Historical Inaccuracy Corner
- Thread starter SckizoBoy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You should do some historical research then. They had archers...the Phalanx wasn't their only military method contrary to popular belief. http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/romans/the_roman_army/Th3Ch33s3Cak3 said:
First off, this movie wasn't supposed to be historically accurate, it's fictional and not based at all, in any way, on the historical retelling of how Hitler died. Second, there are no detailed accounts of exactly how Hitler died. Some will say that the allies raided Hitlers bunker and killed him there, my great uncle was in that party and swore to his dying day that Hitler wasn't found in the bunker. One of his SS officers later said that they fled the bunker after Hitler told them how thankful he was for their loyalty and shot himself in the head. They, supposedly, wrapped his body in a grey nazi army blanket, removed his body from the bunker before the allies came, and burned the body after they paid their respects and fled for their lives.ChupathingyX said:
As far as my historical inaccuracy, the list is too long, but any movie with sword play I tend to pick apart. Specifically, musketeer movies or any movie in which a rapier is being used. I have studied this weapon extensively as well as the styles of many masters of fence. Walt Disney's "The Three Musketeers", horibble..."The Musketeer"...really? Crouching tiger, Hidden Dragon meets french rapier styles? They're entertaining movies, but sicken me with the combat that is hollywooded up.
That guy was a wank. Of course Alfred Nobel invented dynamite. He invented it to aid in mining and was completely horrified when humans started using it to kill each other. This is the main reason why Alfred established the Nobel Peace Prize.Heimir said:Don't remember when but someone told me I was a moron when I said Alfred Nobel invented dynamite.
http://inventors.about.com/od/dstartinventions/a/Alfred_Nobel.htm
He then told me to go f**k myself and that I was a communist.
Americans, you need to put those guys in the looney bin asapThey're bad for your image.
Not all Americans are wank myself included.
Really? talking about historical inaccuracies and you bring up Red Alert?? Anyone who has ever played a Red Alert game knows they are not even attempting to be accurate. That is like saying Half Life was not accurate because Gordan Freeman wasn't really a scientist.gigastar said:
300, but it wasn't trying to be historically accurate. It was just awesome.
In the REAL Battle of Thermopylae, 300+ Spartans actually fought several thousand Persians. They neglect to mention the many, many thousands of slave warriors the Spartans had, but HEY. They don't count as people.
My vote goes to a Titanic animated film. Instead of an iceberg, the ship was sunk by gangster sharks and a giant talking octopus. Also, nobody died. They were saved by whales and magical talking moonbeam dolphins. THAT'S HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED.
In the REAL Battle of Thermopylae, 300+ Spartans actually fought several thousand Persians. They neglect to mention the many, many thousands of slave warriors the Spartans had, but HEY. They don't count as people.
My vote goes to a Titanic animated film. Instead of an iceberg, the ship was sunk by gangster sharks and a giant talking octopus. Also, nobody died. They were saved by whales and magical talking moonbeam dolphins. THAT'S HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED.
Port Royal was a real port (1518-1613). so was Tortuga, I think.Fangobra said:
Star Wars. I don't care how long ago or how far away they say it happened, I don't believe a moment of it!
Aw, damn it. Ninja'd.
The Last Samurai, that movie is so filled with innacuracies it hurts.
1: Tom Cruise should have been French or German, as those were the nationalities the Japanese hired the most for military training, you know, people who had actually fought real wars and not extermination campaigns against natives (Fighting was brutal but much smaller scale adn against a poorly equipped enemy.)
2: All the samurai are wearing gear and using tactics roughly 400 years out of date. It is exactly as ridiculous as watching Medieval knights charging a Napoleonic army. The Rebellious Samurai actually used guns (although fairly crappy ones).
3: Ninjas never worked that way!
4: A good number (300-600) of the military force send to crush the Satsuma rebellion was made up of former samurai, and while the bulk of the force was conscripts they were well trained by the final battle, which was only against 40 samurai charging out of a heavily besieged village.
1: Tom Cruise should have been French or German, as those were the nationalities the Japanese hired the most for military training, you know, people who had actually fought real wars and not extermination campaigns against natives (Fighting was brutal but much smaller scale adn against a poorly equipped enemy.)
2: All the samurai are wearing gear and using tactics roughly 400 years out of date. It is exactly as ridiculous as watching Medieval knights charging a Napoleonic army. The Rebellious Samurai actually used guns (although fairly crappy ones).
3: Ninjas never worked that way!
4: A good number (300-600) of the military force send to crush the Satsuma rebellion was made up of former samurai, and while the bulk of the force was conscripts they were well trained by the final battle, which was only against 40 samurai charging out of a heavily besieged village.
The Patriot, anyone? I like the movie, just so long as I pretend that it, along with Braveheart, is meant to be a work of low-fantasy fiction.
The issue with The Patriot is that by cutting out all the historical grey areas and black spots, they missed out on a much better story. They could have easily had no British troops in this movie at all, instead pitting the local "revolutionaries" against the local "loyalists". In the south, the war of independence was a lot more about infighting and family disputes than the bigger scheme of things, so it would have been nice to see that examined.
