Cookie Cutter Movies, Pearl Harbour and why Hollywood Star WarsIII wont be that great

[civiltech]

Last night CBC aired the movie "Pearl Harbour." The movie was about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour during WW II. Or was it?

I can't believe that Hollywood has taken such a solemn, and serious time in America's history, and turned it into a sick love triangle between the three main characters. I remember the concern when the movie first came out was that the Japanese may take offense. I can't understand why American's and most of all WW II vets didn't raise any mifs at this belittling of such an event?

Can we expect in 10 to 20 years a movie about 9/11 to include a love story injected to cater to all "demographs", fill in the slow parts between the action scenes, and bring in crowds?

I'm a little tired of cookie cutter movies, and politically correct movies, but now trying to take historical events and twist them again is beginning to drive me nuts.

And here in Canada we havn't escaped either. The CBC movie which aired some time ago about the history of the A.V. Roe Arrow (Canada's wonder plane) was to "male" oriented. So, to "correct" historical bias, they injected the role of a woman to make the historical accuracy more politically correct. That made everything better.....

I remember talking with a wonderful lady (a teacher at one of our schools) who thought the Communist government was horrible after watching the movie K911 The Widowmaker. For not sending radiation suits on board the boat, and sending seamen to die......that was her historical reference......wrong as it may be.

If anyone thinks Star Wars III will be amazing, and somehow make up for the two duds preceeding it, well......I think you'll be rather disapointed. There will be some good fight scenes (action) a touching moment or two (love story to fill in the slow parts) and a long awaited ending to the hype played on us three times now from when we remember the original star wars movies.......

Not me...I won't fall for it...I will be in line for the sequel to Cat Woman!

[frenzl]

HERE HERE!! that's what i'm talkin about!

[Point_Left]

I seem to recall that "Pearl Harbour" was named most hisorically and physically inaccurate movie of the year. Still debating if I should watch to find out why...

[Soldier]

Just buy the soundtrack; that's the only redeeming value (Rock on, Hans Zimmer!).

[Louweasel]

a sick love triangle between the three main characters.

Why was it sick? were two ofthem brother and sister or something?

[Louweasel]

but now trying to take historical events and twist them again is beginning to drive me nuts.

Hear hear. Apparently. when that film about the submarine and the coding machine mission (the title was some kind of number/letter combination) came out, offense was taken by the Polish and British ex-servicemen (and families thereof) who had actually successfully (I think) undertaken the dangerous mission, when they saw that in the film it was all magically achieved by...guess who? The US forces...

On the other hand, admittedly I didn't go to see the Patriot, but apparently that didn't show the British in a very good light either; my point being, somebody's got to be the villain, whether it's the Japanese, the British, the communists or the big tentacle-y slimy aliens. I'd just like to see the film where the americans are the baddies and some other nationality are on the side of justice and righteousness, but I doubt Hollywood would consider such a thing!

[Gav]

Hear hear. Apparently. when that film about the submarine and the coding machine mission (the title was some kind of number/letter combination) came out, offense was taken by the Polish and British ex-servicemen (and families thereof) who had actually successfully (I think) undertaken the dangerous mission, when they saw that in the film it was all magically achieved by...guess who? The US forces...

On the other hand, admittedly I didn't go to see the Patriot, but apparently that didn't show the British in a very good light either; my point being, somebody's got to be the villain, whether it's the Japanese, the British, the communists or the big tentacle-y slimy aliens. I'd just like to see the film where the americans are the baddies and some other nationality are on the side of justice and righteousness, but I doubt Hollywood would consider such a thing!

The film you are talking about was U-571. A screenshot containg text was added explaining that the British captured the Enigma machine only after persisten lobbying and complaints by the submariners families that you mention. I haven't seen this film. A friend of mine asked for his money back after seeing this movie and that was enough for me. I won't make any more judgements about the historical accuracy. I will make this statement. If you make a movie and this movie claims to be historical then I think that you must make an attempt to get it right. I think that that is sensible and responisible. There are plenty of good historical stories out there that would make good films - providing that the money men/population demographic analysts don't get their mitts on it. Truly memorable movies don't treat the viewer as an idiot (though he may be) they treat the viewer as someone interested in the story and characters. Someone capable of understanding and buying into what's going on. If you alter the truth [a la Braveheart] and make suggestions that it is true you are not only insulting the viewer you are insulting someones (and it could yours) cultural heritage. Be brave and make a good movie.

Braveheart is a great example and it's a movie I've come to hate over the years. Not only is it loose with my history. But because folks from elsewhere have taken it to be true they come here expecting to find out all about this bloke William Wallace who knocked up the french-English queen and made the succeeding royals bastards in their own house. All in the name of Love... boo hoo. I hate that movie. The worst are those Scot's who believe it to be true and thus prove their ignorance. THAT movie is a prime example of irreposnsible movie making.

