What really winds me up is when movies change history to suit a direcotrs/makers agends. It really infuriates me in face, since I really enjoy history.

For example, U-571. That movie is totally fabricated. The operation to capture an enigma machine was purely run by the British. Why was this changed? To make it more enjoyable to Americans.

Now in itself that isnt bad, but people who know little of histroy will accept the film as fact, and that really gets to me.

Other movies that have wound me up for historical innacuracy are Braveheart, and the Patriot. Both gross exaggerations, or alterations of history. Also, Troy was an alterstion, but it was of the Illiad, rather than established fact. (feel free to correct me on that one)

So I was wondering, do you get just as angry as me? Also what are the movies that really annoy you on this subject?

Oh, i sure get mad at those movies, darnit!
It just annoys me how they can just simply "change" whatever they really want to and sell it as a historical movie.
Troy's the best example right now. They could film a movie in a Zoo put Pitt along with a few other famous actors in a cage with gorillas and sell it off. Couse if you want to know what really happened you better not watch this movie named Troy.

About Braveheart... I didnt even know it wasnt the way it happened. There are also lots and lots of folks who dont know either. See, if we look at it this way this is just another political (not to mention cash-making) move to promote what the leaders want. Just like it was in Soviet Union, when there were these "Heroes" of the people, who were everything "that", its just the same here. There's this one chap who does everything right, of course he's an american with tight jeans and leather jacket, possibly smokes cigares, is 25 years old, a vietnam veteran in '80 saving whatever (a particiular planet of course).
Gee!

U571 really gets to me, the fact that its changed for some American glory just really bothers me. I don't mind Braveheart so much, as I actually enjoy it a fair bit, but showing the Scots as a howling bunch of barbarians is annoying.

In this respect, Braveheart is one of the worst offenders in disregarding historical fact. But I have not seen U571, so I can't comment on it. The Civil War movie, Glory, is one of my favorite historical movies, but is also an offender in this regard, but not to the extent of Braveheart. IMO, Glory is nevertheless an outstanding movie.

the movie: Julius Caesar. a very inaccurate movie about his life.

another movie about Verkingtorix played by Christopher lambert, can't remember its name, it was so weird.

Both movies were historical incorrect and the directors had added some very weird stuff. the worst one was the one about Verkingtorix, because they had added some magic and a fat Julius Caesar.

Bravehart and the patriot never bothered me, it was just movies about Mel Gibsons hate to Englishmen ;)
but why oh why the they change the british heroes to Americans in U571?

I'm one of those who nitpicks the accuracies of a movie if I know the actually history behind it.

Gladiator is another movie to add to the list. So horribly inaccurate. I think that the only thing that was accurate was the costuming.

Along with Braveheart, Mel Gibson also committed crimes against history in The Patriot. I'm not English but I would be pretty peeved at how evil he paints the English to be in both of those movies. In both films, his heroes are forces of good because they go around killing dastardly one-dimensional Englishmen.

While that clearly seemed to be his intent in Braveheart, speaking as a man who doesn't know much about Scottish history, I disagree completely about the Patriot.

The only Englishman they really painted as evil was that one general (played perfectly by Jason Isaacs, can't remember his name in the film). He went to great pains to depict Cornwallis as a decent, proper, duty-bound gentleman, and you'll see many english soldiers in the movie whom were either unsure of themselves, questioning (at least in expression) the brutality of the one general, etc. If you'll remember, in one scene the English soldiers are treating the wounds and feeding injured Colonial soldiers when they're ordered to kill them by the one evil general (and you clearly see them hesitate because they know it's wrong, yet they don't dare disobey the general).

From what I've heard, the Patriot's history is more accurate than not, but I'd have to do some heavy reading to be sure. Regardless, any historical movie has to take some liberties with the facts for the sake of movie pizazz.

Although I agree with DR mostly here. It's not so much the images of English 'brutality' in The Patriot that knocked my duck off. More the battle scenes at the end. Never would the Red Coats be so disorganised. And that film put way too much emphasis on the colonials. It's the French that won that war from what I know of it. Bloody French always a thorn in our side back then.

Braveheart though. Jesus, that's atrocious.

I can't watch it for 10 minutes before I get people shouting at me for moaning about the whole incredible innaccuracies of it. The intelligent people on here etc. who actually bother to question it, know how stupidly inaccurate it is. But you will get people who watch it and assume that it's akin to a documentary.
No wonder the Scottish always have this hatred of us and love to see us lose at things etc.

I say that though. But I could name countless films where the same has been done to the Germans. Who don't deserve their reputation anymore either. Hollywood, it seems, has 'Must be English or German' in its 'baddy' criteria for movies.

