Org Mobile Site
Since all the old X is historically inaccurate topics where X is some movie/tv series are popping up again. Why not have a list of alternatives?
Inaccurate (and I don't necessarily mean this as a bad thing):
Ben Hur
300
Troy
Clash of the Titans (both of them)
Spartacus: Blood and Sand (or at least, so I've heard - haven't watched it)
Any of Shakespeare's three Roman plays
Accurate (or at least, as accurate as a movie is likely to get):
Rome (HBO)
Passion of the Christ (I haven't seen it, and don't want to, but from what I've heard, it's portrayal of those days is pretty accurate, even down to the torture)
King Arthur (the one from the early 2000's that flopped - it's based on a lot of research about Roman Britain. Granted, it does get some dates wrong)
I, Claudius (some bad costumes, but on the whole a rather accurate portrait of the Julio-Claudian dynasty)
Those are all that come to mind at the moment.
Ben Hur
300
Troy
Clash of the Titans (both of them)
Spartacus: Blood and Sand (or at least, so I've heard - haven't watched it)
Any of Shakespeare's three Roman plays
Accurate (or at least, as accurate as a movie is likely to get):
Rome (HBO)
Passion of the Christ (I haven't seen it, and don't want to, but from what I've heard, it's portrayal of those days is pretty accurate, even down to the torture)
King Arthur (the one from the early 2000's that flopped - it's based on a lot of research about Roman Britain. Granted, it does get some dates wrong)
I, Claudius (some bad costumes, but on the whole a rather accurate portrait of the Julio-Claudian dynasty)
Those are all that come to mind at the moment.
Originally Posted by :
(...)at least, as accurate as a movie is likely to get
- that's exactly the issue. Hollywood simply isn't likely to endorse historical accuracy and a realistic portrayal of ancient history - neither today nor in the near future. Why hire qualified advisors, spend years researching details and risk an embarrassing box office failure, when you can churn out lucrative run-of-the-mill sword-and-sandal movies, nicely garnished with blood and guts?(...)at least, as accurate as a movie is likely to get
True - there were/are notably exceptions - 'I, Claudius' and HBO's 'Rome' - who at least tried to fullfill higher standards, but on the whole...
What about Stanley Kubrick's Spartacus? Whilst I don't know nearly enough about that era to make an informed judgment on the movie's accuracy, it certainly seemed convincingly realistic to me.
Also, a question/point: Mulceber includes Troy and Clash of the Titans in one of his lists. If we're going to consider movies based on myth and/or legend, are we primarily concerned with their adherence to the source material or with their realism? I mean, the term "historical accuracy" doesn't even seem applicable to movies/shows based upon documents which are widely considered to be products of imagination more than than fact. Perhaps Mulceber simply meant that anything based upon the myth of Perseus or of the Trojan War are going to be historically inaccurate. But I thought I would ask just for clarification.
Also, a question/point: Mulceber includes Troy and Clash of the Titans in one of his lists. If we're going to consider movies based on myth and/or legend, are we primarily concerned with their adherence to the source material or with their realism? I mean, the term "historical accuracy" doesn't even seem applicable to movies/shows based upon documents which are widely considered to be products of imagination more than than fact. Perhaps Mulceber simply meant that anything based upon the myth of Perseus or of the Trojan War are going to be historically inaccurate. But I thought I would ask just for clarification.
don't expect Hollywood to make accurate movie. they just making profit, not historically accurate
@ B_Ray - When I talked about Clash of the Titans and Troy, I meant accurate to the source material, and also accurate to Olympian Theology and Mythology. Sorry about the lack of clarity.
@ Lucretius - I totally agree - that's why I, broadly speaking, avoid watching these movies as history (although I'll admit that I, Claudius formed a good basis for my knowledge of the Julio-Claudian dynasty). To me, they're mainly just drama and entertainment couched in an era I love.
@ Lucretius - I totally agree - that's why I, broadly speaking, avoid watching these movies as history (although I'll admit that I, Claudius formed a good basis for my knowledge of the Julio-Claudian dynasty). To me, they're mainly just drama and entertainment couched in an era I love.
Probably you also meant an 'true to the spirit' approach combining 'historical realism' (eg. accurate Anatolian/Mycenaean Bronze Age equipment for Homers' heroes) and adherence to the 'source material'. But while (at least possibly) applicable to the Trojan War, this is bound to provoke endless controversies when more 'mythical' subjects are touched (Perseus, Titanomachy,...)
@Mulceber: You are perfectly right - but think of millions of people whose only contact whatsoever with classical history was watching 300...
