http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/10mo...naccurate.html

listing it among the 10 most historically inaccurate movies. Well, only in the same sense you could list Orwell's 1984. 10,000 BC made it too.

How can a movie portraying a possible future be historically incorrect?

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

No problems, it is inaccurate. They didn't "dis" them, they simply observed that it's not "historically" factual. (Albeit it shouldn't be listed as a historical movie in the first place...)

I always think it's silly when some critic accuses a science fiction story of being "inaccurate" or "dated" because it failed to predict the future. What did he expect?

A science fiction story actually predicting the future is more unlikely than the critic in question winning the lottery jackpot. But it's the story that matters. That's why it's called science fiction.

Anyway, these kinds of "Top 10" lists are just a lighthearted pastime.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

They dis 300, too. I don't understand how it's possible to be so dense. 300 was based on a graphic novel that was loosely based on real history. Xerxes, believe it or not, actually didn't have people beheaded by a giant, morbidly obese man--who must weigh at least a metric ton--having biological blades for arms. Nor did he have giant gray-skinned, humanoid monsters with chain collars fight in his army.

In light of these, how can one possibly complain about the age of Senate members, or that Spartans wore armor in real life?--that is without sounding like an idiot.

__________________
If we don't play god, who will?-James Watson
I never think of the future, it comes soon enough.-Albert Einstein
The large print giveth and the small print taketh away.-Tom Waits
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a yo-yo.-Enoch Root, The Confusion
When I was a kid, if someone brandished a shrink gun he'd get a little bit of respect!-Myron Reducto, Harvey Birdman

Is Star Trek on their list? We didn't have any sleeper sublight spacecraft in the '90s, nor did we fight a Eugenics War.

__________________
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky

That's just what they want you to think.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Oh no, I know for sure, because I was fighting in the real secret war in the nineties.

__________________
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky

Let's hope Yahoo never reads our "Lunar Vacation" story.

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

<<A science fiction story actually predicting the future is more unlikely than the critic in question winning the lottery jackpot. But it's the story that matters. That's why it's called science fiction.>>

QFT.

__________________
"Call me old-fashioned, but I think fire is magic. And it scares me a lot."

--The State

Perhaps it's because there are still some of us who get our history from reading history books, not comic books.

__________________
The views expressed are the febrile product of an overactive imagination of a person who in shadows sees the gyrating Elvis-like ghost of Leonid Brezhnev.

300, if looked at as a piece of history, is enormously inaccurate. I don't think much of anyone disputes that. The issue seems to be whether we should look at it as a piece of history or as a fantasization of history, which is different.

I also think it is, indeed, completely ludicrous to call science fiction "inaccurate history" because it didn't come true. What, do they expect perfection? Prescience?

I can also (I haven't looked at the list, but I can already tell you it's true) come up with dozens and dozens of movies with awful history, even leaving out all fantasizations of history, such as A Knight's Tale and Ever After.

Edit: Okay, I've read it now. Really? They really think Elizabeth: The Golden Age is less historically accurate than The Other Boleyn Girl?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Good to see Braveheart made their inconsequential list. Good for promoting Scottish identity, but historically a big smelly heap.

__________________
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice. I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

Meh. 2001 is a lame, boring flick anyway . . . .

Blasphemer.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

The original short story was cool. But the whole 2001. Blah.

That's your opinion. In my opinion, it's still the top science fiction movie out there.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I think the reviewer needs to be sat down and have it explained and be made to read the book. Then the date of the book and the date of the film need to be explained and the idea when it was written then the story that ACC used to base 2001 on needs to be read and etc etc.
And where is my personal jet pack I was promised in the 60's.
Smacks of Father ted and Dougal near and far episode......

I jest and am not really worried

Either way its in my top ten, usually at number one. But that is my view.

I'd be another vote for "2001 is as boring as hell".

__________________
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice. I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

2001 is the only science fiction film that makes NASA TV coverage of a space shuttle mission seem "butt cheeks chewing the seat cushion" thrilling in comparison.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

Just thought, 2001 did get a lot of things right.

I thought it was good until the 20-minute psychadelic acid trip at the end. That only works if it's 1968 and you actually are on acid.

- J

Yes, because Star Wars is science fantasy.

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

But far more entertaining.

Blade Runner is far better than 2001, in my view.

2001 does come off a bit slow. Part of that is the frequent outside, space shots that have no sound, as they should. We've come to expect beeping noises every time a light flashes and explosions when you dump pressure real fast. Realism points were subtracted from excitment points. No sound forces you to pay attention to what is going on and that's pretty much a pod moving against a black background. Not real exciting. But where 2001 wins is a pretty good story, some great special effects and yes, realism. Even some pretty cool music.

I would have like to have seen the stuff that was in the book, at the end. Two stars rotating around each other, a space port with abandonded space ships sitting out front. It's been a long time since I read the book but he described some pretty cool stuff that Bowman saw at the end. All they had in the movie was flashing lights and lava lamp footage. However if you use your immagination you can see it as stars being born and worm holes or something.

At any rate, 2001 is pretty ceribral. You really need to watch it a few times to see how good it really is. I like it but I can understand those who find it slow or boring.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Yeah, 2001 is pretty cerebral... and slow and hard to understand and a bit psychedelic at the end. That combination does not make for good mass entertainment.

It presents a solid story, well told, with great sfx. But, it doesn't spoon feed the entertainment to you. If you want to enjoy it, you have to reach in and grab it for yourself. You have to get involved.

Star Wars, OTOH, is good mass entertainment. It's not cerebral, it's not slow, it's easy to follow, and the psychedelics are minimal. It's a fun story, well told, with great sfx. And, it does basically "spoon feed" the entertainment to you. There is so much happening at any time that you don't need to reach in; it's dropped in your lap.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not dissing SW. But, these are two different stories told in two different ways and some may not be up to both. Or either.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

I won't be the one to detract this from it. It does do the environment properly.

However, the characterization and the dialogue are just too...I dunno...stilted. Like what NASA's PR dweebs would want the public to think a space mission would be. Re-reading some of the old Apollo transcripts, except during mission critical times, there was some banter going on that was FAR from sterile.

I'm pretty sure even the shuttle missions are as small talk laden as any other small office would tend to be, especially since by the time they launch, they've spent more time around each other than they have their own families for the training cycle. At least that's the impression I got from the video tape of the Columbia's last re-entry that was released to the public. These folks did NOT strike me as US Marine Corps level personality suppressed.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

Well, you have to remember, this was written in the 60s. That was the stereotypical view of astronauts at that time.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

I should have been a bit more clear. Reference was to predictions. You have video phones, I can buy them now. Reusable orbiters, weapons in space although I am using the "star wars" project but a tenuous link to the recent Chinese and US satellite shoot downs. Logistics etc of getting someone to Saturn (Jupiter in the film). OK, not the hibernation bit but also the fitness of people considered.

Dialogue wise, shuttle stuff and Apollo were short duration. This was a long mission. I imagine the humans would have beaten the computer to it if they were chatter boxes.

I love 2001. I saw it when I was ten for the very first time and it blew me away. It seemed very realistic and that added to it for me. /However/ even then I know it was science fiction and it never ever was supposed to be a 'historical film.

The fact it is on this list is just plain silly!

It has been and always will be Science Fiction. None of anything protrayed in that film is a reaccounting or retelling of an historical event.

__________________
Mission Control : "Please don't kick the robot Bill. "