*sigh*

I guess so - but for every historical movie that bashes the Brits or the Germans, there are plenty that bash America. Dances with Wolves and The Last Samurai are two that come to mind that don't make us look particularly honorable, however accurate or fair they may or may not be. Same with any movie dealing with the Native Americans really. We screwed them, and we know it. There isn't a single industrialized nation on earth with a squeaky clean past. You want to make an omelette/nation, you gotta break some eggs/people.

What about Life of Brian? :grin:

My problem is with the American depiction of the British in the American war of independence. We are portrayed as evil mudering tyrants, whereas the colonials are honourable freedom fighters. Unfortunately there are always degrees of truth. People just never bother to look for them. Yes the British didnt treat the Americans too well. They were cold, brutal and arrogant. But they were not how they are portrayed. Also the colonials were no saints. There were imcidents where one colonial brigade murdered an entire town of pro-British Americans, and other acts of brutality.
Now, anyone with interest in history will look up the facts, and not go on a hollywood picture, but many do. I feel insulted when pictures portray my country in this way, as they will believe it. Like with Braveheart. William Wallace was a nasty piece of work, but that's glossed over as it was a movie about "freedom" Something the Americans have a hard on for.

It's like the movies portraying the IRA as the freedom fighters, rather than terrorists who liked to kill innocent civillians. The Devil's own springs to mind.

On a side note, I didnt know Gladiator was based on history. I just took it as a movie and nothing more. Also I really liked Glory, but I dont know how much was altered. It says it's based on Shaw's letters, but I guess based on gives a fairly loose meaning.

The battle of The Cowpens is the unnamed battle in the film the Patriot. The Patriot is really an interesting case. But not because it was an especially good film. It is, at least, in my opinion, and as others have suggested, another Mel Gibson bash at "English tyranny." This goes all the way back to Gallipoli. Here are some helpful links on the Cowpens:

http://www.patriotresource.com/factfiction/battles/cowpens.html

http://www.nps.gov/cowp/batlcowp.htm

Also, the French were instrumental in the Revolutionary Cause. But they were not present at the critical victory at Saratoga. Nor were they are part of Washington's well executed attacks at Trenton and Princeton. But they were an important part of the Yorktown campaign, which saw the surrender of General Cornwallis.

Here's a good link on Saratoga:

http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/MilSci/BTSI/Saratoga/

Pearl Harbour. But then I don't think anyone took it seriously.

U-571: This movie is not just ahistoric, it is outright awful and illogic. One torpedo hits a destroyer in the bow an the whole thing blows up. Please, come again? Did they ever hear about armor plating?
Then again, it wasn't a real destroyer, but a fake one. Some trading vessel with a few wooden gun turrets and superstructure.
And where did Jon Bon Jovi go, anyway?

Pearl Harbor: Another really bad movie (well, it's a Bay). The army got two fighters in the air. This is correct. But they were both shot down, damn it! Just think about it: That piece of **** would have ended a whole hour earlier if they'd made it historically correct.

13th Warrior: Nice, entertaining movie, but the historic mistakes make me cringe. Has anyone ever heard about an arabic learned man who does not speak a word of latin or greek? (But learns norwegian in less than a day. Yeah, right.)
Banderas plays a poet who can read, write and had lessons in sword-fighting, which indicates that he had a good upbringing. Such a man would have had lessons in the two mentionend languages, because all the important texts were written in greek or latin.

Vercingetorix: This one is hilarious. The requisites look like they were inspired by 'Asterix & Obelix', the comic books. 'Nuff said.

@Takara, I don't think Gladiator was a true story but it has historical facts, such as how gladiators were treated, how Rome became a republic and such. Maximus is a fictitious character... I think.

@Fabius Maximus, the 13th Warrior is non-fiction. It is based of Michael Crichton's best-selling novel "Eaters of the Dead". That pretty much gives the author the right to creat a learned Arab who have "strange" linguistic skill. :D

I see that a lot of Englishmen are complaining about unfair depiction of their heritage. When was Hollywood fair? I mean, if you watch all those war movies in Vietnam. Vietnamess are always the bad guy when in fact Uncle Sam has no business there. Russians are usually portrayed as cold hearted killers. In Black Hawk Down, a bunch of dead American soldiers were honored and remembered, what about the hundreds of innocent lives forfeited in the "Mog"? (I hope I have not offended anybody.) But, in fairness with Hollywood, I also have to mention that the US National Forces (or whatever they are called) actually have a department that deals with movies. Any movie that would depicts any modern war with US soldiers (probably starting from WWII) must be screened by them. Simply put, the movie must not put the American soldier in bad light. In short... US is protecting it's image. Now, where the heck did I get this info, if I remember correctly, it's from an episode from Discovery Channel.

A lot of Russians are complaining about the innacuracy of Harrison Ford's K19. Jet Li's Hero (http://www.herothemovie.com/) was a depiction of one of China's greatest emperor, the one who built the Great Wall and united the warring empires of China. How the emperor was portrayed was a subject of debate, and obviously, like the US National Forces, "image" played a part. Even our own local movie about the life of our National Hero, Rizal, have also been tweaked by our own movie makers.

In short, if you want historically correct movies, get cable and watch Discovery Channel or National Geographics or Hallmark channel for more accurate portrayal of non-fiction stories. Commercial movies... research and readings required.

Gladiator - according to a doco I saw about a year ago now, it WAS based partly on historical events but (this is the only thing I recall from the doco clearly) in truth Commodus did not die in the Arena as depicted in this film, he was actually poisoned by his Senate. Mind you, my recollection may be cloudy.

A enjoyed Braveheart and have actually met a descendant of William Wallace and a descendant of the family who harboured Robert the Bruce in their cellar. It was only after the fact when I found out that they basically completely changed William himself - not to mention everything else including the vehicle in the background - that I got a bit miffed.

As for Pearl Harbour, what a freakin' joke THAT was. I do hope nobody took it seriously that 2 guys 'won' that battle on their own.

For pearl harbour, I always though Tora Tora Tora was a lot better. It really focused on the japanese a fair bit.

Also, on vietnam movies, I felt that We were soldiers attempted to portay the vietnamese as humans, rather than evil killing machines, like in films like platoon.

Ned Kelly was quite bad in this aspect. (Hell, the director didn't want the actors to have beards! Ned Kelly without a beard?! Phooey.)

as far as i know the 13th warrior is not a historical movie, it's losely based on the historie of ibn fadlan and the Viking poem of Beowulf. fore instance the Burial scene in the beginning is correct, ad least it is how Ibn Fadlan described it in his report to the Kalif. And the Female worshipping barbarians has also some historical correctness and the Vikings speak Swedish and Danish by the way, which is also correct(well kinda they spoke old-danish, which sounds somewhat like swedish)

Gladiator - according to a doco I saw about a year ago now, it WAS based partly on historical events but (this is the only thing I recall from the doco clearly) in truth Commodus did not die in the Arena as depicted in this film, he was actually poisoned by his Senate. Mind you, my recollection may be cloudy.I can't remember if Commodus was poisoned by the Senate, but I do know where he died: While using the toilet. That's why a common nickname for the toilet is commode...For Commodus, as a joke for where he died.

Although the 13th warrior is fiction, I thought all the different types of armor used by the vikings made it historically inaccurate. Most of the types are either several centuries old, or weren't developed for several centuries after.

I don't get mad at historical inaccuracies in films. Films are art. They are there to entertain, not to educate. And authors have been rewriting history as long as they have been writing. If you know the history, then perhaps the story won't interest you as much. No big deal, they'll entertain the next guy instead.

What bugs me is that people who watch films are naive enough to think they can trust a film to be historically accurate, or a novel, or whatever it is. I'm not talking about the people here that gripe about the inaccuracies. I'm talking about the people who assume there aren't any inaccuracies, the ones who watch Braveheart and believe they now know "what really happened" in medieval Scotland.

I don't get mad at historical inaccuracies in films. Films are art. They are there to entertain, not to educate. And authors have been rewriting history as long as they have been writing. If you know the history, then perhaps the story won't interest you as much. No big deal, they'll entertain the next guy instead. True, but what about those that do not know or even question it, like children? Art, yea; but with names and partial facts of the real history. IMO, the best solution would be simply twist the names too and thus not symbolize history to boost some national ego. :rolleyes:

True, but what about those that do not know or even question it, like children? I think that's up to their parents to police. It's the artist's responsibility to make good art, not to educate. It's the parents' responsibility to educate, and to make sure that children understand the difference between art and truth. Just like parents shouldn't let their kids think professional wrestling moves are safe for children, they shouldn't let their kids think that Braveheart is a good resource for learning about medieval Scotland.

Well, to add my two cents worth to this line of discussion, I don't know of many people, aside from children who know not to take most films seriously in relation to them being fact or fiction, but what doens get me a little mad is when films are billed as being based on historical fact, true events or true stories and yet, most of the 'facts' are blatant fabrications by somebody. Now, I apologise if I have missd the point that was supposed to be made by the previous posts on this topic, but I feel that if a film is going to be billed as being based in some way on real life people or events, then the disclaimer at the end mentioning fabrications is simply not enough because I like to walk out of a movie of this type and be able to think "Well, I know have a little bit more real knowledge of that person/place/thing/event than I had before" and have that knowledge be true.

You didnt miss the point Aldazar, becuase that is exactly my biggest gripe too. Gladiator to me was always just a movie, so I really enjoyed it. I never even knew it was based on historical events. But the ones that say they are true stories, and then make most of it up. That is where I get so angry.

