The original All Quiet on the Western Front is pretty much the best WW1 film ever made. The remake was all right, but the original is amazing.

This is my favorite version of the movie as well.

I wish my teacher let us watch Gladiator for history class.

I don't see what the big ruckus is here. I'm sure they also cover the topic in their textbooks as well as the movie. Most teachers issue tests taken from the same curriculum they are using so the test will most certainly contain questions directly related to the content in the textbook, thus the students will be reading it either way.

This is assuming that they will be spending more then just a movie's worth on the subject. If memory serves we had an entire unit on the Roman empire. (2-3 tests)

Unfortunately, for many teachers, showing a film is an excuse not to teach. And even more unfortunately, for many students, watching a film is an excuse not to learn.

I guess, but taken into consideration how many days of the school year are spent in actual curriculum, a movie doesn't hurt every now and then.


In a teachers defense, if you were paid a meager 30-35k a year for such a demanding occupation, it would be really hard to keep positive morale for your job.
(figures based on local teachers salaries for Rochester NY)

Gladiator is 155 minutes long. When I was in high school, periods were 40 minutes a piece. Figure 35 minutes total of actual learning time, since it always took a few minutes for everyone to get settled at the start of class. That means it would've taken 4 and a half periods to watch a movie like gladiator... nearly a full week's worth of class.

Showing a movie isn't a problem, teaching fiction as fact is a problem.

Showing a movie is a problem if it wastes a week's worth of class time in which the students could be learning something useful.

There is some truth in Gladiator, namely that Marcus Aurelius was a good emperor (he was a Stoic and the last of the "5 good emperors") and having Commodus as his successor was a very bad move (the film tackles this by having Commodus kill Marcus rather than allow the more successful recent tradition of adoptive emperors to continue). Commodus was also a nutjob in real life too. And Lucilla did plan to assassinate Commodus, though not for the reasons outlined in the film. The major difference is the outcome which has Maximus killing Commodus and effectively saving Rome, rather than the real outcome which was the start of the fall of the empire.

So just treat it as an alternative history in which a farmer named Maximus came along and became Marcus Aurelius' choice for successor.

In fact, you could learn quite a lot just by discussing the differences between the film and what actually happened.

People should be made to watch Braveheart in history. That was so close to accepted fact that it's almost documentary.

So did we.

We also saw The Untouchables.

We also also saw Four Weddings and a Funeral in French.

yeah, there is nothing wrong with watching movies from time to time in class. however, there is something wrong with using said movie in as a lesson plan and saying "yep that what really happened".

No, of course not. It's just a damn good movie.

Including Baconfish's role

Oh yes, I was there and the Battle of Stirling Bridge didn't involve a bridge in reality!

As I understand it there are actual court rulings as to inaccuracies in the film. Not to mention that the conclusions reached aren't supported as fact. It is doubtful a kid will walk away from Gladiator with misconceptions about relevant current events. It's a guarantee that they will if they believe the conclusions Al Gore presents.

He did not say that it was completely true, only that it cites facts. An Inconvenient Truth is a documentary, even if its accuracy is questionable. Gladiator is fiction, and should be presented as such.

And of course a kid won't walk away from Gladiator with misconceptions about relevant current events. It's historical fiction. He'll walk away with misconceptions about Roman history.

Oh Boco, of all people I thought you'd not fall into my trap

(lolflamebait)

But seriously, William Wallace at York? He barely made it over the border into England

Died screaming "FREEEEEEDOOOOOM"? As if. It would have been more like "OWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWPUTMYORGANSBACKINTHATREALLYHURTS".

Indeed, there are actual court rulings (one of them, in fact) as to inaccuracies in the film.
The judge said the film "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme."


In most countries you can sue someone for basically whatever reason you want. For example, I could file a law suit against you for being a gigantic flaming homo. I would lose the case, if it weren't automatically dismissed by any appropriately-caffeinated judge, but by your argument the very existence of my lawsuit would make you one.

If you feel any better, the man who filed the initial suit against "An Inconvenient Truth" was an uneducated lorry driver from the UK. I imagine your informed position on global warming comes from a similar pedigree.

All this made lemonade come out of my nose.

Which is quite a feat as Martyn wasn't drinking lemonade!

I'm so confused, is that sarcasm aimed at my sarcasm about yours or not realising I too was being sarcastic?

Ah yes.

That.

Unless it was a DOUBLE BLUFF

That's the funniest thing I've read in a while. Thank you.

So was it somewhere before or after that where he talks about the significant errors in the film. Of course he had to say the above quote. He is British, after all.

Yes, if it was being taught as fact (which I would of course disagree with). But being historical fiction there could be relevant facts, concepts, or ideas presented. The context is important. Even worse case scenario a kid walks away with false impressions of events that have no bearing on how he interacts with current issues. Teaching An Inconvenient Truth as fact indoctrinates children by using "flat Earth" type science to influence people to willingly endorse global governance and socialism.

You would know the context if you bothered to read the thread before trolling.



You just punched irony square in the face.

Yeah, I did read the thread. I'm speaking in general terms. Also, since it is my experience that when something doesn't quite sound right, something isn't I generally withold judgement until the facts are clear. Since it has already been pointed out that it would have taken nearly five periods to watch the movie in its entirity and since nobody in this thread personally witnessed the event nor has all of the facts in order to ascertain the context I simply withold judgement. I stated I disagree with it being taught as fact, if that is what did occur.

I realize we are expected to rush to judgement and jump to conclusions here.



I would say that Al Gore did when he first used that expression to describe people that don't subscribe to his scientists' views but that's just me (and a large number of people that also disagree, to include those you might describe as "so-called" scientists).

It's easily solved by pouring more money into a failing public school system in which there is absolutely no residual claimant, of course! Support the teachers unions! More money for public schools! No Child Left Behind!

Is there a reason that you keep writing his name as one word?

I'm willing to bet all my money you have never read a single peer reviewed journal, and all your information about science is spoon fed to you by partisan sources.

I'd also bet all my money that you don't even know what the scientific method is.

I was gonna ask that too. Is it like Micro$oft?

unrelated OMG Foo Fighters on Jools Holland

Also, what's that all about?

It's probably for some stupid reason like when he kept on putting Barack Hussein Obama or BHO before Obama was elected.

And yay, but Wheels is pretty boring.

I'd go in on those bets but the returns are pretty crappy.

As Wookie06 revealed in a previous thread, people from other countries are uneducated cattle who labor under the stupefying yoke of liberal fascism. We're incapable of understanding his enlightened explanation about how life is a zero-sum game.

Of course a Brit would say he agrees with this "science" blasphemy.

Same.

It's how Rush Limbaugh tells us to write it.



I never said anything along those lines. I just disregard your views of American politics because you view them through the eyes of someone with foreign values. It's still interesting to hear your opinions but really only from an anecdotal perspective.

The judge, coming from a system less tolerant to dissent of views such as Al Gore's, of course has to qualify his opinion that there are significant errors in the film with adoration of it.