Brandon Was Right (Atun-Shei Films DEBUNKED) 

Nice

Brandon, you're such a nerd. And I love you both.

Light Brandon

I demand more homoerotic content between Atun and Brandon.

Get a room

Loo. You fo realize this is his channel, right bot?

@@thehowlinggamer5784 he's doing it to be sarcastic

@@thehowlinggamer5784 I think that might be the joke

@@thehowlinggamer5784 It's just a joke!

@@thehowlinggamer5784 pretty sure it’s not his channel. You are thinking of Shei Atun. Common mistake.

It's not homoerotic without the nazi uniform tho

I like how you signed off with your name

Barry

@@afrofantom6631 Barry’s signature of approval

Thank you Barry, Austin

“Historian RU-vidrs 69”

@@warlordofbritannia Kinky.

And then they fight to the death ... about how the other one was right

Then Atun Shei 'No, Brandon was wrong about being wrong because I was actually wrong thinking he was wrong' the video.

@@Randomstuffs261 Atun Shei standing over his dead body covered in blood and getting ready to eat him - I told you you were right! But you would just not listen...you were deaf to the truth and now look at you! Look at you!!!

To play devil's advocate those resources come from producers and studio execs who all want a say in how the film is made. And they don't give a shit about historical accuracy. All that money comes with constraints of its own.

@@ieuanhunt552 That isn't so much playing devil's advocate so much as explaining why something is awful.

@@BrandonF My point is that Atun-Shei said that filmmakers with 20 or 50 times his resources have no excuse. Well that money comes with strings attached. That is their excuse. It might not be a good one but there it is.

​@@ieuanhunt552 And again, it's just explaining the obvious

@@ieuanhunt552 studio execs, yes; producers, not necessarily. Oftentimes the producer is the one keeping everything together. Keep in mind, their job is to *literally produce* the art.

lol so trouwe

Come for the history, and come after the homoeroticism!

To be clear, the bad cinematography and basic-bitch youtuber editing is what makes me cringe. I still love the dick jokes.

@@AtunSheiFilms There’s nothing that says secure masculinity like two (allegedly) straight dudes joking about they’d bang each other. I’m serious. As I say, every straight dude has a list of other dudes he’d go for and if they don’t, they’re in denial. Especially if they don’t have Christopher Plummer a la Sound of Music on it. I’d let him be my Captain…🤤🤤

@@warlordofbritannia 100% this. All of it; Christian Plumber especially, and I’m Ace.

…how did you write a comment about this video one day ago when it says it was posted less than an hour ago?

@@randomjunkohyeah1 Time travel, clearly. How do you think Johnny Reb came back after he shot him?

Just gotta wait 3 more years for it to go full circle

It's debunking videos all the way down!

I’m guessing Brandon makes one first myself, Brandon debunks atun Shei debunking Brandon

Debunk-ception

@@thegoodwin It's like that Tom Scott video about Torpenhow Hill, "Hill Hill Hill Hill, Debunked, Debunked"

That sounds both interesting and terrifying, if you don't mind could you go into that topic a little bit deeper? Or if not just point out some sources where someone who doesn't speak thai can find some information?

@@sic5764 This is such a complicated issue. Personally, I would read "A History of Thailand (4th edition)”, by Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit (or David Wyatt’s “Thailand: A Short History (2nd edition)”, which talks more about pre-Bangkok Thailand but unfortunately ends the narrative in the 2000s), that or try to find academic JSTOR articles or RU-vid videos/lectures about it (I'd personally recommend the "Ayutthaya and Writing Thai History Today" lecture on the FCCT RU-vid channel, although you might want to read (or watch the Siam Society lecture on RU-vid) "A History of Ayutthaya" first before getting into that.)

@@sic5764 You can also search up stuff like Thai youth protests for lecture videos and the movie I was talking about was "King Naresuan" a movie franchise about a 16th century Thai king who bravely fought for Thai independence against the Burmese (a very much Romanized and nationalistic story in Thai historiography).

As someone who does understand Thai and left at a young age, where can I go to learn more about this?

@@Urlocallordandsavior Thank you very much, looking into it now :)

I strongly suspect both Atun-Shei and Brandon would agree wholeheartedly.

Exactly. One can be chalked up to artistic license, the other is shameful propaganda. If an inaccuracy is made without the intent to misinform, we can perhaps let it slide.