Out of interest, what do you guys think of what the Cohen brothers did with Fargo? They made a movie that was pure fiction, and then say it is based on true events at the start of the movie. They said there is nothing wrong with it, since it is their story, but I'm not so sure.

I agree with Laiwethel about Gladiator.
For instance, the riders ride arabian horses, which the Romans didn't and use crossbows which weren't even invented back then...

One movie I have refused to see is JFK. I've always wondered how many people are wandering around convinced they know what happened because of Oliver Stone.

I for one am tired of seeing Canadians portrayed as either morons or mountain men (yeah, I live in a log cabin and hunt my own moose every night,...eh.) Sheesh.

I know it happens more on TV then in film, but still.

How can Troy be historically inaccurate when no one knows what really happened? Does anyone consider the Iliad a historical document?

Troy is inaccurate when you compare it with Iliad and with the widely known version of the myth. It is historical inacurrate as well because it contains inacurracies like the use of coins. The war of Troy according to the most scholars took place around 1200 BC-1180 BC, while coins were used for first time by greeks almost 350 years later. Also, (I'm not sure about that because I can't recall the scene very well) I think that there were triremes among the ships, when triremes were invented 600 years later.

In a morbid way, I thought it was actually quite funny when I heard that some fool (or fools) had frozen to death searching for the buried money as mentioned in Fargo. The thing with that film though, I think, is that we hear so many stories about similar situations that it could BE true.

Kinda like all those fools who went out to where Blair witch was filmed looking for it. Some people are really cluekess.

The American films about 2.World War and Vietnam.These films are really annoying.Americans are the forces of good,and their enemies are evil,senseless killing machines.Yeah,these films really,really anger me!

I hear ya Argohir!

The noble and strong and invincible and all that americans. The opponents are hideously unfair snakes, backstabbers, torturers and the worst one can imagine.
And there's this even stronger and even more noble and even more invincible young man who comes there to wreak havoc in the name of justice!

Gosh!

Nothing can be made historically accurate. We just don't know enough(excluding the past century) and/or don't have the resources.

It is true that such films can make some people think the wrong things, but otherwise they're good. How many people will read the myths after seeing the movie? Movies are great curiosity sparklers on any topic.

It is true that such films can make some people think the wrong things, but otherwise they're good. How many people will read the myths after seeing the movie? Movies are great curiosity sparklers on any topic. a little of topic. So true, just look at LOTR, the books are being sold worldwide thanks to the movie.

I just saw the old Spartacus movie, it was hilarious. All does old films about Rome are so full of historical inaccurate scenes, but they are still fun to watch.

I despise the Hollywood culture of rewriting history. As a Scootsman I despised Braveheart and I don't care how many awards and rave reviews it got it was simply full of pure fantasy to appeal to an American audience who claim their Scottish because when America was discovered one of their ancestors went there and settled from Scotland the idiots!
Any film that rewrites history to put the Americans in greater glory by stealing accomplishments from others gets up my nose, although so did Independance Day by masturbating the ego of the USA (slightly off topic but illustrates my point.)
I did laugh when the makers of Titanic had to apologise to a small Scottish community for portraying a guy as a coward when in fact he was a hero :lol:

Has no one even metioned the hilariously WRONG Behind Enemy Lines?? My eighth grade social studies teacher was a huge war historian and he was furious for a whole month after he saw that movie. I'm not to sure about the facts besides it would never happen, but to that teacher, the only thing bigger than war history was the football prowess of the college Florida State, who at that time, were doing particularly well, and he never said a word about them for a month, which was highly unusual.

Also, back to Braveheart, you could get more facts playing Age of Empires II: Age of King's campaign about William Wallace than watching the movie. The prop consistancy is funny too, because when he jumps off a cart or something and runs into the woods, he has a sword, but when he is running in the woods, he doesn't. But when he comes back out the other side, he has it again...

I had a Professor in Old English who was a Scotsman, he just laughed about Braveheart and Rob Roy, he found the whole thing quite silly. "Sheer Fantasy" is what he called Braveheart, though he didn't mind the fact that it was pro-Scottish to the detriment of the English ;)

I don't get too wound up about such things, though, because even kids soon figure out that the Hollywood Dream Machine is all about entertainment and very little about historical accuracy. I don't know a great deal, for instance, about the whole Amistad incident, but I do know that if I want to find out more, I'll read a book by a real historian and get the facts (which will then subsequently be slanted in whatever way the historian wants, that's the nature of even the best historian, so it's often best to read two or three books on a subject.)

Anyhoo, another silly little inaccuracy I read about once was the big bloody scimitar that Morgan Freeman used in Robin Hood -- such scimitars were not designed until much later, according to what I read in an article panning the film.