I hate you, Hollywood!

LooseCannon

LooseCannon

Enterprise-class aircraft carrier
Staff member
Pearl Harbor. U-571. The Last Samurai. These are all movies which, over the past few years, have flooded the box offices with American propagandistic CRAP. Now, this is going to become a very long rant in which it'll seem like I'm anti-American. I assure you, I'm not. What I am is anti-bullshit.

[a href=\'http://www.westpress.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=127638&command=displayContent&sourceNode=127637&contentPK=9562995\' target=\'_blank\']A new movie[/a] starring Tom Cruise is being filmed. It's called "The Few" and supposedly based on the Battle of Britain. However, what it really is is more American bullshit. The new movie will not be about the real heroes of the Battle of Britain, such as "Sailor" Malan or Douglas Bader (about whom there should be movies!), but an American pilot who, in reality, claimed ZERO, NILCH, NADA, NO kills. In fact, only 7 Americans fought in the Battle of Britain, and they combined for the same total.

However, this new movie is sure to glorify American achievements (of which there were NONE) in the Battle of Britain. If it was just one movie doing this, I might be okay. However, it is simply the latest in the trend of glorifying propagandistic movies intended to take glory from the people who won it and hand it to America. I'll start with Pearl Harbor.

This movie, aside from the fact that it was ruined by a horrible romance thingy, wasn't all that bad. The filmography was purposefully designed to show American symbols, but what can you expect? And the details of the attack on Pearl were wonderfully executed.

Sadly, the movie's turn after Pearl Harbor was to blow up the efforts of the Doolittle raiders. In the movie those men inflicted what appeared to be critical damage on Tokyo. In reality, only a few buildings were damaged. The Japanese people didn't even realize they had been bombed! A gas explosion was blamed, and only high command knew it was American airplanes who caused the few deaths.

So now I move on to The Last Samurai. This one is almost forgivable, as it's so obviously far-out that it is plainly designed to be taken as fiction. Point. The Japanese rebels (Led by a fellow named Saigo Takamori, not whatever he was called in the movie) were rebelling to kick Westerners OUT.
Point. The Japanese government did not hire US soldiers/advisors for their military. Every single army advisor they hired were GERMAN.
Point. Becoming a Samurai took more than a winter.
Point. Even if an American had been captured and had trained as a samurai...Saigo's forces would NEVER-EVER-EVER-EVER let a Westerner fight with them.

There. Now to the greatest tragedy of wartime fiction ever created: U-571.

What the fuck?

First of all. The Enigma machine was captured not by the Americans, or the British, or the French, but by the Czechs. The Czech Secret Service captured the machine in the Sudetenland conquest, and then snuck it out to the Poles. The Poles gave it to the French, who gave it to Britain. Ultra, the codebreaking service at Bletchley, began to hack it.

But they were aided when the crew of HMS Bulldog captured intact a German U-boat. The U-boat had been surfaced after being depth-charged by the Bulldog and a Canadian destroyer. The crew of the Bulldog gave to Bletchley a codebook. This allowed them to break not only the naval ciphers, but the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht ciphers as well. This was in 1940/41, before Pearl Harbor.

This "The Few" movie, however, has the potential to take the crown from U-571. Check out [a href=\'http://forum.maidenfans.com/index.php?act=ST&f=44&t=4321\' target=\'_blank\']this thread[/a] to see the truth behind the Battle of Britain, and remember when you see the movie: This victory belongs to Britain and her Commonwealth, and was their Finest Hour.
 
Calm down LooseCanon !
The public like nice stories with a visible hero, the public like love stories, the public like happy ends and the public like simple stories easy to understand.
As you know, there is nothing simple in History, only because History is about human beings.
And, well, you know that too, there is nothing simple as long as you deal with human beings [!--emo&:rolleyes:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/rolleyes.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'rolleyes.gif\' /][!--endemo--] .
So, really, there is no need to go and make such a fuss... Keep a little bit of your rant : there are Alexander and Troy about to come ! [!--emo&:p--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'tongue.gif\' /][!--endemo--]

Get ready !
Set !
Goooooo !
 
