[Joe Fults]

My statement applies to me as well, perhaps more to me that to anybody else in this discussion. Its a connection I never really made before for some reason.

I watched the movie with my family and never thought twice about all the inaccuracies and the intent behind the message at the time. I filtered it all because I wanted to see a histroy and sword movie so very much. I nerver thought about the fact that my son would take what he saw on the screen as the truth about the times and events, but he did. I fixed things by tlaking with him, but ho many parents do?

The thing is by excusing everthing as entertainment, and supporting it with my money at the box office, I'm making myself part of the problem. If I'm not very careful, at least with my family, I'm endorsing whatever new truth is being marketed. At least as far as many children are concerned, the truth is what they see on the screen when history is even remotely associated with the content. Although I wish it was not the case, for my child seeing, and not reading, is believing. Based on my experience with my son's friends, I think this is pretty common. It does not appear that we are raising a book loving generation. They do not look to books and libraries to find truth.

Anyway, reading this discussion is making me have second thoughts about my "its just entertainment" attitude. I'm wrestling with myself over whether I really should excuse and ignore these things, time after time after time.

All of this is, as I posted in brief form, interesting and ironic. Perhaps more importantly, it made me think. Perhaps sometimes a little preaching to the choir is not a complete waste of time?

[Chad Arnow]

[Hank Reinhardt]

Hollywood pays attention to money. By not paying to see the movies, eventually they will get the message.

[Andy Bain]

Hollywood doesn't know why you don't go see a movie. If a movie like Kingdom of Heaven tanks at the box office the execs might say 'Hmmm, big epics aren't selling these days. Oh well, let's start pumping out more romantic comedies. I hear J Lo is available. Let's make Maid in Manhattan 2.'

I think it's a better idea to see the movie and then try to educate people about it. After seeing a movie I always talk about with friends. And if I know about an inaccuracy in the film I'll mention it. Like Chad says, if it really bothers you then try and find a wider audience than the friends or family whom you saw the movie with.

[Roger Hooper]

[Nathan Robinson]

[Wolfgang Armbruster]

Apart from the fact that they got lots of things wrong in this movie (did I say lots? *g*) I'd like to point out a few other weaknesses of that movie:

Instead of giving Bloom the role they could have given it to Stegen Segal. Given Bloom's rather poor and static performance I don't think anybody would have noticed it *g*

The script is full of those cheesy one-liners like "who are you watching?" "A Knight *sad and longing face*"

Lots of stereotypes there, even if they had left the politically correct agenda out.

[Hisham Gaballa]

[Sam Barris]

On the subject of Tristan and Isolde, they cut the love potion from the story, which tells me they're not trying.

I've been thinking about the nature of storytelling lately. I've come to the conclusion that while movies are, in fact, mere entertainment, the movie industry has a responsibility to tell an accurate story, or at least one that doesn't blatantly violate the spirit of the original. Not just for history, but for stories like the Iliad as well. To warp history in the fundamental ways that they do is really a form of libel, as these were real people who led actual lives and probably cared somewhat about the impact that they had on history. Take Braveheart, for example. Imagine going back in time and telling Queen Isabella, "Hey, the way we tell it, you slept with William Wallace!" I think she might take issue with that. And then we can go tell Robert the Bruce, "Yeah, you're a total wimp in our version! Totally outclassed by Wallace." What do you think his response would be?

I won't even get into the sacrilegious pile of dung that is Troy, since that would just make me angry, but to tell that story without the gods is like filming The Ten Commandments and having Moses coming down from the mountain and saying, "Yeah, these are my Ten Things You Really Shouldn't Do. I came up with them all by myself. Now let's vote on them!" See the problem? Even with a bare facade of accuracy, the spirit of the story is totally crushed and the entire point of the story is removed.

I'm not really trying to be a purist. Obviously historical events will differ according to which account one reads, but reasonable people could study these accounts and make a fairly good guess. Not perfect, but at least in the ballpark. What I hate is when they take the names of people who can no longer speak for themselves and completely disregard the historical account altogether, or warp it deliberately. In our ancestors time, storytelling (not just epic poetry) was considered sacred. Stories were how you told the deeds of your people to your children, passed on beliefs, taught moral lessons and remembered the names of your fathers. That's an incredibly powerful thing and I would say that we've been very irresponsible with that power. Hollywood is more than free to make bad movies with historical themes, but it would be nice if they'd write their own for a change, rather than simply plundering the graves and spirits of our ancestors for instant and cheap crowd appeal. Since they're just being lazy and greedy (and dealing in twisted magic, by our ancestors' standards), I find myself less and less able to excuse them.

[Wolfgang Armbruster]

I totally agree with Hisham Gaballa and Sam Barris here. Couldn't have put it better.

Just one little thought: Aren't the real stories interesting and thrilling enough? Why do they have to rape history all the time?
Troy (although being not real history) was really a worst case scenario. I had high hopes for the film since Wolfgang Petersen used to learn Greek at school and also read the Iliad. He should have known better. Well, there's a lot of time and space between the time when he shot Das Boot (his last really good movie) and Troy. Sorry, rant over now *g*

Maybe I'm just too picky but I really would prefer a Kingdom of Heaven that is at least a bit closer to the facts and stays away from such clichees.

[Hisham Gaballa]

[Joachim Nilsson]

[Hisham Gaballa]

[Bruno Giordan]

An organized boycott would be the only voice who could be heard in hollywood, producers are just sensitive to money.

If America had a ten percent citizens of north african muslim ancestry like France it could be even worst.

I guess there are organization in the US (well, actually i know which ones) who would gladly endorse a boycott of such movies.

Hollywood producers would immediately put the damper on the historical distortions that are operated by self assumed intellectual screenwriters and directors who actually reason by a still bolshevik mindset.

BWT, I grew up with John Wayne - John Ford movies and I still consider that America to be the true one.

[Sam Barris]

[Joachim Nilsson]

[Joachim Nilsson]

[Sam Barris]

[Joachim Nilsson]

[Jared Smith]

I did get some enjoyment from the movie, mostly because I was just starved to see anything new with sword play. On that note plus the topic of inaccuracies in the film;

At the early part of the movie there is a "first lesson" in sword play in which the techniques appear to be two handed longsword in Italian/ German. The Baron's sword looks very similar to Albion's Count/Steward. Given that this is supposed to be close to 1100 A.D., wouldn't this style of fighting and sword have been very rare and radical for that time period?