10 Most Historically Inaccurate Films? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 03-29-2008, 12:20 PM

Quote:

View: Yahoo.com
We all accept that movies stretch the truth in the interest of building drama. The following ten flicks, however, treat the truth like it was Silly Putty -- pulling and twisting it until it's unrecognizable.

10,000 B.C.
Director Roland Emmerich is usually a stickler for realism (see: sending a computer virus via Macintosh to aliens in Independence Day). So we hate to inform him that woolly mammoths were not, in fact, used to build pyramids. Heck, woolly mammoths weren't even found in the desert. They wouldn't need to be woolly if that were the case. And there weren't any pyramids in Egypt until 2,500 B.C or so.

Gladiator
Emperor Commodus was not the sniveling sister-obsessed creep portrayed in the movie. A violent alcoholic, sure, but not so whiny. He ruled ably for over a decade rather than ineptly for a couple months. He also didn't kill his father, Marcus Aurelius, who actually died of chickenpox. And instead of being killed in the gladiatorial arena, he was murdered in his bathtub.

300
Though this paean to ancient moral codes and modern physical training is based on the real Battle of Thermopylae, the film takes many stylistic liberties. The most obvious one being Persian king Xerxes was not an 8-foot-tall Cirque du Soleil reject. The Spartan council was made up of men over the age of 60, with no one as young as Theron (played by 37-year-old Dominic West). And the warriors of Sparta went into battle wearing bronze armor, not just leather Speedos.

The Last Samurai
The Japanese in the late 19th century did hire foreign advisers to modernize their army, but they were mostly French, not American. Ken Watanabe's character was based on the real Saigo Takamori who committed ritual suicide, or "seppuku," in defeat rather than in a volley of Gatling gun fire. Also, it's doubtful that a 40-something alcoholic Civil War vet, even one with great hair, would master the chopsticks much less the samurai sword.

Apocalypto
This one movie has given entire Anthropology departments migraines. Sure the Maya did have the odd human sacrifice but not to Kulkulkan, the Sun God, and only high-ranking captives taken in battle were killed. The conquistadors arriving at the end of the film made for unlikely saviors: an estimated 90% of indigenous American population was killed by smallpox from their infected livestock.

Memoirs of a Geisha
The geisha coming-of-age, called "mizuage," was really more of a makeover, where she changed her hairstyle and clothes. It didn't involve her getting... intimate with a client. In the climactic scene where Sayuri wows Gion patrons with her dancing prowess, her routine - which involves some platform shoes, fake snow, and a strobe light - seems more like a Studio 54 drag show than anything in pre-war Kyoto.

Braveheart
Let's forget the fact that kilts weren't worn in Scotland until about 300 years after William Wallace's day and just do some simple math. According to the movie, Wallace's blue-eyed charm at the Battle of Falkirk was so overpowering, he seduced King Edward II's wife, Isabella of France, and the result of their affair was Edward III. But according to the history books, Isabella was three years old at the time of Falkirk, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died.

Elizabeth: The Golden Age
In 1585, when the movie takes place, Queen Elizabeth was 52 years old - Cate Blanchett was 36 when she shot the film - and was not being courted by suitors like Ivan the Terrible (who was dead by then). And though the movie has her rallying the troops at Tilbury astride a white steed in full armor with a sword, in fact she rode side saddle, carrying a baton. She was more of a regal majorette than Joan of Arc.

The Patriot
Revolutionary War figure Francis "The Swamp Fox" Marion was the basis for Mel Gibson's character, but he wasn't the forward-thinking family man they show in the flick. He was a slave owner who didn't get married (to his cousin) until after the war was over. Historians also say that he actively persecuted and murdered native Cherokees. Plus, the thrilling Battle of Guilford Court House where he vanquishes his British nemesis? In reality, the Americans lost that one.

2001: A Space Odyssey
According to this film, in year 2001 we would have had manned voyages to Jupiter, a battle of wits with a sentient computer, and a quantum leap in human evolution. Instead we got the Mir Space Station falling from the sky, Windows XP, and Freddy Got Fingered. Apparently the lesson here is that sometimes it's better when the movies get the facts all wrong.

