Historically Inaccurate Movies

[Puzz3D]

2001: A Space Odyssey was about the future when it was made in 1968, so I don't know how it can be historically inaccurate. I would put Kingdom of Heaven in its place.

[Lemur]

Kingdom of Heaven is a good substitute. And Gladiator should be #1, since the filmmakers admitted that they knew almost everything they were showing was bogus, and they didn't care.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm more inclined to go easy on movies like 10,000 BC and Apocalypto, than others, what with mostly using some ancient time as a backdrop and not claiming to represent any historical figures.

Kingdom of Heaven, as pointed out, should be in there.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Kingdom of Heaven is a good substitute. And Gladiator should be #1, since the filmmakers admitted that they knew almost everything they were showing was bogus, and they didn't care.

I heard the historical advisor was paid $3,000 dollars for two days to keep his mouth shut. I heard that in my proffesional circle.

[seireikhaan]

Hmm... I don't really think 10k BC is a good one for the list, since it doesn't really go after any historical event or anything specific. Anachronistic? Sure, but I think it was kinda supposed to be. Anyone with half a brain knows that wooly mammoths would perish in the Saharan desert. Not to mention, there was that whole 'magic' part too, which kinda cemented its not-so-totally-serious nature regarding accuracy.

Yah, Kingdom of Heaven is good for the list.

Also, I'm kinda surprised to see Last Samurai on the list. Technically, he did commit Harakiri. Sure, not exactly totally accurate, but anyone who pays attention to the movie knows that in the beginning, most credit for Japan's industrial revolution is given to Germany, France, and Holland. Granted, America's role was still overblown, but not as much as the article made it look.

As for other substitutions... Titanic, just because it sucked all around. I'm sure there's other films I'm just not thinking of that are a bit more deserving.

[Beefy187]

Also, I'm kinda surprised to see Last Samurai on the list. Technically, he did commit Harakiri. Sure, not exactly totally accurate, but anyone who pays attention to the movie knows that in the beginning, most credit for Japan's industrial revolution is given to Germany, France, and Holland. Granted, America's role was still overblown, but not as much as the article made it look.

And hey.. Who cares about historical accuracy when you got samurais running around with their katanas...

I guess that list meant Last Samurai is not accurate because it didnt use historical figures.

[Puzz3D]

As for other substitutions... Titanic, just because it sucked all around.

Titanic is very accurate in its depiction of the ship, the sinking and the rescue. The personal drama surrounding the main characters is fiction.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Also, First Knight with Connery and Gere is rubbish. A silly version of the King Arthur tale, along with ridiculous costumes and some sort of weird american-gladiatoresque obstacle course in a medieval town.

CR

[Quirinus]

Oh. Come on. In the defense of the movies mentioned, I'd like to direct your attentions to this article.

Historical movies are movies first and and history later, just as science fiction is fiction first and science later.

300 was stylistic, and IIRC it never claimed to be inspired by history, but by a graphic novel. 10,000 BC doesn't attempt or pretend to be historical. Gladiator, The Last Samurai, Elizabeth and Kingdom of Heaven were, if not factually accurate, then (IMO) they pretty much captured the spirit of the age they were depicting. And begrudging Titanic because Jack and Rose never happened is like saying that Saving Private Ryan is ahistorical because there was never that particular mission to save a Private Ryan in real life.

Doesn't neccesarily mean that I like those movies: I was bored by 10000 BC, Gladiator and Memoirs of a Geisha, and I didn't like 300 as a whole. But there are flaws more worthy of criticism in those movies than historical accuracy.

[Lemur]

Also, First Knight with Connery and Gere is rubbish.

OMG, how did I forget that one? Worst Arthurian movie evar, by a long English mile. I think I must have repressed the memory, much like the bad touch the bad man gave me at the swimming pool.

Gah! First Knight! Gah!

I stand by Galdiator as the most willfully ahistorical big-budget film of all time.

-edit-

Gladiator, The Last Samurai, Elizabeth and Kingdom of Heaven were, if not factually accurate, then (IMO) they pretty much captured the spirit of the age they were depicting.

There's playing Devil's Advocate, and then there's being absurd. Gladiator did nothing to capture the spirit of the age -- in fact, it went above and beyond to pervert the entire meaning of gladiatorial games. There were a million things wrong with that film, both large and small. And even as a film qua film it failed, being nothing more than a mish-mash of other epic movies with nothing original to say.

Epic failure on all levels. That's what Gladiator achieved. Don't pretend it even rose to the level of mediocrity. At least Showgirls managed to be funny, which is more than you can say for Gladiator.

[CountArach]

Kingdom of Heaven is a good substitute. And Gladiator should be #1, since the filmmakers admitted that they knew almost everything they were showing was bogus, and they didn't care.

Gah! 300 should be first for the shameless butchery of history that it was.

[Crazed Rabbit]

300 was clearly stylistic, though. I don't think it should be first.

King Arthur should definitely be up there, though. Didn't the very movie make the claim it was telling the true story or something?

CR

[CountArach]

300 was clearly stylistic, though. I don't think it should be first.

King Arthur should definitely be up there, though. Didn't the very movie make the claim it was telling the true story or something?

CR

Yes, I do recall something about that in the Intro.

[KarlXII]

Yes, I do recall something about that in the Intro.

It says how most historians agree that King Arthur was a Samartian cavalryman in the Roman Army, and he was left behind in Britain with his troop, or knights. I don't recall it saying it was the flat out truth.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It says how most historians agree that King Arthur was a Samartian cavalryman in the Roman Army, and he was left behind in Britain with his troop, or knights. I don't recall it saying it was the flat out truth.

I don't believe most historians are solid on whether or not he existed, much less that he came from the other end of Europe.