10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies

Submitted by: Hydrolysate 9 years ago in Entertainment
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/10mosthistoricallyinaccurate.html

The 10 major movies that make your history teacher cringe.
There are 68 comments:
Male 2,860
Hmm, U-571 seems to be missing.
0
Reply
Male 31
Do you mean Indiana Jones didn`t recover the Arch of Alliance ? ... What ?... Indiana Jones doesn`t even exist ??? ... Damn. That makes two with Jesus Christ... How sad.
0
Reply
Female 1,441
A lot of the ones on there were really nitpicky. Pochontas should have been on there though.
0
Reply
Male 142
2001 = science fiction. Science fiction = NOT REAL. NOT REAL = NOT HISTORICALLY INACCURATE!!!!
dummies
0
Reply
Male 2,395
Fairly right.
0
Reply
Male 54
Although a huge part of breaking the Enigma code was carried out by British Intelligence during the war, it was in fact the Poles, seven years before the war started who first managed to break the code.
The British followed up their work and although they did capture most code books and machinery, the US and Canadians also captured codebooks from captured vessels. The US also managed by the end of the war to be as good as the British at cracking Enigma codes.

Yes the film is historical junk, but the cracking of the Enigma codes was an Allied victory, albeit a largely British one.

0
Reply
Male 14
ENIGMA MACHINE WAS FOUND BY BRITISH NOT THE YANKS.

0
Reply
Female 1,470
No one said these movies NEED to be real
Its a movie, not history class
0
Reply
Male 382
BigBonny, if you had bothered to read the posts before you, you`d know. Now you just seem a bit daft for asking.
0
Reply
Male 1,275
=/
0
Reply
Male 1,275
And here I was taking it all as fact.
0
Reply
Female 469
I don`t care if it wasn`t an accurate portrayal. Memoirs of a Geisha is right up there with Boondock Saints on my top movie list. :P
0
Reply
Male 1,455
It`s a joke. 2001 is on there because it`s funny to see it on a list of historically-inaccurate movies.
0
Reply
Female 156
I was like `300 better be here` before opening it. Glad to see it was, although still a very good movie.

I don`t think we should be hating on 2001: Space Odyssey though. I mean, the book was written ages ago and the film was filmed quite a while ago. It was set in the future, not the past.

0
Reply
Male 2,216
Can anyone remind me the movie where it was in reality British forces and people, but in the movie they made them all American instead? I think it was a submarine movie?
0
Reply
Female 288
did anyone notice how many mel gibson movies were on that list? lol
0
Reply
Female 252
2001 should not have being on that list, 300 isnt exactly fair either as its a movie based on a graphic novel based on the battle so of course it isn`t accurate
0
Reply
Male 363
What about Kingdom of Heaven, National Treasure, Lord of War, Forrest Gump, and Enemy at the Gates? Any of those I would put way before 2001. 2001 wasn`t a historical fiction, it was a sci-fi flick that even Arther C. Clarke said that none of that would happen for a hundred years or more. Clarke did accurately predict that we would get to the moon by the year 2000 in 1945 though.

They missed a lot of the problems with both the Patriot and Braveheart. The battle of Stirling Bridge took place in Braveheart WITHOUT the bridge. That damn bridge collapsing was the only thing that allowed the scotts to win the battle.

0
Reply
Male 10,440
There are more historically inaccurate movies than this. But I gotta say, 300 belongs on it.
0
Reply
Female 202
It`s rare when they get movies right. Being a historical buff myself (I almost majored in history, until I realized it was as pointless a major as philosophy), I`ve learned to just numb myself when I`m about to see a "historical" movie. Except for 10,000BC, that just needs to be burnt. Now. In a ritual bonfire. Apocalyptica, too, cause that insults my family`s ancestors, damnit. It`s what you have to do to be able to stand even the most well meaning movies.

Haha, dude, I agree that Birth of a Nation should`ve been on there. Ah well, the author probably wanted to cater to a more, er, younger audience. Like 13.

