How do you guys feel about historical accuracy in films?

How do you guys feel about historical accuracy in films?

Pic related sums mine up.

Don't really mind but I wish they wouldn't hire historical advisors and just blatantly ignore them. Like, decide early on if you're trying to be accurate or not.

No such thing.

>I wish they wouldn't hire historical advisors and just blatantly ignore them.
They don't ignore them. They just "convince" them why certain inaccuracies are essential to the plot. Same with scientific advisors.

I think Lindybeige said they just threw out all the guidelines he gave them, but I can imagine he's a real pushy autist about it.

that's because you are an amercuck

cant blame him. he was offered to help on Ironclad and immediately said title is stupid.

I don't care as long as the story is good, the internal logic is consistent, the acting is decent, and the film is shot well. What's the point in creating a fictional work if you have to stop and make certain that it's 100% accurate at all times? Kind of defeats the purpose of the fiction, doesn't it?

I have a degree in History. Don't worry, I lead a software development team so I didn't end up completely throwing my life away.

Anyway, I'm ok with a film that tries to stay true to reality while presenting a plotline that didn't happen, or inserting whatever convenient things to make the film more digestible to a wide audience. The key is that the film tries its best to stay correct. Saving Private Ryan is a good example. The true story of what happened is uninteresting, a chaplain went out, found the guy, he went home without argument. Spielberg and Hanks wanted to tell a story about combat, and the themes of sacrifice and brotherhood which came with their story were much more enjoyable. They made sure not to fuck up the setting- like having guys carrying the wrong equipment and doing outlandish things. They didn't shoehorn black characters who wouldn't have been there aside from as supply guys in to keep things diverse and overall it was faithful enough to reality to be enjoyable.

Other movies which are clearly not masquerading as historically accurate (such as Inglorious Basterds) and are using a historical backdrop as a playground for something else entirely are ok by me as well, since they aren't trying to fool people. The ones that kill me are the ones which come with the implication that they are historically faithful by the way they present themselves while in reality they are extremely far from the true events. Braveheart is a good example. William Wallace is not well known in history, but in the film we see him fuck the French princess, wife of Edward II and we see him executed and shouting "FREEDOM" as Edward I is on his deathbed. Wallace was executed in 1305 after a defeat in battle. Edward I died in 1307, and the Frenchie Wallace fucks in the film? The was Isabella of France. She would have been 10 years old when Wallace was executed, and didn't arrive in England until age 12 in 1308. Robert the Bruce wasn't really a pussy, etc.

It doesn’t fucking matter if the film is good

If I want historical accuracy I will read a history book

didn't read
but whatever this guy says is the truth and you amerifats need to accept it

Well historical accuracy wasn't saving that B-flick anyway

...

Braveheart's historical accuracy bugs the shit out of me but I still fucking love that movie.

Thought this was a New Vegas thread.

heheh

>"lets be historically accurate"
>"boy being historically accurate is boring as shit"
everytim

Love that video where he points out the inaccuracy in Gladiator and only 10% of the picture is correct.

Same desu

>Historical accuracy

OP your pic is simply a WW2 shot from the Italian front.

Historical accuracy is racist and definitely not progressive. Only alt-right neo-nazis could ask for a silly thing like that.

I like playing Civilization so I don't care about it at all.
The Titus movie with Anthony Hopkins I think is great with the way it meshes anachronisms together.

My friend served as a historical consultant for an episode of a historical tv show a couple of years ago. They sent her a script about an episode involving a bunch of Catholics holding witch trial and asked her if what they had written more or less lined up with what would've happened historically.

She told them the last witch trial in that particular country happened about 150 years before the episode was set and that every single one on legal record had been carried out by Protestants, and that they'd also got the proceedings of the trial and the method of execution wrong.

I think after her advice, all that they changed was adding a line that said something like "this hasn't happened in these parts for a very long time".

Historical accuracy is an uphill battle, no point in trying to campaign for it, it's just not something viewers or producers care about.

This thread lacks context

It's actually not inconceivable that the Roman auxillary may have employed Nubians in their ranks.