Talk:Braveheart/Archive 2: 12/06 - 03/07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] lol, Best Makeup?

You got to love that blue.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.66 (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] "Longshanks would have to do the honors himself"

"In the beginning of the film, the narrator describes the marriage between King Edward II and the Princess by saying, "It was widely whispered that for the princess to conceive, Longshanks would have to do the honors himself." Although the marriage between Edward II and wife was not a good one, it produced four children." Edward II also fathered a number of illegitimate children.

I think whoever wrote this part is misinterpreting the message. Here,it is written as if the narrator meant to say that Edward II was impotent. I think its just an allusion to Edward II's homosexuality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashmole (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Not necessarily, but it does imply that EDward II did not have any children.--Jack Upland 23:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
we should stick to the substance of the movie, though. If we can find substantive arguments in the form of reviews, we can address that in an future Inaccuracies section. First the synopsis of the plot needs to get trimmed a bunch, then we can tighten up the language and deal with stuff outside the film. :) Arcayne 23:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request a locking

Can anyone lock this article? I just fixed about three vandalisings in five minutes!--JesseOjala 12:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Locking it down now would prevent us from fixing the article. When you see vandalism, revert it, let the person know they cannot do that. If you see they have a lot of vandalism posts in their talk, report them to vandalism, so they can be dealt with on a more permanent basis, by blocking their IP address or breaking their kneecaps (okay, maybe not that last one). Arcayne 23:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What Needs Work

I've rearranged the headers to something a bit more in keeping with articles on the WP:GA and WP:FA lists. Feel free to check out some exampoles, to get a feel for what we are all foing to be working towards. I've also rearranged the Discussion lists a bit, archiving discussions prior to December, 2006 (the posts before that were in June, 2006). Some duplication of topics is bound to occur, so it would be helpful to discuss big changes here before adding them to the article. If you think you are going to encounter resistance to the changes, try to find some concensus with the rest of the folk editing, so we can avoid a lot of the nonsense that seems to occur elsewhere. The way I see it, we need work in practically every area, but first and foremost, we need to tighten up and trim the plot significantly. As well, we need to find and add reviews of the film, perhaps developing the Production and the new Themes header. I am sure there is more, and I hope folk will pipe up and add your 2p. worth.Arcayne 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the list of inaccuracies should be in chronological order (as they appear in the film).--Jack Upland 23:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
That seems pretty reasonable. Also, I am thinking that if some of them are related inaccuracies, we can combine them. I forsee a time when we, rather than listing them, it is arranged in paragraph form.Arcayne 23:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Inaccuracies

...of which there are many need to be cited. As it is, the section looks very much like a trivia section, which are not present in most FA articles. I am going to remove uncited instances of historical innacuracies to here. When they are properly cited, they should be included back into the article.Arcayne 19:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(moved from the Article pending citation)

[edit] Innaccuracies

(re-added to article)

* Braveheart's plot includes an affair between William Wallace and the Princess Isabelle, based upon Isabella of France. The film implies she is pregnant at the time of Wallace's execution, carrying the future Edward III of England. Historically, the real Isabella was a child of nine still living in France at this time, meaning she never met Wallace, and furthermore, was never a Princess of Wales, as she married Edward II after he became king - four years after Wallace's death. This idea may have been derived from the play The Wallace by Sydney Goodsir Smith, or it may be derived from a fictional episode in Blind Harry's poem, where Marguerite of France, second wife of Edward I, attempts to seduce Wallace.

# The Battle of Stirling Bridge, the first skirmish in the film, was filmed without a bridge. Far from being an ambush, the English army was well aware of the location opf the Scottish army, in fact they were activley seeking battle with the Scots - which is why they were at Stirling in the first place.>

# The film depicts Edward I dying at the same time as Wallace was executed. In fact, Wallace's execution took place in 1305, in Westminster, and King Edward died in 1307, two years later, en route to put down another rising of the Scots, led by Robert the Bruce.

* Edward III of England was born in 1312, seven years after Wallace's death; thus it is impossible for Edward III to have been Wallace's son.

# The opening juxtaposition of the line "The King of Scotland had died without a son" and the caption "Scotland, 1280" is inaccurate: Alexander III did not die until 1286, and the country was not immediately taken over.

