Talk:Outlaw King

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pascale2411.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Inaccuracies about historical inaccuracies

In the list of inaccuracies, it's mentioned "Battle of Loudoun Hill happened after the death of Edward I". But that's exactly how it's portrayed in the film, so it's not an inaccuracy. Also, if "Alexander de Brus" is the brother who Robert calls "Alex", he is not shown neither being captured nor executed by the English, we see him die in battle.Kumagoro-42 (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea why I used "after" when I meant "before", sorry... Technically a death in a battle is different from an execution. Go-Chlodio (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't even think this section should exist under "historical inaccuracies" title. This is not a docudrama or a biopic, it is a fiction product based on history. Sebastian James (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Nor is Gladiator, yet it has a similar section. Go-Chlodio (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" shouldn't be a reason. It is actually not similiar ("Fictionalization" etc.), and at least it is sourced. Sebastian James (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Naruhodo, but the said product is still being marketed as historical, and many people want to compare its historical accuracy to movies like Braveheart. Historical dramas have a tendency to a corrupt historical understanding of their audience, even when they do not make a promise to be historically accurate. At the end of the day, it still isn't a fantasy and should be taxed for the setting it chose and the liberties it took. Go-Chlodio (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Can we find a way to make it like Gladiator or Braveheart's, with sources? Because this one just looks bad. Sebastian James (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the section as it stands is not appropriate for Wikipedia. See WP:FILMHIST. A "Historical accuracy" section can only summarize coverage directly comparing the film with history. We cannot make comparisons ourselves. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Most obvious inaccuracy for me watching the film is that the whole thing is in Modern English instead of in Middle English and Scots. Other than that, I’d there a way to make this section sound less contrary and combative with the “howevers” and such? Morganfitzp (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Artichokes? Artichokes were being grown in Germany in 12th century. They certainly could have been imported to the British Isles. This section should be pared down to the most obvious historical liberties. Wilkyisdashiznit (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Film's Title

The onscreen title of the film is rendered thus: Outlaw/King Should we not change the title to reflect this? Sir Rhosis (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Historical authenticitY section

The section entitled “Historical authenticity” lists only examples of how the filmmakers veered from accuracy. It can also list examples of how the film is historically authentic. These examples can be expanded beyond events, and can include architecture, armaments, attire, customs, decor, and other things present in the period of the conflict. Morganfitzp (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)