"Worst Depiction of the Revolution" Topic

The Patriot is a 2000 American epic historical fiction war film.

Did you see the word FICTION????????

"I know of lots of people, who think that movie represents history,"

So what? You know a lot of "misinformed" people.
Perhaps you can explain the word FICTION to them.

The subject doesn't vex me. It's the stupidity of people who try to compare a movie to real life.

Fair enough but why do you equate that with discussing films notable for woeful historical innaccuracy?

Historical accuracy seems to be a fundamental theme of the forum.

"Historical accuracy seems to be a fundamental theme of the forum."

True enough.
But movies are not.

They were not meant to be and they never will. They are entertainment, not serious historical lessons.
It strikes me as ridiculous, that a very tiny segment (wargamers) of the population, think that just because they are offended by historical inaccuracies that a movie is "bad".
Especially a movie that has a big bold disclaimer that says :
"This is a work of FICTION."

If you don't like the script or actors or whatever, that's perfectly fine. Don't watch it. But to condemn a movie because of historical inaccuracies is silly. It's fiction, not reality.

In a country where more than half the population can't name the Vice President, do you really think that it matters to anyone but
a few disgruntled wargamers?
And do you really think that anyone in Hollywood cares?

The purpose of a movie is that of any product. The purpose of a car is to make money for the manufacturer.

Anyone looking for truth in a movie should stick to art house stuff where you wear a beret while smoking stinky cigarettes.

Occasionally a movie gets it right. Hallelujah!

I watched Bridge of Spies yesterday on tv. Quite a few times I exclaimed "I didn't know that!" I enjoyed it immensely for the period flavor. I swear it made feel colder than Band of Brothers or Game of Thrones, so much that my nose ran from the cold.
After it was over I fact checked. Darned if they didn't get a lot of it right!

Did you ever notice the disclaimer "Based on a true story"? That's a very flexible disclaimer.

Has there ever been a period when we could count on Hollywood for accuracy?
I remember watching the 70 year old Northwest Passage on tv. "My goodness, those are interesting uniforms for the Rangers!"
When production was completed, I bet the uniforms went back to one of the many clothing rental companies in Hollywood where they appeared in many more movies.

History is the background for a script. It's even better than a novel, since you don't have to pay an author royalties!

Word up, John.

Did you see the word FICTION????????

Did you see the word HISTORICAL?

Man, you are certainly being grumpy about this, Nevinsrip.

I guess somebody should create an internet forum where disgruntled wargamers can air and share their…oh, wait!

The issue is you can be historically accurate and do a great film. The errors in Lethal Musket are pretty egregious, which killed it for me.

Sweet Liberty is better and mocks just about every silly plot device in Lethal Musket.

Man, you are certainly being grumpy about this, Nevinsrip.

According to who?
You?

Typical. When you can't win with facts, go for name calling.

"Did you see the word HISTORICAL?"

John, jump in here and explain to Mr Gunfreak modifiers and objects
in sentences.

According to who?
You?

Yes, of course Me! Who else?

Typical. When you can't win with facts, go for name calling.

'Typical'? Not of me, I think you'll find, but I rest my case. Grumpy, grumpy, grumpy. Fact. Incontrovertable.

Glad to find another fan of Sweet Liberty.
Interesting anecdote about that. I was talking to a group of reenactors after the movie came out. They were extras in the movie. They HATED it because of the liberties it took with "the facts". Apparently no pole vaulting was involved in the "real battle".
I think they missed the point. The movie was ABOUT how Hollywood doesn't care.
Michael Caine playing the actor who played Tarleton was particularly funny. He was convinced that since he always played the Good Guy that Ban would never do that!

As I have been saying for years here, wargamers are not the target audience for "historical" movies.
I wonder if Homer had a bunch of pedants bitching that Dawn didn't really have rosy fingers, or that Aias wasn't really that tall.

Flanker, Is that a personal attack from you?

If I was really grumpy, I would hit the complaint button.

if Homer had a bunch of pedants bitching that Dawn didn't really have rosy fingers, or that Aias wasn't really that tall.

Well, personally I would like clarification as to in what way the sea was 'wine dark…'

Nevinsrip, it's an observation based on first person experience.

Round these parts that's been known to count as fact.

"Round these parts that's been known to count as fact."

Yes, I'm sure you're the last word on everything in your house.
Good for you.

In the AMC series "Turn" my favorite performance was by Angus Macfadyn as Robert Rogers.

I like anything that has to do with AWI. I don't know a huge amount of history as some on here but I do certainly take anything from a hollywood movie with a grain of salt or two or three…

Yes, I'm sure you're the last word on everything in your house.
Good for you.

Well, nevins, I envy you your certainty on the matter, although I'm not quite sure what bearing it has on this discussion, but, thanks.

"He was convinced that since he always played the Good Guy that Ban would never do that!"

That was an awesome scene…"Oh, no, no. He was a British officer…"

I still maintain that you can be historically more accurate and still be entertaining and make money. It is just as easy to do it right than it is doing it wrong. A film or a book or any other media can never be 100% accurate.

But some movies do a much better job of being historically accurate. If your standard is 100% then no movies are accurate.

You can nitpick any movie to pieces.Sometimes the entertainment value can over come the inaccuracies like in Braveheart or they can't like in The Patriot. But historical accuracy and entrainment are not mutually exclusive.

For me Turn was entertaining, The Patriot was painful. Neither because of its take on the AWI. I think Patriot is just generally bad.

Last of the Mohicans is pretty bad history. Both versions are good entertainment though.

In the "Promontory" penultimate sequence, Last of the Mohicans has arguably the finest blending of action and music ever presented on the Silver Screen. I will forgive anything for that.