ITT: Details that historical films/series get wrong that piss you off

>Romans and the Huns team up to fight the Parthians
I don't think we watched the same movie.

I almost thought that was apocalypto in the last frame of the pic. I might be mistaken but that looks like the same actress as one of the females in the village. The one who burned her mouth with chiles after giving her husband head. She's even dressed the same kek.

Maybe I'm misremembering a bit, I kinda fell asleep for the middle because Chinese screenwriting is a little iffy. I just remember the finale had the Roman and han armies team up with the silk road nations to fight off the Persians and it was really amazing.

>the finale had the Roman and han armies team up with the silk road nations to fight off the Persians
What the actual fuck made you think that when Tiberius was pretty much determined as the bad guy with his Roman Legions throughout the entire movie?

The Parthians were basically a deus ex machina that showed up after a "all is lost" scenario played out when the Chinese, Turks, Huns and Romans loyal to Lucius were getting their shit kicked in by Tiberius Legions.

Did you sleep through the entire thing?

Why are historical TV shows so afraid of colorful clothing? No matter the place or period its always grimdark brown and black leather

They think it looks goofy.

Oh yeah, forgot about that. I saw it when it came out.

Sorry she's already taken by Cortez BWC

It is odd since I feel historical films in the 60s and 50s were more colorful. Like I was recently watching The Ten Commandments with Yul Bryner and it was pretty colorful.

Still find it odd that you somehow mixed the guys that the chinese portrayed as basically "the holy saviors of the silk road that would arrive and save the day" with the actual bad guys.

Then again, it was a shit movie.

thats just western thing

Historical accuracy in film/tv is a chimera.

Anachronistic words and phrases

They want stuff that is aesthetically acceptable to current days western culture.

Because even though it's not realistic the dull colors and drab clothing give off a sense of "realism" to the historically uneducated.

It's because our currently culture sees violence, sex, and grit as a more accurate depiction of how things "really were" because older depictions usually had cornier acting and happier endings.

What would you give them? Scottish accents?

>Neanderthals aren't apex-superpredators preying on early humanity to the point where all modern humans are descendants of the last remaining tribe which learned to fight back and eventually exterminated them in a 70 000 year long war for supremacy over the planet

looks like a stand user

this is a dumb post and you should feel dumb

You know nothing.

there's no evidence of neanderthals anywhere in sub-saharan africa, among many other places traditionally inhabited by homo sapiens

>weird leather costumes (ancients did wear clothing of leather but not in the style of modern tv shows like leather pants or leather jackets)

>inaccurate costumes, costumes that look nothing like unearthed artifacts or recorded descriptions, completely off the wall shit

>projecting modern social status and worldview onto ancient or falsely representing all ancients as raping killing murder machines

How can they get away with such blatant revisionism in Amadeus?

He's still alive, we can go find out.

tthats impossible he's dead

>he doesn't know about the Mozart conspiracy

...

Apply current morality to the past.

Yes, in the 16th and 17th century honour was a big deal. Yes, scientists didn't necessarily see religion opposed to science. No, slavery wasn't necessarily seen as a bad thing.

Salve, discuss Rome by HBO

>S E G M E N T A T A
>E
>G
>M
>E
>N
>T
>A
>T
>A

I hate it when characters in otherwise full-English movies/series put foreign words for """"authenticity"""". You can also see it in non-historic movies when a character is Spanish or French and he says senor or monsieur and si and oui. Disgusting.

In HBO's Rome they always said "dominus" instead of "domine" which made it extra annoying.

>meiji period
>everybody uses de gozaru
>taishou period
>nobody uses it
what the fuck

Just because he may have been 1/8th Moor doesn't mean the Moor part is black. Even if it was, being 1/8th black doesn't make you black at all, not even with America's dumbass laws from slavery days.

What are some good Veeky Forums tv shows?

Also some good documentaries of lesser seen periods and civilisations/countries please.

>Vikings is both documentary and drama

no idea what that is pham

It seems to happen pretty ofen in mainland chinese stuff too. The 2010 Three Kingoms is a good example.

The whole lost legion thing is a meme story shilled by fanboys, so there's literally nothing wrong with the movie being inaccurate since it's a fantasy movie.

>In HBO's Rome they always said "dominus" instead of "domine" which made it extra annoying.

English doesn't have declinations, so it makes no sense for them to decline words even if they're latin. Always saying dominus is the correct thing unless you're talking latin.

Isabel is a good show telling the story of the reign of Isabel I. I think it's only in Spanish though

Wasn't it made by the creators of the very same drama that's being criticized in the OP?

>Making everything multicultural by inserting black people into bizarre timeperiods

>Modern liberal values being in every time period except for the villains

>Passing off modern guns as old guns and hoping no one will notice because "hey as long as it doesnt fire musket balls no one will care"

Bonus - although accurate people abusing the hell out of horses for no dam reason

The "real mozart" has a clear "Chevalier de St-George" under his name, nicely made...

