Originally posted by Robtard
I'm sure you know it's about 95% fictional. But yeah, dope flick.
Uhhh no it isn't, the way it was told didn't exactly match history (the time was compressed) but all those battles did happen. I'm not sure about the love intrest with the queen? But I would say it's about 30% fictional.
Originally posted by darthmaul1
Uhhh no it isn't, the way it was told didn't exactly match history (the time was compressed) but all those battles did happen. I'm not sure about the love intrest with the queen? But I would say it's about 30% fictional.
A 3 second google search of "how factual is braveheart" netted this, first link:
http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/independence/braveheart.html
"One of the most common questions I'm asked is how factual Mel Gibson's portrayal of William Wallace was in the 1995 film Braveheart. The short answer is that is hasn't an iota of fact in it. The long answer appears below."
There's more links too, if you feel that one is biased in some manner.
Originally posted by Robtard
A 3 second google search of "how factual is braveheart" netted this, first link:http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/independence/braveheart.html
"One of the most common questions I'm asked is how factual Mel Gibson's portrayal of William Wallace was in the 1995 film Braveheart. The short answer is that is hasn't an iota of fact in it. The long answer appears below."
There's more links too, if you feel that one is biased in some manner.
This is true, but again, time was construded to tell a story and get the point accross. the battle at bannokburn didn't occur till someting like 10 years after wallace's death.
in the book at the battle of stirling the bridge was there. but in the movie for the first big battle it probably wouldn't of made it as grand. so that is why they changed it up.
the whole point is they told the story and people got the jist of it.
Originally posted by darthmaul1
This is true, but again, time was construded to tell a story and get the point accross. the battle at bannokburn didn't occur till someting like 10 years after wallace's death.
in the book at the battle of stirling the bridge was there. but in the movie for the first big battle it probably wouldn't of made it as grand. so that is why they changed it up.
the whole point is they told the story and people got the jist of it.
The point is, the story we're shown has little to do with facts about William Wallace and Scotland fighting for independence.
It's basically all Hollywood fantasy, but as the guy said, a great film nonetheless.