(Remaining to be confirmed through citation)

  1. The English soldiers before and at Stirling are seen to be wearing the red-and-gold livery of the king of England; in reality troops did not yet wear 'national' colours, not, in general, the 'liveries' of great lords. It is not the case that they were 'Surrey's' troops, he was their commander.
  2. (It is rumoured that Gibson told a Scottish local the bridge was removed as it got in the way, and the local replied "that's what the English found" [1].) The fight shown in the film is not remotely like the Battle of Bannockburn or any other Scoto-English battle of the middle ages.
  3. The film also makes no mention of Andrew de Moray, Wallace's companion-in-arms and a major contributor at this battle, although it mentions a nobleman named "Mornay" who betrays Wallace at Falkirk and is later killed by him. If this was supposed to be Andrew de Moray it is in error - Moray died of wounds after the Battle of Stirling Bridge.)
  4. Edward I's second wife, Margaret, whom he married in 1299, is absent from the film, although the span of history covered in the production includes this year. This implies his first wife Eleanor of Castile was his only spouse.
  1. There is absolutely no controversy among medieval historians about whether the jus prima noctis (also known as the droit de seigneur), the supposed right of a Lord to deflower virgins in his territory ever existed, but it certainly never existed in either England or Scotland at that time. It is most likely a fabrication of the "Enlightenment" period or of Victorian romance.
  2. The evidence is strongly agiainst the possibility that Wallace had a wife. As a candidate for the priesthood (according to Bower and Blind Harry) he could not have been able to amrry. According to much later Scottish romances her name was Marion Braidfute.
  3. The then-future King Robert the Bruce is described as "Earl of Bruce", but his title at the time was Earl of Carrick; Carrick was a Gaelic-speaking province in south-west Scotland, and Bruce (more accurately "de Brus") was Robert I's family name, of Norman origin.
  4. Braveheart suggests Wallace supported the Bruce claim to the Scottish throne; however, Wallace supported the Balliol claim while Bruce was convinced of his grandfather's rightful succession.
  5. Bruce did not betray Wallace at Falkirk. He did eventually switch sides but this was a few years later and as a result of a dispute with the Comyn family (not depicted in the film) who supported the Balliol claim to the throne (as had Wallace himself). The Scottish war effort collapsed a few years later because of the defeat of their French allies by the Flemish at the Battle of the Golden Spurs in 1302. Wallace was hunted down when the Scots were forced to surrender in 1305.
  6. The film depicts Edward I defenestrating a friend and (implied) lover of Edward, the Prince of Wales. There is no record of Edward ever killing or harming his son's favorites, though one, Gaveston, was exiled twice.
  7. At the end of the film it shows what is implied to be the beginning of the Battle of Bannockburn, but it also implies that Bruce only decided to fight the English at that stage, in fact he had already been fighting a perfectly convenmtional campaign for eight years.
  8. prima nocte was not in actual practice
  9. Blue facial war paint was not used by the Scots
    • The film shows Wallace as a man of average height but in reality he was acctually around 6"foot 2"inches, when in the 13th century the average height would have been around 5"foot 4-6"inches.
The ones with links to other wikipedia articles that corroborate them should be kept in though, like Edward III's birth, and similar ones --AW 19:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, so long as the sentences that the Wiki-links appear in don't make uncited claims. For example, one of the last numbered inaccuracies have a Wikilink for "York", but the remainder of the notation requires citation.Arcayne 19:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll add some back if you want to check shortly --AW 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You understand what I mean about citing the material, right? I've noted you've added the points I removed from the article, and ported over here until it could be cited. Check out WP:CITE. What we need to have is verified references for the things like the Battle of Stirling. Check out some of the Featured film articles WP:FA#media, and see how they handle inaccuracies and the like. I am not trying to talk down to you (and if it is coming across like that, I am sorry). I am going to remove those inaccuracies without proper citation. After we cite it, we can put it back into the article.Arcayne 04:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Some of the stuff is obvious though, like "Edward III of England was born in 1312, seven years after Wallace's death; thus it is impossible for Edward III to have been Wallace's son." If you go to the page for Edward III, it says he was born in 1312. Wallace died in 1305, thus to me this one is fine --AW 23:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem with the phrasing (stating that something is "impossible" is seen as OR - even if it is patently so), but many of the other inaccuracies need confirmation, citable through an outside source.Arcayne 05:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we can also add most of 1 (except the "curiously..." sentence) 4, and 10, since those also deal with dates --AW 06:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. However, I am looking over the list, and I think that using bulletpoints as opposed to numbering would be smoother, I think. Go ahead and add 1,4 and 10 in, and we can tweak the language to make it more neutral.Arcayne 09:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Will do --AW 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Accuracies

I have removed the Historical Accuracy section to here for two reasons. First, there is well-written information here. I am not simply going to revert/purge it. Secondly, good writing aside, this looks like almost entirely Original Research (WP:OR). Our own opinions do exist, but it is our job as contributors as editors to not inject ourselves into the article. Every fact - every single fact - needs to be cited and referenced. The only thing that is different from this entire process is the writing of the Lead paragraph(s) and the observatinal writing of the story in the Plot Synopsis. Everything else must be cited. If we can cite the information posted below, the it can go back in. If not, it cannot remain in the article. If someone wants to talk about this, I'm all ears (except for the next few hrs, as I will be off running for a few hours).

