Question:
Hi folks
Has anyone heard (as I have) that Gibson has allegedly recorded a new commentary track for the new release (which I assume is the one with the soundtrack CD included)?
Can anyone confirm this?
And while we're on the subject, should I opt for the R1 over the R2? I know the R2 had the frame 'cropped' to reduce the violence (as opposed to outright cutting). But does the R1 actually have scenes (presumably battle footage) that are not in the R2?
Cheers
Buk
I can't stand this anti-English film. :nono:
'The Patriot' was the final kick in the ******** afaic.
How is it anti-English?
Have you seen it? The English get made out to be like Nazis. :oh-hum:
'Tis true - the anti-English vibe in the film is pretty strong at times.
As for the "new" DVD - it's just the old release with the soundtrack CD included with it.
I'm english and never found braveheart or patriot to be offensive. In fact the english have been right gits in the past!
don't want to sound like a narc, but it's generally frowned upon if someone is asking a technical question about a DVD, and gets opinions on the film itself... the thread ends up being about the complete opposite of what the poster intended :(
and to be extremely hypocritical... but i have to say it :rolleyes: how can a film be anti-english if it is simply representing the way the English were back then?? there was a point in time when they were sort of like Nazis.. what with their desire to own the whole world!! lol! would you complain about the representation of the English in a film like Ghandi??
to be honest i don't know too much about the british during Wallace's time, so maybe you have a point.. but at the end of the day i'm sure people like Gibson have nothing against the british, and have no desire whatsoever to paint them in a poor light.. i think some people are too quick to jump to negative comments the second a historical film experiences a slight artistic misgiving... Braveheart would have been a pretty boring film had there been no conflict for him to fight against... and if the film was really sooo anti-english and wrong then why did the UK allow the film to be even made on it's soil or even be shown in theatres here??
If anything we've benefitted from the film thanks to increased Scottish tourism and the like... :)
the film has little basis in historical reality, and are you seriously suggesting you get offended by the the potrayal of english royalty from 1000 years ago...or whenever it was? :D
The Scottish were actually just as brutal as the english (anyone watch that documentary "the real braveheart"? ) it's just the way people were back then...but even if it wasn't the case...it's a pretty rubbish reason for disliking a decent film :)
*according to the region comparison people http://www.bytesandbobs.com/dvdcompare/comparison.asp?T=406
both r1 and r2 were altered to get a desired rating...
Not to draw this thread more Off topic (sorry my fault in the first place). My main issues with both of these films is they are historically inacurate. Steeped in sentiment, and yes English are made out to be like Nazis. Clearly a generalisation that they have used as a cheap device to make a 'decent' film. Whilst telling the ignorant masses a blatant lie.
Surely Mel Gibson and Randall Wallace did not set out to tell the story exactly as it was all those years ago because I doubt it would have made that interesting a film. If you look at any film that is based on true events you will find that some of the story has been embroidered to make it more exciting even though the events you see on the screen actually never happened. Any one with a modicum of intelligence will realise that Wallace did not seduce Princess Isabella because she was actually about 12 at the time of Wallace's rebellion but Wallace's wife was murdered by the local magistrate, Wallace did win the battle of Stirling (okay there was no bridge in the film) and he did sack York. And yes he was hung, drawn and quartered by the English too. So yes, Braveheart may in some ways be historically innacurate but there are events in it that did occur as well and as a film I believe it succeeded in entertaining the audience.
Originally posted by The Karate Kid
Not to draw this thread more Off topic (sorry my fault in the first place). My main issues with both of these films is they are historically inacurate. Steeped in sentiment, and yes English are made out to be like Nazis. Clearly a generalisation that they have used as a cheap device to make a 'decent' film. Whilst telling the ignorant masses a blatant lie.
History is written by the the winners of any conflict. Always worth bearing that in mind...and looking at what the "other sides" history texts have to say.
At the end of the day the British Empire was a very sizable chunk of the world. You think they got that by acting nice?
Originally posted by DarkAvenger
Surely Mel Gibson and Randall Wallace did not set out to tell the story exactly as it was all those years ago because I doubt it would have made that interesting a film.
Your right.
William Wallace winning 1 fight mainly down to English lazyness and sending 1000's of Scots to their slaughter in the 2nd fight as a result of the 1st victory wouldnt sit so well in a film which clearly feels the need to label everything so black and white.