Virginian accents... they were only one generation removed from Robert E Lee

It is, but inaccuracies in the wardrobe department don't stop it from telling the events of her reign effectively and in an interesting manner

If you watch any old film you would know that the past was black white and grey, not colourfull

Imagine the movie 300 would the Persians being ginger and wearing that gay uniform. Wew. Comedy gold.

well if 300 was going to be realistic then the city of Sparta would have been a collection of thatched roof mud huts and by "throw him down a well" they meant throwing him down an actual hum drum well like what you would draw water from and not some bottomless pit

And the Spartans wouldn't have been Veeky Forumsgods, they would have been skinny manlets subsisting on a bowl of soup made out of pigs blood and vinegar, who took their scarlet cloaks off and went into battle wearing bronze like sensible human beings.

Did Land Before Time trigger you as a kid?

Anything from early middle ages germanic Europe is VIKINGS
a Mercian Housecarl's Dane Axe is a VIKING BATTLEAXE
a Frankish seax is a VIKING KNIFE
a wooden roundshield with brass boss is a VIKING SHIELD

pretty annoying when you're an ancient germanicaboo

What's with all the meme Sparta hate on this board?

Veeky Forums contrarianism

if it's liked by the popular, Veeky Forums hates it.

it can't appreciate it for what it was in actuality, it just hates it.

Pic related comes from the National Museum of Anthropology of Mexico.

Not necessarily, it just lightly rustled my jimmies. You can't be mad at littlefoot and company.

Tlaxcalan codex

It depends. Period dramas focused on romance and pageantry of an era that's considered decadent are colorful. Drab settings seem to be chosen to reflect either something military or something poor, probably because both of these things in modern eyes are known for subdued colors. So in Medieval settings the lack of colors is because they think everyone is poor, which usually goes hand in hand with the kinds of stories in Medieval movies where some downtrodden folk rise up against a bully. Similarly movies with soldiers go for subdued colors because people today equate discipline and force with uniform, dark colors and would have a hard time taking a knight seriously if he was wearing light blue capris, sandals, a puke yellow bathrobe, and a pink towel over his shoulders.

Mexico city gets pretty cold. they did not go around naked

He is literally not wrong.
And who throws people in a fucking water source and lets them die there?

>300 get

Is ANY of those correct?

God damn that's hot.

Yes, the first one is. It's based on descriptions Spaniards left and codices of the period +archeological record. Try and get more educated will you.

It's not hate if its historically accurate, even if it rains on the parade of your high school mascot.

The Mexican documentary is the closest one, yet the dress of the Aztec lord seems somewhat austere. Pic related is a depiction of an Aztec militar lord.

The noble on the right is wearing a Mayan dress and carrying a Tlaxcalan military banner.

>a group of boys throw dicks into a man's mouth

apparently the BBC thinks "history = leather bar"

the BBC sure does love their leather in their ...umm..."historical" dramas

It represents breadth and speech. It looks like an image depicting Aztec education.

I don't see a Maya headdress in the national geographic pic. And the toxicocolli banner is not unique to not unique to Tlaxcala, The Tlatoani Cuauhtemoc actually carries it in one of the codices.

They think it looks stupid, it's not what people expect, and people want to think they're better off than people in the past and drab colors are a quick and ever-present way to reinforce that.
Also your pictures don't show average people from ancient times. You can find depictions of royals and sometimes knights and occasionally well-to-do merchants in all their finery, but when it comes to the normal citizenry, it's drabville as far as the public is concerned.

Your point being?

Pic related

Just like in the X-men films, I guess.

I wonder if people were this picky with their live plays back in Shakespeare's time.
>Caesar didn't wear that shit!

Yeah that was so fucking disgusting. How the hell are they all gothic puritans?

>300 get

>Similarly movies with soldiers go for subdued colors because people today equate discipline and force with uniform, dark colors and would have a hard time taking a knight seriously if he was wearing light blue capris, sandals, a puke yellow bathrobe, and a pink towel over his shoulders.

kek

>I'll show you who's boss of this Bastille

Oh you.

>a fucking dimetrodon amongst the herbivore dinosaurs
lol

>public tv documentary about the nation's own history
>entertainment

Wouldn't Cortez and his men be running around wearing more or less late medieval armor?

>change porthos to be black
>also change his backstory to be a street criminal
i laughed

>It makes no sense to use a language correctly when you're trying to accurately represent a historical society

lol ok

Literally what i was thinking

Those outfits are disturbingly metrosexual

Archeology and the concept of history being unbiased rather than functional to propaganda didn't exist until very recent times.
Arguably we still don't have unbiased history, people always try to twist the facts to push a political agenda, that includes changing what historical figures looked like to influence people's opinion of them.

>current days western culture.
basically shit

Bad latin.
>ROMA VICTOR!!1
I understand (tho I don't agree with nor like) putting a token latin phrase in roman/church movies, but if you do it, do it right. It costs next to nothing to get a grad student to check your script for mistakes, so you have no excuses, mr. shitty screenwriter.
Also I wrote latin but I really meant bad languages in general.

Show was pretty comfy though

There is a difference between a civilian negotiation, and "we travel in barbutas and chest plates"