I suppose this question could be posted on /tv/ but that is literally the worst board ever so im posting it here.
How much do you care about historical accuracy in blockbuster movies? I can understand it bothering people in a movie like Anna Karenina or Braveheart, but personally i fucking love 300 despite the massive inaccuracies.
Also how accurate is pic related?
>>491907
>Also how accurate is pic related?
No turtle ships.
Mostly never but there's some stuff I get annoyed at. Roads that looks like car have used them and modern wheat.
I care about historical accuracy to the extent the movie attempts to represent itself as telling a real story, and how much of it's emotional resonance is dependent on that fact.
Also, you get some leeway when actually constructing a story, rather than being lazy, like sticking LCVs in Robin Hood, or everything that happened in Valkyrie.
>>491917
>modern wheat
Elaborate.
>>491907
Extremely inaccurate.
Admiral Yi took a bottleneck straight with difficult to navigate currents, meaning despite vast numerical superiority, the Japanese could not Zerg rush him at the risk of crashing into each other or the cliffs. Japanese ships were meant to cross seas and crews were not experienced either, further limiting the number of Japanese ships could send at one time. The Koreans on the other hand, had vastly superior ships and artillery and could destroy Japanese ships at range. Japanese were superior hand-to-hand fighters, but basically had no anti-ship weapons and relied completely on boarding parties in which they would decimate the Koreans. However, skill at boarding and numerical superiority doesn't mean anything when Korean artillery can destroy your ships faster than you can send them to attack.
>>491907
What's with the mascara on the samurai
>>491958
It's guyliner you pleb
Gotta look effay for your kills bruh
>>491958
The samurai is a pirate, the eyeliner is meant to protect against sea blindness it's a common thing done by ancient sailors.
>>491907
Terrible title effects like done by a high schooler just discovering photoshop effects
![300-20070207113249020[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/gopPvW0.jpg "300-20070207113249020[1].jpg")
>>491920
Wheat before the industrialisation was much higher, green, and the fields would be riddled with weed.
I usually don't care but I can never get over seeing the perfect bleached white teeth of actors in historical movies. I know it's a small detail not worth the effort but I can't not notice it.
>>492089
My great grandparents lived before industrialization happened in their town and they had pretty close to white teeth.
It did get more yellow-y in their old age.
So no, not everyone had shitty teeth. A lot of people did, but not everyone. And especially not the social elite.
>>492100
I'm not talking about just nice teeth. I mean the hollywood perfect teeth that only people who spend thousands on that you see in models and actors.
>>491907
Disappointed, it wouldn't affect the budget very much to make some effort.
They makes Jap soldiers acting retard and portrayed them like savages with pea-sized brains. A cheap propaganda movie
>>491907
Depends. If it's to serve a decent story like in Marco Polo (pic related), I don't mind.
If they stress historic accuracy but still dodge facts (at random or to shill a misinformed opinion, like in Birth of a Nation), or if they break accuracy arbitrarily (GREEKS AND ROMANS SHOULDN'T HAVE BRITISH ACCENTS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE), then it bugs me.
>>492192
>Marco Polo the Netflix series
>historical accuracy
pick one and only one
>>492199
Sorry, I'm kinda drunk. I meant to say "I don't mind historical inaccuracy if so and so".
Inaccuracy is alright, but anachronism is not.
In other words, it doesn't bother me when a historical movie introduces non-historical characters, or changes characters in some way or another, or even alters events, so long as it's in service to the plot - it would be hard to make good historical movies if you stuck completely to the historical narrative. But when people, things, or ideas are introduced that really obviously don't belong there, I'm not okay with it.
Take Kingdom of Heaven. It didn't bother me that movie-Balian was a young man instead of a dude in his 40s, or that movie-Balian wasn't even at Hattin, or even that he had a totally fictionalized backstory. But his modernist cynicism about religion and his bullshit speech about how Jerusalem is nothing but only its people really matter was fucking offensive. Instead of a character played by Orlando Bloom, it was like I was watching actual Orlando Bloom, the actor, transplanted into the 12th century, giving everyone his 21st century hot takes on what religion really means. No fucking thanks.
>>492404
>and his bullshit speech about how Jerusalem is nothing but only its people really matter was fucking offensive.
How else do you expect them to appeal to Amerifat audiences lmao?
>>491907
>How much do you care about historical accuracy in blockbuster movies?
Depends on how it markets itself.
