The official "Is this title coming on Blu-ray?" thread - Page 31 - Blu-ray Forum

miokti · 12-13-2007, 12:37 AM

i like braveheart... for me, it's a good enough movie to ignore the historical fallacies. i just consider it the same as "a knight's tale". i don't believe they were going for historical accuracy.

i like the acting. i like the action. i like the cinematography. i like sophie marceau. it's one of my favorite movies.

my beef with the movie is the editing. it's soooo inconsistent. there is a scene when wallace is running towards the english while pulling his sword out of it's scabbard; the next angle, he's holding a hammer; then an angle change later, he's holding the sword again. there is also an instance when they're being pepperede with arrows, where the same scene was used twice, within seconds of each other.

still, i'd pick it up in a heartbeat if it does come out on blu. if it comes out on DUD, i will spit on my hands, rub them on my chest and spin in circles while yelling "BLACK SPOT!!!".

UTVOL06 · 12-13-2007, 12:54 AM

I love this movie. Its one of my favorites.

kowhite · 12-13-2007, 12:55 AM

This is a Fox title in international territories.

Banjo · 12-13-2007, 12:57 AM

They announced a special edition for the DVD yet they didn't announce one for HD DVD. They did the same thing with Titanic.

The Shrike · 12-13-2007, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

One of the worst pictures of all time... Historical nonsense of the lowest order. The negatives should be burned lest future generations consider it to be a historical film

.

Oh come on! It's a true story about a little Australian fella who saved the Scottish! 100% factually accurate, and not one microsecond too long. 5 hours is the PERFECT length for a self indulgent vanity piece! And what about Mel getting his balls torn out for 20 minutes at the end! That's art. Kirsty, if that is your real name, you have no taste for true cinema.

Banjo · 12-13-2007, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Oh come on! It's a true story about a little Australian fella who saved the Scottish! 100% factually accurate, and not one microsecond too long. 5 hours is the PERFECT length for a self indulgent vanity piece! And what about Mel getting his balls torn out for 20 minutes at the end! That's art. Kirsty, if that is your real name, you have no taste for true cinema.

300 is 100% historically accurate. Yes, even these monstrous-looking fellas were for real.

jbebout · 12-13-2007, 01:22 AM

"FREEEEDOOOOOMMMM!!!" from HD-DVD.

cartman781 · 12-13-2007, 01:36 AM

I have seen a couple history channel specials showing that this movie is not all that accurate. The jist of the movie is true with a few Hollywood liberties. I still enjoy the movie though.

Marcusarilius · 12-13-2007, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

One of the worst pictures of all time... Historical nonsense of the lowest order. The negatives should be burned lest future generations consider it to be a historical film

.

When someone makes a documentry on Wallace, perhaps you should be the one to review it and let us know if there were any facts misconstrued. Then I can let you know that the negative should be burned to spare the bordom of future generations to come. I've always been amazed how the fact based veiwers seem to hate movies that were not historically acurate. So there were liberties taken for entertainment and movie construction value. Did you actually think the movie sucked so bad just because of historical inacuracies? Just think "Mc", (Scottish?) bringing to light the life of Wallace or Scottlands struggles with England would have remained in darkness, ignorance and the basic story lost in time if it were not for beefing up a story line for entertainment, which is what movies are. Any thoughts?

turboedguy · 12-13-2007, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcusarilius

When someone makes a documentry on Wallace, perhaps you should be the one to review it and let us know if there were any facts misconstrued. Then I can let you know that the negative should be burned to spare the bordom of future generations to come. I've always been amazed how the fact based veiwers seem to hate movies that were not historically acurate. So there were liberties taken for entertainment and movie construction value. Did you actually think the movie sucked so bad just because of historical inacuracies? Just think "Mc", (Scottish?) bringing to light the life of Wallace or Scottlands struggles with England would have remained in darkness, ignorance and the basic story lost in time if it were not for beefing up a story line for entertainment, which is what movies are. Any thoughts?

well said.

