Michael Bay revisionist WWII movie

[lazymus_prime]

We here at lazymus_prime think Michael Bay is awesome!! With the success of Inglorious Basterds, the time is ripe for Mr. Bay to make his own revisionist take on WWII. Here's just a suggestion:

[Trailbreaker]

For real, dude?

[jamjam101]

..yyeaaa, uummmm....nnoooo...

[littleman794]

hahahaha...uuh...ya, maybe not man, sorry

[Bayhem]

I must say, the cast is very interesting and unusual.

[littleman794]

lol, megan fox and robert downy jr.? thats an interesting duo

[lazymus_prime]

If I had $200 million, I wouldn't think twice about financing it.

[Trailbreaker]

I can't tell if this is some kind a joke or if this guy is actually serious about it.

First of all, MB or not, a revisionist idea like this wouldn't work in this case because Anne Frank was a real person, the Inglorious Basterds were totally fictional.

[lazymus_prime]

Dear Trailbreaker,

You're missing the point a bit. Hitler was a real person too. In IB, he gets killed in 1944 and WWII consequently ends. It rewrote the history. In the Chronicles, Anne Frank's life would follow a similar quasi-fictional pattern.

[Bot Girl]

Revisionist History, in its truest form is different from Fictionalized History. The former is presenting new evidence into the body of knowledge, or re-assessing that body in new ways. These are both based on research and historical reasoning.

Fictionalized history is what Inglourious Basterds, you Anne Frank movie, and countless other movies/literature/music are. The presence of a historical figure does NOT make it revisionist!

Also, I would say, what is the reason for fictionalizing this story? What new persective are you attempting to achieve?

[Drake]

I'll go ahead and file this under the "bad idea" category...

Edit: Oh yeah, and thanks for the IB spoiler alert, YOU BASTARD!

[lazymus_prime]

Bot Girl,

You make a good point. However, a movie can be qualified as fictional revisionism if it revises history by changing historical facts in order to serve its plot. I believe that to be the case with Inglorious Basterds.

The reason for fictionalizing the story would be to turn it from an intimate character driven dramatic piece into more of an action oriented epic.

[jamjam101]

before Mike thinks his fans are crazy, this thread should be closed lol

[Drake]

Next on revisionist agenda...

The American colonists are ninjas, and wage war against their English oppressors!

George Washington: Death comes for us all, General Cornwallis. But for you it will be...

GEN Cornwallis: Ack! Trapped at Yorktown!

George Washington: without honor...

Bonus points if you can figure out which movie I ripped/rewrote this from...

[omegaweapon2]

I think with Michael Bay's skill with the explosions and special effects he should direct a new Dragonball Z. Heck I'll even write a good story for him. If we are talking revising history here then Mr. Bay should rewrite DragonBall and Street Fighter movies. Those are great franchises that died horribly in the way to the big screen.


On the flip side
How about the religious war back in the days of BC? Those fights will be nice since they already have big men back then. Add some asians and watch the fist fly with axes and greatswords.

Example of the scenes would be...
lead guy1:"Who the hell is your GOD! WE WORSHIP ZEUUUUS!!!"

lead guy2"FOR ODIN!!!!!"


Asian lead" BUDHA!!!"
"Wait nightfall is coming!"
"Beware mosnters come out at night!"

............

[redqueenar]

Vikings v. Samauri.

EXCEPT IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED!!

[omegaweapon2]

So who won?

Can't they make it into a race rumble? The old philosophy of Strength vs. Speed. Back in those days everybody was at the field, then some genius that wanted to live while fighting discovered the art of sniping.

[r-type]

Next on revisionist agenda...

The American colonists are ninjas, and wage war against their English oppressors!

George Washington: Death comes for us all, General Cornwallis. But for you it will be...

GEN Cornwallis: Ack! Trapped at Yorktown!

George Washington: without honor...

Bonus points if you can figure out which movie I ripped/rewrote this from...

Try harder next time....

[lazymus_prime]

To Redqueenar & Omegaweapon2,

Your ideas are brilliant! Though I do believe a BC religious war movie would better be suited for the enlightened mind of Roland Emmerich...


P.S. Jamjam, I don't think Mike thinks his fans are crazy. If anything, I'm sure he finds them quite funny and entertaining.

[jamjam101]

P.S. Jamjam, I don't think Mike thinks his fans are crazy. If anything, I'm sure he finds them quite funny and entertaining

!
your probably right!

[omegaweapon2]

Nah I'll stick with Mr. Bay if I write a Dragonball Z script. when I saw the air craft carrier got shanked by the decepticon meteors it was brilliant. Destruction at its raw beauty.

[Bot Girl]

Bot Girl,

You make a good point. However, a movie can be qualified as fictional revisionism if it revises history by changing historical facts in order to serve its plot. I believe that to be the case with Inglorious Basterds.

The reason for fictionalizing the story would be to turn it from an intimate character driven dramatic piece into more of an action oriented epic.

No, my point is, you shouldn't call it revisionist if you haven't either found new evidence that changes or adds to the exsisting body of knowledge. n other words (proudly puts on her professional Historian hat here) What is your documentation? Are YOU changing facts at random to make a good story, or have you found DOCUMENTABLE evidence that changing the facts, or calls for a reassesment of them?

Please don't call it revisionist if its fictional.

Revisionist history is an actual historical disipline. Fiction, while a lovely genre, is not.

(steps down off soapbox)

[omegaweapon2]

So with the explosion Mr. Bay is capable off He should make a new fictional film called:

BOOM!

Starring Bush,Saddam and Bin Ladden

A Michael Bay film

[Drake]

No, my point is, you shouldn't call it revisionist if you haven't either found new evidence that changes or adds to the exsisting body of knowledge. n other words (proudly puts on her professional Historian hat here) What is your documentation? Are YOU changing facts at random to make a good story, or have you found DOCUMENTABLE evidence that changing the facts, or calls for a reassesment of them?

Please don't call it revisionist if its fictional.

Revisionist history is an actual historical disipline. Fiction, while a lovely genre, is not.

(steps down off soapbox)

George Washington really was a Ninja.

[r-type]

(steps down off soapbox)

Don't waste a good soapbox on such an absurd thread.