The 10 most historically inaccurate movies

I'll use this thread to promote the late geat Alan Coren and his 1976 book, "All Except the Bastard". It is a book of short funny stories, each one inspired by an actual quote from the newspapers of the time.

The catalyst for the particular story I am thinking of was a report that US backers had pulled out of the production of a movie about the air conflict of the second world war known as, "The Battle of Britain." The Hollywood moguls were disappointed that the story lacked an American interest. Not surprising when you consider it took place over a year before Pearl Harbour.

In the tale itself, a screenwriter reassures a gang of hollywood moguls with a description of an everyday american, (of every concieveable ethic background) who heroically conquers the Germans despite the attentions of jealous limeys.

Genius.

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/c/alan-coren/all-except-bastard.htm

Mrs Jolly said:

I'll use this thread to promote the late geat Alan Coren and his 1976 book, "All Except the Bastard". It is a book of short funny stories, each one inspired by an actual quote from the newspapers of the time.

The catalyst for the particular story I am thinking of was a report that US backers had pulled out of the production of a movie about the air conflict of the second world war known as, "The Battle of Britain." The Hollywood moguls were disappointed that the story lacked an American interest. Not surprising when you consider it took place over a year before Pearl Harbour.

In the tale itself, a screenwriter reassures a gang of hollywood moguls with a description of an everyday american, (of every concieveable ethic background) who heroically conquers the Germans despite the attentions of jealous limeys.

Genius.

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/c/alan-coren/all-except-bastard.htm

Click to expand...

Thats Hollywood!!

Just look at "the great escape" and all the americans supposedly in the camp.

Mrs Jolly said:

I'll use this thread to promote the late geat Alan Coren and his 1976 book, "All Except the Bastard". It is a book of short funny stories, each one inspired by an actual quote from the newspapers of the time.

The catalyst for the particular story I am thinking of was a report that US backers had pulled out of the production of a movie about the air conflict of the second world war known as, "The Battle of Britain." The Hollywood moguls were disappointed that the story lacked an American interest. Not surprising when you consider it took place over a year before Pearl Harbour.

In the tale itself, a screenwriter reassures a gang of hollywood moguls with a description of an everyday american, (of every concieveable ethic background) who heroically conquers the Germans despite the attentions of jealous limeys.

Genius.

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/c/alan-coren/all-except-bastard.htm

Click to expand...

There were in fact several American pilots serving with the RAF during the Battle of Britain and later in 1940 there were three Eagle squadrons formed of American volunteers which on the US entry to WW2 were transferred to the 8th Air Force.

Apolo 13 now theirs a work of fiction ya right man going to the moon

Baill Inneraora said:

Like Troy, I don't think the Ten Commandments should be included in this discussion because we don't know what if anythig happened.

Click to expand...

True. But in both cases we do know certain things about the civilizations at that time. The Ten Commandments I can't speak to, because I can't remember very much about a movie that I last saw when I was about 7. But in the case of Troy, real or myth, the story would likely have been set somewhere between the 13th and the 11th Century B.C. (the late Bronze Age). The polished iron (steel?) swords and other weapons didn't exist yet. The style of helmets used in the movie Troy didn't appear until some time closer to the 5th-4th Century B.C. - but those were the "cool" looking Greek helmets, so most movies about ancient Greece use them. And in a lot of Greco-Roman movies you see horses carrying stirruped saddles. Those didn't appear until around the 4th Century A.D.

Just little B.S. things like that. But I also get really annoyed when a Colt revolver fires 20+ times without reloading in Westerns too. Or when a character "cocks" a hammerless Glock in a modern day movie. Or when a car with an automatic transmission downshifts and blips the throttle. Yep, these are the things that keep me up at night. :ban: No!!!!!!!!!!!!

Will E Worm said:

Where did I say that?



Some? More like a lot, even their children.
The Mayans were into sex slavery, as well.

Click to expand...

:nanner:

Well, you don't look to bloody hollywood for historical accuracy. Pick up a book!!
But U-571 is an absolute fucking disgrace! An insult to Great Britain!! All those involved in this movie should hang their heads in shame
In fact the screenwriter said this about it "It was a distortion...a mercenary decision...to create this parallel history in order to drive the movie for an American audience. Both my grandparents were officers in World War II, and I would be personally offended if somebody distorted their achievements."

mrtrebus said:

Well, you don't look to bloody hollywood for historical accuracy. Pick up a book!!
But U-571 is an absolute fucking disgrace! An insult to Great Britain!! All those involved in this movie should hang their heads in shame

Click to expand...

