mellis88

winstoner71 said:

darkvader said:

Main takeaway from this article:  Ridley Scott is a dick.

And apparently he needs to stick to scifi and stay away from history.  Nobody cares if Alien movies are historically accurate.

Nobody truly cares if this is historically accurate, outside of history professors and some French film critics. We want to see the spectacle, the huge battlefield sequences that Scott is known for, and want to see Phoenix ham it up. That’s all. Nobody cared that Gladiator wasn’t note for note historically accurate. Good on Ridley for telling them to p*ss off, and come to think of it Adam Driver for doing the same when his film Ferrari got a ridiculous critique…we need more of that from the talent. 

Sorry, I disagree. If you are making a historical biopic, be at least reasonably historically accurate! Otherwise, don't call it Napoleon. Call it Nelson Beneficent. There are far too many biopics/historical dramas being created today which completely warp and invent things. It's unnecessary, and leads to further misinformation. I can understand small inaccuracies, but have a real issue when film makers invent characters and interactions that never existed. I can't imagine a reasonably historically accurate Napoleon film could not have as much action, intrigue and passion as a concocted one.

Having said this, I have not seen the Napoleon film so I can't say if people are nitpicking small inaccuracies, or if there are significant historical inaccuracies. However, I will say I do care about historical accuracy of films that assert themselves to be historical dramas.