I am inclined to agree.

I agree. I don't mind so much that the Battle of Stirling Bridge happened without a bridge in Braveheart, because that doesn't really affect the larger meaning or consequences of the battle. But making William Wallace a Gaelic peasant, showing the Scottish Wars of Independence starting over the nonexistent jus prima noctis, and claiming that Edward III was Wallace's son were unforgivable because they give people massive misconceptions about the nature and meaning of those people and events and medieval life in general. It's really not too different from claiming the ACW was primarily about tariffs or portraying Lee or Jackson as opposed to slavery, except in that the events in Braveheart happened much longer ago.

@@brucetucker4847 Stirling Bridge not having a bridge did effect the larger meaning of the battle though; Unlike in the film, where the battle is effectively won through force of arms alone (which is ridiculous given the lack of armour & equipment carried by the Scots), the real battle was won by clever tactics. In an open field, the Scots were at a great disadvantage & it was their local knowledge of the available crossing points that allowed them to defeat the English. It gives the impression that the English were militarily incapable, and that the Scots were superior in terms of strength of arms. Not to mention the death of Wallaces' co-commander, who (had he lived) might have been able to restrain Wallace & avoid Falkirk. Something that doesn't really matter (although should still be corrected) would be Wallace's wearing of tartan & woad, or the timeframe in which he was named Guardian of Scotland.

Or how to get banned from Twitter in 5 minutes

sounds too pretentious and wypipo video essay-y. the current title is much better.

@@ProGremlinPlayer Oh, piss off.

@@BigBangAttack-mt6pz Okay, Edgy McEdgelord.

@@ProGremlinPlayer Yeah... not a literal suggestion. I was paying him a compliment.

There are too many people out there that will bend over backwards and spend multiple days arguing just to get around admitting to getting the smallest of facts wrong.

@Jacqueline Davis It’s less easy in one regard, which is that it wounds the ego. Even if that “wound” is the equivalent of a paper cut. But some people, for whatever reason, have _very_ fragile egos. And so they will quintuple down on bad ideas, to the point of entrenching themselves in an entire awful ideology for _years,_ rather than admit to themselves that they were wrong in the first place.

"True nobility is being superior to your former self" - Ernest Hemingway

@Jacqueline Davis : And it builds confidence, strength of character, and we learn stuff. Wereas being obstinate is just makes us wantonly ignorant.

@@randomjunkohyeah1 : I would say rather that it weakens ones character to be stuck in their ego., as opposed to strengthening it through having the courage to be introspective. That builds confidence, as opposed to cockiness witch is quite the opposite of confidence.

Which is funny, because the final episode of Chernobyl didn't address a LOT of the inaccuracies of the series at all.

@@fontagra.6142 -I listened to it, and correcting historical inaccuracies was not the focus. A lot of it was fleshing out the real-life historical context or BTS facts about the script/suspicious lack of Russian accents. But yes, the facts they did correct were appreciated

On one hand, HBO's Chernobyl is a lavishly produced, visually stunning, and fantastically acted series. On the other hand, it has so many dire factual inaccuracies that it likely set back popular understanding of the Chernobyl disaster by decades. It's a perfect example of why historical accuracy *does* matter.

​@@RobertQuinlan No

@@cthulhutheendless1587 ​ The accents thing didn´t make sense for me as a non-American/non-English native speaker. Why should someone who talks without an accent in his native language be transcribed as using an accent in English? Yes, they could be voiced in Russian with Ukrainian/Belarus/Georgian/Uzbek/West-Siberian accents (and someone could also use Ukrainian and Belarus language) with English subtitles. But why the hell English with Russian accents?

Okay, I MUST protest! They may have gotten much of the history wrong in this silly propaganda film, but one thing must be ABSOLUTELY clear - Mel Gibson absolutely was alive back then!! After all, how could he have fought with the Scottish kilted army back before kilts were invented against the English? Really, show some respect for history! lol

@@BazukinBelyugovich The answer is simple, sir. He died in 1507, during the 0th World War. Luckily, he was raised from the dead in 1816, during the 0.5th World War. He's been alive ever since. If you're gonna actually me, at least check your history my guy 🙃

@@charleshalcomb7431 the onus is on you to support such a claim of said "Mel Gibson".

