Irritating historical misstakes in movies

Number24

I`m a history-buff (is that a word?) and a film-buff. It`s only natural that I like watching films set in the past. But some common errors pop up again and again in movies and it lessens the experience for me. Here are some of the worst historical mistakes often seen in movies:

- Women in westerns wearing trousers. They always wore skirts or dresses, trousers on women was considered undecent.
- Unpainted statues in movies set in ancient Rome or Greece.
- Vikings with horns on their hemets. Even more uncommon than viking movies nowadays, but the dammage is done.

What often seen historical mistakes irritates you?

thesecretagent

Westerns with the wrong weapons for the timeline ie. revolvers with bullets in a time where they would have been handloaded revolvers that fired ball ammunition with percussion caps - much of the west was won before the conventional bullet and casing was invented.

Period dramas with furniture and decor from only that era - they would have antiques and older pieces like everybody else.

Weapons in action films which fire the wrong amount of ammunition without reloading.

People dying instantly from snake bites. Even the most deadliest give you a painful hour or two!

Number24

Another common weapons error:
- WW2 German units allmost exclusively armed with SMGs. The Russians sometimes armed whole regiments that way, but even German elite units mostly had rifles.

The Domino Effect

This is something that drives me up the wall, especially when an error is made intentionally to make a storyline 'better', rather than just by mistake. Although movies are unquestionably entertainment, I maintain that given the importance of movies in our society they also have a moral responsibility for accuracy. Alas, mine is a stray voice in the wilderness. The fact is that many people believe that if they see something in a movie that is based on fact, it must be true. And yet producers, writers, directors care nothing for changing history and even slandering historical figures all in the name of entertainment. By all means bend the truth. By all means make things a bit more colourful, but don't disregard truth and accuracy without a second thought.

Unfortunately, there are countless films that have mislead people either in a general sense such as the examples above or in specific senses with the portrayal of genuine persons...like Oliver Stone's "Nixon". "The Right Stuff"'s Gus Grissom, Cameron's "Titanic" etc etc etc. Sadly, once something hits the screen that portrayal becomes a part of the accepted history. It's enormously reckless and for me, very frustrating.

Number24

- Stetson hats in westerns. They had all kinds of hats (in the only surviving Billy the Kid photo he sports a bowler), but Stetsons came later.

Number24

- People in American movies talking with a "Scandinavian" accent and starting almost all sentences with Yaaaaa. "Ja" means Yes and not Yeah, first of all. Second, most Scandinavians learn enough English by the time they are six or seven to know the words Yes and No. NOT an historical error, but I just had to write it!

Number24

- Bodybuilder bodies in period movies. They had strongmen, yes, but not bodybulders.

Number24

The Domino Effect wrote:

This is something that drives me up the wall, especially when an error is made intentionally to make a storyline 'better', rather than just by mistake. Although movies are unquestionably entertainment, I maintain that given the importance of movies in our society they also have a moral responsibility for accuracy. Alas, mine is a stray voice in the wilderness. The fact is that many people believe that if they see something in a movie that is based on fact, it must be true. And yet producers, writers, directors care nothing for changing history and even slandering historical figures all in the name of entertainment. By all means bend the truth. By all means make things a bit more colourful, but don't disregard truth and accuracy without a second thought.

Unfortunately, there are countless films that have mislead people either in a general sense such as the examples above or in specific senses with the portrayal of genuine persons...like Oliver Stone's "Nixon". "The Right Stuff"'s Gus Grissom, Cameron's "Titanic" etc etc etc. Sadly, once something hits the screen that portrayal becomes a part of the accepted history. It's enormously reckless and for me, very frustrating.

Ad "The Patriot " to that long list. The war crimes against civilians were not commited by the English during that war,but in that movie they do.

darenhat

It's not necessarily a 'historical' mistake, but the context of the discussion made me think of it...in the movie Jean Claude Van Damme movie "Time Cop" (yeah I watched it once)...some character made a statement of fact about how they carbon-dated some gold to find out what era it came from. First, you can't carbon-date something that has no carbon in it (i.e. gold) and even if you could, it wouldn't tell you when it was stolen. 8-)

Pendragon

the ENTIRE Mummy series. while fun to watch, they took liberties with names.

