io9 goes Alternative History bonkers

io9 has yet another article about Inglorious Basterds (excuse me, Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds) and suddenly goes all ga-ga because the film basically rewrites WW2. Then the author seems to think it is a new and wonderful idea for a film to not be historically accurate in the slightest and instead of saying “That’s interesting” they seem to think it is the beginning of some sort of new genre of alternative history film. Except it isn’t, pretty much EVERY historical film plays fast and loose with the facts for a good story, some more ridiculous than others. Inglorious Basterds just happens to be on the more ridiculous end of the scale. They are joined there by such Mel Gibson vehicles as Braveheart and The Patriot, which are as historically accurate as the latest Harry Turtledove book. As annoying as all the Quentin Tarantino love is among the geek community, this is among the dumbest articles of fanboy love I have read outside of Ain’ Quentin Tarantino hasn’t made a good film since Kill Bill part 1, and that wasn’t exactly the best thing ever, just the last thing he made I would bother watching again. I am hardly a film snob, I am just a guy who likes fun movies. But I do get annoyed at baseless fanboy love.


Why not?