The patriot was just Braveheart in the US. I'm no student of the War for Independence but from what I've read here and been told Americans should be as insulted by that movie as I am by Braverheart.

Simply saying "Relax it's just a movie" doesn't wash with me.

[darius]

"Pearl Harbor" was also incredibly racist -- did anybody notice that the only person that Kate Beckinsale's character didn't get with was the Cuba Gooding Jr. character?

"U-571" was at least entertaining, and while completely historically inaccurate, featured the fine acting talent of Jon Bon Jovi.

"The Patriot" was "Braveheart" rehashed, right down to the "running-slowly-forward-with-a-sharp-polearm" bit. That triggered paroxyms of laughter among my crew.

darius

[civiltech]

It is kind of reasurring I"m not the only one tired of these movies....I thought I was setting myself up on this post.

When in Blockbuster, or Rogers Video stores, I find myself slowly wandering over to the Foreign Film section, or award winning films from Cannes, Pheonix, L.A., Toronto, Montreal, etc. because you know 90% of the time you will be watching something new. A new plot, a new curve.

The Patriot was just a bad movie overall. And I don't think we need to get into the historical inaccuracies there!

Titanic.......easy target as well.

Actually, can anyone name a movie which wasn't "Based" on a true story, and actually has some historical accuracy. I'm thinking the only one that comes close is "Laurence of Arabia" with Peter O'toole.....

[Gav]

Actually, can anyone name a movie which wasn't "Based" on a true story, and actually has some historical accuracy. I'm thinking the only one that comes close is "Laurence of Arabia" with Peter O'toole.....

Even that...

I'm struggling with this one. Anyone?

[Gav]

It is kind of reasurring I"m not the only one tired of these movies....I thought I was setting myself up on this post.

When in Blockbuster, or Rogers Video stores, I find myself slowly wandering over to the Foreign Film section, or award winning films from Cannes, Pheonix, L.A., Toronto, Montreal, etc. because you know 90% of the time you will be watching something new. A new plot, a new curve.

Me too. I watch a lot of French and Japanese movies

The Patriot was just a bad movie overall. And I don't think we need to get into the historical inaccuracies there!

I think I've had my say on historical movies.

Titanic.......easy target as well.

I really hate that movie as well - it's rubbish.

Actually, can anyone name a movie which wasn't "Based" on a true story, and actually has some historical accuracy. I'm thinking the only one that comes close is "Laurence of Arabia" with Peter O'toole.....

Even that...

I'm struggling with this one. Anyone?

[kalivor]

Well there's Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. Completely accurate, as far as I'm aware.

[davesaint]

Tora Tora Tora. The well done and historical account of Pearl Harbor. Midway, even if it does have Charlton Heston in it.

It is kind of reasurring I"m not the only one tired of these movies....I thought I was setting myself up on this post.

When in Blockbuster, or Rogers Video stores, I find myself slowly wandering over to the Foreign Film section, or award winning films from Cannes, Pheonix, L.A., Toronto, Montreal, etc. because you know 90% of the time you will be watching something new. A new plot, a new curve.

The Patriot was just a bad movie overall. And I don't think we need to get into the historical inaccuracies there!

Titanic.......easy target as well.

Actually, can anyone name a movie which wasn't "Based" on a true story, and actually has some historical accuracy. I'm thinking the only one that comes close is "Laurence of Arabia" with Peter O'toole.....

[darius]

When in Blockbuster, or Rogers Video stores, I find myself slowly wandering over to the Foreign Film section, or award winning films from Cannes, Pheonix, L.A., Toronto, Montreal, etc. because you know 90% of the time you will be watching something new. A new plot, a new curve.

I think a general rule-of-thumb is that "90% of everything is crap." I love my art-house cinema, but I've seen just as many bad movies there as at the local megacinema. But at least bad action-blockbusters have explosions and objectification of beautiful women. A bad indie film is ... worse.l

Actually, can anyone name a movie which wasn't "Based" on a true story, and actually has some historical accuracy. I'm thinking the only one that comes close is "Laurence of Arabia" with Peter O'toole.....

How about "Hidalgo"? No... hrmm.... "Blair Witch Project"? Shoot.

The problem with historical accuracy is that movies have to do their business in about 2 hrs (unless you're Peter Jackson); you have that long to capture the essence of your characters and make them actually DO something.

Even well-regarded films like "Elizabeth" and "Schindler's List" combined characters and events, because to actually tell their stories would have taken far longer, and made a less-effective film. However, both films succeeded by portraying (by some accounts) accurate characterizations of the humans involved.

The foremost goal of a dramatic movie is to entertain. There is a place of non-fiction, it's called a "documentary". A compelling piece, historically accurate or not, is preferable to one that is dull -- if people become interested in a certain period of time by watching a movie, they can go on to learn more from primary sources, and discover that the movie got its facts wrong.

darius

[Gav]

How about "Hidalgo"? No... hrmm.... "Blair Witch Project"? Shoot.

