Americans Rewrite History….Again!

in the coming next decade expect to see hollywooded versions of 9/11 and (lol) sandy hook brought to the big screen.

bin laden will be operating from his space station, shooting lasers from space at the multitude of chase planes sent out by the ever vigilant military, after the nuclear powered 747's hijacked by bionicaly enhanced islamites while transporting poor and malnurished hasidm to their lovingly awaiting new homeland of roman isreal.
the building are hit by not only the 4 planes but 7 holographic dark matter creations, in addition to bin laden detonating higgs boson particulate charged explosives, which were planted when his families construction company built the towers, and started planning the destruction of our country.

subplot ... the timing of the event was such that george w bush is found to be at a university, teaching a class of underprivilaged offspring of illegal intilectuals about the inner workings of string theory, while his father, who was left in charge, finds himself trapped at a supermarket, personally shopping for the best in geneticaly super-enhanced foodstuffs to feed the entire white house staff.

saving my money now for that one.

reply to post by Britguy


what do you think would happen if the u.s just left the middle east and the "ayrabs" alone? do you think everything will be sunshine and rainbows? i thint the muslims would continue their quest to conquer and convert the rest of the world, i actually dont think they would get too far. without u.s intervention who would be there to stop israel from destroying the arab countries?

reply to post by krazykanuk

OP, I can't help but note that we're looking at a Hollywood movie for basis of a thread suggesting the American People tend to re-write history. A Movie....not history books where effort to record anything accurately has actually been made and peer reviewed where appropriate.

Perhaps we get what we pay for ...and find what we look for in life. When we're seeking historical accuracy in Hollywood Movies, I can only wonder why we'd be surprised to find it wanting, at the very least. Truth vs. box office ticket sales simply won't be allowed to conflict. Where truth must move over, Hollywood gives it a hard drop kick more often than not.

reply to post by Freeborn

It's not that the rest of the world wants to diminish the US's role in WWII but rather Hollywood consistently try's to eliminate the not too insignificant role that the rest of the world played in WWII - it blatantly lies and rewrites history to further the myth of the US being the world's saviour.

I don't think there is any real effort to diminish anyone's role in that war. But... most of the films on this subject were made by Americans for an American audience. Most of those who, then, had to go to a theater to see these offerings, had either someone who had fought in that war or had lost someone in that war so... the target audience was those who were there to touch base with something that deeply affected them.

For me, personally, I do not hold war-dramas on the same shelf as those that are identified as being documentaries. Dramas are for entertainment... documentaries are for education. The exception are titles like Victory At Sea, made in the 50s by CBS using actual war footage. It was offered in documentary style but was still aimed at those with the war still fresh in their minds.

Where I bump into problems are with mini-series that pretend to be documentary/historical but that play to a predetermined message. Ken Burns, The Civil War, is a good example. On the flipside, the series called 'The Color Of War' is an excellent documentary on WW2 that doesn't fudge anything.

You gotta be a picky shopper and know what's real and what ain't.

reply to post by Freeborn


Chinese films show Chinese saving the world.

German movies show Germans saving the world

Etc Etc Etc...

No?
Every country has films showing mostly their part in what they want to convey. Also, it's a movie not the encyclopedia .

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Freeborn

 

Chinese films show Chinese saving the world.

German movies show Germans saving the world

Etc Etc Etc...

No?
Every country has films showing mostly their part in what they want to convey. Also, it's a movie not the encyclopedia .

Would American film makers produce a film such as the British film "Dunkirk", that portrayed the British armies retreat from northern France in 1940? I think not. British cinema has always shown both British victory and defeat in it's war films.

reply to post by alldaylong


Ever seen movies like Platoon, Little Bighorn or the original Torra Torra Torra?

Yes, they do show defeats and explicitly too.
Simply because some haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by alldaylong

 

Ever seen movies like Platoon, Little Bighorn or the original Torra Torra Torra?

Yes, they do show defeats and explicitly too.
Simply because some haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Platoon was only about what the title states "A platoon of men" and not an entire army such as the British Army at Dunkirk.
As for Tora Tora Tora, that was about the Attack on Pearl Harbour. You may have forgotten that America was not at war at that time.
Little Big Horn was ii believe a battle between The US Cavalry and Native American Indians. I didn't realise that a formal declaration of war had been instigated toward The Native Americans. Please correct me if i am wrong.

Hollywood isn't history,most Americans are fully aware of this(we read)Did you see the "Marine" film "Heartbreak ridge"?
That was an army Ranger story but the Rangers denied permission for them to be depicted.Also nobody in those regiments were that old,sorry Clint.
Hollywood screws up literature on a regular basis no story here.

If you really want to dip your toes... go to Netflix and watch 'Severe Clear'.

