"Is it just me?" Topic

I apologize if this turns into a rant, however, I just have to get it off my chest. Has anyone else noticed the increasing trend where inaccurate stock video and photographs are used in what are claimed to be historical presentations. In particular, if a program is discussing the Battle of the Bulge, the producers will use any video that shows a tank, including U.S. Shermans operating in a jungle. I have seen German Tigers in Vietnam. Another egregious example that comes to mind is the movie "Pearl Harbor," that came out a while ago in which they used video of ARLEIGH BURKE or TICONDEROGA class vessels overlaid with CGI supplied explosions.

I can make allowances for films that are intended for entertainment, not the teaching of history. However, with computer assistance, I am sure that they could present a realistic attack on Pearl Harbor. It is really the videos that claim to be educational that are getting me upset. If you are going to "teach" a subject, at least be accurate with regard to video clips and photographs. I recently saw something that claimed to be about the CSS ALABAMA. One of the photos they used was of the USS ALABAMA (BB-8).

With the internet, it is not hard to find photos of historical subjects or events and if you can't find an accurate photo, then use accurate exemplars. Perhaps I am old fashioned, but historical accuracy should include both text and visual aids.

I totally agree. My wife has to put up with me ranting on this topic. Far too many historical videos put in any picture they can find, or close-ups of overweight poorly-dressed extras. And they repeat the footage multiple times.

RJ, you have named a pet peeve of mine, also.

The majority of YouTube historical videos use the "near enough is good enough" method. Photos of Egyptians when they're discussing Greeks or WW2 naval vessels when the topic is WW1.

I guess it's hard work to find the right photos. If egregious enough, I cease to watch. And give a 'thumb's down'.

Can I give you an example of the opposite? Drachinfel is a WW2 naval historian, mostly dealing with WW2.

YouTube link

I recently watched one of his videos where he named three American subs who, at different times, sighted the Japanese fleet. Each sub got a separate photo – & the bow numbers showed the photo was of the sub named.

Really, that's pretty good.

Right there with you, RJ. But why stop there? Book publishers seem to have abandoned the concept of proof reading and fact checking, and at least one "prestige" newspaper, when caught has taken up altering copy on their on line back issues without ever admitting to the falsehood. (Piepenbrink's Rule of Corrections: If you traduce a person or institution in large type on page One, that's the location and font for owning up to it.)

Sad truth is, I suspect most of the people putting together videos really can't tell or don't care about the differences between their subjects and the videos. Certainly they'd rather have a showy but completely wrong clip as opposed to a grainy or static accurate one.

All I can say is that I'm sorry I ever doubted Cyril Kornbluth. And that I'm always glad to retreat to the historical miniatures community. We may differ on the degree of accuracy we expect, but none of us think being wrong doesn't matter.

Oh. And thanks for the link, ochoin. I don't follow a lot of naval, but anyone that meticulous is worth keeping an eye on.

The Pearl Harbor movie had the budget cut so drastically and so many times as the producers did not believe in the project that they had to resort to using mothballed ships to fill in the movie. Too bad because the CGI they used was amazing.

I think that some use of the "wrong" equipment is okay if it is all you have available at the time. The movie the Battle of the Bulge used Spanish M47 tanks as German Tiger II. They are both about the same size, they repainted them in WWII German colors and markings, poorly. They did have scenes with over 20 "Tiger" tanks driving in the forest, and considering there were zero operational Tiger II tanks in the 1960s I think that was pretty good. Most of the rest of the movie had historical accuracy problems but that's another story.

link Here is my take on some of the movie.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

I'm also in favor of attention to detail.

I stop whatever I'm watching at the first hint of malarkey. Most of the "historical" stuff I see is AI junk intended to be click bait.

Ochoin, thanks for the link, very impressive, he is now saved.

Mike, your painting is very good. You obviously have way too much time on your hands if you are modeling movies. I have no problem with the movies that use stand-ins for equipment. Interesting that the Spanish military turned themselves into movie stars. Didn't the Spanish supply the tanks and extras for the movie Patton? I almost preferred the stand-in tank force as opposed to the vehicles used in A Bridge To Far. I found myself losing the plot because I was too interested in the equipment. I wonder what happens now that there are no old tanks sitting around waiting for their cinematic break. I do not think that I will be able to accept M-1 tanks as stand-ins for a Sherman or Tiger?

