How close to reality? - Harley and the Davidsons (2016) Discussion

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] clyons 8 years ago

One can understand them needing to take some shortcuts, but since they're basically debuting the bike at this outlaw race, frequented by the very subculture that came up with the name Knucklehead, they could have had one of those kids come up with the name. That would still be inaccurate, but it would be true in essence--they were trying to deal with the culture that sprang up around the H-D bikes, but it was not very convincingly done, and frankly it was hard to believe the early bike culture was that unselfconsciously integrated. I had zero problem with them dealing with non-white Harley enthusiasts, because that was important--there have been black and Latino bikers for a very long time now. But they did it in a very hamhanded unconvincing way, agreed. Of course, that was pretty much the way they did everything, so why should that be different?

I'm a bit confused as to why you think they need a cliched villain to 'keep the chicks watching.' I really don't think that's who they were aiming that subplot at. Men are the ones who tend to like good guys vs. bad guys, and want to identify with the Perfect Hero Who Always Wins.

We're basically in agreement, but don't blame women and minorities for making this mess. I'm pretty sure all the writers, directors, and producers on this thing were white dudes, dude. White dudes trying to impress other white dudes, and mainly not succeeding. 

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] texastreasure517 8 years ago

Were the writers trying to tell us that Bill Harley stole the idea of the twin-cam OHV from a black guy? Did I understand that correctly? This is nothing short of insulting.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mccall-bryan 8 years ago

I'm surprised you had time to watch this what with all the foxnews you must watch.

reply

[–] texastreasure517 8 years ago

My understanding is that Fox News watchers tend to be more industrious than the general population.

I can't be sure of that, though, and haven't had time to research it because I have my own company, 3 other part-time jobs, make my own dairy products and just finished writing my thesis for my PhD.

reply

[–] jonesmrdl 8 years ago

OP, to answer your question. Not very. They have taken bits and pieces of the entire history of the Motor Company and covered them in the first 30 some years of the company's existence. There were three Davidson brothers but William A. Davidson is treated almost like just another employee. The chopper or customizing really took off after WWII but he movie suggests it was before the launch of the Knucklehead. Another poster mentioned that H-D never called it a Knucklehead while it was in production. I don't think Hendee (Indian's founder) was quite the as a whole as they made him out to be. I'm gonna have to research the deal with Edsel Ford on the ServiCar because I'd never heard that one, but having heard nothing about it I can't say it isn't true. Also, Arthur Davidson was working for the railroad. The movie shows him being screwed out of his land by the railroad. News to me. I didn't expect much more than a Hollywood movie and I wasn't disappointed. As a history of the Motor Company, it sucks.

reply

[–] jonesmrdl 8 years ago

BTW, the "serial #1" scene is BS too. In the museum in Milwaukee there is a bike they call "Serial #1" but the first bike was never located and the explanation given at the museum is that the bike is a restored early model that is period correct for the first bike.

reply

[–] texastreasure517 8 years ago

I found the historically accurate timeline for HD here:
https://storify.com/OmarKattan/the-harley-davidson-story
Read, all you readers! 😀

reply

[–] jonesmrdl 8 years ago

Nice pics, but not "historically accurate"

reply

[–] texastreasure517 8 years ago

Where is it different? As a history buff, I'd really like to know.

reply

[–] jonesmrdl 8 years ago

Well, without going through the whole timeline, the first thing that jumps out is the 50th anniversary models. They were 1954 models, not 1953 as the timeline states. Curiously, the 60th anniversary was 1963 and every decade since has been in a year ending in 3.

First Harley-Davidson dealer was C.H. Lang, but Lang testified in court that he first learned of the H-D motorcycle in 1904 and became their first dealer in 1905.

It goes back to the argument as to when they started selling motorcycles. Check out "At The Creation" by Herbert Wagner. He does an excellent detailed analysis of those early years.

reply

[–] jonesmrdl 8 years ago

The timeline also includes "Serial #1 in all it's glory" As I mentioned in a previous post the motorcycle that is now in the museum as "serial #1" is a collection of parts that are period correct for one of the loop frame motorcycles that were the first H-D's actually sold and those were 1904. The first were motorized bicycles that weren't marketable.

Harley-Davidson themselves have some problems with being accurate about the early years. In the official publication "The Legend Begins" They show a loop frame 1904 or 1905 motorcycle listed as a 1903 -1905 and then show the 1954 74 OHV model with the text "Every Harley-Davidson for 1954 will proudly carry the 50th Anniversary Medallion on the top of the front fender. This medallion sets the 1954 models apart from all others and identifies them as the culmination of 50 successful years in building motorcycles of distinction."

In the same publication they designate 1905 models as #1, 1906 as #2 and so on until 1915 when the models were listed as series 11. Then in 1916, the designated that year as 16 to match the calendar year.

Not criticizing the accuracy of the mini series, just addressing the timeline.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bigwave916 8 years ago

Tell me, what do you know that I don't know. I'm guessing it is nothing. I haven't anointed myself but I'm pretty sure I know more than you.

reply

[–] bilbo-38 8 years ago

They got the wives correct. I can't understand how many of the deviation from fact were necessary for the story. The actual events are just as interesting and don't seem like they'd hurt telling of the story. Even the very first scene of the first episode with Walter is not accurate. Walter actually worked for the railroad!

Here is a link to an article that points out some of the many inaccuracies ..... http://www.cyclenews.com/2016/09/article/archives-looking-back-harley-davidsons/

reply

[–] koko-10 8 years ago

Arthur said in the first episode that Walter worked for the railroad, in addition to owning a ranch.

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

reply

[–] grizzledgeezer 8 years ago

One of the James' descendants said about the 1939 Jesse James: "They got their names right. And the fact they rode horses."

It's sometimes necessary to collapse multiple characters into a single character, or rearrange events, to make a coherent, filmable motion picture. But the changes made in this film -- especially considering that it runs about as long as Gone with the Wind -- seem not merely self-serving, but perverse.

Writers who have to resort to gross fictionalization aren't good writers.

reply

[–] grizzledgeezer 8 years ago

One cannot blindly trust Wikipedia, of course. But when a few minutes' perusal of Wiki articles reveals all sorts of discrepancies -- few of which seem to have any justification in telling a filmable story -- one has to wonder.

reply