The problem with historical accuracy is that movies have to do their business in about 2 hrs (unless you're Peter Jackson); you have that long to capture the essence of your characters and make them actually DO something.

Even well-regarded films like "Elizabeth" and "Schindler's List" combined characters and events, because to actually tell their stories would have taken far longer, and made a less-effective film. However, both films succeeded by portraying (by some accounts) accurate characterizations of the humans involved.

The foremost goal of a dramatic movie is to entertain. There is a place of non-fiction, it's called a "documentary". A compelling piece, historically accurate or not, is preferable to one that is dull -- if people become interested in a certain period of time by watching a movie, they can go on to learn more from primary sources, and discover that the movie got its facts wrong.

Whilst I agree mostly with what you say I also think that it's an over simplification. It's very easy to say "dram is drama" it's not so easy to put up with it when a mov

[civiltech]

That's it I guess.

There is no real movie that we can say accurately portrays reality?

Not wanting to get into an bloody arguement, but one can say even our documentaries have been polluted with partisan, and personal vendetta's with Moore's 9/11.

[grotto]

Apollo 13 was fairly accurate all be it condensed version of history. Also on the NASA movie list "the right stuff" was also in that catagory.

[kalivor]

Not wanting to get into an bloody arguement, but one can say even our documentaries have been polluted with partisan, and personal vendetta's with Moore's 9/11.

Well, documentaries are factual, but the creator has a point of view, and often even a point to make. Think of when they make a book into a movie -- there's always huge chunks of book left out, often upsetting fans of the book.

So you aren't going to find too many well-rounded thorough documentaries. The points they make are essay-sized, not book-sized, and their creators might often have college degrees, but rarely graduate degrees or degrees in sociology, political science, or anything related to the area their movies explore:

They may often be excellent movies, but their academic content is on par with a first- or second-year undergraduate, at most. Their strength is in the light they shine on things, and in the medium that they use ... follow-up reading/research is a must if you're moved by the piece.

A good example is "Supersize Me" ... excellent movie (I haven't had fast food since seeing it), and it's points are almost certainly valid. However, nobody with any kind of a scientific background is going to mistake the "experiment" in the movie as a properly done experiment, and declare the results to be accurate. But it shines a light where it needs to be shone, makes some good and valid points along the way, and makes excellent use of the medium along the way.

I'm sure there are thousands of people out there developing some healthy eating habits because of it ...

[achilleus]

The film you are talking about was U-571. A screenshot containg text was added explaining that the British captured the Enigma machine only after persisten lobbying and complaints by the submariners families that you mention. I haven't seen this film. A friend of mine asked for his money back after seeing this movie and that was enough for me. I won't make any more judgements about the historical accuracy. I will make this statement. If you make a movie and this movie claims to be historical then I think that you must make an attempt to get it right. I think that that is sensible and responisible. There are plenty of good historical stories out there that would make good films - providing that the money men/population demographic analysts don't get their mitts on it. Truly memorable movies don't treat the viewer as an idiot (though he may be) they treat the viewer as someone interested in the story and characters. Someone capable of understanding and buying into what's going on. If you alter the truth [a la Braveheart] and make suggestions that it is true you are not only insulting the viewer you are insulting someones (and it could yours) cultural heritage. Be brave and make a good movie.

Braveheart is a great example and it's a movie I've come to hate over the years. Not only is it loose with my history. But because folks from elsewhere have taken it to be true they come here expecting to find out all about this bloke William Wallace who knocked up the french-English queen and made the succeeding royals bastards in their own house. All in the name of Love... boo hoo. I hate that movie. The worst are those Scot's who believe it to be true and thus prove their ignorance. THAT movie is a prime example of irreposnsible movie making.

The patriot was just Braveheart in the US. I'm no student of the War for Independence but from what I've read here and been told Americans should be as insulted by that movie as I am by Braverheart.

Simply saying "Relax it's just a movie" doesn't wash with me.

It seems most of your anger is actually at the audiences, not the movies. I've seen U-571, Braveheart, and others, but I don't think they are accurate historical documents. I watch cartoons, but I don't think I can drop an anvil on somebodies head and we can laugh about it later.

I walked in to U-571 expecting to be entertained, not given a history lesson. Same with Braveheart. They were billed as adventure movies.

As for what movies should do, well, that's up to debate, and it's important to remember that unlike books which are often published for a variety of reasons, most movies have one underlying reason, to make a studio money. Second is to provide entertainment. Very few movies start off with the goal of accurately portraying history.

And, it's important to remember, based on a true story does not mean it happened exactly like this.

So, to you, and the people who believe everything they see on film I say, 'It's just a movie.'

[Aeric]

I enjoy the old WWII movies like The Longest Day and A Bridge Too Far (both with Sean Connery btw), because they're historically accurate for the most part.