peace.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vortigern99
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '00
|
Date Posted:
6/24 11:23pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Now Disc. Spot the Anachronism: "10,000 BC"
- Date Edited:
6/24 11:23pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Vortigern99
|
On the language note, of course no one can know what language was spoken in 10000 BCE (although this page tells us that language probably developed around 50,000 years ago). But some proto-Eurasiatic language was certainly spoken in 10,000 BCE, and it follows that either an invented tongue must be developed by the filmmakers to convey this fact -- requiring the addition of subtitles, which mass audiences seem to hate -- or else it must be "translated" into the language of the nation viewing the film, in this case English.
On the "prehistoric species" note, as it turns out all of the creatures depicted in 10000 BC actually existed, but two of the three -- saber-tooth cats and "terror birds" -- existed in North America rather than Eurasia, where the movie seems to take place. Also, saber-tooth cats were not nearly as large as the film depicts. Wooly mammoths did indeed exist around 10000 BCE, though they were dying out at the time, and there is an Egyptian wall painting which appears to portray a mammoth, indicating a possible connection between those animals and the pyramids.
-----signature-----
"I knew from the beginning I was not doing science fiction.
I was doing a space opera, a fantasy film, a mythological piece,
a fairy tale."--George Lucas
My "Vader's Origins" thread:
http://boards.theforce.net/Classic_Trilogy/b10002/8708417/p1
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
HemDazon90
Registered:
Mar '08
|
Date Posted:
6/25 2:10am
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Now Disc. Spot the Anachronism: "10,000 BC"
|
rogue_wookiee posted:
Zaz posted:
But, try "fixing" some of those historical inaccuracies and you'll quickly realize what Hollywood screenwriters have known for years: History is lame.
No. History is awesome. Real events are much more complex and fascinating than some idiot screenwriter can imagine. If you feel like changing these events then go find somewhere when they actually happened. Because I guarantee that though Marcus Aurelius died of the chicken pox, there were emperors who were victims of patricide.
God, I hate people's attitudes towards history. It's no wonder people are so ignorant with things like this.
Also, hilariously enough, Commodus is widely believed to have committed incest with several of his five sisters.
Are you my long lost twin tell me your name! also lets talk about michael collins
-----signature-----
"Young fool. Only now, at the end, do you understand. Your feeble skills are no match for the power of the dark side. You have paid the price for your lack of vision. Now, young Skywalker, you will die."
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager:
The Amphitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
6/25 7:12am
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Now Disc. Spot the Anachronism: "10,000 BC"
|
|
Well, Hollywood thinks history is lame...I don't; that was a quote. In fact, "Braveheart" makes me furious.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager:
The Amphitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
6/25 12:50pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Now Disc. Spot the Anachronism: "10,000 BC"
|
AMERICAN GRAFFITI (1973)
"Where were you in '62? The set designers for George Lucas' classic cruising movie must have forgotten where they were (and the film's tagline) judging by the poster for 1972's movie musical Cabaret visible behind John Milner's (Paul Le Mat) blazing hot rod."
It's very hard to see, though, due to glare on the glass over the poster.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
JohnWesleyDowney
Registered:
Jan '04
|
Date Posted:
6/25 10:25pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Now Disc. Spot the Anachronism: "American Graffiti"
|
This could easily be digitally erased...or replaced.
-----signature-----
Peace.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Spiderfan
Registered:
Mar '04
|
Date Posted:
6/26 5:19am
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Now Disc. Spot the Anachronism: "American Graffiti"
|
|
Dude don't give him ideas....
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
