>2015
>Hollywood and moviegoers extremely obsessed with scientific accuracy and popularizing science
>both continue to give absolutely no shit about historical accuracy
No only that, but if you want to ruin a movie experience for someone, explain them where the movies gets its history wrong.
Why is that? My theory is that our modern ideal citizen is basically a retarded STEM major with no critical faculties that can help the country "compete in a global economy" without further questioning, and the film industry is just calibrating its values accordingly.
History can't be objectively verified, science can
>>63602624
I think the sad truth is that the average person doesn't care enough about history in general, for studios to care about spending resources on living up to historical accuracy.
historical accuracy gives people a specific culture, identity, and belief in themselves
this is completely counterproductive to the power and influence of money, and insane racist religions
the last thing a wealthy entertainer would want to do is give their audience a strong belief in themselves, then they won't need to buy as much crap, or fight as many wars
>>63602624
>extremely obsessed
This right here is objectively bullshit.
There have been a handful of movies lately that try to be, but for the most part movies just pay lip service to "scientific accuracy".
>More and more people extremely pro-science and anti-religion
>Almost all of them still worship the invisible entity called "government"
If I actually thought anything mattered I'd be extremely put off by the cognitive dissonance. Instead it's just kind of funny.
Also
>historical accuracy
It wouldn't have made Braveheart a better movie.
On hand you just get a different, romanticized story that's still viable.
On the other you get bullshit that's not viable.
>>63602670
Not exactly. You can't understand with complete precision a multitude of factors of the past, but you can narrow it down within an acceptable margin of interpretations. Plus there are many things that are verifiable by available data like clothings, architecture, weaponry, available technology etc that the film industry will gladly ignore.
Also things that might not leave a material legacy like values, ethics, codes of behavior and so on (except for a few, probably biased, literary testaments) are kind of a blank page in many societies, yes, but we can at least understand the historicity behind our own, trace it back to a much more recent period and know better than to project our bullshit into an older society. And this is where movies tend to be the worst offenders.
The fictionalization of history is far, far, FAR older than Hollywood.
Actually history is complicated, with multiple narratives and lots of grey areas. Yet most historical narratives have been essentialized and simplified to make them more compelling and easier to pass along.
Nobody wants to sit around and tell a long Tale of the break down in trade and diplomatic relations between two peoples, they want to tell tales of great heroes vanquishing evil foes.
>>63604443
>>historical accuracy
>It wouldn't have made Braveheart a better movie.
It also wouldn't have made Lincoln: Vampire Hunter a better movie, but at least this one does not present itself as fact.
>>63602624
it's not like playwrights and plays where historical accurate back in the times either, every single time writers prefer to romanticize shit rather than give us authentic choreography and historical accurate accounts of things
>>63604570
>>63604586
You guys are arguing against claims that were never made. If Hollywood did or not start this trend (it obviously didn't) is besides the point.
And it's also kind of a double standard, because you probably wouldn't say it's ok for movies to disregard scientific accuracy just because old science fiction writers did the same.
>>63604582
When did Braveheart present itself as fact? Do you think Gladiator presents itself as fact too? How about The Last Samurai?
>>63602624
I always liked Mel Gibsons approach.
He romanticizes the story, villifying the enemy and using some of the facts loosely, but likes to use a lot of historically accurate pieces and themes to support the story.
The purpose of modern society isn't to turn people into rational agents, but to entertain as many delusions as the system can possibly handle.
You can be incredibly successful despite harboring an insane or destructive worldview.
>>63602624
>They set The Battle of Stirling Bridge in a field
>>63604641
I would absolutely say that.
It's perfectly fine for a fictional work to place scientific accuracy behind storytelling, otherwise we wouldn't have a lot of great science fiction stories.
>>63604652
They absolutely do, even movies like Gladiator or the Last Samurai who might not claim, unlike Braveheart, to be the depiction of actual events, but they do present themselves as set in a real/factual setting of the past. A setting that contains its own political narrative, its own art, its own values, etc. So just because Tom Cruise's character didn't exist doesn't mean they have carte blanche for how they depict these.
>>63602670
>doesn't know about quantum theory
>>63604641
I am 100% OK with disregarding scientific accuracy. In fact, I prefer disregarding scientific accuracy because 99% of the time, it will make the movie more interesting. The only people who complain about that shit are turbonerds who don't know how to have a good time.
>>63604702
>>63604795
I doubt I could even remake a generic, "real-world" science fiction movie from the 50s and 60s, leave its science and technology unchanged, and show it without absolutely hurting the aesthetic preferences of a majority of moviegoers, and yours as well.