[!--QuoteBegin-LooseCannon+Apr 13 2004, 06:01 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Apr 13 2004, 06:01 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] Point.  Becoming a Samurai took more than a winter. [/quote]
That's sooo karate kid-ish. I mean, Hollywood will somehow try to make you believe that if you just believe in yourself and try hard enough, you can acomplish just about anything in the duration of a Huey Lewis tune, appararently covering a lenght of time, but still not nearly enough to justify the changes in character skills etc. This is seen time and time over in Hollywood flicks [!--emo&:cussing:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/cussing[1].gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'cussing[1].gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
My dear Owl, I really have to disagree with you here.

LooseCannon has a very good point here in pointing out that Tinsel-fucking-town is deliberately re-writing History in a similar manner to that of the so-called historians in Orwell's 1984.

What people want is fine, let's give them fiction for their little entertainment. History is certainly not a subject to mess with -- mostly not if you're going to present it to a large audience that is not necessarily familiar with it!

Millions of under-educated Americans (no anti-americanism here, this is the sad truth) already believe that John Wayne saved the day during the landing in Normandy, and that if it hadn't been for the glorious US-of-'kin'-A, all of Europe would now speak German -- how wrong!

Do you want those prats to become even more arrogant than they already are? A film like The Few will lead them to believe that a single American did what the Royal Air Force (comprising men from all nations of the Commonwealth, but also Poles, Frenchmen, Czech, and a few other nationalities) couldn't do before the threat of the Luftwaffe.

I'm sorry, but this is quite out of order to my eyes. People need to be EDUCATED in what really happened. If you want nice stories, there's always Wuthering Heights or When Harry Met Sally. If you want to make a historical film, make it accurate!!!!

Do you think Disney's cartoons aren't already butchering enough of European fairy tales and myths? Do we need Hollywood to blatantly lie to us and warp Historical facts? Let's wake up here!

I really share LooseCannon's anger before such misdemeanour [!--emo&:angry:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/mad.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'mad.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
Master Owl, I do of course have to agree with Maverick here. Keeping The Few in mind, I will make a point. If they wanted to write a feel-good story on a real hero of the Battle of Britain, why did they not pick Douglas Bader? For those of you who don't know, Douglas Bader commanded 242 (Canadian) Squadron in the Battle of Britain. Although he was British himself, he took his pilots, who were, of course, Canadian, and made one of the finest air units that took part in the air war over British skies. But this isn't what set him apart.

What set apart Douglas Bader was that he had no legs. He claimed 22 kills over Britain and France before being shot down and imprisoned. And he had no legs. Once in a prison camp, Bader attempted to escape so many times they actually moved him to the special prison where the Germans kept all their chronic escapees. Although his physical disablilty stopped him from actually escaping, he aided dozens of other British soldiers to get out of prison camps.

If that's not a war hero, I don't know what is. That's a much better feel good story, too, than any big pilot. These films aren't just there for entertainment. There is a definate propaganda purpose behind them. After this movie, everyone will have heard of whoever the hell it is that Tom Cruise is portraying. Fellows like Douglas Bader? Forgotten.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-LooseCannon+Apr 13 2004, 09:29 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Apr 13 2004, 09:29 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] why did they not pick Douglas Bader? [/quote]
Quite simply because:

1. he wasn't American
2. he was a REAL hero and therefore a complex character -- Holly-f'kin'-wood likes it simple

Does that make sense? [!--emo&^_^--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/happy.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'happy.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
Dear mister Maverick,

I must say Loosecanon and your highness have both a good point here.
Yes, the way Hollywood is rewriting History is upsetting. Yes, the fact that most of the people don't even know the History of their own country and of the last century is very distressing. Don't get me on that : I could get LooseCanon long [!--emo&^_^--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/happy.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'happy.gif\' /][!--endemo--] .

