From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I suppose that's another way of putting it. The trouble is, "historically inaccurate" does in no way describe just how incredibly bad this film is. It gets nearly everything wrong. But hey! it bags the Brits! So that's all right. AlanE 23:28, 27 September 2012 (EDT)

The proper intellectual thing to do would be to list the specific errors and correct them. Not having seen the film and being weak on 13th and 14th-century European history, however, that is not a job for me. MattyD 23:39, 27 September 2012 (EDT)
Yes."....utter rubbish..." is not "encyclopedic language". I will think of some other way to describe it. In the meantime I will find a site somewhere that lists the faults in the film - the day is not long enough for me to do it, and I am only a well read amateur. But think on this: if you saw a film on George Washington that had him riding out from, say, the Painted Desert in Arizona on his way to fight the British, what would you think? If it had him having an affair with the English commander's son's daughter who, historically, was only about four when he, Washington, died, what would you think? I'll have a look.... here....
I see he/she didn't pick up on the Painted Desert thing - Wallace was born in one of the less picturesque parts of Scotland; the film's opening has him in the Highlands or somewhere more touristy. AlanE 00:15, 28 September 2012 (EDT)

Re Deletion

From your deletion Conservative, I can only assume that you thought my edit to be incorrect and the film to be historically correct. There may be another reason - may I politely ask what it was? AlanE 14:52, 28 September 2012 (EDT)

Since the article says it was "loosely based" on history, I thought that was sufficient. I also thought it could have been worded better. If you want to expand it and go into detail that would fine (Blind Harry, etc. etc.). I am guessing you will find no shortage of quotes from Brits saying the film was nearly a totally inaccurate rendition of the historical time period in question. :) Conservative 16:48, 28 September 2012 (EDT)
"Loosely based" is the understatement of the decade. I am not going to bother going through the reams of guff on this subject from both sides of the border and both sides of the Atlantic. As a Scots lover from Minnesota said "In brief, the history in "Braveheart" is absolute garbage." ( ) A Scottish Nationalist in whose bed-and-breakfast my wife and I stayed in 2009 said of it: "It was twaddle! The thing is, he didn't have to lie about the history like that; the real story was bad enough. What was the point of lying about Robert the Bruce? Now the Americans think Robert's a bastard when he's really a bigger hero than Wallace - and a lot more successful too."
The criticism I have heard comes from as many Scots as English. I expect a certain amount of dramatic interpretation - heck! Shakespeare did it too - and quite often it's poor research... stirrups in a Biblical epic, a piece of music that hadn't been written at the time of the story, the Union Jack on a 17th century ship.
It wasn't just a "totally inaccurate rendition of the historical time period in question"' it was a deliberate inaccurate rendition...". (And a smile to you too.) AlanE 21:39, 28 September 2012 (EDT)
You can reword it using your discretion. Largely/often historically inaccurate. Just make it encyclopedic and not emotionally laden. Conservative 22:09, 28 September 2012 (EDT)