• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Patriot...

Not close enough to the real person that he was attempting to portray.
Very little military/strategic planning wa shown in the move.
 
I enjoyed the movie & BTW it was a Roland Emmerich film starring Mel Gibson. The movie wasnt historically accurate but neverless entertaining. Mel is one bad dude with a hatchet.
 
Originally posted by: tboo
I enjoyed the movie & BTW it was a Roland Emmerich film staring Mel Gibson. The movie wasnt historically accurate but neverless entertaining. Mel is one bad dude with a hatchet.
Click to expand...

Yep, it was a good movie so long as you don't take it as real history.
 
The movie was unfair and pretentious. They make the guy out to be a saint with his freed slaves who are "just working for him" (of course this was a fictional character they developed after they realized the real guy they were going to base the story on not only had slaves but raped them...) while making the British out to be cold blooded and ruthless killers (the British freed slaves who signed up with their army, and they were much more likely to follow the rules of "civilized" warfare than the Americans were). It's not just historically inaccurate, it's dishonest and obnoxious.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: tboo
I enjoyed the movie & BTW it was a Roland Emmerich film staring Mel Gibson. The movie wasnt historically accurate but neverless entertaining. Mel is one bad dude with a hatchet.
Click to expand...

Yep, it was a good movie so long as you don't take it as real history.
Click to expand...

anyone that takes a movie as truth is nuts. EVEN many documentarys are full of lies and BS.
 
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: tboo
I enjoyed the movie & BTW it was a Roland Emmerich film staring Mel Gibson. The movie wasnt historically accurate but neverless entertaining. Mel is one bad dude with a hatchet.
Click to expand...

Yep, it was a good movie so long as you don't take it as real history.
Click to expand...

anyone that takes a movie as truth is nuts. EVEN many documentarys are full of lies and BS.
Click to expand...

True. Very true.
 
Originally posted by: kogase
The movie was unfair and pretentious. They make the guy out to be a saint with his freed slaves who are "just working for him" (of course this was a fictional character they developed after they realized the real guy they were going to base the story on not only had slaves but raped them...) while making the British out to be cold blooded and ruthless killers (the British freed slaves who signed up with their army, and they were much more likely to follow the rules of "civilized" warfare than the Americans were). It's not just historically inaccurate, it's dishonest and obnoxious.
Click to expand...



lucky for me I went for the entertainment and not a history lesson



 
Originally posted by: kogase
The movie was unfair and pretentious. They make the guy out to be a saint with his freed slaves who are "just working for him" (of course this was a fictional character they developed after they realized the real guy they were going to base the story on not only had slaves but raped them...) while making the British out to be cold blooded and ruthless killers (the British freed slaves who signed up with their army, and they were much more likely to follow the rules of "civilized" warfare than the Americans were). It's not just historically inaccurate, it's dishonest and obnoxious.
Click to expand...

Yup. It's not that it was "inaccurate," it's the fact that it completely distorts its subject. The church burning scene goes far beyond "inaccurate." Freed slaves? Give me a fvcking break. Most historical movie just change characters around and mess with the continuity. This movie took American history and pissed on it.


From the wikipedia article:
The film has been heavily criticized for its historical inaccuracies, including the invention or exaggeration of British atrocities. Most criticized was a scene depicting the torching of a church containing a town's inhabitants, which was inspired by a Nazi war crime. Although not noticed by audiences and critics, historians also criticized the depiction of American-owned slaves being freed to serve in the Continental Army, when it was the British Army who first emancipated slaves that signed up for them. In fact, the new American Government would maintain legalized chattel slavery (primarily of blacks) until the Emancipation Proclamation during the American Civil War. The movie however, implied at several points that the revolution also aimed to free blacks. And though some of the writers of the constitution favored abolition of slavery, most did not. The original compromise for determining population was the notorious policy of the three fifths clause which proclaimed that each slave counted as 3/5 of a person under the law, for the purposes of proportioning representation at the federal level.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top