Topic: I'm tired of Hollywood's toying with chronological facts.

[Touti]

If you've read my review of Flyboys (and if you have not I strongly suggest you don't miss that truly brilliant post  ), you already know that I really liked watching Flyboys and that I recommend it.

However there is one thing that keeps coming back in Hollywoods historical or based on historic events movies and that is their total disregard for historical accuracy.

Flyboys tells us the story of the Lafayette Escadrille.  This was a squadron of american voluntary pilots based in France who joined the war before the United States did.

This ranting post is about the planes used in the movies.  The americans/french are piloting biplanes while are the german planes are Fokker Dr. I Triplanes.  That is very unlikely and here is why.

The Lafayette Escadrille was created in 1916, according to the U.S Department of State (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwi/82205.htm) the United States joined the war in April 1917.

In april 1917, the RNAS introduced the Sopwith Triplane.  In response to that Fokker converted an unfinished biplane prototype into a Triplane.  Only two prototypes were produced and tested and in October 1917 the production of the Fokker Dr. I Triplane began.  This plane was widely used by the germans in the spring of 1918.  They was 320 of them produced.

Now according to Wikipedia, the Lafayette Escadrille was transferred to the United States Air force in February 1918 and became the 103rd pursuit squadron.

If the Fokker Dr.I went into production in October 1917 and the Lafayette Squadron became something else in February 1918, only 5 months later, I think it is very unlikely that they would have fought only Fokker Dr. I Triplanes as shown in the movie.

That may seem trivial to most but I find this very annoying.  What's wrong with Hollywood ?  Is it too dumb and/or lazy to do a little research ?  Do they think we are the dumb ones and that we wouldn't be able to follow the fights if all planes at the same number of wings ?

[lyonsden5]

Sorry but all I could think of after you said "sopwith triplane" was this:




CURSE YOU RED BARON! 

[Touti]

I would never have thought of that Rick.

One "Good catch" point awarded

[Sanuye]

Sorry but all I could think of after you said "sopwith triplane" was this:




CURSE YOU RED BARON! 

the same happened to me! 

[Najemikon]

After I read your review, I checked it out at Empire. They don't take it seriously at all. 2 out of 5 and this to say...

You have to wonder what audience they were gunning for with Flyboys. The setting — the dogfight-scarred skies of the Great War — suggests an appeal to greying men usually slumped in front of The History Channel. Yet the look and fresh-faced cast seem geared for sugar-dependent teens. Flyboy ended up attracting neither demographic on its Stateside release.
 
Still, it’s curiously entertaining, kind of like watching a dumb, dizzy puppy chase its tail. Each mission plays out like a cross between a teen soap and a flight-sim videogame, culminating in one ‘boss’ encounter as our heroes try to stop the Death Star — sorry, a giant Zeppelin — from destroying Alderaan — sorry, Paris. It’s like Star Wars… with gravity!

I fancy seeing it after reading both reviews, but even before this thread, I felt the lack of paragraphs from Empire implied it was merely a fun film, accuracy be damned! You've confirmed so now.

My view is that so long as it is entertaining and light, it can get away with it, just as all the old WWII films did. "Boy's Own" adventures, where ALL the allies were whiter-than-white heroes and ALL the enemy were child-murdering lunatics. And ugly. I miss the simple world of Von Ryan's Express, I really do.

It seems only recently-ish that films and therefore audiences come to expect absolutes. Spielberg has something to do with it, I'm sure. After he released 1941, a massive flop, and got bollocked by John Wayne, he felt a duty to make amends. Cue Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan. The latter could easily have been done like Where Eagles Dare, but now it was realism all the way, and there was no Black and White, just shades of grey.

I see nothing wrong in fluffing the legend to get a point made, as long as the legend is attributed to the correct people. Therefore, U571 shall always reside on my Most Hated Films list. Turn one of the most daring missions of WWII into a thrilling submarine adventure, full of cliches and jingoism and corny dialogue... Great! But to attribute the mission to the Americans?

You're right, Eric. Why do it? Why not research? It's easy enough to do and it can only honour the bravery of those concerned all the more. Going back to U571, it's all the worse that they didn't miss something, they actually went to the effort of changing it.

[Touti]

You're right, Eric. Why do it? Why not research? It's easy enough to do and it can only honour the bravery of those concerned all the more.

