What's the most inaccurate history movie, Veeky Forums?

History of the World Part 1

Robin hood prince of thieves.
Happened to watch it recently, it's filled with leftist propaganda. Robin and the princess takling about "nobles and peasants are all the same". Morgan freeman being the smartest, the fastest, the most able man in the whole movie (and people weren't surprised at all).

Another movie i hated is Troy. I watched it at school, just because my teacher wanted to see naked Brad Pitt. The movie is completely garbage, i can't count the errors, i don't know where to start...

You can start that it builds up the climax of the movie to be the duel between Achilles and Hector, when the Homeric poem undercuts that at every point and the REAL conflict the drama focuses on is Achilles vs Agammemnon.

Braveheart was comically one sided propaganda.

I'm not sure what you expected from a film about a fictional character who (as the mythology goes) 'robbed from the rich to give to the poor'.

300 was to Persians what The Eternal Jew was to Jews.

>Schindler's List
Wow, a movie based on a historical fiction novel is inaccurate.

JFK is so batshit insane it's just fascinating

youtube.com/watch?v=GSw9sjqYK_I

What the fuck is this? Heard of most of the movies in this thread, but not this one.

Anastasia probably.
>Rasputin is evil wizard
>responsible for deaths of the Romanovs
>not one mention of Bolsheviks

You have to go back.

...

Even the fucking title is innacurate kek.
Braveheart refers to Robert the Bruce's embalmed heart which was paraded round Scottish soldiers before battle to inspire bravery.

They were casting tall bearded men in my city for a new Robert the Bruce film in the works which I'm pretty excited for.

t.Scot

My mother is Persian and my father is Jewish and they both thought 300 was hilarious

Pumaman it's infamously bad, and the Aztec shit is the least of its problems
youtube.com/watch?v=aMJaSK3Tv3c

I know, if it were me I would've said "what" at least twice with all that music playing.

The main differences of course being that there are no Persians anymore, and the Government at the time of the movie's release had no plans to exterminate them.
>sauce: an Iranian

>lying this much over the internet
Sure thing.

Epic

>Battle of Stirling Bridge
>no bridge

Of all that I've watched I'll go with Becket.

They make the guy a Saxon and a virtuous super genius when he was just an average Norman who wanted the church to have its special privileges.

Roots because a lot of it is either "re appropriated" material from other authors or just made up.

Second place goes to any movie with a "Based on a true story" tagline,,

How do you define "historical"? There's a point where something is so inaccurate it might as well not even be historically based.

Is road to el dorado historical, for instance? It's set in a historical time period but it's so heavily fictionalized it might as well be purely fantasy

Monty python and the holy grail

>implying the holy hand grenade didn't exist

WAIT A SEC
YOU’RE IMPLYING
WE WERE STEPPENIGHS N SHIET

>4251111
>no three
Kek

Apocalypto is one of the least accurate films i've ever seen. It's comically racist.

gib amerindian milkers

Don’t disrespect Mel like that

I bet they even have Lionheart speak English
Lmao

care to point some out?

Death of Stalin

Enemy at the gates, pure garbage from start to finish.
>Russian soldiers not being issued rifles and just charging into the enemy ranks unarmed
>Germany conquered Switzerland on the opening map
>anachronisms galore (Soviet anthem etc)
>super mega elite ultra sniper that never existed IRL
>everyone speaking English with cringy Russian accent
>shit music and acting
>idiotic romance plot for good measure

Fuck off reddit

I couldn't even get through that trailer. Are you saying people actually watched an entire movie of that shit?

Pic related

>Russian soldiers not being issued rifles and just charging into the enemy ranks unarmed

This happened, just accept it vlad

>Germany conquered Switzerland on the opening map

It’s a two second graphic that has nothing to do with the plot outside of illustrating the rapid spread of Germany so ignorant movie goers get a basic idea of the geo-political situation

>super mega elite ultra sniper that never existed IRL

What is historical fiction

>everyone speaking English with cringy Russian accent

To help audience immersion in the American market. They’re not tricking people into thinking the Russians spoke English in WW2.

>shit music and acting

Not Veeky Forums related, nice opinion though

>idiotic romance plot for good measure

Again, not Veeky Forums related.