One thing you can say about Mel Gibson, he is good at making movies exciting looking. Even if its more artsy rather than historic

Gibson hates the English with a passion, he must be livid that he didn't get the Napoleon gig

i had cocoa in my mouth when his pitch dropped and spent the next thirty seconds trying not to choke or spit sugary milk all over my computer

But they weren't both sort of right, Atun-Shei was wrong, especially his point about trivial history not mattering. There is NO trivial matter in history. Take this for instance, "Hitler was a Nazi, not a Fascist." That is a deliberately wrong statement, and with a quick glance whilst easily dismissable, this inherently wrong statement can lead to grand consequence. It separates Nazism from Fascism, despite Nazism being a form of Fascism. This can lead to further misconceptions, "Fascism is not Nazism," "Fascism is not 'as bad' as Nazism," and so forth. There is a difference between a movie being honest with its time period and historical accuracy to tell a story and a movie or piece of media being dishonest and ignorant with its topics and themes surrounding the history. William Wallace's anachronism is overlooked, or at least able to be ignored, because the history at hand is not being mistreated or used to spread an agenda. But even this "minor" details can become giant controversies if not treated with care.

@@memesarekeem I think your example is very poor, as it's very much something that fits into the latter category of inaccuracies, ones that serve much broader dangers. Claiming Nazis were not fascists is a MASSIVE inaccuracy, not a minor quibble. It matters for the same reason claiming slaves were treated well matters, because it whitewashes a very dark part of history and risks actively causing damage due to its political implications. That is in no way in the same league as anachronistic clothing, or inaccurate tactics, and using it as a comparison is truly an apples to oranges argument

@@whensomethingcriesagain As a more fair counterpoint, I think it would be logical to argue that the minor historical inaccuracies in depicting a culture's dress anachronistically can absolutely give us the wrong view of how people lived at the time, and thus play to preexisting historical myths. For example, 300's depiction of the Spartan way of life is altogether fascistic and wrong, but the specific choice to depict them as muscle-bound Adonis' wearing nothing but leather cod pieces and capes by itself does play to the already existing view of Spartans as this fascistic ideal of unstoppable gods of war.

@@whensomethingcriesagain Indeed. TL;DR, calling Nazis not Fascists is a major inaccuracy that undermines understanding of the topic and which misleads into totally wrong information. Which is not the same as a Crusader bearing a coat of arms that’s off by a year or two.

@@whensomethingcriesagain But you've strawmanned my point, I was not comparing my analogy to your argument, I was using it to prove that "triviality" as a whole does not exist when it comes to history. As I've stated previously, anachronistic clothing is only overlooked when it is not used to inherently spread agendas or "change" history with a direct intent. Ultimately, if we go back to the example of Braveheart, I'd go on to say that the "history" of that movie is not the main focus of the story, and the time and setting are only used as a crux for the plot. Likewise, the Patriot deliberately mischaracterizes its time period and history to spread an agenda. Allow me to give you a better example. Say we are going to create a rags to riches story with a Black man as the main protagonist in the Jim Crow era, in the deep south. There is nothing wrong with this story, as long as we are going to accurately depict the struggles of a black person during this time and how their journey allowed for such to occur. It would be inherently wrong to show the protagonist go from rags to riches without the intrinsic details of his interactions with other people and systems, or, to put it in better terms, to show this story WITHOUT the racism. Say he goes into a store owned by a white person, and buys a fine-tailored suit with zero issue. Are we to believe given the circumstance he could come and go without issue? My point wasn't to say the kilt mattered, it was instead to say that your point of each side having valid arguments was wrong. Because no, small misinformation CAN have grave consequence. You've chosen to instead focus on the fact I used an analogy which was not a "minor" issue, but that doesn't disprove my point. I don't watch too many movies, but I am invested in politics. Smear campaigns can have HEAVY implications for a politician depending on how it affects the population's perception of them. Small lies, big lies, ANY lie has an effect. Lets use a modern example, "Biden stole the election." To say this is a "big" statement is debatable, I'm going to say its not because like my last example, it is easily disprovable. Yet it ultimately led to the January 6th riots. It was not necessarily a "big" lie, but it did have BIG implications on the nation as a whole. Likewise, people claiming Corona Virus vaccines give you cancer or government spy cameras or other nonsense is all easily disprovable, but people buy into it regardless. To put any level of history above another is quite foolish, honestly. A small lie becomes The Lost Cause myth, or the Clean Werrmacht myth. Inaccuracy is misinformation, and misinformation can lead to ignorance. If my analogy is apples to oranges, then where exactly is the line drawn? How much inaccuracy can you put into a movie before it becomes changing the past with malice intent?