I hated Gladiator for the very reasons they stated. While it was great they CGI'd a Roman city in all it's glory, I just couldn't forgive the "artistic license" taken in so radically changing the story. Just make some leader up that wants to kill someone else.... set it in Roman times and be done with it.

Does anyone know of any others that could be added to this list?

levite · 03-29-2008, 01:42 PM

I'll go out on a limb and mention every film ever made about Jesus, none of which, to my knowledge ever paint anything resembling an accurate picture of Jewish society at that time in history. Nobody who actually had power is represented as having any, and people who never had any are represented as having it, who was and was not popular among the people is never portrayed well, not to mention a few other errors about how Jewish society worked, although to be fair, those come from the gospels, and not from the filmmakers....

The recent Marie Antoinette movie was fairly disastrous, although I'm not sure anyone expected any verisimilitude from it.

Pearl Harbor, not for details of the bombing assault, but just because I'm positive a wuss like Affleck would never have made it to a plane in that situation.

The recent King Arthur movie, also. There seems little evidence to suppose that Arthur was that heavily Romanized, rather than simply being a Celtic chieftain.

Kingdom of Heaven. A number of incorrect political details, not to mention details of Arabic society at the time, and one or two other things....

Michael Collins. Gorgeous film. Details not so smooth. Also...Julia Roberts?!

Titanic. 'Nuff said.

fresnelly · 03-29-2008, 01:57 PM

U-571.

It was the freaking British for goodness sake.

Chilly McFreeze · 03-29-2008, 03:19 PM

Braveheart and The Patriot, hands down, but that's Mel Gibson for you - why let a little thing like historical accuracy get in the way of a good bit of English-bashing?.

Good call on U-571 as well.

Baraka_Guru · 03-29-2008, 03:26 PM

Braveheart: Also, Isabella of France was referred to as the "She-Wolf of France." Mainly because she was the binary opposite of the soft-spoken character played by Sophie Marceau.

Willravel · 03-29-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

10,000 B.C.
Director Roland Emmerich is usually a stickler for realism (see: sending a computer virus via Macintosh to aliens in Independence Day). So we hate to inform him that woolly mammoths were not, in fact, used to build pyramids. Heck, woolly mammoths weren't even found in the desert. They wouldn't need to be woolly if that were the case. And there weren't any pyramids in Egypt until 2,500 B.C or so.

Two corrections:
1) I've seen the movie, so I know that the mammoths were removed from their natural environment, the tundra, and moved to the desert to be used for manual labor. It was a part of the story line that was made pretty clear. Not only that, but the mammoths were clearly dying from the heat. Many had lost a lot of hair, and were clearly near death.
2) Nowhere in the movie was it established that the pyramids were at Giza. There are dozens of pyramids around the world that are many thousands of years old that have nothing to do with Egypt.
Actual mistakes:
1) Horses... 12,000 years ago? Nope, modern horses are about 6,000 years old.
2) Walking from a frozen tundra to a rainforest to a desert in a few days? Sorry, but that kind of radical change of climate doesn't exist on Earth.

roachboy · 03-29-2008, 07:53 PM

i'm not sure that historical accuracy is a relevant criterion for judging a film.
the idea is kinda stupid if you really think about it.

personally, i find the least accurate films to be those which try the hardest to be accurate--like "the return of martin guerre"-- which was done with natalie davis hanging around as accuracy consultant--and which would have you believe that the 17th century french peasantry spent most of their time scuttling about being busily authentic.
you know, doing "authentic" things.
where the camera could see them of course.

films is a particular world that has nothing at all to do with the world that preceded film.
the most accurate films historically speaking aren't films.

to think otherwise is basically to imagine that it is the right of some asshole sitting on their couch to be able to see in all its detail the entire sweep of human history.
well, it isn't.
there are limits to spectatorship.
get a grip.

highthief · 03-29-2008, 11:11 PM

Braveheart is the one that gets me - my ancestors indeed faought side by side with Wallace, and while Braveheart is a nice movie and did loads for Scottish tourism, it doesn't even come close to history.

