Responding to "When the Director Doesn't Give a F**k About Historical Accuracy" w/ Rags and Fringy

[@HectorLopez0217]

It’s not good when epic rap battles has a more respectful and accurate take on a character

[@canaldecasta]

Hell even gacha games do a better job.

[@HectorLopez0217]

@@canaldecasta even the ones where they’re waifus with white hair and heterocromia

[@nhagan001]

@@HectorLopez0217 Banner of the Maid on Steam looking real sus all of a sudden...

[@Reshyon]

@@nhagan001 And I can confirm, it does a better job than this movie.

[@katanabluejay]

"You're the only type of Dynamite who's never going to bang"

[@KingBuilder525]

For those who don’t know, Napoleon basically invented Egyptology. The Rosetta Stone was recovered under his command. Him firing on the pyramids could not be less historically acurate

[@alexholker1309]

I have heard it claimed that Napoleon shot the nose off the Great Sphinx, which might be where Scott got the idea, but that is also false: drawings of the Sphinx missing its nose predate Napoleon's arrival by sixty years, and the more likely culprit was a Muslim iconoclast in the 14th century.

[@RipOffProductionsLLC]

​@alexholker1309 honestly, considering the long history of Muslims destroying pre-islamic religious artifacts, I feel like if they were responsible, there'd be a lot more missing than just the nose...

[@lokenontherange]

@@alexholker1309 Or just age. Noses tend to break first on old pieces.

[@samwallaceart288]

Even human noses struggle to stay put with age

[@jonboulet1614]

His men did. It wasn’t his idea

[@canaldecasta]

Reality: surpasses fiction. Moviemakers: let's do that, but shitty.

[@Longshanks1690]

The issues with historical accuracy can actually be summed up by reference to Napoleon, and specifically the scene near the end where Wellington tells Napoleon what his fate will be. Now, a lot of people have criticised this because the two of them never met, and that’s a valid point to make. But it’s not the biggest problem with the scene - the real problem is that they did fucking nothing with it. Imagine it. Napoleon and Wellington, two of the greatest military geniuses of all time - certainly of their age. Their rivalry had defined so much of the Napoleonic wars, and Wellington had been a consistent thorn in the Emperor’s side, even if you ignore his depriving Napoleon of mastery of Spain, which the movie doesn’t even acknowledge happened but I digress. The point is that these two could and would have had fascinating conversations about historical generals, how they performed on the battlefield and what they’ve learnt from one another. But did that happen in the movie? No, Scott instead had Wellington deliver lines that could have been given by literally any random British person, just informing Napoleon of what his fate was to be. And that’s the actual problem with deviations from historical accuracy. It’s not that they can’t be necessary, it’s not that they can’t be valid, it’s not even that they can’t make the movie better, it’s that more often than not the change comes out of nothing more than sheer, incompetent laziness. It comes from a sheer lack of imagination and creativity that makes the story worse than the one that historically happened. Worse still, they don’t add anything of value and detract significantly from it. Another example, Napoleon didn’t fight near the pyramids. Everyone was pointing that out after the trailers, but you’d be an idiot to not make the battle actually happen near the pyramids. No, the problem is that the battle is completely pointless and adds nothing of value to the story. You could have had Napoleon on any random campaign since the point of that scene was just to show he values Josephine more than his men - which is a whole other can of worms to unpack the implications of. So you absolutely can make changes to history in films, sometimes it’s a necessity. But when the changes aren’t serving a higher purpose or going towards making the story better? That kind of unjustifiable laziness should absolutely be called out for the cheap gimmick that it is.

[@samwallaceart288]

My mind jumps to Oppenheimer and Einstein's conversation by the pond. It's entirely fiction, but mechanically makes enough sense that a conversation like that _would_ happen even if we can't know the exact details of what was said. And Nolan makes full use of it; Albert and Oppie discuss their past together and little moments only they would know about, and then Albert tells him a vision of his future that only he is in the position to empathize with, and then Oppie cuts to the point that's been bothering him that only Albert, with his technical expertise and life experience of war, can understand the terrifying implications of. A lesser author would've just dropped "God doesn't play with dice" with zero context or story relevance so he could say he said The Thing, and leave it there. Instead the scene takes full advantage of who both these men are, what they did, and their common ground with each other. It stretches the limits of history not to give us a trailer soundbite, but to give us an iconic microcosm of what both men meant to each other and the film.

