| One of the reasons I love the historical fiction genre is because you get the baseline history and learn of the era, but things are typically exaggerated for entertainment’s sake. If I wanted an exact representation of history, I’d just read through a history book and do proper research. I enjoy dramatic retellings, they’re fun and interesting, this series being a great example of that for me. The intention for the series being built upon the misconceptions people have had for this era and history behind heliocentrism makes it even more intriguing in my opinion. |
| I don't actually see the glaring inaccuracies. The way how Catholic church treated dissidents and said dissidents approach is actually kinda accurate. Even Copernicus was allowed to recant his statements, which he did, but still was researching heliocentrism in secret. But what actually is inexcusable is that Copernicus does not even make a cameo apperance in an anime/manga that is titled literally after his legendary and revolutionary work. Also, I was kinda bugged by what swords they are using, which should be sabre. |
 |
| Better yet: Don't read this and stop confusing reality with 2D things your monitor is showing you. ;) |
 |
Reply to mydaddy
@Merve2Love your missing the entire point of this post
| @mydaddy To take the post seriously I have to mix up actual historical events with a fictional story, made for entertainment purposes. Since Im not butthurt enough to confuse these two, or to let that hinder my fun, even.... I gave advice on how to solve this "problem" - aka responding to the Thread^^ |
|
Mackyreels said: persecuted that much but it still happened and the anime makes you think about it. Just because it's done less doesn't change the fact that it was done. |
 |
| Welp, some wannabe critics who made negative reviews certainly didn't read this thread and took fiction a little too serious |
Reply to Merve2Love
@mydaddy
To take the post seriously I have to mix up actual historical events with a fictional story, made for entertainment purposes.
Since Im not butthurt enough to confuse these two, or to let that hinder my fun, even.... I gave advice on how to solve this "problem" - aka responding to the Thread^^
To take the post seriously I have to mix up actual historical events with a fictional story, made for entertainment purposes.
Since Im not butthurt enough to confuse these two, or to let that hinder my fun, even.... I gave advice on how to solve this "problem" - aka responding to the Thread^^
| @Merve2Love Historical works do have some obligation to actually represent the history they are attempting to portray, unless you are going so into supernatural, fantasy, sci fi etc where it doesn't really matter. I mean it's pretty much the equivalent of bad world building in other works. In the case of recent Napoleon film, by ignoring history Scott literally created plot holes in his own biopic (how he represents Austerlitz) lol. If you are attempting to write a grounded historical drama, ignoring history, tends to almost always backfire in actually crafting the narrative. Actual events, are usually more interesting what whatever some writer can come up with. I mean even works I like, such as Vinland Saga the real Thorkell is more interesting that he caricature Yukimura creates out of him. Plus you may not correlate them, a lot of people do though. A lot of bad history comes out of terrible pop culture understandings of the topic. Though, I don't think authors/creators are beholden to that. Frankly it's fine to not always abide by it however, there needs to be a good narrative reason not to. Can't comment on this work though yet. |
BilboBaggins365Nov 1, 7:44 PM
Reply to BilboBaggins365
@Merve2Love Historical works do have some obligation to actually represent the history they are attempting to portray, unless you are going so into supernatural, fantasy, sci fi etc where it doesn't really matter.
I mean it's pretty much the equivalent of bad world building in other works. In the case of recent Napoleon film, by ignoring history Scott literally created plot holes in his own biopic (how he represents Austerlitz) lol. If you are attempting to write a grounded historical drama, ignoring history, tends to almost always backfire in actually crafting the narrative. Actual events, are usually more interesting what whatever some writer can come up with.
I mean even works I like, such as Vinland Saga the real Thorkell is more interesting that he caricature Yukimura creates out of him.
Plus you may not correlate them, a lot of people do though. A lot of bad history comes out of terrible pop culture understandings of the topic. Though, I don't think authors/creators are beholden to that. Frankly it's fine to not always abide by it however, there needs to be a good narrative reason not to. Can't comment on this work though yet.
