Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art
what's the biggest, most egregious movie/tv show anachronism or historical inaccuracy, that you don't give a hoot about, and love the film or show regardless?
Gladiator is a good example, works for me too. The fact that the historical side of it is a nonsense doesn't bother me a jot; it does a good job of conveying some (impressionistic) idea of the grandeur of Rome at its height and that's enough for me.
But it is astonishingly riddled with visual flubs, some of which *do* take me out of the film. The tractor tracks in the crops, the obvious modernity of the ruts in the road on Maximus's farm, the contrails...there are just dozens and dozens and dozens. By contrast, Fellowship of the Ring's car in the background was
nothing. :lol
"We´re making a movie, not a documentary!" I´ve heard that one quite often from a director ...
Lazy. For a big production it isn't that much harder to get it right. Hire a couple of production assistants with appropriate quals and give them the job of policing accuracy. LOTR had an Elven languages consultant...
If an element fits the overall art work, then why not use it. I´ve made my peace with movies like League of extraordinary gentlemen and Around the world in 80 days when it comes to e.g. inaccurately chosen vehicles.
Sure, if it's near enough, okay. But LoEG didn't get that right either; they went for an Art Nouveau take on
1930s vehicles. If they had nouveau-ised some Victorian stuff, I'd have probably disliked the film less.
In general, I tolerate modern language and, in SOME cases, modern concepts popping out of historical figures' mouths. It depends on the specifics, though.
As you say, if it is done on purpose, no problem. If it is by accident or ignorance, not so much. Honorifics are a big problem area; people don't address the Queen as "Queen" or "Your Highness", it would be a major embarrassment. Seeing it happen in a film immediately tells me that the filmmaker is either lazy or ignorant or both, so why should I care about the rest of what he's serving up? If your film has pretensions to gravitas and you're featuring titled characters, then
getting their sodding titles correct isn't a lot to ask.
Robin Hood and the "LSK" - Landing Ship Knight ... (sigh)
:lol :thumbsup
My guess is Cameron wanted his movie to be different enough from previous versions so as not to draw obvious comparisons, and probably thought a love story (even a fictional one) would draw more female audience members.
The man knows his marketing.
Not an anachronism, but I just started watching the new BSG series and i can't get over how they seem to be in the future, but use modern day technology.
Not just modern, there's WWII stuff in there too. I know there's an in-story explanation that kinda, sorta can be bent and twisted to apply to the visuals themselves but really, actual Jeeps and 1940s Dodge weapons carriers? It bugged me.
I got one for you, then.. came across this one today when I was watching Bones. Not an anachronism, just an inaccuracy.
Bones - do they still have that giant holographic display tank imported from the future? :lol
