Historical Inaccuracy Corner

[Matt-Sama]

Black Hawk Down - Merged some people into one character.
Kingdom of Heaven - Some of the armour isn't correct and some of the timelines don't line up.
Gladiator - Names and costumes are a bit wrong.

Look, they're all Ridley Scott movies

 

[PAGEToap44]

Braveheart. As a Scot, I loved it but... you know. Awful ,awful research. It is still an awesome film though.

Wow, not one mention of Braveheart? That's surprising.

I honestly don't give a damn about historical inaccuracies; documentaries fascinate me, and I love nature shows... so when I want realism, I go to them. When I want spectacle, I go to Hollywood.

Regarding Braveheart; off the top of my head, I recall reading that William Wallace was not a commoner, and was in fact a Scottish noble; that the clothing they wore was very different, and that by the end of the film, they would've been pretty much just as well armed and armoured as the English; that Prima Noctis never existed; and that Wallace and Robert the Bruce were never really best buds.

I'll add some more.
1. The Battle of Stirling Bridge was fought in a field. It actually took place on a bridge, and the Scots were on a steep hill on one side of the river.
2. No one wore kilts at the time. Not at all. It was all a bit more "medieval."
3. Wallace never knew Bruce.

 

[EHKOS]

Pretty much every WW2 film ever made.
I am getting so fed up with no other country being mentioned other than
TEH AMERICAN SAVIOURS!!!111!!1!
We get it.
You helped.
...Eventually.

Snort... Americans.. always showing up late for every world war.

Caaareful, this is how wars are started.

OT: Yeah I don't pay attention to detail enough to notice this.

 

[StarCecil]

I've got a buddy who's a movie buff, and he loves pointing out things like this, especially the inaccuracies of the soldiers uniforms (he's a marine.) In fact, he's the one who told me that there is some law in America that states that in every movie in which a soldier is depicted, there has to be something wrong with it. Go ahead and check it out: find ANY movie where an American soldier is portrayed, and look for something wrong with his uniform.

No, that's not true. It probably WILL be wrong, because uniforms change so much and no one can be paid to care that much, but it's only illegal in a non-theatrical/reenactment setting.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Kingdom of Heaven - Some of the armour isn't correct and some of the timelines don't line up.

I don't know much of the Crusader era, but while I enjoyed the film... sort of, they really dropped one with Balian's character. He was already middle-aged by that time, had no dealings with Sybilla beyond the political and there was no mention of his brother, Baldwin of Ramla, and he was already married (to Maria of Constantinople, I think).

Also, Jeremy Irons' character was supposed to be Raymond of Tripoli wasn't it? The Marshal(l) of Jerusalem was a fairly junior administrative rank, and his colours were all wrong (his symbol was a three-towered castle (i.e. Tiberias) not the crosses of Jerusalem).

Note: not my specialist historical era, please correct as applicable.

 

[JackWestJr]

Oh, haha, any movie where the protagonist is playing a video game. It is always the wrong sound effects, wrong controlls, that game wasn't on that platform, the list goes on. You name it, it will be screwed up.

Is it SO HARD just to get a game THAT IS ACTUALLY ON THE PLATFORM??????? C'mon, just borrow a random dudes PS3 and use what ever game is in there at the time!

 

[StarCecil]

And speaking of uniforms, Mark Wahlberg's character in Shooter is a US Marine, but in the opening scene he's wearing an Army uniform.

 

[StarCecil]

Oh, haha, any movie where the protagonist is playing a video game. It is always the wrong sound effects, wrong controlls, that game wasn't on that platform, the list goes on. You name it, it will be screwed up.

Is it SO HARD just to get a game THAT IS ACTUALLY ON THE PLATFORM??????? C'mon, just borrow a random dudes PS3 and use what ever game is in there at the time!

There's actually a half-decent reason for that.

Because a scene might shot multiple times in a day, or specific portions of it will be, or even shot out of order with a scene that takes place minutes earlier in the film, continuity between minor details is near impossible. Most "video games" in film have sound effects and even images added in post-production, to keep continuity. To reproduce actual aspects of a real game would be copyright infringement.

For much the same reason as above, you'll rarely see characters in a film actually eat what they order.