I mean it's pretty much the equivalent of bad world building in other works. In the case of recent Napoleon film, by ignoring history Scott literally created plot holes in his own biopic (how he represents Austerlitz) lol. If you are attempting to write a grounded historical drama, ignoring history, tends to almost always backfire in actually crafting the narrative. Actual events, are usually more interesting what whatever some writer can come up with.
I mean even works I like, such as Vinland Saga the real Thorkell is more interesting that he caricature Yukimura creates out of him.
Plus you may not correlate them, a lot of people do though. A lot of bad history comes out of terrible pop culture understandings of the topic. Though, I don't think authors/creators are beholden to that. Frankly it's fine to not always abide by it however, there needs to be a good narrative reason not to. Can't comment on this work though yet.
BilboBaggins365 said: Historical works do have some obligation to actually represent the history they are attempting to portray No. No they don't. :) There is no obligation. Anime isn't owing you an accurate representation of anything, really. Nor should it be seen as educational or important to depict actual real Life incidents, in these Shows. It's entertainment. If you're talking about preference then you could have a point. Liking or disliking a bit more accurate/realistic storytelling when they focus on historical events is fine. But you're not entitled to "historical accuracy" from a Cartoon, made for Teenage-Boys. You shouldn't expect that and you certainly shouldn't be angry about this stuff. This isn't Schindlers List. Contrivance is expected and should/can be overlooked. |
Merve2LoveNov 2, 8:30 AM
|
Reply to FutoiOtaku
Mocchi_is_sexy said:
@FutoiOtaku The guy who condemned Galileo wa sthe same who did that to Giordano and he was really unpopular at the time. He isn't the catholic church. Giordano was persecuted for his heretic ideas because they weren't the sam eas Galileo's and others' scientific researches. Also, Galileo was adamant about his research because the Protestants were going full on witch hunting. the catholic church supported Galileo´s research.
@FutoiOtaku The guy who condemned Galileo wa sthe same who did that to Giordano and he was really unpopular at the time. He isn't the catholic church. Giordano was persecuted for his heretic ideas because they weren't the sam eas Galileo's and others' scientific researches. Also, Galileo was adamant about his research because the Protestants were going full on witch hunting. the catholic church supported Galileo´s research.
Looks like you enjoy history or are good at google, it’s hard to tell these days… But you’re right, the pope of the time was interested in understanding creation better and supported research. But sadly, he didn’t have much control over the inquisitors.
| @FutoiOtaku Really? https://www.britannica.com/biography/Giordano-Bruno/Final-years
What does Aristotelian mean here?
|
Reply to Merve2Love
BilboBaggins365 said:
Historical works do have some obligation to actually represent the history they are attempting to portray
Historical works do have some obligation to actually represent the history they are attempting to portray
No. No they don't. :)
There is no obligation. Anime isn't owing you an accurate representation of anything, really. Nor should it be seen as educational or important to depict actual real Life incidents, in these Shows. It's entertainment.
If you're talking about preference then you could have a point.
Liking or disliking a bit more accurate/realistic storytelling when they focus on historical events is fine.
But you're not entitled to "historical accuracy" from a Cartoon, made for Teenage-Boys. You shouldn't expect that and you certainly shouldn't be angry about this stuff.
This isn't Schindlers List.
Contrivance is expected and should/can be overlooked.
| @Merve2Love Well, it's actually a fact that the church at that time emphasized the geocentric view. It’s also a fact that the church punished Galileo and even burned Giordano Bruno alive (who extended heliocentrism to the stars). Likewise, it’s true that Abrahamic religions held that Earth was the center of the universe. This was not unusual given the time in which these religions were created. The problem now is that people who still believe in these religions try in every way to deny this, hoping to show that their beliefs don’t conflict with science. |
Reply to FutoiOtaku
@woodmann it gets more complicated than that, but a nice summing up of church protocol of the time and how it was applied is here:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-galileo-controversy#
https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-galileo-controversy#
| @FutoiOtaku Yep. The site catholic.com—that’s clearly trying to wiggle its way out of the church’s history—where past popes and high-ranking church officials were adamant about the geocentric universe, going as far as punishing and even executing scientists who pushed for heliocentrism and a pluralistic cosmos, is totally credible. They have zero conflict of interest, right? |
Reply to FutoiOtaku
Woodmann said:
@FutoiOtaku Yep. The site catholic.com—that’s clearly trying to wiggle its way out of the church’s history—where past popes and high-ranking church officials were adamant about the geocentric universe, going as far as punishing and even executing scientists who pushed for heliocentrism and a pluralistic cosmos, is totally credible. They have zero conflict of interest, right?
