Talk:Braveheart/Archive 3

message: I suggest changing the type of movie in the lead because it is more about the person than the period.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree; it's as much about one as it is about the other. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical vs. biographical 

message: I am challenging the total takings for this film because it's been reported several times that Braveheart and Titanic were the biggest takers in the 90's, also I'm sure I've seen several legit reports that the film took over 800 million. 91.107.137.215 (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide some citations that support that? Recent ones would be better. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Total Takings

message: I feel the section on the plot inappropriately discusses the historical background in addition to the events of the film.Coreyyeroc (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The 'Plot' Section

message: Not only did the film fail to accuarely depict the scene of the battle, but failed to name the commander of the English forces, John de Warenne, 7th Earl of Surrey. It is a grave ommission. IMO, a bit like making a film about Napoleon and failing to name the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo! Another thing, was Stephen based on a real historical Irishman or was he just a fictional character? These ommissions need to be addressed in the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is loosely based on a (bad) poem that was loosely based on historical events. Many of the events depicted in the film are entirely fictional. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So is every other historical figure based on poems. But just cause you don't like the fact that Wallace kicked the English invaders' asses, doesn't mean you can call the movie fictional.--94.187.96.34 (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Stirling Bridge

message: I realise this is the most controversial part of the article, but I think you could include primae noctis as an inaccuracy, as if you go to the Wiki aritcle on it, it makes it fairly clear (with sources) that it's a myth in general, let alone in the English-Scottish case. 144.32.126.12 (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies 

message: From the second paragraph: "Braveheart was later proved by historians to be 97% false. Murron or Isabelle never existed and william wallace didn't win the battle, the English did."
Style and content make me believe this sentence is vandalism. "97% inaccuracy"? What battle? Isabelle existed, but was around six years of age at that time. Spelling. --89.204.153.97 (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right.  The sentences in question were added a couple of hours ago and are now gone.  Thanks for catching it! Favonian (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: "Eventually, she and Wallace make love, after which she becomes pregnant."
 "Over the next seven years, Wallace goes into hiding and wages a protracted guerilla war against the English. In order to repay Mornay and Lochlan for their betrayals, Wallace brutally murders both men."
 "Isabelle has her own revenge on the now terminally ill Longshanks by quietly confessing to him that she is pregnant with another's child and that she will end Longshank's line and rule following his death."
I think the "over the next seven years" line is inaccurate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.199.4 (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seven years pass between Isabelle getting pregnant and Wallace being captured? 

message: Am I the only one who finds this a bit overdone: "epic historical drama war film"?  I think historical drama would cover it. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing no objection in the last two months, I have made this change. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 23:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genres in lede 

message: The other day, I deleted the trivia section, which was a lot of random fact about the real Wallace, mixed in with bits of information about the production.  Looking back through the article history, though, I noticed that this was the result of numerous, mostly anonymous, changes to the historical accuracy section, eventually leading to the bulk of that section being split off as a trivia section.  Some of that could be restored to the accuracy section, if it were properly cited.  Most of it, though, truly was trivial and not worthy of inclusion. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 15:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: While "Isabelle" is used most of the time, the character is twice referred to as Isabella, including the link to the page of the historical person.  Consistency or an explanation would be helpful. Dalton Imperial (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isabelle or Isabella? 

message: I have noticed no mention of the films totally inaccurate mention of King Edward as "a cruel pagan known as Edward the Longshanks".
Is this line still in the movie, or has it been edited out? If it still remains then I am very sure it deserves a mention in the historical accuracy section. After all, Longshanks was far, far from Pagan.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.172.103 (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently watched the film on Amazon and it was there. Regardless of whether he was a Pagan or not, the Scots would have definitely called him a Pagan and it's very clear that they are telling the story from the narration at the beginning and the end. I believe this also makes some of the criticisms about historicity and other things somewhat bunk as 300 featured the same storytelling device. 98.114.205.85 (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Perhaps a visit to dictionary.com is in order? A pagan doesn't have to mean they subscribe to pagan beliefs. One definition is "an irreligious or hedonistic person.". One could argue that fits. the other definition, however, would probably be best: "a person deemed savage or uncivilized and morally deficient". It would be easy to think that they felt a person who lured nobles into a trap with a lie and then killed them was savage or morally deficient. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagan King? 

