there has even been a specific trend toward claiming films are "historically accurate"
I've seen that, and have been repeatedly disappointed to the point that when I hear that I no longer believe it.
In watching the extra material for the movie "Timeline," a lightbulb went on in my head (OK, I'm kind of slow sometimes) so that I think that I started to understand what they mean by "historically accurate." What we mean and what they mean are two separate things.
In that very B-grade scifi show, it's supposed to be 1351 (?? or there abouts), but the range of arms and armour spanned several hundred years, with the fighting being typical Hollywood stunt garbage.
In that extra features section of the DVD, the prop people were raving about their "historical accuracy," which appears to have been adopted without question by the rest of the production team.
However, the prop department's concept of "historically accurate" seems to be rooted in the idea that if their arms and armour
looks like what they see in history books, then it must be "historically accurate." Never mind that actors were running around in a hodge-podge of equipment from various milleaux. That's not the job of the prop department
in their mind.
In other words, their concept of what is and is not accurate is rooted in their ignorance. Others, in their ignorance repeat the statement.
I'm not holding my breath that anything will change at any time in the forseeable future. The self-congratulatory and bottom-line culture in Hollywood has no aparent impetus to ever re-examine its assumptions. I'm assuming that they will need an independent-driven shock to rattle their cages.
Anyhow, just random rattling from my empty head.