@FutoiOtaku Yep. The site catholic.com—that’s clearly trying to wiggle its way out of the church’s history—where past popes and high-ranking church officials were adamant about the geocentric universe, going as far as punishing and even executing scientists who pushed for heliocentrism and a pluralistic cosmos, is totally credible. They have zero conflict of interest, right?
Nobody’s wiggling out of anything, and I’m not a catholic or even Christian at all. I think any organisation has the right to defend itself against unfounded exaggeration generations after the fact. There’s a truth somewhere in the middle of all the arguments, but vilifying a religion above others when pretty much every religion has been guilty of oppression at some time in history is just not necessary. I realise in the woke world that governments are being pressured into paying compensation for historical wrongs done by people long dead to people who never suffered those wrongs, but the attitude of ‘catholics are bad because they may have done bad things before I was born’ annoys me.
| @FutoiOtaku This is the problem with some people: they think that religion is like race, something you’re stuck with for life. Religion is an idea, not an ethnicity. A person can stop believing in a particular religion. However, certain religious doctrines are unchangeable because they were established in "holy texts" written in ancient times. Many ancient understandings are wrong, like the idea of a geocentric universe or killing those deemed heretics or apostates (which still happens in some places today). Religions worsen this by claiming these ideas are the word of God, offering heaven as a reward for belief and threatening hell for disbelief. This is why so much harm has been caused by religion. Criticizing it shouldn't be restricted or labeled hate speech; it’s like accusing people who criticize the idea that lead is good for health of hate speech. |
WoodmannNov 2, 11:10 AM
Reply to Merve2Love
BilboBaggins365 said:
Historical works do have some obligation to actually represent the history they are attempting to portray
Historical works do have some obligation to actually represent the history they are attempting to portray
No. No they don't. :)
There is no obligation. Anime isn't owing you an accurate representation of anything, really. Nor should it be seen as educational or important to depict actual real Life incidents, in these Shows. It's entertainment.
If you're talking about preference then you could have a point.
Liking or disliking a bit more accurate/realistic storytelling when they focus on historical events is fine.
But you're not entitled to "historical accuracy" from a Cartoon, made for Teenage-Boys. You shouldn't expect that and you certainly shouldn't be angry about this stuff.
This isn't Schindlers List.
Contrivance is expected and should/can be overlooked.
| @Merve2Love You are basing this around your perspective and ignore that people do get their understanding from pop culture. Quite a few harmful historical narratives out there, have been given fire due to bad historical representations in media. This can lead to harmful conceptions of our past. There is a bit more moral responsibility there, in my opinion, than a simple fantasy, slice of life or fantastical historical work, that obviously plays loose and fast with the historical set dressing. If you are going to write a grounded historical drama or story, yes you do have an obligation to the actual history. But you're not entitled to "historical accuracy" from a Cartoon, made for Teenage-Boys. You shouldn't expect that and you certainly shouldn't be angry about this stuff. Who said I am entitled to anything? That's a weird assumption. Of course I am an entitled to nothing, as a simple consumer. Artists are the ones that have control of their works and their narratives. I wouldn't want anyone telling me to do with my own stuff either, though that is why it's private lol. This is a work of public consumption, people can have their own personal opinions on the matter and my opinion is that yeah you do have an obligation. If you ignore that, it almost always leads to a poorer work, and the historical setting becomes a hinderance rather than a benefit. If someone comes up and says I think artists aren't great if they do x, does that make me entitled? Entitled would be demanding