Hollywoodized Historical movies: good or bad?

ok we've all seen plenty of them, but what do you think, does a little hollywood go along way into giving history enough drama and story arc to be enjoyable?

or does history have alot more drama, romance and action that is just to often ignored by hollywood creaters and often dumbed down in favor of very obvious plot and character development?

Well i think a bit of hollywood is fine if not some movies would be very short or very talky. I feel that a movie has to get the feel of the era and not do anything really un historical apart from that i am fine with most treatments. However they should not claim to be based on true stories ( i am looking in your direction U-571)

I disagree with the holywood add-ons and general saucery. Not to mention the blatant inaccuracies. They can stick to the original material and get a more than good and dramatic result.
I mean, let's face it. How did Stone's Alexander benefit from all these scenes of homosexual innuendos between Alexander and Hephaestaeon? These scenes were, to put it mildly, useless for the film. Or what was the benefit of seeing Xerxes in 300 with all those gold piercings and the almost naked attire when the original is so much more elegant and respectable. From the same movie, why did the spartans not wear the torso armour they were wearing back then, and instead we see them wearing only a tight leather "thing". They could show off the actor's hard earned bodies in scenes previous to the battle and be done with that.
Generally speaking, hollywoodisms detract instead of adding to historical films.

If a Hollywood movie gets people to crack open a history books and learn the real stories that a film is based on then IMO Hollywood can be forgiven for its excesses.

Originally Posted by Big War Bird

If a Hollywood movie gets people to crack open a history books and learn the real stories that a film is based on then IMO Hollywood can be forgiven for its excesses.

If this was the case in general, then Id agree. Unfortunately the world is full of idiots who think whats in Hollywood historical blockbusters as fact, the vast majority of movie goers do not check up on the facts when they watch these films. When I saw Braveheart some 11-12 years ago, I guess I thought it was rather historically accurate because I was then a young idiot (I am now an older idiot, but I know enough about history not to believe such crap).

Hollywood is a rapist of history, some movies are so inaccurate that I sometimes think whoever directed them should immediately be taken out into an open place and shot (fortunately modern law systems does not allow one to act in affect, and fortunately I don't have the power).

What really bugs me is that the grossly inaccurate Hollywood crap is normally based around events that are just as spectacular, if not even more spectacular than what the movies depict.

And by the way, I have not seen 300, and as it is clearly a fantasy film that is incredibly loosely based around an actual historical event, it does not really fall within the films I here criticize. What bugs me with that film is that the friggin film companies decided to finance a fantasy film about the event rather than make a true historical film about it. In a way though I guess that the fewer historical events Hollywood makes a film of, the fewer historical events gets raped.

As an historian, I think all historical movies from holywood or not are interesting for perceptions and representations of the past and those who were involved. For example, the last movie on the battle of Thermopylea, "300" is funny because of the demonization of the persian who seems closer to the armies of Mordor than an army of humans soldiers! Why the producer did that? Is it to demonize the persians and now the iranians. (the tensions between the bush administration and Iran) The brave spartans who died defending their freedom can be see like US soldiers fighting for liberty around the world. (I think they are closer to the demoniac persians who try to impose the will of their leader on the rest of the world!) It's funny because i red one editorial from a Toronto newspaper talking about the US invasion of Canada during the 1812 war and he used this image of brave canadian spartans defending their homes against the evil persian army from the USA! Also, their is the issue of Orientalism proposed by Edward Said. I think movies on relations about occident and orient are filled with the Orientalism. The movie "The last emperor" is one example of this. The perception of chinese sensuality is overevaluated! The about 10 years old Pu Yi who still drink breast milk or the Eunuques who keep the harem! Finaly, a movie is an interpratation of an event of the past by someone who do not belong in this time. This person have a perception of that event influenced by his own time and often he has an agenda. Personally i like historical movies but i like to watch them more than one times to see not the historical mistakes but the perception of the author and the producer on the historical event.