BUT, I don't think you can trust Hollywood to change theses facts. What I was merely trying to tell - in an ironic way which was obviously totally lost on you - was that Hollywood is making movies to catch the most people on them. Hollywood is making business.

History is highly complex, because it's dealing with human beings. The shortcuts you learn at school are upsetting, I found out when I learned History at university. But, as sad as it is, that's what most of the people want : white and black, no grey or it gets too complicated. And from there we can begin a very interesting philosophical discussion...

PS : I would be eager to cross swords with you on that subject in the chatroom, but I can't catch it tonight, damn it ! [!--emo&:angry:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/mad.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'mad.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
3. he had no legs. A Hollywood hero needs to have legs. Sad but true. Otherwise "the public won't find the character believable" or some other bull. If they were to make a movie about a character without legs, it wouldn't be about the things he did in life, but what life did to him and how he survived
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Le Hibou - The Owl+Apr 13 2004, 09:38 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Le Hibou - The Owl @ Apr 13 2004, 09:38 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] Hollywood is making movies to catch the most people on them. Hollywood is making business. [/quote]
You have to be careful what business you're dealing with.

Montsanto, Inc. was making business making chemicals, and at the end of the 60s, they had a pesticide by-product that was also "making business" being very popular in Viet-Nam -- Agent Orange!

Hollywood makes business selling fairytales. Fine. When it come to historical films, they should get their facts straight or let someone else do it.

People lose more and more all sense of reality and critical sense (see my post about Maiden "fans"), and they take for granted what they see on a big screen (even a small one!). That's very dangerous, imo.

Do you think Shakespeare would have written a play depicting Julius Caesar bravely fighting the Gauls single-handed with a magic sword and then waiting a few centuries to kick Attila's arse? Let's get real here!
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Maverick+Apr 13 2004, 02:06 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Maverick @ Apr 13 2004, 02:06 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] Millions of under-educated Americans (no anti-americanism here, this is the sad truth) already believe that John Wayne saved the day during the landing in Normandy, and that if it hadn't been for the glorious US-of-'kin'-A, all of Europe would now speak German -- how wrong!
[/quote]
Your point is correct about most Americans thinking that the US won WWII. However, your statement about John Wayne is completely off-base. Americans recognize the difference between real history and historical fiction. We all knew that Pearl Harbor was full of shit the minute we saw it, and we don't mistake John Wayne or Tom Cruise movies for documentaries. Give us a little credit here, man.

As far as saying Hollywood should either make historical movies with perfect accuracy or not at all: WRONG. Hollywood is in the business of making money; movies are just a means to an end. Most people want to see a good story when they lay down their 8 bucks at the theater; complete historical accuracy is an acceptable sacrifice if it improves the story. Sure we know it's not accurate, but we don't go to the movies for a history lesson. We go to see car chases and nasty villians and to watch things go BOOM.

I'll say it again: complete historical accuracy is an acceptable sacrifice if it improves the story. If the alterations don't help the story, then it's right to get peeved. But if they do - and at least in the case of Pearl Harbor, the story was improved - then all is forgiven. (I don't mean Pearl Harbor was good; it was only improved from vile stinking crap to mildly malodorous crap.) Sorry LooseCannon and Mav - I do understand why you have those opinions, but I think most people would disagree.

What bugs me in movies is bad science in a sci-fi movie. I think sci-fi should have some at least semi-plausible basis in real science. This is why I like Star Trek and hated Armageddon and The Core. I'm sure there are people who don't care about the science; they just wanna see great special effects in their sci-fi. You see the pattern here? I'm a scientist, and thus I hold a minority opinion about scientific accuracy. LooseCannon is a historian, and so he has a minority opinion about historical accuracy.

