Comments on: 8 Films That Changed History

By: RobertFure

RobertFure — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:47:25 +0000

My two cents:
1. 300 should be exempt because the entire movie (and graphic novel) is framed as a story. It begins with a narrator telling a tale and ends with him wrapping it up. So everything up until the last 30 seconds is hyperbole because it's someone telling a greatly embellished story. The last 30 seconds of the unified Greek states charging the Persians is accurate – to a degree. You wouldn't break ranks and charge from that far out. The two armies would actually march politely in formation towards each other until they were very close. Then what amounted to a shoving match started. The Spartans lead the Greeks to victory in that battle.

2. Spartacus was presumed killed in battle, but his body was never recovered. Most people agree he died in battle near Bruttium, but it can't be proved one way or the other.

By: Maddie

Maddie — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:39:00 +0000

I’m pretty sure Quentin knew Hitler didn’t get shot in a theatre. This is just his fun version of how he wished WWII went.

By: David

David — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:06:28 +0000

You make a very good point. I was too hasty in my correction. It still sounds a little funny for me to hear “there is a lot of,” but maybe that's because I'm used to hearing “there are lots of…” Anyway, well done!

By: adamcharles

adamcharles — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:01:05 +0000

Actually, your friend is wrong unless they've changed English textbooks since I've graduated. The subject of the sentence is singular (A lot) and therefore the verb is singular (is). When you combine “arguments” into a singular whole they become represented as one entity and so the verb is formed to fit the single whole, not the plural of “argument.” It is correct to say “There is a lot…” no matter what the lot consists of as it is still one lot. If there are multiple lots consisting of multiple things then the subject has become plural, so “There are lots of arguments.”

It's like saying “There is a team of players” (correct) vs. “There are a team of players” (incorrect). The subject is “a team” not “players.”

Just FYI, now you can throw that back in your friend's face as you were actually correct to begin with, unless, again, they've recently changed textbooks.

By: mychaleg

mychaleg — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 03:46:21 +0000

i love the premise of this article, but i have one nitpick – The Immortals were not “badass” in real life. a poorly trained ragtag bunch that only had wicker shields, shitty scale mail and spears. their main source of intimidation was sheer numbers.

By: makeighlee

makeighlee — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:58:25 +0000

By the way, Woodrow Wilson, during the time of extreme racism, said that “The Birth of a Nation” was ” like writing history with a lightning.”

By: JayCloned

JayCloned — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:04:21 +0000

FYI Scottish people along with the English & Welsh are Brits.

We are called that because the island we live on is named Great Britain.

By: adamcharles

adamcharles — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:35:39 +0000

Agreed. It annoys me when writers feel they have to make a villain out of someone that wasn't one, because they think it adds to the dramatic effect of the hero's success. Personally, I just think it's lazy writing and shameful that the perception of an actual person is altered by a false portrait because the writer isn't talented enough, or confident enough to say that the environment or situation is the main villain. Every single scene involving Baer being a jerk was completely unnecessary. The fact that he was the heavyweight champion and that someone died in the ring fighting him was obstacle enough for Braddock. There was no need to throw in the false representation of Baer's personality for the audience to root for Braddock, we would have done so anyway and the movie would have been better for it.

By: adamcharles

adamcharles — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:25:57 +0000

Also, Bela Lugosi's portrayed disdain of Boris Karloff in ED WOOD was apparently very inaccurate. According to family members of both they were good friends, or were at least friendly.

By: Reebee7

Reebee7 — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:48:33 +0000

It is quite awful. He lived the rest of his life regretful of that guy that died in the ring fighting him.

Good movie, baaaaaaaaaaad history.

By: David

David — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:48:01 +0000

“There's a lot of arguments…” I know that this is a new popular way to say “There are” but it's still wrong. My friend corrects me when I say it, so I thought I'd pass on the love, lovingly.

There ARE a lot of arguments.

By: Aleric

Aleric — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:29:53 +0000

Two points for that one Reebee.

By: Aleric

Aleric — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:28:25 +0000

In addition to these, the villainous Crassus was never made emperor of Rome, Spartacus wasn’t dramatically crucified (he died in battle), and the real-life Lentulus Batiatus didn’t win an Oscar.

Hmm, Dr. Cole are you in possion of something that answers the historical question of whether Sparticus survived the last battle and was not crucified along the Apian Way with the thousands of other captured slaves?

Braveheart would have been a much better movie if they had followed the real history of William Wallace. Fully armored rebel knight of his time who fought with his men and out manuvered the English at several major battles before being captured and put to death.

Oh and Green Zone is an major piece fo shit that only a Howard Zinn worshiping asshole like Matt Damon would dare to make.

By: adamcharles

adamcharles — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:13:39 +0000

The portrayal of Max Baer Sr. in Cinderella Man bugs the ever-lovin' shit outta me. The guy was actually a beloved and decent sportsman & they make him out to be the asshole of the Great Depression. I assume it's because they felt National poverty wasn't a good enough villain for their movie so they had to soil another man's image, because they're too lazy as writers.

Actually, most historical sports films are filled with inaccuracies.

By: Reebee7

Reebee7 — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:35:38 +0000

JFK. That is all.

By: Ratter

Ratter — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:02:56 +0000

I'm surprised Inglourious Basterds didn't make the list. I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be historical…

By: mr_morden

mr_morden — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:24:25 +0000

How about Invictus, portraying a fierce south African team that go and win on sheer willpower and against all odds the word cup of Rugby whereas, in history they drugged the new Zealand's players and paid off referees..way to go Mat Damon ! ;-)

By: Vikram Koppikar

Vikram Koppikar — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:52:45 +0000

I am from India, and Attenborough's Gandhi was shockingly accurate in its portrait of the the sometimes whimsical nature of Gandhi, which did not go to well with people in India