Braveheart

[Kyoto]

Is on telly tonight...In England....Why?

Its just another Mel Gibson hates the english full of true facts almost documentary film.

In fact I love it!

[menth0l]

Based on a true story!


lo Kyoto :}

[Marilyn Manson]

It's drivel.

[Kyoto]

Its full of lies, its poorly acted, and its blatent anti-english propaganda. So I have to ask the question- 'Why is it on English telly?'

Lo menth0l :]

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Kyoto
'Why is it on English telly?'

Because most people are stupid and like that sort of thing.

You could just as easily ask "Why are 90% of programmes on TV?"

[Kyoto]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Because most people are stupid and like that sort of thing.

You could just as easily ask "Why are 90% of programmes on TV?"

I write loads of stuff, accidentally hit the back button on my mouse go forward again and then its lost.

Great.

the gist of it was that the film is offensive in the extreme.
Sure I'm not going to watch it, but how many scots would like to have a film about how the jacobites raped half of england and jollywell deserved the bashing they got afterwards, so be happy it wasnt worse, screned on their telly?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Kyoto
the gist of it was that the film is offensive in the extreme.
Sure I'm not going to watch it, but how many scots would like to have a film about how the jacobites raped half of england and jollywell deserved the bashing they got afterwards, so be happy it wasnt worse, screned on their telly?

Errrr, I think you're getting a bit worked up over something that doesn't really require it.

There are plenty of films that rely on some sort of 'evil empire' as crucial to the plot. Just about every nationality going has been cast in the 'evil empire' role, based on some period of there history, which I think is fairly justifiable.

[Kyoto]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Errrr, I think you're getting a bit worked up over something that doesn't really require it.

There are plenty of films that rely on some sort of 'evil empire' as crucial to the plot. Just about every nationality going has been cast in the 'evil empire' role.

Just in the english speaking world its almost always us. And lets face it the are more than enough examples of it actually happening without having to make stuff up.

[ChubbyChecker]

Most people do not take history lessons from Hollywood movies and therefore do not care if a movie staring Mel Gibson is historically accurate or not.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Kyoto
Just in the english speaking world its almost always us.

Two very poor Mell Gibson films do not make it constant as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by Kyoto
And lets face it the are more than enough examples of it actually happening without having to make stuff up.

But fiction is usually better than the facts, at least, dramamtically.

[Nusselt]

shupp you norks, just enjoy the film. Movies are like real life, they dont have to be 100% accurate.

[Judge]

Crap film dont bother.

[JonnyBGood]

Probably because people will watch it, the network's ratings will get boosted and they'll be able to charge companies more money for showing their ads. Probably.

[Kyoto]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Probably because people will watch it, the network's ratings will get boosted and they'll be able to charge companies more money for showing their ads. Probably.

Nice theory, shame its the BBC.

[Perle]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Errrr, I think you're getting a bit worked up over something that doesn't really require it.

There are plenty of films that rely on some sort of 'evil empire' as crucial to the plot. Just about every nationality going has been cast in the 'evil empire' role, based on some period of there history, which I think is fairly justifiable.

well, in fact, you have been the evil empoire for a very long time.
you were the evil empire against the chinese, in india or against the american, the british empire has always been the evil empire.

I dont know why you are complaining.
England has always been the land that has exploited other people and other countries in a massive scale.

Braveheart may be full of historical inaccuracies , but you cant deny the fact that the english have brutally ruled over scotland and ireland for a very long time.

[ChubbyChecker]

Well, the Scots won in the end. After all the first king of Britain was a Scot.

[Deffeh]

find me even a half intelligent Scot that doesnt laugh their arse off at Braveheart. Americans pretending to be Scottish doesnt really give us a patriotic ego boost believe it or not.

Oh and its ****.

[MrBrick]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
It's drivel.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Perle
you were the evil empire against the chinese,

The other two are fair enough in their own bizzare ways, but this one is a bit silly, considering just about every imperial power of the 19th century was carving up China or being party to it.

Originally posted by Perle
the british empire has always been the evil empire.

'Was' is the operative word.

Originally posted by Perle
but you cant deny the fact that the english have brutally ruled over scotland and ireland for a very long time.

Not anymore. And Scotland has never exactly been suppressed to any comparable extent as Ireland has been.