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
Hollywood isn't history,most Americans are fully aware of this(we read)Did you see the "Marine" film "Heartbreak ridge"?
That was an army Ranger story but the Rangers denied permission for them to be depicted.Also nobody in those regiments were that old,sorry Clint.
Hollywood screws up literature on a regular basis no story here.

edit on 24-2-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: finished my point

It's not just Hollywood though is it? :-

cnsnews.com...

Originally posted by alldaylong
Platoon was only about what the title states "A platoon of men" and not an entire army such as the British Army at Dunkirk.

OK I'll ask you.
Which American "Dunkirk" like Defeat would you liked to be filmed accurately?

As for Tora Tora Tora, that was about the Attack on Pearl Harbour. You may have forgotten that America was not at war at that time.

And this means what really?

People died and the US got it's ass handed to them.
Now you're being petty.

Little Big Horn was ii believe a battle between The US Cavalry and Native American Indians. I didn't realise that a formal declaration of war had been instigated toward The Native Americans. Please correct me if i am wrong.

It's known as the "Battle of Little Bighorn" the US Calvary had their ass handed to them in spades...

Not enough killing or dead Americans for you?

reply to post by redoubt


I don't dispute that there are discernible viewers in the USA who will treat this film purely on it's alleged entertainment value - the reason I and so many other's have a problem with it is because it is deliberately marketed in such a way as to have the viewer believe it is a factual representation of the events that occurred - that is deliberately misleading - in an attempt to influence public perception and understanding.

Because it was made by American's for a primarily American audience doesn't make the lie or deception any less real or acceptable, does it?

reply to post by SLAYER69


i don't think Germans would dare portray themselves as saving the world.

But I accept the point you are making - to a certain extent.

Other nation's movie industry's may on occassion downplay certain aspects and exaggerate other's to portray themselves in a more positive or favourable light etc, and of course perceptions and interpretations some times vary, but I personally can't recall any blatant, downright lies being knowingly passed off as factual.

I could of course be wrong, indeed I wouldn't be that surprised if I am - and I fully expect people to correct me if I am.

But that wouldn't excuse Hollywoods ongoing practice of deliberately manipulating and falsifying facts.

reply to post by redoubt

If you really want to dip your toes... go to Netflix and watch 'Severe Clear'.

To be honest I'd never heard of it - just had a quick read about it and I'll definately watch it some time soon.

But what do you think the big budget Hollywood remake or portrayal will be like in about 10 - 15 years time?

Originally posted by Freeborn

I could of course be wrong, indeed I wouldn't be that surprised if I am - and I fully expect people to correct me if I am.

But that wouldn't excuse Hollywoods ongoing practice of deliberately manipulating and falsifying facts.

That's the point.

Hollywood, at times, deliberately falsifies facts. Portraying the British embassy staff as being unwilling to help the Americans during the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis is a deliberate falsification.

They did help the Americans, as one would expect, at great personal risk.

Ben Affleck's new film 'Argo' upsets British diplomats who helped Americans in Iran

Yet not only does Hollywood's account write out the British officials who sheltered the Americans but it also claims, falsely, that the US staff were "turned away" from the British embassy in their hour of need.

The film's director, Ben Affleck, claims to have depicted it "as best I can, factually".

But Sir John Graham, 86, who was Britain's ambassador to Iran at the time, said: "It is not the truth that they were turned away from the British Embassy. We gave them all help at the time.

Sir Nicholas Barrington, head of the British interest section at the Swedish embassy in Tehran from 1981 to 1983, following the closure of the British Embassy, said: "There was no question of the British just rejecting the Americans. The diplomatic community would do what they could to help.

"Hollywood have got rules about depicting the British as villains - it's part of Hollywood tradition."

The Telegraph

reply to post by SLAYER69



Which American "Dunkirk" like Defeat would you liked to be filmed accurately?

Maybe you could start with this one:-

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Freeborn


Fair enough

My reply was really meant for those who make general blanket statements. Also, I'm not going to defend Hollywood here. I know they skew history but for some to state that there are no Historically accurate American Films is simply being Naive and foolish.

Little Big horn was the result of an egotistical Lieutenant promoted above his skill who failed to listen to his scouts.
His name was Custer.
Much like people on this forum.

Originally posted by alldaylong
Which American "Dunkirk" like Defeat would you liked to be filmed accurately?

Maybe you could start with this one:-

en.wikipedia.org...

Fair enough,

So, simply because it hasn't been filmed yet means it isn't an accurate telling?

There are plenty of factual documentaries on that subject. Also, until People like Speildburg get a wild hair up their butts it wont happen. $$

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Also, I'm not going to defend Hollywood here. I know they skew history but for some to state that there are no Historically accurate American Films is simply being Naive and foolish.

No one, as one would expect, is objecting to historically accurate films.

Its the historically inaccurate ones made by Hollywood that people object to.