Baraka_Guru · 03-29-2008, 11:13 PM

roachboy, I had similar thoughts when I first saw this thread, but I decided to approach this with a light heart.

If these films were historically accurate, they'd be unwatched documentaries with relatively minuscule budgets.

SSJTWIZTA · 03-29-2008, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chilly McFreeze

Braveheart and The Patriot, hands down, but that's Mel Gibson for you - l.

did someone forget that he also directed Apocalypto?

Martian · 03-29-2008, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

Braveheart is the one that gets me - my ancestors indeed faought side by side with Wallace, and while Braveheart is a nice movie and did loads for Scottish tourism, it doesn't even come close to history.

Yours too, huh? I'm a Fraser of Lovat, we have a vast and storied history of beating other people up.

Other inaccuracies of Braveheart:

-Woad.
-The Battle of Stirling Bridge (the bridge had a slightly bigger role than is portrayed in the film).
-Mel Gibson's accent.

roachboy · 03-30-2008, 03:20 AM

yeah--see that's what posting after a bunch of wine can result in.
mea culpa.

the point's right tho.

Martian · 03-30-2008, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

yeah--see that's what posting after a bunch of wine can result in.
mea culpa.

the point's right tho.

Of course the point's right. Nobody really wants to see completely accurate portrayals of history. Some of them, like 300, don't even really pretend to be historically accurate.

To quote some famous journalist, "the truth should never get in the way of a good story."

highthief · 03-30-2008, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

Yours too, huh? I'm a Fraser of Lovat, we have a vast and storied history of beating other people up.

http://www.tartanweb.org/clanhistory/auchinleck.html

Quote:

There are conflicting opinions on the origin of this family, with some saying that the lands lay in the county of Angus, while others recognise the barony of Auchinleck in Ayrshire, in 1300 the Laird of Auchinleck is believed to have followed William Wallace to Glasgow to Kill Earl Percy of Northumbria. John Aghelek, or Achinfleck, is the first record of the name in 1306. The name itself could be purely descriptive of the topography, with 'auchen' describing raised areas of land separating water, and 'lech' refering to death, in sense of barren land. One of the daughters of Sir John Auchinleck married into the family of Boswell. Alexander Boswell was elevated to the bench in 1756, assuming the title of Lord Auchinleck, and his son Jame was the famous biographer of Samuel Johnson. General Sir Claude Auchinleck was the British commander-in-chief in India until Winston Churchill assigned him to Egypt to lead the Aliies in their offensive there in 1941. He lead the British 8th Army at the first Battle of El Alamein, but was not victorious, and he was replaced by Bernard Montgomery (later Field Marshall Montgomery)

That's us, on my mother's side, killers of Early Percy. Don't mess with us!

I also have a William Wallace in my ancestry somewhere, but I gather it was a popular name at one point and does not automatically denote a connection to the original.

Speed_Gibson · 04-04-2008, 01:28 PM

Quite a few westerns fall under the historically inaccurate label. Not many movies come to my mind that show that many western towns had a higher literacy rate per capita than eastern towns/cities, were peaceful for the most part, and that rape was practically unheard of.
Of course there were and still are the 'bad' towns that are full of crime.

on another vein, just thought of the film about the Scopes trial, that was full of errors.

Strange Famous · 04-04-2008, 01:45 PM

The Hollywood movie where they claimed America cracked Enigma was a fucking disgrace.

There is historical inaccuracy, and there is pissing on the graves of heroes... an disgraceful thing to be created by such a close and strong friend.

Daniel_ · 04-04-2008, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

The Hollywood movie where they claimed America cracked Enigma was a fucking disgrace.

There is historical inaccuracy, and there is pissing on the graves of heroes... an disgraceful thing to be created by such a close and strong friend.

Yep. Agreed.

It was the Polish who built the bombes that let the brits beat the codes.

james t kirk · 04-05-2008, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

The Hollywood movie where they claimed America cracked Enigma was a fucking disgrace.