I might be considered marginally insane but I thought this forum had an Arts sub forum and a History forum.....

Edit: Also movies are suppose to entertain, like a bard around a campfire. Thus the cinematic add-ons are reasonable and a natural extension of story telling.

Originally Posted by Hansa

Hollywood is a rapist of history, some movies are so inaccurate that I sometimes think whoever directed them should immediately be taken out into an open place and shot (fortunately modern law systems does not allow one to act in affect, and fortunately I don't have the power).

That sums up my opinion. Anyway, everyone knows it who visits VV.

Personally I like 'realistic' historical film. I know history is really hard to depict in a realistic way, some bias, one sidedness may remain always, some perspective, but generally it is possible.
And realistic movies with good charcters (not necessary super hero warriors) and good details can deeply impress me.

Way better than the crap which was supposed to entertain people.
Strangely it doesnt entertain me, because I see only cliches, which are boring.

(Think about the last King Arthur movie...how simple was everything, how predictable the whole film...besides unrealistic.)

Good historical films are:
-Spartacus : with Kirk Douglas, acceptable
-König der letzten Tages/King of the last days (by Bavaria Filmstudio) excellent!
-Stalingrad: (Bavaria Produkt)
-Das Boot: (Bavaria, Jürgen Prochnow)
-Francesco: directed by Liliano Cavani (not that exciting but good)
-Ivan Rublev: directed by Tarkovsky, very great film!
-I killed Trotsky: starring Alan Delon, very good

Originally Posted by Odovacar

Good historical films are:
-Spartacus : with Kirk Douglas, acceptable
-König der letzten Tages/King of the last days (by Bavaria Filmstudio) excellent!
-Stalingrad: (Bavaria Produkt)
-Das Boot: (Bavaria, Jürgen Prochnow)
-Francesco: directed by Liliano Cavani (not that exciting but good)
-Ivan Rublev: directed by Tarkovsky, very great film!
-I killed Trotsky: starring Alan Delon, very good

How about Der Untergang?.. there the germans are acutally speaking german.. mostly because it's made by germans I guess.

Originally Posted by Holger Danske

How about Der Untergang?.. there the germans are acutally speaking german.. mostly because it's made by germans I guess.

Got it right there. Just grabbed the DVD a while ago, it's a damn good movie. I didn't quite like the look of Adolf, but the acting makes up for it.
Ahh, German films, Stalingrad adn Das boot are great, and I've probably seen few others too but can't remember.

Some hollywood films that come to mind right now:
Alexander: Pure crap, no need to say more.
King Arthur: Duh.. I could watch it, but wont watch again. it isn't that historical film anyway.
Kingdom of Heaven: haven't seen the extended version, but the normal version was pretty boring. Story isn't bad, but there's no "something" in it, Scott really screwed this one up.
Gladiator: Love it. let's not speak about accuracy, it sure is enteraining. It's got "balls" and an inspiring story.
Braveheart: Yep, I like it. Again, don't mention historical accuracy, it's entertaining and brutal.
Troy: Crap. It has some feeling, but I don't like the actors. Also, it doesn't capture the real atmosphere of that era, it's just too Hollywood.
Last Samurai: Hmm.. Tough one. I don't like Cruise, but the movie wasn't that bad, I enjoyed it in theatre.

WW2 films: As mentioned, zie germans have the edge here, but some Hollywood stuff has been decent at least.

For me, it isn't the accuracy, I can always read the stuff from the internet/books. I just want the movie to be good. Although I hate it when Hollywood dicks grab every damn event in history and turn it into a movie. "Oh, how 'bout Hannibal, let's get Vin Diesel to play the part", "Hey, we haven't made a movie about Julius Caesar in five years now, let's make one, and Caesar could be gay and he could have an affair with Vercingetorix!"

