h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Jar Jar can speak, but he has a hard time thinking. The same is true for many people. It's dispiriting to be reminded that the viewer *might* be as unthinking as Jar Jar. Jar Jar is a really good follower, though.....

Any film, or TV series for that matter, that claims to be historically accurate (or leads the viewing public to believe that it is) and then plays fast and loose with the facts. Versailles (shown on BBC2) and Victoria (ITV) are recent examples on TV. JFK and U-571 (which I won't watch on principle) are just two examples of films that bend the facts out of recognition. Some might think it doesn't matter, but there are people who believe what they see on the screen without question. I found Versailles quite enjoyable up to the point where I realised that the writers/producers were messing around with history. The same people had been reluctant to use English-speaking actors because it might result in the programme being dumbed down. What's the difference when the series turns out to be dressed up tosh anyway?

As a big long time Queen fan I was taken to see the film Bohemian Rhapsody by my wife recently. It played *really* fast and loose with the facts of the bands career - including one bit that did annoy me - there was a big implication in there that Live Aid received hardly any money until Queen played... that I thought did a great dis-service to all the other people who participated in Live Aid (in fact it was Bob Geldof's famous sweaty moment (misquoted often as 'give us your money!/) that turned the tide.

However, it was enjoyable and you do have to respect poetic license a bit - it's fiction, not a documentary.

However I *did* go and see what the 'real queen fans' over on the queen zone fan forums thought about it. I wish I hadn't. Such vitriol, particularly against Brian May for some reason - it was all him, upping his role in the band because he is jealous of Freddie still, 30ish years down the road... etc. - Actually the film was very moving at times and very much a tribute to him in many ways. Some people take these things too seriously indeed.


Anyway, at the risk of overdoing a ridiculous analogy - but extreme examples can make the point more effectively sometimes. Many rape victims go on to live normal lives with loving partners and do not live alone and in trauma for their remaining days. They can recover. That doesn't diminish the fact that a terrible crime was inflicted upon them, which affected them deeply forever. That there Jar Jar Binks actor (and others) can carry on yes - but did they *really* need to go through those suicidal times because of it?

Yeah, Bohemian Rhapsody the film is something I've heard about but am not very likely to go to see. I'm a Queen fan, but generally I'm not a fan of biopics, and it isn't a surprise to learn that the Queen biopic is a typical biopic rather than being a documentary (and if you want to see a documentary about Queen there are some excellent ones out there already).

Vitriol is unnecessary though indeed - I'm not a particular fan of what Brian and Roger do with the Queen name but it is up to them and it keeps Queen in the public consciousness. The original and best Queen canon is still there to be enjoyed

Both Zorro films starring Antonio Banderas have aspects that annoy me. In The Mask of Zorro it's more of an irritation. Elena admits that she isn't as ladylike as her father would like, yet at the start of her sword fight with Zorro she claims that she learned how to use a sword from the age of four years old. A daughter of a Spanish Don wouldn't be allowed near a sword.

With The Legend of Zorro the annoyance is one that destroys the foundation of the film. Elena and Alejandro get divorced. They're Catholic and would have been married in church. Catholics couldn't get divorced in those days as there was no such thing as a civil ceremony. Even if they had been able to get divorced, Elena couldn't have remarried while Alejandro was alive unless the marriage was annulled. So that's the whole film ruined.

Other than those two points, I do enjoy the Zorro films. Antonio Banderas stars and does most of his own stunts. I can put up with a lot for that!

" That there Jar Jar Binks actor (and others) can carry on yes - but did they *really* need to go through those suicidal times because of it?" [Orcus]

I agree that they didn't need those horrendous events. I don't expect to be in charge of things any time soon, or at all. I don't necessarily agree with the adage that God doesn't give you more than you can handle. The incident of PTSD is higher than it ought to be if that were the case.

The best I can offer is that those of us who are capable of compassion
need to step and use our gifts.

"With The Legend of Zorro [...] Elena and Alejandro get divorced. They're Catholic and would have been married in church. Catholics couldn't get divorced in those days as there was no such thing as a civil ceremony."


Never noticed that before.