[@kingjerrodthelion]

🦁. @Longshanks1690. Thought this was a really good comment of yours, in fact, thought it was so good I'm subscribed to you now. I'm absolutely in agreement with you on the laziness part specifically. I've been watching the Xena Warrior Princess show lately, & oh boy! a historian worth his salt would go insane with that show's treatment of certain historical figures & time periods, & I'm saying that as layman of Greek, Norse, Egyptian, Hindu & Christian history/mythology. Than there's the modernisms, holy Christ! Don't get me started on those. & I'm aware it's a action fantasy show, but still, think that show crosses the line more than a little bit, still would half recommend it tho.

[@zdog058]

Former military history major The most important thing to us isn't necessarily accuracy, but 1. Authenticity 2. Respect That's it

[@reactiondavant-garde3391]

As a fellow historian maor I agree. I like when the setting is very accurate, like clothing and buildings, but some level of freedom have to be given to charatcer writing and plotting, if it is no go agains the core truth of the situation or person in question.

[@alimortazavi4738]

can i ask you question? is there any word that describe a situation when a movie/show/novel isn't historically accurate but the story that narrates perfectly fits the historical setting and could very well happened ,like imagine a movie shows Caesar sieging Carthage capital with canons, not only it didn't IRL but also even if Caesar sieged Carthage capital it wouldn't have happened in this particular way(with cannons)

[@zdog058]

@@alimortazavi4738 HBO's Rome season 1 is my go to example. It had people like Titus Pullo and Lucius Vareenus who were real people named by Caesar in the gallic wars. However they were obviously not as involved with the affairs of the key players of the second Roman Civil war. Titus Pullo was not Caesarian's Father. Lucius Vareenus wasn't there when Marc Antony died. Yet Rome is authentic to the time period you can FEEL ancient Rome through the show. There are lists of inaccuracies throughout the show but Season 1 of Rome is excellent nonetheless.

[@greensoldier2142]

​@@alimortazavi4738historical fiction

[@TheNoonish]

It's weird how much this movie wanted to focus on the relationship between Josephine and Napoleon, and Eugene (Josephine's son, adopted by Napoleon who became one of his generals) just was not even in it. You'd think him adopting her child from a previous marriage, whose father was sent to the guillotine at the height of the Terror after he lost a battle, would be hugely significant in the story of this relationship. But then, I guess I wasn't there. How would I even know if Eugene de Beauharnais was a real person who commanded soldiers in Russia?

[@TheAdarkerglow]

From my understanding of what Napoleon did for Warfare was that he redefined how people viewed the use of Cannons. His use of Hannibal's, Caesar's, and Alexander's tactics were noted in his diaries, consisting of such things as 'showing up before the enemy arrives', and 'being where the enemy does not expect', but it was the use of bombardments and artillery that set him apart from equally studied generals. Before that, they were siege weapons, useful for retreats, or repelling enemy lines, but his use of mathematics and precision destruction made them a weapon of attack and even ambush.

[@joeldykman7591]

Napoleon was good at that, but the other thing he was great at was the details of troop movement. Many times during his campaigns he would be up against a coalition of foes which fielded more total troops than him, but he was able to effectively concentrate his troops to take out enemy forces in groups before they could be brought to bear at full force to overwhelm him. That isnt to take away from his innovations in artillery doctrine, but to say that without his organization and command structure, he would have been far less successful.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

this is not really true, artillery had been battlefield weapons LONG before napoleon. the Russian army was known as an artillery army before napoleon was even born. they were more than just siege weapons or repellling enemy lines. the innovations of his army in regards to artillery was a greater emphasis on lighter, more mobile artillery pieces, which reflected his greater emphasis on mobility and combined arms warfare. his artillery innovations was not to use them in attacks, but to use them with greater coordination with the cavalry and the infantry as part of his corps system. and to have a larger number of artillery capable of field manoeuvres. this was something fairly quickly copied (as its usefulness was obvious)

[@alphana7055]

No, he designed the military unit organization we still use, its just that today's corps don't bother to combine for pitched battles anymore

[@dergeradeweg1413]

Loved the movie. My favorite scene was when Napoleon stood atop the Titanic and sang careless whisper to his wife.

[@joesmutz9287]

That moment when Wellington shot his robot dinosaur was just inspired. The accuracy on that AK...

[@sparkypack]

​@@joesmutz9287 that wasn't Wellington, it was Raggelton.

[@Amarenamann]

"Historical accuracy is the only thing that brings me joy in life." -Bilbo Baggins

[@kaydenjones3183]

"Historical accuracy is the only thing that brings me joy in life........to me." -Bilbo Baggins

[@sometingwrong905]

“These battles weren’t fought on the moon, they happened in REAL locations.” -based fringy

[@selwrynn6702]

The moral of this movie is don't let the British make a movie about the French.

