This is topic Hollywood is Terrible With History! in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=050497

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
"it's possible this was intended strictly for his personal use."
 

---

Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
 
This is news?
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
You didn't read the column, did you?
 

---

Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
 
Not before I posted, no . But I just did...

Kind of funny, but on a more serious note Hollywood is totally inaccurate when it comes to historical movies.
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Satlin (Member # 1593) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JonHecht:
Kind of funny, but on a more serious note Hollywood is totally inaccurate when it comes to historical movies.

---

I have two words for you: Independence Day.

Also, history itself tends to be historically innacurate.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
What does Independance Day have to do with Hollywood being generally crummy with historical films?
 

---

Posted by Satlin (Member # 1593) on :
 
It was the best historical film that ever came out of Hollywood.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
I was hoping for something more substantial. When I read it was Eric D. Snider, I was hoping the jokes were going to be more substantial. He usually does better than this. As it is, I think he could have just said, "all those who complain about the innacuracies of Hollywood movies take Hollywood too seriously."
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
Do you think that was his point?

Personally, he was just doing humor of the absurd...in this case, rattling off "errors" in historical films that were obviously in error.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
It needed some indication that he knew the "errors" were errors. There wasn't anything there that tipped you off he wasn't a totally clueless 12 year old. So maybe it was supposed to be satirical of 12 year olds... but, again, there needs to be some indication of intent, and I didn't see any.

It COULD have been hilarious. Instead, it just seemed like a 12 year old wrote it.
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
There wasn't anything there that tipped you off he wasn't a totally clueless 12 year old.

---

If you can read a line about Burt and Mary doing meth in "Mary Poppins" and -not- think "Hmmm...this author is just being silly", then I think you're missing some anvil-sized tip-offs!
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
See, I would say its more likely a 12 year old wrote that then someone parodying a 12 year old.

Maybe I am made cynical by my 14 year old students, though.
 

---

Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
 
The Robin Williams line did make me laugh, though.
 

---

Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
I'm sorry, but that was a very obvious satire and I think there's nothing more he could have/should have done to shove the point home.

Funny, funny stuff!
 

---

Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Satlin:
It was the best historical film that ever came out of Hollywood.

---