I think that makes the difference between a historical documintery, and a blockbuster film intended to profit from viewers who otherwise could not care less for the history lesson.

People who think they have a little knolage of the subject will nit-pick every detail until the entertainment value is overshadowed by historical inaccuracies. Why? Take it for what it is, a story BASED on a historical event/person glamorized for the publics entertainment, and profit. nothing more.

Marcusarilius · 12-13-2007, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turboedguy

well said.

I think that makes the difference between a historical documintery, and a blockbuster film intended to profit from viewers who otherwise could not care less for the history lesson.

People who think they have a little knolage of the subject will nit-pick every detail until the entertainment value is overshadowed by historical inaccuracies. Why? Take it for what it is, a story BASED on a historical event/person glamorized for the publics entertainment, and profit. nothing more.

Indubitably. The audience realizes in all of these types of films that liberties are added, but it does not take away from our hearts and minds being on the side of the main character(s) and his or her's life story. Take "Batman Begins" for example: I seriously dought that the real Batman used to drive on roof tops, but hey! It added a whole new dimension to the story line.

sj001 · 12-13-2007, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcusarilius

When someone makes a documentry on Wallace, perhaps you should be the one to review it and let us know if there were any facts misconstrued. Then I can let you know that the negative should be burned to spare the bordom of future generations to come. I've always been amazed how the fact based veiwers seem to hate movies that were not historically acurate. So there were liberties taken for entertainment and movie construction value. Did you actually think the movie sucked so bad just because of historical inacuracies? Just think "Mc", (Scottish?) bringing to light the life of Wallace or Scottlands struggles with England would have remained in darkness, ignorance and the basic story lost in time if it were not for beefing up a story line for entertainment, which is what movies are. Any thoughts?

I'd have to agree here, there are a ton of movies out there, that I know for fact are based on history. There are not entirely accurate, and they have taken liberties for entertainment value, almost all movies, based on a true story or not, or based on book have some deviations from the original. I think it was an amazing movie, and even knowing that it wasn't perfectly accurate, I still found it plenty inspiring.

Blu As Hell · 12-13-2007, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

One of the worst pictures of all time... Historical nonsense of the lowest order. The negatives should be burned lest future generations consider it to be a historical film

.

You look at movies for historical correctness? Don't do that please, you'll be disappointed everytime.

Brain Sturgeon · 12-13-2007, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcusarilius

Take "Batman Begins" for example: I seriously dought that the real Batman used to drive on roof tops, but hey! It added a whole new dimension to the story line.

Naw, that's crazy. The real Batman actually used public transportation.

Marcusarilius · 12-13-2007, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brain Sturgeon

Naw, that's crazy. The real Batman actually used public transportation.

Thats exactly my point. Thank you. I mean how exciting would it be seeing the Batman on the bus. The bus stops and lets people on and off while The Batman is waiting to get to 34th Street to stop a bank robbery? Booooring! So movie makers have to take a few liberties here and there. No big.

miokti · 12-13-2007, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcusarilius

Thats exactly my point. Thank you. I mean how exciting would it be seeing the Batman on the bus. The bus stops and lets people on and off while The Batman is waiting to get to 34th Street to stop a bank robbery? Booooring! So movie makers have to take a few liberties here and there. No big.

i have had serious doubts about the historical accuracy of batman... what's he doing using a cellphone to call alfred. it wasn't even an iphone. he's a frickin billionaire and he's using a brick phone?

Marcusarilius · 12-13-2007, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miokti

i have had serious doubts about the historical accuracy of batman... what's he doing using a cellphone to call alfred. it wasn't even an iphone. he's a frickin billionaire and he's using a brick phone?

Just part of his cover.

Banjo · 12-13-2007, 04:03 AM

Like how Steven Seagal can just shoot a couple bullets at an army-style helicopter and it'll blow up like an atomic bomb. That's a big liberty, I would say.

