""The Patriot", on demand" Topic

It's showing on BBC America.
I'm not making that up.

Sad but true.

Huzzah !!

The BBC types need to learn about history as well.

Is there a demand?

Great costuming. Lousy history, but great costuming. Mrs. Carp was involved in selling period-correct fabric to the costumers.

It's a fun movie, if history doesn't mean anything to you.

There's a lot more wrong with that movie than bad history.

And wrong uniforms for the southern campaigns. Nobody was running around in the Warrant while in the backcountry.

And the wigs were silly. I give it a C+

Which, as John has noted many times, is why movies aren't made for gamers or serious students of the period -- they are made for the general public.

I thought it was awesome but, then again, I don't expect tv shows and movies to get all the facts straight … as long as I get the right feel and the right look of the people and society from that time.

Dan
PS. Boys and girls, if you want history, read a real book or two.

The huge field cannon. Those cannon were so big that were laughable. Incorrect uniforms. I don't care who they made it for.

Was Gettysburg made for the general public? Yes it was. Was Gettysburg more historically accurate than the Patriot? By a country mile it was.

You can make a movie to appeal to the general public and students of history. You just have to have the courage to do it.

Lol. Some people actually think it was supposed to be a movie about a war or a specific battle (like Gettysburg)? :)

The Patriot was about the families of that particular period/society, struggling with loss, loyalties, neutrality and division during a time of war, and was not so much about the war itself. The war part was only second tier, just to season the main ingredient.

Dan

"The Patriot was about the families of that particular period/society, struggling with loss, loyalties, neutrality and division during a time of war, and was not so much about the war itself. The war part was only second tier, just to season the main ingredient."

And they couldn't even get that part right.

"Tavington's" coat was red because the director didn't want to confuse the audience. The Warrant uniforms ditto.
There are 10x more know-it-alls who will sneer that "The British didn't wear green!" than those who know that TARLETON's British Legion did wear green.
Betsy Ross flags? "Everybody knows…."

To 99.8% of the movie going public, all they want is to not be confused. Jumping up and screaming that the flag of the Blue facing British regiment should not be yellow (Hey. I can play this game as much as anyone here!) will only get the people you are watching with to tell you to shut up.

Gettysburg was accurate? With all those fat and old reenactors?
Right. Sure it was.

I'm just glad the movie didn't require Tiger II tanks. "Hey! They got the turret wrong!"
On its own terms, it was a fun movie. I liked Cornwallis's dogs.
However…

Does "student of history" mean "THAT guy?"
I would rather be pleasantly surprised (Hey! That's the flag of la Reine in Last of the Mohicans!) than bitch and sniff about velvet facings being too large.
Shoot. We can't even get our "authoritative" uniform books to agree with each other. What about those bearskins on the 60th in LotM?

The directors and producers of movies like this never intend to produce uniform guides or technical manuals. They want to make a movie within the budget that will make money. Tons of money, hopefully.
Get over it.
*I* know the proper uniforms, and I know enough to match flags to facings. I gave never expected movies to care.

I didn't say Gettysburg was exactly accurate. I said it was way more accurate than The Patriot. If it was only about the families then fine. So do the rest correctly, for the rest of us. It is just as much money and effort to do it right than to do it wrong.

The director wanted to use those huge cannons because it will have more of an impact than the light guns they actually used. Give me a break.

I know Gettysburg was based on the "Killer Angels" which is actually a historical novel. Kilrain was the only character that I remember that was fictional as he was a representation of the author.

It actually won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1975. Sure you can nit pick Gettysburg to death, but compared to that POS Patriot? No contest.

I can easily overlook a few overweight guys. If they didn't want to confuse the public why did they have Zouaves or I guess they were actually Chasseurs? That probably confused a lot of people. Why have a British observer? That's confusing.

People sitting around me during the movies break, I overheard them wondering where Grant was? Oh dear they are confused. Why not replace Mead with Grant?

Wouldn't want to actually teach something. Heaven forbid. Can't upset the masses. Wonder why the public is so ignorant about the history of their own country? I give you the Patriot.

If you have such low expectations of the audience, then they will probably meet those expectations.

Lol. Dude, you crack me up.

Dan
PS. And people thought I was overly demanding for wanting the right feel in a period piece, even if fictional:
TMP link
TMP link

WHAT IF they gave "Tarleton" green coats. What would that accomplish, besides giving the 0.02% of the population who know it's correct a rush?

WHAT IF they used 3 pdrs?
WHAT IF the flags matched the facings?
Big whoop. WHO CARES?

How many times have you watched it? Not trying to prove a point. Just curious. For me, maybe 5 times, and you can be sure that my Tarleton's cavalry are green and black.

Mel Gibson's comment:

Its a movie! If you want to know what really happened, read a book.

If it wasn't for the church scene I would say it was an ok AWI movie. I don't expect perfection, but that scene is way over the top.

"Big whoop. WHO CARES?"

I do. Others have shown you can get the history right AND make a great movie.

"If it wasn't for the church scene I would say it was an ok AWI movie. I don't expect perfection, but that scene is way over the top."

I really enjoy The Patriot and most war films that we all think are worth mentioning. This scene was too much in that the back country war was terrible and violent, but not to that extreme extent.

The thing is, with all of these movies and their inaccuracies, they are, what one of my proffesors would say, "Good Bad Movies". They are not historically accurate (great range of accuracy that is), but they fill general society in on what our (mankind) past was. It has caused many of my friends to ask questions after watching We Were Soldiers. Some even bought the book and read it even though the subject of History, let alone military history, was not that interesting to them initially. Now I enjoy great conversations regarding military history with friends.

These "Good Bad Movies" are similar to the arguments heard on the forums about games such as Flames of War. These are introductory pieces of entertainment that can hopefully lead to further study and understanding. Can we fault a film for inspiring others by stretching history to suit entertainment? I am equally dissatisfied with most war films, but I love them for what they are. I think they do more good than harm. Especially with the internet providing decent sources for casual readers to digest and understand history.

-sorry for any typos or confusing writing. Looonngggg day.

Evan