Anaksunamun was Tut's wife...not another pharaoh's mistress

Imhotep was the architect who designed the pyramids, not a muscled up priest.

That whole Scorpion King business? there is ONE instance of a king with a cartouche containing a scorpion seen next to the carving of this king..."Scorpion King" is just the nickname that Archaeologists gave him for lack of a better one. and he sure as hell never commanded a legion of Jackal Headed demon things or ever took on the body of a scorpion.

Mr Beech

Not historical, but medical. People who don't have severe and immense pain from being shot. That should cause them to vocalize pain and be unable to act, but in movies, often times the star is shot and continues to act out and walk around as if they only got punched or have a sprained joint. A bullet would stop you from actions other than painful reaction.

Another one is the insistence that a tourniquet is a good idea. Unless the entire limb has been lost from the wound to the extremities of the limb where the wound is, you should not simply cut circulation to the rest of the limb. Medical professionals say this is a dangerous movie mistake and you should apply pressure to slow the bleeding rather than cut circulation and lose an entire or partial limb after too long.

Le Samourai

Mr Beech wrote:

Not historical, but medical. People who don't have severe and immense pain from being shot. That should cause them to vocalize pain and be unable to act, but in movies, often times the star is shot and continues to act out and walk around as if they only got punched or have a sprained joint. A bullet would stop you from actions other than painful reaction.

Another one is the insistence that a tourniquet is a good idea. Unless the entire limb has been lost from the wound to the extremities of the limb where the wound is, you should not simply cut circulation to the rest of the limb. Medical professionals say this is a dangerous movie mistake and you should apply pressure to slow the bleeding rather than cut circulation and lose an entire or partial limb after too long.

I somewhat disagree re: gunshots. I've done a fair amount of research about people's reactions to being shot, and they run the gamut. Consider these two cases, both documented: 1. An individual takes two .357 rounds to the chest, but still manages to call 911 and sit calmly waiting for an ambulance; and 2. A young police officer is shot in the arm with a .22 and dies of shock. I recall a few episodes of the TV show "Cops" in which people got shot but remained unfazed. One involved a perp being shot point-blank in the abdomen by a highway patrolman and responding by saying, "Hey man, why'd you shoot me?" as if nothing serious had happened. There are also many instances of soldiers being shot in combat but still managing to function.

I'm not downplaying the trauma and seriousness of being shot by a firearm. It's just that reactions to being shot are surprisingly complicated. In his excellent book "Meditations on Violence," Rory Miller suggests that people's mindset has a big effect on how they react to gunshots. Good sources for more info include the works of Evan P. Marshall and Edwin J. Sanow, as well as Mas Ayoob.

Thunderpussy

Not quite on topic, But I found this and thought it was funny.




Things You Wouldn't Know Without Movies

-It is always possible to park directly outside any building you are visiting.

-A detective can only solve a case once he has been suspended from duty.

-If you decide to start dancing in the street, everyone you bump into will know all the steps.

-Most laptop computers are powerful enough to override the communication systems of any invading alien civilization.

-It does not matter if you are heavily outnumbered in a fight involving martial arts - your enemies will wait patiently to attack you one by one by dancing around in a threatening manner until you have knocked out their predecessors.

-When a person is knocked unconscious by a blow to the head, they will never suffer a concussion or brain damage.

-No one involved in a car chase, hijacking, explosion, volcanic eruption or alien invasion will ever go into shock.

-Police Departments give their officers personality tests to make sure they are deliberately assigned a partner who is their total opposite.

-When they are alone, all foreigners prefer to speak English to each other.

-You can always find a chainsaw when you need one.

-Any lock can be picked by a credit card or a paper clip in seconds, unless it's the door to a burning building with a child trapped inside.

-An electric fence, powerful enough to kill a dinosaur will cause no lasting damage to an eight-year-old child.

-Television news bulletins usually contain a story that affects you personally at that precise moment you turn the television on.

