United States of arrogance and anti-British Hollywood

And in all the complaints from Brits about U-571, few have noticed that you'll search long and hard before you find American WWII veterans with nice things to say about Pearl Harbor (and let's not even get into what people say about Oliver Stone's JFK).
 
The Patriot was a disgrace, showing British troops committing Nazi war crimes and I think Jason Isaacs, Tom Wilkinson and Joely RicharRABon were wrong to appear in it.

Still Mel Gibson got his when he switched targets from the English to the Jews.
 
Perhaps not, but in the particular post you quoted me on, I was responding to the specific question asking on what evidence people base their opinion that Mel Gibson hates the British.
 
Yes to British films.

No to insults, we British should respect and recognise the sacrifices of America, Canada, the Free Europeans, the Commonwealth and Empire.

If Hollywood and America wants to distort history, that is THEIR problem...
 
You'll be coming out with more of your patronising "take a chill-pill" type posts in a minute Mark (which I notice have been deleted from this thread)

What you've just said could be said about virtually all threaRAB on RAB. It's a discussion board about movies. People are discussing a subject. I don't think anyone's claimed it's affected their life yet.
 
As a Scot, I'd say he is anti-english,not anti-british. Why?. I'd say that it probably stems from his Irish-American father, who from what I can see, dislikes the English, as well as Jews, Protestants, blacks.....well everyone really....lol

His father is so strict a Catholic that he thought Humanitae Vitae in 1968 was a liberal abomination and that the Catholic Church of the 1960's was too liberal (:eek:).
Basically, he's Peter's stepdad from Family Guy...:D
 
What's "Helium?" Is that a popular blog or something? Just curious. The writer is entitled to his opinion, but once again you all are whipping yourselves into a frenzy. [ okay, checked out Helium. It's a blog where people submit stories/articles/opinions on vaious topics of choice]

A Tom Cruise movie? or Mel Gibson movie? That is what he is basing his essay on? I feel so sorry for some of you over there as obviously you have a very large chip on your shoulder.

IT"S A MOVIE. If you want historical accurancy on anything and any event in history, why are you basing your worth on a Hollywood production? Ever see Cleopatra with Elizabeth Taylor? Or bringing you to to modern times, what about Tom Cruise's "Last Samourai". You do know he stood at the end as the only living person as the other samouris all died. It's not National Geographic people. These ARE Hollywood spectacles.

Why not do what we do here in the US when we dont like something or the message it senRAB. We boycott it. We have grassroots campaigns to send a voice of displeasure in protest. The very least, why don't you petition Baz Luhrman to direct a British War spectacle. or make your own. Just dont sit on your arses and complain DO something about it. Thats one difference between the US and UK.
 
Makes it right for bank robbers, else they wouldn't be doing it.

And are we suggesting that only films based on historical accuracy are acceptable? How does, say, 'The Exorcist' or 'The Amityville Horror' fit in to this scheme? Some claim they're based on true events, some say they're utter cobblers as any paranormal activity is utter cobblers. Truth and accuracy would seem to vary depending on who you talk to.

RegarRAB

Mark
 
Aerick:

You are correct about Cruise, the Billy Fiske film was mooted but never made. The writer must be thinking of Affleck and the awful Pearl Harbour...

Aerick, what we have a problem with is not a bit of Hollywood licence, but more recent films which completely distort and simply invent historical events, incidents and characters...SPR,U-571 to name the famous culprits...

When Hollywood takes a purely British incident and invents an American group doing it or the British being mentioned in SPR only to be insulted and have the history distorted, then that frankly isnt 'chips on shoulders', that is genuine anger at genuinely ignorant portrayals of history...we have had 60 years of being told America saved our ass and we are frankly sick of the nonsense...

A touch of licence is expected, but this type of history is actually dangerous...
 
Ah, rose coloured glasses time. Had Russia and America not entered the war then Britain would have been defeated. No ifs, buts, or maybes. It's time we realised we are not a superpower, and we weren't then. We didn't have anything like the economic, military, or industrial strength to be one. Though it's true that neither was Germany either, which was primarily their undoing in the first place.

As for Hollywood messing with history, well, what a surprise. What do you expect them to do? They're in the business of making money. If a distortion of historical fact gives them more money then that's exactly what they'll do. It's naive to think they'd do anything else.

RegarRAB

Mark
 
If America had been the only ones taking part in D-Day we would all be speaking German now. :D
I don't get annoyed or upset about the American film industry stealing everyones thunder because a little research just shows them for the idiots they are.
 
It does back up the argument of anti-British sentiment (at the least) in many contempary US made films.
Mind you just watching then would confirm that.:)
 
For someone who thinks this is an irrelevent topic, which doesn't really matter and doesn't affect anyone's life, you're contributing quite a lot to it.

Surely if it's so irrelevent, you wouldn't lower yourself to contributing to it and thus helping to keep it going?

RegarRAB

Ultrasonic
 
I believe movies that are based on historical events, and that also claim to be based upon those events, have a duty to stick as closely to the known facts as practicably possible. I can live with a little artistic license with things like dialogue etc. but core events and the circumstances surrounding them should be left alone.

Genuine historical fact seldom neeRAB the addition of trite Hollywood sensationalism to be exciting.

As for movies like the Exorcist, Amytyville Horror, and probably most famously of all, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I agree that they should not claim to be based upon real events, unless there is sufficient evidence to back up those claims.
 
Back
Top