This isn't to say old science fiction is bad, but it's only good if you understand it as part of its time and the artistic sensibilities of an older generation. There's a clear divide between older and newer science fiction (again, "real-world" only) and how much it owes to scientific accuracy and plausibility of technology. It's a clear trend where the scientific and technological aspect are becoming more and more valued and the storytelling is becoming subjected to it, as it should be.
On the other hand, I could present you a horrible 19th century nationalistic historical opera, play or novel and it would contain as many biases and inaccuracies as a contemporary Hollywood period movie. Even Historical Fiction, as a literary genre, is atrocious in that sense. So I'm just questioning why we're changing the way we depict science in sci-fi (and not only that, almost every genre has become more "realistic" or aiming at realism in the past few decades, even capeshit) but the way we depict the past stays the same in terms of accuracy.
>>63602624
Science is currently a normalfag meme
Film major detected, and a conservative to boot. The American economy would be nowhere without high-tech industries keeping it afloat.
>>63602624
>>Hollywood and moviegoers extremely obsessed with scientific accuracy and popularizing science
really? Both Gravity and Interstellar, films which hyped this aspect of them, really werent all that scientifically accurate desu
>>63604912
It's called an artistic license. They're fictional, romanticzed stories. No one but turbo autists like you think otherwise. Not once do any of those three movies claim accuracy.
>>63605707
Shhh..don't go messing up OP's narrative with things like the truth.
>>63605707
Did you miss the sentence immediately fucking following that?
>>63605279
>I doubt I could even remake a generic, "real-world" science fiction movie from the 50s and 60s, leave its science and technology unchanged, and show it without absolutely hurting the aesthetic preferences of a majority of moviegoers, and yours as well.
You actually could. Most movie goers, myself included, do not require absolute rigid scientific authenticity to enjoy a movie.
>>63605279
You're objectively wrong about audience aesthetics and science fiction. Pretty much everyone in the developed world is hyped as shit for the next installment of a franchise that is absolutely 50-60s style Sci-Fi action with almost no scientific accuracy.
>>63604652
Real war, real leaders, real battles, real outcome. People watch that film and think it's accurate.
>>63606570
No they don't.
>>63605707
A observable trend from A to B doesn't imply that B is the norm.
>>63606395
You do not require a rigid depiction, and you probablyh won't accept a loose depiction as much as previous decades contained. If you say you disagree with that, then you're out of touch with contemporary sensibilites and you're the exception. Either way your personal preferences (and of all the other retards who say "hurr but *I* don't mind it) isn't the criteria being used here.
>>63606591
Shut your ears and yell "lalala I can't hear you" as much as you want. It's the truth.
>>63606709
You're more out of touch with this than I am. You have some personal pet peeve with historical dramas and you assume your perceptions and opinions are more true and everyone who disagrees with you is a retard, yet you have not provided anymore factual arguments than anyone else in this thread.
>>63606805
OK, prove it with verifiable sources. Take your time, I've got a while.
>>63604570
yea this. Victorian myths are still taught in schools.
>>63606889
>You have some personal pet peeve with historical dramas and you assume your perceptions and opinions are more true
Ironic, coming from a person who thinks an observable trend in filmmaking isn't a trend because it doesn't reflect his personal taste in it. You're making an argument akin to me saying historical inaccuracy isn't a problem in movies because what *I* like is historical accuracy. You just realised your point is bad so now you're flat out denying reality in order to sustain it.
>>63606915
>OK, prove it with verifiable sources.
Should have realised I was arguing with a redditor. Tell me what sort of research procedure would be able to qualify that and I'll happily find "verifiable sources" to you.
>>63603240
Nah, sometimes history isn't that exciting (waaah too boring) or it's too badass too be considered real. Either way hollywood takes artistic freedom and makes visually appealing films that meet audience's expectations.
I don't mind this as I would rather have a good story than a history lesson. Leave real life out of movies. Really, they don't do history justice so keep them separate.
>>63604443
I thought 4chan was over anarchist and libertarian ideals ages ago, when did you join? Government exists to provide peace and order at the cost of some freedoms. How many freedoms is usually the argument, not whether we should still have a government. I bet you think corporations do shit for the people out of the goodness in their hearts, and 3rd worlders getting fucked over is just a fluke, it wouldn't happen to us.