.

It was actually a couple of Polish guys who cracked the Enigma Code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_Rejewski

They never really got credit for their work.

sapiens · 04-05-2008, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

The Hollywood movie where they claimed America cracked Enigma was a fucking disgrace.

There is historical inaccuracy, and there is pissing on the graves of heroes... an disgraceful thing to be created by such a close and strong friend.

In my opinion, an accurate account of the British breaking the Enigma machine would require a story about Alan Turing who contributed significantly to "cracking" it, was persecuted for being gay, and killed himself with a cyanide laced apple. I'm not sure how well such a story would hold up as a Matthew McConaughey action film.

Halx · 04-05-2008, 03:16 PM

300's inclusion in this list shows how little the author understands it. Actually very few people understand the movie in the first place. I'll explain it though:

The reason why things are so big/exaggerated/mystical is because the entire story is told through the words of a man chosen for his skill in storytelling. That is: when you see a giant 100ft elephant, it is because the storyteller is describing them to be that tall - not that they actually were.

MexicanOnABike · 04-05-2008, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

300's inclusion in this list shows how little the author understands it. Actually very few people understand the movie in the first place. I'll explain it though:

The reason why things are so big/exaggerated/mystical is because the entire story is told through the words of a man chosen for his skill in storytelling. That is: when you see a giant 100ft elephant, it is because the storyteller is describing them to be that tall - not that they actually were.

exactly. QFT.

Willravel · 04-05-2008, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

300's inclusion in this list shows how little the author understands it. Actually very few people understand the movie in the first place. I'll explain it though:

The reason why things are so big/exaggerated/mystical is because the entire story is told through the words of a man chosen for his skill in storytelling. That is: when you see a giant 100ft elephant, it is because the storyteller is describing them to be that tall - not that they actually were.

Halle-fucking-lujah!

Seaver · 04-05-2008, 08:50 PM

Most historically inaccurate movie?

The one where the Duke plays Gengis Khan. I win.

djtestudo · 04-05-2008, 09:46 PM

Major League. The Indians win the World Series? C'mon...

echo5delta · 04-06-2008, 02:15 AM

You know, of all the contenders for this list, 300 jumped to mind immediately when I saw the thread title.

YES, I understand the film was based on Frank fuckingWOW Miller's graphic novel. No problem with that, or the way he portrayed Xerxes as a giant in *appearance* (big/exaggerated/mystical).

The part that bugs me is, um... Hell-LO: Naval portion of the battle? 200 Athenian ships attacking 8000 Persian boats? The 300 were actually 1300 (yes, please include the Thespians, because they VOLUNTEERED to stay back in the holding battle while the bulk of the Greek force withdrew to fight another day).

But yeah, whatever. I probably watch too much History Channel.

And as far as the Hollywood version of Americans cracking the Enigma code from WWII; pissing on the graves of heroes, etc... well:

Wouldn't be the first time a movie did that. Probably won't be the last, either.

Don't even get me started on Gladiator or Braveheart, though. I seriously don't know much at all about history, but when I saw those two flicks I totally knew they were both complete bullshit from the first five minutes.

(Though I do confess that I AM ENTERTAINED! by them. Kinda like when I watch Tombstone... which, now that you mention it...)

I'll shut up now before I go about 8 pages in this thread...

m0rpheus · 04-06-2008, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

300's inclusion in this list shows how little the author understands it. Actually very few people understand the movie in the first place. I'll explain it though:

The reason why things are so big/exaggerated/mystical is because the entire story is told through the words of a man chosen for his skill in storytelling. That is: when you see a giant 100ft elephant, it is because the storyteller is describing them to be that tall - not that they actually were.

Exactly.

Best inclusion: 2001

Speed_Gibson · 04-08-2008, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Most historically inaccurate movie?

The one where the Duke plays Gengis Khan. I win.

that was one of my first thoughts. The film was a bit of a surreal experience the first time I saw it. And it has the whole 'uncomfortably high number of cast dying of cancer' factor going for it.

