Now I usually despise nitpicking in forums like these, but... John from Austin, Texas' claimed that "Gettysburg" is "revisionist history at its worst"...what movie were you watching, John?? I can't think of a more grossly exaggerated line than that! John must be reminded that "Gettysburg" was a Hollywood feature film production, and not a play-by-play documentary narrated by eye-witnesses. Even without stating that fact, "Gettysburg" is remarkable for its accuracy, ESPECIALLY as Hollywood films go. John claims Longstreet did in fact favor a different strategy than Lee, but there's no evidence that supports he didn't accepted it. So what does that mean? Whether Longstreet accepted it or not is a moot point. A) Longstreet was a human being like you and me and did not shout out every thought or disagreement he had floating around his head, especially if the disagreement is with a highly respected superior, and B) this is a movie, and movies tend to have personal conflicts for the benefit of a storyline. The fact that Longstreet favored another strategy alone is grounds enough to assume he didn't accept the opposing strategy personally. Chamberlain is slammed by John as a stuttering idiot...what stuttering or stammering was in the film was a clever touch by actor Jeff Daniels to make Col. Chamberlain more real to the audience, and thus more vulnerable. As well, the speech he made, how do we know if he made it or not? Were you there, John? Do you think every spoken line was written down in 1863? Regardless, its a movie, and the speech was a development of character and a vehicle for the modern day audience to further understand the causes of the war and the countless men enlisted in it. I also failed to see when the Federal troops were portrayed in the movie as though they were on a holy crusade...I was a participant in the filming, and can tell you first hand there was no such atmosphere, nor were we given any such direction; I can't even see this coming across once during the film. As a final point (I'm trying to be quick, I can go on), Hancock's line of "There are times when a corps commander's life does not count" was something the real Hancock was quoted as saying during the actual battle; it was not made up Hollywood fluff as you'd like to believe.
John's comments are both fiery and exaggerated, and while I respect his opinion on whether he liked or didn't like the film, I believe he basically sat down expecting a 4 hour and 8 minute truth-telling history lesson without extensive knowledge of the battle in the first place (this is not meant to be a personal attack, how many of us really do have such a knowledge?) or a well-enough understanding of Michael Shaara's novel on which the film was based on, almost more so than the battle itself.
John's comments are both fiery and exaggerated, and while I respect his opinion on whether he liked or didn't like the film, I believe he basically sat down expecting a 4 hour and 8 minute truth-telling history lesson without extensive knowledge of the battle in the first place (this is not meant to be a personal attack, how many of us really do have such a knowledge?) or a well-enough understanding of Michael Shaara's novel on which the film was based on, almost more so than the battle itself.