The "Torment a Historian" movie playlist thread

Relique du Madde · Sep 26, 2010

Hmmm... Zombie Spartans vs Zombie Visigoths vs Zombie Alexander the Great vs Zombie Vikings.

Dannyalcatraz · Sep 27, 2010

Relique du Madde said:
Hmmm... Zombie Spartans vs Zombie Visigoths vs Zombie Alexander the Great vs Zombie Vikings.

With soundtrack by The Zombies.

Orius · Sep 27, 2010

Relique du Madde said:
300 assuming that there was no unreliable narrator.

There's a good case for 300, though it's hard to tell how much of that movie is supposed to be actual events and how much of it is Dilios pulling stuff out of his ass.

Diamond Cross said:
There really is no such thing as a completely accurate movie set in a historical era since all directors change some things.

Yes, but this is less about small dramatical changes or minor inaccuracies or anachronisms that only someone with a degree in history is going to notice. This is about stuff blatant enough for Joe Blow who slept through all his history classes in school to notice.

Dragonwriter · Sep 27, 2010

Joker said:
Also, The Life of Brian is so rife with inaccuracies I have a feeling the makers weren't taking the subject matter seriously.

I hope this is sarcasm or humor... Because if you take Monty Python seriously, there is no hope for you.

But I can't think of any movies to add to the list, though I will agree with most of the ones proposed/mentioned/mocked so far.

Except the Uwe Boll idea. I know we'd need a low-cost director, but we can do better... And yet, I am drawing a blank. :erm:

Morkul · Sep 27, 2010

one of my favorite films: Amadeus. Tom Hulce's portrayal of Mozart is considered inaccurate. makes me laugh though. also, Salieri knocking him off is purely speculative...

Michael Collins also strays from historical fact. whats-her-face being in it doesnt help either...

Umbran · Sep 27, 2010

Orius said:
... let's take a break from some fun romps and move onto a movie that takes itself more seriously -- King Arthur. Yup, bills itself as historically accurate, but the subject matter is nearly unrecognizable.

Yes, well, given the irony of claiming historical accuracy when the titular character did not exist in history, it seems to me that any disappointment is purely the viewer's fault.

Relique du Madde · Sep 27, 2010

Umbran said:
Yes, well, given the irony of claiming historical accuracy when the titular character did not exist in history, it seems to me that any disappointment is purely the viewer's fault.

Technically speaking some historians think that King Arthur was based on one if not several people who lived up until the 6th century.. However, the Holy Grail was entirely fictionalized and meant to represent the conversion of the pagan lands to Christianity.

Umbran · Sep 28, 2010

Relique du Madde said:
Technically speaking some historians think that King Arthur was based on one if not several people who lived up until the 6th century..

Depends on which version you read - he may also include some folks after the 6th century as well. When the guy may be built out of a dozen others across half a millennium or more, you can't get historical accuracy in one presentation.

However, the Holy Grail was entirely fictionalized and meant to represent the conversion of the pagan lands to Christianity.

The grail isn't so simple - like Arthur himself, it is an amalgam of legends, with some new material added. It has roots back into pre-Christian Celtic mythology.