Number24

Le Samourai wrote:

Mr Beech wrote:

Not historical, but medical. People who don't have severe and immense pain from being shot. That should cause them to vocalize pain and be unable to act, but in movies, often times the star is shot and continues to act out and walk around as if they only got punched or have a sprained joint. A bullet would stop you from actions other than painful reaction.

Another one is the insistence that a tourniquet is a good idea. Unless the entire limb has been lost from the wound to the extremities of the limb where the wound is, you should not simply cut circulation to the rest of the limb. Medical professionals say this is a dangerous movie mistake and you should apply pressure to slow the bleeding rather than cut circulation and lose an entire or partial limb after too long.

I somewhat disagree re: gunshots. I've done a fair amount of research about people's reactions to being shot, and they run the gamut. Consider these two cases, both documented: 1. An individual takes two .357 rounds to the chest, but still manages to call 911 and sit calmly waiting for an ambulance; and 2. A young police officer is shot in the arm with a .22 and dies of shock. I recall a few episodes of the TV show "Cops" in which people got shot but remained unfazed. One involved a perp being shot point-blank in the abdomen by a highway patrolman and responding by saying, "Hey man, why'd you shoot me?" as if nothing serious had happened. There are also many instances of soldiers being shot in combat but still managing to function.

I'm not downplaying the trauma and seriousness of being shot by a firearm. It's just that reactions to being shot are surprisingly complicated. In his excellent book "Meditations on Violence," Rory Miller suggests that people's mindset has a big effect on how they react to gunshots. Good sources for more info include the works of Evan P. Marshall and Edwin J. Sanow, as well as Mas Ayoob.

A member of the Norwegian resitance during the German occupation was in a shootout. He jumped on his bicycle and rode it to the other side of Oslo before geting off and discovering he had been shot in the abdomen. Adrenaline is powerfull stuff!

Napoleon Plural

Not really irritating, but of course the Plantagenet kings of medieval times were generally French, I think Henry V was the first to actually speak English...

Jamesbondjr

The Domino Effect wrote:

The fact is that many people believe that if they see something in a movie that is based on fact, it must be true.

While I see what your saying, this is not the fault of the people making the movies, it is the fault of the audience.

My biggest bug-bear with historical inaccuracies within films is people moaning about them. There is nothing worse, imo, than watching a film with someone who complains loudly at all the 'mistakes'. Films on the whole are just another persons take on a given story, whether it be fictional or not. If you are going to watch a historically set film and view it as a history lesson then more fool you. When you are watching Saving Private Ryan, does it matter that some of the uniforms are slightly wrong; when watching a western does it really matter that incorrect ammunition is shown or people are wearing the wrong type of clothing? No, it doesn't. Liberties are taken with historic fact for different reasons. Sometimes there are mistakes made due simply to error, sometimes to facilitate a certain storyline.

Movies are entertainment and to suggest that they have a moral obligation to be 100% accurate is a bit of a stretch. They should only have any obligation to be 100% historically accurate if that is what they claim to be, and not many movies do claim that.

I can appreciate that some people may find inaccuracies irritating but personally, as long as I enjoy the film, I don't give a hoot.

Wilde

Flag mistakes, especially that of the beloved union flag.

-{

Napoleon Plural

In JFK, they made out he wasn't killed by a lone gunman. That ruined the film for me.

Wilde

Napoleon Plural wrote:

In JFK, they made out he wasn't killed by a lone gunman. That ruined the film for me.

Executive Order 11110

RIP John

Then again, Bobby was always more of a hero for me.

Alex

In Braveheart, It would've been nice if the Battle of Stirling Bridge,

had a bridge! ?:)

Napoleon Plural

Oh Braveheart takes the cake for historical inaccuracy, quite stunning.

Number24

Jamesbondjr wrote:

The Domino Effect wrote:

The fact is that many people believe that if they see something in a movie that is based on fact, it must be true.

While I see what your saying, this is not the fault of the people making the movies, it is the fault of the audience.

