The 10 most historically inaccurate films

[CptStern]

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/10mosthistoricallyinaccurate.html

2001 was a bit of a surrpise because it was made in 1968 based on a story written in 1948 (rewritten in 68) ...it's fair to say it's speculatative fiction and not going for any sort of accuracy

frankly I'm surprised other films like the Ten Commandments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1kqqMXWEFs

Ben Hur or the Greatest Story ever told didnt make it on that list ..hell there's gotta be a dozen or so john wayne westerns/war flicks that have to filled with historical inaccuracies

 

[Eejit]

Yeah there's no way they should include 2001, it wasn't representing history.

You might as well add films like Kelly's Heroes to the list, even if it was meant to be a comedy.

 

[Dan]

U-571:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DUMar72rP8

At least 2001 was scientifically accurate. You can't call it historically inaccurate because it was predicting the future.

 

[Shoes_Buttback03]

You automaticly know 10,000 BC is #1. So I'm not even going to read it.

 

[Hazar]

anything with mel gibson

 

[Qonfused]

Mel Gibson was on that list a lot, heh.

 

[Dan]

Putting 2001 on that list is really poor taste considering that A) it is not historically inaccurate, Kubrick was a detail Nazi, not to be lumped in with the rest of the sloppy films and B) Arthur C. just died.

 

[Shoes_Buttback03]

Putting 2001 on that list is really poor taste considering that A) it is not historically inaccurate, Kubrick was a detail Nazi, not to be lumped in with the rest of the sloppy films and B) Arthur C. just died.

No one cares if someone died. That's how it is today.

 

[StardogChampion]

I knew Braveheart would make it...

 

[Polaris]

Most of them are pretty good movies though...

 

[Emporius]

Pretty much every single western movie ever made

 

[MJ12]

Star Wars

 

[Bad^Hat]

Yahoo fails.

Along the same lines - http://www.cracked.com/article_15014_11-movies-saved-by-historical-inaccuracy.html

Mel Gibson appears atleast 30 times in this one, aswell. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[Direwolf]

Yeah, that list is less than impressive. But Stern's vid was awesome.

 

[ailevation]

10,000 B.C. makes it in #1 in my list

 

[ríomhaire]

10,000 BC should not be eligible for such a list because it doesn't try to be historical at all. There's magic in it FFS.

 

[ailevation]

If the movie isn't trying to portray some sort of history, then what is it trying to portay? lolz

 

[Dan]

If the movie isn't trying to portray some sort of history, then what is it trying to portay? lolz

It portayed a made up story. Just like The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, both of which took place a long time ago, lolz.

 

[ailevation]

uhhh wouldn't that make it historically inaccurate then? Because even though it takes place back in HISTORY it couldn't have happened because it's fictional.

So if I go into a bar and tell people the story of 10,000 B.C. and tell them that happened back in 10,000 B.C. it's HISTORICALLY INACCURATE because it most likely didn't happen.

lolz.

 

[Dan]

I am not going to dignify your continuous use of "lolz" at the end of posts with a response.

 

[ailevation]

you already have.

in fact i thought it was kinda cute that you attempted to make a mockery out of it.