Sometimes the idea of "accuracy" can even be counterproductive in terms of creating an accurate "vibe", if you will. I'm thinking specifically of a couple of interviews I recently listened to about translating some of Yochi Brandes' novels into English. She's an Israeli author who's written a couple of novels set in historical Israel/Judea, and in each one she includes some actual quotes from the text of the Tanakh. For the translation of one of her novels which is set in the Roman period, the translator chose to follow the King James translation of those quotes, because these are, for the characters as much as the audience, quotes from ancient texts out of a murky history. For the novel set in the iron age, though, the same translator chose much more contemporary translations for the relevant quotes, because in that novel, they were framed as things actually being said by the people involved, which would later be written down, and so needed to not be out of place in a novel otherwise written entirely in a contemporary idiom. There's a similar case to be made for eg that contemporary-style translation of the Iliad that came out a couple of years ago, and even for something like Hamilton.

300 is a big one about inaccuracy, which i'm fine with cause it's supposed to be a spartan telling the story of the battle of thermopylae, and not what actually happened.

You're right in that it does entirely depend on what the inaccuracy is and why it exists. It becomes a problem, when it claims to be an accurate retelling of events but is anything but. Kingdom of Heaven has shaped how an entire generation views the crusades. Likewise for the Patriot

@Naikomi the problem is that most people who left the movie actually thought that there was just 300 Spartans in that battle

@@heliveruscalion9124 wrong when pan out and see the Spartan telling the story the Greeks are still naked and not wearing their historical armor and xerxes is still decepted as a naked monster. All that despite the fact that we are seeing the world out of the guy telling the story

It’s also something that occurs whenever I sift through my memories & realize what a dipshit I was as a young man. And a middle aged man..

It isn't something to fear though, it's arguably something you'd hope for. It means that you've evolved as a person and as a content creator. Of course, you always want to put out your best work still; but you also want to grow and refine.

Ooof...felt the cringe on this one 😬

I mean he also did We Were Soldiers and that movie got a lot of things right. You should totally watch it if you haven't seen that one and you're into the Vietnam War.

Not true necessarily, or with everything. Passion of The Christ and Braveheart are bad, but The Patriot is not inaccurate. It is almost an exact retelling of the life of a real historical figure named Daniel Morgan. Even what scared history buffs claim is inaccurate about it is simply not, like the accents, the British cruelty, the elitism? They assert those are exaggerations. The British really were elitists, their generals were posh overconfident, and they had cruel commanders like Bannister Tarleton. The battles in The Patriot are all based on real battles that occurred similarly. It is not as inaccurate as British nationalists claim. You gotta give Mel Gibson American points for being able to at least get an American movie right by living in that culture. Like, of course he wouldn't no Scottish, or Jewish culture.

Another Mel Gibson film that contains some inaccuracies but does a good job in portraying the story is The Professor and the Madman. Also Mel's future history Mad Max is spot on. Prove me wrong.

And *yet I love his movies.* I know there's a lot wrong. I know they're aiming at a specific audience and that audience no longer includes me. I know he's got an agenda and these movies further the propaganda for that agenda. *And I still love his movies.* Is that a flaw of mine? Eehhhhh, that's where it gets shady for me. I can *enjoy* a good propaganda flick like the Patriot or 300, and if I do, does that automatically make me a propagandist supporter or in both of those cases, slave-denier and proto-fashy? I don't think so, but I don't know.

No! You’re telling me that Lethal weapon wasn’t an accurate telling of American police

As someone points out, there is a difference between license and dishonesty. As long as you are aware that you are employing license (and maybe inform your readers), you're most likely gonna be somewhat good

Yeah he was completely unfair to Brandon in the original video lol. This self smackdown was well deserved

What rubs my rhubarb in a small but constant way is the way no attempt is made to show the recoil from firing the black powder weapons. I was a Civil War reenactor, and before our battles we'd be reminding each other to remember to show recoil. It's easy, and not a danger.

You sound like my wife.

This also outrages me, and I will probably be even more outraged when I find out what a frizzen is and why it should be locked back.