My biggest bug-bear with historical inaccuracies within films is people moaning about them. There is nothing worse, imo, than watching a film with someone who complains loudly at all the 'mistakes'. Films on the whole are just another persons take on a given story, whether it be fictional or not. If you are going to watch a historically set film and view it as a history lesson then more fool you. When you are watching Saving Private Ryan, does it matter that some of the uniforms are slightly wrong; when watching a western does it really matter that incorrect ammunition is shown or people are wearing the wrong type of clothing? No, it doesn't. Liberties are taken with historic fact for different reasons. Sometimes there are mistakes made due simply to error, sometimes to facilitate a certain storyline.

Movies are entertainment and to suggest that they have a moral obligation to be 100% accurate is a bit of a stretch. They should only have any obligation to be 100% historically accurate if that is what they claim to be, and not many movies do claim that.

I can appreciate that some people may find inaccuracies irritating but personally, as long as I enjoy the film, I don't give a hoot.

You are right up to a point. Small technical inaccurasies such as the number of rivets on the Titanic or a slightly wrong calibre on a gun are mistakes only experts would notice. Letting English kings proir to Henry V and other changes most likely made to make the story work for the audience can also be excusable. But sometimes a mistake can be jarring and take you out of the film. In Gladiator it didn`t happen for me when a Roman emperor was klled in the arena, but when a senator claimed Roma was founded as a republic. That is compareble to letting an US senator say George Washington was the first American king. The first was done to make the story work. The latter was just pure incompetance.

Jamesbondjr

Number24 wrote:

That is compareble to letting an US senator say George Washington was the first American king

I thought George Washington was the first American King?

Just kidding.

Fair enough; for someone who is well versed in history of a certain subject I can appreciate why they may be irked by certain mistakes, especially when it is purely down to poor research.

Moonraker 5

Alex wrote:

In Braveheart, It would've been nice if the Battle of Stirling Bridge,

had a bridge! ?:)

That's just the tip of the iceberg. William Wallace never met Princess Isabella, as she married King Edward II three years after Wallace's death (and was no older than ten when Wallace died!). Brave Heart was always a term attributed to the King of Scots, Robert the Bruce - not Wallace - from the poem Heart of Bruce "Pass thee first, thou dauntless heart, As thou wert wont of yore!". There was no tartan, no painted faces - the costumes were farcical. The English court would have spoken French, and thus Isabella speaking French for privacy was a fallacy. And there was no primae noctis decree used by the King Edward's army.

In short, one of the most horrifically inaccurate depictions of Scottish history ever, siezed on by an opportunistic, bitter Nationalist party at a time of political discord within the UK and thus trumpeted by the great uneducated who support the ridiculous notion of Scottish independence, not to mention acted out in isolated incidents by knuckle-dragging, fat-slurping troglodytes and their blank-eyed spawn in hideous bouts of Anglophobia.

Rant over.

Now, U-571... :v

Lexi

Wilde wrote:

Flag mistakes, especially that of the beloved union flag.

-{

Or when they fly it upside down...

One that gets me, is when they fly a union jack from the back of a British boats/yachts - and not a red or blue ensign instead! ) Unless of course it was before the 17th century.... then it would have been the union flag.

Not historical, but incorrect wording.... and in it's in the majority of military films.... when someone is on comms, or radio and they say "over and out"

IT'S NEVER "over and out".... it's just "out" - that's a real peeve of mine... ) And a few Bond films are guilty of that one X-(

Moonraker 5

Lexi wrote:

One that gets me, is when they fly a union jack from the back of a British boats/yachts - and not a red or blue ensign instead! ) Unless of course it was before the 17th century.... then it would have been the union flag.

And the pre-Irish Union flag at that!

Number24

Thunderpussy wrote:

-No one involved in a car chase, hijacking, explosion, volcanic eruption or alien invasion will ever go into shock.

One of many reasons I like CR and The Bourne Idenitity is because they don`t follow this rule. (CR after the stairwell fight and Bourn Identity after the fight in the Paris appartment)

Mr Beech

Kingdom of Heaven is loaded with them, but I still love the setting, and because of it, the movie.