On 31 Jan 2015 08:38:21 GMT, nescitur@hushmail.com (Ronin) wrote:
I've been guilty of picking such history-violating (not to
mention devastatingly story-destroying) nits since I was
a boy, and I'm constantly damned for it now.
But the investment of some research into insuring
historical accuracy in the small stuff costs virtually
NOTHING in terms of budget or time, and the
failure of the lamestream (Hollywood) entertainment
assholes to put in just that much skull-sweat really
_ought_ to piss off anybody with measurable
electrical activity between the ears.
There are certainly good reasons for ellisions and
"telescoping" and condensations in turning either
history or written fiction into movies or TV shows.
The information content of the average theatrical-
release really doesn't exceed what you'll find in
a longish short fiction work (about 7,000 words),
and novels _start_ being called "novels" when
they begin exceeding 40,000 words in length.
But there are always tons of people in the
movie/TV industry who know what the hell
they're talking about when it comes to props,
costumes, pyrotechnics, action scenes, and
all the rest of that "second unit" stuff. The
goddam pig-ignorant _auteurs_ or the
Directors' Guild (not to mention the bloated
toads responsible for most production)
override the guys who actually bring some
fund of knowledge to the process, and
therefore we get shit when we might just
as easily have had decent product.
|
|
')){kind=link}