The issue with The Patriot is that by cutting out all the historical grey areas and black spots, they missed out on a much better story. They could have easily had no British troops in this movie at all, instead pitting the local "revolutionaries" against the local "loyalists". In the south, the war of independence was a lot more about infighting and family disputes than the bigger scheme of things, so it would have been nice to see that examined.
Point taken, though the "no women on board" rule was often broken by pirates (there are many famous female bucaneers). The title "Pirates of the Caribbean" is actually a misnomer in the case of the third film, seeing as how it featured no pirate activity and didn't take place anywhere near the Caribbean. What bothers me more is how they fucked up the 4th film, when they could ahve gone with any story or any script they wanted.Fangobra said:
I don't rail about movie historical inaccuracies. Because in general movies are movies and history is history, and confusing the two is ludicrous.
I don't understand why people keep thinking that the battle with the 300 Spartans only had 300 Spartans, there were others with them. There were 2,000 other men from various places aiding them. Nobody but those Spartans were shown.
Robin Hood (the latest one) the Magna Carta was not signed in the date suggested by the movie.
Robin Hood (the latest one) the Magna Carta was not signed in the date suggested by the movie.
I'll start off by saying that the majority of shows I've seen on the history, military and discovery channels have historical innacuracies, some minor (wrong film clip) all the way to down right patriotic bias ("the M4A1 sherman was the best tank in WW2!" errr...)
I can only recall 3 series shown on them that haven't had innaccuracies (or at least trys to avoid them) - Battlefield/Battlefront (an import from ITN), Battlefield Mysteries (again bought in) and finally (Killer) Tanks (considering how this is made with the Bovington Tank and Imperial War musuems, they have to get it right).
For example - whenever the battles of El Alemien are mentioned in a show, regardless of whether it's the first or second battle, they always show the same clip - of 2 M3 Grants moving whilst shells explode around them. Every. Frickin. Show. Despite the fact that there's a wealth of film-clips that could be used. And that the M3Lee/Grants weren't present at the first battle.
But, playing this single clip multiple times would be a bit obvious. So they invert it. For those of you who are not armour-buffs, this is veeeery obvious (aside from backwards writing). Because the M3's main weapon, the M2 75mm gun, is mounted in a sponson on the right hand side of the hull, whilst 2nd weapon, the turret M3 37mm gun, isn't centered in the middle of the hull, it's actually towards the left-flank. Invert it and hey presto, you one hell of an obvious inverted film clip.
Another one (that made me laugh and cry). I saw a show talking about the Nazi forces in the invasion of the USSR in 1941. It proclaimed that the King Tiger (or Royal Tiger, or Tiger II, whatever you want to call it) spear-headed the invasion. Only...3 years before any were built. But that isn't the worst part. Everytime they mentioned the Time Travelling beast, they showed a photo of... the M3A1 Stuart/Honey light tank.
Facepalm to the max.
Lock & Load with R Lee Ermy has a fair few historical issues - but you know what, I'll let them slide. The show is clearly focused on explosions rather than history, and how can you not like Gunny?
Band of Brothers has 2 innaccuracies that I've picked up on. In the 2nd episode, when the 101st get rescued by the american tank unit, they have Canadian made M4 'grizzlies' not shermans (noticable by the tracks), which are also wearing unit markings from a british infantry unit. The second - In Replacements, the 101st are getting supported by a British Guards Armoured squadron (From 30/XXX Corps). However, the markings are for the 79th Division (Hobart's funnies), and the squadron... isn't Irish, Coldstream or Welsh guards. None of the guards use mixed Sherman and Cromwell units - the Irish and CS use sherman/firefly units, whilst the Ws use cromwells and challengers...
That said, I really, really enjoyed BoB.
I can only recall 3 series shown on them that haven't had innaccuracies (or at least trys to avoid them) - Battlefield/Battlefront (an import from ITN), Battlefield Mysteries (again bought in) and finally (Killer) Tanks (considering how this is made with the Bovington Tank and Imperial War musuems, they have to get it right).
For example - whenever the battles of El Alemien are mentioned in a show, regardless of whether it's the first or second battle, they always show the same clip - of 2 M3 Grants moving whilst shells explode around them. Every. Frickin. Show. Despite the fact that there's a wealth of film-clips that could be used. And that the M3Lee/Grants weren't present at the first battle.
But, playing this single clip multiple times would be a bit obvious. So they invert it. For those of you who are not armour-buffs, this is veeeery obvious (aside from backwards writing). Because the M3's main weapon, the M2 75mm gun, is mounted in a sponson on the right hand side of the hull, whilst 2nd weapon, the turret M3 37mm gun, isn't centered in the middle of the hull, it's actually towards the left-flank. Invert it and hey presto, you one hell of an obvious inverted film clip.
Another one (that made me laugh and cry). I saw a show talking about the Nazi forces in the invasion of the USSR in 1941. It proclaimed that the King Tiger (or Royal Tiger, or Tiger II, whatever you want to call it) spear-headed the invasion. Only...3 years before any were built. But that isn't the worst part. Everytime they mentioned the Time Travelling beast, they showed a photo of... the M3A1 Stuart/Honey light tank.