And anyway, so? What about, say, The Russian's, German's, French and American's treatment of subject or native people's over time?

I don't understand why Britain was anymore 'evil' than any other imperial power; it was simply more successful.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Kyoto
Nice theory, shame its the BBC.

In that case they're showing it because they're a public tv station and Braveheart is a frequently asked for film. Plus they will get high viewing figures and everyone likes that!

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
Well, the Scots won in the end. After all the first king of Britain was a Scot.

Fairly limited success, considering The Stuarts were eventually ejected and never recovered the throne.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Perle
Braveheart may be full of historical inaccuracies , but you cant deny the fact that the english have brutally ruled over scotland and ireland for a very long time.

Actually until the 1916 rising the Irish weren't oppressed anymore than say the average Englishman.

[Perle]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
The other two are fair enough in their own bizzare ways, but this one is a bit silly, considering just about every imperial power of the 19th century was carving up China or being party to it.

your argument is a little bit silly. Just because everybody else did it doesne make the british behaviour any less evil.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson

Not anymore. And Scotland has never exactly been suppressed to any comparable extent as Ireland has been.

scotland was surpressed by england for a very long time .
you cannot deny that fact.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson

And anyway, so? What about, say, The Russian's, German's, French and American's treatment of subject or native people's over time?

I don't understand why Britain was anymore 'evil' than any other imperial power; it was simply more successful.

hey , i didnt say britain was more evil than other empires.
Its you who was complaining about how anti-english braveheart is.
If the algeriens would make a movie about how the french surpressed them , i doubt many frenchmen would go and complain about how anti-french the movie is.

its just fact. the english were the bad guys in that period.
and if you go and make a movie about a scottishher, its natural that the english have to be the bad guys.

In the movie ghandi, the English were also the bad guys. Not because of anti-english sentients, but because they really were the bad guys. And so were they in the patriot.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Perle
your argument is a little bit silly. Just because everybody else did it doesne make the british behaviour any less evil.

So how is Britian then eleavted up to a higher level of nastiness than the others, as you are constantly implying by banging on about with this 'Evil Empire' rhetoric? Compared to some of the other empires of the time, Britain was fairly benign.

Originally posted by Perle
scotland was surpressed by england for a very long time .
you cannot deny that fact.

I'm not. I just don't think it's any more relevant than going on about any other supression.

Originally posted by Perle
hey , i didnt say britain was more evil than other empires.
Its you who was complaining about how anti-english braveheart is.

No, I'm not actually. Did you actually read the thread?

Originally posted by Perle
scottishher,

!

[Rids]

You know the french bird he scores with in the film?

History says she could have been no older than 10 at the time.

William Wallace fiddles children.

All scots are kiddie fiddlers.

[KaneED]

Did you know that when Braveheart came out support for the SNP went up because the education system in Scotland is so bad as to make them believe that Braveheart really is a true story?


Shocking

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
Most people do not take history lessons from Hollywood movies and therefore do not care if a movie staring Mel Gibson is historically accurate or not.

really? I think an awful lot of people know so little about history, that they are prepared to actually believe what they see in these films.

[Deffeh]

Originally posted by KaneED
Did you know that when Braveheart came out support for the SNP went up because the education system in Scotland is so bad as to make them believe that Braveheart really is a true story?

You think your just having a comedy dig at Scotland and our education system, but you are actually closer to the truth than you realise.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
The British empire was certainly not benign

we may not have been perfect,but compared to other empires of the time we where pretty nice.

the thing that most annoys about Braveheart isn't so much the portrayal of the English as evil,but the scots as some freedom loving people who manage to beat the well drilled,seemingly proffesional English war machine by simply charging at us over flat and open ground and winning through sheer conviction in their cause.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Insane Badger
we may not have been perfect,but compared to other empires of the time we where pretty nice.

In someways, the Krays were quite nice guys compared to say, Ian Brady & Myra Hindley.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
In someways, the Krays were quite nice guys compared to say, Ian Brady & Myra Hindley.

you have to look at alot of it from historical perspective. we look at slavery now and realise that it is wrong, but back then they seriously didn't think that black people were capable of intelligence and so on... that their way was the best. We still see alot of these sorts of attitudes now, with the US insistance on imposing democracy on Iraq and whichever other "evil" power it can find. Granted the methods of imposing your rule onto others have become more refined now, but in many ways we are as bad as they ever were.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
In someways, the Krays were quite nice guys compared to say, Ian Brady & Myra Hindley.

if you where a little kid who's house would rather end up in though?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
you have to look at alot of it from historical perspective. we look at slavery now and realise that it is wrong, but back then they seriously didn't think that black people were capable of intelligence and so on... that their way was the best.