I liked the way that Wallace fleeing the battlefield leaving behind the men he took into battle was altered to Mr.Gibson heading off at full speed to chase down the fleeing high ranked English. Plus the fact that many of Wallace's fellow Scots dispised him for leading so many husbands and sons to their death and for fleeing the battle field like a coward. In the film Robert the Bruce simply betrays him for finacial gain, in reality the Scots helped turn him over to the English for being a coward.
Typical of so many films though. :( Am interesting point though, at the very beginning of the film, Robert the Bruce actually states, that the account of the story given in the film would be labeled as lies...so clearly they knew they were producing a story that was different to recorded accounts...
Who's to say what is truth and what is lies though?
Originally posted by jnms
Who's to say what is truth and what is lies though?
Historians. ;)
I don't mind Braveheart though, I just treat it like all Hollywood history based movies - IE a fictional film set it a real life period.
so someone please answer the question...
what is the deal with upcoming re-releases of this movie on DVD?
Originally posted by jnms
At the end of the day the British Empire was a very sizable chunk of the world. You think they got that by acting nice?
The film is set a long time before the days of the British Empire.
How can it have anything to do with the empire when Scotland was a fully paid up driving force behind its expansion anyway? One of the main motivations behind the Act of Union was Scotland's desire to be a part of this empire.
Scotland wanted to be a part of great britain.
Originally posted by philipn
The film is set a long time before the days of the British Empire.
How can it have anything to do with the empire when Scotland was a fully paid up driving force behind its expansion anyway? One of the main motivations behind the Act of Union was Scotland's desire to be a part of this empire.
Scotland wanted to be a part of great britain.
That was in 1707, and came after years of wars between England and Scotland. There was much brutal surpression of the Scots prior to the Act, and much after (the treatment of the soldiers in the Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745/6, the banning of traditional Scottish dress etc).
Braveheart is set at the end of the thirteenth century. Kind Edward "hammer of the scots" was a brutal son of a bitch and no mistake, who viciously surpressed the Scots and Irish but not exceptionally so for the brutal times. Braveheart is of course complete fanatsy, but I've no problem with it's portrayal of the English, since it stays true to our fine tradition of treating both our own people and other countries' like crap! (That said, I despise The Patriot, which does portray the English like Nazis without cause, and is also a damn awful movie.)
Agreed on all point Byron...you could tell even Mel thought Patriot was loosing its direction and grip on the audience by the fact that when Gibson settles the score on his son's death (and you no longer care about his cause anyway), they kill off the young girl (IIRC his other son's g/f) which seemed completely manipulative, to thrust some vengeful blood lust back into the audience.
Didn't work for me :oh-hum:
Folks
The fact is that Braveheart was based on accounts of Sir William Wallace as written down by Blind Harry the Minstrel some 200 years after Wallace's death.
Both Randall Wallace and, I believe, Mel Gibson, have acknowledged the fact that the film is based on Blind Harry's accounts. Over and above the indisputable facts of Wallace's life, Blind Harry 'filled in' or embellished his work with what basically amounts to folk tales.
Thus, the total 'fabrication' that is, for example, the Princess of Wales subplot.
Two key scenes in the film that seem to me to acknowledge this:
1) Gibson's opening speech to his countrymen before the Battle of Stirling, where Wallace is mentioned as being 7 feet tall, which Gibson -- being considerably less than 7 feet tall (the real Wallace was possibly a foot or more taller than Gibson) must make light of it by making mock of the fanciful stories that have already sprung up about his character during his lifetime (the 'lightning bolts from his arse' speech).
2) The scene towards the end of the film (post-Battle of Falkirk) where Wallace's legend is spread by word of mouth and becomes, I think, akin to the folk tales of Blind Harry's account -- openly acknowledged here by the film-makers.
As to getting ****** about some unfair portrayal of the English: they were an empire-building, war-mongering, vicious shower of ******** back then and since. And the Scots were and still are a silly tribal nation torn apart by internecine warfare and petty power squabbles, who also played their part in the British Empire.
It's history. Live with it, I say.
Braveheart is still a tremendously enjoyable film. And I applaud all involved for their achievement, Gibson highest of all.
Have at me, if you must
Cheers
Buk
HELLO - IT'S A FILM!!!
If you want history, go to a library...
Originally posted by GarethH
I'm english and never found braveheart or patriot to be offensive. In fact the english have been right gits in the past!
Well Said
:notworthy
http://homepage.eircom.net/~garryleavycomedian/Avalon.jpg
Has anyone heard (as I have) that Gibson has allegedly recorded a new commentary track for the new release (which I assume is the one with the soundtrack CD included)?