I've got news for you. When I see a flintlock in a film I'm relieved it's not a Trapdoor Springfield modified to look like a flintlock! You have NO idea how many Trapdoors I've seen in the wrong historic era in various films and TV shows! Seeing a REAL flintlock is a relief!

@@usxxgrant It bothers me even more with artillery. At least in Master and Commander they made some attempt to show the guns recoiling so the viewer would understand how powerful those weapons were and the practical difficulties of serving them - as well as how many casualties were caused by splinters and other debris from things they hit, as opposed to directly by the projectiles. And don't get me started about explosive shells from Napoleonic and earlier guns! (Not howitzers or mortars, that is.)

@C. W. Sayre LMFAO I offer my sincerest apologies for mentioning that film in front of your wife and children.

I don't want to seem like I am defending that movie but Gods and Generals did have confederates in blue militia uniforms at the beginning.

@@civilwarwildwest LMAO

@@haukuringason7967 Fair point, but that was the very beginning of the war. By 1862 they had a standard uniform. But the farther west you go, the further down on the logistical supply chain the rebels were, especially in the New Mexico campaign.

@@civilwarwildwest Yes. I'm no Civil War expert and no fan of the film, but this was one thing I did notice and still remember almost 20 years after I saw it.

Honestly would love if they became a thing. Imagine the movies and documentaries they would make together? Perfect couple.

@@mr.warlight9086 idk that feels cursed as hell not to mention shipping real people is cringe

@@mr.warlight9086 1) both of them have girlfriends 2) don't ship real people. It's gross and weird

@@mr.warlight9086 Andy & Brandon seem cool with people cracking jokes, but I hope fans will not take it any further than that. The internet can get real weird (in a bad way) about RPS stuff real quick. I say this having been in the fandom trenches for *cough* decades.

Y'all have enlightened me about the horrors of fandom fantasy cultures. I will take head and tread carefully. Many thanks to y'all ;3

Hell, the really hardcore fascists look even earlier, to Vikings and the Roman Republic/Empire. And their badly (often intentionally) warped understanding of those topics is directly related to how they have been misrepresented in general.

@@randomjunkohyeah1 oh definitely. blending of several "macho martial" cultures without any real reverence or understanding of those cultures has done immense harm not only to history but political discourse. Its especially bad with the "barbarian" pagan cultures, as their history is already somewhat built on a flimsy platform of archeology and 3rd hand sources. So much of modern understanding of vikings, even once you wipe away the smudge of 19th century nordicism, is very colored by the writings of christian monks whos own perception and lens of events and mythology is colored by Bias.

The idea is the farther back you go, the less people give a shit about it because it doesn't have any effect on their day-to-day lives. Black people are still under the lingering effects of Jim Crow. The Chinese when it comes to the Mongol conquests a little less so. Especially considering that's a country that tried to wipe away the past entirely.

@@SeruraRenge11 oh definitely. but at the same time, when was the last time you heard of a mainstream movie that featured pre-colonial african history, kingdoms and empires that wasnt just egypt? half the reason why racism is to prevalent to begin with is because the myth of black people not having history or significant cultural mythos outside of the usual "zulu, masaii, egypt" has grown so fucking strong. sure, it has been whittled away at for the past 10-20 years or so, but as seen with black panther even a mediocre marvel movie featuring a fictional kingdom has given more than 99% of media. Not as immediatly harmful as jim crow, but it ties into it very deeply. Then there are other miniorities affected by inaccurate history, in particular LGBT representation especially in the antique and ancient periods of history. Patrocles being portrayed as Achilles's cousin rather than friend and lover is akin to having a King arthur movie where Guinevere is King Arthur's little sister. from Alexander the great to Frederick the great, from Hadrian to Tchaikovsky, Homphobia has repeatedly seen to the censoring and severe downplaying of a significant aspect of their lives. it goes without saying that this has obviously had and furthered harmful perceptions of the LGBT community. if content featuring ancient and antique times had consistently featured accurate renditions of past, maybe the notion that the LGBT community is unnatural wouldnt have been so persistent.