[edit] Historical Accuracy

Braveheart draws inspiration from real historical events as related by the myth poem The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace, Knight of Elderslie by Blind Harry. However, due to the intense level of detail in costuming, makeup, and special effects, audiences may incorrectly assume that the production is intended to be historically accurate. Some of the "inaccuracies" in Braveheart may have been motivated by artistic reasons. The anachronistic kilts worn by the Scots make the rebels more visually distinctive, the incomplete armor and missing helmets allow viewers to recognize the actors, and changes to characters and names make the story easier to follow. Modifications to the sequence of events create dramatic juxtapositions, allowing different lines in the story to appear to occur simultaneously. Gibson, in his DVD commentary to the film, admits many of these historical inaccuracies quite candidly, such as:

However, for a film of its kind, Braveheart is still unspeakably inaccurate. The English did not, so far as history knows, kill Wallace's wife - as a candidate for the priesthood he not have one, He, along with many others, did lead a rising against them, but he was not captured and executed until more that a year afer the collapse of that rising. . The most inaccurate element of the movie is the chronology. Longshanks outlived William Wallace by a few years. The princess of Wales was actually born several years before Wallace's death, so the love story between the two never occured. However, her dislike of Edward II was accurate, and she eventually removed him from the throne in an attempt to sieze power with her lover. The portrayal of Edward I "Lonkshanks" is controversial. There is no question that from a Scot's perspective, as well as that of the Irish, Longshanks was a tyrant and a villain, a feeling that is certainly justified. He did manage take over Scotland betweeen February 1304 and March 1306, and was sometimes brutal in the treatment of the natives. It must be remembered that, despite today's United Kingdom, in medieval times, Scotland and England were two entirely separate nations, so Longshanks had absolutely no right to rule Scotland. Whether he was as overall a depraved person as the film portrays him is debatable.

By far the most important debate over Braveheart's accuracy is about the role of Robert the Bruce VII. Wallace was actually a supporter of John Balliol, and they state in the movie that the Wallace family were traditional supporters of Balliol. During Wallace's lifetime in the movie, his relationship with the Bruce is quite conflicted, as it would have probably really been. Nonetheless, it is well known that Robert the Bruce led the Scots to their freedom at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, and it is quite possible that he would have been inspired by the rebellion of Wallace, and would have probably had many of the same warriors that Wallace had fought with. The deeds of the Irish in the movie are totally invented, possibly motivated by the modern day romantic notions of Celtic unity. In 1316, Robert the Bruce invaded Ireland, a move much welcomed by the Irish in the north, who were at that time under English control, and this was seen by both the Irish and Bruce himself as an attempt to free Ireland. This was successful to a certain extent, though he had little support in the south of Ireland, despite his Northern popularity.

Arcayne 19:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What still needs work

Most of the sections are pretty bloated, with little in the way of citation (WP:CITE, WP:ATT). Specifically, the Plot Synopsis is too long by far, and the Wallace Monument section, while noteworthy, is in danger of being removed by an editor for not having any citations. What do you folks think also needs work?Arcayne 00:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed down the plot synopsis some, but it hovers at about 1500 words (it needs to be at 900 words or less). Arcayne 14:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wallace's height

The article gives his height as 6'2" but I wonder if this actually known or what. 70.54.126.197 22:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I keep going over that part in the inaccuracies section, and I keep wanting to remove it as inconsequential. I truly don't think it matters, even if Wallace was a big man. The film doesn't focsu upon that, but rather the path he cut for the Scots. Arcayne 22:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary

Is the plot summary of 13 paragraphs (a) too short (b) too long (c) just right? Bigturtle 02:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, look at the word count. We should be aiming for around 900 words. We are at close to 1500. Look at paragraphs like Acts in a play, or scenes requiring major scenery change. lol. Kidding aside, it could stand to have a lot more trimmed down, paraphrasing and condensing material. Remember that the is a Wikiquote area for those nifty bits of dialogue, so don't be afraid to bump them in order to provide a bir'd eye view of what happens. Arcayne 00:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)