Talk:Zulu (1964 film)/Archive 2

Rotten Tomatoes rating
The "rare" 100% Rotten Tomatoes rating is very misleading. Only thirteen critics gave opinions; of those thirteen, only nine gave tomato-based ratings. Half of the reviewers who gave tomatoes didn't write reviews. Compare this to, say, Taxi Driver, which has a 98% rating with 50 reviews, or Avatar, which has an 82% rating with over 200 critics weighing in. At the very least, we should get rid of the word "rare." It is, in fact, quite easy to get a 100% rating if only a small subset of people watch and review the film. Additionally, Louis Proyect, one of the RT reviewers who didn't give it a tomato-based rating, hated the film. He says this about it: " "Zulu" succeeds as spectacle and very little else". Alexandergreenb (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Lieutenant Adendorff inaccuracy
While Lieutenant Adendorff made it from the battle of Isandhlwana to Rorke's Drift he did not stay to fight there. Initially he told Chard that he would stay and help in defense but actually rode on with Lieutenant Vane. While initial statement by Adendorff lead historians to list him as one of the defenders but there is no mention of him in Chard's official report. Interestingly enough he is also mostly unseen in the film. (p. 394 The Washing of the Spears Donald R Moris, 1964) Tatar_Khan (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Stephenson and cavalry historical inaccuracy
In the historical inaccuracy section Stephenson is mentioned as commander of white cavalry and later in the others involved section the presence of the irregular cavalry is mentioned again. I personally saw only one cavalry unit in the film. Stephenson commanded a native contingent on foot. (p. 389 The Washing of the Spears Donald R Moris, 1964) The irregular cavalry unit was commanded by Lieutenant Vause and it deserted before the fighting started. Originally it was ordered to guard the drift itself and than fall back to the mission station. (p. 397 and p. 401 The Washing of the Spears Donald R Moris, 1964) Tatar_Khan (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Trivia tag
I find the list of inaccuracies in any film informative and so the trivia tag is unhelpful. Some are very minor but many of the differences from the facts are not trivial, because for many people films are their most common source of the historical truth. A frequent question after seeing any historical film must be whether it is anything like the actual events. I cannot think of a better format than a list for presenting this information. I propose that we remove tag. JMcC (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A non-documentary film produced for entertainment is not concerned with "historical truth", it is concerned with narrative, pacing, and drama. Pointing out the differences between the fictionalized events depicted in the film and the details of the historical events that inspired the film is trivia, and in this case is also largely original research (as is your contention that "for many people films are their most common source of the historical truth", a horrifyingly ludicrous idea).  Anyone seriously interested in the divergences between the film and history can read the article Battle of Rorke's Drift and do their own original research; Wikipedia doesn't need to do it for them. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Medals on Colour Sergeant Bourne (Nigel Green)
What are the two medals that Nigel Green wears in the film? I'm not that familiar with British medals, but I assume they're from before 1879. By the way, the British at Isandhlwana were about 1,300 and had about 400 native troops. The Zulus were 20,000. The British had never seen "the horns of the bull" used on such a massive scale--the Zulu front was five miles long! The battle lasted about two hours. About 55 British troops escaped, because they were wearing blue uniforms, not red. Here's something interesting--the "washing of the spears", wherein the Zulu warrior gutted his fallen foe so that evil spirits would not infect the Zulu warrior and drive him to madness. The Zulu warrior then had to have sex with a woman not his wife, in order thus to leave any trace of evil with another woman and not bring it home. Thus, campaigns were short. The "horns of the bull" was called impondo zankomo. The Zulus carried several assegai (the Zulu called it the ikwa, for the sound it made being yanked out of a human body), the short spear. It was developed by Shaka because he did not see the rationale for throwing your spear away at the enemy, leaving one defenceless. The Zulus were part of the Bantu tribe, the Nguni, and Zulu was the name of their first chief. Zulu means "the heavens". Shaka is an intestinal beetle. The life of the Zulu people revolved around their cattle, hence "the horns of the bull" manoeuvre. 71.157.182.121 (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Civil engineering
For me, as a civil engineer, and not a military historian (even an amateur one), the most glaring anomaly in the movie relates to the opening scenes where Chard is supervising the construction of a pont.

