Leave a comment

Comments 11

(The comment has been removed)

delta_mai November 12 2010, 15:15:44 UTC
Tell me about it - SPN INFURIATED me with their pagan gods episode. It's just so WRONG and INSULTING to those that know and love the pagan gods (none of them are people-eaters, really). Grrr...

SPN is just so wrong anyway sometimes! That pissed me off too :P

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

delta_mai November 12 2010, 16:21:01 UTC
Wow! Can you email them to me - I want to complain to the writers ( ... )

Reply


noybusiness November 12 2010, 23:26:47 UTC
I wondered what she could have done to start the revolution, but I guessed it was just alternate history. After all, a spaceship didn't crash into Big Ben in 2005, either. But that SPN stuff is egregious.

Reply

delta_mai November 13 2010, 13:58:08 UTC
Alternate history or not, it still doesn't make sense. She could quite easily have started Bloody Sunday, because of the confusion (the troops fired on the crowds apparently without the order from Tsar Nicholas). But if the writers were going to say that, they should have at least researched how it could have happened, and Anyanka killing a bunch of dinner guests doesn't link to Bloody Sunday at all.
Plus she didn't start the revolution. I cannot stress this enough. The Russian Revolution (February Revolution) was in 1917 a good 12 years later!!!

SPN = grrr...

Reply


sherrilina November 15 2010, 23:07:11 UTC
Hmmm, I'm fairly sure that in history class we did learn of these riots as "the Revolution of 1905" or something like that, I can't remember exactly....obviously it was nothing like the big one, but the phrase sounds familiar. And I did do a fair bit of reading on that period of Russian history for my IB History Internal Assessment (research paper on Nicholas II and the extent to which his authoritarian views contributed to the Russian Revolution of 1917). I mean, it's all a matter of terminology, I don't think that's the biggest historical error on BTVS, lol. The dinner stuff is bad though ( ... )

Reply

delta_mai November 16 2010, 00:03:28 UTC
I hate that so much. In some of our textbooks it was called that too. But there was no revolution - nothing revolutionary happened! If you look up the definition, the events of 1905 don't match up to what revolution means. *sigh ( ... )

Reply

sherrilina November 16 2010, 00:14:33 UTC
Lol, I don't think Revolutions have to succeed in a change of government to be a Revolution. Hell, nothing much changed after the Mexican Revolution, sad as that is, many of the same issues continued...revolutions can fail, and still be called revolutions, I think. In short, however, it IS commonly called "The Revolution of 1905", so I can't fault them for doing so as well, that is correct, even if regrettably some of the less historically savvy might get the wrong idea from it. (Though I don't think it's the show's problem if people don't know the Russian Revolution happened in 1917, or the teens in any case, SUCH a big thing, and hell in the "Anastasia" cartoon movie it starts in 1916! :p). Though you're right about people thinking that about the 1917 revolution, as someone who studied the events and problems leading up to the February/March Revolution (since of course there were multiple ones within the "Russian Revolution"!) in detail, that definitely would be a grievous oversimplification ( ... )

Reply

delta_mai November 16 2010, 00:26:17 UTC
"Revolutions can fail and still be called revolutions ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up