AKA "Revisionist History" something Hollywood is famous for. repeatedly promote revisionist history and eventually the public begins to think the film reflects REALITY.

It's fantasy, dammit! I dont' need to go to the movies to get reality. I get way more of that than I want in my everyday life.

which is blatantly obvious even if you slept through world history 101.


Its still an awesome movie, not great in the sense of "Citizen Kane, The Sound of Music, etc" but you catch drift.

Exactly, I remember the folks that "did not get" Pulp fiction.

There's nothing to get you baffoons that is why its called "Pulp Fiction".

...much less live in a pineapple under the sea.

Exactly, everyone knows that pineapples float, clamshell maybe but pineapple..no way.

Yeah, I was SOOOOOOOOO disappointed!:mad:

My beachouse is actually a pineapple, but it's BESIDE the sea, not UNDER it. It's pretty nice, but I've noticed a problem lately with bees and flies around it . . . .

sure, everyone knows that hollywood is known to take "poetic license" when needed. however, the idea of basing a movie on "revisionist history" begins the slow process of reprogramming the public to believe that historical events happened according to the screen writers ideologies and philosophies. Inglorious Bastards may be a "spaghetti western" style comedy, but the movie exhibits the ability to slowly reprogram some (notice I said SOME, not ALL) viewers to think a new "reality". especially amongst those viewers who are vulnerable to the power of suggestion. and isn't the power of suggestion and the promotion of change and National Socialism that brought Hitler to power in the first place?

the movie, "JFK" by Oliver Stone is a good example of revisionist history thinking. anyone who has read the facts concerning the JFK assassination knew from the start the movie was off on many areas. HOWEVER, a recent poll of the public shows that the MAJORITY of the public believes that the movie "JFK" purports historical FACTS.

Inglourious is not revisionist history. If you mistake this film as an attempt at history, there's not much a few posts on a forum board will do to pull you out of the 'moron' category.
I too thought it was good. Not quite as good as Pulp Fiction but close. I liked Reservoir Dogs better than Pulp Fiction and Inglourious. Not sure why off the top of my head.
I was confused at the point where someone put dynamite under Goebbels's chair, but I've since read some stuff that explains it, although I completely missed that part of the plot when watching the film

Husky you haven't even seen the movie have you? It says in the beginning "once upon a time" you know like all the fantasy books and such. Secondly if someone is stupid enough to belive "based on actual events" means "this is really what happened" then they deserve to be made fun of.

you and I understand that, my point is there are PLENTY of so-called morons out there who are easily reprogrammed via the written word, CNN, movies, you name it. and, sadly, those morons happen to represent a large class.

the MAJORITY of the public polled concerning the movie, JFK said that they believe the movie ACCURATELY reflected ACTUAL events.

If the opinion poll of those that had viewed JFK had revealed that a MINORITY felt the movie represented actual events, I wouldn't be the least bit concerned.

the fact that the MAJORITY of the public felt the film represents reality, gives one pause to question the sanity of those who shape public opinion.........

"The NUTS are running the Asylum"

- Husky

Yeah, why can't they strictly follow history . . . like other great war movies . . .The Dirty Dozen, Kelly's Heroes . . .

I don't really care if they follow actual events that happened or not. my point is that the majority of the public is easily mislead into thinking that any movie that is "based on actual events" might be an actual blow-by-blow rendition of actual historical events.

one year from today, it would be interesting to see a poll of the public who viewed "Inglorious Bastards". of 100 polled, how many believe it to be a satire versus how many believe it represents historical fact?

predictions?