Historically Inaccurate Movies

[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.

[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...

[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.

[Quirinus]

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.

I was trying to illustrate that perhaps it is only the scale of ahistoricalness (?). Who could say that Molly Brown or Patton or JFK truly did utter those words under those circumstances? In this light, pretty much every historical movie is ahistorical.

The complaint that they misinform...... Superman is depicted as being able to fly and punch through walls. Spiderman receives his power from being stung by a radioactive spider. Does that make the movies guilty for every retard who jumps off a buildings, punches a wall, or intentionally inviting poisonous stings?

The question here is if the intention of these movies are to educate the audience about history, or if the history merely provides a fascinating backdrop to which human dramas or moral anecdotes play out.


In the defense of Kingdom of Heaven, AFAIK, the movie does not claim that "this is the story of Balian of Ibelin". But then again, being a fanboy of that movie renders me unable to judge its merits and flaws fairly.

[Geoffrey S]

Don't forget, the classic Attila, flagello di dio!
Clip
Clip

[Puzz3D]

Who could say that Molly Brown or Patton or JFK truly did utter those words under those circumstances?

The account of Molly Brown is a matter of sworn testimony. Of course, you can doubt that as well. In fact, you can never know what really happened in any historical situation unless the actual event was recorded.

The question here is if the intention of these movies are to educate the audience about history, or if the history merely provides a fascinating backdrop to which human dramas or moral anecdotes play out.

In the case of the movie Titanic it does accurately inform the viewer about why the disaster happened, how it happened and what happened to the people with the exception of the fictional drama. If you take out the fictional drama then you don't have a commercially viable film, and I thought that drama was representative of the women's movement towards equal rights that was ongoing at the time. And of course, it provided the opportunity to inject a romantic love story into the film, and yes it's far fetched that a third class passenger would have any contact with a first class passenger. That's the point, however, that it was taboo socially, and that comes across quite strongly in the film.

In the defense of Kingdom of Heaven, AFAIK, the movie does not claim that "this is the story of Balian of Ibelin". But then again, being a fanboy of that movie renders me unable to judge its merits and flaws fairly.

The problem I have with that film is that the true story surrounding the main characters is more compelling. Balian never went back to France with or without Sibylla, but they put that in the film so it could have a "happy" ending. He never had a relationship with Sibylla . In fact, he married her stepmother, Maria, and had some kids by her, and that's why he went back to Jerusalem after the Battle of Hattin to get them out. Balian stayed in the Holy Land, and died 6 years later. Sibylla went with her husband, Guy of Lusignan, and died, along with her two young daughters, from an epidemic that swept though Guy's encampment during his siege of Acre three years after the fall of Jerusalem.

[Soulforged]

I was trying to illustrate that perhaps it is only the scale of ahistoricalness (?). Who could say that Molly Brown or Patton or JFK truly did utter those words under those circumstances? In this light, pretty much every historical movie is ahistorical.

Not at all, the movie could stay inside the bounds established by current historical science. History is what people make of it really, through a system of course, but it only exists because someone is searching for it.

The complaint that they misinform...... Superman is depicted as being able to fly and punch through walls. Spiderman receives his power from being stung by a radioactive spider. Does that make the movies guilty for every retard who jumps off a buildings, punches a wall, or intentionally inviting poisonous stings?

Not the same. I couldn't care less if some idiot takes a movie seriously in any aspect, historic, anatomic, biologic or physic. I'm just pointing out that movies with historical backdrops which misrepresent the historical events which constitute said backdrop are in fact misinforming the public, just as many other sources of misinformation. I'm not saying that as something absolutly bad, sometimes it's bad (look at how the "ex-persians" reacted to 300), sometimes is just art.

The question here is if the intention of these movies are to educate the audience about history, or if the history merely provides a fascinating backdrop to which human dramas or moral anecdotes play out.

A fair point but wheter a movie is ahistorical or not is the result of a simple objective comparition between said movie and history. And, in my opinion, if a director takes an historical background to make his art more interesting and sell with it, he has the responsability to represent such story with the greatest degree of historical authenticity. If he doesn't... well I suppose he will pay for his mistake by entering some infamous list, being loathed at certain circles, looking silly or receiving an Oscar for the "Best Movie"...

In the defense of Kingdom of Heaven, AFAIK, the movie does not claim that "this is the story of Balian of Ibelin". But then again, being a fanboy of that movie renders me unable to judge its merits and flaws fairly.

I don't remember the movie claiming any attachment to history whatsoever. I enjoyed the movie for those incredibly artistic moments that Scott knows how to unleash and I rolled my eyes at the incredible silliness of many other moments.

King Arthur however... I hate that movie in so many levels that it causes me physical pain.

[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.