The Dark Knight - [spoilers ahead, ye be warned]

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

I missed that! Where was it?

Funeral scene. He was dressed as a cop.

Spoiler:

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Funeral scene. He was dressed as a cop.

Spoiler:

Oh ya! I did see that.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Titanic, as Tom puts it – and I rather agree – is a "big dumb movie." It did what big dumb movies do, and did it well. Like CP, I was the target audience when it came out, and it spoke to me at the time.

That aside, I don't believe that any film will ever have complete historical accuracy.

Period films are retellings, and, by their very nature as art, can't ever capture exactly the essence of the time or event. As iSm has been saying lately, if two people are in the same room, their perspectives on that room and what happens in it will be different. A period filmmaker must take a number of different perspectives meld them together, making assumptions and filling in the gaps with their own fictions.

Real life and film are very different monsters. Real life has all kinds of boring stretches and inconsistencies. So much of our daily lives would deserve to be left on the cutting-room floor. And when an aspect of a story can be fudged in order to create a more compelling narrative, most storytellers choose to fudge it up every time. The majority of the audience won't know, and the majority of them are probably more moved/surprised/intrigued by whatever chocolate-walnut or maple-flavored additions or subtractions the filmmakers make. And often, especially if you're not intimate with the subject, this makes for a better movie experience.

Not to mention that they must appease the executives or hit the road. Donning my industry-cynic hat for a moment, I'll admit that a lot of their choices are informed by what they imagine will play in Peoria.

Take, for instance, the Oscar-winning A Beautiful Mind. It made major historical compromises for the sake of unified, compelling storytelling, How do you show a schizophrenic's aural hallucinations in a compelling way? You make them visual, because film's a visual medium.

And it made further compromises for the sake of its presumed dumb-downer audience. How do you tell a story of a man whose varied actions (illegitimate children, possible homosexual affairs etc) might vilify him in the eyes of paying customers who will be telling their blue-haired friends whether or not it's worth $12 of their social security checks? You change the facts, Max. You display a strong, supportive marriage between John and Alicia Nash, chop out anything that might be presumed a "standard deviation" and avoid alienating your audience. Until they read the book, that is.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

Titanic, as Tom puts it – and I rather agree – is a "big dumb movie." It did what big dumb movies do, and did it well. Like CP, I was the target audience when it came out, and it spoke to me at the time.

That aside, I don't believe that any film will ever have complete historical accuracy.

Period films are retellings, and, by their very nature as art, can't ever capture exactly the essence of the time or event. As iSm has been saying lately, if two people are in the same room, their perspectives on that room and what happens in it will be different. A period filmmaker must take a number of different perspectives meld them together, making assumptions and filling in the gaps with their own fictions.

Real life and film are very different monsters. Real life has all kinds of boring stretches and inconsistencies. So much of our daily lives would deserve to be left on the cutting-room floor. And when an aspect of a story can be fudged in order to create a more compelling narrative, most storytellers choose to fudge it up every time. The majority of the audience won't know, and the majority of them are probably more moved/surprised/intrigued by whatever chocolate-walnut or maple-flavored additions or subtractions the filmmakers make. And often, especially if you're not intimate with the subject, this makes for a better movie experience.

Not to mention that they must appease the executives or hit the road. Donning my industry-cynic hat for a moment, I'll admit that a lot of their choices are informed by what they imagine will play in Peoria.

Take, for instance, the Oscar-winning A Beautiful Mind. It made major historical compromises for the sake of unified, compelling storytelling, How do you show a schizophrenic's aural hallucinations in a compelling way? You make them visual, because film's a visual medium.

And it made further compromises for the sake of its presumed dumb-downer audience. How do you tell a story of a man whose varied actions (illegitimate children, possible homosexual affairs etc) might vilify him in the eyes of paying customers who will be telling their blue-haired friends whether or not it's worth $12 of their social security checks? You change the facts, Max. You display a strong, supportive marriage between John and Alicia Nash, chop out anything that might be presumed a "standard deviation" and avoid alienating your audience. Until they read the book, that is.

In other words, print the legend.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

Titanic, as Tom puts it – and I rather agree – is a "big dumb movie." It did what big dumb movies do, and did it well. Like CP, I was the target audience when it came out, and it spoke to me at the time.

