Does the historical inaccuracy of a film prevent you from enjoying it?

Does the historical inaccuracy of a film prevent you from enjoying it?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=WMNA0dv4OpQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

If it's really bad and completely unnecessary historical inaccuracy, then yes.

But that's only a part of the reason Gibson films are trash.

This wasn't really about Mel, just the way cinema treats the subject and occasionally ignores facts when creating a film based on a real-life event.

That film is as accurate as it needs to be for me to enjoy hating the English.

popcorn flicks are not docs

fite me bastard

What sort of sorry fucking nu-male hates Braveheart?

If there's a valid movie reason why they made a historical change, and it's a small one, then it's fine.

For example, in Hidden Figures the lead characters knew each other, but they didn't interact a lot. In the movie they're made close friends and carpoolers, so that they could have them in the same scenes and have conversations. Minor change.

On the other hand, having the Spanish show up six hundred years too early in the Yucatan is not.

I don't have autism, so no.

any time saxon

If you wan historical accuracy, go watch a documentary, you fucking autist.

Wew, fella. Why so aggressive? It was a legit question, or is your head fried from the constant shitposting about waifus and capeshit that you cannot actually handle a civil discussion on Sup Forums?

A bit, but you can view it as a silly comic-book type film and enjoy it on that level.

As long as the movie is coherent within itself, no problem. Braveheart obviously is a masterpiece nonetheless. But take that Turing/Enigma movie, and it's all just bullshit. Might be the good old problem of Hollywood/TV not knowing how to computers.

No, because Braveheart is about Mel vs Jews disguised as a Scottish fable.

name a historically accurate movie that is not people milling around 12 hours out of the day because the past sucked ass

Remember U-571? lmao

Only if it's really retarded and politically charged or more boring than what actually happened

There's a difference between creative license and historical revisionism with an anti-white agenda. The latter is a Jewish pedo strategy, for instance Harvey Weinstein's productions Django Unchained and Inglourious Basterds, which some Sup Forums anons suspiciously defend. But Braveheart and Apocalypto are masterpieces, and any alterations are due to Mel Gibson being a genius and quite possibly, our savior. Jesus to Trump's God. TBA.

If the film is loosely based on history (take The Patriot or The Last Kingdom, for example), and has a coherent original story, then I have no problem. Even Kingdom of Heaven did this successfully.

If the story shoehorns in race or gender characters (black Achilles, female knights, Asian Germanic barbarians, what the fuck ever,) then it automatically goes in the trash

No, because I'm not an autistic sperglord.

Like this fuckwit for instance.

as long as there are no black vikings im fine.

The historical revisions in Braveheart has nothing to do with Mel though, it was entirely down to Wallace basing his script off a fucking poem

That‘s a prime example.
It‘s not some 1000yo legend that got told and retold, that shit has been documented in military records and people who whitnessed it WERE STILL ALVE!

Depends how serious the movie takes itself and the history

There were a few historical blunders historically in this film for sure - For instance, (as we know now) how could they miss out the fact that William Wallace was gay?

youtube.com/watch?v=WMNA0dv4OpQ

what about asian vikings or indian vikings or fat vikings in football jerseys and gold chains?

Depends if they're trying to change history with an agenda or not. Like that film about the breaking of the enigma code. Completely changed everything historical to make it all about America, when in reality they had absolutely nothing to do with it.

HE COME OUT STEW

Now she was a real historical figure, that French princess. But at the time of the death of William Wallace, Braveheart, she was only 4 years old. Now, Glasgow, Im not saying that William Wallace, Braveheart didn't have sex with her. You know, he probably did. If I look at my own background there's a lot of sexual opportunism involved. Im not saying he didn't have sex with her but if he did, and he definitely did, it would have been a far less romantic scene than the one enacted by Mel Gibson in the film Braveheart. It may have happened in a tent but it would still have been not a romantic scene. Because that would have made William Wallace, Braveheart, your national hero, a paedophile. A Scottish paedophile. The worst kind of paedophile that there is.

Bloody Jews

With Mel, all is swell
With Jews, we lose
And yes
Everytime

It's like they dont understand the concept of storytelling

no
because it's a film

I can never watch Braveheart again without thinking about this bit

cunt