Willravel · 04-08-2008, 07:43 AM

According to the Star Trek universe, we should already be in the middle of the Eugenics Wars.

m0rpheus · 04-08-2008, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

According to the Star Trek universe, we should already be in the middle of the Eugenics Wars.

Actually I'm pretty sure they happened in the '90's. By now we should all be living in a post-nuclear war society that is trying to rebuild.

As far as Back to the Future Part II is concerned, we get flying skateboards in under seven years! Sweet.

Seanland · 04-08-2008, 08:57 AM

Kind of off, and on topic..

The Movie Alexander.. how factually accurate / inaccurate is that? I have no knowledge of Alexander.

Personally, didnt really enjoy the movie.. it just seems to generally fit in the Genre.. of the movies on that list

silent_jay · 04-08-2008, 08:59 AM

Alexander=another movie ruined by Oliver Stone.

Willravel · 04-08-2008, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seanland

Kind of off, and on topic..

The Movie Alexander.. how factually accurate / inaccurate is that? I have no knowledge of Alexander.

Personally, didnt really enjoy the movie.. it just seems to generally fit in the Genre.. of the movies on that list

It's difficult to tell how correct Alexander was because instead of focusing on his military battles and facts around his life, Oliver Stone decided to make the movie into an orgy and only really featured on battle. So it might have happened, but there's virtually no evidence to support a lot of the interpersonal crap that the movie had (re: GAY SEX).

Xerxys · 04-14-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

The most obvious one being Persian king Xerxes was not an 8-foot-tall Cirque du Soleil reject.

Who dares speak ill words about my avatar, I'm not sure but for some particular reason, Xerxes was kinda cool in that hedonism has an ego kinda way. The way he stepped down from his pyramid and the five guys made stairs, then the deep voice thing, and the "I have a massive god complex and some mommy issues"!! He was a well depicted embodiment of evil. Cool.

The_Jazz · 04-14-2008, 01:53 PM

My nod to roachboy - Confederate States of America.

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Major League. The Indians win the World Series? C'mon...

They won the penant, not the series in that one. C'mon Hollywood knows that there are certain things NO ONE will believe.

Saving Private Ryan, Gangs of New York and Enemy At The Gates all miss key historical elements. Yet I enjoy them all for they're entertainment, not history lessons.

spindles · 04-14-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Yet I enjoy them all for they're entertainment, not history lessons.

This pretty much sums me up - I don't go to the movies to fill in gaps in my non-fiction knowledge. The majority of movie makers want to make an engaging movie - why let the truth stop that?

Aladdin Sane · 04-14-2008, 04:58 PM

Any film "based on history" by Michael Moore or Oliver Stone.

Willravel · 04-14-2008, 05:03 PM

You mean Alexander the Great wasn't a cast member of Queer Eye?

PonyPotato · 04-14-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Two corrections:
1) I've seen the movie, so I know that the mammoths were removed from their natural environment, the tundra, and moved to the desert to be used for manual labor. It was a part of the story line that was made pretty clear. Not only that, but the mammoths were clearly dying from the heat. Many had lost a lot of hair, and were clearly near death.
2) Nowhere in the movie was it established that the pyramids were at Giza. There are dozens of pyramids around the world that are many thousands of years old that have nothing to do with Egypt.
Actual mistakes:
1) Horses... 12,000 years ago? Nope, modern horses are about 6,000 years old.
2) Walking from a frozen tundra to a rainforest to a desert in a few days? Sorry, but that kind of radical change of climate doesn't exist on Earth.

As a horse nerd, I have to correct you on your "modern horses are about 6000 years old" statement. Horses were DOMESTICATED around 6,000 years ago. Equus caballus is certainly older than that, definitely existing long before the end of the Pliestocene (10,000 years ago).

Quote:

The modern horse species, Equus caballus, appeared 630,000 to 320,000 years ago.

(from http://news.softpedia.com/news/Short...on-81754.shtml)

Ustwo · 04-14-2008, 05:37 PM

I think the closet thing to a historically accurate film I've seen was the Life of Brian.

