discussion Historical innacuracies that get up your nose.

[stona]

I've had 'The Battle of Britain' on the tv this afternoon (on Yesterday) and was thinking that despite the presence of a Hollywood star and professional Scot it was actually not bad. Contributions from men who were there and authors like Bishop and Bungay were all pretty good.

Then all of a sudden it was announced that Douglas Bader was in command of 12 Group in 1940, promoting his 'Big Wing' tactic.

This came as some surprise as Douglas Bader was a Squadron Leader in 1940 and it is a well established and known historical fact that 12 Group was commanded by Leigh Mallory, an Air Vice Marshall.

Now I don't expect the program to go into the ins and outs of the conflict between Leigh Mallory (who was technically Park's superior) and Dowding and Park. It is true that the 'Big Wing' idea originated with Bader, but such a fundamental factual error shakes one's faith in what was actually a decent program.

There are many Hollywood films which are very loosely based on historical events that get right up my nose, but at the end of the day they are films made to entertain.

The program I've been watching is a documentary, shown originally by the BBC and it's not good enough.........rant over

Cheers

Steve

 

[Guest]

i cant watch that prog without feeling a tinge of jealousy,what with hid brother being a pilot and also getting up in the twin seater spit(grrrrrrr)but is entertaining too watch lol

mobear

 

[Alan 45]

Yeah Leigh Mallory was head of 12 group, on films I can accept all the little things its entertainment but one really gets up my nose, it's the amphibious assault to take the north end of nijmagan bridge in a bridge too far, that was taken by the grenadier guards and was only changed for the American audience

 

[Guest]

I cannot say how much I hate inaccuracies. Doesn't matter where I find them really, but in movies that are supposed to be based on actual events, then the director/producer has their hands tied. If they deviate too far from the norm, then I am taken out of the illusion, and it's right around then that the movie is "over" for me. At that point onwards, all I do is look for more of their mistakes.

 

[eddiesolo]

One thing is to just take them with a large pinch/bag of salt, I like U-571...total crock if you look at it from a accurate point of view but entertaining, same with Pearl-Harbour, I like the action scenes, not much else. It is like Apollo 13, in the film they had a shouting match, in reality they never did. Artistic licence maybe, but if you are doing a historic film then research does go along way.

Si

 

[Guest]

One thing is to just take them with a large pinch/bag of salt, I like U-571...total crock if you look at it from a accurate point of view but entertaining, same with Pearl-Harbour, I like the action scenes, not much else. It is like Apollo 13, in the film they had a shouting match, in reality they never did. Artistic licence maybe, but if you are doing a historic film then research does go along way.Si

I agree with U571. Total crap. But really funny. And as I said, there is a point in which the german destroyer drops a load of depth charges on the sub, with 3 of them going off more or less at the same time, at 15-18m deep, and starboard amidships. Which I am pretty sure would split any U-boat in half at that depth and range. Once I realized there was no way they could have survived, I was free to ignore everything else, and just sit back and have a laugh.

If you really want a movie that does not match, watch Alive. Based (very, very loosely) on the 1972 crash of Uruguayan airforce flight 571 into the andes mountains. Stranding the survivors of a rugby team for 72 days with no food, which forced them to start eating the dead. In the movie, the historical accuracy stops the moment the fuselage wreckage comes to a rest on the glacier. Or after the first 5 minutes. From that point on, all bets are off. It isn't even close to accurate. Poorly edited too.

 

[PaulTRose]

i hate inacuracies ..........always pointing out wrong aircraft or cars or guns.............the .303 enfields doubling for martini enfields in zulu is a classic, the bell 47 and harvards in where eagles dare is another......dont even get me started on pearl harbour!

 

[rickoshea52]

Anything made by the yanks. Enough said.

 

[Alan 45]

i hate inacuracies ..........always pointing out wrong aircraft or cars or guns.............the .303 enfields doubling for martini enfields in zulu is a classic, the bell 47 and harvards in where eagles dare is another......dont even get me started on pearl harbour!

And what about the helicopter in where eagles dare ?????lol

 

[stona]

Red Tails. Why make up completely spurious markings for almost every computer generated aeroplane in the film? What's wrong with genuine ones?

Mind you the film had more serious problems than that.....like being a complete crock of s***.

I watched The Dambusters recently. They used real aeroplanes and got them as close as they reasonably could. No CGI for them, for some reason we get a Mosquito dropping a 'Highball' at one point, some of the 'special effects' are not that special, but it still knocks many more recent efforts into a cocked hat.

I share your pain on many of the others, though I do like Zulu, just to see Michael Caine doing posh

Cheers

Steve

 

[Guest]

It's like I said before, the main problem with "red tails" is George Lucas. He's a hack. He can't make films, he can only string things together with cgi and special effects, but in the end, there's no substance, and we've all been played for the money in our wallets.

