shanes teeth Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Yes but that's an artistic point. The first film was fictional entertainment, and this one will be too. If Jackson had been making a documentary about Operation Chastise, then the name of the dog could not have been changed. But, according to some posters, if you base your fictional entertainment on a real story, you are not permitted to alter, embellish or redact "the truth". If he had been making a documentary the bloody dog probably wouldn't have been mentioned at all! I don't remember it being that important to the plot of the original film and I wouldn't have thought it figured much in the sucess or failure of the mission in real life.Hope they manage to get the registration number of his car correct and to which side he dressed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OwlsChick Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I'm not missing the point. Historical texts (including films) about the past, recent or ancient, purport to be historically rigourous and use established methodologies and theories to support their conclusions, an very rarely have any kind of love interest or heartwarming/tragic animal characters. Entertainment films do not [purport to be historically rigourous] and often have a love interest and a cute animal character. A film with a strong narrative and a strong plot can do nothing but misrepresent history intentionally or otherwise. They are not there as a secondary or even tertiary sources for anyone researching the history of any given period or theme, they are entertainment products designed to make money. Eisenstein was mentioned elsewhere on the forum recently. His films gratuitously misrepresented the recent past, yet are hailed (rightly so) as pioneering masterpieces of cinema. Spotting historical inaccuracies and anachronisms in films has been a long running game for film goers. It's part of the fun to see what they got wrong - and indeed what they have changed. Films like this are of course excellent primary resources for any study of representations of the past, but under those circumstances they are going to be deconstructed by people with a much greater understanding of history than the people who made the film. If you try learning to read a film, I think you'll see all this for yourself. Just incase anyone is interested,in the original film the dead dog can clearly be seen running around in the background in the dying minutes of the film.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Don't be silly; grow up, you're missing the point, which is, anything that claims to be someting should be about that something and not just hijacking the name to make money. It is a film based on true events. Read into that what you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bayern Blade Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I'm not missing the point. Historical texts (including films) about the past, recent or ancient, purport to be historically rigourous and use established methodologies and theories to support their conclusions, an very rarely have any kind of love interest or heartwarming/tragic animal characters. Entertainment films do not [purport to be historically rigourous] and often have a love interest and a cute animal character. A film with a strong narrative and a strong plot can do nothing but misrepresent history intentionally or otherwise. They are not there as a secondary or even tertiary sources for anyone researching the history of any given period or theme, they are entertainment products designed to make money. Eisenstein was mentioned elsewhere on the forum recently. His films gratuitously misrepresented the recent past, yet are hailed (rightly so) as pioneering masterpieces of cinema. Spotting historical inaccuracies and anachronisms in films has been a long running game for film goers. It's part of the fun to see what they got wrong - and indeed what they have changed. Films like this are of course excellent primary resources for any study of representations of the past, but under those circumstances they are going to be deconstructed by people with a much greater understanding of history than the people who made the film. If you try learning to read a film, I think you'll see all this for yourself. Point is the film is based on real events and should therefore try and be as accurate as possible. True fiction is stuff like 633 squadron or Where eagles dare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Point is the film is based on real events and should therefore try and be as accurate as possible. True fiction is stuff like 633 squadron or Where eagles dare. If you want something that is out and out truth, then you don't go and watch a film that is being made purely for entertainment. You watch a documentary or read up about the subject. Do you really think they are making this film in order to educate people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishcake Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Well it's subject implies that it is. A films title shouldn't be taken literally to imply it is historically accurate. This is one step away from kicking Nasty Nick in the streets and believeing everything is real on TV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Don't be silly; grow up, you're missing the point, which is, anything that claims to be someting should be about that something and not just hijacking the name to make money. Maybe because you and I are old military men we set a higher standard when it comes to war movies that unfortunately too often play fast and loose with the truth. One movie I detested was "Platoon" which was on the opposite scale to another equally BS rendering "Green Berets" What was more despicable was that Platoon was produced and directed by Oliver stone himself a Vietnam veteran as I was from 1967/68. It was made to entertain the anti-war crowd and I could have happily strangled Tom Berenger and a couple of other actors who portrayed some soldiers in the Platoon as bestial sadists or rampant pot heads Vietnam vets got a dirty deal all round. Fortunately today Hollywood has turned out some war films that depict soldiers in a much fairer light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Maybe because you and I are old military men we set a higher standard when it comes to war movies that unfortunately too often play fast and loose with the truth. One movie I detested was "Platoon" which was on the opposite scale to another equally BS rendering "Green Berets" What was more despicable was that Platoon was produced and directed by Oliver stone himself a Vietnam veteran as I was from 1967/68. It was made to entertain the anti-war crowd and I could have happily strangled Tom Berenger and a couple of other actors who portrayed some soldiers in the Platoon as bestial sadists or rampant pot heads Vietnam vets got a dirty deal all round. Fortunately today Hollywood has turned out some war films that depict soldiers in a much fairer light. Mai Lai didnt happen then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Mai Lai didnt happen then ? Of course it did but is that a reason to portray every unit in the US army as a bunch of psychotic killers?. The unit commander lieutenant Calley was tried and punished From what I saw there the Viet Cong committed atrocities against their own people that made Mai Lai look like a Sunday school picnic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Mai Lai didnt happen then ? What a silly post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.