@Mulceber: You are perfectly right - but think of millions of people whose only contact whatsoever with classical history was watching 300...
agreed. It's a very difficult subject to broach, since if we wanted to be strict about it we would just have to throw all these shows out as inaccurate. But then, that wouldn't allow us to consider portrayals of ancient society in film on any deep level. -M
Originally Posted by Mulceber:
...
300.
...
you must put this on top of your list. my eyes bleed when watch this. really opposite....
300.
...
Most accurate
I Claudius
HBO Rome
Those really are the great ones, HBO Rome not only towers over things in historical accuracy, it does it in quality to. The characters are genuine, you feel what they feel and you learn about them and get to like them as the series goes on.
Less accurate but still good, and still a must see
Gladiator (Ironically Cassius Dio agreed that Commodus killed his father because he was getting disinherited)
Kirk Douglass Spartacus (has some anachronisms, but still presents a believable and realistic plot, and who cares that the real Spartacus wasn't an abolitionist and was born free?)
Innacurate trash, ahistorical, below low quality
Spartacus Blood and Sand
Virtually ahistorical, do not see
300
Slight imrpovement at least when compared to Blood and Sand.
Edit- I apologize for the very poor grammer and pathetic spelling in this post, I am unfortunately in a rush.
I Claudius
HBO Rome
Those really are the great ones, HBO Rome not only towers over things in historical accuracy, it does it in quality to. The characters are genuine, you feel what they feel and you learn about them and get to like them as the series goes on.
Less accurate but still good, and still a must see
Gladiator (Ironically Cassius Dio agreed that Commodus killed his father because he was getting disinherited)
Kirk Douglass Spartacus (has some anachronisms, but still presents a believable and realistic plot, and who cares that the real Spartacus wasn't an abolitionist and was born free?)
Innacurate trash, ahistorical, below low quality
Spartacus Blood and Sand
Virtually ahistorical, do not see
300
Slight imrpovement at least when compared to Blood and Sand.
Edit- I apologize for the very poor grammer and pathetic spelling in this post, I am unfortunately in a rush.
Also, I'd like to add the History Channel to the "inaccurate" list. -M
How about "The Divine Weapon", which is a movie about the Korean hwacha. I don't know that much about Korean history, so I can't say anything about its historical accuracy, but how can you not admire this:
I can come up with no new adds for the period, but for others, films and TV-shows to see are
Band of Brothers (HBO again)
Stalingrad, German, 1993
Das Boot, German ??
The Iron Cross, American or British, so-so in accuracy but the first film to not merely portray Germans as total villains but see things from their PoV and OK portrayal of life at the front
The Duellists, 1997, Ridley Scott's first film (you have to search the cover to find his name). Napoleonic Era.
All Kurosawa's films are good, whether or not they are accurate on all points they are in spirit.
Battle for Algiers, propagandistic but in some ways pretty faithful in its portrayal of at least Les Paras.
1612 is best avoided by historically interested, except for the total badass mercenary Spaniard Alvar. My friend Jan writes a summary here if you scroll down a bit.
Avoid
Ran (Korean)
Mongol (Mongolian or Russian)
Band of Brothers (HBO again)
Stalingrad, German, 1993
Das Boot, German ??
The Iron Cross, American or British, so-so in accuracy but the first film to not merely portray Germans as total villains but see things from their PoV and OK portrayal of life at the front
The Duellists, 1997, Ridley Scott's first film (you have to search the cover to find his name). Napoleonic Era.
All Kurosawa's films are good, whether or not they are accurate on all points they are in spirit.
Battle for Algiers, propagandistic but in some ways pretty faithful in its portrayal of at least Les Paras.
1612 is best avoided by historically interested, except for the total badass mercenary Spaniard Alvar. My friend Jan writes a summary here if you scroll down a bit.
Avoid
Ran (Korean)
Mongol (Mongolian or Russian)
Vercingétorix: La légende du druide roi (2001) has legionaries wearing LS, tut tut.
@Macrille: 'Ran' is actually Kurosawa's last epic jidai-geki - certainly you must have confused it with one of these Korean 'historical romances'
Saving Private Ryan - is quite accurate, but I was laughing at the Mustang "bombers" at the end of the movie.
The Pacific - is said to be good too, though I've not seen it yet, just read the critics about it.
Enemy at the gates - seemed ok too for me, anyone?
Alexander - isnt really accurate as they mix the battles and leave a lot of important events out of the movie.
All Quiet on the Western Front - I like this movie, but I don't really know if it is accurate or not, I don't really like to study the WWs, someone?
The Pacific - is said to be good too, though I've not seen it yet, just read the critics about it.
Enemy at the gates - seemed ok too for me, anyone?