"Mistakes" can be annoying in the eyes of an armchair historian, scratching their balls in front of their PC's and correcting every mistake someone makes. But just get over it. These movies are for big audiences, history lovers just need to settle for what they get. Some day they might even do a historical movie. Some day..

american soldiers are like demoniac persians? where did that come from? anyways, hollywood in general blows anymore. watch gettysburg, they left that make believe stuff out. they didn't even make robert e lee a gay man.

I don't care about historical accuracy as long as the movie is good/interesting.
I mean, I never heard anyone complaining about the historical accuracy of Iliad or the Aeneid, so why should we complain about movies, especially ones that is obviously not based on fact?(eg. 300). If there is some idiots who take Hollywood movie as a fact, thats their problem not the movies.
Sadly Oliver Stone's Alexander were neither historically accurate nor good movie.

There is this (iceland?) film Beowulf, based on the Edda, and then there is this Hollywood movie, "The 13th Warrior". As far as I have heard, both have the same theme as a backgroud, but if you don`t know it, you will not realise it.

"Beowulf" is a good film and you understand much of the story (at least it has a story- but I never read the Edda). Then, the "13thWarrior" is also a good film. It has a story with so many illogical things in it, that it has to be counted more as fantasy. But in the fields in which the Hollywood people are experts (like explosions, car chasings etc, generally spoken) this film is very good. Beowulf is also good, but not so action-orientated.

So I assume each has it purpose. If you want action, watch Hollywood. If you want to use your head look elsewhere. Or- in other words- imagine the "300 Spartans" had been made by some over-intellectual art students. It would perhaps be an "interesting" film, but not something you would watch if you had the thirst for action.

its good in the way that it brings history and events that should not be forgottern to light and to the public eye, such as 300,zulu to name a few.

however at the same time if your going to tell a story at least tell it correctly, sometimes lieing about historical events can upset people and change peoples mind set which isnt a good thing if its based on a false.

take for example the verious WW2 films, many people from around the world died for freedom yet holywood says its was just the americans and on a few rare mouments the brits as well. another example would be the patriot where the english put people in a church and burned them alive. and another example would be films involving the romans, allmost all films show them as the hero's when in actual fact they killed and conqured.

Originally Posted by Odovacar

Good historical films are:
-Spartacus : with Kirk Douglas, acceptable
-König der letzten Tages/King of the last days (by Bavaria Filmstudio) excellent!
-Stalingrad: (Bavaria Produkt)
-Das Boot: (Bavaria, Jürgen Prochnow)
-Francesco: directed by Liliano Cavani (not that exciting but good)
-Ivan Rublev: directed by Tarkovsky, very great film!
-I killed Trotsky: starring Alan Delon, very good

not all those films are holywood, das boot for example was made in germany

Originally Posted by LoZz

not all those films are holywood, das boot for example was made in germany

maybe only one of these films were made in Hollywood. That is why I quoted them here....

I like historically accurate films, as long as they are entertaining. It is easy to be entertaining without going hollywood style; use special effects, but keep it realistic, have a lot of fighting, but make the fighting true to history. Its pretty simple - no fantasy creatures, no superman, equipment from the proper era...
Real battles took place over hours or days, sometimes weeks. So they can take a long time, and there's no need to speed it up, realize the film is too short, then add in a bunch of junk.

A quite funny parody of the bastardization of historical events by Hollywood from the twisted minds behind Monkey Dust.
If you have seen any of my other Monkey Dust posts than don't expect any change, it will offend, you have been warned, of particular note is the reductio ad Hitlerum. Enjoy!!

Originally Posted by Cúchulainn

A quite funny parody of the bastardization of historical events by Hollywood from the twisted minds behind Monkey Dust.
If you have seen any of my other Monkey Dust posts than don't expect any change, it will offend, you have been warned, of particular note is the reductio ad Hitlerum. Enjoy!!

that is hilarous...

Originally Posted by Farnan

that is hilarous...

If you like that here is another ( I have already posted it before, can't remember where now )
The Diary of Anne Frank

@Cúchulainn

Good one. I especially liked the "Berlin, England" location tab.