"Egregiously Misleading Historical Fiction"?

[Marcus]

The problem with a dramatically produced historical fiction series is that people come away simply believing that it is true...

Keep in mind this is a gullible person, who was taught from her youth to believe all things that she was told. People in general are not that easily taken in.

[Morley]

People in general are not that easily taken in.

Even though I get your point, I respectfully disagree.



Here in the US, we bought into the profile created for a reality TV personality--to the extent that we thought that he might make an okay president.

[Marcus]

People in general are not that easily taken in.

Even though I get your point, I respectfully disagree.

You're absolutely right, I forgot about the Idiocracy currently in place.

[malkie]

Clearly the time limits of the show do not allow for historical accuracy nor is there any obligation on the part of the producers to do so. In fact, many of them are of the opinion that they should start from a particular pov and make the show fit that view for consistency. As a presentation of all the facts is not possible, those chosen are those that best suit the ends of the movie. One producer, a Lloyd J. Backer has remarked that he has a difficult time with writers that idolize truth. "Somethings that are true are not very useful in a movie. Truth is not entertaining: it can destroy the story. Writers should only tell that part of the story that is valuable to the production."

I see what you did there!

Backer was quite a character, but I found that a lot of things he said, believing them to be true, were totally useless.

[Moksha]

One thing you've got to love about Mormons is that they see no irony when speaking about egregiously misleading historical fiction.

[drumdude]

[drumdude]

In other film news, it’s been amusing to watch how some of my critics, who like to describe me as “whining” about the hit Netflix miniseries American Primeval, try to defend it: I’m all upset that it’s historically inaccurate, they say, but it never claimed to be anything other than fiction. Anyway, it is historically accurate. And, anyhow, it’s not historically accurate, because it’s kinder to Brigham Young and the Latter-day Saints than they deserve: The Saints and their despotic, Stalinesque ruler were even more brutally violent than the too-gentle Netflix production shows them to have been.

I seem to remember a similar voice decrying criticism of shows when the critic himself hasn’t even viewed said show.

Give it a watch Dan! It’s a wonderful family home evening activity.

[Doctor Scratch]

Yeah, I am a bit surprised about his shrinking away from watching it. Heck, he used to invite Bill Hamblin over for FHE where they would screen anti-Mormon silent films. I guess he'd rather remain ignorant about this one? I don't think he watched Under the Banner of Heaven, either.

Ultimately, his complaints seems to center around the idea that people will watch the show and will wind up disliking Mormons, or thinking that Mormons in the 19th century were violent, or something like that. (I suspect that his main motivation is really just jealously of the show's success). I can't help but be reminded of that survey (the Pew Forum, perhaps?) that indicated that Mormons are among the most deeply disliked religious group in the US. Well, I hate to break it to the Afore, but I very much doubt that American Primeval will really have much impact one way or another on public opinion of Latter-day Saints. Nor do I think *his* movies will do much to resuscitate the Church's reputation.

To point out the obvious: perhaps the best thing he could do to help the Church's image would be to get off the Internet--shut down his blog, retire "Interpreter," etc. He himself has left such a colossal stain on the online landscape and he's done immeasurable harm to the Church's reputation on account of his bullying, snide mockery, and generally odious personality. Sure: maybe he's helped some of his most ardent "Fan-boys," but the reality is that his "corpus" of online work makes Mormons and Mormonism look very bad indeed. Anyone coming across his blog, "Interpreter," etc., is bound to come away with a negative impression of Mormonism and the LDS Church.

[drumdude]

Excellent points, Doctor Scratch.

It’s ironic watching DCP complain about inconsistent characterization of the historical accuracy of the show. DCP would abandon the tapir and other loan-word nonsense arguments as soon as evidence of pre-Colombian steel and horses is found.

There’s probably no other outlet like Interpreter that so readily weaves together hundreds of mutually contradictory arguments.

[I Have Questions]

Excellent points, Doctor Scratch.

It’s ironic watching DCP complain about inconsistent characterization of the historical accuracy of the show. DCP would abandon the tapir and other loan-word nonsense arguments as soon as evidence of pre-Colombian steel and horses is found.

There’s probably no other outlet like Interpreter that so readily weaves together hundreds of mutually contradictory arguments.

There is also irony in that he has recently disparaged critics of his own debacle of a film as being people who shouldn’t be listened to because they clearly haven’t seen the film or only saw it with the specific objective of finding fault and of subsequently leaving spurious critical reviews.

He’s nothing if not consistently inconsistent.