the creator change his work, which is not what I am doing. As someone, who does take historical rigor more seriously, I just have yes a personal preference however, I also have a pet peeve, because lots of people do "educate themselves" about history largely through pop cultural narratives, rather than any actual academic rigor. This isn't Schindlers List. Did I say it was? I haven't seen this work, just saw the topic of interest and I was also interested in watching this show. I am just commenting in general when a creator does attempt to write a grounded historical drama, it almost is never (of course never doesn't mean never, I like Kingdom with it's insane fights) in their benefit to stray too much from the actual narrative or reality. You have to invent, when the history itself is quite interesting on its own. It's rare for the author to actually add something interesting that wasn't there. I mean at the end of the day, I probably will end up enjoying the work. I enjoyed VS, I am just saying whether minor or major, Yukimura making some of those changes in spite of history, like Thorkell's characterization I actually think made his work worse. Though on the flip side, making Thorfinn this edgy action character at the beginning was not a bad choice. You don't always have to play strict with history. It's just 9/10 times it's better to actually write a more faithful interpretation of that world, in my experience of consuming a lot of historical fiction and biopics, within this medium and mainly elsewhere. Finally, just because a work is intended for a teenage audience, or is intended to be more theatrical doesn't mean it can't also be educative. Rose of Versailles, (which also isn't perfect in it's historical accuracy) does still largely portray the figures somewhat correctly, along with the environment and events, and it benefited the story which led it to be a culturally important shojo manga/anime. |
BilboBaggins365Nov 3, 7:51 PM
Reply to flymango
BilboBaggins365 said:
@Merve2Love Historical works do have some obligation to actually represent the history they are attempting to portray, unless you are going so into supernatural, fantasy, sci fi etc where it doesn't really matter.
I mean it's pretty much the equivalent of bad world building in other works. In the case of recent Napoleon film, by ignoring history Scott literally created plot holes in his own biopic (how he represents Austerlitz) lol. If you are attempting to write a grounded historical drama, ignoring history, tends to almost always backfire in actually crafting the narrative. Actual events, are usually more interesting what whatever some writer can come up with.
I mean even works I like, such as Vinland Saga the real Thorkell is more interesting that he caricature Yukimura creates out of him.
Plus you may not correlate them, a lot of people do though. A lot of bad history comes out of terrible pop culture understandings of the topic. Though, I don't think authors/creators are beholden to that. Frankly it's fine to not always abide by it however, there needs to be a good narrative reason not to. Can't comment on this work though yet.
@Merve2Love Historical works do have some obligation to actually represent the history they are attempting to portray, unless you are going so into supernatural, fantasy, sci fi etc where it doesn't really matter.
I mean it's pretty much the equivalent of bad world building in other works. In the case of recent Napoleon film, by ignoring history Scott literally created plot holes in his own biopic (how he represents Austerlitz) lol. If you are attempting to write a grounded historical drama, ignoring history, tends to almost always backfire in actually crafting the narrative. Actual events, are usually more interesting what whatever some writer can come up with.
I mean even works I like, such as Vinland Saga the real Thorkell is more interesting that he caricature Yukimura creates out of him.
Plus you may not correlate them, a lot of people do though. A lot of bad history comes out of terrible pop culture understandings of the topic. Though, I don't think authors/creators are beholden to that. Frankly it's fine to not always abide by it however, there needs to be a good narrative reason not to. Can't comment on this work though yet.
I'd like to know your opinion of the fate series then. Just out of curiosity.