[@therealfakecaptain7978]

Lmao

[@azh698]

The whole Austerlitz "Ice cracks and the army falls in freezing water" is a scene taken directly from the Soviet propaganda film "Alexander Nevsky", which deals with the invasion of the Teutonic Knights into Novgorod back in the early 13th century. It's a good film, definitely worth a watch!

[@reactiondavant-garde3391]

Soviets have some outstanding historical epics even if they were for propaganda in one hand.

[@varvarith3090]

Alexander Nevsky isn't just that - it's a 1938 film that became a part of an cinematic school foundation. Every director (back when they bothered to learn how to direct) studied this movie thoroughly among other such foundational films. You can see references and inspirations from Nevsky in cult Holywood films. Upd: It's also certainly not "soviet propaganda". It has anti-nazi message, but at the time soviet goverment tried to appease Hitler's Germany and film even got removed from theaters when non-agression pact with Germany were signed. Anti-nazi message probably was from Eisenstein himself since he was a jew.

[@samwallaceart288]

It's gross how readily FilmSpeak throws the character of these real people under the bus just to defend a movie.

[@Megor_connection101]

He sounds like a radical leftist . He’s doing more projecting his views on Napoleon than what actually happened.

[@petriew2018]

this movie would have actually been far better if Scott had tried to be more accurate, because Napolean Bonaparte is a legitimately fascinating character given how many parts of his personality were so massively contradictory (which is why people keep writing books about him). Scott kind of ignored or skipped past all that trying to fit in a bit too much spectacle and completely missed the mark. And now he's seemingly just randomly lashing out at the people questioning why he made a biopic that left out the best parts.

[@Hollyclown]

When it comes to biopics and “based on true events” stories, fact is often FAR more interesting than fiction.

[@samwallaceart288]

Like that scene in Band of Brothers where one guy meets a German POW who actually grew up in America in the same county as him. In the real story, the guy was from _the same street._ They changed it to where he's from a couple towns over and had visited the same places because they knew no one would believe it.

[@seagaulle]

The story of Adrian Carton de Wiart: people say they haven’t made a movie about him yet because people wouldn’t believe it.

[@samwallaceart288]

@@seagaulle do elaborate...

[@seagaulle]

@@samwallaceart288 he was this Belgian soldier during the Boer war, ww1, and ww2 who was shot in the eye, ear, groin, and other places on his body including getting his hand blown off and surviving 2 plane crashes and escaped a POW camp in his 60s. The crazy thing is he said he enjoyed everything about the war.

[@WadeArchives]

That's how I felt watching the film. Napoleon felt wayyyy more like a movie character irl

[@ShiroyWolf]

It is kind of funny how the cast is being careful about calling things historical revisionism. Meanwhile with Woman King and Napoleon I find it more fitting to call those historical negationism.

[@reactiondavant-garde3391]

I find it strange how they are averse for the term "revisionism". Not all revisionism is propagandistic, as example it is can happen after a very hard propagandistic time period where historians try to break with the political "correct" interpretation for a more nuanced history.

[@zak7an2]

Fringy getting asked Spider-verse questions is the only thing that brings me joy in life

[@SumDumGy]

I watched about 2/3 of Napoleon. It then joined the list of movies I walked out of the theater on.

[@Mr.Praetor]

I feel like for the average person, Historical AUTHENTICITY is more important than Historical ACCURACY. Even if a story is not 1 for 1 what is told in the most commonly accepted history, if it feels like it belongs in and respects a time period then people will respect it. Saving Private Ryan is not 100% accurate to WW2. But it feels authentic to WW2.

[@creativename24601]

1:38:24 can confirm, the best part of being an altar server was lighting those tall candles and putting them out with the special stick

[@sparkypack]

nobody can hold a candle to those sticks. 🕯

[@KobyBrennero]

There's room for interpretation in history. However, there are limits. With Napoleon, you could portray him as the hero, the villain, a tragic, conflicted hero, an anti-hero, a sympathetic villain, a likable but brutal despot, a charismatic man of the people, etc. Unfortunately Ridley Scott happened to choose possibly the worst interpretation he could have for Napoleon; which was a stupid, incompetent buffoon. The man who conquered Europe was a stupid, incompetent buffoon. Nice job, Ridley.

[@adamantaloczy]

"Dark City" is an under appreciated gem. A dark scifi nior mystery. If you like "City of Lost Children" or "In the Mouth of Madness" it might be up your alley. The theatrical cut gives away the mystery early in the second act. Drinker did an extra shots on it.

