MovieChat Forums > Shanghai Knights (2003) Discussion > This movie would have benefitted from be...

This movie would have benefitted from being set in 1897 instead of 1887

posted 13 years ago by Oldenbur
17 replies | jump to latest

SPOILER
This would have given several advantages:

*Charlie Chaplin would then have been 8 years old, which Aaron Johnson almost could have passed as, instead of putting him in a film two years before his actual birth.
*Lord Rathbone's car would have been more credible.
*They could have used Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee instead of her Golden Jubilee as the background setting.
*They could have put in a "Jack the Ripper copycat" instead of putting the real Jack the Ripper a year before he actually carried out his murders.
*The talk of movies and Hollywood would have been more credible, as it would have been set two-three years after the invention of moving pictures and closer in time to when Hollywood actually started becoming a movie site.
*The Boxer movement in China was more contemporary to the late 1890s than the late 1880s.
*The Tower Bridge, which is briefly seen (completed) on the London overview, was then finished (in 1887, it was just begun).

I'm sure there are other examples, but would you agree it would have been better with 1897 than 1887? This is not to say I didn't enjoy the film (I really did like it), but those anachronisms keep nagging me somewhat.

[–] marctheshark101 12 years ago

who cares? your the only one to notice this.

[–] jedimastercheryl-173-135766 12 years ago

I have to agree with the OP. No offence, but as a history teacher at university, I agree that a bit more historical accuracy would make the film more 'educated'. Someone in another post recognised how many ignorant Americans (I'm American but live in the UK) take a lot of their history from films - as do the more ignorant segments of the British population from what I have noticed - so just a tad bit more historical accuracy would help to alleviate some of those issues.

Well said, OP. And, yes, in reply to you Shark, I care.

--
Push the Button, Frank.

[–] ipacac22 11 years ago

No offence, but as a history teacher at university, I agree that a bit more historical accuracy would make the film more 'educated'. Someone in another post recognised how many ignorant Americans (I'm American but live in the UK) take a lot of their history from films

You claim to be American yet you spelled offense with a C rather than an S, and recognized with a S rather than a Z.

Utah! Get me two.

[–] MetaphysicalGrafitti 10 years ago

Oh for Christsakes! I was doing my PhD in Britain and had to spell everything in my thesis in BRITISH ENGLISH.

Sheesh

Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it

[–] VirtualMark 10 years ago

Damn Americans, messing up our English language.

[–] boxerrebellion 8 years ago

I'm American, born and bred but use a LOT of the 'ou', i.e. colour, honour, labour. It's just a habit - I've always read a lot of British lit.

I don't think that anyone is paying attention to historical accuracy in a movie like this; the writers, producers, etc. probably don't even do ANY research to see if the idea is credible.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (55817158) 8 years ago

Well good thing this movie never claims to be historically accurate as it is a fictional story... If it was non-fiction, you and the OP's complaints might be valid but unfortunately as this is simply a fictional story made for entertainment purposes only, both you and the OP are simply just "picky" people who can't just sit back and enjoy something for what it is - cheesy fun.

[–] cactusx 12 years ago

No, OP, you're not the only one. Plus, for another reason, in 1897 it wouldn't be completely impossible for them to be driving that car. Just improbable.

-
You're about as on the ball today as a dead seal

[–] winzentween 11 years ago

wow, just wow

“What we have here is a failure to communicate”, Captain

[–] Rotten_Mangoes 12 years ago

"...from a film series that turns THE GREATEST LAWMAN IN AMERICAN HISTORY into a bumbling moron?"

ERRR firstly if i'm guessing correctly by "greatest lawman" you were talking bout sherlock holmes, who WAS NOT THERE in the movie! The movie portrayed Arthur COnan Doyle - the author of sherlock holmes' FICTIONAL adventures - (although historically inaccurately) as a policeman who was knighted later on in the movie.

(Mark the stress on the word FICTIONAL)

Secondly, as is most evident, Sherlock Holmes WASN;T in American History , let alone in ANY history, as he was merely a character in a series of books...!

Thank you! :D

I'm speechless... I have no speech!

[–] aranier 12 years ago

He is talking about Wyatt Earp.

[–] Dream_Demon 11 years ago

Correct, but I figure that Wyatt "Roy O' Bannon" Earp and Wyatt Berry Stapp Earp (the famous lawman) are two different people. After all, the shootout at the O.K. Corral happened in 1880 in Tombstone, Arizona, yet Roy O' Bannon never mentions having been in that gunfight nor knowing anyone associated with it (Doc Holliday, the Cowboys gang, etc.). Them being two different people who simply share the same name would explain the inconsistencies between them.

Welcome to my Nightmare- Freddy Krueger

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GotMilk00 11 years ago

I understand the desire for more accuracy. I've felt this way myself. That being said, I think this series plays with reality a lot. There's no way Roy O'Bannon is Wyatt Earp (which, I guess, becomes clearer in Shanghai Knights). And as you mentioned, the timeline inaccuracies are numerious.

But here's the most important point. Roy's entire demeanor is impossible for a man living in the 1800s. Roy has the attitude of 21st century American slacker. He views life through a modern lens, not as someone who actually lived in that time period. So his entire character makes the Shanghai films inherently "unrealistic." But that's what also freed me from expecting the timeline to adhere strictly to reality. These movies are just kind of goofing around, not trying to portray the past accurately.

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

"I think this series plays with reality a lot."

Yes! You don't watch the Shanghai series for historical accuracy. The anachronisms are deliberate and part of the fun, as is the use of contemporary music on the soundtrack.

[–] jack-upland 10 years ago

Shanghai Noon was set in 1881, so they could hardly set this in 1897.

1897 is really too late for the Wild West setting at the start. Having a reference to a copycat Jack the Ripper would be pointless, and it would be too late for the references to Sherlock Holmes.

[–] daddyd-2 10 years ago

Another point to be made is certain settings in the film. In the scene when the steamship is leaving New York we can find two things of interest...1st the position of the Brooklyn Bridge in reference to the Statue of Liberty. It is obvious the bridge is on the wrong side of Manhattan Island. 2nd, the statue itself was completed and opened to the public in 1886, a year before they would have left New York...yet scaffolding is clearly visible as if still under construction.

You have to take the good with the bad in some cases. Yes this film took several liberties, but overall it was an enjoyable film.