 

[Mechamorph]

For me its 10,000BC. As a biologist all the flora is wrong, the fauna is wrong, even logic takes a back seat. What appears to be Ancient Egypt with iron age technology is run by aliens. They capture *wooly mammoths* and slave labour to build the pyramids despite the fact that it is a desert and the mammoths would die of heat stroke within hours (not to mention... what are they feeding them?). The raiders also rode *horses* through the desert.....

Not to mention, sabretooth tigers and giant carnivorous flightless birds less than 15,000 years ago? Really? >_<

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Pretty much every WWII movie ever made where America saves the day single-handedly. I'm looking at you, Saving Private Ryan. Has there ever been a movie about the Eastern Front?

What? Saving Private Ryan is about a group of American soldiers rescuing a fellow American soldier. On this mission to rescue one person, almost all of them die, including the main character.

How the hell is that saving the day? Yes, it's not historically accurate, but not in the "America saves the day!" sense.

And there's been a shit load of movies about the eastern front.

 

[ExileNZ]

well i was going to say gladiator but someone stole my idea

but Passion of the christ missed alot of stuff and swapped to the wrong language at one stage

The film shows Jesus being crucified with nails through the palms of his hands. This is almost certainly historically wrong. The Romans more likely crucified people with nails through their wrists, rather than the palms of their hands. (See: 'The crucified man' on this site, for a detailed description).

Actually, see Stigmata for more on that one - the priest explains it in detail and then says that people just made the statues like that because they always had.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

It's sort of annoying me how many people are complaining, not noticing, mind you, but complaining about inaccurate Disney movies.

This animated children's musical isn't entirely accurate? Wait, does that mean Simba isn't real? Noooo...

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

I honestly don't give a damn about historical inaccuracies; documentaries fascinate me, and I love nature shows... so when I want realism, I go to them. When I want spectacle, I go to Hollywood.

What bothers me isn't that movies tend to be economical with the truth. If Hollywood wants to use some poetic license to make the movie more fun to watch that's fine by me, because for the most part I already know what happened in real life.

What bothers me is that so many people have such a stunted knowledge of even relatively recent history, and so few can be arsed to expand their knowledge any further, that they will simply swallow what Hollywood feeds them and repeat it as fact. Case in point, almost all WW2 movies.

Pretty much every WW2 film ever made.
I am getting so fed up with no other country being mentioned other than
TEH AMERICAN SAVIOURS!!!111!!1!
We get it.
You helped.
...Eventually.

I agree, someone make a movie about Pegasus Bridge already, or Stalingrad.

 

[RabbiiFrystofsk]

That scene in Kokoda:39th Battalion where the guy is wearing white adidas trainers

 

[Hoplon]

What annoy's me about 300 isn't the depiction of the battle, it's the leather nappie's they are wearing.

Heaviest infantry in the world at the time, just in leather nappies and a helmet... I'LL GET YOU MILLER! AND YOUR LITTLE DOG TOO!

 

[SckizoBoy]

I agree, someone make a movie about Pegasus Bridge already, or Stalingrad.

Well, there's Longest Day (Richard Todd playing his own commanding officer... I wonder who played Richard Todd...) though the scene(s) was brief but it was all Brit, thankfully. And there's... well, Stalingrad, a German production which was hideously depressing (and IMO far superior to Enemy at the Gates, though to be fair they're two fundamentally different films).

I tend to be very picky about which WWII films I watch/enjoy/own. As a result, while I thoroughly enjoy the genre, I own very few of them (and the only one that I have that was made after 1980 is Stalingrad). IMO, just a better class of WWII film when there was still serviceable hardware.

 

[oktalist]

Regarding Braveheart; off the top of my head, I recall reading that William Wallace was not a commoner, and was in fact a Scottish noble; that the clothing they wore was very different, and that by the end of the film, they would've been pretty much just as well armed and armoured as the English; that Prima Noctis never existed; and that Wallace and Robert the Bruce were never really best buds.

Got a few to add as well; the French queen in the movie was just a few years old during the specific time. There also wasn't any kilts at the time. They didn't appear until late 1800's, iirc.

And William Wallace had earlier fought for the English as a mercenary.

 

[zehydra]

As much as I love the movie: Michael Collins, it's got a bunch of historical inaccuracies.

He was still a badass though.