• This is a reminder of 3 IMPORTANT RULES:

    1- External self-promotion websites or apps are NOT allowed here, like Discord/Twitter/Patreon/etc.

    2- Do NOT post in other languages. English-only.

    3- Crack/Warez/Piracy talk is NOT allowed.

    Breaking any of the above rules will result in your messages being deleted and you will be banned upon repetition.

    Please, stop by this thread SoccerGaming Forum Rules And Guidelines and make sure you read and understand our policies.

    Thank you!

Hollywood: Tom Cruise wins 'Battle of Britain'

rhizome17

Fan Favourite
Yep, in the fine tradition of taking theatrical license to new lengths, and stretching the truth to absurd proportions, we may well be seeing a film with the mighty old US of A winning the Battle of Britain:

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/film/news/story.jsp?story=510475

I really am getting sick and tired of these 'dramatisations' of real historical events that bear virtually no relation to the truth (U-571, anybody?). Enemy at the Gates was another waste of my time, the Germans did Stalingrad so much better.

Is it any wonder that kids these days have no sense of history? No idea as to what actually happened?

Bah.

:kader:
 

PhiLLer

Fan Favourite
I agree and even though it is still something that should entertain I don't think it should portray something different to what really happened, they don't need to show it all but at least base it on the truth and not take the story away from the subject, chuck it into a blender and see what comes out of it.

I also hate these war movies which are so obviously patriotic towards the US, Black Hawk Down anyone?:p
 

Elder

Starting XI
Originally posted by PhiLLer
I agree and even though it is still something that should entertain I don't think it should portray something different to what really happened, they don't need to show it all but at least base it on the truth and not take the story away from the subject, chuck it into a blender and see what comes out of it.

I also hate these war movies which are so obviously patriotic towards the US, Black Hawk Down anyone?:p

Black Hawk Down is supposed to be VERY close to what actually happened there. It might be "patriotic" but it is certainly not a happy ending type of movie.

But I don't trust Hollywood to make any movies that are worth a **** anymore. Why doesn't Britain start making these films to cover it's own ass?

Stupid Tom Cruise. But while we are at it, what are some thoughts about Saving Private Ryan? Enemy at the Gates was lame, but I still think that Rachel Weisz is a hottie.
 

rhizome17

Fan Favourite
Actually, thats not the problem, because chances are I wouldn't watch it anyway. After seeing Enemy at the Gates I knew there would be little chance of me watching a Hollywoodisation of World War Two ever again.
The problem is that so many people DO watch them, and great swathes of people end up with misconceptions over historical fact. Study after study after study shows that kids these days have an atrocious understanding of history, and these 'dramtisations' are surely part of the problem.
 

The Drovers Dog

Reserve Team
The movie was inspired by the book written by Vassili Zaitsev, <or was it written and inspired by Soviet Propaganda> the sniper who was featured in the movie, also another book called War of The Rats by David L. Robbins was another offshoot of that book.

To read exerpts from the book, Zaitsev version click on the -- Book Preview --Read a Chapter links.

http://www.notesofasniper.com/1942.htm
or
http://www.notesofasniper.com/index2.htm



"...await the right moment for one, and only one well-aimed shot"

http://216.198.255.120/russianpart/russnipers.html
 

rhizome17

Fan Favourite
Originally posted by scottish_carson
I am surprised that they didnt make the us win in bravehart.

Oh but they did... to the tune of million$ :o :p

Regarding Enemy at the Gates, my main problem is with the depiction of the initial battle itself....
 

Thelonious

Senior Squad
Hollywood war movies are becoming more like propaganda well probably be seeing America win the Vietnam war next. After watching Pearl Harbour , I will definately avoid this.
 

rhizome17

Fan Favourite
The following is taken from the article I posted above. I am sure others can add things to this list...


HOW UNCLE SAM REWROTE THE SCRIPT

Objective, Burma! (1945)

Errol Flynn's paratroopers overcome the Japanese with barely a Brit in sight, although it was really they who won the battle. The press and public, some of whom had fought in Burma, were so outraged that the film had to be withdrawn.

The Great Escape (1963)

Steve McQueen played a leading part in a mass escape from a POW camp. In real life, 76 got out of Stalag Luft III, but only three made it alive; 50 were shot and 23 recaptured. No Americans among them.

Braveheart (1995)

Mel Gibson as a charming William Wallace - not the real man who wore the skin of an opposing general as his belt. Wallace fathers a son by the Princess of Wales who really gave birth seven years after his execution.

Titanic (1998)

First Officer William McMaster Murdoch is remembered as a hero in his Scottish home for saving passengers. He froze to death in the sea. The film shows him shooting passengers in a blind panic.

U-571 (2000)

Harvey Keitel and other plucky American seamen pull an Enigma code machine from a sinking German submarine and change the course of the war. Except that it was the crew of HMS Bulldog.

The Patriot (2000)

Gibson again as a pacifist provoked into joining the American War of Independence when sadistic Brits herd women and children into a church and set fire to it. Nothing like that happened.
 

jigger37

Senior Squad
Originally posted by Elder
Why doesn't Britain start making these films to cover it's own ass?


Believe me, i ask this question every damn time. Especially these so called social commentators, you should see how much whinning goes on over here sometimes over this sorts of things,we should stop begging people to show our part of the story and just make it ourselves. I can understand the film industry in this country(or the UK in general) is not as developed as the american one which enjoys mass appeal, therefore significant cost advantages, even our so called film stars are marketed to american markets cos thats where the money and to a large extent technical expertise.

Unless its actually labelled as a documentary (which is actually the branch of visual entertainment dealing with absolute facts ladies) *big difference* you shouldnt be looking to a film to give you the "truth" in the first place, from there you can go and read the actual/full story if you're interested from other sources, from that angle these fictitious accounts actually do more to bring the real story to life(or light) than we might think.

But remember also,the documentary wont have Leo di caprio,tom cruise or one of those steaming hollywood ladies we all love(..or would love to do things to) in the leading roles which basically reduces the story/history to one of those books in the library that gathers dust cos nobody, other than history students who have some project to write or teachers, is interested in. I can understand the anti-us thing but as long as they hold the cards, they tell the story and rightly so - if you have a problem, tell it your own way.
 

rhizome17

Fan Favourite
Originally posted by jigger37
Believe me, i ask this question every damn time. Especially these so called social commentators, you should see how much whinning goes on over here sometimes over this sorts of things,we should stop begging people to show our part of the story and just make it ourselves. I can understand the film industry in this country(or the UK in general) is not as developed as the american one which enjoys mass appeal, therefore significant cost advantages, even our so called film stars are marketed to american markets cos thats where the money and to a large extent technical expertise.

Unless its actually labelled as a documentary (which is actually the branch of visual entertainment dealing with absolute facts ladies) *big difference* you shouldnt be looking to a film to give you the "truth" in the first place, from there you can go and read the actual/full story if you're interested from other sources, from that angle these fictitious accounts actually do more to bring the real story to life(or light) than we might think.

But remember also,the documentary wont have Leo di caprio,tom cruise or one of those steaming hollywood ladies we all love(..or would love to do things to) in the leading roles which basically reduces the story/history to one of those books in the library that gathers dust cos nobody, other than history students who have some project to write or teachers, is interested in. I can understand the anti-us thing but as long as they hold the cards, they tell the story and rightly so - if you have a problem, tell it your own way.

It is not about looking to a film for the absolute truth. Even a documentary will never give the 'absolute truth', every attempt to 're-tell the facts' will inevitably involve some partiality and bias.

The question is, to what degree is this acceptable? I can accept that it may be necessary for reasons of brevity and clarity in a film to condense some events and/ or omit some details in order to make a coherent story. It is nothing to with with being an 'anti US' issue, it is an anti-bull**** issue. At least the film Enigma managed to get the right country (c/f U-571 - were there really not enough British actors living in LA?). And whilst Hollywood is not totally responsible for the 'dumbing-down' of the masses (wider media and the education system have already laid the groundwork), it definitely has to take some of the responsibility in an age that is saturated by mediated knowledge.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1066 and all that: How Hollywood is giving Britain a false sense of history
By Cahal Milmo
05 April 2004

The Battle of Hastings never took place and Adolf Hitler is a fictional character. Robin Hood really existed, Harold Wilson saved Britain during the Second World War and Conan the Barbarian is a bona fide figure from early Nordic history.

It might sound like the latest attempt by revisionist extremists to pervert the past but the reality is perhaps more disturbing: this is how a significant chunk of the British population, muddled by Hollywood films and unmoved by academia, sees history.

A survey of the historical knowledge of the average adult, to be published this week, has uncovered "absurd and depressing" areas of ignorance about past events, and confusion between characters from films and historical figures.

Researchers, who conducted face-to-face interviews with more than 2,000 people, found that almost a third of the population thinks the Cold War was not real and 6 per cent believeThe War of the Worlds, H G Wells's fictional account of a Martian invasion, did happen.

Some 57 per cent think King Arthur existed and 5 per cent accept that Conan the Barbarian, the warrior played by Arnold Schwarzenegger in a 1982 film, used to stalk the planet for real. Almost one in two believe William Wallace, the 13th-century Scottish resistance leader played by Mel Gibson in his film Braveheart, was invented for the silver screen.

The study raised new questions about the teaching of history after it found that 11 per cent of the British population believed Hitler did not exist and 9 per cent said Winston Churchill was fictional. A further 33 per cent believed Mussolini was not a real historical figure.

Lord Janner of Braunstone, the chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust, said: "Such findings show that in our schools we are not conveying sufficiently the recent past - a past in which many of us lived and so many people died.

"If we are to prevent the return of Hitlerism in our present or future, we have to know what happened in the lifetimes of so many of us.

"It is a terrible indictment of the level of knowledge of the general population."

The detractors of the survey's findings blamed Hollywood and television, which have gained a reputation for skewing historical events to fit audience profiles and lift profit margins.

The film U-571, starring Harvey Keitel and Jon Bon Jovi, sparked fury in Britain four years ago when it told how American servicemen altered the course of the Second World War by capturing the Enigma code machine from a German U-boat. In fact, it was British and Canadian sailors who captured the machine in May 1941, before the US had entered the war.

The survey of 2,069 adults aged 16 or over was conducted for Blenheim Palace to mark the 300th anniversary of the Battle of Blenheim.

Some 27 per cent of people interviewed thought Robin Hood, whose story has been featured in films by directors such as Kevin Costner and Mel Brooks, existed whereas 42 per cent believed Mel Gibson's Braveheart was an invention. More than 60 thought the Battle of Helms Deep in the Lord of the Rings trilogy actually took place.

Michael Wood, the historian, said the "dumbing-down" trend was damaging people's knowledge of the past.

He said: "If you don't give an audience a clear idea of how we know things, I believe this is a problem. Hollywood distorts history the whole time and once you get that far down the line it's not history, it's entertainment.

"History is there to give value to the present as well as to entertain. You do diminish it if you take the mickey out of it in an attempt to make it 'accessible'."

More than a quarter of people do not know in which century the Great War took place and 57 per cent believe that the Battle of the Bulge, the Nazi counter-offensive in the Ardennes in 1945, never happened.

A further 53 per cent think the military leader who lead British troops at Waterloo was Lord Nelson whereas a quarter think the admiral's fatal triumph at the Battle of Trafalgar did not take place. Nearly one in five believe Harold Wilson, not Winston Churchill, was Prime Minister during the Second World War.

John Hoy, the chief executive of Blenheim Palace, said history had become boring. He said: "People associate history with dry and dusty dates and facts. Once they realise that history is about people, the way we used to live and the way we live now, it becomes more relevant and more exciting."

Others pointed to the popularity of history programmes. Francis Robinson, the senior vice principal of Royal Holloway, University of London, said the delivery of history to a wider audience was a worthy goal.

He said: "I have no problem with using different media to get across the message to different sections of the audience. There is always a chance of misrepresentation, but you have to weigh up that against the broader good of encouraging more people's interest."

But Andrew Roberts, the right-wing historian, said: "We have abandoned the teaching of history according to dates and context - if you don't know that the Tudors came before the Stuarts then you can't understand anything of that period.

"Within a generation we are going to lose our national memory and for Britain, which has such a unique and complex history, that is a complete tragedy."

Sstranger than fiction: Disraeli, Hitler and the Cold War

Real people that some believe never existed
Ethelred the Unready King of England 978 to 1016 - 63 per cent
William Wallace 13th-century Scottish hero - 42 per cent
Benjamin Disraeli Prime minister and founder of the modern Tory party - 40 per cent
Genghis Khan, Mongol conqueror - 38 per cent
Benito Mussolini, Fascist dictator, 33 per cent
Adolf Hitler - 11 per cent
Winston Churchill - 9 per cent

Real events some people believe never took place
Battle of the Bulge 52 per cent
Battle of Little Big Horn Scene of Custer's last stand - 48 per cent
Hundred Years' War 44 per cent
Cold War - 32 per cent
Battle of Hastings, 15 per cent

Fictional characters who we believe were real
King Arthur , mythical monarch of the Round Table - 57 per cent
Robin Hood - 27 per cent
Conan the Barbarian - 5 per cent
Richard Sharpe , fictional cad and warrior - 3 per cent
Edmund Blackadder - 1 per cent
Xena Warrior Princess - 1 per cent

Fictional events that we believe did take place
War of the Worlds , Martian invasion - 6 per cent
Battle of Helms Deep , Rings Trilogy - The Two Towers - 3 per cent
Battle of Endor , The Return of the Jedi - 2 per cent
Planet of the Apes , the apes rule Earth - 1 per cent
Battlestar Galactica , the defeat of humanity by cyborgs - 1 per cent

---------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Elber2k3

Senior Squad
Oh ****!
That's worse than in Germany :|
Some people here have never heard of Honecker. And some can't show where Germany is on the map (they mix it up with France :rolleyes: ), others don't recognize Germany if the former DDR is cut out :rolleyes:
But 11% who think Hitler hadn't lived :rolleyes:

Real events some people believe never took place
Battle of the Bulge 52 per cent
Battle of Little Big Horn Scene of Custer's last stand - 48 per cent
Hundred Years' War 44 per cent
Cold War - 32 per cent
Battle of Hastings, 15 per cent
That's a double :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 

Deutschland

Starting XI
Rachel Wiesz is indeed a hottie in that movie!

But something else that is really irritating is that crappy movie, The Last Samurai. This great race of Samurai's, hundreds of years old, are suddenly befriended by some random American drunkard (By the name of Tom Cruise) and he soon learns the ART OF THE SWORD and becomes a leaderlike figure for them, within a year or less. They are all then killed and the American is the only remaining Samurai, and he and the Emperor of Japan become great friends.

THAT my friends is a bad movie!
 

LuckyStrike

Youth Team
Tom Cruise in the Last Samurai, The Mexican starring Brad Pitt...I'm gonna make a movie called The Last Nigga on Earth starring Tom Hanks.
 

rhizome17

Fan Favourite
Sounds good ;)

I kinda like the idea of a movie with Morgan Freeman playing Nelson Mandela, leader of the American National Congress, which is responsible for the end of apartheid in South Africa. Of course, it is only brought down when Nelson, a black cop who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, is partnered with white cop Nick Nolte (playing FW De Clerk) and they spend the first hour of the film hating and misunderstanding each other, until they decide to put their differences aside when they realise that coperation and difference should be valued above all else, in a threatening situation where Arab terrorists are bombing South African buildings.
 


Top