"Revolutions can fail and still be called revolutions"
Yeah, but we're not looking at a failed revolution here. A revolution has to bring about a revolutionary change, simply to fit the definition. Failed revolutions fail to keep that change. Otherwise they're just riots. At least, that's my opinion. Eventually you just go down to the meaning of words, which is different for everyone.
Maybe it's commonly called that in America. It's known as Bloody Sunday here, although we get exam questions asking whether or not it could be considered a revolution.
Oh God don't get me started on Anatasia. A worse crime against history was never committed.
(Ok, that's a lie - Stalin's censoring efforts alone were so much worse, but you get my point.)
I haven't, no. It's the episode after next for me. But I doubt I would have noticed. I don't know. It was mentioned briefly in one of our classes (we studied Tudor politics, not religion), so I don't think I would have remembered.
But I notice stained glass all the time. When I was little I watched a documentary on the progress of stained glass (I thought it was pretty), so I have a vague idea of what it should look like in each era. One of the things that put me off Merlin, actually, was the stained glass. There is no way that in the Dark Ages stained glass would look that good and detailed.
Lol, well we call the actual day "Bloody Sunday" just that in the States as well--but the Revolution of 1905 was more than just one day of riots, more than just Bloody Sunday--to quote Wikipedia (and yes I know, but this is right given when I recall from history class), it was "wave of mass political and social unrest that spread through vast areas of the Russian Empire. Some of it was directed against the government, while some was undirected. It included terrorism, worker strikes, peasant unrest, and military mutinies"...AND "it led to the establishment of limited constitutional monarchy, the State Duma of the Russian Empire, the multi-party system, and the Russian Constitution of 1906"--those seem like some political changes to me, and pretty revolutionary in theory at least if not in practice. The important thing about revolutions is that they involve people fighting/protesting (political unrest) in favor of revolutionary ideas, fighting for change--like they did in Mexico, for instance, even though the status quo in the end barely changed at all, for the most part--but it was certainly full of Revolutionary ideas, and serious fighting and political and social unrest and turmoil, and most consider that to be a revolution. /shrug
Oh God don't get me started on Anastasia. A worse crime against history was never committed.
(Ok, that's a lie - Stalin's censoring efforts alone were so much worse, but you get my point.)
Lol, I do and I don't. I'm as big a history buff as any and have plenty of pet peeves, but I've never understood the big hate on for that wonderful movie--IT'S A FREAKING FICTIONAL FANTASY FFS! I mean, OH NOES THEY HAVE AN EVIL UNDEAD SORCERER IN IT, SO INACCURATE! (Now our children will think evil undead sorcerers and TALKING BATS and shit are TOTES REAL...let's take down Beauty and the Beast and Cinderella and Aladdin too while we're at it...) *rolleyes* If kids can't figure out that this isn't supposed to be an accurate representation of fact, if they think that Rasputin was JUST like that and everything IRL, well then they're pretty stupid and it's not the moviemakers' problem. If the kids like the story, then they'll read more and find out the truth themselves, or they will in school anyway. Frankly the truth was a little complex, and hard to boil down for purposes of a 90 minute cartoon--for instance, Nicholas II was a very loving and devoted father and husband, and a nice enough person outside of governing (at which he happened to be terrible, which is why it sucks that he was born into a system where he actually had real power), hard to get both that and his sucky governing across in a 5 minute scene though. I think that they did what they needed to do to make the movie work, and that it works very well for it.
To me a much greater crime against history is the movie "Elizabeth," which is about as inaccurate as "Anastasia" or worse, and yet, presents itself as actual history (and many more people think it is than they do a children's cartoon with talking bats and evil sorcerers). Sorry, I just really love that movie, and think it's stupid to criticize it historically and act like it's something it's so clearly not setting out to be.
But I doubt I would have noticed. I don't know. It was mentioned briefly in one of our classes (we studied Tudor politics, not religion), so I don't think I would have remembered.
Lol, Tudor politics and religion are pretty closely entwined, as you should recall, half of Tudor politics was about religion! ;) And in any case the whole "Jamestown was strictly kept Anglican and orthodox Church of England" stuff was more Stuart policy than Tudor anyway, the Tudors were all dead at that point...:)
I hate Anastasia because it's so typical for Hollywood/Disney (I forget whether Disney did it or not) to completely ignore the people's suffering and need for a fairer system and say that it was all the fault of a bad guy, instead of a flawed autocracy. Because they can't possibly say that anyone in power is ever wrong, and that communism might be a good idea.
I just don't like it because the truth is so much more exciting, and I think it could have been simplified for children. As it is, there are kids (and grown ups) that now think that Nicholas was a great guy and just a victim, which isn't true.
But you're right - Anastasia is written as a fairytale, and I get even more pissed off at films that pretend to be historical (*cough* The Other Boleyn Girl *cough*).
And no we studied government and things like that. Religion was mentioned, but we were looking at foreign and domestic policy, mostly. It was insanely boring.
(Lol my last comment was too long, so here's part 2!)
But I notice stained glass all the time. When I was little I watched a documentary on the progress of stained glass (I thought it was pretty), so I have a vague idea of what it should look like in each era. One of the things that put me off Merlin, actually, was the stained glass. There is no way that in the Dark Ages stained glass would look that good and detailed.
