What is Digg?Sponsored by Machinima.com
Rejected Mortal Kombat Fatalities view!
youtube.com - The Mortal Kombat developers came up with all kinds of ideas for fatalities. These are the ones that didn't make the cut.
175 Comments
- GoKings, on 10/27/2009, -1/+113Whatever... It was still an awesome movie. Anyone that believed the movie was historically accurate is a fool anyways.
- shutaro, on 10/27/2009, -0/+91You mean he couldn't shoot bolts of lightning from his arse?
- theghostofme, on 10/27/2009, -0/+66Why is this shocking? This has been known for a long time.
- RogueGenius, on 10/27/2009, -2/+67Gibson? Play fast and loose with history? Say it isn't so!
You mean the Spanish didn't arrive in time to save the Apocalypto guy... even though his civilization fell 300 years before they arrived? - pstroll, on 10/28/2009, -7/+65This just in: Jesus Christ wasn't a blue eyed, fair skinned Northern European with magical powers.
- spookyttws, on 10/28/2009, -0/+40Wait, Hollywood changed a historical story to make it more entertaining and appealing to the public? This must be the first time in history this has happened!
- ZigZagZilla, on 10/28/2009, -0/+34I'm beginning to suspect that The Road Warrior may be somewhat fictional as well.
- snowrail, on 10/28/2009, -2/+36The movie is not supposed to be based on the HISTORICAL William Wallace. It's based on the 700 year old Blind Harry poems about him, that is, the POETIC William Wallace, which is the original source of the exaggerations. The point was not to capture the historical story, it was to capture the spirit of the story so to speak. So get mad not at Gibson and screenwriter Randall Wallace, but instead at 700 years of British/Scottish storytelling!
There's the man and there's the myth. The movie was about the myth. - lolerskate, on 10/27/2009, -0/+29Damn right sugar *****.
- hellengineer, on 10/27/2009, -0/+28a bit?
- diggzine, on 10/27/2009, -0/+27Based on a True(modified) story!
- nepidae, on 10/28/2009, -0/+26And? Its a ***** movie.
- AdmiralAcbar, on 10/27/2009, -0/+24I wanted them to include the part where he MADE A BELT OUT OF A MAN'S SKIN.
- xenex11, on 10/28/2009, -0/+24They're HISTORIANS...they never get around to examining anything until it's at least a decade old!
- ajkrik, on 10/28/2009, -0/+24Hey, sometimes you just need a belt!
- jmdwinter, on 10/27/2009, -0/+23Wait, so he didn't knock up the princess with his virile Scottish spunk?
- Ragarnok, on 10/28/2009, -0/+22The records weren't clear since many of the historic scrolls from that period were photoshopped
- Trendy2, on 10/28/2009, -0/+21Exactly. My favorite movie of all time, it's an epic story, true or not. Of course it's exaggerated, I think everyone knows this.
- snowrail, on 10/28/2009, -1/+17...and I'll add that this has been said by the writer/director/producer since the movie was released, so I'm really not sure why this is news now. If I was going to get stressed out about historical inaccuracies I'd pick Pocahontas or any number of Disney-ified abominations before I'd pick on Braveheart. At least Braveheart is honest to the storytelling tradition about the myth of William Wallace.
- papashawn, on 10/28/2009, -2/+18he was samoan, everyone knows this
- waydee, on 10/27/2009, -1/+15Wallace was hardly a monster, he certainly wasn't what he was made out to be in Braveheart but to call the man a monster is just as bad.
- Mannyy, on 10/28/2009, -0/+13FREEDOM!
- rolf, on 10/28/2009, -0/+13Exactly. Don't look to Hollywood for history lessons.
Gladiator also was almost complete fiction, even the elements that existed were distorted (for one, Commodus's appeared in the arena a ton of times, Rome also didn't become a republic again after his death). But the costumes were pretty nice.