@@boarfaceswinejaw4516 I don't think it's a good idea to romanticize the Greek ideals of sexuality, considering they were a society of pederasts, something the Romans mocked them for. Regardless, I hold to my belief that people that feel the need to look to the past for validation in their own life are, as the author Yoshiki Tanaka once famously put it. "Genes determine everything? What nonsense. Individuals are not responsible for their genes. Individuals are individuals. Family lines or genetics have nothing to do with the abilities of the individual. People who believe that genes and the past deeds of their kind decide everything are truly worthless people who can only do what they are told. People who boast of their ancestry have nothing that they can boast about in themselves. Those people are the ones that I truly disrespect."

Absolutely, I think we all got a bit too caught up on the nitpicks. If you want to tell a fantasy story, tell a fantasy story, don't use real names and places to trick people into thinking you're writing a historical film.

Yeah but that can very easily run into Ministry of Truth-type shit because who decides what is the fair viewpoint? And do you trust them to inform everyone else on how history should be portrayed?

Imposing historiographic standards on art and entertainment still feels wrong. The fact that viewers might be too gullible with what they see in historical films is a problem with the viewers and the way we’re taught “real” history, not with the films that use history as a creative device.

@@SeruraRenge11 It's not that hard to at least use proper sources from accredited historians. This isn't Ministry of Truth, it's basic research LOL

@@killergoose7643 Then make a fictional story in a historical setting with your art and entertainment that uses real events as a backdrop. If you're going to directly focus on real figures and real events, you SHOULD be held to a higher standard of accuracy.

Didn't Eisenhower or another general who was still alive when the film came out, tell people to not go and watch it 😂

@@ichimaru96 I think it was Eisenhower. A lot of military experts bashed the inaccuracies in the film. IMDb has a lot of entries under Goofs. I contributed two myself... the one about all the German tanks being Tiger II's, and about Telly Savalaas' tank having most of the turret blown away. Not only is he unhurt or even dazed... the radio still works!

@@brunozeigerts6379 I've never seen the film myself (yet 😉) I've just seen that there's a battle in the desert and that itself is hilarious The famous deserts of northern France during the coldest winter in a hundred years 😂

At least those inaccuracies were acknowledged in the end credits: "To encompass the whole of the heroic contributions of all the participants, places, names and characters, have been generalized and action has been synthesized in order to convey the spirit and the essence of the battle."

@@ichimaru96 It was filmed in Spain during the summer, so... yeah. It is fun to watch... especially the big tank battle at the end. M47 Pattons(Germans) vs M24 Chaffees(supposed to be Shermans) fighting it out on a wide open plain.

Written before 12:50... after that, I just have to excuse myself.

😀

The topic has room for nuance. It's ok to not be totally accurate on tiny details that most people don't even care about. Sometimes a general overview is fine and that's all the casual viewing audience would care to look for anyways. Likewise not trying at all, or just outright lying about historical events, can be rather damaging to a person who doesn't know much about that topic. It's like the difference between a multi million budget film about a war vs some video game loosely based off of those events. Only 1 of those really matters in regards to historical accuracy.

@@PoggoMcDawggo absolutely

As an amateur genealogist I see history as a two tier endeavor. There is what I call macro-history, the big stuff that is common in the history books: kings and emperors and presidents, wars, rise and fall of religions and nations, battles, etc. Then there is what I call micro-history, the small stuff that is much rarer in books and shows. The founding of towns, where individual families lived, migrations over time, how businesses and communities develop, etc. In short, the meat-and-potatoes of genealogy. While the micro-history may seem generally unimportant in aggregate it does add up. Plymouth Rock begat Barnstable begat Boston, begat Massachusetts begat New England begat America. 150 years worth of immigration and having large families and building towns and spreading out eventually led to 1776 and the nation of the USA.

There is historical accuracy and there is dramatic licence. Historical accuracy requires us admitting that much of the minutiae of history is "here be dragons" territory. Dramatic licence is playing fast and loose with truth to tell a better story. This last bit is important - telling a better story. But there needs to be disclaimers regarding changes.

History can be like art, for some art is about the small details, every little piece put exactly where it should be and most art should probably take this much care. But then sometimes art can be these grand sweeping strokes that say “to hell with the details” (everyone likes 300)

And how about doing mostly due dilligence, but being shown later wrong by NEW historical or archeological research that makes what once was thought good representation into a cheap stereotypical parody of the real history? You won't find a history book, either pop cultural or textbook for various grades of education that is fully 100% correct and holds up to perfect scrutiny. Why would we expect that for movies? And why would it be bad in movies that already everybody knows are make belief? The textbooks that cut corners or leave inconvenient bits out are far more problematic. How many US History texts are whitewashed to the level of being useless to really assess the period or even get a rough outline of the reasons for the civil war? I bet most are not even reliable about the reasons for the War of Independence!