Lol, there's no way that that ENTIRE CASTLE PERIOD would exist in the Dark Ages, it's such a 16th/17th century castle, it's laughable! ;) Then there's the black "noble family" knights and New World tomatoes being thrown at Merlin. After the first episode I realized that nothing was going to be remotely historically accurate, and that I'd just have to treat it all like the purely fantasy world it was and remove history from it altogether to enjoy it! :p Believe me, "historical inaccuracies" in an unhistorical show like Merlin is the least of its problems....(shitty writing and character development and continuity--or lack thereof on the other hand...)
Yeah, but we're not looking at a failed revolution here. A revolution has to bring about a revolutionary change, simply to fit the definition. Failed revolutions fail to keep that change. Otherwise they're just riots. At least, that's my opinion. Eventually you just go down to the meaning of words, which is different for everyone.
Maybe it's commonly called that in America. It's known as Bloody Sunday here, although we get exam questions asking whether or not it could be considered a revolution.
Oh God don't get me started on Anatasia. A worse crime against history was never committed.
(Ok, that's a lie - Stalin's censoring efforts alone were so much worse, but you get my point.)
I haven't, no. It's the episode after next for me. But I doubt I would have noticed. I don't know. It was mentioned briefly in one of our classes (we studied Tudor politics, not religion), so I don't think I would have remembered.
But I notice stained glass all the time. When I was little I watched a documentary on the progress of stained glass (I thought it was pretty), so I have a vague idea of what it should look like in each era. One of the things that put me off Merlin, actually, was the stained glass. There is no way that in the Dark Ages stained glass would look that good and detailed.
Reply
Oh God don't get me started on Anastasia. A worse crime against history was never committed.
(Ok, that's a lie - Stalin's censoring efforts alone were so much worse, but you get my point.)
Lol, I do and I don't. I'm as big a history buff as any and have plenty of pet peeves, but I've never understood the big hate on for that wonderful movie--IT'S A FREAKING FICTIONAL FANTASY FFS! I mean, OH NOES THEY HAVE AN EVIL UNDEAD SORCERER IN IT, SO INACCURATE! (Now our children will think evil undead sorcerers and TALKING BATS and shit are TOTES REAL...let's take down Beauty and the Beast and Cinderella and Aladdin too while we're at it...) *rolleyes* If kids can't figure out that this isn't supposed to be an accurate representation of fact, if they think that Rasputin was JUST like that and everything IRL, well then they're pretty stupid and it's not the moviemakers' problem. If the kids like the story, then they'll read more and find out the truth themselves, or they will in school anyway. Frankly the truth was a little complex, and hard to boil down for purposes of a 90 minute cartoon--for instance, Nicholas II was a very loving and devoted father and husband, and a nice enough person outside of governing (at which he happened to be terrible, which is why it sucks that he was born into a system where he actually had real power), hard to get both that and his sucky governing across in a 5 minute scene though. I think that they did what they needed to do to make the movie work, and that it works very well for it.
To me a much greater crime against history is the movie "Elizabeth," which is about as inaccurate as "Anastasia" or worse, and yet, presents itself as actual history (and many more people think it is than they do a children's cartoon with talking bats and evil sorcerers). Sorry, I just really love that movie, and think it's stupid to criticize it historically and act like it's something it's so clearly not setting out to be.
But I doubt I would have noticed. I don't know. It was mentioned briefly in one of our classes (we studied Tudor politics, not religion), so I don't think I would have remembered.
Lol, Tudor politics and religion are pretty closely entwined, as you should recall, half of Tudor politics was about religion! ;) And in any case the whole "Jamestown was strictly kept Anglican and orthodox Church of England" stuff was more Stuart policy than Tudor anyway, the Tudors were all dead at that point...:)
Reply
I just don't like it because the truth is so much more exciting, and I think it could have been simplified for children. As it is, there are kids (and grown ups) that now think that Nicholas was a great guy and just a victim, which isn't true.
But you're right - Anastasia is written as a fairytale, and I get even more pissed off at films that pretend to be historical (*cough* The Other Boleyn Girl *cough*).
And no we studied government and things like that. Religion was mentioned, but we were looking at foreign and domestic policy, mostly. It was insanely boring.
Reply
But I notice stained glass all the time. When I was little I watched a documentary on the progress of stained glass (I thought it was pretty), so I have a vague idea of what it should look like in each era. One of the things that put me off Merlin, actually, was the stained glass. There is no way that in the Dark Ages stained glass would look that good and detailed.
Lol, there's no way that that ENTIRE CASTLE PERIOD would exist in the Dark Ages, it's such a 16th/17th century castle, it's laughable! ;) Then there's the black "noble family" knights and New World tomatoes being thrown at Merlin. After the first episode I realized that nothing was going to be remotely historically accurate, and that I'd just have to treat it all like the purely fantasy world it was and remove history from it altogether to enjoy it! :p Believe me, "historical inaccuracies" in an unhistorical show like Merlin is the least of its problems....(shitty writing and character development and continuity--or lack thereof on the other hand...)
Reply
Leave a comment