I have this feeling things weren't that far off from that

Otherwise I have a very hard time finding any truly 'accurate' movies. All tend to combine multiple people into one character, ignore what doesn't translate easily to the camera that sort of thing.

Hell even when it would be good film like the Battle of Sterling, they decide showing how it really happened would be too expensive so instead make up some silliness with pikes vrs cavalry.

At best you can get a feel for the time, but much like they butcher a good novel, history gets butchered just as badly.

Plan9 · 04-14-2008, 05:44 PM

1984.

Only off by 20 years.

03-29-2008, 01:42 PM	#2 (permalink)
levite Minion of Joss Location: The Windy City	I'll go out on a limb and mention every film ever made about Jesus, none of which, to my knowledge ever paint anything resembling an accurate picture of Jewish society at that time in history. Nobody who actually had power is represented as having any, and people who never had any are represented as having it, who was and was not popular among the people is never portrayed well, not to mention a few other errors about how Jewish society worked, although to be fair, those come from the gospels, and not from the filmmakers.... The recent Marie Antoinette movie was fairly disastrous, although I'm not sure anyone expected any verisimilitude from it. Pearl Harbor, not for details of the bombing assault, but just because I'm positive a wuss like Affleck would never have made it to a plane in that situation. The recent King Arthur movie, also. There seems little evidence to suppose that Arthur was that heavily Romanized, rather than simply being a Celtic chieftain. Kingdom of Heaven. A number of incorrect political details, not to mention details of Arabic society at the time, and one or two other things.... Michael Collins. Gorgeous film. Details not so smooth. Also...Julia Roberts?! Titanic. 'Nuff said. __________________ Dull sublunary lovers love, Whose soul is sense, cannot admit Absence, because it doth remove That thing which elemented it. (From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

03-29-2008, 01:57 PM	#3 (permalink)
fresnelly Functionally Appropriate Location: Toronto	U-571. It was the freaking British for goodness sake. __________________ Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life

03-29-2008, 03:26 PM	#5 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Braveheart: Also, Isabella of France was referred to as the "She-Wolf of France." Mainly because she was the binary opposite of the soft-spoken character played by Sophie Marceau. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

03-29-2008, 07:53 PM	#7 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i'm not sure that historical accuracy is a relevant criterion for judging a film. the idea is kinda stupid if you really think about it. personally, i find the least accurate films to be those which try the hardest to be accurate--like "the return of martin guerre"-- which was done with natalie davis hanging around as accuracy consultant--and which would have you believe that the 17th century french peasantry spent most of their time scuttling about being busily authentic. you know, doing "authentic" things. where the camera could see them of course. films is a particular world that has nothing at all to do with the world that preceded film. the most accurate films historically speaking aren't films. to think otherwise is basically to imagine that it is the right of some asshole sitting on their couch to be able to see in all its detail the entire sweep of human history. well, it isn't. there are limits to spectatorship. get a grip. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-29-2008, 11:11 PM	#8 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Braveheart is the one that gets me - my ancestors indeed faought side by side with Wallace, and while Braveheart is a nice movie and did loads for Scottish tourism, it doesn't even come close to history. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

03-29-2008, 03:19 PM	#4 (permalink)
Chilly McFreeze Insane Location: England	Braveheart and The Patriot, hands down, but that's Mel Gibson for you - why let a little thing like historical accuracy get in the way of a good bit of English-bashing?. Good call on U-571 as well.