[@lorddamocles2222]

'Napoleon's coronation is like looking at a photograph of my childhood' - Raggonius Baggins

[@greggreg2027]

If we made a movie like this about George Washington everyone would crying woke this and soy that. And they would be right. Alongside with historians yelling Washington did not use canned beans to incite explosive diarrhea jet-propelled boats while retreating across the Delaware. ""Were you there? No? Then shut up"

[@timothytorigian7932]

If you consider he had about 33 years of "adult letter writing" (18-51) that works out to about 2-3 letters a day.

[@KosmicVader]

_”Either you die a Kinomaker, or you live long enough to become The Cringe…_ _Besides, you weren’t there bro. You don’t know if Commodus suffocate me to death…”_ -*Marcus Aurelius*

[@alexhayden219]

I absolutely agree that Ridley Scott is a prime example of a director that has completely fallen off of his mark in making good films. The one thing I question is whether we're judging that by the stories he makes or the art of his directing. To my knowledge, he doesn't write or even have much hand in writing. Like, Zack snyder can be blamed for the stories of his films. He doesn't usually get a screenplay credit, but it's usually pretty well documented that he had a heavy hand in the development and creation of the story. Afaik, Scott just gets a screenplay and directs it. Even when he's the one that wants to make a particular story and handpicks the writer, as he did with Napoleon, he doesn't have much to do with what gets written. So, he should really be judged the most by the quality of filmmaking, not story. Though, he opens up story criticism with his nutball quotes. He strikes me as the kind of guy that doesn't actually know much outside the skill of filmmaking and is just generally off his rocker on everything else. In my opinion, there's certainly room for creative license and it becomes more acceptable the more outlandish it is and the more transparent it is that this is a pretend made-up version of history. I don't get that impression from Napoleon, especially with Scott's comments in mind. And, while Fake News is dangerous in any context, that applies to Fake History portrayed as a biopic. Scott should stickk to schlock fiction and stay away from non-fiction. Though, I'd reckon that he probably doesn't have much time left for either.

[@badman5852]

I believed Braveheart was the story of Mel Gibson. Then I had a history teacher who told me no. Mel Gibson was in the future, fighting the Lord Humungus. I was humbled that day by my ignorance.

[@daveyjones8969]

I need to make a point about something early in the discussion: the use of the word "nice", as in kind. Being "nice" is actually transactional, as you're expecting something in return. We even say things like "Be nice" or "Play nice", but again, it's inherently transactional. Being "good" is doing the right thing because that in itself brings you gratification, it's all internal. There is a huge difference between a nice guy and a good guy, and even saying it like that makes the latter sound preferable in any situation.

[@oliviastratton2169]

You can make a good historical fiction movie that is historically inaccurate. But you need to telegraph that to your audience. Look at Tarentino films like "Django Unchained" or "Inglorious Bastards". No one comes away from films like those thinking they’ve seen an accurate depiction of the Antebellum South or WWII. They're just fun revenge fantasies. But if you're going to make a big serious epic, then people are going to want more accuracy. Without historical accuracy, Tarentino's films still give you witty dialog, engaging characters, gut churning suspense, and exciting action. What does a film like "Napoleon" give you once you realize it's more fiction than fact? A gloomy color palette, and a middle-aged man moaning about his mistress and whining about the British for several hours.

[@deforesterd]

im actually glad the mechanics of a fake laugh were discussed. many should take heed of this information.

[@Reesesoulant]

Looked it up, Filmspeak was the guy with the Noom sponsor, and the Black widow video Efap covered on Efap 150

[@Abysalss]

Rags got a lotta things almost right with the historical things. Like him talking about Napoleon starting archeology as we think now when no he is responsible for the prominence of Egyptology a much more specific field that is so extensive despite its seemingly limited scope because of what Napoleon set in motion. The other thing was he just made up some other name for the dude who built the pyramids and was then shocked nobody else knew him. The guy who built the pyramids was Khufu. Khufu’s dad was named seneferu so maybe that’s who he was thinking of

[@bradsmovies]

If a director wants to reinterpret a fictional piece of work I'm fine with that. But we're talking about real people and real events. To deliberately present events that did not happen simply to stroke a director's ego - Or anybody else who's creating that bullshit - Creates deliberate distortions of the truth, and now those distortions are under debate rather than the actual causes for the actual events that took place which is where the focus of the story should be. We can't grow as a population when all we can debate are reasons for the lies we tell each other.

[@samwallaceart288]

Yeah, now every time someone looks up "Napolean Egyptology" they'll just find a wall of entries bitching about the trailer.

[@bradsmovies]

@@samwallaceart288 HaHaHaHaHa! Exactly!

[@crimsonking440]

Now i haven't seen it, but i was under the assumption that any singing and dancing in rocket man was because Elton John performs concerts where he sings and dances. Do they just start singing mid conversation or something in that movie?