message: The plot summary should be about what happens in the movie. If this contradicts with historical fact put that in a separate section. Targaryenspeak or forever remain  silent 21:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: * Braveheart (1995 film) → 
* Braveheart → 
– Mel Gibson's film has just, and without discussion, been "demoted" from its position as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I propose reverting this.  Much as I hate the film, it's significantly more notable than an obscure western from the 1920s and a forthcoming album. Favonian (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Revert now. The move can be discussed BEFORE it is done next time. Moving it without any discussion is a dick move.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

text: ** For technical reasons, the sequence of moves can't be reverted without the use of admin tools, and that tends to get frowned upon.  Not that I wasn't tempted! Favonian (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is stupid. One individual decides to do something like this and now it needs admin involvement. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: * "Stupid" is such a drastic word; we developers prefer "non-intuitive functionality". I am an admin, so I could overcome the obstacle, but Wikipedia being Wikipedia, I would probably be hauled off to ANI on a cart if I succumbed to that temptation. Favonian (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm not a developer...... :)  I asked an uninvolved admin to assist. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: How absurd and puerile is that?
* @ TheLou75, One assumes that I am "one of the two" that "... came out of nowhere to revert these edits in the past hour ..." so you take no account of the fact that I have made a dozen or more revisions here since August 23.
* @ Snowded, It seems that our both being Welsh is now a problem with our young American.
: -- Gareth Griffith-Jones  (GG-J's Talk) 08:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and sell him a Blues Season Ticket (in a different part of the ground) then he can join the cabal ----Snowded TALK 08:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  He'll have to prove a connection with Wales though.  Probably would find the game too rough for his delicate sensitivities.  __ Gareth Griffith-Jones  (GG-J's Talk) 09:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you all please stop the snide comments? This is not a topic with layman knowledge. It is one with specialty knowledge, so we should be able to point to a reference to discuss a certain point or to use similar language. We also have guidelines we can refer to at WP:FILMHIST. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Erik, I have no doubt of your sincere desire to improve this article, and I believe your talk page posts have been toward that end.  But, Lou's attitude has been combative from the start, and he has repeatedly implied that there is collusion going on between various editors in an attempt to prevent him from altering this article.  That kind of attitude and accusation is not helpful. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is collusion, but I think the reverts are too trigger-happy. This article is no gem, after all. I'm seeing this escalation taking place now when we could talk about specific items in the article. I'm indifferent to the wording about the portrayal of Isabella, but I wouldn't mind discussing other items. I removed the "Stone of Destiny" passage since I could not find anything about how the film related to it. Are we okay with that? What else can we explore? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a good move (removing the stone passage) ----Snowded TALK 21:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A conspiracy? 

message: All, I think it would be worth collaborating on the "Around the world" section to provide citations. I think that the best way to do this is to use Google Books Search and the keywords braveheart intitle:scotland (or more narrowly, braveheart tourism intitle:scotland). This will show books about Scotland that talk about how Braveheart attracted tourists. The very first result mentions studies by tourism agencies that reveal what percentage of tourists have seen the film. We can include content like this. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the O'Farrell statement in the article, In the 2007 humorous non-fictional historiography An Utterly Impartial History of Britain, author John O'Farrell notes that Braveheart could not have been more historically inaccurate, even if a "Plasticine dog" had been inserted in the film and the title changed to William Wallace and Gromit should be removed. We have far more reliable and serious-minded sources that can discuss the film's historical accuracy. This particular topic is not a place for content with a jokey tone. We can cover it far more credibly like with sources at the top of the talk page. What do others think? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Satire is a form of criticism and given that the film's historical accuracy is it self a joke I fail to see why it should not be included.  Having read the article for the first time it almost seems to be an apologia for the very loose approach to facts evidenced in the story line.  The execution scene at the end indicates that someone tried to work out what "hanging, drawing and quartering" was from the words rather than the literature.  ----Snowded TALK 03:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements needing citations