Anon, it takes a literal retard to believe what they see in a Tom Cruise, Russel Crowe or Mel Gibson movie to be faithful and accurate depiction of historical events. Just how fucked up do you even have to be to sit there and think "Yeah, I guess that one alcoholic american soldier really did go full weeaboo and ended up reminding the Japanese emperor about samurai honor." Don't assume people are that stupid just because you are.
>>63608522
meant for >>63606570
>>63602624
jews don't want people knowing accurate history
>>63607111
Funny, you've spent the entire thread doing the same thing.
>>63608522
People don't believe the story the movie follows is true, they believe the setting where it happens is.
To make a comparison, I can make a fictional romance or drama set in the 30's where the characters are fictional, but that doesn't mean I can mess with the characteristics that define epoch and how they interact with the plot.
>>63608029
Society is the cause of all my personal anxiety and essentially forces it's citizens to exist as privileged slaves. To even think that us humans should be more then a mass multitude of like-minded communals or one great hive-nation is so 2015 and makes me want to kill myself everyday but I'm just a psychoactive doing God in the body of a golem so it doesn't matter. Can't wait to be a hermit with my girl senpai
People are stupid and want a childish story about good vs evil. Then you have egomaniacs who want to enjoy all the worship of being a flawless hero. Hence crap like Braveheart and Mel Gibson.
>>63608742
Yes it does mean exactly that, it's called artistic license. And as I said, people understand that. People in general aren't as stupid as you. You're too far gone, dude.
history's shit any way
>study classics
>hear about emperors extending the harbour at ostia
>they'd wake up in the morning, drink some wine, extend the harbour at ostia
>if in doubt they'd just keep extending the harbour at ostia
>go to ostia, thinking "Man, this must be a fucking extensive harbour"
>it's just a field with some rocks
not even once
>>63608877
It doesn't, actually. And even artistic license must be kept within the boundaries of acceptable plot needs.
This is hardly debatable: if I changed the historical setting to beyond any recognized form it would obviously fail a historical piece, and you might as well question why make it historical in the first place if has no intention of resembling history. So the question is just where to draw the line.
>>63608725
It took you a while, but you were able to come up with yet another bad comeback
>>63609299
You don't really deserve a good one.
>>63609264
>artistic license must be kept within the boundaries of acceptable plot needs
Pack it up Hollywood. Pack it up every book author. Anon here tells you how it is.
>beyond any recognized
They don't change it beyond recognition. That's why people can understand what time period and where it is set in but at the same time comprehend that real life in that time period was probably drastically different, what they're watching/reading is a product of the creators' artistic vision that's often idealized and stylized. Fucking everyone understands that, even little children. Everyone except you, that is.
>>63609264
Who decides what acceptable plot needs are?
>>63602670
It is objectively true that Hiroshima had a nuclear bomb dropped on it on August 6, 1945.
Or is that not history?
>>63609543
>Pack it up Hollywood. Pack it up every book author. Anon here tells you how it is
That's just self-evident: if I made a movie about Einstein where he speaks ebonics, lives in a city with Egyptian architecture and helps the Nazi government, it would fail any criteria you can come up with to judge it for its value as mean of portraying history and, by extension, as a movie. Obviously, inaccuracies in Hollywood are never so far out there but I'm just trying to stress out to you how it's a quantitative not qualitative difference.
>That's why people can understand what time period and where it is set
I can make a movie featuring nordic warriors with horned helmets and people would recognize them as Vikings, despite the fact they never wore them. That's because people's perception of Vikings itself was shaped by popular culture.
Very few have actually bothered studying what an epoch looked like, what values prevailed in it, and what the daily life of its citizens were, and are just open to the first depiction presented to them, which in many cases is far more likely to come from the culture industry than actual academic works. This is why truthful depiction is important.
Plus, my argument was not that Hollywood actually does that to such a degree because, again, it was a hyperbole. Film portrayal of history clearly remains true to a set of agreed characteristics while taking lots of liberties, that tend to be ahistorical.
Shouting "artistic license" has its limitations, particularly when something like that has so much potential for repercussion, as you can see in, to use the same example I used previously, nationalistic works or other historical works distorted to fit a particular political narrative. Which, incidently, would be superfluous, ineffective and therefore inexistent if your idea that people widely "understood that" about artistic license was true.
For someone so smart, you struggle a lot with some really basic notions.
>>63604570
>Nobody wants to sit around and tell a long Tale of the break down in trade and diplomatic relations between two peoples, they want to tell tales of great heroes vanquishing evil foes.
saviour of cinema Georges Lucás managed to do both in his epic avant-garde political drama La menace fantôme (1999)
>>63610433
truly one of the most beautiful films of the golden era of New Wave science fiction cinema
>Êtes-vous un ange?