If it says it's a historical movie, I'm expecting full accuracy.
If it says it's a modern tale inspired by real events, they can do whatevs as long as it's cool.
>>492404
Ironclad had a kind of feminist Templar fighting for democracy in England and falling in love with a strong independent woman.
>>491917
Lindybeige, stop posting on /his/ and go practice aerials
>>491917
Stop watching Lindybong.
>>491932
That's exactly what happened in the movie, so what are you bitching about?
>>493908
probably because there is a scene where the Japanese board a ship and get BTFO which is total bullshit because Koreans are shit fighters
>I suppose this question should have been posted on /tv/
You're right. It should have. Thanks for shitting up the board.
>>492068
>riddled with weeds
What do you think all those farm labourers are for?
>>492192
Yes, because going through Rome with everyone attempting an Italian accent would have made it so much better.
>>492657
I didn't get any hints of feminism from Marshall in Ironclad. Examples?
>>491907
Depends on the time period they depict and the story in general.
Most "costume" dramas from the 18th century onward like Barry Lyndon look good to me but I don't know an awful lot about that time period. Pretty much all medieval films fuck up royally on the costume department and it is starting to bother me to no end, however a good plot and acting can safe it.
>massive inaccuracies in 300
Remember how at the end it was actually a retelling by a survivor of the battle ? It was never meant to be accurate.
>>494728
I'd argue 300 was more of a fantasy film placed in a Greek history inspired setting.
>>492107
Some times it is genetics though. I've met people who never had or needed braces in their life. Some people really are born with perfect straight white teeth that don't stain easily.
>>491917
Does everyone on this board (and 4chan) hate lindybiege that much? I think he's ok in some ways when it comes to discussing origins actual historical artifacts. At the most he's entertaining to watch.
>>494803
Completely ignores primary sources and practical experience from guys with a lot more knowledge on the subject. I've been watching him for a few years now and it's clear he has been backpedaling a lot on stuff he covered in his earlier video's.
>>491907
Pic related is 300 tier accuracy. We laughed at the failings the whole way through
>>494618
They don't get BTFO, they kill half the crew and only get pushed back by a gunpowder explosion.
>>494803
The schtick about ripping apart films over every minor detail sounds fun, until you grow up and realize they're not shooting a documentary and complaining about the lighting being wrong or the corn being incorrect is just tiresome. Presumably he thinks they should have grown a full field of ancient wheat, just for that 30 second long scene in Gladiator.
He also bases alot of things around what a modern person would do and how his reenactment group does things, rather than what people actually did.
He also makes huge, sweeping statements that can be disproved with a 10 second Google search. Sword pommels were made of wood, there's loads of butted maille in museums and they didn't have grinding machines in the middle ages.
Oh and the looking to the left at another camera, making a quip and then turning back, got old instantly.
>>494876
He's also neither a historian or an archaeologist, but a dancing instructor. He has an archaeology degree, which in practical terms qualifies him to possibly, potentially think about volunteering to dig a hole, if he's lucky.
>>494883
I mean if he is human though, and if he and his buddies thought of using those weapons in those ways, it's not so far fetched that some people( though obviously not most people) thought of using it. I do agree that he needs to clarify what he says and not give the impression that it was the norm and he does sometimes address it.
>>494883
Regardless of my opinion of Lindy, I've read enough retarded shit written by "real" historians that the title doesn't hold any weight in my opinion.
>>491907
Just remember historians concerning themselves foremost with factually accuracy is a rather modern phenomenon.
Picking apart movies can be entertaining, but a lot of what we consider factually history comes from historians who believed dramatic flair and allegory were just as important.
>>494876
I think it's fine to criticize the many glaring inaccuracies that would take little effort to have instead accurate and sometimes even less effort in comparison to what's normally done.
>>494803
>Does everyone on this board (and 4chan) hate lindybiege that much? I think he's ok in some ways when it comes to discussing origins actual historical artifacts. At the most he's entertaining to watch.
I like him.He's interested and passionate about things. Same with Dan Carlin, he's not a historian but his podcasts are still entertaining and engaging.
>>492002
How does mascara prevent sea blindness?
Google isn't showing me shit about anything you speak of.
>>495011
Assuming its the same theory behind athletes wearing eye black to reduce glare.
>>494940
The mistake though is assuming they had a mindset and world view anywhere near that of a modern reenactor. They were trying to murder their opponents and save themselves from dying. Not having a laugh with friends and going out of their way to not hurt each other.
