When the film does not pretend to be historically accurate, for instance anything by Ridley Scott, I can forgive it a lot if it is also a good movie. Also, I do not expect something like, say, Troy to be in the least historically accurate, and am quite happy for them to fiddle with the story, because that is what happens to traditional tales.
What I cannot stand is when a movie starts blabbing about being "the true story" or "historically accurate". King Arthur is a prime example, and the nit-picking is throughly justified.
Then take the various versions of Robin Hood. Again, this is a folk tale, and the legend is more important than any possible fact. Neither of my two favourite versions (the Errol Flynn one and the Costner one) are in the least accurate, and the idiocies in the latter are part of its charm. However, they are both true to the spirit of Hood, and are exciting and funny.
If, however, the movie or TV series fails to deliver on filmic quality, then no historical accuracy will save it.
Funnily enough, I am more willing to forgive said movies than I am to forgive historical novels. I rarely read historical novels because they never seem to get into the heads of the people of the time, and some historical fantasies are just as bad (yes, Marion Zimmer Bradley, I'm looking at you) though I will forgive Guy Gavriel Kay practically anything. Mind you, his research is very good indeed.
no subject
When the film does not pretend to be historically accurate, for instance anything by Ridley Scott, I can forgive it a lot if it is also a good movie. Also, I do not expect something like, say, Troy to be in the least historically accurate, and am quite happy for them to fiddle with the story, because that is what happens to traditional tales.
What I cannot stand is when a movie starts blabbing about being "the true story" or "historically accurate". King Arthur is a prime example, and the nit-picking is throughly justified.
Then take the various versions of Robin Hood. Again, this is a folk tale, and the legend is more important than any possible fact. Neither of my two favourite versions (the Errol Flynn one and the Costner one) are in the least accurate, and the idiocies in the latter are part of its charm. However, they are both true to the spirit of Hood, and are exciting and funny.
If, however, the movie or TV series fails to deliver on filmic quality, then no historical accuracy will save it.
Funnily enough, I am more willing to forgive said movies than I am to forgive historical novels. I rarely read historical novels because they never seem to get into the heads of the people of the time, and some historical fantasies are just as bad (yes, Marion Zimmer Bradley, I'm looking at you) though I will forgive Guy Gavriel Kay practically anything. Mind you, his research is very good indeed.