THE (ALMOST) UNDELETED

2001 scrapes in at #10:

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/10mosth ... urate.html

Does this dash anyone's hopes for a faithfull adaptation of a book?

You really cant dash what never was.

[rant...fair warning]

Yahoo; why am I not surprised. They are rapidly becoming as bad as MSN for vapid, trash publication. I'm just waiting to see who will present a top ten sex tips first to declare a winner

Some of these films on their "list" aren't meant nor presented as historical films. 10,000 B.C. and Gladiator in particular are clearly using only setting as the stage for their stories, nothing more. Braveheart and The Last Samurai use historical fact with about as much seriousness as films that begin with "Based on a true story" (translation: it's a showmanship technique for film meant to invoke gravitas). In other words, the audience should know better but understand that they are here for the story, not a history lesson. If I have to explain to Yahoo why 2001 doesn't qualify as a historical film, I'd ask that they put a bullet through their brains as a service to our race.

Personally, I find the World War II films the most egregious offenders for inaccuracies and more relevant due to their closeness to our modern times. Where is Pearl Harbour or U-571 on this list? These are films that don't get a few birthdays or personality quirks wrong; their facts displace or alter the very premise of the entire account.

Anyway...

[/rant]

I don't think they are trying to say that the movies were intended to be historical documentaries, just that they are very inaccurate. Some people believe everythign they see and have to have these things explained to them.

I thought 2001 being on the list wa funny too.

Then I guess you really would have laughed if they had put Metropolis on the list too.

Omphalos wrote:Then I guess you really would have laughed if they had put Metropolis on the list too.

What year was that supposed to be set in?

2026

I've only seen Braveheart and 300, both of which I loved but didn't give a rat's ass about the historical accuracy.

10K BC looks like a complete and utter POS.

Yeah, Janitor saw it about a week ago and said it was crap.

I will never understand why someone throws so much money and effort into a movie project, knowing all along its going to suck ass when finished. Why bother?

Money. The studios are a business, first and foremost. Plus, not every director or producer is in the business to make art. Most are in it to entertain, though the definition of "entertainment" is much more suitably pliable a product to sell to the consumer than art

I know. Ive said that thousands of times here. But if you do better entertainment, then you get more viewers and get more money. All you really have to do is sit the fuck down and think a few things out. You have a team of writers, actors, producers and directors. You have at least some experience. You have more money that most, especially for a movie like that. Jeez. Just sit down and think about your story and you will do better than some cave-man befriending a sabre-toothed tiger in Egypt.

An unfortunate reality.

15-25 year old males have predominately low standards for movie's. They are the ones who spend the most money going ot movies so what they like ie POS are what get made. Working at a movie theater has really opened my eyes.

Rob

You want to talk historical inaccuracy(by these standards)? 1984.

Enough said.

Omphalos wrote:10K BC looks like a complete and utter POS.

Actually I liked !0,000BC, I know it wasn't accurate but I thought the story was pretty good.

I still have not seen it, but the very second I saw that ad, I said, "Ill bet he makes friends with that Sabre toothed tiger!"

Did the movie have dinosaurs in it too?

Let's see if Yahoo is still around in 800,000 years from now to nag HG Wells about the Morlocks...

Not friends exactly but it did save his life. Which was pretty cool even if it was cliched.

No, no dinosaurs but that would have made it even better!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

The only places men and dinosaurs should coexist are Crichton novels and movies, bad OLD TV shows, and that stupid museum in Kentucky.

SandChigger wrote:The only places men and dinosaurs should coexist are...and that stupid museum in Kentucky.

If those are the top ten, then someone flubbed on their research. Like some of you have said, a few of those movies were not meant to be historical. And I wonder if whoever compiled the list ever watched any of the war movies from the 50s?

What ever happened to seeing a movie just to enjoy it or just for relaxation?

Eyes High wrote:What ever happened to seeing a movie just to enjoy it or just for relaxation?

Hey, I hear there's a new Dune movie coming out soon!

Eyes High wrote:What ever happened to seeing a movie just to enjoy it or just for relaxation?

That's why we have guilty pleasures, like Pirates of the Caribbean or The Bourne Identity

Or "Bad Bints in Bondage Bordello" or ...

SandChigger wrote:Or "Bad Bints in Bondage Bordello" or ...

Volume 769 was the best of the series

Rob

You heard they're coming (ahem) out with a new one for Xmas, I assume?

SandChigger wrote:You heard they're coming (ahem) out with a new one for Xmas, I assume?

Ah the annual christmas edition, now that brings back memories where did they like to hang the mistletoe again?

Rob

Robspierre wrote:

SandChigger wrote:You heard they're coming (ahem) out with a new one for Xmas, I assume?

Ah the annual christmas edition, now that brings back memories where did they like to hang the mistletoe again?

Rob

I think you made a wee typo there Rob, 1 to many n. Must be a sticky keyboard thang

Oh, my.