| @flymango I only read the prologue of Fate (I need to get it on steam and read the VN at some point), so can't comment too much however, Fate to me, is just simply contemporary fantasy. I really don't care when works like that play loose and dangerous with history because no one is taking Fate seriously. It's different if you are writing a historical biopic or something intended to be a grounded historical narrative. |
| It's not just this series - Every historical fiction work has to face the same barrage of criticism and complaints. And truthfully, as someone who's been passionate about study of various areas of history as a hobby for most of my life and am a fanatic stickler for accuracy in terms of getting to the conceivably closest proximate truth of the details of any given situation which is subject to historical debate or controversy, that's for real life investigative study - fiction shouldn't be burdened by such constraints, and thus I have always found the complaints on this topic pure nonsense and ultimately purposeless, to be frank. Fiction is not the realm of necessitating accuracy or truth in terms of fidelity to real-life accounts. Like, at all. If I wanted that - or rather, when I do, I can pick up a documentary or a history textbook. And those themselves often have enough ideological biases and omissions of convenience, twisting of even recent events to suit a political narrative or some established dogma, etc. to fill a lifetime of picking apart. Worrying and whining about entertainment media, which doesn't claim to be a literal factual account, when there are so many sources of misinformation and active disinformation in this world which falsely present themselves as standards and arbiters of truth and decency is such an exercise in ridiculousness. |
BilboBaggins365 said: @Merve2Love You are basing this around your perspective and ignore that people do get their understanding from pop culture. Quite a few harmful historical narratives out there, have been given fire due to bad historical representations in media. This can lead to harmful conceptions of our past. There is a bit more moral responsibility there, in my opinion, than a simple fantasy, slice of life or fantastical historical work, that obviously plays loose and fast with the historical set dressing. If you are going to write a grounded historical drama or story, yes you do have an obligation to the actual history. But you're not entitled to "historical accuracy" from a Cartoon, made for Teenage-Boys. You shouldn't expect that and you certainly shouldn't be angry about this stuff. Who said I am entitled to anything? That's a weird assumption. Of course I am an entitled to nothing, as a simple consumer. Artists are the ones that have control of their works and their narratives. I wouldn't want anyone telling me to do with my own stuff either, though that is why it's private lol. This is a work of public consumption, people can have their own personal opinions on the matter and my opinion is that yeah you do have an obligation. If you ignore that, it almost always leads to a poorer work, and the historical setting becomes a hinderance rather than a benefit. If someone comes up and says I think artists aren't great if they do x, does that make me entitled? Entitled would be demanding the creator change his work, which is not what I am doing. As someone, who does take historical rigor more seriously, I just have yes a personal preference however, I also have a pet peeve, because lots of people do "educate themselves" about history largely through pop cultural narratives, rather than any actual academic rigor. This isn't Schindlers List. Did I say it was? I haven't seen this work, just saw the topic of interest and I was also interested in watching this show. I am just commenting in general when a creator does attempt to write a grounded historical drama, it almost is never (of course never doesn't mean never, I like Kingdom with it's insane fights) in their benefit to stray too much from the actual narrative or reality. You have to invent, when the history itself is quite interesting on its own. It's rare for the author to actually add something interesting that wasn't there. I mean at the end of the day, I probably will end up enjoying the work. I enjoyed VS, I am just saying whether minor or major, Yukimura making some of those changes in spite of history, like Thorkell's characterization I actually think made his work worse. Though on the flip side, making Thorfinn this edgy action character at the beginning was not a bad choice. You don't always have to play strict with history. It's just 9/10 times it's better to actually write a more faithful interpretation of that world, in my experience of consuming a lot of historical fiction and biopics, within this medium and mainly elsewhere. Finally, just because a work is intended for a teenage audience, or is intended to be more theatrical doesn't mean it can't also be educative. Rose of Versailles, (which also isn't perfect in it's historical accuracy) does still largely portray the figures somewhat correctly, along with the environment and events, and it benefited the story which led it to be a culturally important shojo manga/anime. Hey.... I just watch this as some fun entertainment, for the evening. You thought it was a documentary, made for education purposes. Guess that's where we differ. Don't take this stuff too seriously. |
|
Reply to Merve2Love
BilboBaggins365 said:
@Merve2Love
You are basing this around your perspective and ignore that people do get their understanding from pop culture. Quite a few harmful historical narratives out there, have been given fire due to bad historical representations in media. This can lead to harmful conceptions of our past.
There is a bit more moral responsibility there, in my opinion, than a simple fantasy, slice of life or fantastical historical work, that obviously plays loose and fast with the historical set dressing.
If you are going to write a grounded historical drama or story, yes you do have an obligation to the actual history.
Who said I am entitled to anything? That's a weird assumption. Of course I am an entitled to nothing, as a simple consumer. Artists are the ones that have control of their works and their narratives. I wouldn't want anyone telling me to do with my own stuff either, though that is why it's private lol.