I realize that I am being inconsistent, I guess I will accept stand-in equipment when the purpose is entertainment. That said, I still have an issue with the modern ships in Pearl Harbor for some reason. I have been unable to re-watch that movie. I draw the line with programs that are intended to "educate."

"All I can say is that I'm sorry I ever doubted Cyril Kornbluth."

I'm pretty sure that you're referring his short story, "The Marching Morons."

This is a favourite of mine. A book called The Fall of the Ashanti Empire dealing with the Anglo Ashanti conflict. The books cover shows a lovely painting of Alphonse-Marie-Adolphe de Neuville's Saving the Queens Colours which is of course from the Battle of Islandwana. A battle in a war fought half a contitinent away, against a different opponent, six years after the third Anglo Ashanti war. I mean if you can't get a photo or painting on the front cover of your book right how am I going to trust what you have written inside is correct?

link

You guys need to be watching "The Unauthorized History of the Pacific War" podcast. They go out of there way to get their photos and film right. They have no problem pointing out mistakes and "posed" film and photos. These two guys get all their film from the National Archives. It is fantastic and very accurate. If it isn't right, they call it out. It is the seventh most popular history channel on YouTube.

YouTube link

"I almost preferred the stand-in tank force as opposed to the vehicles used in A Bridge To Far. I found myself losing the plot because I was too interested in the equipment. I wonder what happens now that there are no old tanks sitting around waiting for their cinematic break. I do not think that I will be able to accept M-1 tanks as stand-ins for a Sherman or Tiger?"

They used real Shermans and 25pdrs in ABTF, lots and lots of them! I didn't particularly mind the Leopard standing in for a Panther, although the burning Chaffee does jar a bit.

There are some amazing vehicle conversions available to film makers now (like the Stugs on FV432 chassis in Band of Brothers), and eg Fury utilised the Bovingdon Tiger as well as a bunch of real Shermans.

I really wouldn't worry too much about M1s pretending to be Tigers….

It's kind of tragic that it takes a film like 'Godzilla – Minus one' to really be accurate about the equipment depicted to the point where it is the real Aviation or Naval fanatic that is cheering. It's a great film – but a monster stomp being more historical than, say, Napoleon the dictional story is a bit of a mind-blower.

Gell-Mann Amnesia: The tendency to assume accuracy in a media outlet reporting on a subject one knows little about, when one has nevertheless already seen the same media outlet be completely inaccurate or even deliberately false about a subject one knows well.

In entertainment it's largely forgivable. In anything else, you should never credit that source with accuracy ever again, unless they admit the error, explain how it was an error and not deliberate falsehood, correct it, and retain or hire actually knowledgeable individuals as pre-release reviewers. It wouldn't take long— the reviewer need only watch a rough cut with the director and editors, and pause it at any error to explain. The editors and directors can then remove inaccurate footage or images, and move forward. It's called "being professional."

+1 for Drachinfel's videos.

I would also add Mark Felton's channel for superb historical content.

Another plus for Drachinfel's work.

Absolutely correct Red Jacket, Ochoin and RP. It drives me, and consequently my wife, crazy as well.

Overall, I'd say that films made in Europe are more historically accurate and well researched, because history means more to Europeans. Here the goal is more to make big bucks.

Felton is very good too, though I like his subject matter a bit less than Drach.

I have no expectations for "historical" films but I think anyone pretending to show actual history through the means of a documentary – even on YouTube – should have high standards. Even showing some academic rigour.

We should also mention political bias in such.
For example, any current "history" video focussing on the Spartans might well be ultra-right wing rubbish, with a far from hidden agenda. By all means have your crack-pot right & left extremist views but don't distort history in peddling them.

" movies that use stand-ins for equipment."

Creative use of 2x4's & plywood to mimic turret shapes would be a cheap option and would have been more convincing…

I notice these problems when I am watching a channel which covers war twenty four/ seven.
Vehicles shown that are pre-production or terrain not the right type.