Hey...they can't all be accurate like Objective Burma.

No offense to topic creator but, why care? You won't ever know the WHOLE story. History belongs to the conqueror. But if you wanted as close as you can get, watch the history channel or read a book, I guess.

Movies are just entertainment. Just be entertained.

roselexa777 said:

Apolo 13 now theirs a work of fiction ya right man going to the moon

Click to expand...

:hatsoff:

Nobody's mentioned Titanic yet.

An iceberg!? I mean WTF?

skechers said:

No offense to topic creator but, why care? You won't ever know the WHOLE story. History belongs to the conqueror. But if you wanted as close as you can get, watch the history channel or read a book, I guess.

Movies are just entertainment. Just be entertained.

Click to expand...

In many cases it doesn't perhaps matter all that much except that it can give a biased and misleading view to historical events.In the case of U571 though the families of the men lost in the real capture of the Enigma machine and code book would perhaps have liked to have seen them credited with this . It wasn't entertainment for those involved.

Although there is a saying that history belongs to the victors, it doesn't mean it is true. There is plenty of history written by the losers.

You are right to mention Titanic as it is a good example of the damage hollywood can do when they 'sex up' a story. In the afore mentioned movie, one of the crew faces a moral dilemma and shoots himself in the head. A lovely dramatic moment except that it never happend. No harm no foul, unless it was your great grandad who was purser (or petty officer or whatever) on that voyage. How do you get the truth out there in the face of that kind of false evidence? I don't think anybody expects hollywood to produce documentaries, but people are justified in their anger if they are portrayed as spineless goons or written out of history altogether.

In recent years the dangers of this were highlighted by the film Gallipoli. I'll just copy and paste the pasage from wikipedia that highlights the discrepancy to save the typing. It caused a lot of ill will. Sadly though the movie is now the predominant method of learning about this coinflict. So I'm guessing it will sit like a turd for years to come. Quote follows.


Criticism

Gallipoli shows much of the conditions and events that soldiers endured in the Gallipoli theater of war. The most notable deviation of the film from reality, and the one for which it has been most criticized, is its portrayal of the chain of command at the Nek. Although he is seen wearing an AIF uniform, Colonel Robinson is often mistaken for an Englishman due to his accent, which is in fact a clipped Anglo-Australian accent typical of the time and not a deliberate attempt to mislead the audience.

In any case, Colonel Robinson's character equates to the brigade-major of the 3rd Brigade, Colonel J.M. Antill, an Australian Boer War veteran. Indeed very little British command and control was exercised at the Nek. In his best-selling history, Gallipoli (2001) Les Carlyon agrees that the film unfairly portrays the English during the battle and Carlyon lays the blame squarely at the feet of Antill and 3rd Australian Light Horse Brigade commander Brigadier General Frederic Hughes - "The scale of the tragedy of the Nek was mostly the work of two Australian incompetents, Hughes and Antill."[7]

The film implies that the fictional and benevolent General Gardiner called off the attack, when in reality the attack petered out when half of the 4th wave charged without orders whilst the surviving regimental commander in the trenches, Lieutenant Colonel Noel Brazier, attempted to get the attack called off.

Other critics, Carlyon included, have pointed out that the Australian attack at the Nek was a diversion for the New Zealanders' attack on Sari Bair, not the British landing at Suvla. The British were therefore not 'drinking tea on the beach' while Australians died for them. Moreover two companies of a British regiment, the Royal Welsh Fusiliers, in fact suffered very heavy losses trying to support the Australian attack at the Nek once it was realized that the offensive was in trouble.[8] Some have also criticized the film for its portrayal of British officers and their disdain for Australian discipline behind the lines. According to Robert R James, no evidence for any such disdain on the part of British commanders for their Australian troops actually exists;[9] however, British command's low regard for the discipline level of Australian troops behind the lines has been widely documented by old historians (such as C.W. Bean) and new ones (Les Carlyon) alike and by oral tradition of the survivors.

Only movie on the titanic worth watching was "A Night To Remember":thumbsup:

Rey C. said:

True. But in both cases we do know certain things about the civilizations at that time. The Ten Commandments I can't speak to, because I can't remember very much about a movie that I last saw when I was about 7. But in the case of Troy, real or myth, the story would likely have been set somewhere between the 13th and the 11th Century B.C. (the late Bronze Age). The polished iron (steel?) swords and other weapons didn't exist yet. The style of helmets used in the movie Troy didn't appear until some time closer to the 5th-4th Century B.C. - but those were the "cool" looking Greek helmets, so most movies about ancient Greece use them. And in a lot of Greco-Roman movies you see horses carrying stirruped saddles. Those didn't appear until around the 4th Century A.D.