The bottom line: don't take the movies so seriously! They're just fantasies to entertain you for a couple hours! Sure there are a few serious movies which are exceptions (e.g. Schindler's List) but mostly they're just fluff, so lighten up and eat yer damn popcorn already! [!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
I just think hoolywood should leave history alone .. think of Mel Gibson and the Passion of Christ... wether you belive it or not its still history and Hollywood didnt back him up at all he barely got endorsements and all the other shit that comes out with movies.. he still got the film done paid from his own pocket (go the Aussie haha)... Hollywood should just stick to thier gung - ho shit like Independence day... and all other shit films like that a real 'kin threat to all universe that exists only in thier heads... damn Hollywood always screwing something up either history or a well written book
 
My obligatory two cents:

It's unfortunate that history is being so blatently distorted by Hollywood recently. The memories of those who died in the Battle of Britain will be dishonoured by thiis upcoming monstrosity Hollywood calls a movie.

On the other hand, however, it can be argued that any attention being paid to the past at all further promotes its study. Take the movie Gladiator, for example. I've spoken to some Classics professors ad nauseum about how completely wrong this movie depicted the Roman world. That being said, there has been a rebirth in curiosity of the Classical world since the movie's release.

Of course, there's also the so-called post-modern critique of history. Post-modernists argue that since we cannot possibly EVER know every event in a historical situation (the Battle of Britain, for example), we are flawed in thinking we can begin to fathom the truth of the past.

While rewriting history for entertainment value on the movie screen is a mostly American phenomenon, similar things have been going on since the days of Herodotus. Everyone distorts history to make themselves look better. (I'm as guilty of this as anyone, I'm afraid). That doesn't make it right though!

Historical novels present an interesting comparison. They have the flaw of being fiction, and thus by nature not accurate. However, they bring the past to life in a way academic study cannot ever hope to.

I'm not quite sure I follow what I've written here, but here's my conclusion: As long as it is made 100% clear that movies in this genre are FICTION, then they should not be condemned outright by historians. Let them generate public interest, in the hope that they will take the initive to find out the FACTS (yes, I'm being too optimistic here!)

PS- I wonder how Americans would feel if a movie were made about a group of Brits being the ones who took Iwo Jima and raised the Union Jack?
 
[!--QuoteBegin-SinisterMinisterX+Apr 13 2004, 11:26 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SinisterMinisterX @ Apr 13 2004, 11:26 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] What bugs me in movies is bad science in a sci-fi movie. [/quote]
Being a scientist too, I completely agree with you. I didn't touch this aspect of things because it would make my messages even longer, but you're right, "pop-corn science" also makes me cringe!
 
Hey.....I never thought of that. I suppose bad physics in Star Trek pisses a physicist off as much as bad history in movies does a historian.

Again though, as long as they don't present it as fact (ie- make it 100% clear that it is fiction) then the story can be appreciated regardless of its misuse of history or science.
 
I know a bit about science too, and those things upset me as well. The plebs are too likely to take these things for real.
 
