Historically Inaccurate Movies

[Gregoshi]

Yahoo Movies just posted the Ten Most Historically Inaccurate Movies - in their opinion. It is interesting (and not surprising) that Mel Gibson is responsible for 3 of the 10. However, I do take exception to 2001: A Space Odyssey being on that list. It was looking forward, not backwards in time, thus should not be on the list.

I've a list of historical movies the annoyed the crap out of me, but I can't very well say they were inaccurate. These mostly boil down to fictional characters added to add drama to the history - Henry Fonda's character in Battle of the Bulge, Charlton Heston's character in Midway, and every character in Pearl Harbor, to name a few.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[naut]

GAH! What a list (10-2 that is). The sad thing is that I know people who believe those films are accurate and true to history!?!?

[Raz]

I don't like that list at all.
I believe that all those movies are there to entertain not inform. To be filled with drama not information. But that's just what I believe.

(With the exception of Space Odyssey, but that was, as you lot say, looking into the future, not the past)

[Duke of Gloucester]

Well it is a list of historically inaccurate films, not bad films. It is up to us to decide whether this is good or bad if a film does not follow history. The inclusion of 2001 indicates the list maker is being tongue in cheek.

If I was making such a list I would pick inaccurate films that the audience actually believed. I would not include 10 000 BC or Arthur (truely terrrible film that it is) but The Patriot and Braveheart would be pretty near the top as would U-571.

[Quirinus]

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.

I'm perplexed by how such a movie can generate such ardent response. I remember being bored by it, but that was the extent of my reaction to it. The mediocrity of the movie elicited mostly apathy from me.

But then again, I'm not that acquainted with Imperial Rome... the extent of my knowledge of that era was Gibbon's Decline and Fall and bits and pieces of trivia.

[Fragony]

300, these guys take theirselves too seriously.

[Conradus]

Come on, Gladiator was a most entertaining movie. Epic battles, great acting by Crowe and Phoenix.

And calling 300 or 10.000 BC historically inaccurate movies isn't very fair since these movies don't try to be historically accurate and make no such claims.

[Geoffrey S]

What was that submarine thing? U-571?

[Justiciar]

Heh. The Germanic tribesmen in the fist scene of Gladiator shouting uSuthu. Class. On that subject, I'd also nominate Zulu. Filled with errors, not least of all the overabundance of Welshmen.

[Soulforged]

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.

First of all, even if they pretend to depict historical events or not, if they're biographical or not, doesn't matter, they're still hitorically inaccurate. And many of them, even when they do not intend to, also misinform. And Saving Private Ryan is ahistorical because there was never that particular mission to save a Private Ryan in real life.

Gah! First Knight! Gah!

It was written by a woman...

[Lemur]

[First Knight] was written by a woman...

Not sure that's accurate info. IMDB lists three writers, all of whom sound like men. Not that it matters -- that level of complete suckage is beyond gender, race or nation. It just is.

[Dîn-Heru]

300 is based on a graphic novel based on the battle of Thermopylae. (by Frank Miller, same guy who made the Sin City comic)

So it should not be on the list simply because it is not meant to an accurate portrayal of the battle. It is meant to be blood, gore and action entertainment.

And like it has been said 2001 was based in the future when it was made, so it is a prediction that turned out to be wrong, not an inaccurate historical movie...

[Kralizec]

I think most Disney films are historically inaccurate

300 is based on a graphic novel based on the battle of Thermopylae. (by Frank Miller, same guy who made the Sin City comic)

So it should not be on the list simply because it is not meant to an accurate portrayal of the battle. It is meant to be blood, gore and action entertainment.

And like it has been said 2001 was based in the future when it was made, so it is a prediction that turned out to be wrong, not an inaccurate historical movie...

[Soulforged]

Not sure that's accurate info. IMDB lists three writers, all of whom sound like men. Not that it matters -- that level of complete suckage is beyond gender, race or nation. It just is.

My bad... The fashion change, the characters manners, my memory and just about everything else (Richard Gere) indicated a movie based on a story written by a woman.

I think the main problem with some responses in this thread is considering the qualificative "ahistorical" or "historically inaccurate" as something bad, it isn't, and these movies fall all on the second clasification.

300 is based on a graphic novel based on the battle of Thermopylae. (by Frank Miller, same guy who made the Sin City comic)

So it should not be on the list simply because it is not meant to an accurate portrayal of the battle. It is meant to be blood, gore and action entertainment.

This is something that has been discussed before, but what you're saying isn't true. If the intention was to simply entertain by the course action, depict a graphic novel, then it begs the question of why the author of the novel, in the first place, chose a historical setting to do such thing? There's a profound historical burden carried on by the history of the 300 spartans and the battle of Thermopylae, part fact, part fantasy, but part of its interest is drawn from the fact that it actually occured, albeit not as told in the frames of the movie or the pages of the novel.

[seireikhaan]

I think most Disney films are historically inaccurate

I think Disney could probably have populated that entire list if they'd considered them.