0
Reply
Male 437
im disappointed walt Disney`s "pochahontus"(sp?) wasnt on there

0
Reply
Male 2,372
I have to agree with hornytoad666 in that you can`t really call 2001 historically inaccurate, since it was...uhhmm...science FICTION.
0
Reply
Male 15
The problem is that 2001: A Space Oddyssy was written over 30 years before it was supposed happen. In its place, they should put Starwars.
Why? Because the words "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away" state the events of Starwars 1-6 occur before the year 1977. The technologies in the franchise were (and continue to be) non-existant in 1977, making it innacurate. Although the begining says "a galaxy far far away" you can clearly see in this picture of Endor

that the outlines of its continents match up perfectly with the crevasses of the moon


Conclusion: HUMANS ARE DISENDANTS OF EWOKS!!! (The creatures in the movies that look like us are simply shaved gorillas)

0
Reply
Female 2,249
heh heh gladiator is my history teacher`s favourite movie
0
Reply
Male 3,431
Sure, but L.O.T.R. was historically accurate and that`s all that matters.
0
Reply
Male 369
sheeeeps i hope you`re just trying to be retarded.

its in mayan, which is alive and kicking. get your poo straight before you make stupid statements.

0
Reply
Male 2,372
They forgot to add "Ghandi" to the list, which was packed full of historical inaccuracies.

Get you history from books, not movies.

0
Reply
Male 1,225
I thought 10,000 B.C., like 300, was based off a graphic novel. Am I wrong?
0
Reply
Male 1,141
300 had monsters and crap, obviously it was fake!
0
Reply
Male 2,113
not bad
0
Reply
Female 154
300....Historically inaccurate? You becha. Good thing it was based on a graphic novel and not actual history ;D
0
Reply
Male 382
Funny how they fail to mention the atrocity U-571.
In which the US army singlehandedly nicked an enigma code breaker from the germans. That is, an occurence that took place some time before said army joined the WWII effort. Hm, propaganda anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-571_%28fi...
and just for larks, a year later this came out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_(200...
I wonder, as a reply to the previous years` toe-cringing fiasco?
It`s to laugh.
0
Reply
Male 619
theyy forgot to put passion of the christ on there>_>
0
Reply
Male 420
a bit harsh putting 2001 on there. hopefully it was meant as a joke. i think ice age should go on there. i`m pretty sure there werent talking mammoths and sloths back then.
0
Reply
Male 111
Three Mel Gibson movies... huh? Who`da thought
0
Reply
Male 130
Movie history is better than real history anyway....
0
Reply
Female 731
Ha! I knew leather speedos weren`t proper Spartan attire! *happy dance*
0
Reply
Male 22
Actually, 2001 was very correct in many of its predictions. It predicted flat-screen TV`s, a computer that can beat a human at chess, etc.

And also, it`s the most accurate major science fiction film I can think of, as it portrays space realistically (ships not having to use thrusters in space, as there`s no air resistance, no sound in space, the portrayals of weightlessness)

They just put 2001 at the bottom to try and be funny, and maybe to irritate film buffs.

0
Reply
Male 78
1st of Gunit1 let`s not turn this into one of THOSE discussions, we all know the indians were massacred essentially to the man but all we can do is try to never do stuff like that again. We regret the past but you can`t change it so all we can do is try to learn from it.

secondly in my last post the word censor replaced cra p with poo but left dick? WTF!!, way to go springing for the top of the line censor software IAB.

0
Reply
Female 850
What, no "How We Came To America Movies"? That say the Native Americans ¢¾LOVED¢¾ John Smith cause he `ran fast and jumped high?`Mm, no. We came, we learned from them, we slaughtered the natives so we could have the land. YAY AMERICA! Oh, and can`t forget, we complained about terrorism when 9/11 happened even though America was FOUNDED on this terrorism. Woo-pee! Yay terrorism! And i`m only saying that cause I AM AMERICAN!
0
Reply
Male 78
the biggest problem i had with 300 is that at teh end of battle 1200 (or 800 can`t remember) thespians (as in the city Thespis not actors) also stayed behind to fight. I want those guys to get recognition b/c they just stayed b/c they respected the spartans so much and they couldn`t stand the thought of those brave men dying alone. but i guess 1500 doesn`t quite have the ring that 300 does, still it would be cool for someone to recognize their sacrifice as well,

really if the SPARTANS knew they would die how do you think the Thespians felt

10,000 BC is a piece of poo that would make any self-respecting man of history commit ritual suicide just for looking at a movie poster for it

Gladiator really wasn`t too bad, but i don`t like movies that potray Marcus Aurelius as a victim of circumstance during his reign, the guy was a dick, smart, but a dick nonetheless

0
Reply
Female 145
they may not be accurate, but most of them are pretty good movies
0
Reply
Male 3,296
awww .. no speedy speedos with six pak abs???

besides if i wanted to watch a historically correct movie.. i would go back to HS an i dont

and i wana be entertain.. not bored to death with history movies

0
Reply
Female 9
Uh 300 wasn`t SUPPOSED to be accurate, why is it on this list....it was based off a graphic novel of the Spartans...
0
Reply
Male 416
Eeerrr I guess a ``DUH!!!`` is in place with many of them.
0
Reply
Female 831
did they seriously put "2001" on there?
0
Reply
Female 486
My history teacher has a twitch.
Well actually, no he doesn`t.
At all, seriously. :l
0
Reply
Male 1,254
Dramatic license is an amazing thing.