I am convinced that he just 'makes everything up as he goes along'. And then hopes nobody else will call him on it. But we are calling him on it. Now he's gone off from filmmaking to sulk.

 

[Guest]

The inaccuracies that annoy me the most are the ones that are so obvious, so stupid, so impossible, but integral to the plot.

Anyone remember "Airport '79"? You know, the one with the concorde? The one with Robert Wagner as some evil politician who hatches a series of elaborate murder plans to dispose of the reporter who has incriminating evidence on him? My favorite impossible scenes are with the passenger jet flying at 61,000' is able to take evasive action and aerobatic maneuvers to dodge fighter planes and 'heat seeking missiles', all while flying at supersonic. The whole movie betrays an astounding lack of knowledge on such subjects as aviation and engineering. And somehow, it's also one big commercial for the american sportswear company "adidas". At various times throughout the "film" several non related characters can be seen all taking turns wearing the sport jumper, the white one with 3 blue stripes down the sleeves, for no apparent reason. Watching bad movies has made me coin the phrase 'unintentional comedy'. They may not have set out to make it funny, but it was.

 

[stona]

I forgot to mention that The Dambusters also has one of the best and most sobering of last lines of any film, at least for those of us who know how things were done.

On being asked by Barnes Wallace if he is going to turn in Gibson replies

"No, I have to write some letters first"

Cue closing credits. Yes, Steve, Lucas couldn't or wouldn't have left it there. It's no where near gung-ho enough. It's just eight words that actually make you think.

Cheers

Steve

 

[AlanG]

Memphis Belle gets me. Everyone knows it wasn't the first aircraft/crew to complete 25 missions. Also in the film they made it so much more dramatic on the last mission. I know they are trying to cater for a vastly ignorant audience who are mostly based in the US. But it really does grip on my moobs. Also I feel it does a dis-service to the aircrew of Hell's Angles who completed their 25 missions on the 13th May 1943 a full six days before Memphis Belle did theirs

 

[flyjoe180]

And somehow, it's also one big commercial for the american sportswear company "adidas".

Adidas is a German company Steve

Allyne, yes that still grates me too. They were the subject of the PR film of the same name and selected to do a tour of the US after completion of their 25. None of the damage or injuries portrayed in the movie happened to the aircraft on its final mission. You only have to watch the original propaganda film to see that.

 

[PaulTRose]

And what about the helicopter in where eagles dare ?????lol

lol...the bell 47 was an american helo that didnt come out til '46..........certainly wasnt a Fa223 or a Flettner which is what the germans actually managed to get in to the skies

 

[Guest]

Adidas is a German company Steve Allyne, yes that still grates me too. They were the subject of the PR film of the same name and selected to do a tour of the US after completion of their 25. None of the damage or injuries portrayed in the movie happened to the aircraft on its final mission. You only have to watch the original propaganda film to see that.

They are!? Oh well, it still doesn't change how awful the movie is.

 

[Guest]

Always an interesting subject to discus. Sometimes maybe accepting a degree of poetic license can assist with the enjoyment of the film though. How about Steve McQueen jumping the barbed wire in "The Great Escape" on a Triumph? Does that detract from the film? I can put up with it because I am well aware that a Zundap or a BMW would never have even got off the ground!!

I think when it gets so blatant though and the film makers seem to think they have the right to change history to suit their preferences that we all get hacked off with it. However it does beg the question, if no-one paid to see these films and they bombed at the box office would the film makers have to rethink their attitudes?

 

[Adrian "Marvel" Reynolds]

My main gripe with guns in films is the amount of lead they spray before reloading, the way cars blow up when shot, impossible long shots with hand held firearms,,, you get my drift.

Adrian

 

[Guest]

The problem is History is written by people. As Winston S Churchill expounded "History will be kind to me as I intend to write it".

The problem is you read one book, as I have recently, Len Deighton "Blood Sweat & Tears ". Now I am reading "Al_Alemein revisited. I recognise in each almost word for word some of the detail. But were did that come from lifted probably from another history of the WW11. So a mistake or a spot of speculation soon becomes absolute to be carried thro by the next writer on that part of history.

Having been through that war as a child and children just lap all knowledge up into huge bundles, there fore ever, I am amazed to read some of the rubbish about what it was like in England at that time. Written by people who where not born until well after the event.

Films also, as has been illustrated above, perpetuate the inaccuracies. The film the "Battle of the River Plate" is littered with inaccuracies. Even the title is incorrect as the battle took place miles away.

My pet hate. Historians. These precious comments as though they were there. The would have done this. They would have been doing this at the time. They would have thought ---- Mostly speculation.

Laurie