TV version of Braveheart?

[creagdhubh]

Well, that, and the statue was just goofy looking.

I agree. During my tenure as a student-teacher, teaching K-12 Art, I had students that could sculpt better than that hunk of crap!

Cheers,

[Blackrose87]

I agree. During my tenure as a student-teacher, teaching K-12 Art, I had students that could sculpt better than that hunk of crap!

Cheers,

I can't see why the council didn't replaced it with something better, seeing the opinion of it in the local community.
Apparently it was very popular with tourists, so money talks I guess.

I fear that the same will happen with this tv programme. STV will want to export this to as wide an audience as possible, so they are probably going to lean more towards the Hollywood idea rather than the actual history.
A lower budget, grittier drama would be a lot better. They managed to keep Taggart running for years with a reasonable audience, so hopefully this show could emulate its success

[macwilkin]

I'd say they'll remove the name. Apparently there was quite an uproar about Robert the Bruce's portrayal in the film here.
And over time there appears to be a great backlash against the movie. The Wallace statue in Stirling has been vandalised a number of times due to its likeness to Mel Gibson.

Ironically, the portrayal of Bruce was one of the more accurate parts of the film.

T.

[Blackrose87]

Ironically, the portrayal of Bruce was one of the more accurate parts of the film.

T.

Really? But he was basically portrayed as being an antagonist against Wallace, ultimately betraying him. From what I remember from school, that's completely untrue.
Towards the end, doesn't Bruce fight for the English? Even though actually he wasn't even at the Falkirk?

Though my Scottish history is very rusty, and we did learn more about Bruce than Wallace, so I may be way off here.

[tundramanq]

I have yet to see "Hollywood" exceed 10% fact it's usually 1% or less (especially "documentaries"). So I will probably be watching an entertaining fable with my "I believe" button close at hand and hoping, hopelessly that the masses see it for what it is - just an entertaining story.

[macwilkin]

Really? But he was basically portrayed as being an antagonist against Wallace, ultimately betraying him. From what I remember from school, that's completely untrue.
Towards the end, doesn't Bruce fight for the English? Even though actually he wasn't even at the Falkirk?

Though my Scottish history is very rusty, and we did learn more about Bruce than Wallace, so I may be way off here.

Check out Alan Young's Robert the Bruce's Rivals: The Comyns 1212-1314 from Tuckwell Press. Bruce was allied with Edward when John "The Red" Comyn defeated the English at the Battle of Roslin in 1303. Young has a lot to say about how the pro-Bruce faction covered up his alliances with the English over the years.

That's not to say Bruce wasn't a good commander, just that he was not the ardent super-nationalist we think him to be. He was a member of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy that put their own interests first when it benefitted them.

T.

[Peter Crowe]

Now is this going to be directly linked to the film/book? I should hope not.

If it's not, they need to make sure they either ditch the name of Braveheart, along with any mention thereof, or make The Bruce the central character. Otherwise, they'd just be furthering a bastardized version of history.

I still get a little riled when I hear William Wallace refered to as "Braveheart". Pfffft...

I hear you Ryan,

The film was historically anachronistic and as a Scot I found it a bit offensive on various levels. The Scots Nobles and knights were portrayed as hicks, and Wallace as a thirteenth century Che Guevara, not a medieval knight and vassal of his feudal superior John de Baliol.

I preferred Cromwell Films The Bruce but that itself was not without dubious historical detail.

As long as this TV production attempts to be faithful to the primary historical evidence (which to be fair is thin) as much of what we know came from Blind Harry who could have had no living memory or direct experience of the events he recorded.

[Blackrose87]

I have yet to see "Hollywood" exceed 10% fact it's usually 1% or less (especially "documentaries"). So I will probably e watching an entertaining fable with my "I believe" button close at hand and hoping, hopelessly that the masses see it for what it is - just an entertaining story.

Definitely, but they could easily make it historically accurate if STV produce it themselves and don't make it with the idea of shipping it all around the world to a huge audience.

Two movies which come to mind are ones concerning the 1921 Anglo-Irish treaty.
One, Michael Collins, does change certain events, adds Julie Roberts as a love interest etc. just to appeal to a wider audience.
However, The Treaty with Brendan Glesson was a lower budget RTÉ-BBC film, which is much more historically accurate, and in my opinion is a better film.

[Brock63]

If it is in the same vein as the Spartacus TV series as advertised with its filth, swearing and nudity and computer graphics then I'll certainly not watch, it could be an affront to Wallace himself

I think there is a difference between accuracy and authenticity. The Roman society is known to have been very violent, full of sexual decadence from the ruling elites down to the peasants. We hear cries of wanting historical accuracy or authenticity in our shows...but only if it fits within our accepted morals and beliefs. While the only really factual part that can be proven is there appears to have been a slave revolt that brought down 6 Army legions by a fella the Romans called Spartacus. The remaining filler does not make it any less "authentic" though when we have ample information that shows the downfall of society, what were accepted norms, (i.e., Caligula was both crazy and a sexually perversive deviant and it was reflected in his courts and admirers in their action to be like him).

I would argue that whether you agree with the contents or not....the show is on a channel that requires you to ask for access (at least on Dish Network)...and does a fair attempt to compromise a balance between authenticity and accuracy in a historical context. Another similar is the series Rome.

I surmise that many people today would not like the historically authentic revelation of their favorite figures in our past! Be careful what you ask for when it comes to history being presented with both accuracy and authenticity. The computer graphics are due to the hugely successful movie 300...the stop action vintage patina of the film shots....and enhanced blood spatter are all part of that. In my opinion just a 50 year evolution from seeing Batman and Robin have call-outs that said BOOM POW CRUNCH when we watched them in our youth...

Just a thought....

[Geoff Withnell]

I remember an interview with the historian who served as an advisor to HBO during the filming of "Rome". The asked if he felt the sex, and violence shown was historically accurate. "No", he replied, "There's not nearly enough of it!"