@@Ugly_German_Truths "And then the Indians walked to their new homes on the Trail of Tears, so named because they were very sad the British lost the war of 1812."

@@Ugly_German_Truths So are you expecting an answer or were you just looking for a place to grandstand? There is a obvious difference between a well meaning film becoming dated after new information comes to light, and a film that didn't even bother trying in the first place. Nobody is asking for 100% accuracy that will last for eternity. People just want a little more effort to be put forward so that the uninformed masses don't develop poor a understanding of history from films.

Worth considering the context of the production as well, I think. Pirates of the Caribbean doesn't need the same level of scrutiny over details as, say, Master and Commander. One's a period film, the other is a film with a period setting

@@Evan_Schaefering Yeah this. The dinosaur section of Fantasia was actually very up to date to the science of the time. Unfortunately, science learned a lot more about dinosaurs in the decades since. But that wasn't the fault of the filmmakers.

we'll always have Wag the dog. A better history than W. or any of the half a dozen WTC Movies or whatever...

How long till we get the first Trump biopic? Will it be made before or after his death? And who the hell would be the audience for it?

@@steveerickson411 Umm his supporters which number in the millions, and who are eager to accept every "fact" that support their own views?

@@steveerickson411 I mean Dubya got one before he even finished being president.

@@steveerickson411 there already is one. It's called Donald Trump's the Art of the Deal: The Movie starring Johnny Depp, a loose comedy adaptation of Trump's autobiography. It's pretty unfunny, though.

No. It is you who are mistaken. About a great many things... They're both garbage. Only The Patriot shows both parties in correct uniforms whereas Braveheart shows Picts in woad warpaint and kilts instead of Scots in pants and regular medieval attire. And they're both clearly aimed at 12-year olds and under because at one point, the first movie strays so far from its path, it starts showing Mel as an American Robin Hood while he's fooling the Sheriff (Cornwallis), while in the second movie, old Mel turns into fucking James Bond at some point. I dislike any Brit that makes fun of the France's military history but when the British are painted like Nazis burning people alive in church, I'll napalm you with Americans murdering at least a million civilians in Vietnam (and thousands or even tens of thousands during the Korean War).

If you didn't have that reaction that means you hadn't matured or grown as a person or a creator. It's good to look back at your younger self and think "what the fuck was I doing?". Can't improve otherwise.

@@PoggoMcDawggo I'm the opposite, I often say crazy shit that no one listened to at the time and then when it gets proven right years later I am the smuggest asshole in the room because of how hard I called it.

You didn't really have a good grasp on American history, because The Patriot is accurate. It gets a bad wrap because it star Mel Gibson who did make horribly inaccurate movies such as Braveheart and Passion of The Christ, and to be fair, he clearly wasn't trying to make an accurate movie in The Patriot, but because he is American, be probably did on accident. All the arguments against the movie's historical accuracy simply fall short: Americans couldn't beat the British in main battles and guerilla warfare? They did throughout the American War of Independence. The British weren't cruel and posh elitists? The British generals were from noble houses and they were in fact cruel, posh elitists. Say what you will about Mel Gibson, but The Patriot is not a very inaccurate movie.

The tales are exaggerated, but the fundamentals are there. Wallace did lead a rebellion, and Benjamin Martin was based on Francis Marion who did fight back against Tarleton's cruel treatment of the colonists in the south using guerilla tactics. It's just all the other little subplots about french princesses or soldiers and making them into larger than life characters, are not really true. History records the big things, it doesn't talk about what these fellas did day to day, so the story tellers fill those gaps in with fanciful tales. I thought Braveheart made fun of this when it talked about how Wallace was seven feet tall and shot lightning out of his arse.

@@minnesotasteve Wallace had a beard. He wore decent armour, being a nobleman descended from the Norman conquerors of Britain. He never wore blue paint on his face. He would not look good in front of a film camera.

@@mr.warlight9086 Two things for you to consider: it is a stunningly inaccurate and inauthentic film; Mel Gibson didn’t make it.