Does Hollywood have the right to alter history for box office?

[Excape Goat]

I just finished watching the "Kingdom of Heaven". The story was based on real history with real people in it, but Hollywood changed the story to make Balian the charactor played by Orlando Bloom a hero for entertainment value. Unliked Bloom in the movie who did not join the Crusaders for battle of Hatin because of the lack of water in the desert and Bloom was against the idea, the real Balian actually fought in the battle, but escaped by stepping over his own troops and later became the heroic defender of Jerusalem. He was also born into a noble Crusader family who had never seen Europe. He was not a commoner or a blacksmith from Europe who was the bastrad son of a Crusader knight and became the most noble of all nobles as portrayed in the film.


Does Hollywood have the right to alter history for entertainment vlaue?

[nicephoras]

Uh, yeah. I'm as annoyed by history mistakes as the next guy (see the Rome thread), but not all of history is designed to be made into a 2 hour movie. (None of it is.) So of course Hollywood should change it, and we nerds reserve the rights to complain about it. However, I don't actually want Hollywood to make documentaries - I read books to learn real history. Why would I want Hollywood to do it for me? My imagination is far more exciting than a movie. Keira Knightley's performances in my imagination, for example, have been far better than in her films. ;)

[Belgian guy]

Related topic: Historians Fear Hollywood Is Distorting the Battle of Britain in a New Film by Tom Cruise
(http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4679.html)

Fact is, that 7 US pilots took part in the Battle of Britain, of a total of around 510 foreign pilots. (including, but not limited to:139 polish, 98 New Zealanders, 86 Canadians, 84 Czechoslovakians, 26 Belgians, 21 Australians, 20 South Africans, 13 Frenchmen, 10 Irishmen, 7 Americans).

If one particular set of foreign pilots deserve plaudits for their heroics in the battle of Britain, it's the Polish fighter pilots. They were the most experienced and best trained of the lot, which probably explains why it is a Polish squadron (303 squadron) that achieved the highest number of confirmed kills in the Battle of Britain (126). A Czech serving in that very unit, got the highest individual mark (17 confirmed kills).

[CHICO13]

Weren't there two white guys fighting the the heavyweight championship of the world in one of the Rocky movies? ;) :D

What does that tell you about Hollywood?

[yossarian]

Uh, yeah. I'm as annoyed by history mistakes as the next guy (see the Rome thread), but not all of history is designed to be made into a 2 hour movie. (None of it is.) So of course Hollywood should change it, and we nerds reserve the rights to complain about it. However, I don't actually want Hollywood to make documentaries - I read books to learn real history. Why would I want Hollywood to do it for me? My imagination is far more exciting than a movie. Keira Knightley's performances in my imagination, for example, have been far better than in her films. ;)

Yeah, but in a movie about the Battle of Stirling Bridge....they could've at least put in....you know....a bridge.

Mr. Gibson...I'm looking at you.

[bojendyk]

The studios and writers definitely have that right. One pitfall, however, is that the actual history is usually more interesting and provides a richer, more complex cast of characters than the black-and-white, morally simple reductions in Hollywood movies.

[Belgian guy]

The studios and writers definitely have that right. One pitfall, however, is that the actual history is usually more interesting and provides a richer, more complex cast of characters than the black-and-white, morally simple reductions in Hollywood movies.

Oh, I'm not saying they don't have that right. I just don't see they point. They assume that the US public wouldn't be able to enjoy a movie about a heroic British fighter pilot?

[Thomas A Fina]

Weren't there two white guys fighting the the heavyweight championship of the world in one of the Rocky movies? ;) :D

What does that tell you about Hollywood?

*Threadjack Alert*

Nope. Unless you consider the opening montage in Rocky III where he knocks out all those bums, which I don't think you were.

Rocky gives up the belt to fight Drago as it would be a non-sanctioned fight, and I doubt whether Drago would have been anyone's #1 contender.

So that part anyway is just like real life.

[Glenwood Lane United]

Apparently, the answer is yes, because they've been doing as long as feature films have been produced.