When I want to learn history I`ll read one of my history books.

When I want to be entertained, I`ll watch a movie.

Just as long as people don`t take the movies for fact, then there`s no problem.

0
Reply
Male 30
this list was fairly good until i got to the last movie, 2001 was just a number and anyone watching the movie shouldn`t get stuck on it. How the hell is it inaccurate if it depicts something that has yet to happen??? and wait... its also a SCIFI MOVIE
0
Reply
Female 738
STUPID:
2001: A Space Odyssey is SCIENCE FICTION; the book was written by Arthur C. Clarke (who just died, actually).

Of course it`s inaccurate, it was written in 1968!!!

0
Reply
Male 642
The movie `300` was about the Spartans and their battle with Xerxes and his army, But HELLO... the movie was based on Frank Millers 1998 limited series comic book adaptation about the Battle of Thermopylae. OF COURSE it`s not historically accurate... sheesh!!
0
Reply
Male 3,301
"According to this film, in year 2001 we would have had manned voyages to Jupiter, a battle of wits with a sentient computer, and a quantum leap in human evolution. Instead we got the Mir Space Station falling from the sky, Windows XP, and Freddy Got Fingered."

ROFLMAO. Simply classic.

0
Reply
Female 1,492
LOL...we got freddy got fingered...yeah...that movie was garbage
0
Reply
Female 243
Yes, I know 2001 S.E. was made before 1980, but it would seem it`s only included on this list because the real 2001 happened within the author`s lifetime. That`s cheating LOL.
0
Reply
Female 243
I`d like to give this article a high rating but it`s obvious the writer is too young to appreciate films made before 1980. Those are the 10 most historically inaccurate films *since 1980*, not of all time.
0
Reply
Male 68
Of course 2001 is fake/inaccurate. Humanity was nearly wiped out on August 29th, 1997 by Skynet.
0
Reply
Male 130
To the few that are complaining about it: I think it is pretty obvious that the 2001 one is a joke....
0
Reply
Male 1,024
"Shakespeare in Love" had nothing to do with anything.
0
Reply
Female 498
hehe i didnt like any of these movies ^_^
0
Reply
Male 72
@acmoore92:
"300 seemed overdone, but accurate enough"

Umm...no. 300 was not a historically accurate movie, it wasn`t even "accurate enough". I just think it was an attempt by Hollywood to depict Persians as "animals then, animals now". Very propoganda-ishly made.

People need to read up on Persian history, especially now that the war drums are being beaten against Iran.

0
Reply
Male 772
If they put 2001: A Space Odyssey as being wrong about what the future would bring, how about every other `futuristic` movie from back then?
0
Reply
Male 105
2001 doesn`t belong on that list. The other movies, when they were made, depicted past events, somewhat according to history. 2001 was predicting the future. Are these people seriously going to point out HISTORICAL inaccuracies in a SCIENCE FICTION movie that takes place several years after the movie is made?
0
Reply
Male 69
Hmm, I see they only stuck to relatively recent films. If only they had gone back far enough, they could have had something as extreme as Birth of a Nation in likely first place.
0
Reply
Female 429
APOCALYPTO IS NOT REAL? ARE YOU ACTUALLY JOKING?
*sobs*

i hate that film. i think that the fact its in a MADE UP LANGUAGE really weakened it. ¬_¬

0
Reply
Female 221
The 4 star rating made me look at this. It was okay, a few of them were pretty funny, people being in the movie who weren`t alive and all. Most history classes don`t teach facts those, a lot of the textbooks are sadly biased.
0
Reply
Male 129
haha. the last one made me laugh. the rest was obvious hollywood, albeit a couple were surprising. 300 seemed overdone, but accurate enough, and gladiator didnt seem too glorified. oh well. guess that`s show biz
0
Reply
Male 580
What what what? 300 wasn`t real?

Sweet Jesus, my dreams have been crushed.
</sarcasm>

0
Reply
Male 340
Link: 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies [Rate Link] - The 10 major movies that make your history teacher cringe.
0
Reply