message: An edit war seems to have erupted over the issues discussed above, so I have protected the article for three days. Favonian (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article fully protected for three days 

message: Due to edit warring in the past week, I requested for the film article to be page protected. I have also notified editors at WT:FILM to get outside opinions. The disputed matter is the wording used in the "Portrayal of Isabella of France" section. I've outlined the different drafts below:
*Original wording: "In the film, prior to the Battle of Falkirk, Wallace is shown having an affair with Isabella of France. She later tells the king that she is pregnant, implying that her son, Edward III, was the product of the affair. In fact, Isabella was three years old and living in France at the time, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died." This wording was endorsed by TheOldJacobite, Gareth Griffith-Jones, and Snowded, and they reverted changes back to this preference.
*New wording: "In the film, prior to the Battle of Falkirk, Wallace is shown having an affair with Isabella of France. She later tells the king that she is pregnant, implying that her son, Edward III, was the product of the affair. In actuality, Isabella did not have an affair with Wallace as Isabella was three years old and living in France at the time, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died." This more detailed wording was endorsed by TheLou75 and BearMan998, and they reverted Gareth Griffith-Jones and Snowded to use this wording instead.
*Third wording (to get away from original two wordings): "In the film, prior to the Battle of Falkirk, Wallace is shown having an affair with Princess Isabella. She later tells the king that she is pregnant, implying that her son, Edward III, was the product of the affair. Commenting on this scene in The Guardian, historian Alex von Tunzelmann, said: 'This scene is set in 1304 or 5, when the real Isabella would have been nine years old. Accuracy on that point might have been a bit tasteless, but accuracy on the point that she was still living in France and didn't marry the Prince of Wales until three years after Wallace's death would have been fine.'" This was put together by TheOldJacobite here, but it was reverted by TheLou75 and BearMan998, who argued for talk page consensus first. Gareth Griffith-Jones and Snowded have reverted these two, endorsing TheOldJacobite's new draft.
*Fourth wording: "The film implies that the prince is unable to consummate his marriage to the French princess Isabella. It invents a fictional tryst between Wallace and Isabella in which the virile Wallace impregnates the virgin wife with a son, the future English king Edward III. Since the real Edward III was born seven years after Wallace's execution, and Isabella first came to England for her marriage three years after Wallace's death, this scenario may not gain wide currency among medieval historians. Such inventions grossly undermine the true complexities of colonization and resistance." This is a quote from the American Historical Review source that BearMan998 wants to use instead of the quote that TheOldJacobite chose.
There have been some other content disputes, but they are either resolved or put on the back burner in favor of contesting this particular issue. I personally have no strong feelings about the wording, especially since I can see the whole "Historical accuracy" section being rewritten if there is ever an effort to develop this article as a whole. Since this is an awfully narrow issue, would a straw poll suffice to go with a particular wording? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I am in favor of "In the film, prior to the Battle of Falkirk, Wallace is shown having an affair with Isabella of France. She later tells the king that she is pregnant, implying that her son, Edward III, was the product of the affair. In actuality, Isabella did not have an affair with Wallace as Isabella was three years old and living in France at the time, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died. Elizabeth Ewan writes in The American Historical Review that the film "invents a fictional tryst between Wallace and Isabella in which the virile Wallace impregnates the virgin wife with a son, the future English king Edward III. Since the real Edward III was born seven years after Wallace's execution, and Isabella first came to England for her marriage three years after Wallace's death, this scenario may not gain wide currency among medieval historians. Such inventions grossly undermine the true complexities of colonization and resistance.""' TheLou75 (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recap 

message: Braveheart did not win Best Film Editing at the Oscars, Apollo 13 did.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Oscar