Facepalm to the max.
Lock & Load with R Lee Ermy has a fair few historical issues - but you know what, I'll let them slide. The show is clearly focused on explosions rather than history, and how can you not like Gunny?
Band of Brothers has 2 innaccuracies that I've picked up on. In the 2nd episode, when the 101st get rescued by the american tank unit, they have Canadian made M4 'grizzlies' not shermans (noticable by the tracks), which are also wearing unit markings from a british infantry unit. The second - In Replacements, the 101st are getting supported by a British Guards Armoured squadron (From 30/XXX Corps). However, the markings are for the 79th Division (Hobart's funnies), and the squadron... isn't Irish, Coldstream or Welsh guards. None of the guards use mixed Sherman and Cromwell units - the Irish and CS use sherman/firefly units, whilst the Ws use cromwells and challengers...
That said, I really, really enjoyed BoB.
You're not an American, and you took the class willingly? What. Are. You?Coldster said:
'Mericuh has a really annoying history. I took the AP Course and fucking hated it.
Brief summary:
"We want independence"
"Pay us taxes"
"Let's go back to war"
"Stop this war"
"Stop slavery"
"Back to war"
"Stop this war" ....repeat last two until history is over.
Al Tair suggesting he thought the earth is flat in Assassin's Creed 2.
:c
The game is as a whole pretty concerned with historical accuracy, so it was a shame to see that common misconception trotted out again (for those who don't know, everyone who mattered in the middle ages correctly thought the earth was round).
:c
The game is as a whole pretty concerned with historical accuracy, so it was a shame to see that common misconception trotted out again (for those who don't know, everyone who mattered in the middle ages correctly thought the earth was round).
Could that be explained away by Al Tair just being a moron? Never played Asscreed so I don't know what sort of angle the character's played on.Gaiacarra said:
But it is clearly obvious that Jesus lord our Christ and saviour was brought back from the dead and anyone saying that, the Bible isn't historiclly accurate then he's an idiot!Beliyal said:I'd like to say that I'd argue against inaccuracy of 300 with this. The story was never about how the battle really happened; it was about how the Greeks perceived it happening. Knowing how ancient Greeks were pretty much racist and hated their enemies (especially Persians), they would have told the story exactly like that, all the monsters included. I actually consider 300 being the most historically accurate film, because it shows how Greeks would have re-told the story back in the day when it happened. It shows the actual history and how people praised their war campaigns instead of looking at our scientific and purified version of every historical event. 300 immersed me much more than any other historical film and made me get the little of the feel of how did a Greek society like its story to be told (all the way with the macho heroes, horrible enemy-monsters and impossible fighting skills). No doubt, the real thing didn't look like that at all, but people who didn't participate in it, didn't know that; they got romanticised over-the-top story like the one told in 300.Lt_Bromhead said:OT: 300. The whole damned thing, pretty much.
Then again, one could argue against this - as the story of 300 was the battle as told by Dilios, and as first hand accounts by Spartans go, that was likely pretty much how they would have told the tale. Especially if appealing for help...
OT: I usually notice inaccuracies a lot and I've noticed so much of them, that I can't even remember anymore. But, I do always note the inaccuracy in Troy, although it's debatable whether we can call it "historical" inaccuracy; while I actually liked the movie, I was disappointed with Paris surviving. It was unnecessary change of the original story. Him dying actually has a meaning in that tragic epic and would be something that he actually completely deserved (especially after killing Achilles with an arrow; the Greeks considered the arrow to be a coward's weapon). However, speaking of Troy, the Illiad itself has historical inaccuracies (for example, mentioning iron when the battle happened in the bronze age and there was no iron) so I guess that changing things from it is not really that much of a crime, considering the fact that the story itself is full of implausible stuff.
Also, this a bit disappointed me, but then again, it might be the same thing as with 300. It's an adaptation of a Biblical story and it had to look "familiar". The emphasis wasn't really on history, otherwise, there wouldn't be Satan in the movie (... let's not go into a religious debate). So, I forgave Passion of the Christ for that (also because the movie was not in English which made it really impressive). Oh, while we're at it, Apocalypto was awesome for the same thing, but I did find it a bit irritating with inaccuracies. For example, sacrificing to the god Kukulkan to whom human hearts were not sacrificed and various mixing of Mayan and Aztec cultures (the last scene is the conquistadors showing up in Americas, which would be the period of the Aztec civilization and not classical Mayan one that was depicted in the movie).Trezu said:
One more thing I find infuriating is the presentation Cleopatra VII. (the Cleopatra) in media. She's always beautiful in the modern sense of that word and cares about being dressed nicely and stuff like that, while in reality, she was actually not "beautiful" at all and instead was just very charming, intelligent and a very well educated woman (she spoke five languages). I know that might be as appealing, but then again, no one tried (though, the Cleopatra from the TV series Rome was actually very good).
Because you would be in hell without god.
Hell!