[TeMPOraL]

Which, in my books, invalidates either as a learning resource.

I mean, as a viewer, if I spot a naval historiographer routinely using wrong footage, then how certain can I be they're not also playing fast and loose with what they're saying? After all, the only piece of clear evidence that I have points towards them not caring.

As for what "comports with audience expectations", maybe this is an extreme position, but to me, intentionally choosing something incorrect but more recognizable is gaslighting at scale - it reinforces the misconception in those already exposed, and introduces it to those new (usually young) to a topic.

[sandworm101]

Like in Master and Commander when they swapped out the American ship for a french ship as american audiances dont like seeing american ships as the bad guys.

[jackfoxy]

The real Master and Commander story, https://www.amazon.com/Journal-Cruise-CLASSICS-NAVAL-LITERAT..., is from the American perspective and is way better than the fictional one. To do it justice it would have to be done as a mini-series because it would be too long for a movie.

[jackfoxy]

Drachinifel is pretty darned knowledgeable. I imagine its not that easy to get enough footage of some American WWII destroyer that is NOT a Fletcher class, (as a made up example), to fill out an entire 45 minute narration. And there's a shit ton of work that goes into a video that long for a solo creator.

Now, the abysmal nature of name brand corporate history videos is another matter.

[setr]

acoup typically shows whatever image he can, and then states how close it is to the actual thing he was trying to talk about (and where it deviates) in roughly a single sentence — I’m not sure it’s actually that hard to fit in. In a video format, I’d probably expect it as a text-disclaimer on the image for anyone who cared.

Not doing so is exactly the same as the Hollywood thing; focusing on the narrative rather than the actual teaching, which seems to me psychotic behavior for anything purporting to teach. If you’re misrepresenting the image of the object for narrative convenience, the immediate question is how much of the other material has been butchered for that same convenience? The priorities are out of order.

It’s a violation of viewer trust, and it’s only acceptable in the sense that the viewer often doesn’t know they’ve been tricked… because they were viewing it for the precise reason that they don’t have the knowledge to differentiate between a truth and a lie on that subject