Alexander - isnt really accurate as they mix the battles and leave a lot of important events out of the movie.
All Quiet on the Western Front - I like this movie, but I don't really know if it is accurate or not, I don't really like to study the WWs, someone?
Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó:
Saving Private Ryan - is quite accurate, but I was laughing at the Mustang "bombers" at the end of the movie
That is true, it can't be that difficult to find airworthy P-47s. My main objection to Saving Private Ryan is the fact it makes no mention of the contribution by British Commonwealth, Canadian or Polish forces, even the landing craft drivers (who were actually British) are replaced by Americans.Saving Private Ryan - is quite accurate, but I was laughing at the Mustang "bombers" at the end of the movie
SPR is in fact very inaccurate.
Lvcretivs that is true. Damn... there was one really- really bad Korean spin-off of the Chinese "historical" fighting films (which are bad enough in itself, edit THEMselves).
Nothing new... is both quite accurate and, AFAICR, faithful to the book by and large. I forgot that :-( Baaaad Palle.
Lvcretivs that is true. Damn... there was one really- really bad Korean spin-off of the Chinese "historical" fighting films (which are bad enough in itself, edit THEMselves).
Nothing new... is both quite accurate and, AFAICR, faithful to the book by and large. I forgot that :-( Baaaad Palle.
From all movies about antiquity I like "Alexander" the most. It is not accurate, but it has at least some accuracy in it.
May I ask a question about "King Arthur"? Is it the movie about the Sarmatian riders who formed the Roman cavalry? If then I would like to know what was accurate and well searched in this movie? I watched it with less than possible interest after I get told that the Romans were still in Britain in the middle of the 5th c. AD and that the pope was the leader of the Roman empire...
"All Quiet on the Western Front" is fictitious but is quite accurate about the Trench War experience of individuals. The book after the movie is made ("Im Westen nichts Neues" by E.M. Remarque, 1928/29) is one of several well made novels about WWI. Because it was not so much patriotic it was forbidden and burned by the Nazis after 1933. Remarque had joined the war only for a short time, but he took much information from the reports of other soldiers.
May I ask a question about "King Arthur"? Is it the movie about the Sarmatian riders who formed the Roman cavalry? If then I would like to know what was accurate and well searched in this movie? I watched it with less than possible interest after I get told that the Romans were still in Britain in the middle of the 5th c. AD and that the pope was the leader of the Roman empire...
"All Quiet on the Western Front" is fictitious but is quite accurate about the Trench War experience of individuals. The book after the movie is made ("Im Westen nichts Neues" by E.M. Remarque, 1928/29) is one of several well made novels about WWI. Because it was not so much patriotic it was forbidden and burned by the Nazis after 1933. Remarque had joined the war only for a short time, but he took much information from the reports of other soldiers.
Originally Posted by :
May I ask a question about "King Arthur"? Is it the movie about the Sarmatian riders who formed the Roman cavalry? If then I would like to know what was accurate and well searched in this movie? I watched it with less than possible interest after I get told that the Romans were still in Britain in the middle of the 5th c. AD and that the pope was the leader of the Roman empire
I also was distinctly turned off from the film when it mentioned the dates at the beginning. But apart from that, the fact that there were sarmatians serving in the Roman army, the fact that they worked in Bishop Pelagius, who in fact did get excommunicated for his beliefs about free will. Looking back, I suppose you're right that it should be moved to the inaccurate column, as most of the weaponry and armor is inaccurate to the peoples/time period, but I give KA props for making use of the Sarmatian connection and some of the historical events that really were occurring in late antiquity, especially since so few movies are produced about this era. -MMay I ask a question about "King Arthur"? Is it the movie about the Sarmatian riders who formed the Roman cavalry? If then I would like to know what was accurate and well searched in this movie? I watched it with less than possible interest after I get told that the Romans were still in Britain in the middle of the 5th c. AD and that the pope was the leader of the Roman empire
Originally Posted by Mulceber:
I also was distinctly turned off from the film when it mentioned the dates at the beginning. But apart from that, the fact that there were sarmatians serving in the Roman army, the fact that they worked in Bishop Pelagius, who in fact did get excommunicated for his beliefs about free will. Looking back, I suppose you're right that it should be moved to the inaccurate column, as most of the weaponry and armor is inaccurate to the peoples/time period, but I give KA props for making use of the Sarmatian connection and some of the historical events that really were occurring in late antiquity, especially since so few movies are produced about this era.