[@lokenontherange]

Inglorious Bastards doesn't portray itself as a joke though. Nowhere in the film does it claim to be anything but true. It's just a weird jewish revenge fantasy.

[@CapitalOOpinions]

I didn't say it was all a joke. I said it's stylized enough to make clear that we shouldn't expect this to be completely historically accurate.

[@lokenontherange]

@CapitalOOpinions It's not though. Anyone without historical literacy will do the same thing people do with Patriot or Braveheart or Napoleon and assume it's just how things went.

[@CapitalOOpinions]

@laurie1183 Yes it absolutely is.

[@lokenontherange]

@CapitalOOpinions Stylised as in what? The direction? The angles? The psychotic nature of the Jewish and american characters? Grave of the Fireflies is more stylised and yet that film portrays true events. Why does style mean a film isn't true? Why should we expect audiences to understand that for one film but not for another? Letters from Iwo Jima is also more stylised than Napoleon but it's again based on true events.

[@CapitalOOpinions]

@@lokenontherange Stylized referring to all the formal elements of the film as well as the tone and the writing itself. All these things combined signal quite clearly to the audience that we're seeing isn't aiming for realism. To take one of many examples we could from the film, let's remind ourselves of how the film opens, with the title "Once Upon a Time... in Nazi-Occupied France". What does "once upon a time..." typically indicate?

[@AlinaAniretake]

2:29:00 In case of Blade Runner - he had a good book to start with. In case of Alien he had help from Shusset. Dan'O'Bannon and H. R. Giger, so I'd argue it's because now he works alone

[@therealfakecaptain7978]

If I'm not mistaken for Alien he had several people that were working on Jodorowski's Dune. As we say : "One man's loss is another man's treasure".

[@a.r.t93]

"Napoleon" was a Stanley Kubrick project that he put on back burners when the 1970 "Waterloo" movie was a commercial failure. For someone that's spoken about Kubrick with such regard, it's actually bizarre Scott went the route of "f*ck what anyone think about.."

[@timewarpdrive77]

can't wait for mauler to colonize this podcast

[@sparkypack]

Mauler will find out eventually.

[@unfilthy]

Someone needs to draw a baby doggo Rags in one of those velvet dress things and a cassock.

[@sparkypack]

🐕👀

[@Hornetog9vp]

A EFAP without Mauler?

[@HerohammerStudios]

I hereby nominate Capital O for the position of new Mauler.

[@arklaw8306]

Not-that-longman

[@AlinaAniretake]

sounds like a bad idea... But at least Fringy is there)

[@joesmutz9287]

They have to do something while Mauler is off galavanting with SW Theory and Drinker

[@sparkypack]

Where was he? :/

[@archieharris1533]

Waterloo was the only battle Napoleon fought against Wellington in the whole conflict he wasn't the big threat just the Spanish ulcer.

[@sparkypack]

4:02:36 Fringy's video essay voice... 🤣 lol

[@auto_mata]

Wait, you really haven't seen Dark City? You should probably go about correcting that. The movie's a masterpiece. Fun Fact: Alex Proyas never thought "you need to dumb this down" was something a studio would literally say to a producer until making that movie. The spoiler opening narration that's removed in the director's cut was a product of that sort of demand.

[@alexhayden219]

Fun Fact: The main inspiration for Ridley Scott's Napoleon was the meme depiction of Napoleon from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.

[@RhysCallinan-bv1wi]

I feel like Napoleon would've been better as a show, not a single movie. Omissions aside, I think you need more time just to show the exact story. If you truly wanted movie form, maybe have multiple films. Having one film just doesn't seem enough for Napoleon, even if you give it 3 hours.

[@robertlewis6915]

Napoleon is an odd figure because he is both the inauguration of modernity and the person who stabilized France and pushed Europe away from the fullness of the French Revolution.

[@battlecast9202]

Yea I don't think anybody expected Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter to be historically accurate. It depends on the style of the movie

[@samwallaceart288]