This is a work of public consumption, people can have their own personal opinions on the matter and my opinion is that yeah you do have an obligation. If you ignore that, it almost always leads to a poorer work, and the historical setting becomes a hinderance rather than a benefit.
If someone comes up and says I think artists aren't great if they do x, does that make me entitled? Entitled would be demanding the creator change his work, which is not what I am doing. As someone, who does take historical rigor more seriously, I just have yes a personal preference however, I also have a pet peeve, because lots of people do "educate themselves" about history largely through pop cultural narratives, rather than any actual academic rigor.
Did I say it was? I haven't seen this work, just saw the topic of interest and I was also interested in watching this show. I am just commenting in general when a creator does attempt to write a grounded historical drama, it almost is never (of course never doesn't mean never, I like Kingdom with it's insane fights) in their benefit to stray too much from the actual narrative or reality. You have to invent, when the history itself is quite interesting on its own. It's rare for the author to actually add something interesting that wasn't there.
I mean at the end of the day, I probably will end up enjoying the work. I enjoyed VS, I am just saying whether minor or major, Yukimura making some of those changes in spite of history, like Thorkell's characterization I actually think made his work worse. Though on the flip side, making Thorfinn this edgy action character at the beginning was not a bad choice. You don't always have to play strict with history. It's just 9/10 times it's better to actually write a more faithful interpretation of that world, in my experience of consuming a lot of historical fiction and biopics, within this medium and mainly elsewhere.
Finally, just because a work is intended for a teenage audience, or is intended to be more theatrical doesn't mean it can't also be educative. Rose of Versailles, (which also isn't perfect in it's historical accuracy) does still largely portray the figures somewhat correctly, along with the environment and events, and it benefited the story which led it to be a culturally important shojo manga/anime.
@Merve2Love
You are basing this around your perspective and ignore that people do get their understanding from pop culture. Quite a few harmful historical narratives out there, have been given fire due to bad historical representations in media. This can lead to harmful conceptions of our past.
There is a bit more moral responsibility there, in my opinion, than a simple fantasy, slice of life or fantastical historical work, that obviously plays loose and fast with the historical set dressing.
If you are going to write a grounded historical drama or story, yes you do have an obligation to the actual history.
But you're not entitled to "historical accuracy" from a Cartoon, made for Teenage-Boys. You shouldn't expect that and you certainly shouldn't be angry about this stuff.
Who said I am entitled to anything? That's a weird assumption. Of course I am an entitled to nothing, as a simple consumer. Artists are the ones that have control of their works and their narratives. I wouldn't want anyone telling me to do with my own stuff either, though that is why it's private lol.
This is a work of public consumption, people can have their own personal opinions on the matter and my opinion is that yeah you do have an obligation. If you ignore that, it almost always leads to a poorer work, and the historical setting becomes a hinderance rather than a benefit.
If someone comes up and says I think artists aren't great if they do x, does that make me entitled? Entitled would be demanding the creator change his work, which is not what I am doing. As someone, who does take historical rigor more seriously, I just have yes a personal preference however, I also have a pet peeve, because lots of people do "educate themselves" about history largely through pop cultural narratives, rather than any actual academic rigor.
This isn't Schindlers List.
Did I say it was? I haven't seen this work, just saw the topic of interest and I was also interested in watching this show. I am just commenting in general when a creator does attempt to write a grounded historical drama, it almost is never (of course never doesn't mean never, I like Kingdom with it's insane fights) in their benefit to stray too much from the actual narrative or reality. You have to invent, when the history itself is quite interesting on its own. It's rare for the author to actually add something interesting that wasn't there.
I mean at the end of the day, I probably will end up enjoying the work. I enjoyed VS, I am just saying whether minor or major, Yukimura making some of those changes in spite of history, like Thorkell's characterization I actually think made his work worse. Though on the flip side, making Thorfinn this edgy action character at the beginning was not a bad choice. You don't always have to play strict with history. It's just 9/10 times it's better to actually write a more faithful interpretation of that world, in my experience of consuming a lot of historical fiction and biopics, within this medium and mainly elsewhere.
