Guess what made the "Top 10 Historically Inaccurate Films" list?

**SteveB** · 21st March 08, 04:02 PM

If it is portrayed in the movies or on the telly it is fiction period. I usually include the newscasts in that vein as reporting today is based on the agenda of the media.

**ChattanCat** · 21st March 08, 04:27 PM

I guess that's why they call it entertainment. Doesn't have to be historically accurate to generate box office sales. And if it was historically correct it probably wouldn't be exciting.

**BoldHighlander** · 21st March 08, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by ChattanCat

I guess that's why they call it entertainment. Doesn't have to be historically accurate to generate box office sales. And if it was historically correct it probably wouldn't be exciting.

Over the years I & many of my compatriots in the living history community have discussed this very subject, knowing full well that there are great stories out there that Hollywood would not have to fudge on to make exciting. For whatever reason they usually add or subtract for their own purposes

Having said that, even if a historically accurate film was made, they'd usually have to condense the time frame to fit the story into a two or three hour time frame

**macwilkin** · 21st March 08, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by ChattanCat

I guess that's why they call it entertainment. Doesn't have to be historically accurate to generate box office sales. And if it was historically correct it probably wouldn't be exciting.

Originally Posted by BoldHighlander

Over the years I & many of my compatriots in the living history community have discussed this very subject, knowing full well that there are great stories out there that Hollywood would not have to fudge on to make exciting. For whatever reason they usually add or subtract for their own purposes

Having said that, even if a historically accurate film was made, they'd usually have to condense the time frame to fit the story into a two or three hour time frame

Terry is correct; I generally do not read works of fiction anymore, with a few exceptions, because the majority of non-fiction I read for work and pleasure is more exciting than anything a writer and/or Hollywood could dream up. As a historian, I can say that "historically correct" doesn't always mean "boring".

That being said, I do believe there are happy mediums -- witness the recent movie "The Great Raid", which was, INMHO, a far better WWII movie than "Saving Private Ryan". While I was overwhelmed at the first 20 minutes of "Ryan", the rest of the movie really doesn't do much. "Great Raid" did fictionalize things somewhat, but overall they got the story right.

T.

**floridaredhead** · 25th March 08, 03:17 AM

Hahahahahahahaha! That's awesome.

Leather Speedos...

**floridaredhead** · 25th March 08, 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by cajunscot

Terry is correct; I generally do not read works of fiction anymore, with a few exceptions, because the majority of non-fiction I read for work and pleasure is more exciting than anything a writer and/or Hollywood could dream up. As a historian, I can say that "historically correct" doesn't always mean "boring".

Amen to that; I call it the "You can't make this BLEEP up" quality.

**Highland Logan** · 25th March 08, 03:50 AM

And they wonder why children these days have no clue about history. So many people, schools and parents would rather let "Hollywood" raise their children.

Frank

**davedove** · 25th March 08, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by emolas

Great list although I don't think you can call 2001 historically inaccurate since it wasn't actually history when it was made. Maybe precognitively incorrect but then, so was 1984.

I have to agree with this. The film wasn't historical when it was made, it was predictive.

Fans of Star Trek will realize that the Eugenics Wars were supposed to happen in the 90's, but I haven't seen any supermen running around. Although, I read a couple of Star Trek books that submitted that the wars did happen, just behind the scenes with secret laboratories and such.

**sharpdressedscot** · 25th March 08, 05:40 AM

I don't mind if they BS some of the movies, it makes it a bit more interesting, as long as it's known that it's based on something. They're still good movies nonetheless.

**Finn** · 25th March 08, 06:27 AM

Unless it is a straight documentary, any historical event put on film will be inaccurate. Some are better than others, but even "Band of Brothers" is subject to the vagaries of memory. Documentaries are not above controversies of accuracy either, witness "Incident At Oglalla".

Mel does seem to be liberal with the history, though. I enjoyed two of those films for what they were. Love to have some of the props from "The Patriot".