Can anyone confirm this?
And while we're on the subject, should I opt for the R1 over the R2? I know the R2 had the frame 'cropped' to reduce the violence (as opposed to outright cutting). But does the R1 actually have scenes (presumably battle footage) that are not in the R2?
Cheers
Buk
Answers:
I can't stand this anti-English film. :nono:
'The Patriot' was the final kick in the ******** afaic.
Answers:
How is it anti-English?
Answers:
Have you seen it? The English get made out to be like Nazis. :oh-hum:
Answers:
'Tis true - the anti-English vibe in the film is pretty strong at times.
As for the "new" DVD - it's just the old release with the soundtrack CD included with it.
Answers:
I'm english and never found braveheart or patriot to be offensive. In fact the english have been right gits in the past!
Answers:
don't want to sound like a narc, but it's generally frowned upon if someone is asking a technical question about a DVD, and gets opinions on the film itself... the thread ends up being about the complete opposite of what the poster intended :(
and to be extremely hypocritical... but i have to say it :rolleyes: how can a film be anti-english if it is simply representing the way the English were back then?? there was a point in time when they were sort of like Nazis.. what with their desire to own the whole world!! lol! would you complain about the representation of the English in a film like Ghandi??
to be honest i don't know too much about the british during Wallace's time, so maybe you have a point.. but at the end of the day i'm sure people like Gibson have nothing against the british, and have no desire whatsoever to paint them in a poor light.. i think some people are too quick to jump to negative comments the second a historical film experiences a slight artistic misgiving... Braveheart would have been a pretty boring film had there been no conflict for him to fight against... and if the film was really sooo anti-english and wrong then why did the UK allow the film to be even made on it's soil or even be shown in theatres here??
If anything we've benefitted from the film thanks to increased Scottish tourism and the like... :)
Answers:
the film has little basis in historical reality, and are you seriously suggesting you get offended by the the potrayal of english royalty from 1000 years ago...or whenever it was? :D
The Scottish were actually just as brutal as the english (anyone watch that documentary "the real braveheart"? ) it's just the way people were back then...but even if it wasn't the case...it's a pretty rubbish reason for disliking a decent film :)
*according to the region comparison people http://www.bytesandbobs.com/dvdcompare/comparison.asp?T=406
both r1 and r2 were altered to get a desired rating...
Answers:
Not to draw this thread more Off topic (sorry my fault in the first place). My main issues with both of these films is they are historically inacurate. Steeped in sentiment, and yes English are made out to be like Nazis. Clearly a generalisation that they have used as a cheap device to make a 'decent' film. Whilst telling the ignorant masses a blatant lie.
Answers:
Surely Mel Gibson and Randall Wallace did not set out to tell the story exactly as it was all those years ago because I doubt it would have made that interesting a film. If you look at any film that is based on true events you will find that some of the story has been embroidered to make it more exciting even though the events you see on the screen actually never happened. Any one with a modicum of intelligence will realise that Wallace did not seduce Princess Isabella because she was actually about 12 at the time of Wallace's rebellion but Wallace's wife was murdered by the local magistrate, Wallace did win the battle of Stirling (okay there was no bridge in the film) and he did sack York. And yes he was hung, drawn and quartered by the English too. So yes, Braveheart may in some ways be historically innacurate but there are events in it that did occur as well and as a film I believe it succeeded in entertaining the audience.
Answers:
Originally posted by The Karate Kid
Not to draw this thread more Off topic (sorry my fault in the first place). My main issues with both of these films is they are historically inacurate. Steeped in sentiment, and yes English are made out to be like Nazis. Clearly a generalisation that they have used as a cheap device to make a 'decent' film. Whilst telling the ignorant masses a blatant lie.
History is written by the the winners of any conflict. Always worth bearing that in mind...and looking at what the "other sides" history texts have to say.
At the end of the day the British Empire was a very sizable chunk of the world. You think they got that by acting nice?
Answers:
Originally posted by DarkAvenger
Surely Mel Gibson and Randall Wallace did not set out to tell the story exactly as it was all those years ago because I doubt it would have made that interesting a film.
Your right.
William Wallace winning 1 fight mainly down to English lazyness and sending 1000's of Scots to their slaughter in the 2nd fight as a result of the 1st victory wouldnt sit so well in a film which clearly feels the need to label everything so black and white.
