The movie also completely omits any mention at all of Nash’s homosexuality – which might not be the most important thing about a person’s life story, but can’t fairly be left out if the story purports to cover his love life.
There were Americans – but they’d been removed from the camp before the Escape. X organization actually debated shifting the escape forward so that the Americans – who had contributed so much to the effort – could escape at the same time, but it was thought to be too much of a risk.
You can find this in several books on Stalag Luft III, but it’s notably present in Paul Brickhill’s book, the one on which the film was based (Brickhill was one of the inmates, but he wasn’t part of the escape)
But you’re right about McQueen – his entire character is fantasy, although it incorporates a few things actual people did. But after reading Brickhill and the other writers, it’s really hard to take his character at all seriously. Escape and be recaptured to bring in information? Unthinkable – getting out was hard enough, and they had other sources. Assaulting a German soldier? And Stealing and wearing his uniform? You’d definitely be shot, and convicted as a spy. Running over the warning wire after a baseball? You’d be shot by the tower guards before you got to it. Jumping a motorcycle over the border fence? Please.
Beat me to it.
A true story movie that took fewer liberties than I had supposed: “I Love You To Death.”
.
Uh… all of them?
But too many people don’t know this. I don’t understand the reason for Amadeus-- the true story is just as interesting and entertaining.
.
Men of Honor about the first black Navy diver was way off. The character that DeNiro played was made up, no such person existed in real life and he was important to the story in the movie.
I’ve noted this before. Peter Schaeffer wasn’t interested in telling historically accurate stories – he wrote plays about The Relationship Between God and Man, basing them on historical events, but making up the story to suit his purposes. He’s admitted to doing this.
So The Royal Hunt of the Sun isn’t about Francisco Pizzaro and the conquest of the Incas and Attahualpa – it’s about God and Man. Equus isn’t about the real case of the british boy who blinded six horses in his care – it’s about God and Man. And Amadeus isn’t about Salieri and Mozart. It’s very definitely about God and Man. That’s why the title isn’t Mozart or even Salieri. “Amadeus” means “beloved of God” – which is what Mozart, in Schaeffer’s play, was, and Salieri is waging war against what he sees as an Unjust God, with Mozart as the battlefield. Schaeffer couldn’t care less that his play isn’t accurate, except as it helps the play and its point.
And the movie differs materially from the play. I prefer the play, myself. But i don’t confuse it with history.
Oliver Stones JFK
I shudder to think how many people think it’s history.
The Hurt Locker: set in 2004, but has references to YouTube (not yet launched), has soldiers playing a video game that hasn’t been invented yet, and has someone using an iPod Nano that won’t be in production for a couple of years. So sayeth Wired Magazine.
I couldn’t watch The Tudors because of the costuming. It was actively offensive to my eyes.
It’s east of Java if you go far enough! 
Another case of movie accuracy (from what I’ve read) – *The Return of Martin Guerre. Pretty surprising, but the story is true, although the character motivations the film suppllies are arguable. The film also isn’t done in “spectacular” style, but a pretty low-key, realistic one, which helps.
Well, it’s a great bit of storytelling, although I’m glad I knew it wasn’t accurate before I watched it.
Continuity errors, but not important to the plot of the film.
Wow That was a bizarre flick and I had no odea it was based on a true story,
How about Cuba Goodings character? How accurate was that?
Which would be relevant if we were discussing plots.
Yeah. IMDB catagorizes the different errors in a film. Don’t know if you care:
Continuity, according to their system, is a plot error that contradicts a previous established fact. Example: A character is seen entering a building wearing a blue shirt. In the next shot, showing the character moving around inside that building, supposedly mere moments later, is shown to be wearing a red colored shirt.
Errors of the type decribed above for “Hurt Locker” get labeled in IMDB as an Anachronism.
Historical Inaccuracy would be changing the cause of Patton’s death. (IRL, Patton died from injuries sustained in a car accident.)
But anywho, I agree with you that minor errors that don’t impact the plot are no biggie.
One I’d normally let slide because it was so over the top, but the filmmakers claimed that it was based on a true story: The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.
Kim Henkel and Tobe Hooper said in the past that the movie was based on crimes committed by real people: Ed Gein and Dean Corll. But other than the broad fact that people were killed the murders in the movie did not resemble either of the genuine crimes.
Due to internet debunking, Henkel and Hooper now deny that they ever said that the movie was based on a true story.
I believe the true story claims are attached to the boxes of body parts that one of the characters finds in the Chainsaw Massacrer’s house. Gein apparently did the same thing.
That’s a pretty neat trick considering the fact that the true story label was on the poster: http://iconsoffright.com/news/TCM%20Poster.jpg
I think it was pretty accurate. I never read any complaints about that character being way off.