There were numerous people who thought slavery was wrong at the time (including the slaves, obviously). It wasn't like we invented morality at Woodstock.

Of course attitudes change over time (often influenced by changes in the means of production,etc.) but there is a long and distinguished tradition of people who think killing and enslaving people is a "bad thing".

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
There were numerous people who thought slavery was wrong at the time (including the slaves, obviously). It wasn't like we invented morality at Woodstock.

Of course attitudes change over time (often influenced by changes in the means of production,etc.) but there is a long and distinguished tradition of people who think killing and enslaving people is a "bad thing".

indeed, but it doesn't detract from my point that the prevailing morality didn't decry it, and alot of people thought that black people were undeveloped savages incapable of intelligent thought. Evil is only defined by the morality looking at it, so what we see as evil, they may not have. Just as now, American's don't see the way they treat the third world as evil, but hopefully in a few decades, they will.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
Evil is only defined by the morality looking at it, so what we see as evil, they may not have. Just as now, American's don't see the way they treat the third world as evil, but hopefully in a few decades, they will.

This is true, but I'm not sure it really gets us anywhere beyond saying "People generally don't go round doing something they think is wrong. They'll generally rationalise, if nothing else". Which I'm not sure is helpful, since it can be applied to the vast majority of atrocities throughout history.

If someone murders my family, I'm not really interested if he thought it was right, I'm going to want the bastard dead.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
This is true, but I'm not sure it really gets us anywhere beyond saying "People generally don't go round doing something they think is wrong. They'll generally rationalise, if nothing else". Which I'm not sure is helpful, since it can be applied to the vast majority of atrocities throughout history.

If someone murders my family, I'm not really interested if he thought it was right, I'm going to want the bastard dead.

indeed. I am not excusing them at all for their actions, which I believe were wrong, but tarring someone else as evil without looking at oneself is completely the wrong way to go about things. I am not saying that you have done this personally, but it is a mistake alot of people who claim that some empire/country is an evil one, make.

[ELeeming]

I very much doubt that there are any Scots who could find there arse with both hands who beleive the whole of Baveheart. On the other hand it is very, very entertaining seeing all the english men die in a messy way.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
The British empire was certainly not benign

Didn't say it was. I said in comparison to some others, even others that were around at the time, this notion of it being the chief imperial beast of all time is overated. What about Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and indeed Imperial Russia?

That isn't to mitigate imperialism as a whole, though.

[LHC]

Mel Gibson is a wanker.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
The British empire was certainly not benign

For an empire forged by aggressive expansionists, I think it did rather well.

[Dead_Meat]

Originally posted by Perle
If the algeriens would make a movie about how the french surpressed them , i doubt many frenchmen would go and complain about how anti-french the movie is.

Has anyone else noticed that the French have stopped complaining and seem to be going along with the 'winners' in this conflict.

This worries me somewhat, as last time they did this, the 'winners' at that point in history were the Germans, and they got just a little more than a slap on the wrist when the 'losers' came back.

If history repeats itself, Saddam is coming back with something big and nasty, and I for one don't want to be around when it happens.

[KaneED]

Whoever says the British Empire wasn't bad, read some history books.


Nearly all the world's modern crises, excluding South America and Northern Asia, are more or less results of British Colonialism and ****eness.


Those damn Brits piss me off.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Didn't say it was. I said in comparison to some others, even others that were around at the time, this notion of it being the chief imperial beast of all time is overated. What about Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and indeed Imperial Russia?

What the hell do Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany have to do with anything? Is this just Godwin's Law again?*

Anyway : I don't think anyone in this thread has said the British empire was the worst empire ever...which would be a silly claim anyway since there's no way of measuring, not much historical data in some cases, etc, etc.

Post 1 : Hey, why do they make films about the English being ****ty?

Post 2 : Probably because, at times, you have been.

Post 3 : Yeah, but we weren't the worst empire EVER.

Huh?