"Even if they had been able to get divorced, Elena couldn't have remarried while Alejandro was alive unless the marriage was annulled. So that's the whole film ruined."


She doesn't remarry. They're just "seeing each other".

I just found this video that almost redeems the StarWars prequels.

Basically, when you watch them, assume Padme and Obiwan are secret lovers. Then everything else makes more sense.

http://youtu.be/95JD0Y5CDfw









(except for Jar Jar)

It's true that Elena and Armand don't get married, but he is courting her and the implication is that he wants to marry her. No mention is made of Armand's religious beliefs, so he could be an atheist for all we know. He's more likely to be Catholic, which makes the whole set up even more unlikely.

'Titanic' (1997)
They spent millions on the CGI and resulted in a film which begins in a Southampton that looks absolutely nothing like the real Southampton. Kate Winslett was from Reading, a town only about an hour away on the train. It would only have cost her £10 for a return train ticket from Reading to Southampton back in the 1990s, so Kate could easily have popped down for a morning, filmed around Southampton for a bit and then gone back home in time for nammet.

But no, Mr Cameron couldn't be bothered to film in Southampton.

<BB<

Heh... Speaking of Titanic...

While I'm not a big fan of the film and its MANY historical errors that it propagates and reinforces, the main issue I have with it is purely cinematographic.


When Jack and Rose are down in steerage dancing, they're portrayed as spinning about each other by having each "dance" with the camera, holding on and spinning about it. Then it cuts back and forth between the two of them. I'm not sure why, probably because it's such a hackneyed and overused effect, but it just really takes me out of the story. All I can think about is how silly it must look on the set and how dizzy the camera operator is likely getting.

Possibly the reason James Cameron chose not to film in Southampton is that it had changed too much in the 80 years since Titanic sailed, or it would have taken to much effort to "remove" the modern bits, either by CGI or by masking/hiding them. Years ago some one on a different forum asked why Robin and Azim (Prince of Thieves) come ashore on a beach somewhere instead of in Dover. I didn't bother to reply.

It's probably harder to find films that are shot where they say they are than those that aren't.

They should have shot it in Portsmouth just to *really* annoy you

The 1984 film version of '1984' tried to film as much as they could in the same places and at the same time as the places and times mentioned in George Orwell's novel.

As for 'Titanic' - if you avoid the High Street and the areas with cars, a lot of Southampton hasn't changed that much in the last century – well, apart from the bits that got heavily bombed. There's still enough of the old mediæval port around that look the same as they did in 1912.

For Robin to come ashore at Sussex seems perfectly sensible – after all we don't know which port he left France from and when you cross the Channel there are several factors that can affect you, including tides, currents, the wind etc as water moves, particularly if you're only in a little boat. As he wasn't trying to get to Dover, he was trying to get to Nottingham it didn't really matter if he didn't get to Dover - why would he fight against the tide if he didn't need to?

However, travelling to Nottingham via Hadrian's Wall is just bizarre. (They did a little bit of location filming in Sherwood Forest for 'Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves' but most of the wooded bits were shot elsewhere. Curiously quite a few 'Robin Hood' films are filmed in Sherwood Forest, but the one in California so that probably doesn't really count).

<BB<

I still wanna know why Mel Gibson left the bridge out of the Battle of Sterling BRIDGE.

"(They did a little bit of location filming in Sherwood Forest for 'Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves'" [Bluebottle]

I didn't know there were any vestiges of Sherwood Forest left....

Sherwood Forest has a website:
http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/culture-leisure/country-parks/sherwood-forest
It says, 'The legendary stomping-ground of Robin Hood, this 450 acre country park is now part of the Sherwood Forest National Nature Reserve and home to… 900 veteran oak trees including England's Tree of the Year 2014, The Major Oak' - although the picture seems to show a lot of generic silver birches.

<BB<

I think I visited the Major Oak in '85.

Thanks.

I also sometimes wonder about Germany's Black Forest, though I've been reassured somewhat by "The hidden life trees," written by someone who can show you around the Black Forest.

The Battle of Stirling Bridge in Braveheart was filmed in Ireland, AFAIK. Apparently Mel Gibson checked out the actual location and decided that the bridge got in the way. A local guide told him that the English had had the same problem.