Historically inaccurate movies

[commasense]

@commasense

Here’s a comprehensive list of historically inaccurate movies: www.imdb.com.

[QUOTE=Rocketeer]
Well, I, for one, thought this was pretty clever.

[/QUOTE]
Aw, shucks!

You check’s in the mail!

[garius]

@Sampiro

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).

I avoid anything that deals with the Fall of the Republic and/or Julius Caesar because i’ve yet to see a single one that gave Pompey a fair treatment. Generally you can pretty much guarantee that their “research” has consisted mainly of reading a copy of Caesar’s Civil Wars. That’s like making a film of Watergate using Nixon’s memoirs as your primary source.

[QUOTE=Miss Purl McKnittington]
I don’t know what’s up with the Tudormania. Probably just inertia, since it kicked off with Elizabeth and Shakespeare in Love about 10 years ago, and there’s been about one production a year since then. Those movies are like documentaries compared to The Other Boleyn Girl, though. As TOBG is to The Tudors.
[/QUOTE]

Tudor history does seem to have some kind of bizarre attraction to people in the US who get interested in “English” history.

When i was at Uni we learnt very quickly to actively avoid any of the Tudor modules on the History programme each year. They always ended up chock full of young American exchange programme girls constantly harping on about Mary Queen of Scots and how dreadful Elizabeth was. It was like Moths to a fucking flame.