Click to expand...

Oh, I did not know all that. I never actually saw the film.

Will E Worm said:

Some? More like a lot, even their children.
The Mayans were into sex slavery, as well.

Click to expand...

True. But not just the Mayans, the Incas or the Aztecs.

In addition to the Romans being bloodthirsty as hell, homosexuality and (sex) slavery were accepted practices in ancient Greece, and Rome as well - yep, the two societies that formed the basis for our current Republic in the U.S. Some even claim that Alexander the Great was either a homosexual or at least bisexual... same with Julius Caesar. :dunno: The Romans weren't as accepting of open homosexuality as the Greeks, but it wasn't as scandalous as in some societies today. Nero carried it a bit too far when he cavorted in public dressed as a woman, had himself whipped by his homosexual lover, and then wanted to be castrated. A little too fruitloopish, even for the Romans. So that ol' boy had to go. A lot of the Roman consuls, and later emperors, appear to have been at least bisexual. As best I can remember, Claudius was the only Julio-Claudian emperor who seemed to be completely straight, from Augustus-Nero. But he was fucked up in so many other ways it's not funny.

And the Romans had no problem with selecting slaves (male and female) for their sexual talents or physical traits. If you were a man of means and you desired a large breasted, young girl from Greece or Gaul to keep you warm at night, the Romans saw nothing wrong with that. You'd go to the slave market, have a row of girls paraded naked before you and you'd select the one you wanted. It's pretty well known (now) that Americans tended to do that too. Probably the only other major "civilized" society which had such a high ratio of slaves to freemen as the Romans was the American south in the 1800's. Also interesting that the the Greeks, Romans and earlier U.S./Americans didn't recognize pedophilia in the same way we do today. What would we think of ol' Tiberius today? :ban:

IMO, probably the worst way to screw your mind up is to watch one of these "historical dramas", without having first read works on the subject by recognized historians. But with that said, I plan on getting the newly released, virtually uncut version of Bob Guccione's Caligula as soon as I can. :nanner:

I had a relative who was killed during the witch trial periods. But I don't get all hot under the collar every time the crucible is on.

Now yes, I know. If a movie was written about a guy you know or knew, or a relative you have or have had, and that movie portrays that person as being... not quite as good as you, who knew him, knew him, yeah then you have a basis for complaint? But otherwise? Now you just want something to bitch about.

If you're smart enough to know, or think that you know, the inacuracies, why do you care? These aren't history books. They're popcorn munchers.

Baill Inneraora said:

Oh, I did not know all that. I never actually saw the film.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm being too hard on Troy - just that I wouldn't watch it again. A gal-pal of mine knows that I'm really (like, REALLY! ) into stories from this period. So she brought Troy over on one of her weekend visits. She wanted to see it because the sight of Brad Pitt makes her moist & giggly. I watched it... just because anything that makes her moist & giggly will probably make me (eventually) happy too.

But since I have a tendency to nitpick things relating to the Greco-Roman period (everybody can say in unison, "Nah, really?! Woulda never guessed that!" :1orglaugh), I didn't enjoy the movie very much. And I absolutely hated 300! A cartoon with real people playing the parts! I did enjoy the HBO series, Rome, though. It was absolutely loaded with historical inaccuracies, and a lot of fluff to boot. But I still enjoyed it. I'm looking forward to getting it on DVD. Go figure.

Rey C. said:

Maybe I'm being too hard on Troy - just that I wouldn't watch it again. A gal-pal of mine knows that I'm really (like, REALLY! ) into stories from this period. So she brought Troy over on one of her weekend visits. She wanted to see it because the sight of Brad Pitt makes her moist & giggly. I watched it... just because anything that makes her moist & giggly will probably make me (eventualy) happy too.

But since I have a tendency to nitpick things relating to the Greco-Roman period (everybody can say in unison, "Nah, really?! Woulda never guessed that!" :1orglaugh), I didn't enjoy the movie very much. And I absolutely hated 300! A cartoon with real people playing the parts. I did enjoy the HBO series, Rome, though. It was absolutely loaded with historical inaccuracies, and a lot of fluff to boot. But I still enjoyed it. Go figure.

Click to expand...

Never saw Rome, but it comes recommended.

I just don't get 300 the movie. The real story is a tremendous story of bravery against all odds that arguably could be considered one of the most important in Western history. What would have happened to Western Civilization of the Persians overran Greece? So why fuck up the story with cartoons, dragons, etc?