[Toon³]

Related topic: Historians Fear Hollywood Is Distorting the Battle of Britain in a New Film by Tom Cruise
(http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4679.html)


But alarm bells started ringing when Variety, the movie world's magazine of choice, described the film's historical content. "In 1940, expert German fighters had decimated the Royal Air Force to the point that there weren't enough pilots left to fly the Spitfire planes sitting idly in hangars," it said. "Unable to rouse the US into action, a desperate Winston Churchill hatched a covert effort to recruit civilian American pilots to join the RAF. Risking prison sentences in the then-neutral US, a ragtag bunch of pilots answered the call." The magazine also looked forward to "ferocious dogfights between the overmatched American pilots and the German ace fliers"


1. 90% of the RAF was Hurricanes in 1940
2. There was a pilot shortage but not the extent that planes were left "idly in hangers"
3. Desperate Churchill? I don't think so. A covert operation to recruit 7 pilots?
4. They wouldn't have gone to jail
5. Fercious dogfights where the 7 american pilots shot down no planes and make very VERY little differance to the battle. Great! :rolleyes:

I was mildely pìssed off when the americans claimed to have captured the enigma machine, The Patriot and Braveheart continued to show how certain americans feel it nessecary to change history to suit a story or there own personal views.

This is going to far. The other films mentioned at least had some historical basis, this is just lies. Pure and simple, it cannot be called anything else but that. Not only is it lying about a serious matter but it is dishonouring the memories of the pilots from the nations. The pilots that actually did fight and die for Britain and their countries.

Fúck Tom Crusie
Fúck Michael Mann
and Fúck Hollywood


ps Fúck Scientology

[bmurphyfl]

Does Hollywood have the right to alter history for entertainment vlaue?

Did story tellers in the middle ages have the right to alter history to make their stories more interesting?

I'm pretty sure they played fast-and-loose with the facts too. That's why we have historians and why we have entertainers.

[Claymore]

Yeah, but in a movie about the Battle of Stirling Bridge....they could've at least put in....you know....a bridge.

Mr. Gibson...I'm looking at you.

Oof, don't get me going on that one. I'm as much a Nationalist as the rest of my family, but Braveheart took some pretty serious liberties.

[RichardL]

This is going to far. The other films mentioned at least had some historical basis, this is just lies. Pure and simple, it cannot be called anything else but that. Not only is it lying about a serious matter but it is dishonouring the memories of the pilots from the nations. The pilots that actually did fight and die for Britain and their countries.

...especially as it will no doubt portray the American pilots as having saved the day - those 7 succeeding where the other 3,000 failed.

In terms of time in the sky, the average pilot in the battle of britain had a life expectancy of 87 hours. In actual time, about three weeks.

[Pilum]

Maybe it's time to fight fire with fire....

Make a film about Korea. Show the legends-in-their-own-lunchtime USMC running like little girls, but get saved by the steely-eyed, bullet-chewing Glosters and their last stand at the Imjin.

And when the septics whinge, shrug our shoulders and say, "It's only entertainment, if people want to know what really happened they can look in a history book."

[nicephoras]

...especially as it will no doubt portray the American pilots as having saved the day - those 7 succeeding where the other 3,000 failed

That's because we have that American winning spirit that the English don't, which is why they fail so often.

[yossarian]

That's because we have that American winning spirit that the English don't, which is why they fail so often.

:eek:
Ouch! Sucker punch.
;)

[MikeLastort2]

Could someone point out a movie based on some historical event that didn't alter the history of that event?

Thanks in advance!

[Chicago1871]

Oof, don't get me going on that one. I'm as much a Nationalist as the rest of my family, but Braveheart took some pretty serious liberties.
Come on, he was William Wallace, of course he could swing a massive broadsword with one hand. ;)

[HerthaBerwyn]

Oh, I'm not saying they don't have that right. I just don't see they point. They assume that the US public wouldn't be able to enjoy a movie about a heroic British fighter pilot?

Apparently they were right about US audiences needing an American to enjoy a Samurai movie. This Battle of Britain movie looks like the same conceit in a different anachronism.

If it has been decided that American chauvenism is to be catered to why not make movies in which it is justified? How about Tom Cruise as Stepehn Decatur killing evil North African Muslim Pirates? Very timely. The Country Music crowd would love it.

What we dont need is to learn how Tenzing Norgay learned to climb from Tom Cruise.

******** Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard was nothing more than Joseph Smith with a typewriter.

[DoctorD]

Captain von Trapp was not a cold hearted martinet.