I give them props for introducing the theory that the myth of Arthur and his knights has its basis in the Sarmatian auxiliaries, but my impression is that they were muddled about everything else. Lucius Artorius Castus fought off a Pictish rather than Germanic invasion: I can only assume that they made the Germans the enemy because that is what the public expects. That is presumably also the reason for placing the story a century or two after Castus lived, making him a Christian, giving him modern opinions on religion and society, etc. This wouldn't have bothered me very much if it was a typical Hollywood film, but they explicitly claimed to have found the historical Arthur. Especially since the story of Castus is, at best, only one element of the Arthur myth as we known it, and there's several lines of evidence that contradict Artorius playing a significant role in the historical events.I also was distinctly turned off from the film when it mentioned the dates at the beginning. But apart from that, the fact that there were sarmatians serving in the Roman army, the fact that they worked in Bishop Pelagius, who in fact did get excommunicated for his beliefs about free will. Looking back, I suppose you're right that it should be moved to the inaccurate column, as most of the weaponry and armor is inaccurate to the peoples/time period, but I give KA props for making use of the Sarmatian connection and some of the historical events that really were occurring in late antiquity, especially since so few movies are produced about this era.
Edit:
As for accurate/inaccurate films: how accurate is "Tora! Tora! Tora!" ? When I first watched it, I thought it was one of those role-played documentaries, but apparently it's a real film.
"The Last Samurai" is definitely inaccurate. Although the imagery of medieval samurai making a last death-or-glory charge against modernity (musket-armed line infantry) is very powerful, the reality was that both sides in the Satsuma Rebellion used muskets.
Hush you, BAD LUDENS 
katanas can block bullets!
katanas can block bullets!Ah how nice of you all to talk about me while I'm gone.
Originally Posted by Ludens:
Edit:
As for accurate/inaccurate films: how accurate is "Tora! Tora! Tora!" ? When I first watched it, I thought it was one of those role-played documentaries, but apparently it's a real film.
"The Last Samurai" is definitely inaccurate. Although the imagery of medieval samurai making a last death-or-glory charge against modernity (musket-armed line infantry) is very powerful, the reality was that both sides in the Satsuma Rebellion used muskets.
I do not know about Tora x 3 as it is one of those I have not seen. However, the fighting in The Last Samurai is actually quite well done in contrast to most Hollywood movies. The various Achilleus Duels in Troy as well, the one with Hector is brilliant IMO.Edit:
As for accurate/inaccurate films: how accurate is "Tora! Tora! Tora!" ? When I first watched it, I thought it was one of those role-played documentaries, but apparently it's a real film.
"The Last Samurai" is definitely inaccurate. Although the imagery of medieval samurai making a last death-or-glory charge against modernity (musket-armed line infantry) is very powerful, the reality was that both sides in the Satsuma Rebellion used muskets.
I remember that Tora Tora Tora used real planes & ships, but so long since I watched the movie now.
HBO Rome. You can say it depicts ancient Rome very accurately, but Ptolemaic Egypt? Its been given the CA treatment there too. Cleopatra's bodyguards were Galatians for one. Second the court would have had a more Hellenistic look too. Plus Bithynia is depicted as Arabic, when at this time was Hellenized.
Alexander by Oliver Stone. Persians looking like and speaking Arab...Roxanne was also caucasian. At least Macedonian army seemed accurate enough.
HBO Rome. You can say it depicts ancient Rome very accurately, but Ptolemaic Egypt? Its been given the CA treatment there too. Cleopatra's bodyguards were Galatians for one. Second the court would have had a more Hellenistic look too. Plus Bithynia is depicted as Arabic, when at this time was Hellenized.
Alexander by Oliver Stone. Persians looking like and speaking Arab...Roxanne was also caucasian. At least Macedonian army seemed accurate enough.
I still can't get it out of my head, the phalangitai and their drills.....the gayness is bad, but I liked the battles with the phalanx...
ALL HAIL MAKEDONIA!!!
ALL HAIL MAKEDONIA!!!
Originally Posted by geala:
May I ask a question about "King Arthur"? Is it the movie about the Sarmatian riders who formed the Roman cavalry? If then I would like to know what was accurate and well searched in this movie? I watched it with less than possible interest after I get told that the Romans were still in Britain in the middle of the 5th c. AD and that the pope was the leader of the Roman empire...
Yes, and it got some scathing reviews, I hear. Probably because they confused the Saxons with the Chinese and had some "Warrior Chick" (Keira Knightley with a bow. Yeah right. I wonder how she managed to draw the thing) thrown in for fanservice. May I ask a question about "King Arthur"? Is it the movie about the Sarmatian riders who formed the Roman cavalry? If then I would like to know what was accurate and well searched in this movie? I watched it with less than possible interest after I get told that the Romans were still in Britain in the middle of the 5th c. AD and that the pope was the leader of the Roman empire...