I don't get the "if movies were totally accurate, they'd be boring" argument. All the best historical dramas are the ones who go out of their way to show what happened; because what happened is a story _worth telling,_ and worth telling right. Best scene in _Saving Private Ryan_ is the battle that actually happened. _A Bridge Too Far_ is chock full of personal anecdotes that would be unbelievable if it weren't true. All the best scenes in _Chernobyl_ are the events that actually happened being shown in small details that we wouldn't have thought of if we were just imagining it out of context. People love to learn how things work and how things would look in real life. Half of TikTok is making-of, informational videos. People _crave_ learning this shit. If you're film just discards that and goes with "the first thing the producer thought of before doing a page of research", that's fucking worthless. The audience member who isn't that interested in Bonaparte _already_ imagines him as a mopey cuckboi who stares across empty battle-fields in slow motion-- _that's why_ they're not interested in him. Making ahistorical "whatever i saw on TV a child" bullshit adaptations do nothing but confirm to the normie that history is pretty much what they imagined it to be and they never investigate it again. Like part of why I love the German film _The Downfall_ so much is it focuses not on "bad Germans being bad and then the good-guys winning"; instead it focuses on the employees and families of the high command hiding in a bunker, and you see directly all the infighting, denial, panic attacks, cope, despair, existential crises, blaming, regret, and dissociation from reality that happens when the people most at fault are trapped alone together with the full weight of their mistakes crushing down upon them one shell at a time. It made me see Hitler as a real relatable person I've met and had these conversations with in my own life; and that made me hate him even more. Because these people arent the monsters you've seen in cartoons; they don't have that excuse. If you can't put that in your historical movie because "reality is boring", you've missed the whole value of history and movies.

[@ElvenRaptor]

"The Patriot" from 2000 would be about a guy sitting in a swamp, occasionally taking pot shots at the British and then running away for two hours if it were historically accurate. A handful of exceptions like what you listed do not make the opinion you disagree with invalid.

[@samwallaceart288]

@@ElvenRaptor A: they could've made The Patriot about a different person, even a fictitious amalgam if they so chose. B: plenty you can do with a man sitting in a swamp ambushing Brits as they pass Patriot's a good movie, but ahistorical bullshit when it didn't need to be

[@PvtSchnuerschuh]

In my humble opinion, it depends entirely on what the movie claims to be. If they say it is historical, it should be accurate. If they don't, they can do whatever. Look at death of stalin for example.

[@Denien82]

Ridley Scott finally did it: he made a movie so bad, it's making Italians (like me) defend the French 😂

[@tarotxiii9830]

To use 300 again. I feel like to farther you go in the past the more you can be historicaly innacurate to a point. Events in ancient times were probably very embelished. We can all agree that Xerses didnot have goat people in his army but humans at the time were very supersticious and might believe that the persians had monsters in their army.

[@goji3755]

I was under the impression that the "goat people" in 300 were just supposed to be normal people wearing severed goat heads? Sort of like history's earliest furries. Reinforced by the fact that we really only see them in Xerxes's tent.

[@trajanthegreat2928]

There's also a difference between adapting the mythological history of the past and the past itself. Something like the Northman is a good example of the former, where it's drawing on the sagas and includes fantastical elements.

[@samwallaceart288]

Yeah, but this is where authenticity comes in; the Spartans may have told tall-tales about Rhino-men and goat people and exploding wizards; but they _would not_ have had any issue with slavery or degeneracy, the Persians were more prudish than the Spartans by a long shot. The movie shows the Persians as pervy mutants covered in piercings and tattoos purely for the sake of the modern neochristian audience; but that's not what the Persians represented at the time nor is it how the Spartans would've caricaturized them. And to act like the Spartans were beacons of liberty and conservative values is a gross ignorance of how much they relied on slavery to facilitate their "warfare only" lifestyle.

[@hatemongerofthetoxicbrood6561]

300 is supposed to be a propaganda. A lot of people just misunderstand the story of 300 to an astronomical degree. The story of 300 is supposed to be told by a Spartan survivor EMBELISSHING the story and distorting it into propaganda and then Legend. The point of 300 is to show the process from which an actual historical event can blow up into myth. It is a exploration of War Propaganda and Glamourization of War. It is MEANT to be not the actual events that is WHOLE point of the story.

[@samwallaceart288]

@@hatemongerofthetoxicbrood6561 That does help the story a lot. Even then, I don't buy that the Spartans would give them gross piercings, and I don't buy that the Spartans would cover up their own use of slaves because they wouldn't be ashamed of it or care what the world thought about it

[@glibfacsimile]

I'd like to hear the take on historical accuracy being different/similar to the adaptation argument that is brought up a lot on EFAP.

[@biggiecheese726]

They’d probably have the same take they do on adaptations. That when you change aspects of the source, other aspects necessarily need to change in order to maintain consistency

[@glibfacsimile]

@@biggiecheese726 ok but then you cant cite actual history as a reason for something being bad in the story.

[@reactiondavant-garde3391]

@@glibfacsimile It would be there's position I think.

[@glibfacsimile]

@@reactiondavant-garde3391 it also could make a good movie in its own right. The medium itself dictates some changes be made, and you have to speculatw sometimes.

