why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield

ok one, you are what we younger people call a troll. seriously you need take the stick out of your bum and lighten up. you seem to think there is some conspiracy here with this film and frankly you are just being fussy.

I didnt get anything wrong about the 69th. perhaps osprey one of the most respected military publishers got it wrong, but i didnt.

the SWB was the name for about 80 years and South Warwickshires for 102 years. really at that point its about the same length of time
1779-1881 and 1881-1969

BUT no matter which name lasted the longest AT THE TIME THE MOVIE WAS MADE they were the south wales borderers. plus the point i was trying to make that you willfully ignore to make your crazy conspiracy case, is the name doesnt matter it changes and keeps changing the NUMBER however does not and that has always been the same.
If you asked a man in 1879 what regiment he was in and he answered the 24th 2nd warwickshires would he think he was in a different regiment because they changed the name.. already pointed out that did not distress the men. So they would have considered it the same regiment and would probably laugh at you for getting your panites in a bunch about it.

and yes we have every right to mess with the fact to make a better story
that has been going on since the dawn of time, the bible for instance.. Im sure a guy named moses existed and led the Isrealites out of bondage.. parting the red sea with Magic is taking poetic liscence to say the least. If there was a king named beowulf im pretty sure he didnt fight a dragon, nor did king arthur(now considered a real person) get a magic sword from a "watery tart"(to borrow from monty python)

ever read historical fiction.. did bernard cornwall have the right to give his fictional character the honor of taking the first eagle from napoleon? probably not but the author has every right to do that.
again the fact that you expect:
1 movies to educate
2 the average person to care about this at all when they didnt in school
3 people to intentionally lose money to placate a fringe group(in this place people who are concerned about history)
These are the places that YOU are missing the point.

Im not saying they shouldnt have been closer at least on the easy stuff(facing colors) but the rest of it, come on guy

Frankly i am starting to think that at one point you must have been beaten up by a roving band of Welsh thugs. I mean you REALLY hate the welsh. I get the same vibe from this i do when southern americans talk about the civil war.. might want to think about that

and since you decided to take my joke seriously and you went there i am going to go where all americans go.. however i have history and an understanding of it back me up... you said we needed the frenchies help to defeat the british.. very true. but then you needed our help to defeat the germans TWICE.
Im only saying that once because frankly its stupid and i hate when people say that.. but cooper went there.. lets not be mean to each other again now.. no need for that in debate

90th wrote:

Hi Gary .
That's true , he was made out to be a malingerer ( bludger / loafer ) . Reynold's does call him '' My Malingering Hector '' if I'm not mistaken .
Cheers 90th.

yeah he does.. took a while for me to understand him his accent was pretty thick( i like the actor who plays reynolds he is also in clock work orange)

One of the reasons they do this, i think, is to give hook a character arc.
again if you just have him, as he was a model soldier, you have just another guy in the battle really. What makes characters human, faults and foils, what makes a character great, one that over comes those faults and grows in the movie.

frankly hooks character is the only that really changes, he is the only one that undergoes a proper character arc.
He starts out a drunk malingerer who cares only for himself. He hates Maxfield because he was charitable and that makes him feel his own rottenness. he knows he is a better man but refuses to be it.
Then through the course of the battle he understands maxfield and the others. he turns from a selfish man into a selfless man.

that is a great bit of development, especially in a war film and ESPECIALLY in a 60s war film.

What arc to the others take?
Bromhead maybe becomes less of a poof and more a "real soldier" something that isnt true in real life by the way as he was already a real soldier.
Chard doesnt change a bit he is still the same stiff guy he starts out as. and more happens to him personally. especially the part when he is wounded and sees the horrors of the hospital. He should have some change develop after all that.. but nope

so really by taking hook and changing him they have created a stronger character, one that can help bring you into the movie. one that you can identify with because he isnt some perfect lofty ideal. he is the kind of guy that most of us are.. taking a swig of brandy when the Sh*t gets real.. as they say This allows him a more human element and i think makes the character in the movie a strong well writen character. maybe the best in the film and certainly my favorite

It would appear that some people of the younger generations cannot have a civil dabate without resorting to name calling and insults, which sadly seem to be the norm in these modern times.

Let me remind you that all British infantry regimental numbers were officiall ended in July 1881, meaning that the last British infantry regiment to officially have been numbered the 24th foot, was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, the name changed to just the SWB with no numbers. After July 1881 the numbers were only included unofficially to denote the precedence of the regiments, they are not officially part of the regiments title, as they were officially ended in July 1881.

Anyway, like I said, if your generation cannot hold a civil discussion withouth resorting to insults and name calling, then there does not seem to be much point in trying to debate anything with you.

There is a young man on this forum who sets a shining example to his generation, he never resorts to name calling or insults, and he is a credit to his generation (and also to this forum), and I think that you would do well to learn from this example set by this fine young fellow.

Martin
Young man, shining example, credit to his generation.................... thats me huh huh huh?????? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Cheers Mate

Hi
Basically, I do agree with most of what Mr Cooper says. Although the film "ZULU" had a hideous amount of fiction in it, what it did do, was to captivate a whole new audience on the subject, which can only be for the good. Without that film, the history of the the Zulu Wars, and the Zulu Nation, would be, generally, long forgotten.
Cheers

Warrior 3...............exactly.

Hi springy.

Well of course I mean you young man, who else? :lol:

warrior3.

Thanks for that, and yes I agree with you that the film got many people interested in the AZW. However it also brought about the myth that the regiment was an all Welsh affair "'with a few forigners from England", and since then the Welsh have jumped on the bang wagon and tried to turn this myth into fact. Of the many sites that are supposed to be dedicated to the memory of this regiment, nearly all of them never mention the English origins of the regiment, nor its English county name at the time of the AZW, its English history up to 1881 is always written as being that of the SWB, anything of its English past is either hidden, disguised, never mentioned, or just added in the small print that no one reads. The regiment was (in my opinion) wrongly moved from its native England in 1873, however, it's name was still the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, and by the start of the the AZW neither battalion had ever been to Brecon, and its name was not changed until July 1881, 2 years after the AZW. And since then all mention of its pre 1881 Englishness has been stealthily hidden and substituded for Welshness, Lets face it, of the 123 men of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment that defended RD, just 14 were Welsh. But ever since the film, many people believe that it was a Welsh regiment, and the many sites that I mentioned above that could and should make things clear about this, just don't do, in other words, they want people to believe this myth, so that the Welsh can bask in the glory that is not rightfully theirs. The memory of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment has been discarded and substituted as being that of the SWB. This is no way to treat the memory of all those men that fell at iSandlwana, and who bravely defended RD, these men fought these actions when the name of their regiment was called the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, not the SWB.

Martin.

Mr Cooper

Like I said in my previous post, I agree with you. Mr Baker has considerably twisted the facts, there's no doubt about it. But, unfortunately, there's also not a lot you can do about it, on a personal basis.
Cheers

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

It would appear that some people of the younger generations cannot have a civil dabate without resorting to name calling and insults, which sadly seem to be the norm in these modern times.

Let me remind you that all British infantry regimental numbers were officiall ended in July 1881, meaning that the last British infantry regiment to officially have been numbered the 24th foot, was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, the name changed to just the SWB with no numbers. After July 1881 the numbers were only included unofficially to denote the precedence of the regiments, they are not officially part of the regiments title, as they were officially ended in July 1881.

Anyway, like I said, if your generation cannot hold a civil discussion withouth resorting to insults and name calling, then there does not seem to be much point in trying to debate anything with you.

There is a young man on this forum who sets a shining example to his generation, he never resorts to name calling or insults, and he is a credit to his generation (and also to this forum), and I think that you would do well to learn from this example set by this fine young fellow.

so you will just ignore me.. and it was you that started the foolishness with the moronic statement about france.. not me


anyway none of what i said makes sense to you? thats too bad. its clear you do not understand the medium of storytelling versus the medium of documentary

this movie is designed to entertain, its designed to fictionalize history to make other broader statements. the statements on religion, the statements on socialism those things took precedent, as they do in all good films, to the reality of the situation.

tell me what narrative would work for the movie other wise? how would not changing things have made it a better movie and more so a better story. it would satisfy us that it looked more real but thats it. sorry but the story is more important than the truth.

the alamo, patton, the patriot, braveheart, saving private ryan, battle of the bulge all these movies and more take huge liberties with things. again as much as i admire hook, they do this to far more IMPORTANT people. but you dont get all upset by this..

I dont know man you need to examine why it bothers you.. everyone here says it admirable but you need to cool it.. you dont take that message. every post is more of the same and frankly its never backed up. wild claims about a welsh conspiracy? seriously

ignore me if you want, it doesnt make you right or me wrong. in the eyes of the men in the regiment(which i notice you are not) they are the same regiment. that is how it works, that is how they follow their line all the way back to Derring Regiment founded by charter. How can you NOT see that? why do you willfully ignore this most basic premise? (i know why, it undermines everything you say)
so again, those who SHOULD be incensed are not and the those who have no reason to care are crying about it..

you see how silly that is right?

Mr Cooper

Thanks for your comments

MadDrDevo

All Mr Cooper wanted was the real name of the regiment to be stated, that wouldn't have changed the story, and
i've worked on a stall about RD with the Ibutho group and over 12 people commented on the "Welsh Regiment" at RD. Realy it wouldn'thave been hard to say 24th (2nd Warwickshire) instead of the "South Wales Boarders."

Simply a change of a a few words on the script, not going to costs thousands.



Cheers
Sam

I agree. The regiment that fought in the Zulu War was called the 24th Regiment of Foot (2nd Warwickshire) and that is what we should remember it as. The fact that films twist the facts and distort the truth can never be justified, however entertaining they might be!

Drummer Boy 14 wrote:

Mr Cooper

Thanks for your comments

MadDrDevo

All Mr Cooper wanted was the real name of the regiment to be stated, that wouldn't have changed the story, and
i've worked on a stall about RD with the Ibutho group and over 12 people commented on the "Welsh Regiment" at RD. Realy it wouldn'thave been hard to say 24th (2nd Warwickshire) instead of the "South Wales Boarders."

Simply a change of a a few words on the script, not going to costs thousands.



Cheers
Sam

no it wouldnt have been a big deal to change it. of course you have the theme in the movie of subjegated peoples fighting natives to subjegate them for the overlords who.. you get the point.

according the article posted in the other thread about this point out that was what Cy Endfield was going for.
So the welsh being used to subjagate the zulu for the english fits his theme. and that theme, as far as the narrative goes in the film, is more important than the facts and that is used in every movie. somethings are sacrificed.

and no cooper doesnt want it recognized, its a personal campaign waged by him over something extremely trivial. he clearly has an issue with the welsh and the fact that THEY are the ones "getting credit" offends him deeply.

and i will say this again, where the unit was raised has nothing to do with who is in it. in the 1850s most scottish higland regiments were not mostly highlanders but people seeking appointment to a fashionable unit. .that is going to be the case pretty much all over. people joined whatever units and prior to the cardwell reforms people signed up for "general service" so they did not pick what unit based on county. You went to your recruiter where ever and got sent where ever they needed you. it was to combat the leeching effect of wars and the need to have a reserve that caused the cardwell reforms in the first place and it was THEN thought, much like the logic in WW1 of the Pals Battailions, that the men might fight better or have more morale for the unit if it had a local tie to the people.

on top of that the way they actually filled the troops seems random, for instance the 24th depot at home might not send men to the 24th over seas but instead to a different unit.. that part was really confusing i have to admit. but that was the gist of it(and no the 24th wasnt the given example it was a set of highland units talked about)

in the long run for the movies purpose it needs to be the south wales borderers. because the Theme is more important than accuracy.

Im sorry that none of you see this, that you all seem to think this is some super sin, but again this is not a documentary, its not meant to tell the truth or teach you anything about the Zulu war but about the human condition. That take precedent to the facts. its meant to have certain themes covered and explored and not one of those themes is historical accuracy.

It is an act of lunacy to expect a movie to do anything other than entertain and tell its story the way the STORYTELLER(in this case the director) wants to go about it. Covering what he feels are important aspects of humanity, and showing us those things in a certain unwavering light.

So you want fact. they have this channel here called the history channel, and the military channel.. they show documentaries.. watch those for fact, and then when THEY make a mistake your outrage is justified

you all sound like old ladies worrying about what this movie said.. YOU AND I know the truth. we care and we know. you can not expect others to share you opinions or get excited about the things you get excited about. the average movie goer is a Mongoose and the movies are actually a business(given the money they make i dont understand why that important factor is left out) and businesses only care about the lowest common denominator. they want to make something that will appeal to the broadest spectrum of people..

I would bet that the people on this forum are also mostly the same people that are on the other AZW forums out there. we are the only ones rabid enough to talk like this about it, we are true "FANS" AKA Fanatics. Thus that very small audience would be who they would be making a 100% accurate movie for.. and that isnt enough to justify spending MILLIONS.

in my other capacity i work in sales and sales is about managing expectations.. you have expectations that are far beyond those that can be delivered. thus you WILL be disapointed

MadDrDevo.

It would appear that you have a very short memory. You have accused me of starting this by my mentioning of the French, let me remind you that it was you that came out with the rather stupid remark that "we kicked out the British", (which was incorrect), I then corrected you by reminding you about the French involvement, this obviously struck a nerve with you, and you have been trying to "have a go" ever since. You are just making a fool of yourself taking this silly attitude, and it will get you nowhere (water off a ducks back, sticks and stones and all that), I suggest that you grow up, act like an adult, and stop being so childish.

"South Wales Boarders."

Hope this was just a typo :lol:


Lets all chill out here please .

littlehand wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Interesting article LH. Anyway of knowing if this is the same man as 1907 W. Galloway 1/24th? This man's bar is 1877-8, thus indicating he missed the war with the Zulus.

littlehand wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Article dated 15th November, 1928, Queensland.

With this evidence, will Martin Cooper now finally concede that it wasn't Sir Stanley Baker who started the "myth" or "conspiracy" over the name of the 24th in the AZW?

I know the film Zulu is old, but it isn't that old is it? And Queensland isn't in Wales!

Tasker
Without wishing in any way to deny Martin his (probably) lengthy reply, surely the article is correct in that when the old boy died the regiment had renamed?

Anyway Martin is probably to busy celebrating Englands win over Australia. ( sorry for bringing that up 90th)

Cheers

:lol: Nice one springy.

Correct, the regiments name was changed by the then government in July 1881 (2 years after the AZW), however, the article should say the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, (later called the SWB).

And it was Baker and his film that gave the deliberate false impression that the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment was a Welsh regiment called the SWB during the AZW, and it was this deliberate "licence" that caused the myth that the uninitiated general public still think is fact.

Not a lengthy one this time springy, I think that everyone on this forum knows my views and opinions on the deliberate avoidence by many places, people and sites, of not giving the general public the full, correct and real name of the regiment that fought in the AZW at both iSandlwana and RD just to keep the myth alive, the word "disgraceful" jumps to mind.

Yes, I listened to it on TMS, then watched the highlights on the telly, I still think the ozzies have got a surprise in store, they don't go down without a fight, so England will have to be on their toes.

Cheers mate.

Martin, my point is this:
If a Queensland newspaper in 1928 was referring (mistakenly as we on this forum are all agreed) to the 24th regiment during the AZW of 1879 as being named the SWB regiment, then this false impression must have existed a long time before Stanley Baker made his film.

Maybe Baker was simply one of the many "uninitiated" ? Is it fair to say that "Baker and his film that gave the deliberate false impression" ?
False impression true enough, but how do you know it was "deliberate" - is there any evidence of this?

"
FILM legend Sir Stanley Baker used his love of Wales to turn the epic battle movie Zulu into what he called a “Welsh western” by altering the facts of the conflict, says a new book on the star.

And on the set of the 1964 movie starring Michael Caine in his first major role, Baker had to contend with stubborn baboons who threatened the whole production as well as racism from some set workers.

According to Stanley Baker, a Life in Film by Robert Shail (University of Wales Press, £19.99), it was the Rhondda-born actor and co-producer of Zulu who decided to call the British soldiers fighting at Rorke’s Drift in the film the South Wales Borderers.

But in reality the regiment at Rorke’s Drift was the 24th (The 2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot which had a single recruiting office in Brecon.

The South Wales Borderers were not formed until two years after the Battle of Rorke’s Drift.

In the new biography, Robert Shail, head of the department of film and media at University of Wales, Lampeter, says when Zulu was made, Baker was a passionate Welshman who was desperate to produce what Baker called his “Welsh western”.

During the Battle of Rorke’s Drift in South Africa in January 1879 on which Zulu was based, just over 100 British troops held off 4,000 Zulu warriors from a supply depot near the Tugula River. Among the were 49 English, 32 Welsh, 16 Irish and 22 men of other nationality.

A total of 11 Victoria Crosses were awarded for the valiant defence, seven to the regiment, others to the Army Medical Corps, Transport Unit, Native Natal Contingent and Royal Engineers.

Baker formed Diamond Films to co-produce the movie with Cy Endfield after being approached by writer John Prebble.

Robert Shail said: “Baker seems to have been attracted to the project by one particular aspect of the script, its Welsh dimension.

“Baker could see the possibility of making a film which might pay affectionate tribute to his homeland and the heroism of its native sons.

“As John Prebble put it, ‘Wales prevailed everywhere when Stanley was working’. When the film was eventually made, the 24th Regiment magically became the South Wales Borderers.”

Baker, who died of lung cancer just after being knighted in 1976 aged 49, persuaded Paramount to back the film with a $2m budget... substantially lower than had been hoped.

Shail said: “Necessity proved to be the mother of invention and they saved money by making costumes and props in-house rather than buying them from expensive suppliers in London.

“With only 400 Zulu extras to depict 4,000, the props department came up with an ingenious solution.

“For the magnificent long shots in which we see Zulus spread out against the blue sky, shields were nailed onto long poles and held horizontally between two Zulus giving the appearance of 10 men instead of two.

“As second unit director Bob Porter has pointed out, if you look closely enough you can see that some of the warriors don’t have any legs.”

Bringing in the film on time was essential because of the tight budget and an invasion of baboons nearly brought the whole movie to a halt.

They took a liking to the encampment set and could not be shifted for days from their seats. Eventually they were coaxed away with food placed some distance from the set.

Shail said a more serious level of difficulty arose from shooting under the strictures of South Africa’s apartheid policy.

He said Baker, as producer (he also played Lieut John Chard VC in the film), was required by watching police to ensure “fraternisation” between black and white people on set was kept to a minimum.

Shail said: “As an avowed liberal it was an uncomfortable experience but the consequences of breaching South Africa’s laws at the time were made obvious by the authorities.”

But it did not all go smoothly.

Michael Caine said in his autobiography: “I saw a black worker make a mistake and stopped to watch him get a real telling-off.

“To my astonishment the foreman didn’t reprimand him but smashed his fist into his face.

“I started to run but Stanley (Baker) got there first. He fired the man on the spot then got all the white gang bosses together and laid down the law on how everyone was going to be treated from then on.”

Yesterday, Major Martin Everett, curator of the South Wales Borderers Museum in Brecon, said : “At the time of Rorke’s Drift British regiments, although having county names, did not actually have bases but recruited where they could.

“It was not until 1881 that the South Wales Borderers was formed because at that time regiments actually got bases so people could identify with them more. The British force at Rorke’s Drift was around 30% Welsh so quite a high number.

“Sir Stanley Baker did tell army personnel at a showing of the film that ‘certain changes had been made so it would be a commercial success’ so he did not hide it.”



Read More [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks Dave. I don't know anything about this Robert Shail or how reliable he is. (I have just posted on another thread in regard to unreliable or reliable historians and their works).
However, well done for finding this. This is the first bit of "evidence" that I have read that Stanley Baker was deliberately using artistic license to foment an already deeply ingrained myth.