"Mister Owl", "Mister Maverik"? my how formal, allow me to break with tradition
What up Dawgs?
This is a very interesting thread and you woke me up (I'm cutting history class today haha) The first thing I noticed was that historians don't like hollywood screwing up history, scientist don't like hollywood screwing up science etc etc. I don't like them screwing ANYTHING period. Just because you have a special interest in something it doesn't mean they should have that accurate and who cares about other subjects. Yes their main goal is to entertain but there is a difference between MINDLESS entertainment (e.g Resident Evil) to GOOD entertainment (e.g 28 days later). In my opinion 28 days later was succesful in presenting a good 'scary' zombie movie and at the same time philosophise about life and our role on this earth. It entertained AND got you thinking. I HATE (and i don't hate many things trust me) When people say they go to the movies "just to be entertained" that they don't want to think. Since when is thinking a hard task? you do it all the time (even deciding what movie you are going to see.) I love a movie or song or book that makes me think, that teaches me something I can apply in my life, a paper or a simple discussion. For example, Orwell's 1984, Maverik mentioned their 'historians' but my favorite is "Newspeak". Look at what the internet has done to English: IMO, WTF, LOL, BRB, NV, OIC etc (that last one is not part of them). Since when has it become a chore to write full words? In other words, just because it is entertainment it does not have to be mindless or inaccurate. And even though we may not be able to know EVERYTHING from the past we are able to know major facts or events.
One movie you failed to mention LooseCannon is "The Alamo". I was very curious to see this movie because the previews (trailers) sold it as another propagandistic film of freedom. to quote them they said, "Ordinary men will become heroes," "They were brothers, lawyers, bankers, sons and fathers." But they don't say they were slavery mongering racists who entered illigaly into Mexican territory and didn't want to pay federal taxes. So I went to see the movie. To my surprise it was a GOOD movie and here is why. The previews were bullshit to get people to go see it. HOWEVER, it focused more on the battle itself than the reasons behind it. It only mentions a few times that Sam Houston wanted an INDEPENDANT republic of Texas, it only touches on the subject that they were slave owners and it depicted the Mexican Army like if it was a Roman legion. Mexico has NEVER had an intimidating army. Sure back then the U.S had NO army, much less the Texan Rebels. However, Santa Ana's army had to march from Mexico City to Texas and then fight yet in the movie they are as fresh as a daisy on arrival. It has one MAJOR blunder, in a speach given by one of the leaders (Leutanant Coronel Travis) he says "Let's show them what patriots are made of." Patriots? I think not, for reasons mentioned above. In the End Sam Houston defeats Santa Anna and gets Texas, however only 9 years later they become the 28th state of the union. Hence the Alamo and Houston's dream of an Independant Texas were dead and for nothing.
Going back to my point, distorting ANYTHING is just flat out wrong. If they get one or two things screwed up, that i don't mind after all we're only human. But the reason I like 28 Days Later, Iron Maiden, Brave New World and writing on this board is because THEY MAKE ME THINK. I mentioned on my U.S EU Metal Thread the fantasy bubble the U.S likes surrounding themselves in, SMX, you are lucky not to be part of it, but even in recent polls (2000) Many Americans(around 55%) Don't know the Earth goes around the Sun, and lack BASIC geography. I haven't forgotten my promise to follow up on education, i'm doing research and interviews to give you as accurate data as possible, so bare with me!
Now I won't give a gold star to whoever reads this entire post, thinking is its own reward. [!--emo&:rock:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/headbang.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'headbang.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
i do intirely agree wif u aboot the nu internet way of spelling, as if it were more dificult 2 rite on a comp than 4 a school paper. it iz so annoying 2 reed!

Ur post wuz long and interesting, but u shud hav separeted it into 3-4 paragrafs. Tho i rely enjoyed reedin it [!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]


OMG WTF BRB ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!11 [!--emo&:p--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'tongue.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
[!--emo&:lmao:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/lol.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'lol.gif\' /][!--endemo--] HAHAHAHAHA
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Apr 14 2004, 10:43 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Apr 14 2004, 10:43 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] SMX, you are lucky not to be part of it, but even in recent polls (2000) Many Americans(around 55%) Don't know the Earth goes around the Sun, and lack BASIC geography. [/quote]
Yes, I've seen those polls too. I admit that my perception of my fellow countrymen may be inaccurate because I have no tolerance for idiots. Therefore, upon determining that a person is an idiot, I almost always cease all communication with them immediately. After all, everyone eventually comes to resemble those people you hang out with. Hang around with idiots, and they'll dumb you down. So because all of my friends are highly intelligent, maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture.

That's the reason I like this board so much - very few idiots. Sure there are some here (I won't be crude enough to name names, though a few do come to mind) but the majority of folks here actually use their brain.

While I also enjoy movies that make you think, I don't see anything wrong with the periodic dose of mindless entertainment. Even us smart folks need a break sometimes! I'm a pre-med student up to my ears in biology, chemistry and physics. The occasional "Dude, Where's My Car" helps keep me sane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top