tweet(s) of the day

• 11:26 It may be time for me to reread "Sandman".
• 11:49 Alternate alternate history: tinyurl.com/lyl26k . "[M]ade-up and invented history is far less interesting than the actual history."
• 11:50 What are some of YOUR favorite historically accurate (and not) movies? I enjoy Jackson's "Elizabeth R" and Blanchett's "Elizabeth".
• 12:11 Historic context for fictional show: madmenfootnotes.com/ (the ~3 eps of MM I've seen so far = "historically acc. fiction I like").
• 14:46 RT @mightymur: When you realize you may have missed an opportunity, you shouldn't *headdesk*, you scramble to see if the door's closed.

Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter

alternate alternate history

Expanding on a Tweet from earlier in the day, I enjoyed this article from Tor books blog describing the liberties Hollywood takes with historic accuracy. I agree with the author that the real story is often more interesting than the watered down, simplified version movies give us, and I'm often frustrated with the cut corners, compressed timelines and/or modernization/"sexing up" that shows up in movies covering time periods I actually know something about.

At the same time, I think it's inevitable given that historic stories (rather like science fiction) are interesting to modern audiences primarily because of what they tell us about ourselves, and apart from the comparative few who know the historic context of any given film I'm aware that allowances must be made to tell a story modern audiences can relate to (this is in addition to any limitations set by budget, actors, 2 hour limit, etc.)

( deliberate anachronism )