03-29-2008, 11:13 PM	#9 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	roachboy, I had similar thoughts when I first saw this thread, but I decided to approach this with a light heart. If these films were historically accurate, they'd be unwatched documentaries with relatively minuscule budgets. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

03-30-2008, 03:20 AM	#12 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	yeah--see that's what posting after a bunch of wine can result in. mea culpa. the point's right tho. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-04-2008, 01:28 PM	#15 (permalink)
Speed_Gibson Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Location: right here of course	Quite a few westerns fall under the historically inaccurate label. Not many movies come to my mind that show that many western towns had a higher literacy rate per capita than eastern towns/cities, were peaceful for the most part, and that rape was practically unheard of. Of course there were and still are the 'bad' towns that are full of crime. on another vein, just thought of the film about the Scopes trial, that was full of errors. __________________ Started talking to yourself I see. Yes, it's the only way I can be certain of an intelligent conversation. Black Adder

04-04-2008, 01:45 PM	#16 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	The Hollywood movie where they claimed America cracked Enigma was a fucking disgrace. There is historical inaccuracy, and there is pissing on the graves of heroes... an disgraceful thing to be created by such a close and strong friend. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

04-05-2008, 03:16 PM	#20 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	300's inclusion in this list shows how little the author understands it. Actually very few people understand the movie in the first place. I'll explain it though: The reason why things are so big/exaggerated/mystical is because the entire story is told through the words of a man chosen for his skill in storytelling. That is: when you see a giant 100ft elephant, it is because the storyteller is describing them to be that tall - not that they actually were. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

04-05-2008, 08:50 PM	#23 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Most historically inaccurate movie? The one where the Duke plays Gengis Khan. I win. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

04-05-2008, 09:46 PM	#24 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	Major League. The Indians win the World Series? C'mon... __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

04-06-2008, 02:15 AM	#25 (permalink)
echo5delta Crazy Location: Swamp Lagoon, North Cackalacky	You know, of all the contenders for this list, 300 jumped to mind immediately when I saw the thread title. YES, I understand the film was based on Frank fuckingWOW Miller's graphic novel. No problem with that, or the way he portrayed Xerxes as a giant in appearance (big/exaggerated/mystical). The part that bugs me is, um... Hell-LO: Naval portion of the battle? 200 Athenian ships attacking 8000 Persian boats? The 300 were actually 1300 (yes, please include the Thespians, because they VOLUNTEERED to stay back in the holding battle while the bulk of the Greek force withdrew to fight another day). But yeah, whatever. I probably watch too much History Channel. And as far as the Hollywood version of Americans cracking the Enigma code from WWII; pissing on the graves of heroes, etc... well: Wouldn't be the first time a movie did that. Probably won't be the last, either. Don't even get me started on Gladiator or Braveheart, though. I seriously don't know much at all about history, but when I saw those two flicks I totally knew they were both complete bullshit from the first five minutes. (Though I do confess that I AM ENTERTAINED! by them. Kinda like when I watch Tombstone... which, now that you mention it...) I'll shut up now before I go about 8 pages in this thread... __________________ "Peace" is when nobody's shooting. A "Just Peace" is when we get what we want. - Bill Mauldin

04-08-2008, 07:43 AM	#28 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	According to the Star Trek universe, we should already be in the middle of the Eugenics Wars.

04-08-2008, 08:57 AM	#30 (permalink)
Seanland Psycho Location: Ontario, Canada	Kind of off, and on topic.. The Movie Alexander.. how factually accurate / inaccurate is that? I have no knowledge of Alexander. Personally, didnt really enjoy the movie.. it just seems to generally fit in the Genre.. of the movies on that list

04-08-2008, 08:59 AM	#31 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	Alexander=another movie ruined by Oliver Stone. __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

04-14-2008, 04:58 PM	#36 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	Any film "based on history" by Michael Moore or Oliver Stone. __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

04-14-2008, 05:03 PM	#37 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	You mean Alexander the Great wasn't a cast member of Queer Eye?

04-14-2008, 05:37 PM	#39 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I think the closet thing to a historically accurate film I've seen was the Life of Brian. I have this feeling things weren't that far off from that Otherwise I have a very hard time finding any truly 'accurate' movies. All tend to combine multiple people into one character, ignore what doesn't translate easily to the camera that sort of thing. Hell even when it would be good film like the Battle of Sterling, they decide showing how it really happened would be too expensive so instead make up some silliness with pikes vrs cavalry. At best you can get a feel for the time, but much like they butcher a good novel, history gets butchered just as badly. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

04-14-2008, 05:44 PM	#40 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	1984. Only off by 20 years. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."