Originally Posted by :
"All Quiet on the Western Front" is fictitious but is quite accurate about the Trench War experience of individuals. The book after the movie is made ("Im Westen nichts Neues" by E.M. Remarque, 1928/29) is one of several well made novels about WWI. Because it was not so much patriotic it was forbidden and burned by the Nazis after 1933. Remarque had joined the war only for a short time, but he took much information from the reports of other soldiers.
I remember reading that one as a kid. The novel is quite good."All Quiet on the Western Front" is fictitious but is quite accurate about the Trench War experience of individuals. The book after the movie is made ("Im Westen nichts Neues" by E.M. Remarque, 1928/29) is one of several well made novels about WWI. Because it was not so much patriotic it was forbidden and burned by the Nazis after 1933. Remarque had joined the war only for a short time, but he took much information from the reports of other soldiers.
Originally Posted by Krusader:
HBO Rome. You can say it depicts ancient Rome very accurately, but Ptolemaic Egypt? Its been given the CA treatment there too. Cleopatra's bodyguards were Galatians for one. Second the court would have had a more Hellenistic look too. Plus Bithynia is depicted as Arabic, when at this time was Hellenized.
Yeah something of a wasted chance with those Ptolemaioi. Though some audiences (read: executives) probably never heard about Galatians or even Diadochs, so they would have claimed it "unhistorical" if the show had actually shown it the way it was.HBO Rome. You can say it depicts ancient Rome very accurately, but Ptolemaic Egypt? Its been given the CA treatment there too. Cleopatra's bodyguards were Galatians for one. Second the court would have had a more Hellenistic look too. Plus Bithynia is depicted as Arabic, when at this time was Hellenized.
Originally Posted by :
Roxanne was also caucasian.
By which you mean: was also Caucasian in Real Life? Because in the film, Rosario Dawson looked vaguely African (due to her mixed white/black ancestry). Well, at least she was pretty - and not as starved as most other Hollywood chicks.Roxanne was also caucasian.
I wouldn't call The Passion of the Christ very historical. While it's true that the characters speak Latin and Aramaic (which is damned awesome), they speak Church Latin. Greek would have been more fitting anyway. And the legionaries all wear LS.
Originally Posted by Cadwalader:
I wouldn't call The Passion of the Christ very historical. While it's true that the characters speak Latin and Aramaic (which is damned awesome), they speak Church Latin. Greek would have been more fitting anyway. And the legionaries all wear LS.
Good point about the church latin, although that basically just means that their pronunciation was inaccurate. As for the LS, not sure how accurate or inaccurate that would be for the period: LS was at its height by the Flavian dynasty, but it's possible that it was already rather common by ~30 AD. Not saying it's right to have ALL the legionaries wearing it, but if those are the only problems with the Passion, it stands pretty well, historically speaking. Even shows like Rome had similar problems - the little Latin that is spoken in Rome is pronounced like Italian, and there's LS in season 2.I wouldn't call The Passion of the Christ very historical. While it's true that the characters speak Latin and Aramaic (which is damned awesome), they speak Church Latin. Greek would have been more fitting anyway. And the legionaries all wear LS.
Kingdom of Heaven is actually quite accurate. The character Balien actually did exist, but was born in Holy Land, but this is likely due to Ridley Scott making a character so sympathetic, he wouldn't get in trouble for a "pro-crusader" movie, which is kind of a touchy subject these days. For the most part, the directors cut it otherwise pretty close to what happened, minus all the Muslim/Christians getting along thing. Reynald of Chatillion was very well portrayed and
The only other glaring flaw is King Guy was more of a bumbling goof who wanted everyone to like him, then a villainous jerk. Also
Oh and
Ridley Scott seems to at least due his research, and I prefer a researched film maker making my movies to a scholar making movies, which would end up being 7 hours long getting in every little thing that happened, and go way over budget making everything perfectly authentic.
Did no one else find Gladiator accurate, minus the actual storyline? I mean Commedus really was nuts, and did fight in the arena. Once again you can pick apart things, but for the most part he seems to have done a decent job representing Rome at the time.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The only other glaring flaw is King Guy was more of a bumbling goof who wanted everyone to like him, then a villainous jerk. Also
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Oh and
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Ridley Scott seems to at least due his research, and I prefer a researched film maker making my movies to a scholar making movies, which would end up being 7 hours long getting in every little thing that happened, and go way over budget making everything perfectly authentic.
Did no one else find Gladiator accurate, minus the actual storyline? I mean Commedus really was nuts, and did fight in the arena. Once again you can pick apart things, but for the most part he seems to have done a decent job representing Rome at the time.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO