Does a Historical movie have to be 100% accurate for you to enjoy it?
Or are you a douche that's like "naw breh this shit ain't authentic nigga"
Key word is enjoy.
>>1139737
SPV is a great example of portrayal of the time, and what the people went through. The story part of it isn't the most important part, saving Ryan and all - seeing what the guys go through is foremost and by far. So it's a great movie in that term.
I enjoy Braveheart, because it's entertaining, although it does irk me a bit that it's so highly fictitious.
My favourite movie is Ridley Scott's first, The Duellists. Highly recommend it. Really accurate to its time, and great for seeing what life was like back in 1800-15. Suspenseful, engaging, great shot cinematography. Solid historical film.
>>1139751
SPR*
Saving Private Ryan.
>>1139737
As long as it's not so wrong that it takes me out of the story I don't care.
My love giant robot cartoons has given me a pretty strong suspension of disbelief, so no.
For the most part I can
>>1139751
I think Band of Brothers does a better job than this over the top exaggeration of a movie.
>>1139737
depends on the period.
for instance, WWII has a similar enough cultural context for we moderns to understand their languages, social mores, etc, so having a 100% historical WWII piece, or a prohibition piece would be OK, because the audience could relate.
however, when you go further back, it becomes difficult for the modern pleb to understand the cultural context. for instance, HBOs Rome is certainly not 100% accurate, but it minces things in just such a way to portray things "good enough", but still relatable to the modern American audience it was made for.
then there are inexcusable travesties like the 13th warrior, which dispense of historicity for the lulz, rather than for adapting the period's culture for the modern audience. it serve no purpose, and thus is bad.
TL;Dr mincing accuracy should be done only to make the social conventions understandable to the audience.
>>1139737
I can enjoy the movie itself, but after dabbling in martial arts for a few years I can never really appreciate meelee fight scenes anymore. They are always horribly irrealistic. Thing is, a real fight is pretty uninteresting for people who don't see what's going on. There are some good ones but they are very rare for the previous reason.
>>1139737
What's the difference between those two types of people?
Yes.
>>1139737
It only really annoys me if the work portrays itself as being historically accurate, if they trot out whatever research they claimed to have did and say how it's a great portrayal.
As long as the movie itself is interesting, I don't generally care about historical innacuracies.
>>1139785
>band of brothers
>literally a whole episode dedicated to the made up liberation of a death camp by the american soldiers
>not a top exaggeration
alright
>the leader has a speech in front of the army to motivate them
>the two armies just rush to eachother on a big field and continue to fight one on one
>archers are holding their bows drawn for extended periods of time
Just stop.
Depends what the inaccuracy is. If its "that guy totally has a sword that is 100-years older than the movie is set in" doesn't really bother me. But if it twists the historical narrative, without speficially being a fantasy movie, then it does annoy.
Anybody who doesn't have severe autism should understand historical accuracy takes back seat to narrative in a film that isn't a documentary.
That said, I do find enjoyment when they get the little things right. But if they don't, oh well. As long as the movie is enjoyable and its inaccuracies arent so glaring that it becomes jarring.
>>1140208
US soldiers liberated Dachau. Im not saying it really happened, but there are a bunch of pictures of it.
>>1139737
I understand the term "triggered" whenever anachronistic equipment and weaponry is used in a movie.
Im that kind of guy.
>>1139737
Depends strongly on how much authenticity is a storytelling goal of the movie.
>>1139737
Depends how inaccurate it is. If it's claiming to be historically accurate I won't be happy with glaring "you could have just read the wiki" tier historical errors. I don't go all autistic if the shoes are wrong or something though.
>>1140158
>this but with boxing movies.
Sports movies in general are dog shit.
>>1140612
Creed
Moneyball
Rush
Friday Night Lights
Rocky 1
The Damn United
The list goes on and on
>>1140158
I love East Asian historical movies but they moment a fight scene begins and the hitherto historically based characters start flying around on wires that shit gets turned off.
>>1140612
>Boxing movies
>No one ever has their hands up
>Continuously take 20 clean shots to the face
Saving private ryan is crap, band of brothers was far better, and also, russians and asians made FAR better ww1 and ww2 movies.
They'll always be overlooked though naturally.
>>1139737
It needs to have a golden middle. I dont mind fictional characters that influence some events but i dont want it to become too fake either.
>>1140684
All shit
>>1139737
No film COULD be 100% accurate and be enjoyable. It would not work. However if it catches the aesthetic and some of the period in it, e.g. the TV series Rome, then it's more than enough. Shit like one of the main characters beating a slave to death and another of the characters being angry about the property damage really helps add to the immersion.
>>1139751
seconding this for the duellists. Underrated gem
>>1140208
>what is the liberation of Dachau
t. blindly trusts internet nazis
>>1139751
This is great, so is Barry Lyndon
Ahahah, your merciful god... he destroyed his own beloved rather than let a mediocrity share the glory. He killed Motzart, and left me here to torture for 30 years.
>>1140208
Episode 9 "Why we fight"
"As Nixon scrounges for his favored whiskey, Vat 69, Easy Company enters Germany. Some of the men on patrol stumble across a concentration camp near Landsberg"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsberg_am_Lech#Landsberg_Concentration_Camp_and_displaced_person_camp
>enemy at the gates
/k/ basically jacks off to that shit
>>1140684
>Didn't even mention Raging Bull
full pleb
>>1143013
/k/ hates that movie. It's a call of duty level, enough said.
I usually only dislike historical inaccuracies if it's a film trying to portray itself as historically accurate, but fails. Fury was like that, and shit. But Inglorious Basterds was great, because it wasn't trying to be historically accurate.
Same goes for sci fi movies where they try to claim it's really close to being scientifically accurate.
Nah. If it is though I enjoy it more. Same if it's sci-fi.
>>1140612
Any Given Sunday nigga
>>1140208
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsberg_am_Lech#Landsberg_Concentration_Camp_and_displaced_person_camp
It was a concentration camp
>>1139737
I enjoy a movie more if it's historically accurate
the more historically accurate the better, but i'm willing to allow certain discrepencies, especially if its a lower budget film.
A movie can be a poor historical movie and still be a good movie.
For instance, I enjoy Braveheart, but I understand that it's basically fantasy with a slight historically based paintjob.
Hell, you can even have the opposite. Gods and Generals is literally autistically accurate (accepting the retarded slave-master dynamic scenes) but it's an overbearing, poorly paced film that falls apart less than an hour into it's autistic 4 hour length.
Basically, historical accuracy, if done right, can enhance my enjoyment of a good movie, but a shit movie will still suck even if it's accurate.
>>1143007
GOAT movie
>>1143643
I actually enjoyed that movie. I wish there were more like it but for other eras.
>>1139737
if it's like 300, I have no problem. That film was not trying to be accurate in any way. It was all about making an awesome movie about some bad-ass shit. Really had nothing to do with the actual spartans.
If it's like Alexander - I get pretty pissed off when it's not accurate. It looked like they did a ton of research and still managed to make a giant pile of dog shit.
>>1139737
If it's about the bible, I can't stand inaccuracies. If it's about something I was in, I can stand only a few inaccuracies. If they're funny.
>>1139737
>100% accurate
I realize they have budgets. They can spraypaint woolen sweaters silver and call it chainmail and for me it would be 100% historically accurate. The problem is when they start inserting things for which there is no evidence whatsoever and was completely unnecessary.
>>1140216
>protagonist's soldiers take out up to 10 enemies each
>all clean deaths for the baddies, instantly falling to the ground
>all slow, exaggerated deaths for the good guys, making sure they are fighting to their last breath