I'm not too upset over Django because no one was claiming it was accurate, and only a moron would go to this movie (or any movie, really) to learn about history.

The only thing that I could pick out and say "Wrong" about is the existence of Mandingo fighting.

Not saying that no one ever forced slaves to fight, but it wasn't an organized thing. Calvin Candy's treatment of his slaves was comically villainous, but again, this isn't a historical movie. It's an action flick that uses the old west as it's back drop.

Plus it's a pretty fun movie, t b h.

Have you seriously never watched a B movie? You must be loads of fun.

MST3K riffed this one and I watch it almost every year. You can find it on Netflix.

I've seen MST3K, but it's way different when you have some friends making fun of how bad it is and you're egged along by the riffers. I can't imagine watching something like Manos or Invasion of the Neptune Men without a mocking commentary running alongside it.

>whites being fcked over and the scenario is being formed by jews
How is that wrong exactly?

I like to watch B movies sometimes but I would not be emotionally or mentally prepared for them if I hadn't watched a lot of MST3K. Some rare shitflicks really don't need riffs at all to be funny.

What you should remember is that these movies aren't made in earnest. They're made to trick people into buying movie tickets, or to give perfectly aware people 70 minutes in the dark to finger each others' buttholes.

Its based off a true story in the same way Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor is based on a true story desu

>Russian soldiers not being issued rifles and just charging into the enemy ranks unarmed
That actually happened tho

>uses the old west as its back drop.
More like it used Western tropes in a Southern setting. But I get what you mean. The South is pretty underused as a setting; it would also be nice if more movies were made about it that aren't meant to be social or historical commentaries. Because apart from slavery I don't really know that much about it, and it seems like nobody feels the need to examine anything beyond that.

It sort of consigns all the people of the South to the dustbin or worse, which is unfair. They don't all deserve to completely tainted by slavery and the War any more than the Revolutionary, slaveholding North does. I think if more were done to humanize and decriminalize the history of ordinary, non-slaveholding Southerners, there wouldn't be such a vicious cultural divide. I'm a Yankee, but I'd be very interested to see a movie about from a Confederate perspective that's neither totally romantic nor totally damning. There must a tremendous wealth of human stories that have been forgotten.

>Hans Landa refers to a double-barreled shotgun as a FUCKING RIFLE
>Hans Landa suggests to a slave in Texas that he flee North which would involve traveling through at least three slaveholding states or Indian Territory where slavery is also legal, rather than fleeing South to Mexico which is much closer
>90% of the guns seen in the movie weren't developed until a decade after the film takes place, let alone commercially available to be purchased en masse
>sunglasses were a thing in 1858
>Mandingo Fighting.webm
>one of the Australians is wearing a gray kepi a full three years before the Confederate Army was formed and the state militias all preferred blue
>Ku Klux Klan exists a decade prior to its actual foundation
>implying a fat Jewish faggot like Jonah Hill would ever be allowed in a White Man's Klan
>Calvin Candie states that the law allows him to do whatever he wants to his slaves when virtually Southern states had laws explicitly prohibiting the killing of slaves without just cause
>Nefertiti bust showing up in a bar a full 50 years before it was discovered
>Lincoln-Douglas debates, Fugitive Slave Act, Bleeding Kansas all get completely ignored
>fucking title card reads that the film takes place in "1858, two years before the Civil War" when the war didn't start until 1861, THREE years later

This movie was painfully dumb to sit through. Catcher Freeman from The Boondocks was more historically accurate (and way more funny) than this piece of shit.

You did the right thing when you deleted this. Why did you do it again? You didn't even fix the flatly wrong things in it.

If it pissed you off that much it must be a good movie

Yes, in Russo-Japanese war. Not in WW2.

>all this reddit spacing
Not even gonna bother.

>a Tarantino film wasn't 100% historically accurate

Of course, moron. That's not the point.

>doesn't even really know what reddit spacing is
>brings it up anyway

Not surprising

...

Now what do you do to the blank spaces between the lines to make sure the paragraph is formatted correctly?

Someone went to a lot of effort to prove they're an election newfag.

>everyone who puts spaces between paragraphs does it because they use reddit

whoa bro, what's your IQ? Must be pretty high

How does that space^ make you feel?

Disney's Pocahontas

>I called him le rebbit XD