The (movie) shots from a distance show that the stream is a minor one, and easily fordable. Which Bromhead then proves by riding across, with his bearers following on foot. Why, then, would a pont need to be built across this stream?

Those shots from a distance also shows that this minor stream has had to be damed by the moviemakers in order to provide enough water for the close-up shots.

The whole thing looked farcical to me the first time I saw the movie. (But didn't spoil my enjoyment of the movie.)

Yet we know, from Chard's own account (if nowhere else -- but there are plenty of other sources) that a point was needed.

The solution is not just that the movie was shot more than 120 km as the crow flies from the actual site of the battle (the Drakensberg Amphitheatre makes a stunning, albeit in no way authentic) backdrop to the movie, but that shooting took place in the dry season (winter) as opposed to in the wet season (summer). The battle took place in January, at the height of the rainy season, and the accounts of the invasion of Zululand make it clear that the soldiers, and particularly the transport wagon crews, struggled on the sodden roads.

To a South African like me, that the movie was shot in the dry season is obvious from the vegetation. In January, the grass is green -- at the movie shooting time, it is brown and dry. But the rivers continue to flow strongly even into April and May. Last time I was at the place it was April, and the river was even then flowing quite strongly, and by no means the pond shown in the movie.

I would, therefore, like to add a short comment somewhere under "Historical inaccuracies". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Kevin Wall (talk • contribs) 11:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies
I would disagree that it was not a Welsh regiment, their permanent base was at Brecon from 1873 and that makes them a Welsh regiment.Just because they were called the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot means very little as they never ever had a base in that county and only two men from Warwickshire fought at Rorkes drift.If you are based in Wales then you are a Welsh regiment.2 years after this battle they were the South Wales borderers and now they are the Royal regiment of Wales.Owain the 1st (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Colour Sergeant Bourne (1854–1945) is depicted as a big, hardened, middle-aged veteran; in fact, he was of smaller stature and, aged 24, the youngest colour sergeant in the British Army.[15] He was called 'The Kid' by his men.[16] Sergeant Bourne would not have worn medals on his duty uniform. Moreover, Green's costume has the chevrons on the wrong arm. Bourne refused a VC and instead requested a commission. He was the last British survivor of the Battle, dying a full Colonel."

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Bourne, Bourne was offered a commission but declined it, not getting one until some years later; died a Lt. Colonel; and got a DCM for the action. I am not sure which is right, but clearly, the two need to be reconciled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.131.187 (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Nitpicking is a bad thing
Can I be the only one who thinks the article goes a bit too far in nitpicking the inaccuracies? This is something I have seen many times in articles on historical fiction. I don't think our readers need to know every single tiny detail that is not perfectly accurate, and much of what I'm seeing there is obviously original research based on observing the film. Things like what he men are wearing or the pure speculation about running out of blanks for the guns are not the type of details that need be documented in an article. Major historical errors are one thing, but this litany of minutia serves no purpose but to bloat the article with unnecessary, and in some cases improperly referenced, material. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As it has now been two months with no response, per WP:SILENCE I am going to begin chopping the WP:OR out of this portion of the article. Unless WP:RS can be found which actually describe inaccuracies in the film, it would seem that all this content is based on people watching the film and comparing it with the historical record. That is the very definition of original research and is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. Note that I am not saying that these observations are wrong per se, but that they are


 * improperly verified
 * not needed or helpful to the reader, who is unlikely to be helped by such minutiae as whether wagons were tipped over or other minor details. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to "tag" the offending sentences first? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it would have been possible to do that before I removed anything that looked like unverified original research just over a year ago. You can see what I removed in the page history, just looks for edits by me around Feb 4 2012. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)