I tought he was shot in the subway 
No, in the 70s sequel he was shot and robbed in the subway, and crawled off to die in a Times Square porn theater.
How much of that is directed outside of Scotland itself?
Marc
From what I read looking into Band of Brothers at IMDB that was pretty spot on. Not technically a movie though.
Just curious what people who know the history of Easy Company think, is it accurate?
I think the soldiers of Easy Company were heavily involved in the making of the mini-series, so I think they have favorable opinions of it. Interviews with the soldiers are interspersed in the film.
Why? It’s not difficult to go down to a library and get a book out on Wallace. True, Scottish history may not be widely publicised, but it’s hardly hidden. The very fact that hardly anybody outside of Scotland had heard of Wallace before the film is a reason it’s such a travesty.
I don’t know…I didn’t see Sgt. Rock in there anywhere.
What about Meet the Spartans?
I agree that 300 and 2001 don’t belong on the list and would nominate any of the following for their replacements:
JFK- the real Jim Garrison was a bastard who waaaaaay overstepped his bounds legally and ethically and even so much of the trial scenes and the “facts” were completely different in the film version and reality
My Darling Clementine- the real "Gunfight at the OK Corral* lasted a matter of seconds and the Brothers Earp/Doc Holliday weren’t of sterling character themselves.
What’s Love Got To Do With It?- Ike and Tina really were married and he really was abusive, but that’s about where it ends. Ike wasn’t the father of Tina’s first child, they didn’t marry or even sleep together until years after they’d begun touring as Ike & Tina Turner, and even Tina herself said that Ike was given something of a hatchet job in the movie.
Amadeus- while I know it’s not intended as biography, it still gives a very different portrayal of both Salieri and Mozart than what is known of them historically.
The Crucible- again, it wasn’t intended to be historically inaccurate, but it was based on actual events and it did use real people’s names. The real John Proctor was in his sixties while the real Abigail was a child, not a Puritan sex kitten.
A Man for All Seasons- though one of my favorite plays and movies, More is extremely whitewashed. Gone, for example, is the fact that he persecuted/burned Protestants while in power, a fact that makes his own fall and martyrdom a bit less pitiable. He also had many children, not just Margaret (who was not the child of Lady Alice but of a previous wife).
Cleopatra- Rome looked nothing like that when Cleo entered (she famously passes by and under landmarks that were erected centuries after her death, a bigger gaffe than if a movie about Napoleon showed the Eiffel Tower and Moulin Rouge), and her children with Antonius are omitted.
HBO’s Rome- I loved this show, but it has some whoppers by way of historical inaccuracies. Among them are the omission of Octavian/Augustus’s first two wives (including the mother of his daughter Julia, from whom descended Caligula and Nero), Julius Cæsar had a full head of hair in the miniseries unlike his famously balding inspiration, and the chronology was much too condensed (e.g. a baby born about the time Cæsar crosses the Rubicon is still a child after the deaths of Antony and Cleo 20 years later).
Several biopics glossed over or just outright changed the sexuality of their subjects over the years, including the following in which the main character was changed from gay/bisexual or otherwise very complicated to straight, among them:
The Agony and the Ecstacy (Michelangelo and Julian II)
Night and Day (the Cole Porter story)
Alexander the Great (the Richard Burton version)
I’m willing to cut filmmakers a little slack because it’s difficult to translate written history into a movie that people will actually want to watch. The more accurate the film, it seems, the less interested people seem to be in watching it. Ang Lee’s Ride with the Devil, though not about a real person it takes place during real events, is a movie that seemed accurate to me, and was entertaining to boot, but did poorly at the box office and is generally a forgotten movie.
So here are a few of the arguments against history as a cinematic genre according to Robert Toplin in Reel History: In Defense of Hollywood.
#1. It simplifies the historical evidence and removes many details.
#2. Movies are beholden to the three act formula of exposition, conflict, and resolution.
#3. Partisan views of the past.
#4. Morally uplifting stories involving Davids vs. Goliaths.
#5. The simplification of plots by combining multiple characters into a few key characters.
#6. The injection of romance into the plot when it bears little importance on the historical event. (Ostensibly to attract a female audience, especially for war movies.)
#7. Filmmakers often make a point of communicating to the public about the authenticity of their work. *Titanic * is probably the best example I can think of off the top of my head.
Marc
And by spooky coincidence, Abraham Lincoln was shot in a porn theater and died in a subway!
The list makers there are idiots. The Last Samurai is not a documentary. It is fiction based on a true story. So this - " Ken Watanabe’s character was based on the real Saigo Takamori who committed ritual suicide, or “seppuku,” in defeat rather than in a volley of Gatling gun fire." makes no sense.
Ken Watanabe’s character is not called Saigo Takamori. So how is it ‘historically inaccurate’ for his charcter to die in a different way to Saigo Takamori !
Ahah ! This is were I got confused. I mistook it with * Abraham Kong* !
U571.
I mean c’mon guys. The USA capturing the Enigma machine, you gotta be kidding
I’d totally go see that movie.
Here’s a comprehensive list of historically inaccurate movies: www.imdb.com.
A lot,the Clan societies alone have members all over the world.
Scotland relies on tourism a lot.
The idea of any Scot being reticent about their history is ludicrous,you’ll have a much bigger problem getting us to shut up about it.
Well, to be fair, Julian Goodare is a senior lecturer at the University of Edinburgh and it’s quite possible he was speaking about the academic level.
Marc
As something of an Irish history buff, I went to see Michael Collins with an air of some trepidation. In fact, I spent the film saying “That’s wrong”, “That’s right”, “That’s nearly right” etc etc in just about equal quantities.
What annoyed me was that it was probably easier to get it right than to get it wrong. For example, Harry Boland (Aidan Quinn) was shot in a hotel in Skerries, which was rather different from how it was the film.
Hang about - is this my thousandth post??
This was the film I was gonna mention, this and In The Name Of The Father.
Regardless of whether or not the Scots share their history, the errors in Braveheart were whoppers. It’s not like the stirrup thing in Gladiator, which is a piddling detail and doesn’t effect the plot. Doing things like aging a character twenty years to provide an adulterous romance is when people start rolling their eyes.
At least, that’s when I start. I’m willing to give a lot of leeway on things like costuming and props, as long as they aren’t giving Victorians iPods, but when scriptwriters start merrily scrambling the facts of history and then proclaiming how very historically accurate it is, then I get grumpy.