It's all there to make up for Steven Seagal's bad acting. I can't believe he's still making movies.

Banjo · 12-13-2007, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcusarilius

Just part of his cover.

Yep... gotta be discreet walking around in the public eye... unnoticed.

Though, he need to do something about these two pointy ears on the top of his head.

Marcusarilius · 12-13-2007, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banjo

Like how Steven Seagal can just shoot a couple bullets at an army-style helicopter and it'll blow up like an atomic bomb. That's a big liberty, I would say.

It's all there to make up for Steven Seagal's bad acting. I can't believe he's still making movies.

Dont tell me you are dissin the sea gull? One of the greatest hactors of our generation?

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
The Official "Help me pick a Blu-ray player" thread	Blu-ray Players and Recorders	wiki131wiki	925	05-23-2025 08:15 PM
Official "I've Got 300 on Blu-ray!" thread	Blu-ray Movies - North America	mikey3319	99	11-10-2018 06:17 PM
The "Is Lord of the Rings coming to Blu-ray?" thread	Newbie Discussion	phranctoast	574	10-26-2012 02:21 AM
The OFFICIAL Blu-Ray/Movie "WHAT IF" Thread	General Chat	Marcusarilius	21	02-12-2012 10:28 PM
Official title for "X-Files" sequel now revealed...	Movies	wnicholas76	12	04-25-2008 02:38 AM

12-13-2007, 12:37 AM	#601
miokti Expert Member Member since:Nov 2007 Location:San Diego, CA	i like braveheart... for me, it's a good enough movie to ignore the historical fallacies. i just consider it the same as "a knight's tale". i don't believe they were going for historical accuracy. i like the acting. i like the action. i like the cinematography. i like sophie marceau. it's one of my favorite movies. my beef with the movie is the editing. it's soooo inconsistent. there is a scene when wallace is running towards the english while pulling his sword out of it's scabbard; the next angle, he's holding a hammer; then an angle change later, he's holding the sword again. there is also an instance when they're being pepperede with arrows, where the same scene was used twice, within seconds of each other. still, i'd pick it up in a heartbeat if it does come out on blu. if it comes out on DUD, i will spit on my hands, rub them on my chest and spin in circles while yelling "BLACK SPOT!!!".

12-13-2007, 12:54 AM	#602
UTVOL06 Expert Member Member since:Oct 2007 Location:Georgia Home Theater Gallery:7 4K collection:245 Blu-ray collection:480 Blu-ray reviews:83	I love this movie. Its one of my favorites.

12-13-2007, 12:55 AM	#603
kowhite Active Member Member since:Aug 2007 4K collection:119 Blu-ray collection:727 DVD collection:3 Trading Score:65	This is a Fox title in international territories.

12-13-2007, 12:57 AM	#604
Banjo Blu-ray Guru Member since:Dec 2006 Location:Ontario, Canada Blu-ray collection:143	They announced a special edition for the DVD yet they didn't announce one for HD DVD. They did the same thing with Titanic.

12-13-2007, 01:22 AM	#607
jbebout Member Member since:Sep 2007	"FREEEEDOOOOOMMMM!!!" from HD-DVD.

12-13-2007, 01:36 AM	#608
cartman781 Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Sep 2007 Location:In a van down by the river Blu-ray collection:2074 DVD collection:257 Digital collection:18 Blu-ray reviews: 7 Trading Score:99	I have seen a couple history channel specials showing that this movie is not all that accurate. The jist of the movie is true with a few Hollywood liberties. I still enjoy the movie though.

12-13-2007, 04:03 AM	#618
Banjo Blu-ray Guru Member since:Dec 2006 Location:Ontario, Canada Blu-ray collection:143	Like how Steven Seagal can just shoot a couple bullets at an army-style helicopter and it'll blow up like an atomic bomb. That's a big liberty, I would say. It's all there to make up for Steven Seagal's bad acting. I can't believe he's still making movies.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals