Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How much, if at all, do inacurracies in historically-based movies bother you?
I'm a history buff, so I come up against this situation all the time. IMO there are 3 types of "historical inacurracy" in movies (or miniseries on TV, as the case may be, that eventually come out on DD):
(1) Physical details, such as casting an actor that has little or no physical resemblance to the historical character he or she portrays (e.g., the Tudors miniseries on Showtime casting a brown-haired slightly-built actor as the tall redheaded Henry VIII); or inacurracies in location/sets, costume style, etc. versus what they were remotely like historically.
(2) Errors of omission, such as leaving out timeline elements, incidents or relationships that had great influence on the events that the movie or show portrays (I do realize that time constraints must apply, but sometimes BIG factors are just totally ignored)
(3) Completely misrepresenting historical events or the documented actions of an important character. In other words, the movie or series blatantly lies. A prime example of this is, again, 'The Tudors' which not only utterly scrambled ALL the facts of the Charles Brandon/Henry's sister saga, but (and could not believe my eyes when I saw this) portrayed Cardinal Wolsey as committing suicide instead of dying of natural causes while traveling. Is nothing sacred?!
I can tolerate #1 in most cases (artistic license, but sorry, not for THAT Henry VIII!), get annoyed about #2 but still put up with it... but if the movie commits the #3 'sin', for me it's worthless. ('The Tudors' managed to fail on all three counts, numerous times. I haven't seen 'The Other Boleyn Girl' yet, though am planning to, and wonder how that will rate on my personal H.I. scale!)
How historically inaccurate does a production have to be in order to ruin it, in your estimation?
I prefer that a movie be as historically accurate as possible so that I will also learn something by watching. But I know that movies aren't always historically accurate, but that doesn't necessarily ruin the movie for me if the movie is well done in general.
You have to understand that many of your 'based on actual events' movies take great liberty and often embellish things, to make it more interesting for the audience.
It does bother me to a point but not enough for me to say I completely hate the movie. I just wish they stick to the facts as much as possible. Braveheart is hands down one of my favorite movies of all time and Hollywood faking the princess and Wallace's relationship was quite funny/looney if you ask me. And I'm not even going to go into the other flawed stuff in that movie.
The Last Samurai. Entertaining movie but it was quiet insulting at the same time. Honestly, should Jackie Chan star in a movie about the American Revolution were he plays a Chinese soldier who played a huge role alongside George Washington?
You have to understand that many of your 'based on actual events' movies take great liberty and often embellish things, to make it more interesting for the audience.
It may be 10% truth and 90% creative writing.
That's the point. They don't make it more interesting to the people that know the story. Many times the truth is a much better story than what the writers come up with.
George MacDonald Fraser of Flashman fame wrote The Hollywood History of the World a very funny look at how Hollywood has warped History. Very British viewpoint by the way. Great Read if you can find a copy.
We just have to face the facts... real life makes poor movies.
It bugs me when the costumes are wrong on historical dramas but it's the historic drama move cliches that drive me up the wall and/or historic people living and behaving like late 20th to early 21st century people. If you find yourself in a historic drama there will be some inevitable things you can just count on having:
You will be poor and down on your luck but ambitious and hopeful.
You will fall in love with a hot babe of an English girl but her father will disapprove. At some point we will also see her in a state of undress (that is very dressed to 21st century eyes) bathed in warm morning light.
Your horse will also not get tired or trip or do anything but what you want it to do... basically it will be a Toyota with 4 legs, except when it almost bucks you off in front of your lady friend so she can giggle.
Your flintlock pistol will never misfire, even if you go for a swim with it... unless the script calls for an awkward funny moment.
If you happen to be in Ancient Rome, nobody will wear enough clothing and will always be quick to strip at the drop of a hat. But If you go to Ancient Egypt, everyone will be wearing too much. Both will speak with English accents, however... unless you happen to run into Moses.
You will be friends with a token minority character even though everyone else around you is a freaking dirty racist.
Women will be kick-ass fighters who always win... even if they are only 100 lbs, were never trained to fight and their enemies are huge, vicious (male) killers who have spent their entire lives fighting and killing.
Those movies always seem to look like costume balls too, not real interpretations of what it was actually like to be in that time/place. The dirt and grime seems fake even. I've lived in the 3rd world and even the poorest capable adults make some effort to wash up; I just don't see midevil peasants or 19th century slum dwellers all wandering around with dirt all over their faces like a 3 yr old kid. And the flip side of that are people that are too clean... especially teeth, which are perfectly straight and pearly white unless the character is intended to gross you out on purpose.
War movies generally look better in the historical accuracy department (probably because there are lots of pictures/paintings/artifacts preserved from wars) but the character cliches are freaking abnoxious. "Saving Private Ryan" was full of 'em and it really hurt the movie for me.