It's such a hauntingly beautiful question that I just tear up every time I watch that scene.
>>63610059
You don't get to tell what that quantity is. And guess what, nobody fucking thinks Hollywood summer blockbusters are meant to be historically accurate except your dumb ass. I wasn't joking when I said children understand that. You don't. Embarrassing.
Yes, artistic license has limitations. And none of the examples ITT broke any limitations. They're categorized everywhere as historical movies. None of them were as outlandish as your super witty Einstein verbal diarrhea. Everybody knows it's not accurate, and no one's autistic enough to give a shit. Because they're not trying to make a faithful movie or some pseudo documentary, they're trying to make a stylish and entertaining historical epic that attracts people to the cinemas. If you care about history beyond cheap entertainment, look it up. And none of these movies claim to be accurate like you said.
>fictional stories can hardly influence people so long as they're aware they're fictional, it would be oh so profoundly ineffective, vexingly inefficient and perplexingly superflous
Holy fucking shit. Your brain is what's ineffective and probably even inexistent.
I'm an average guy. It's just that everyone over the age of 7 looks super smart compared to you.
>>63605279
Modern science fiction is not about accuracy. Neither is good science fiction. Scientific accuracy often comes down to technobabble that kind of makes slightly more sense. The dichotomy between hard science fiction and soft science fiction is the one between 'hard' sciences (ie natural sciences) and 'soft' sciences (ie social sciences). Fiction that examines more abstract ideas and questions about the nature of the universe and of the self via the conduit of scientific notions edge into soft science fiction. Fiction that just tells a thumping good story with a basis in scientific notions (like Star Wars or Terminator) are definitely soft science fiction. The notion of a 'positronic brain' is inane when you consider the actually physics behind the idea of a positron, but Asimov wrote soft science fiction about the real-world implications of complex artificial intelligence, rather than the technology or engineering behind it. Likewise, modern mainstream science fiction that you will find in cinema and television will often sideline the 'how?' questions of the scientific engineering of certain situations and instead try and consider the implications of more nebulous scientific theories, ideas and paradoxes. Time travel films like Twelve Monkeys or Looper, and time travel shows like Doctor Who or Quantum Leap are soft science fiction, because they don't try and explain the science behind the time travel, instead the notion that time travel is possible is taken as read, and the possible effects of it are what is examined. Even the more abstract of the late 60s-early 70s science fiction cinema, like A Space Odyssey or Solaris, are still about examining wider, softer concepts of psychology, philosophy or existentialism than they are about the hard, natural sciences.
>>63605707
The Martian was though tbf, though that's not a recent trend. The Andromeda Strain came out in fucking 1971, Silent Running 1972, Gattaca 1997, Children of Men 2006, Moon 2009 etc. It's more just that pop-science is very prominent in the US right now because of internet publications simplifying complex concepts down to shitty unworkable metaphors using everyday language and that makes everyone think they're scientifically minded or something.
>>63610962
The insults just reek of someone losing confidence as they write, and if I filtered them away from your post I'm left with nothing but bad arguments I've already answered to and, in return, received your utter confusion. I'm literally still trying to explain to you things I said hours ago.
I really just have to hope you have enough self-awareness to realise how bad you're coming off in this and terminate the conversation here, because it's just taking me too long to explain something too simple to you.
>>63609746
You're not very smart, my friend. There is a difference between history and the past. History is our understanding of the past, based on evidence but very much incomplete. The past is what actually happened. So no, it is not objectively true that a nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, but rather there is evidence that seems to support the idea that even took place. This is GCSE stuff and I am disappointed that you do not know this.
>>63611320
Also if you want to Hume it up, science cannot be completely verified because even if you drop a ball a trillion times and every time it falls, you cannot objectively say that the next time it will fall and not float off. Besides, science is not about verifying information but falsifying it thanks to based Popper and if you take any scientific theory as fact you should just quit whatever field of study you're in and become a bin man.
>>63611310
>actually retarded enough to think movies strive to be completely historically accurate
>actually retarded enough to think "plot needs" are what dictate how stylized something is
>actually retarded enough to think fictional works are unable to affect people if they're aware they're fictional
>O-oh indeed I have utterly triumphed in this verbal bout. So palpably severe was my superiority in this joust of wits that you even called me what I truthfully am!
Oh fuck off, you pathetic moron.