Finally, just because a work is intended for a teenage audience, or is intended to be more theatrical doesn't mean it can't also be educative. Rose of Versailles, (which also isn't perfect in it's historical accuracy) does still largely portray the figures somewhat correctly, along with the environment and events, and it benefited the story which led it to be a culturally important shojo manga/anime.
Hey.... I just watch this as some fun entertainment, for the evening. You thought it was a documentary, made for education purposes.
Guess that's where we differ.
Don't take this stuff too seriously.
| @Merve2Love I mean if the goal is just to mischaracterize my words, go ahead, we don't have to have a conversatio, because you aren't talking to me you are talking to whatever straw man position you think I am arguing lol. Where did I. say historical shows need to be documentaries? I even conceded there can be inaccuracies if it suits the narrative. I just find in most cases, it doesn't, and the narratively the story would be better off if they just used history. Like Thorkell is a more interesting character, with more interesting situations than what Yukimura wrote. I am using that as an example of how through using history your writing can be more interesting as a result. History is shockingly entertaining, and it adds to the narrative. That is why people make stories featuring historic settings. |
Reply to BilboBaggins365
@Merve2Love I mean if the goal is just to mischaracterize my words, go ahead, we don't have to have a conversatio, because you aren't talking to me you are talking to whatever straw man position you think I am arguing lol.
Where did I. say historical shows need to be documentaries? I even conceded there can be inaccuracies if it suits the narrative. I just find in most cases, it doesn't, and the narratively the story would be better off if they just used history. Like Thorkell is a more interesting character, with more interesting situations than what Yukimura wrote. I am using that as an example of how through using history your writing can be more interesting as a result. History is shockingly entertaining, and it adds to the narrative. That is why people make stories featuring historic settings.
Where did I. say historical shows need to be documentaries? I even conceded there can be inaccuracies if it suits the narrative. I just find in most cases, it doesn't, and the narratively the story would be better off if they just used history. Like Thorkell is a more interesting character, with more interesting situations than what Yukimura wrote. I am using that as an example of how through using history your writing can be more interesting as a result. History is shockingly entertaining, and it adds to the narrative. That is why people make stories featuring historic settings.
| @BilboBaggins365 Nah. No positions or mischaracterization. Just my 2 Cents^^ You seem to loose yourself in semantics, when arguing. Repeating "Where did I say that?", clinging to very specific things, where I simply argue the point. That's why you feel misunderstood and "mischaracterized", I think. We mean the same thing - you take the stuff very seriously. You think it's important and educational. You think about the narrative and the historical accuracy and how it's connected. I acknowledged that, even if I don't share this perspective. Im less concerned. I think entertainment factor beats all. -> But since you didn't use the word "documentary" and I did, you get stuck on that, instead of having a discussion, you know^^ Same with the Schindlers List comparison. You can't get over the fact that YOU didn't mention the film specifically, but I brought it up as a point. So...let's just agree to disagree. |
Merve2LoveNov 4, 3:46 PM
|
| It's not everyone but some few but I know why they are crying about historical accuracy lol |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Chi. Chikyuu no Undou ni Tsuite Episode 7 Discussion ( 1 2 )Stark700 - Nov 9 |
77 |
by Mackyreels
»»
40 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Chi.: Chikyuu no Undou ni Tsuite Episode 5 Discussion ( 1 2 )Stark700 - Oct 26 |
78 |
by Mackyreels
»»
Today, 7:51 AM |
|
Poll: » Chi.: Chikyuu no Undou ni Tsuite Episode 1 Discussion ( 1 2 3 )KANLen09 - Oct 5 |
116 |
by Mackyreels
»»
Today, 5:20 AM |
|
Poll: » Chi. Chikyuu no Undou ni Tsuite Episode 9 Discussion ( 1 2 )Stark700 - Nov 23 |
57 |
by Mackyreels
»»
Today, 4:08 AM |
|
Poll: » Chi.: Chikyuu no Undou ni Tsuite Episode 4 Discussion ( 1 2 )Stark700 - Oct 19 |
83 |
by Mackyreels
»»
Today, 12:11 AM |