[@samwallaceart288]

They often cite that Braveheart and Gladiator are terrible historical films, but great movies taken as their own thing. Same goes for adaptations like Hill House or The Shining; terrible adaptations, but great film. With history there's the additional caveat that if it's horribly inaccurate, it'll obfuscate how people see history and therefore the world itself. So a historical film gets extra points for being good AND effectively conveying an event in a way people can remember and apply to our world as it is now. Some historical fictionalizations, such as Oppenheimer and Einstein's private conversations, are an effective way of condensing and describing a larger relationship into a handful of scenes we can better understand and remember; while other fictionalizations, like the pyramid being shot, actively contradict the subject matter, and close the door on the real egyptology scenes that we could've got but didn't. Take it to adaptation; Lord of the Rings condenses long passages of conversation and day-in-a-life storytelling that puts you in their feet into short memorable scenes. More of a distilled, best-of version that sacrifices the original tone and realism but takes full advantage of the morals and epic scale of the subject matter in some ways moreso than the original book. Compare that to Halo; which could've taken John's life story and the plethora of historical information we have on the UNSC and the Covenant War, and effectively padded out the story to give us even more character context and non-combat historical events and civilian POVs on the same story; but the adaptation doesn't use any of that and instead tells a story with inferior morals, characters, and drama. With LOTR it's clear they combed through the source material and changed things _to fit as much in as possible._ With Halo it's clear they didn't use any of the source material, and what they replaced it with was in every way a downgrade from what they were given to start with. With Napoleon, that seems to be the main issue; that there's 20 movies worth of material they could've worked with 1-to-1 and be super interesting, and they went out of their way to make the laziest, least-intersting version possible, and it doesn't have "historical accuracy" as an excuse for being boring; half the story's just missing, that's the problem. Like why bother even make it?

[@solanumlycopersicum5594]

I got confused and thought this was the Despot of Antrim video.

[@AlinaAniretake]

Shout out to their pyramids *Cannon shot* *Hampster dance*

[@frohawkmaster]

Its worth noting that the idea that Napoleon wanted to be seen as a "real king" even by the other royals in europe is something Oversimplified also said of him. Napoleon had that sortof new money vs old money thing going on. Just on a scale of nations.

[@tonig.1546]

Having recently watched the 4 hour, 35 minute Director’s Cut convinced me that Ridley Scott genuinely seems to hate the topic of Napoleon, which makes me question why he would make a movie about Napoleon. There are not only more embarassing scenes of Napoleon bumbling around like a child or Josefine being a chesting harlot. Strangely there are also 4 scenes through-out the movie of Napoleon on the toilet in his campaign tent. The 4th shitting scene even having a 8-second shot of Napoleon’s diarrhea in the toilet. What did Ridley mean with showing 4 pooping scenes ? 😅😅😅

[@chimp_monke123]

in terms of historical accuracy, if you are going to do anything, do it well, and if you dont, then it is a disservice to the world, and you might as well do nothing at all.

[@Segadrome]

In my opinion, it doesn't matter too much about historical accuracy. Just as long as the movie respects the culture and is fucking amazing. Braveheart won Best Picture for a reason y'all.

[@beatrizfernandes1506]

1:11:40 regarding the capture of the "essence" of the real person, Napolean is dead for centuries and we don't have recordings of him. Mark Zuckerberg, as malined or betrayed he was by "The Social Network", is still around to show that the movie protrayed him incorrectly; by just being himself; by showing past recordings of him; by other people's, who are still alive, testimonies. If someone in 100 years watches "The social network", they can still find other footage of the real him to contrast and compare to the fictional version. So I think there's a difference between depicting rather inacurately a figure from the past, who is only remembered through writings, paintings, sculptures, or other physical constructions made by or because of him, and all the political/social/economical changes that happened because of them (bills and treaties, etc), compared to a person of whom there's actual footage of in naturalisitc settings, where you can gauge a bit better who they were, how they spoke, their mannerisms.

[@Galvatronover]

Movies still bad though COMBINED with the fact it’s inaccurate

[@happynihilist2573]

The film maker responded to criticisms of hysterical inaccuracies by saying "Ware you there!?" the worst defece you have for that "This just a work of fiction" was write there, but no, he had to resort the sort of argument mede by conspiracy theorists how do bother learning what we know and how we know them, it's pathetic

[@alexhayden219]

1:22:00 With real laughter, you tend to pee just a little bit, and the audience can tell.

[@dburgd99]

If only Kubrick had made his Napoleon film !