I liked the way that Wallace fleeing the battlefield leaving behind the men he took into battle was altered to Mr.Gibson heading off at full speed to chase down the fleeing high ranked English. Plus the fact that many of Wallace's fellow Scots dispised him for leading so many husbands and sons to their death and for fleeing the battle field like a coward. In the film Robert the Bruce simply betrays him for finacial gain, in reality the Scots helped turn him over to the English for being a coward.
Answers:
Typical of so many films though. :( Am interesting point though, at the very beginning of the film, Robert the Bruce actually states, that the account of the story given in the film would be labeled as lies...so clearly they knew they were producing a story that was different to recorded accounts...
Who's to say what is truth and what is lies though?
Answers:
Originally posted by jnms
Who's to say what is truth and what is lies though?
Historians. ;)
I don't mind Braveheart though, I just treat it like all Hollywood history based movies - IE a fictional film set it a real life period.
Answers:
so someone please answer the question...
what is the deal with upcoming re-releases of this movie on DVD?
Answers:
Originally posted by jnms
At the end of the day the British Empire was a very sizable chunk of the world. You think they got that by acting nice?
The film is set a long time before the days of the British Empire.
How can it have anything to do with the empire when Scotland was a fully paid up driving force behind its expansion anyway? One of the main motivations behind the Act of Union was Scotland's desire to be a part of this empire.
Scotland wanted to be a part of great britain.
Answers:
Originally posted by philipn
The film is set a long time before the days of the British Empire.
How can it have anything to do with the empire when Scotland was a fully paid up driving force behind its expansion anyway? One of the main motivations behind the Act of Union was Scotland's desire to be a part of this empire.
Scotland wanted to be a part of great britain.
That was in 1707, and came after years of wars between England and Scotland. There was much brutal surpression of the Scots prior to the Act, and much after (the treatment of the soldiers in the Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745/6, the banning of traditional Scottish dress etc).
Braveheart is set at the end of the thirteenth century. Kind Edward "hammer of the scots" was a brutal son of a bitch and no mistake, who viciously surpressed the Scots and Irish but not exceptionally so for the brutal times. Braveheart is of course complete fanatsy, but I've no problem with it's portrayal of the English, since it stays true to our fine tradition of treating both our own people and other countries' like crap! (That said, I despise The Patriot, which does portray the English like Nazis without cause, and is also a damn awful movie.)
Answers:
Agreed on all point Byron...you could tell even Mel thought Patriot was loosing its direction and grip on the audience by the fact that when Gibson settles the score on his son's death (and you no longer care about his cause anyway), they kill off the young girl (IIRC his other son's g/f) which seemed completely manipulative, to thrust some vengeful blood lust back into the audience.
Didn't work for me :oh-hum:
Answers:
Folks
The fact is that Braveheart was based on accounts of Sir William Wallace as written down by Blind Harry the Minstrel some 200 years after Wallace's death.
Both Randall Wallace and, I believe, Mel Gibson, have acknowledged the fact that the film is based on Blind Harry's accounts. Over and above the indisputable facts of Wallace's life, Blind Harry 'filled in' or embellished his work with what basically amounts to folk tales.
Thus, the total 'fabrication' that is, for example, the Princess of Wales subplot.
Two key scenes in the film that seem to me to acknowledge this:
1) Gibson's opening speech to his countrymen before the Battle of Stirling, where Wallace is mentioned as being 7 feet tall, which Gibson -- being considerably less than 7 feet tall (the real Wallace was possibly a foot or more taller than Gibson) must make light of it by making mock of the fanciful stories that have already sprung up about his character during his lifetime (the 'lightning bolts from his arse' speech).
2) The scene towards the end of the film (post-Battle of Falkirk) where Wallace's legend is spread by word of mouth and becomes, I think, akin to the folk tales of Blind Harry's account -- openly acknowledged here by the film-makers.
As to getting ****** about some unfair portrayal of the English: they were an empire-building, war-mongering, vicious shower of ******** back then and since. And the Scots were and still are a silly tribal nation torn apart by internecine warfare and petty power squabbles, who also played their part in the British Empire.
It's history. Live with it, I say.
Braveheart is still a tremendously enjoyable film. And I applaud all involved for their achievement, Gibson highest of all.
Have at me, if you must
Cheers
Buk
Answers:
HELLO - IT'S A FILM!!!
If you want history, go to a library...
Answers:
Originally posted by GarethH
I'm english and never found braveheart or patriot to be offensive. In fact the english have been right gits in the past!
Well Said
:notworthy
http://homepage.eircom.net/~garryleavycomedian/Avalon.jpg
1 2