And Braveheart is a damn good movie, regardless of what people think of Mel Gibson. - Tyrghast, on 10/28/2009, -0/+12THATS SO METAL
- mtjohnson, on 10/28/2009, -4/+15I knew something was up during that monologue where he blamed all the problems the Scottish have on the Jews.
- reyoo30309, on 10/28/2009, -0/+10Not sure why people are surprised. This isn't anything new.
- hivoltage815, on 10/28/2009, -1/+10Might we add that Gladiator is one of the best ***** movies of all time.
- Kikinou, on 10/28/2009, -3/+12Who cares, it was a fantastic movie and the historical accuracy is hardly of consequence to modern society.
Now the height of irresponsibility on the other hand was Oliver Stone's JFK. Pure complete fiction made to look like fact. It's amazing how many people believe it. Oswald shot JFK alone and by himself, end of story. Ruby was a nut. Still an excellent movie of course, but Stone really should have started the film off with one of those "actual events blah blah" disclaimers. - onimusha115, on 10/28/2009, -3/+12Historians are still bitching about a movie made 15 years ago? Let it go, movies are made for entertainment.
- palehorse864, on 10/28/2009, -1/+10Talk about exagerration.
http://somemightsay.ytmnd.com/ - Konwashere, on 10/28/2009, -0/+8FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!
- charlietuna, on 10/28/2009, -0/+8And Shakespeare didn't play fast and loose with his biographies?
- snowrail, on 10/28/2009, -0/+8When it comes to larger than life characters, there is the man and there is the myth. Hell, even look at a recent character like Ronald Reagan and the way he's been mythologized after his death (or JFK or Ghandi or Hitler or perhaps even Beowulf or King Arthur -- who may or may not have a historical literalism -- and many many others). The reality and the legend are quite separate, but each story has validity, because what someone symbolizes to others and the meaning they take on in our culture is as compelling as the literal truth of their biography.
Gibson's portrayal is valid in light of 700 years of "misleading" or "inaccurate" poetry told about the man, starting with Blind Harry's poems and ended -- or continued -- by Braveheart the movie. - awtripp, on 10/28/2009, -0/+8Oh Braveheart. I love ya, always have.
- newserr, on 10/28/2009, -1/+8Next they'll be having news articles analyzing an snl skit! ...wait
- raviu90, on 10/28/2009, -0/+7It says BASED on a true story.....
- xenex11, on 10/28/2009, -4/+11I'm just happy he didn't have Wallace fighting an invading army of Jews!
Mel Gibson is an antisemitic bastard... - nullcodes, on 10/28/2009, -2/+9Still waiting on Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to come forward and and admit they exaggerated stuff about Jesus in the Bible.
- ldkronos, on 10/28/2009, -0/+7passion of the christ
- counterplex, on 10/28/2009, -1/+7Correction: Good quality leather
- hivoltage815, on 10/28/2009, -1/+7The actor wore brown contact lenses and had tanned skin in Passion, and also spoke in Hebrew.
- Alli3388, on 10/28/2009, -2/+8Who the ***** cares? It's an awesome movie!
- reyoo30309, on 10/28/2009, -0/+6Leather was really hard to come by in those days.
- reyoo30309, on 10/28/2009, -0/+5No, this was several years before he started hating jews.
- CrackyJSquirrel, on 10/28/2009, -0/+5***** that.. next thing you are going to try tell me is that 300 isnt real.. Screw you it was on the big screen. Hollywood doesnt lie to us..
- Tyrghast, on 10/28/2009, -1/+6Star Wars: A New Hope was a documentary
- EddiePotato, on 10/28/2009, -0/+5Of course the first two films were. But Thunderdome was 100% factual.
- uruururr, on 10/28/2009, -1/+6oh you mean that the holocaust DID happen even though he denies that it did?
- rocknog, on 10/28/2009, -0/+5Given that Jesus was Jewish and being Jewish was a requirement of being Christian in the early days of Christianity, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the message he was trying to send.
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/28/2009, -2/+7William Wallace wasn't real?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 178 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is