Other Post Historical war film inaccuracies- what annoys you?

[Gaz]

I guess the title is a decent description, but what really gets on your nerves? I can imagine that some of you can go super in depth with the depicted gear and stuff ("Well, they have A-4 model trousers but every nerd knows that that A-6 trousers were in use by that time frame...") but on a wider note, the one that really pisses me off is 'Zulu'.

Don't get me wrong - classic war flick.

But the whole thing (Which frankly, is a massive part of the movie) about it being a Welsh regiment? Apparently, complete fiction. At the time of the Battle of Rorke's Drift, they hadn't yet become the South Wales Borderers - they were still the 24th (The 2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot.

Does this annoy me because I'm from Warwickshire? Well, yes but I'm also descended from Welsh people and have a Welsh name (I'll give you one guess what Gaz is short for) so I'm kind of neutral but it does genuinely annoy me that due to the film, Rorke's Drift has kind of become seen as a Welsh feat of arms when apparently it's just not the case.

Side note - the best review of anything I've ever seen was a review of 'Braveheart' which stated something along the lines of "the only way this film could be more historically inaccurate was if it featured a Plasticine dog and was callled 'William Wallace and Gromit'". Comedy gold.

 

[TheKiwi]

Pearl Harbor - pretty much everything about it sucks. The bit I'll call out in particualr though is the Japanese bombing of the hospital. Which didn't happen. The Japanese didn't have time for attacking targets that weren't military and they didn't even have enough time or resources to attack all of those.

The best thing you can say about Pearl Harbor is that there is indeed a habour by that name and that there was indeed an attack on it by the Japanese. The rest of it is dribble.

 

[TheKiwi]

On a related note, calling out films for equipment inaccuracies that were made in the days before CGI is a bit rough, I still like The Battle of Britain, even with it's Merlin engined Me-109's and they were the only choice at the time.

 

[Gaz]

On a related note, calling out films for equipment inaccuracies that were made in the days before CGI is a bit rough, I still like The Battle of Britain, even with it's Merlin engined Me-109's and they were the only choice at the time.

You didn't use your guess about what Gaz is short for.

 

[TheKiwi]

Garrath would be the most obvious choice right....?

 

[Gaz]

Well. not spelled horrifically like that - no!

 

[TheKiwi]

Sorry, I forgot it's a Welsh name. Gwyyddh...

 

[PEMM]

1. Everyone before 20th century is wearing black leather, wristbands and armor that doesn't fit the era (or any era for that matter).
2. Everyone is dirty and no-one takes care of their gear and armor.

The first point really grinds my gears. In historical films they usually have historical advisors. So why do they let some artsy 'Mindy of clothing' ruin the whole setting of the film? And they do this on documentaries too.

It annoys me that when they are making documentaries they often just make S**t up to just to fit the story (I understand when it's done on matters we don't have any information on, but then again there usually are so much known information to make multiple series, so it's not really necessary. And why can't they say that "this is something we don't have info on, but it could have happened"), like on that docuseries about 'rise of ottoman' on netflix atm. This approach misses the whole point documentary; learning about historical figures and events, and seeing how people lived, behaved and what kind of personality they have.

But now that they are made to be simple entertainment, you are better off thinking about them as just another fantasy series.

 

[NebrHogger]

Dad watched a few minutes of Pearl Harbor on TV before pronouncing it pure garbage. "I was there, and it wasn't like that!" (with foul adjectives)

 

[droopy]

I started to dislike almost all historic/fantasy films i ever saw, thanks to Metatron and Lindybeige on Youtube.

 

[colin traveller]

Films are made to entertain .. first and foremost many seem to forget that al important fact

.. What i don't like is the pointless remakes rehashes of classic films ... are done by those who like to think they can do it better .. .when they have made it worse .... Red Tails was ruined right from the word go .. far too much CGI , It can't eve be compared to Tuskagee Airmen which is overall a far better made film .. and tell's it far better without the need for OTT CGI ,,,,

There is films outhere i simply refuse to watch .. because i know they are absoutely ......................... Gash .

 

[Stormovik]

"Fury", from the Brad Pitt character carrying a MP-44, I suppose because American weapons of the period are nowhere as cool as the nazi "AK47" , to the mainly absurd plot, without forgetting those tracers that looked like Star Wars lasers.

 

[Euroamerican]

Films are made to entertain .. first and foremost many seem to forget that al important fac

There is films outhere i simply refuse to watch .. because i know they are absoutely ......................... Gash .

Yes, BUT: so many of the masses take the cinematic representation to be the actual version of what happened. I find their action to be lazy, but maybe I'm a bit snobbish on this due to my OCD levels in wanting to ferret out certain details ad nauseam.

AND, I totally agree with your stand on refusing to watch films that I suspect or know are ghastly. I think the last straw for me on that was Pearl Harbor.