Historically Inaccurate Movies

**Puzz3D** · 03-24-2008, 18:26

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Yahoo? What a rubbish list. Are they trying to make it even easier for Microsoft to buy them out?

I think that list is just veiled advertising to generate interest in those movies. It's supposed to strike you as somewhat off base, so that maybe you'll seek out those movies just to see for yourself if the criticism is justified or to see if you can find even more inaccuracies or maybe it's a bait and switch. If you notice you can jump to other lists from there such as In Theaters, Coming Soon and Top Box Office.

**Don Corleone** · 03-24-2008, 21:57

Most of the candidates offered here certainly deserve a place on that list. But the most deserving of the #1 spot was one of the first films ever made...

D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation". I cannot begin to enumerate the number of ways it takes a path separate from recorded history, but suffice it to say, I think card-carrying Klansmen think it's a bit of a snowjob.

Not surprisingly, most films I've encountered that deal with the United States' War Between the States have been woefully lacking in objective historical rigor.

Take for example, Gods And Generals. Too many, way too many innaccuracies (big and small) to list. But for starters, while it plays well in 2003 to soften the view of Confederates today, Stonewall Jackson would NEVER have gotten into deep theological discussions with a slave. He would have bashed his teeth in for having the gumption to speak in the presence of his betters. And I hate to break it to you American history buffs out there... Tribesman's and Banquo's great, great, great, great uncles were not calling to each other from across the stonewall battle lines of Fredericksburg to lay down their arms and join the true cause. I imagine they would have shot each other just as quickly as any other enemies that needed killin'.

**Paradox** · 03-24-2008, 22:06

I still do have "Elizabeth", just never had the time to watch it. Titanic was also one of those slightly inaccurate movies, historical based movies wouldn't be all that fun without a little bit of fiction in the plot, which is why you shouldn't expect a history lesson when going to the movies. They should write "inspired" instead of "based" though.

**Puzz3D** · 03-24-2008, 22:52

Originally Posted by Fahad I

Titanic was also one of those slightly inaccurate movies,...

I read the transcript of the hearings into the RMS Titanic disaster, and I can't remember any inaccuracies in the film when compared to the transcript. The film even shows the ship breaking in half which no other film about the Titanic does. The main characters are fictional, but the characters who represent true historical people actually said and did the things they are shown saying and doing in the film.

**Vladimir** · 03-25-2008, 15:22

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

I think that list is just veiled advertising to generate interest in those movies. It's supposed to strike you as somewhat off base, so that maybe you'll seek out those movies just to see for yourself if the criticism is justified or to see if you can find even more inaccuracies or maybe it's a bait and switch. If you notice you can jump to other lists from there such as In Theaters, Coming Soon and Top Box Office.

Good thinking!

+rep

**InsaneApache** · 03-25-2008, 15:29

John Wayne as Temüjin, how historically accurate was that?

**doc_bean** · 03-25-2008, 19:40

I'm just glad Excalibur isn't on the list.

**Kralizec** · 03-25-2008, 20:00

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

John Wayne as Temüjin, how historically accurate was that?

**Lemur** · 03-25-2008, 21:59

Yup, John Wayne as the great conqueror, hilarious film. Best line: "Ya know, yer beautiful in yer wrath." Creepiest trivia: they filmed it on a nuclear testing site, and of the 220 people who worked on the film, 91 contracted cancer. What a goofy film to die for.