>>494991
He complains about the lighting. He complains that you can see what is happening in a visual medium.
>>493908
>>494618
>>494870
>koreans didnt get btfo
>koreans get boarded and blow ship up
>super dramatic desperate ass pulling everywhere
No, it's really simple in reality. Japanese thought they had superiority because of numbers. Admiral Yi created a situation that completely negated Japanese superiority and gave his own small fleet extreme superiority in engagement. The only thing that was actually dramatic in reality is that it's true that the Korean government gave up on the navy and Yi was left with only 13 ships and the other captains were hesitant after the massive losses prior to the battle and the Japanese numerical superiority. Japanese kept pushing until they lost a quarter of their ships before they realized they were making no gains, and turned back. Korean losses were extremely low, 3 killed and 8 drowned.
>>495049
I mean soldiers did practice though. Also, while they are in fact reenacting, it's not hard to imagine ways to seriously hurt each other.
>>495152
Yeah, practice to kill other people. Not to play a fun dress up game with safety rules.
>>495073
>Korean losses were extremely low, 3 killed and 8 drowned.
Personnel casualties for both sides were likely high, however there is not much detail in the historical records for the total number of combatants killed or wounded. Admiral Yi's diary mentioned a few specific casualties (losses on his ship and An Wi's ship), but it is likely there were more. However, the diary says that the Joseon navy had no ship losses. The mention of 31 damaged or lost Japanese ships were from Yi's diary.
>>491907
The thing I liked about 300 is, they didn't even pretend to be accurate. They just admitted, "look, here is some flashy made-up slasher-bullshit with monsters, I hope you enjoy the slashings and monsters", and slashing and monsters were pretty good indeed.
I dislike Hollywood and only watch arthouse, but I liked 300.
>>491907
If the historical part just provides an attractive context for a nice story, I don't care about historical inaccuracy. This is why I liked Amadeus, why I like westerns and why I liked Kurosawa's samurai movies. Though I don't know much about samurais, maybe Kurosawa made his movies somewhat more historically accurate than my other examples.
I don't like historical inaccuracies when the movie presents itself as teaching us actual history. And/or when the inaccuracies are clearly voluntary and I can't empathize with the reasons of the change. But I can tolerate it all if the final result is entertaining.
>>495004
Podcasts are for the mentally challenged too dumb to read.
>>495443
Or people who are driving, or working, or exercising, or cooking, or...
>>495237
That part of wikipedia literally has no citations and is sorely in need of a [citations needed] tag. There's no particular reason to think Korean casualties should be high. They completely dominated the battle. No one will argue that the Japanese had any capability of sinking a ship from a distance. At best, Korean casualties would have come from Japanese gunfire, which still would not have been devastating, because the Japanese were advancing in small numbers while being sunk by Korea artillery. When the Koreans made a counter-attack, the Japanese were in a state of disarray because of the changing currents.
>>494990
>Just remember historians concerning themselves foremost with factually accuracy is a rather modern phenomenon.
>Picking apart movies can be entertaining, but a lot of what we consider factually history comes from historians who believed dramatic flair and allegory were just as important.
Troy and the Trojan War were thought to be myth and legend until someone actually found the ruins.
>>495901
Well actually the ruins of Troy was also destroyed by the guy that found it because he thought Troy would have been 'older'.
>>495470
Conjecture and wishy-washy bullshit. You haven't named a single solid fact that the movie got wrong.
>>495913
Your quote from wikipedia is literally conjecture.
>>495913
Every source says Koreans dominated that battle. Even the enemy Japanese side. It was not close, it was not by a hair. He did not just leave it to luck or come up with his plan at the last minute or come upon the strait by chance. The other captains joined in because they saw how easy it was to hold off the Japanese even when outnumbered 10 to 1. He scouted numerous potential places for a last stand.
His ship was definitely not boarded. There is no Japanese source for this, and his diary doesn't mention it either. There definitely were not fire ships, the Japanese did not anticipate much resistance from 12 ships, certainly not enough to prepare fire ships. There definitely was not a sniper just to add drama either.
>>495969
>There definitely was not a sniper just to add drama either.
That assassin girl is so smoking hot, too bad, evil gooks killed her.
>>496019
>girl
>girl
>girl
: ^ )
>>496019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Min-woo
>girl