That aside, I don't believe that any film will ever have complete historical accuracy.

Period films are retellings, and, by their very nature as art, can't ever capture exactly the essence of the time or event. As iSm has been saying lately, if two people are in the same room, their perspectives on that room and what happens in it will be different. A period filmmaker must take a number of different perspectives meld them together, making assumptions and filling in the gaps with their own fictions.

Real life and film are very different monsters. Real life has all kinds of boring stretches and inconsistencies. So much of our daily lives would deserve to be left on the cutting-room floor. And when an aspect of a story can be fudged in order to create a more compelling narrative, most storytellers choose to fudge it up every time. The majority of the audience won't know, and the majority of them are probably more moved/surprised/intrigued by whatever chocolate-walnut or maple-flavored additions or subtractions the filmmakers make. And often, especially if you're not intimate with the subject, this makes for a better movie experience.

Not to mention that they must appease the executives or hit the road. Donning my industry-cynic hat for a moment, I'll admit that a lot of their choices are informed by what they imagine will play in Peoria.

Take, for instance, the Oscar-winning A Beautiful Mind. It made major historical compromises for the sake of unified, compelling storytelling, How do you show a schizophrenic's aural hallucinations in a compelling way? You make them visual, because film's a visual medium.

And it made further compromises for the sake of its presumed dumb-downer audience. How do you tell a story of a man whose varied actions (illegitimate children, possible homosexual affairs etc) might vilify him in the eyes of paying customers who will be telling their blue-haired friends whether or not it's worth $12 of their social security checks? You change the facts, Max. You display a strong, supportive marriage between John and Alicia Nash, chop out anything that might be presumed a "standard deviation" and avoid alienating your audience. Until they read the book, that is.

That's all well and good when you're not claiming your film is going to be historically accurate. Cameron stated over and over that his film was going to be as historically accurate as possible. It wasn’t. And what’s more, he knew he it wasn’t. He even acknowledged, after the fact, that he deliberately altered facts for the sake of the story, while at the same time touting how accurate it would be to the press.

Anyway… I’m done hijacking this thread. (I warned you… don’t get me started!) If anyone wants to further the Titanic discussion (ship or movie), start a new thread. I’ll be there.

[Alex]

We've all got our peeves for such things, but at least in this case, as far as historical inaccuracies in "historically accurate" films go, the list you gave barely blips on my radar.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Alex

We've all got our peeves for such things, but at least in this case, as far as historical inaccuracies in "historically accurate" films go, the list you gave barely blips on my radar.

Wow, quite the smack down, as you're an Honored Fellow of the Film Nit Pickers Assn., correct?





annnnd myyyyy heaaaart wiiiiillllllll.....goooo AAAAAHHHHHNNNN and AAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUHHHHHHNNNNNNNNN

[katiesue]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

annnnd myyyyy heaaaart wiiiiillllllll.....goooo AAAAAHHHHHNNNN and AAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUHHHHHHNNNNNNNNN

You suck

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Wow, quite the smack down, as you're an Honored Fellow of the Film Nit Pickers Assn., correct?

I don't think so. Or rather, not in this case.

For the most part when I nitpick a movie it is because of issues with internal consistency.

Yes, if a real-world historical plot point is somehow important to the success or message of a movie then it is a point I'll care about if it is wrong. But the fact that the lake where Jack went fishing wasn't build until five years after the Titanic sank isn't vital to the story's impact or internal consistency.

If, however, a movie is exploring the real origins of the U.S. Civil War (through a fictional tale) and it says there was no slavery in Florida and thus plot points X, Y, and Z then I'll have issues.


But like I said, everybody has their pain points. And when it comes to movies you generally tend to be most sensitive to the areas you are most familiar with. I don't really know anything of the deep details of the Titanic (historically it isn't that important of an event and it was never more than a footnote in any of my classes and reading) so I'm not bothered.

Set a movie in the Boeing Machinists' Union during the 1970s and perhaps a similar level of historical squishiness will drive me nuts.

[Gemini Cricket]

TDK is getting close to the Top 10 (Domestic).

I don't know why I get a kick out of watching how much movies make, but I do.