Attila the Hun Error


In the movie, Attila the Hun is portrayed as being Oriental/East Asian. However, this is an absurd historical inaccuracy, since Attila the Hun was was from the Hunnic Empire, which predominantly ruled Eastern Europe and Russia. Apparently the movie confuses Attila with Genghis or Kublai Khan, East Asians who are remembered as bloodthirsty warriors. Before you say "It's a kid's movie, who cares about historical inaccuracies," do you really want to confuse kids with obviously wrong historical depictions? How hard could it have been to maintain factual accuracy in this case?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Christ is my Savior and Lord

reply

Yeah I had that impression that he was more Genghis than Attila, but I guess the fierce warrior was what they were trying to conveySource:Movie Reviews - Night at the Museumhttp://moviereviews.noskram.com/2009/09/movie-reviews-for-night-at-the -museum

reply

In the movie, Attila the Hun is portrayed as being Oriental/East Asian. However, this is an absurd historical inaccuracy, since Attila the Hun was was from the Hunnic Empire, which predominantly ruled Eastern Europe and Russia. Apparently the movie confuses Attila with Genghis or Kublai Khan, East Asians who are remembered as bloodthirsty warriors. Before you say "It's a kid's movie, who cares about historical inaccuracies," do you really want to confuse kids with obviously wrong historical depictions? How hard could it have been to maintain factual accuracy in this case?

In regard to matters of historical accuracy in movies created for the general public-- trust me. You're never going to win. I learned long ago to resign myself to the fact that the makers of popular films don't particularly care about getting their facts right. They assume - probably with reasonable justification - that a large percentage of the movie going public doesn't particularly care about anything that happened more then two weeks ago.


cinefreak

reply

In regard to matters of historical accuracy in movies created for the general public-- trust me. You're never going to win. I learned long ago to resign myself to the fact that the makers of popular films don't particularly care about getting their facts right. They assume - probably with reasonable justification - that a large percentage of the movie going public doesn't particularly care about anything that happened more then two weeks ago.

Well put sir. My favorite was using M1894 Winchester lever actions at the battle of the Alamo. Usually I just shrug my shoulders, but what did bug me in this film was the "Sacajawea led Lewis and Clark" business. Having read their journals a couple of times, it was evident she was familiar with one certain area and helped from the standpoint of "Oh yeah, I remember this place. There a valley over . . ." That and the too-convenient-for-a-movie-but-true finding her brother a member of a hunting party, which smoothed their acceptance by her tribe. But "leading"?

reply

"Oh yeah, I remember this place. There a valley over . . ." That and the too-convenient-for-a-movie-but-true finding her brother a member of a hunting party, which smoothed their acceptance by her tribe. But "leading"?

Case in point. That falls into the category of 'showing a strong, empowered woman', which takes precedent over historical accuracy.

cinefreak

reply

Indeed - "The ends justify the means" thingy.

reply