I also hate how everyone in the past apparently had an English accent...ESPECIALLY the bad guys. I really wish more historic movies would have been done in historic languages with subtitles; I loved how "The Passion" was actually done entirely in Hebrew and Latin or "Apocalypto" in Yucatec... I know lots of people hate to read but for me it really added to the movies.
Mixing accents drives me nuts too; in "Enemy at the Gates" the Russians have English Accents and the Germans have American accents. I know they weren't in the movies, but does that mean the Americans would of had Russian accents and the English German?
We just have to face the facts... real life makes poor movies.
It bugs me when the costumes are wrong on historical dramas but it's the historic drama move cliches that drive me up the wall and/or historic people living and behaving like late 20th to early 21st century people. If you find yourself in a historic drama there will be some inevitable things you can just count on having:
You will be poor and down on your luck but ambitious and hopeful.
You will fall in love with a hot babe of an English girl but her father will disapprove. At some point we will also see her in a state of undress (that is very dressed to 21st century eyes) bathed in warm morning light.
Your horse will also not get tired or trip or do anything but what you want it to do... basically it will be a Toyota with 4 legs, except when it almost bucks you off in front of your lady friend so she can giggle.
Your flintlock pistol will never misfire, even if you go for a swim with it... unless the script calls for an awkward funny moment.
If you happen to be in Ancient Rome, nobody will wear enough clothing and will always be quick to strip at the drop of a hat. But If you go to Ancient Egypt, everyone will be wearing too much. Both will speak with English accents, however... unless you happen to run into Moses.
You will be friends with a token minority character even though everyone else around you is a freaking dirty racist.
Women will be kick-ass fighters who always win... even if they are only 100 lbs, were never trained to fight and their enemies are huge, vicious (male) killers who have spent their entire lives fighting and killing.
Those movies always seem to look like costume balls too, not real interpretations of what it was actually like to be in that time/place. The dirt and grime seems fake even. I've lived in the 3rd world and even the poorest capable adults make some effort to wash up; I just don't see midevil peasants or 19th century slum dwellers all wandering around with dirt all over their faces like a 3 yr old kid. And the flip side of that are people that are too clean... especially teeth, which are perfectly straight and pearly white unless the character is intended to gross you out on purpose.
War movies generally look better in the historical accuracy department (probably because there are lots of pictures/paintings/artifacts preserved from wars) but the character cliches are freaking abnoxious. "Saving Private Ryan" was full of 'em and it really hurt the movie for me.
I also hate how everyone in the past apparently had an English accent...ESPECIALLY the bad guys. I really wish more historic movies would have been done in historic languages with subtitles; I loved how "The Passion" was actually done entirely in Hebrew and Latin or "Apocalypto" in Yucatec... I know lots of people hate to read but for me it really added to the movies.
Mixing accents drives me nuts too; in "Enemy at the Gates" the Russians have English Accents and the Germans have American accents. I know they weren't in the movies, but does that mean the Americans would of had Russian accents and the English German?
Rant over.
I think the dialogue between Pullo and Vorenus in HBO's Rome would not have been the same if we had to listen to it in Latin. History Channel aired one of their docu-films regarding Boudica's rebellion in Roman occupied England where the actors either spoke Latin and a different dialect for the Celts. Subtitled- interesting to catch the common latin words used in English and Spanish/Italian but really did not considerably improve the piece if English were used.
I admit original language use has benefits in certain pieces. Longest Day would not appear the same now if everyone spoke English in it.
I also hate how everyone in the past apparently had an English accent...ESPECIALLY the bad guys. I really wish more historic movies would have been done in historic languages with subtitles; I loved how "The Passion" was actually done entirely in Hebrew and Latin or "Apocalypto" in Yucatec... I know lots of people hate to read but for me it really added to the movies.
This is, by far, my biggest pet peeve. I really hate it when someone's supposed to be from another country, yet they speak English with their accent. Wtf?? I loved Inglourious Basterds because it didn't do this, but of course my dad didn't like it because he had to read too much. I dislike Mel Gibson as a person but I like him as a director and Apocalypto and The Passion were made better because of the legit language use. I believe Aramaic was also used in The Passion.
As far as historical accuracy in general...it does bug me sometimes, but it depends on what the movie's trying to do. If it claims to be accurate, then inaccuracies make me angry. But if it's like 300, which is based on a graphic novel, then it doesn't annoy me. I mean, we all know that Xerxes was not an 8-foot-tall bronze god with 5,000 piercings, and the traitor was not some ugly hunchback. Those things were in Frank Miller's novel, though, so it makes sense they were in the movie.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but for me it really added to the movies. 
