True, but it's a different matter with a film that's just based on historical fact. Some minor details will always be changed, and other things just invented. The important thing is that the spirit of what originally happened is honoured.

that`s how history gets distorted and i cannot bear it, the facts are important, even those deemed minor else there`s no credibility either.

In that case you should just avoid biographical films and stick to documentaries or history books!

Probably best you don't read this then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Da...rical_accuracy

what value does an inaccurate biography have? [barring comedy].

those are "minor" facts?

a film that claims to be factual can`t be adding and taking away important bits.

"loosely based on" or "what might have been slightly more interesting than the reality" i can deal with.

There is a certain amusement watching the usual suspects working themselves into a tizzy about something that hasn't happened.

To say nothing about the irony of watching a program and immediately going online to express their outrage, and the ones who didn't watch it but are still outraged, about something that didn't happen.

Entertainment, coupled with giving a flavour of what actually happened. I recently enjoyed the DVD of "Eddie the Eagle", for example. Some details were changed for dramatic purposes, but the spirit and personality of the guy came through, and Eddie himself gave it his blessing.

There was a reconstructive Documentary in Canada, including archive footage of testing where aircraft got splashback or impacts from released bombs at very low level.

One bomb even bounced up and completely removed the tail of the aircraft and it nosedived into the lake. I can only imagine the crew were killed (it wasn't mentioned)


My favourite interpretation is here https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=yo...utf-8&oe=utf-8


Documentary: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=yo...rs+documentary

it`s as disappointing, distracting and irritating as a film adaptation of a book that`s wrong.

By modern Hollywood standards the film is near perfect, sadly. My avoidance of Pearl Harbour is partly cos it's excessively long, but it's also utter bollocks.

To you, maybe. I don't find such films disappointing or irritating unless there is a really massive departure from the truth. The sensible thing is just to treat them as entertainment, perhaps loosely based on facts. As for film adaptations of novels, again they need to be treated on their own terms, as the two mediums are very different.

There's no mention of a wet shirted Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice as written. Though the Poldark scene equivalent is roughly speaking in the book. They like to spice such things up, I don't recall many ladies complaining about that.

to me definitely.

i find all that mills and boonification cringey, if i want titillating i`ll find something hardcore on the internet.



edit: maybe this → is not the best smilie choice for the occasion .

Fair enough I find it less annoying than altering real history though, if it's fiction to start with. But really, are you completely unmoved by Poldark's topless scything I'm slightly annoyed by Demelza's hair colour She's meant to be the dark one!

Are Darkies more sexy?

yes, there`s something poncey about it, he looks like he`s stepped out of a hugo boss shower.

where`s the dirt at? i like a man with swarfega in the bathroom and diesel stained t-shirts.

I am more annoyed that it is supposed to be a prime time TV drama with interesting characters and relationships at its heart yet fails to execute. Perhaps they should shift emphasis to make Warleggan centre stage with more of his humerous Blackaddery villainy.

He should have called his dog Barry Chuckle. Or Paul Chuckle. Either one, really.

We had a hand-me-down Poodle called Pépé once. That was embarassing when out and about.

Exactly. A movie can fail by being too literal an adaptation as easily as by diverging too far from the source material. Take Watchmen, for example. Leaving the ending out of it, the reason that didn't work for me was because it stuck too closely to the plot and failed to realise that the plot was always the least important part. It was a comic about comics- of course a film following the same beats and structure was going to fail.

Conversely, the movie adaptation of The French Lieutenant's Woman very clearly understood the source material in a much deeper way than just knowing what was supposed to happen when.

why? It's a very common name in Spanish speaking countries.

ETA: Google tells me it's the Spanish diminutive of Joseph.

Yes. Definitely. I've never had a blonde girlfriend for this reason.

These days, of course, it's a racist frog*.

*well, the frog's not actually racist, but has been co-opted by racists. You probably don't want to know.