* = The domestic situation in Russia not withstanding in Russia 1917-1989, I'd argue that the British we're a worse "empire" (in terms of scale and scope of atrocitiy) than the Soviets - empire referring to treatment of foriegn powers, invasions, that kind of thing.

[MrL_JaKiri]

I think the issue is that it goes over the top.

'Hey, that Winston Churchill fellow wasn't very nice, I'm going to make a film about him EATING BABIES.'

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Anyway : I don't think anyone in this thread has said the British empire was the worst empire ever...

That Perle chap seemed to be saying so.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
The domestic situation in Russia not withstanding in Russia 1917-1989, I'd argue that the British we're a worse "empire" (in terms of scale and scope of atrocitiy) than the Soviets - empire referring to treatment of foriegn powers, invasions, that kind of thing.

In terms of how The Soviets treated subject nations and peoples - indeed, their own people, actually, as well - I'd argue they were much worse.

Not to mention the whole ethos of Bolshevism, which I would argue was much worse than Imperialism. The two combined were fairly lethal.

[Nusselt]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

'Hey, that Winston Churchill fellow wasn't very nice, I'm going to make a film about him EATING BABIES.'

didnt he gas some?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I think the issue is that it goes over the top.

It's peon entertainment. Of course it goes over the top. That's the whole point. It's vulgar by it's nature.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
That Perle chap seemed to be saying so.

Perhaps I am interpreting his posts differently, but I'm reading that he said "we" (i.e. the Brits) were an evil empire. Which seems fairly uncontronversial. For a time (up until WW2 arguably) we were "the evil empire" - in terms of domination (that is an issue of success of course, but it doesn't make his statement any less incorrect).

In terms of how The Soviets treated subject nations and peoples - indeed, their own people, actually, as well - I'd argue they were much worse.

Not to mention the whole ethos of Bolshevism, which I would argue was much worse than Imperialism. The two combined were fairly lethal.

Well, Imperialism is a very vague term - according to some over-excitable chaps Coca-Cola is imperialist, but if we take the core values of domination, exploitation and conquest I'd say this was worse than Bolshevism. (Stalinism is another matter) Perhaps you could elaborate.

As I said, the way the Soviet's treated "their own people" is undoubtedly worse than the way the British treated their own people (and in cases, worse than the way we treated our colonial subjects, although that varied).

Of course, comparing the way the British behaved (as #1 power for a considerable period) to the Soviets (invaded by pretty much everyone as soon as the state was formed) can lead us into a dodgy area.

However, the Soviets can be said to have committed three major imperialist crimes :
1. Treatment of non-Russian states inside USSR (e.g. Ukrainian famine) and non-Russian citizens inside USSR.
2. Invasion of Afghanistan
3. Supression of Eastern European states

Which admittedly is a pretty horrific catalogue, but I don't think compares to the British achievements. It can be argued this is a matter of scale, but that's kinda the point isn't it?

[Perle]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks


Of course, comparing the way the British behaved (as #1 power for a considerable period) to the Soviets (invaded by pretty much everyone as soon as the state was formed) can lead us into a dodgy area.

However, the Soviets can be said to have committed three major imperialist crimes :
1. Treatment of non-Russian states inside USSR (e.g. Ukrainian famine) and non-Russian citizens inside USSR.
2. Invasion of Afghanistan
3. Supression of Eastern European states

Which admittedly is a pretty horrific catalogue, but I don't think compares to the British achievements. It can be argued this is a matter of scale, but that's kinda the point isn't it?

you are right. It cannot be compared with the british and especially english achievements.


between 1618 and 1918 ( thats 300 years) , england was at war for 237 years:

10 wars for 73 years against france;

against Spain: 8 wars, 48 years;
agaist Holland: 7 wars, 36 years;
against Denmark: 6 wars, 23 years;
against russia: 4 wars, 7 years;
against germany: 4 wars, 17 years;
against China: 3 wars, 9 years;
against USA: 2 wars, 13 years;
against Sweden: 2 wars, 6 years;
against egypt: 2 wars, 2 years;
against Turkey: 2 wars, 3 years;

and this is not even counting the colonies where they met not much resistence.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Perle
you are right. It cannot be compared with the british and especially english achievements.

What are you blithering about?

The number of wars fought bears little relation to the behaviour of a society, especially over such a long time period; can you really compare the society of 1618 to that of 1918?