My guess is they don't because they don't care.  They're not in the history business, they're in the entertainment business and that's what they concentrate on.  Heck, put two planes that look almost identical, add a little light and sun and there you have a bunch a viewers who are all confused and lose interest because they don't know shit about WWI, they no longer know who's who and they only want to be entertained, not to try and actually make their own brains do some of the work.

How do you satisfy them ?  You make it easy, you know germans had triplanes and french didn't, there is your solution, put germans in triplanes !  Who cares for 7 or 8 months (that is besides me) ?

What really pisses me off when I see this is that I know I don't know everything so when I see these wrong things that I know I have to wonder how many wrong things I didn't know about have I seen in movies and took as truth..........like the Americans breaking the enigma or Jack the Ripper being the Queen's doctor.

[Najemikon]

What really pisses me off when I see this is that I know I don't know everything so when I see these wrong things that I know I have to wonder how many wrong things I didn't know about have I seen in movies and took as truth..........like the Americans breaking the enigma or Jack the Ripper being the Queen's doctor.

In the other thread, I mentioned Braveheart and how I forgive it's artistic license somewhat because I had no idea who Wallace was, but even so, a line should have been drawn before the heavy implication that he got the Queen pregnant and therefore the Royal line is descended from this Scottish rebel! He was iconic enough without exaggerating him with conspiracy theories.

Did you watch The Lives of Others last night? I think that is the perfect way to present a true story through drama. Also Finding Neverland, which is at heart a fantasy like Amelie, but gives some insight into J. M. Barrie nonetheless.

[Touti]

Braveheart: I did some research on internet after watching that movie countless times to separate the truth from the fantasy and I agree with you.  For someone who doesn't know and doesn't have enough interest in history to do the research it's misleading because we all tend to give movies more historical value than they deserve.  The truth about about Wallace and the Queen is that they never even met, actually it is very unlikely that she ever set foot in Scotland.

I think this is sad in a way because many things we see in movies are true ("prima nocte" for instance which I had never heard about) but we never know anymore.  I also knew nothing about Wallace when I saw Braveheart the first time and I believed most of it.

U-571:  I never did any research on this but I did believe the Americans helped ending the war by capturing that 1 enigma machine.  In this it's even worse because, as you point out any time you're given a chance  , this is pure lie.  They don't only show it to you and let you think that's what happened, they actually say it in the movie introduction if memory serves.

The Lives of Others: No, ran short in time for my marathon, last night I watched "Children of Men", I will watch "The Lives of Others" this afternoon or tonight.

[Najemikon]

U-571:  I never did any research on this but I did believe the Americans helped ending the war by capturing that 1 enigma machine.

They did. In 1944, yes... by which time everyone else was reading Enigma coded transmissions as easily as the Beano! Even the Canadians grabbed one before the US! The British had captured about 12 machines I think, the first in 1941. In a final indignity the film is set in 1942(?) and ends as you would expect, with the destruction of U571. Shame it continued service until 1944. I bet the writers just picked a U-boat with the coolest sounding number!

[goodguy]

Did you watch The Lives of Others last night? I think that is the perfect way to present a true story through drama.

Well, except for the "good" Stasi officer. Don't get me started on this.

[Touti]

Did you watch The Lives of Others last night? I think that is the perfect way to present a true story through drama.

Well, except for the "good" Stasi officer. Don't get me started on this.

I'll probably want to know more about this after I watch it Mathias.

[Najemikon]

Did you watch The Lives of Others last night? I think that is the perfect way to present a true story through drama.

Well, except for the "good" Stasi officer. Don't get me started on this.

I'll get you started on it properly once Eric has seen it! For now I'll just say you're being harsh... 

[Touti]

Did you watch The Lives of Others last night? I think that is the perfect way to present a true story through drama.

Well, except for the "good" Stasi officer. Don't get me started on this.

I'll get you started on it properly once Eric has seen it! For now I'll just say you're being harsh... 

Use the Spoiler tag Jon, I can control myself, I want click on it

[DJ Doena]

It seems everybody has watched or plans to watch "The Life of Others" ... Everybody but me and I grew up in that country. Is that suppression?

[goodguy]

Did you watch The Lives of Others last night? I think that is the perfect way to present a true story through drama.

Well, except for the "good" Stasi officer. Don't get me started on this.

I'll get you started on it properly once Eric has seen it! For now I'll just say you're being harsh... 

No, you probably won't. There are too many painful memories associated with this period of my life. Let's just say, it would clash with the reason I do frequent this forum.

But I can recommend this article by Tom Jennings, or doing a Google search for the movie title together with the phrase "good Stasi" to get a broader scope of the debate.