[@nont18411]

1:23:52 Love their Succession rant

[@mandos6145]

So at the beginning, Capitol O says he thinks the video didnt claim that the historical accuracy is the be all end all, I disagree. The words are "its *the* standard by which every biopic is inevitably judged", that doesn't leave much as way of grey area, I think its pretty final, he could have said something like it being "a standard" or "it is inevitably judged for it accuracy" but he didn't

[@johnkohl762]

Director's cut of Once Upon a Time in America turns it from incomprehensible to a masterpiece. American distributor cut down the film and made it in chronological order and it is terrible.

[@neropunkt]

38:51 the swiss like napoleon. he helped us become our own country

[@reactiondavant-garde3391]

Not as if Napoleon being short is not a overblown stuff anyway. Naploen only was short in comparison to the Granadieres, so basicly to the elit soldiers. Yes he was not tall but not so much shorter then most person in the late 18. and early 19. century. I really dislike when we try to psychoanalise people in hisotry, Naploeon was just ampitios and a great men of history, you don't need any complex to want to be powerfull general and political leader, it is normal. Technicly they were armed civilians who rebeled to reinstaed the monarchy, self evidently they were mens, but I think Napoleon shotting them with grapeshot is pretty brutal, though I think here the filmmaker washed two different event together, because under the terror (so before Naploeon) it was a city who was massacered by the revolutionary army because it was pro-king and in thet case they really killed all the women and childrens as well. And Naploeon never really served the revolution, this is why he was much better then the other idiots in France in his times. I don'T like him at all, but compered to the revolution's other children his Empire was the most normal one.

[@ΑναστάσιοςΠαπαζαχαρίου]

Make a historically correct series about Phocas' life and it'll put game of thrones in shame, cause that's basically what the ERE was, a got turned to 11

[@therealfakecaptain7978]

Scott is just so butthurt 😂

[@dermajor4472]

There where multiple cathedrals larger than the pyramids built before the Eiffel tower.

[@-Zakhiel-]

Uh... no.

[@HeyImRosko]

You guys should watch Dark City. I can't speak on directors cut cause I have it on VHS

[@cailanloki2450]

It’s a great movie!

[@DragonFruitXVI]

Feminist historical revisionism.

[@kai---runeskin1417]

TWas good fun lads, I hope you have yourselves a wonderful day.

[@vader1a]

What a shit load of word salad and conjecture. I'm surprised he's not an art critic as Wwell, they love to talk a load of bolllocks. Pseudo intellectual nonsense

[@HALF_DAY]

2:11:06 unironically true

[@David_J.E.]

Fun stream!

[@reaemishi2278]

Just watch Waterloo. It's better.

[@SFTaYZa]

Scott has made 3 good movies ever

[@ramert32]

Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, American Gangster are the good ones. Martian is alright too

[@powerfist1340]

on the 'directors cut turns movie from bad/mid to great with Directors Cut' Question: Kingdom of Heaven. Surprisingly enough from Ridley Scott.

[@goji3755]

I'll be checking out Kingdom of Heaven for myself ahead of its turn in the War Arc (both cuts, if they come as a set). I'm interested in seeing how my takeaway differs from that of EFAP's hosts. They seem to disagree with the consensus that the Director's Cut is the superior film.

[@SFTaYZa]

It obviously is but it's still a messed up film ​@@goji3755

[@biggiecheese726]

I’ve never seen the theatrical cut, but I quite liked the movie. I’m curious what the EFAP crew think of it when that part of the war arc releases, as Rags seems to not like it very much

[@reactiondavant-garde3391]

I hate thet movey so much though. Such a bad modernist take on a historical event filled with historical distortions for propagandistic reasens. I quet like Apostolic Majesty stream on the movey, he is a pretty good history channale on KZbin.

[@CrusadiaIX]

I feel as though this point would have been better vindicated had the movie not been total ass

[@alexhayden219]

2:29:30 This is 100% my view of Ridley Scott.

[@LordPhoton-rl4ot]

Rags! Aka the goodest boy on youtube. :D also hai fringold!

[@thetrocch365]

You need to be careful on how you show people. A great example is with the movie 42 about jackie Robinson. They had a picher be an out right racist and pegged Jackie in the head with a fastball. Turns out it was the wrong guy they used i believe it was the wrong team as well. The family of the man sued the studio for defamation

[@Hellmuth4]

stop with the white eyes. it's almost as bad as that pitch meeting guy's thumbnails

[@CapitalOOpinions]

No.

[@St0rmTheGates]

Famously, Napoleon was a simp.

[@realistic_delinquent]

Not a simp, a submissive. He was unabashed in his desire to be treated the way simps hope to pay to avoid.

[@alexisgross6296]

*Promo SM* 😢

[@ElvenRaptor]

Historical inaccuracy saves historical movies from being the most boring shit ever.